Green Belt housing goes to GB6 and GB7

Appeal 6005162 · Buckinghamshire · Appeal · 2 Oct 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(e) fail appellant said the site was part of the curtilage of the adjoining house; inspector held that, if so, it is residential garden land, which Annex B "specifically excludes" from PDL; no finding on whether the land is in a built-up area (DL 12-13)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass plan-wide test applied to all five purposes; former South Bucks is 14,100 ha, 87.4% Green Belt; 0.16 ha site consolidates an area between existing development; no encroachment (DL 18-21)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass footnote 41; Council accepts no five-year supply (DL 22); 0.97 years in the southern area (DL 41)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass TR3(1)(a) to (e) taken in turn; one dwelling held not to generate a significant amount of movement, so it "would therefore accord with principle (a)"; no assessment of the walking route (DL 23-29)

A single self-build house on a 0.16 ha plot in the Green Belt at the northern edge of Burnham was allowed. The inspector rejected the previously developed land (PDL) route, but found the site to be grey belt meeting GB7(1)(g)(i) to (iii), with the Council at 0.97 years' supply. The S5(5) balance then favoured approval, with the Special Area of Conservation (SAC) mitigation secured and no heritage harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008679 · Thurrock · Appeal · 2 Oct 2026 · 5 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass site helps safeguard the countryside from encroachment but not significantly across the plan area; would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt (DL 8)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass housing land supply equivalent to 1.02 years, from the officer's report (DL 9)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass farm shop and cafe, garden centre, church, pub and recreation ground reached by level, well-lit footways; bus stop within about 100 m with services through the day, though not frequent; further facilities in Corringham within about 2 km by footway, "walkable for some but not all"; sustainable "in the context of the site's semi-rural location" (DL 10-12)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged not major development (DL 13)

Five houses on a cul-de-sac in the long rear garden of a house on High Road, Fobbing, in the Green Belt. The site was accepted as grey belt, the supply was 1.02 years, and the location passed the sustainable location limb on well-lit footways and a bus stop 100 m away. So the scheme was not inappropriate. It was still dismissed: building in depth behind a linear frontage caused significant harm to character, in conflict with DP3(1). DP3(3) made that a "should be refused" policy under S5(2), and the harm substantially outweighed five homes given substantial weight.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010392 · Rushcliffe · Appeal · 2 Oct 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(e) pass parties agree the scheme is not inappropriate under "what is now Policy GB7.1.e of the Framework (previously paragraph 154g))"; inspector finds no reason to disagree; no openness assessment set out (DL 3)

A larger replacement house on a wide Green Belt plot in a linear street at Stanton on the Wolds. The parties agreed it was not inappropriate under GB7(1)(e). The only issue was character: the scheme exceeded the volume limit in the Council's Design Code Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), but the inspector found no harm and declined to apply the limit rigidly. Allowed. The self-build status, needed for the biodiversity net gain exemption, was secured by a negatively worded condition requiring a planning obligation.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010578 · Cheshire East · Appeal · 2 Oct 2026 · 5 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass letter says "Policy GB7(g)"; parties do not dispute that the site is grey belt and would not undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt; inspector concurs after the site visit (DL 10-11)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass letter calls this "criterion b)"; no dispute that the Council cannot show a 5-year supply, so there is unmet need; figure not stated (DL 12)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass bus stop about 391 m away with shelters, two hourly services (87 and 130) on staggered timetables; cafe opposite, convenience store, gym, nursery and others within about 500 m; Alderley Park 1 km by lit footpaths; footpath uneven and mostly unlit but usable and separated from the carriageway by a wide verge (DL 13-18)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged Golden Rules apply only to major development (DL 19)
• GB7(1)(h) not-engaged once one GB7 category is met there is no need to show any other, "such as that under Policy GB7(1)(h)" (DL 22)

Permission in principle for 5 homes on Green Belt land at Monks Heath, outside any settlement. Grey belt and unmet need were agreed. The contest was the sustainable location limb, which the inspector passed: a bus stop about 391 m away with two staggered hourly services, a range of services within about 500 m, and a usable footpath separated from the road by a verge, though uneven and mostly unlit. A Connectivity Tool score of 33 was treated as above average for this type of location. The scheme was not inappropriate and was allowed under S5(5).

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010746 · Epping Forest · Appeal · 2 Oct 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(b) fail footprint 38.8% larger and floorspace 479 sq m, an increase of 141.9% (Council's undisputed figures); substantial width and depth; "materially larger than the one it would replace" (DL 6-8)
• GB7(1)(e) pass site is previously developed land (not within a built-up area, so the garden exclusion does not apply) and a replacement dwelling is redevelopment; considerable spatial and limited visual openness harm, "moderate" overall and not substantial, so not inappropriate (DL 9-16)

A much larger replacement house in the Green Belt at Matching. It failed the replacement-building category GB7(1)(b) as materially larger (floorspace up 141.9%), but passed GB7(1)(e): the plot is previously developed land and the harm to openness was moderate, not substantial. So it was not inappropriate. It was still dismissed, because its scale and urban design caused low harm to the setting of a Grade II listed thatched house nearby with no public benefits to weigh against it, and harmed the rural character of the row.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6012115 · Dorset · Appeal · 2 Oct 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(f)(iii) fail the limb is not open-ended: because of the words "such as", uses within it take their flavour from the examples given; it does not cover the provision of a static caravan (DL 9)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail bus stops on the A31 0.6 miles (appellant) or over 1 km (Council) away along a mostly unlit pavement; uncontrolled crossing of heavy traffic to the northbound stop; occupants heavily reliant on the car (DL 10-13)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) not-engaged grey belt and unmet need limbs not decided; (g) failed on limb (iii) alone because all four criteria must be met (DL 13)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate; moderate spatial and moderate visual openness harm from a semi-permanent caravan, independent access, comings and goings and domestic paraphernalia; VSC not shown (DL 16-18, 24-25)

A static caravan let as a separate home, with its own access, on garden land in the Green Belt at St Leonards and St Ives. The inspector held that stationing a caravan as a home is not a change in the use of land of the kind GB7(1)(f)(iii) covers, and that the site fails the sustainable location limb of GB7(1)(g) because the walk to the A31 bus stops is long, mostly unlit and ends at an uncontrolled crossing. The scheme was inappropriate, and one small home did not amount to very special circumstances. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

26/01141/FUL · Stratford-on-Avon · Council (delegated) · 2 Oct 2026 · 3 homes

• GB7(1)(e) pass site is previously developed land "given it is already occupied by a permanent structure"; extensions "not considered to result in substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt" (p.9); the report writes "GB7(e)"
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass grey belt found in one sentence with no reasons, for a site adjoining the boundary of Stratford-upon-Avon (p.8); purposes (c) and (e) then tested for the "fundamentally undermine" limb
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass the 2.21-year supply taken as unmet need for market housing (p.8), although the scheme reduces the number of dwellings from 5 to 3
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass "a well-lit and maintained footpath and cycleway into the centre of Stratford, under 1 kilometre away" (p.9)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged not major development; the report refers to the Golden Rules by 2024 paragraph numbers ("p.156 and 17") (p.9)

Conversion of a large Victorian house, now 5 flats, into 3 houses with extensions and garaging, in the Green Belt just outside Stratford-upon-Avon. Granted under delegated powers on 2 October 2026. The officer found the scheme not inappropriate twice over: as grey belt under GB7(1)(g), and as redevelopment of previously developed land under GB7(1)(e). The loss of two dwellings was given neutral weight. The report is a scanned image and was read by OCR; page numbers are PDF pages.

Full summary and sources

26/01542/FUL · Stratford-on-Avon · Council (delegated) · 2 Oct 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(c) pass built form "to the sides, rear and front", so "whilst it is considered to be backland development, the dwelling can also be considered infill development" (p.8); the report writes "GB7 1c"

A self-build house in the back garden of a bungalow at Earlswood, a village washed over by the Green Belt, refused under delegated powers on 2 October 2026. The officer held the plot to be "infill" under GB7(1)(c), so not inappropriate development, and then refused it on character grounds and under L2(1)(d): the house would be visible backland development out of keeping with the street scene, with too little garden. This is an SDC refusal of a single dwelling on the "substantially outweighed" balance despite the 2.21-year supply. The report is a scanned image and was read by OCR; page numbers are PDF pages.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008122 · Rochford · Appeal · 1 Oct 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(e) pass redevelopment of PDL; bulkier at first-floor and roof level but negligible change in footprint and an enclosed site, so harm to openness falls short of substantial; a replacement dwelling may be tested under (e) as well as (b) (DL 15-16)
• GB7(1)(b) not-engaged Council said the proposal fell outside (b); the appellant relied on (e) instead; no finding made on (b) (DL 15)

A replacement house in the Green Belt at Canewdon was dismissed on biodiversity net gain (BNG) alone. The inspector found the scheme not inappropriate under GB7(1)(e) and cut the conflicting local replacement-dwelling policy to very limited weight. But the self-build exemption from BNG could not lawfully be secured by the occupancy condition both parties had agreed, and with no baseline evidence the statutory requirement was not met. That harm substantially outweighed the limited benefits in the S5(5) balance.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009720 · North Hertfordshire · Appeal · 1 Oct 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass limited encroachment; would not fundamentally undermine the purposes taken together (DL 17)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass no five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 18)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass bus stops and footpaths "in close proximity" give access to Hitchin town centre; no distances or frequencies; no footway at the site frontage, left to the technical details stage (DL 19-20)

Permission in principle (PIP) for one dwelling in the Green Belt on the edge of Hitchin was allowed. The inspector found the site to be grey belt, although it adjoins a large built-up area and sits in a parcel the Council's review rates as strong, because containment made its own contribution moderate. GB7(1)(g) was met and the S5(5) balance favoured approval.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011062 · Wokingham · Appeal · 1 Oct 2026 · 13 homes

• GB7(1)(e) pass not inappropriate as partial redevelopment of PDL; also said to meet the grey belt provisions; one paragraph in Other Matters, no reasoning (DL 39)

A three-storey extra-care extension (13 net Class C2 units) at a riverside retirement village in the Green Belt opposite Henley was dismissed. The heritage harm to two conservation areas was limited and was outweighed by substantial public benefits under HE6(4). The appeal failed on living conditions: the overbearing effect and overlooking of 1 to 5 Remenham Row conflicted with DP3, there was no clear justification, and S5(2) then indicated refusal.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006003 · Kirklees · Appeal · 30 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass disputed on purpose (c); modest, contained encroachment, would not fundamentally undermine the purposes taken together (DL 8-9)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass no five-year supply (4.18 years in the officer report) (DL 10, 23)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass "due to the site’s proximity to local amenities, services, footpath links and public transport"; no route facts given (DL 10)
• GB7(1)(g) pass not inappropriate; openness and VSC not considered (DL 11)

One dwelling on an open, treed gap in the ribbon of Manchester Road, Linthwaite, in the Green Belt and the Linthwaite Conservation Area. The inspector accepted grey belt and found the scheme not inappropriate under GB7(1)(g). But the loss of the visual break and larger trees caused moderate harm to the conservation area and conflicted with DP3(1) without clear justification. Under S5(5), applying S5(2), the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008176 · Cheshire East · Appeal · 30 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(e) pass agreed PDL; ridge 7.77 m v 5.86 m, footprint 441 v 118 sq m; moderate loss of visual openness, spatial openness improved by removing outbuildings; not substantial harm, so not inappropriate (DL 6-12)

A much larger replacement house on a Green Belt farmstead of derelict buildings. Allowed: as redevelopment of PDL causing only moderate (not substantial) harm to openness, it met GB7(1)(e) and was not inappropriate. The local replacement policy conflict (not "materially larger") got very limited weight because the policy does not reflect GB7(1)(e). An agreed permitted-development fallback would harm visual openness more.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010097 · Buckinghamshire · Appeal · 30 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB6 not-engaged site in the Green Belt but inappropriateness not determined because the appeal fails on heritage (DL 20); S4 applied to a Green Belt site

A self-build house in the front garden of Grade II listed Pound Scots at Bledlow Ridge, in the Chilterns National Landscape and the Green Belt. The inspector found modest harm to the listed building's setting through loss of its spacious garden, and even substantial weight to one home did not outweigh it under HE6(4). The case was then run through S4 as a within-settlement scheme, leaving the Green Belt question undecided. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010112 · North Yorkshire · Appeal · 30 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(e) pass not inappropriate; agreed between the parties; letter says "GB7(e)"; no reasoning given (DL 3, 18)

Residential use of a caravan as a manager's dwelling at a coarse fishery in the Green Belt was dismissed. The development was agreed to be not inappropriate under GB7(1)(e), so S5(5) applied. But the dwelling would be an isolated home with no essential need shown, and the inspector held that HO11 still applies in the Green Belt through S5(2) and S5(5). That conflict substantially outweighed the benefits, including substantial weight to one home at 2.6 years' supply.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007668 · Newcastle-under-Lyme · Appeal · 29 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail not in a sustainable location, so (g) fails whatever the position on (i) and (ii) (DL 24, 26)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) not-engaged self-build shortfall evidence incomplete and no evidence of a five-year supply shortfall; not decided because (iii) fails (DL 25-26)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate; footprint about three times the ruined brick building; significant loss of spatial and visual openness; encroachment (DL 28-30, 45-48)

One self-build plot in an open Green Belt field beyond the end of a rural lane near Newcastle-under-Lyme. The inspector tested the route in detail: the quiet no-through lane itself was walkable, but it ends at the A53 with no footway, and the only bus runs six times a day with no evenings or Sundays. That failed TR3 and GB7(1)(g)(iii), so the dwelling was inappropriate. With openness and character harm and modest benefits, VSC did not exist. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010411 · Wirral · Appeal · 29 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• GB7(1)(c) fail Caldy agreed to be a village and the scheme limited, but the Telegraph Road ribbon reads as separate from the village behind green space and mature trees, and the site has houses on one side only; not infilling (DL 8-12, 19)
• GB6(2) fail modest visual and spatial openness harm; substantial weight at DL 15 but "significant weight" at DL 21; VSC not shown (DL 13-15, 21)

Permission in principle for up to three houses on paddocks in the Wirral Green Belt, beside a ribbon of houses on Telegraph Road near Caldy. Both parties accepted Caldy as a village and the scheme as limited, but the inspector found the ribbon visually separate from the village and the site bounded by houses on one side only, so it was not limited infilling in a village under GB7(1)(c). Inappropriate development with modest openness harm; limited housing weight; no VSC. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010459 · Tonbridge and Malling · Appeal · 29 Sept 2026 · 7 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area (DL 20)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass evidenced unmet need; 2.89 years supply (officer report) and HDT "well below 75%" (appellant) (DL 19-20)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass passed in one sentence as "very close to services and facilities in Hildenborough as well as bus links"; no distances, route or frequencies given; TR3 not cited (DL 20)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) pass site exceeds 0.5 ha so is major development under Annex B; no evidence on the Golden Rules, but obligations cannot be secured at PIP stage, so GB8 contributions assumed capable of being met at technical details stage (DL 21)

Permission in principle for 5 to 7 homes on Green Belt land at the edge of Hildenborough, partly inside the conservation area, was allowed. The access would break a protected hedgerow that defines the conservation area's edge, causing harm at the lower end of the scale. The inspector ran HE6(4) first and found the homes and economic benefits outweighed that harm. The site was grey belt, GB7(1)(g) was met (with the Golden Rules assumed to be deliverable at the next stage), and the S5(5) balance favoured approval.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006224 · East Hertfordshire · Appeal · 28 Sept 2026 · 4 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt (DL 9)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass no five-year supply, so evidenced unmet need (DL 9)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail not a sustainable location, so the (g) exception fails and the scheme is inappropriate (DL 18)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate development plus spatial and visual loss of openness; VSC not shown (DL 21, 33)

Permission in principle for up to four homes on open land in the Green Belt between Hertford and Ware. Grey belt and unmet need (3.4 to 3.7 years' supply) were accepted, but limb (iii) failed. The site is 0.72 km and 1.15 km from the edges of the two towns, with services further on, reached along a mostly single-track, unlit lane with no pavement. A Connectivity Tool score of 49, in the 90th percentile for its rural class, did not rescue it. As inappropriate development causing openness harm, substantial weight to housing did not clearly outweigh. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009849 · Brentwood · Appeal · 28 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(e) pass two-storey house slots into roadside ribbon between dwellings and Wattons Works; hedge retained; moderate, not substantial, openness harm (DL 12-16)
• GB7(1)(g) not-engaged not considered as (e) is met (DL 17)

A single dwelling in the garden of a rural house at Navestock, in the Green Belt, was allowed. Because the garden is outside a built-up area it counts as previously developed land, and the moderate harm to openness was below GB7(1)(e)'s "substantial" threshold, so the scheme was not inappropriate. The inspector found occupiers would be largely car-reliant on unlit lanes, but gave the local settlement-hierarchy conflict limited weight because of the supply shortfall, did not treat it as a TR3 conflict, and allowed the appeal under S5(5).

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010253 · Cheshire East · Appeal · 28 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass undisputed (DL 10)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass no five-year supply (3.3 years Council, 3.8 appellant) (DL 11, 32)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail bus stop about 550 m in the village; route beyond the village edge unlit, no footways, national speed limit, incline, little refuge; supermarkets, GP and station (about 4.5 km) in Macclesfield; heavy car reliance notwithstanding small scale (DL 12-23)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate; significant openness harm from building on an open field; benefits significant but VSC not shown (DL 25-26, 29, 35)

Permission in principle for one dwelling on a field beyond the edge of Langley, near Macclesfield, in the Green Belt. Grey belt and unmet need (3.3-year supply) were undisputed, but GB7(1)(g)(iii) failed: the walk to the village bus stop is on an unlit, footway-free lane at the national speed limit, and a Connectivity Tool score of 25 came with no useful detail. Small scale did not help. As inappropriate development with significant openness harm, significant housing weight did not clearly outweigh. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006497 · Tandridge · Appeal · 25 Sept 2026 · 30 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass would not materially affect the ability of the remaining plan-area Green Belt to serve all five purposes "in a meaningful way"; common ground (DL 27-28)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass agreed supply range 1.22-1.97 years (DL 29)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) pass major housing complies with GB8 (DL 30)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass pre-school, primary school, village hall and cafe within about 850 m; shop 1.1 km; term-time school buses 150 m away; two-hourly 411 bus; gradient to Caterham a significant deterrent and commuting by bus challenging, but a genuine choice for local trips (DL 31-47)

Outline scheme for up to 30 homes (half affordable) on a field on the Caterham edge, within Chaldon in the Tandridge Green Belt. Allowed after an inquiry against a non-determination. Grey belt, "fundamentally undermine" (DL ¶27) and unmet need were settled, and the Golden Rules were met. The contested limb was GB7(1)(g)(iii). The inspector found a genuine choice of modes for local trips (schools, cafe, village hall and shop within walking and cycling distance, school buses and a two-hourly bus), even though the hill to Caterham deters walking and commuting by bus would be hard. The Connectivity Tool score of 52 was read comparatively, as the top band in Tandridge. The scheme was therefore not inappropriate, and S5(5) led to approval.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010537 · South Staffordshire · Appeal · 25 Sept 2026 · 5 homes

• GB7(1)(c) fail letter calls it "(d) limited infilling in villages"; not a gap in a built-up frontage (DL 14, 16)
• GB7(1)(e) fail residential gardens in a built-up area are not PDL; Newtown is a built-up area even though site partly outside boundary; letter miscites "GB5:1(e)" (DL 17-18)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass encroachment contained by housing and landscaping; would not fundamentally undermine purposes (DL 26-27)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass no 5YHLS (0.87 years) (DL 28, 42)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass one sentence - "convenient access to public transport and opportunities for walking to a range of services"; no route facts (DL 28)

Permission in principle for four to five houses in rear gardens at Newtown, a Green Belt village in South Staffordshire with 0.87 years' supply. Allowed under GB7(1)(g): gardens in a built-up area are not PDL, but the site itself (not the wider study parcel) was grey belt. An executed unilateral undertaking secured Cannock Chase SAC mitigation at PIP stage. The sustainable-location limb was passed in one sentence.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011410 · Coventry · Appeal · 25 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass not fundamentally undermine; letter also considers encroachment (c) and urban regeneration (e) within this limb (DL 10)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass fn41 via published HDT below 75% (figure not stated) despite council's ONS challenge (DL 11-12)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass footpath to Allesley, closest section not fully lit, "much of the route is lit"; cycling practicable; "Nearby bus services"; no distances or frequencies; "not be wholly dependent on the private car" (DL 13-15)
• GB7(1)(c) not-engaged limited infilling / ribbon development not decided as (g) already met (DL 16)

Permission in principle for one house on an enclosed plot at Hawkes End, Coventry Green Belt. Allowed as not inappropriate under GB7(1)(g): grey belt, unmet need via the Housing Delivery Test, and a TR3-compliant location. The reasoning mirrors PINS-6009837 and the location finding is similarly brief.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011889 · Buckinghamshire · Appeal · 25 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(b) pass conversion and extension of the stable agreed to fall within the exception; inspector saw no reason to differ (DL 5)
• GB7(1)(f)(iii) fail new garden and driveway are a change of use of undeveloped grassland to residential use; residential uses are outside the material-change-of-use exception (RB Kingston upon Thames v SSLUHC [2023] EWHC 2055 (Admin)); no other exception applies; the letter writes "GB7(f)(iii)" (DL 6-7)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate development; domestic paraphernalia and parking would fail to preserve openness in spatial and visual terms; a 2024 inspector had called the effect of a similar curtilage limited but harmful (DL 8-12, 22-23)
• GB6(2) fail very special circumstances do not exist; one dwelling and biodiversity gain do not clearly outweigh the harm (DL 23)

Conversion and extension of a stable to a one-bedroom dwelling in the Green Belt and the Chilterns National Landscape was dismissed, for the third time on this site. The building works fell within GB7(1)(b). The new garden and driveway did not: they were a change of use of open grassland to residential use, which no GB7 exception covers. That made the proposal inappropriate development, and one dwelling with a modest biodiversity gain did not amount to very special circumstances.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009621 · Epping Forest · Appeal · 24 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• GB7(1)(e) pass agreed PDL; a small porch, a 14 sqm link between outbuildings, paraphernalia and more comings and goings cause moderate, not substantial, harm to openness (DL 8-16, 18)

Splitting a large house into two and converting outbuildings into a third home on a rural lane in the Epping Forest Green Belt. Dismissed. The site is previously developed land, and the harm to openness was moderate, not substantial, so GB7(1)(e) made the scheme not inappropriate. DM4's stricter "no greater impact" (DL ¶9) test was given very limited weight. Under S5(5), though, the scheme conflicted with DP3(1) (a cramped, backland layout) and with DP3(2)(d) (poor connections to North Weald along unlit lanes without footways). DP3 is a should-be-refused policy, so S5(2) applied and the benefits were substantially outweighed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009837 · Coventry · Appeal · 24 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass would not fundamentally undermine purposes across plan area; letter also says no undermining of encroachment purpose (DL 8)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass fn41 via published HDT below 75% (figure not stated); council's challenge to ONS figures behind HDT rejected pending plan review adoption (DL 9-10)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass footpath to Allesley, not fully lit near the site but "lit for much of its length"; cycling practicable; "nearby bus services" to Coventry; no distances, times or bus frequencies stated; "not be wholly dependent on the private car" (DL 11-13)

Outline permission for two houses on a contained plot within a small group of houses at Hawkes End, Coventry Green Belt. Allowed: grey belt, unmet need via the published Housing Delivery Test (below 75%), and a sustainable location under TR3, so not inappropriate under GB7(1)(g). The location finding rests on a short description of a partly unlit footpath and "nearby" buses, with no distances or frequencies.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010198 · Three Rivers · Appeal · 24 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(b) fail replacement well exceeds the size of the original/existing and is materially larger (DL 10)
• GB7(1)(e) pass no harm to openness in visual or spatial terms, so no substantial harm (DL 14-16)

A larger self-build replacement for a 1950s chalet bungalow in Heronsgate, a low-density Chartist settlement washed over by the Metropolitan Green Belt. The replacement was materially larger, so it failed GB7(1)(b). But the plot was previously developed land because Heronsgate is not a built-up area, and there would be no harm to openness, so it passed GB7(1)(e). The conservation area was preserved. Allowed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006637 · Warwick · Appeal · 23 Sept 2026 · 28 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass common ground (DL 10)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass common ground; 1.96 yrs supply, 3,466 shortfall (DL 10, 56)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail Hatton Station has very few facilities; unlit Station Road without footways, narrow bridge; bus 1.1 km with twice-weekly service; station 350 m but not "well-connected" and only partly step-free; 28 homes are "significant movement" in context (DL 14-39)
• GB7(1)(h) not-engaged station fails "well-connected station" definition (fewer than 4 tph daytime; fewer than 2 tph each direction) (DL 18)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate; distinct spatial loss of openness on an undeveloped 1.17 ha site (DL 55)

28 affordable homes on a grey belt field next to Hatton Station, a small West Midlands Green Belt settlement, 350 m from a railway station reached along unlit Station Road with no footway. Dismissed after a hearing. The site failed GB7(1)(g)(iii): 28 homes would generate significant movement in this context, the location did not limit the need to travel, and the route to the station was unsafe for pedestrians. It also failed GB8(1)(b), because the necessary local highway improvements were not secured. The station fell short of the "well-connected station" definition, so GB7(1)(h) was not available. Very significant weight to affordable housing (1.96 years' supply) did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007484 · West Lancashire · Appeal · 23 Sept 2026 · 9 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass grey belt; would not fundamentally undermine remaining Green Belt purposes (undisputed) (DL 11-12)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 1.86-year supply (DL 12)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass passed on a general statement of footway, services, buses and cycling with no distances, route or frequency facts; 2024 wording that sustainable transport opportunities vary between urban and rural areas; car reliance not unusual in a rural context (DL 13-15)
• GB6 not-engaged not inappropriate, so openness and VSC not considered (DL 17)

Permission in principle for 6 to 9 homes at a farm on the edge of Tarleton, in the West Lancashire Green Belt. Grey belt was accepted because a village cannot be a large built-up area, and unmet need was shown by a 1.86-year supply. The sustainable-location limb passed on a brief statement relying on the 2024 idea that sustainable transport opportunities vary between urban and rural areas. The only harm was a possible small loss of best and most versatile land. Allowed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008688 · Tandridge · Appeal · 23 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass one dwelling would not fundamentally undermine purposes of remaining GB across plan area (DL 10)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 1.92-year supply = undisputed significant unmet need; no need to resolve self-build-specific need (DL 11)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail 2 km to East Grinstead centre and station; lit continuous but narrow footway beside busy road; two infrequent bus routes, none on Sundays; "finely balanced" (DL 14-17)
• GB7(1)(e) fail grassed land not shown to be residential curtilage, so not PDL (DL 9)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate development plus "significant" harm to spatial and visual openness (DL 19-26)

A single self-build house on grassed land beside Frith Manor, outside any settlement and about 2 km from East Grinstead. The Inspector accepted the land as grey belt and found unmet need established by the 1.92-year supply. However, the site failed GB7(1)(g)(iii)/TR3 even though a lit, continuous footway and bus stops were close by. The route and the service quality were not "genuinely attractive". Inappropriate development, significant openness harm and an unmitigated SPA effect were not clearly outweighed. The costs decision (separate PDF, `PINS-6008688-costs.pdf`) partly allowed costs against the Council for keeping a highway reason after the Highway Authority withdrew its objection.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008723 · Sefton · Appeal · 23 Sept 2026 · 4 homes

• GB7(1)(g) fail not grey belt, so (g) unavailable; (ii)-(iii) not reached (DL 20)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate; visual and spatial openness harm; VSC not shown (DL 21-25, 30-31)

Permission in principle for up to four bungalows on open former farmland at the edge of Lydiate was refused on appeal. The key finding was that Lydiate and Maghull form a single large built-up area, so the site strongly contributes to Green Belt purpose (a) and is not grey belt. The scheme was inappropriate development, harmed openness, and its moderate benefits did not clearly outweigh the harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009281 · Buckinghamshire · Appeal · 23 Sept 2026 · 4 homes

• GB7(1)(e) fail manège is fixed surface infrastructure but covers about a third of the site, so the site as a whole is not PDL; four houses would in any case cause moderate harm to openness (DL 9-11)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) fail not grey belt so (g) fails; remaining limbs not reached (DL 18-19)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate development plus moderate spatial/visual openness harm (DL 10, 23, 25)

Outline scheme for up to four houses on a manège and garden land on the open side of Denham Lane, at the edge of Chalfont St Peter. It was dismissed. The site was not PDL as a whole under GB7(1)(e) and was held not to be grey belt, because it makes a strong contribution to purpose (a) on the council's draft 2026 Green Belt Assessment. So the development was inappropriate. Four homes against an acute shortfall, in an accessible location, did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009997 · Buckinghamshire · Appeal · 23 Sept 2026 · 4 homes

• GB7(1)(g) pass after the new Framework the council conceded grey belt and GB7(1)(g) compliance and withdrew GB reason for refusal; inspector agreed (DL 3)

Four houses on a narrow former builder's yard and garden site in the middle of Lacey Green, in the Green Belt and Chilterns National Landscape. Once the 2026 Framework was published, the council conceded the site was grey belt and met GB7(1)(g), and dropped its Green Belt refusal reason. The appeal still failed on highway safety: the access visibility splay depends on a neighbour's hedge. TR6(4) says such proposals should be refused, and the benefits (substantial weight to 4 homes against a 1.98-year supply) were "substantially outweighed".

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007428 · West Lancashire · Appeal · 22 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass 1-3 dwellings would not fundamentally undermine purposes across the plan area (DL 20)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass no five-year supply = unmet need (figure not stated) (DL 20)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail 60 mph narrow hedged lane used by agricultural traffic, no footway between site and pedestrian network; some street lighting does not overcome this (DL 12-16, 19)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged not major (DL 20)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate development plus localised spatial and visual openness harm (DL 21-24)

A PIP for up to three dwellings on a gap along a rural 60 mph lane in the West Lancashire Green Belt. The site was accepted as grey belt and unmet need was established. However, the lack of any footway between the site and the pedestrian network at Southport Road meant it failed GB7(1)(g)(iii)/TR3, even though the distance was short and some street lighting existed. As inappropriate development with openness harm, it was dismissed on the VSC balance. The S5(5) balance was expressly held not to be engaged.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011736 · Tandridge · Appeal · 22 Sept 2026 · 7 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass undisputed (DL 11)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass undisputed; 2.17-year supply (DL 11, 16)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail 1 km / 15-minute walk to shop, school, village hall along mainly unlit 30-40 mph road with a section walking in the carriageway; hourly bus; Connectivity Tool score 52/100; no genuine choice of modes (DL 4-7, 11)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate plus clear openness harm (DL 13-14, 17)

Seven houses on an open site off Copthorne Bank, about 1 km from Copthorne's shop, school and village hall. Grey belt, unmet need and the Golden Rules limb were undisputed. The appeal was **dismissed on GB7(1)(g)(iii)**. The walk is along a mainly unlit road with a stretch in the carriageway, so it is unattractive, and an hourly bus did not provide a "genuine choice" of modes. This was so despite a Connectivity Tool score of 52/100 and £250 travel vouchers. The scheme was therefore inappropriate, and moderate housing benefits did not clearly outweigh the harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6012481 · Sevenoaks · Appeal · 22 Sept 2026 · 6 homes

• GB7(1)(e) fail open grass field with no built form is not PDL; adjacent PDL (found in earlier enforcement appeal) does not make the whole site PDL (DL 8-10)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass agreed (DL 12)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass agreed; 2.96 yrs supply (DL 12, 42)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail undisputed poor Connectivity Tool score; nearest settlement (Well Hill) has few services; no accessible public transport; no lighting, footways or cycle lanes (DL 13-17)
• GB6(2) harm substantial harm to spatial and visual openness from up to six dwellings (1,600 m3) on an open field; VSC not shown (DL 19-21, 51-52)

Outline proposal for up to six dwellings on an open field next to the M25, offset by removing nearby commercial buildings. Dismissed. Grey belt and unmet need were agreed, but the site failed GB7(1)(g)(iii): it scored poorly on the Connectivity Tool, had no public transport, and was reached by unlit rural roads without footways. The scheme was therefore inappropriate development, and no very special circumstances were shown. Missing protected-species surveys, M25 noise and poor access visibility added to the harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6003001 · Reigate and Banstead · Appeal · 21 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g)(ii) fail no details given of an evidenced unmet need for housing in the area (DL 7-8)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail "not in a sustainable location", though one dwelling would not generate significant movement (DL 7)
• GB7(1)(b) fail relocated into an open field outside curtilage a significant distance away, so not a replacement; baseline is the physical building, not an unimplemented extension permission (Athlone House) (DL 13-21)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate; materially greater effect on openness, visual and spatial (DL 10, 21, 41)

Demolition of a curtilage-listed stables building (used as a dwelling) and a new single-storey dwelling in an adjoining open field in the Metropolitan Green Belt. The land was grey belt, but GB7(1)(g) failed for want of evidenced unmet need and a sustainable location. It was not a "replacement" under GB7(1)(b) because it moved to a different site. Openness, character and heritage harms were unjustified, and no VSC was shown. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007121 · Sevenoaks · Appeal · 21 Sept 2026 · 6 homes

• GB7(1)(g) pass common ground that limbs (i)-(iii) met; (iv) not relevant; not inappropriate (DL 7-8)
• GB7(1)(e) pass agreed PDL; greater bulk, spread and activity than the bungalow, but visually contained between housing and a small part of a wider parcel → not substantial harm to openness (DL 9-13)

Permission in principle for 4-6 dwellings on a bungalow plot in the Green Belt between Halstead and Knockholt. The Green Belt issues were won: grey belt with all GB7(1)(g) limbs agreed, and also compliant with GB7(1)(e) as PDL without substantial harm to openness. The appeal was dismissed anyway because the "amount" of development (at most 13 dph) failed to make efficient use of land under L3 and local policy SP7. The S5(5) balance went against the scheme.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009189 · Bromley · Appeal · 21 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• GB7(1)(e) pass equestrian buildings = PDL; similar floorspace, consolidated built form → no greater impact on openness despite increased height; GB7(e) test is "substantial harm" (DL 7-9)

Three houses replacing equestrian buildings at Biggin Hill in the London Green Belt. This was a non-determination appeal where the Council would have approved. It was allowed. The only issue was whether the August 2026 Framework changed anything. It did not: equestrian buildings are PDL, and the consolidated scheme met GB7(1)(e).

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010471 · Cheshire East · Appeal · 21 Sept 2026 · 7 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass assess the site, not the wider GB assessment parcel (PY21 "major contribution") (DL 14-15)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass no 5YHLS (undisputed) (DL 16)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass meets CELPS SD2 Table 9.1 thresholds except a convenience store; continuous lit footway at 30 mph to Poynton (shops just over 1 mile); regular daytime and early-evening buses; Connectivity Tool score 52, above average for rural town and fringe (DL 17-20)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged not major (DL 21)

PIP for up to 7 dwellings on a Green Belt field edge opposite a ribbon of houses between Poynton and Higher Poynton. Allowed. The site was grey belt because Higher Poynton is a village, not a large built-up area. It passed limb (iii) on a continuous lit 30 mph footway to Poynton, regular buses, and a Connectivity Tool score of 52. Not inappropriate, so S5(5) favoured approval.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007130 · Waverley · Appeal · 18 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g) pass council conceded grey belt after the 2026 Framework; not fundamentally undermining, very low supply, sustainable location — Green Belt reason fell away (DL 4)

One self-build house on an open plot in the Surrey Hills National Landscape at the edge of Milford. After the 2026 Framework took effect, Waverley conceded the site was grey belt and not inappropriate under GB7(1)(g). The appeal was still dismissed under the S5(5)/S5(2) route. Conflict with N4 (protected landscape) and DP3 (policies that say "should be refused") meant the substantial housing benefits were "substantially outweighed".

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009645 · Guildford · Appeal · 18 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass backland in a roadside hamlet, not isolated; pavement to Wood Street Village (school 800 m, post office 1 km, more services 1.6 km) is continuous but unlit, with one crossing where the footway changes sides; demand-responsive bus stop at the drive end (DL 9-14)

A new dwelling in a Green Belt rear garden near Wood Street Village. It passed all four GB7(1)(g) limbs, including limb (iii), despite an unlit footway that changes sides of the road, because the footway is continuous and there is a demand-responsive bus at the drive end. So it was not inappropriate. It was dismissed on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA (no mitigation secured), unsurveyed great crested newt risk, tree and privacy harm. The costs application was refused (copy at `PINS-6009645-costs.pdf`).

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009966 · Tandridge · Appeal · 18 Sept 2026 · 5 homes

• GB7(1)(e) fail paddock; no evidence of permanent structure or fixed surface infrastructure, so not PDL (DL 13)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass common ground, would not fundamentally undermine purposes of remaining GB (DL 16)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass no 5YHLS, so unmet need (DL 17)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail 800 m to settlement edge, services a similar distance beyond; 40/30 mph lanes, no continuous footways or lighting; hail-and-ride bus unevidenced (DL 21-23, 28)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate; significant/substantial openness harm and encroachment (purpose c); VSC not shown (DL 33, 44-46)

Permission in principle for up to 5 dwellings on a paddock in the Green Belt, about 800 m outside South Nutfield. Grey belt, GB7(1)(g)(i) and (ii) were all common ground. The appeal failed on limb (iii) sustainable location, because the walking and cycling routes are unlit lanes with no continuous footway and the bus evidence was thin. As inappropriate development, substantial weight to the housing benefit did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt, openness, character and travel harms.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011972 · Tandridge · Appeal · 18 Sept 2026 · 8 homes

• GB7(1)(e) fail agreed PDL; footprint and volume fall, but eight taller (8.6 m), bulkier two-storey houses with curtilages and roads → substantial harm to openness (DL 6-11)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate plus spatial and visual openness harm; VSC not shown (DL 17-18)

Eight detached houses replacing equestrian buildings at Newchapel, the same area as Branford Wells (PINS-6010313). Dismissed. The site was agreed PDL, but eight two-storey houses would be taller, bulkier and more conspicuous than the low stables, so they would cause substantial harm to openness and fail GB7(1)(e). The site was also car-dependent under TR3. Moderate overall benefits against 1.92 years' supply did not clearly outweigh the harm. Grey belt (GB7(1)(g)) was not argued or considered.

Full summary and sources

26/00855/OUT · Lichfield · Council (delegated) · 18 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass the Council's 2026 Green Belt Review parcel STO06 makes no contribution to (a), a weak one to (b) and none to (d); the site is contained by houses north and south, the road and woodland; a localised loss of openness does not fundamentally undermine the purposes
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 3.5-year supply
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass adjoins the built form of Stonnall; primary school, pub, village hall, medical, sports and shop within walking and cycling distance; public transport within about 500 m

Up to two houses on a gap plot between dwellings on Church Road, Stonnall, just outside the settlement boundary in the Green Belt. The same proposal had been refused in June 2025 as inappropriate development. Since then Lichfield's 2026 Green Belt Review found the parcel makes no or only a weak contribution to purposes (a), (b) and (d). With a 3.5-year supply and a walkable village, all GB7(1)(g) limbs passed and the scheme was approved under delegated powers. S5(5)'s "substantially outweighed" test was then applied as the default.

Full summary and sources

W/26/01639/PIP · Wychavon · Council (delegated) · 18 Sept 2026 · 5 homes

• GB7(1)(c) fail not limited infilling in a village; the site extends development north-east along Wood Lane rather than filling a gap, following the earlier appeal (PINS 6001105)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass grey belt accepted, following the Inspector's finding on the larger site
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) fail five-year supply now demonstrated after SWDPR adoption (the appeal had found 1.1 years); HDT 133%
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail Connectivity Tool score 23; limited bus service; narrow, mostly unlit pedestrian routes; residents would rely on the car
• GB7(1)(h) not-engaged no well-connected station
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate development; material harm to openness; very special circumstances not shown

A permission-in-principle bid for up to five homes on paddock land at New End, Astwood Bank, in the Green Belt. It followed an appeal refusal of nine homes on a larger site that included this land. The officer accepted the Inspector's grey belt finding but refused on two grounds. GB7(1)(g)(ii) now fails because adopting the SWDPR restored a five-year supply. GB7(1)(g)(iii) fails because the location is car-dependent, with a Connectivity Tool score of 23 and narrow, unlit walking routes. This is one of the clearest early examples of the grey belt route failing on the need and location limbs even though grey belt status is accepted.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6004144 · Tandridge · Appeal · 17 Sept 2026 · 132 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass would not fundamentally undermine remaining Green Belt across the plan area (DL 26)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass no five-year supply and HDT failed (DL 27)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass daily services within 1.7 km; bus stops 430-530 m; pleasant walking routes; cycling possible; Connectivity Tool read in local context (DL 28-32)
• GB7(1)(h)(i) fail station at "twice the reasonable walking distance and time" in the Annex B glossary (DL 29)

132 homes (50% affordable) on a contained field at the edge of Hurst Green/Oxted, decided after a two-day hearing. The inspector found the site was grey belt and passed all four GB7(1)(g) limbs, including sustainable location and the Golden Rules, so the scheme was not inappropriate. The station route GB7(1)(h) failed on walking distance. The appeal was still **dismissed**, on odour from the adjoining wastewater works, which arose late through a Southern Water objection. Odour harm "substantially outweighed" the benefits under S5(1)(j). A separate costs decision (costs PDF, 21 Sep 2026) awarded Wates full costs against Tandridge for unreasonable grey belt, sustainability and heritage reasons.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008404 · Wychavon · Appeal · 17 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(b) fail replacement more than double width, higher, GIA approximately doubled (143→345 m²), footprint almost tripled → materially larger; unbuilt CLOPUD outbuilding not part of the "existing building" baseline (DL 10-11)
• GB7(1)(e) pass lawfully developed dwelling plot with permanent structures is PDL; demolition and rebuild = redevelopment; harm to openness "well short of substantial" — contained in curtilage, consolidates outbuildings, screened, no more activity (DL 12-19)
• GB6(2) not-engaged not inappropriate; local SWDPR 04 read with Framework → no conflict (DL 20)

A replacement dwelling in the Worcestershire Green Belt, more than double the size of the existing house. The appeal was dismissed. The house failed GB7(1)(b) (materially larger). It was still not inappropriate development, because the rural dwelling plot is previously developed land and the harm to openness from redevelopment fell "well short of substantial" under GB7(1)(e). The appeal was lost instead on the local plan's 30% replacement-dwelling cap and on missing bat and great crested newt surveys. The N2 failure engaged S5(2).

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008528 · Mole Valley · Appeal · 16 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(b) fail demolition of the old house was the justification for the replacement; keeping both makes the replacement new development, so the replacement exception no longer applies (DL 7)
• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass established residential curtilage outside any built-up area could be PDL; site does not strongly contribute to purposes (DL 9)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass Council now has a 5YHLS but HDT is below 75%, so footnote 41 unmet need is established (DL 10)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail no footways or lighting on Beare Green Road; bus not shown to stop nearby; well separated from village and Holmwood station; Connectivity Tool score 25/100 (DL 11-13)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate development; openness harm given considerable weight; some encroachment (DL 17-19, 31)

The appellant sought to keep an original house, which was due to be demolished under a 2017 replacement-dwelling permission, as an extra dwelling in the Mole Valley Green Belt. Dismissed. Grey belt and unmet need were accepted: the Council has a five-year supply, but its HDT is below 75%. Limb (iii) sustainable location failed on an unlit lane with no footways, remote from the village and station, with a Connectivity Tool score of 25/100. A new driveway through ancient woodland separately failed N6.

Full summary and sources

DC/2026/00141 · Sefton · Council committee · 16 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass modest scale of three dwellings, no strategic harm
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 3.34-year supply = demonstrable need
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass adjacent to built-up area, walking distance of bus stops and primary school; new crossing point with dropped kerbs/tactile paving secured
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged minor development

Three open-market houses on a grassland corner plot in the Green Belt, on the suburban edge of Maghull. An appeal for four houses on the same land was dismissed as inappropriate development after a 2018 refusal. This time officers treated the land as grey belt under GB7(1)(g): it adjoins and is contained by the built-up area, the council has a 3.34-year supply, and there are bus stops and a primary school within walking distance. The committee approved it without dissent recorded in the minutes.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007334 · Central Bedfordshire · Appeal · 15 Sept 2026 · 9 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass limited scale, containment, relationship to development, level of need (DL 24)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass no five-year supply (c.3.93 years) = fn41 unmet need (DL 25, 29)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass lit footway to Chalton (small range of facilities, bus stops); reasonable walking distance to part of Houghton Regis; highway access for up to 5 dwellings OK (DL 25-26)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged not major (DL 26)

Permission in principle for one to nine dwellings on a bungalow plot near Houghton Regis. The appeal was dismissed. The inspector found the site to be grey belt and met all the GB7(1)(g) limbs, so the scheme was not inappropriate development. But the unilateral undertaking secured Chilterns Beechwoods SAC mitigation below the current tariff. Adverse effects on the SAC's integrity could not be ruled out, and a PIP cannot lawfully be granted for "habitats development". A separate costs decision (local copy PINS-6007334-costs.pdf) refused the appellant's costs application.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008465 · Bradford · Appeal · 15 Sept 2026 · 9 homes

• GB6 neutral Green Belt issue (inappropriateness, sustainable location) left undecided (DL 20)

A PiP for up to nine dwellings near the South Pennine Moors was dismissed. Likely significant effects on SPA supporting habitat could not be excluded, which makes it "habitats development" for which PiP cannot be granted (DL ¶19, 22). The Green Belt issue was left undecided (DL ¶20).

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011231 · West Lancashire · Appeal · 15 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(b) pass Council accepted an exception under 2024 NPPF para 154 (reuse of buildings); Inspector agreed without detailed reasoning (DL 6)

Conversion of two former agricultural barns in a small roadside group in the West Lancashire Green Belt into one self-build dwelling and a garage. Allowed. The Council accepted the scheme was not inappropriate, citing the 2024 para 154 exceptions. The only harm was car reliance for daily needs, and under S5(5) that did not substantially outweigh the substantial weight given to housing (HO7) and to reusing buildings (L2(1)). The Council paid partial costs for failing to disclose the appeal decisions it had relied on.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011330 · North East Derbyshire · Appeal · 15 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(e) fail only the stables' squared-off curtilage is PDL; garden land beyond is not; the whole site must be PDL to qualify (DL 6-9)
• GB7(1)(f)(iii) fail residential garden is not a "material change in the use of land" under the exception — Kingston v SSLUHC [2023] EWHC 2055 (Admin) (DL 8)
• GB6(2) harm harm to openness but below "substantial harm" threshold; minor encroachment (purpose c), potentially offset if polytunnel/hay store/glasshouse removed (DL 10, 13, 23)

An outline scheme to replace stables with one self-build house in the North East Derbyshire Green Belt. The appeal was dismissed. The house sat on previously developed land, but its necessary garden took in paddock outside the stables' curtilage. So the site was not wholly PDL and the GB7(1)(e) exception failed. A garden is not a "material change in the use of land" under GB7(1)(f)(iii). Moderate self-build and ecology benefits did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006286 · West Lancashire · Appeal · 14 Sept 2026 · 9 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass fn41 — 1.86-year supply is a demonstrable unmet need (DL 20)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass council agreed sustainable location (DL 21)
• GB7(1)(g) pass not inappropriate; complies with LP GN1 (DL 22)

PIP for 4-9 dwellings on a strip of land behind roadside development at Bescar. The site was agreed grey belt, with unmet need (1.86-year supply) and a sustainable location, so it was not inappropriate under GB7(1)(g). The appeal was dismissed on surface water flood risk: there was no FRA and no sequential test, and that "substantially outweighed" the moderate housing benefit in the S5(5) balance. The appellant's costs claim (costs PDF) was refused.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007163 · West Lancashire · Appeal · 14 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• GB7(1)(e) pass overgrown beer garden/play area adjoining pub, functional and visual relationship still legible, so PDL curtilage; demolished volume re-used; Council agreed openness at least preserved (DL 9-14)

Conversion of a derelict Green Belt pub to a house, plus a second new house in its former beer garden built from volume released by demolition. Allowed. The beer garden counted as PDL curtilage because its functional link to the pub was still legible. The volume swap meant no substantial harm to openness, so GB7(1)(e) was met and grey belt was not needed. The design improved the non-designated heritage asset.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007184 · Castle Point · Appeal · 14 Sept 2026 · 58 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass some encroachment (purpose c) but contained parcel with no significant strategic function; would not fundamentally undermine remaining GB (DL 31-32)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 0.91 yrs supply; HDT 2024 29%, 2025 11% → evidenced unmet need via fn41 (DL 33-35)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass agreed — day-to-day facilities walkable/cyclable via existing pedestrian/cycle network, bus stops to Southend, Hadleigh, Rayleigh (DL 37-38)

Outline scheme for up to 58 homes (50% affordable) on contained former paddocks on the Thundersley edge, previously dismissed on a larger red line in 2024. Allowed after a hearing: the site was grey belt, all four GB7(1)(g) limbs were met including the Golden Rules, so the scheme was not inappropriate. Under S5(5) the benefits (substantial weight to market and affordable housing given 0.91 years' supply and HDT 11%) were not outweighed by limited landscape and NDHA harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6005877 · Cheshire East · Appeal · 11 Sept 2026 · 6 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass agreed would not fundamentally undermine purposes across plan area (DL 18)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass council's latest 5YHLS evidence shows a shortfall (figure not stated) (DL 19)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass adjoins built-up area with "good pedestrian infrastructure"; reasonable access to shops, education, public transport, though not all within SD2 distances (DL 20-21)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged not major (DL 22)

A PIP for up to six dwellings on an undeveloped field on the edge of Heald Green. Allowed. The field was grey belt because it is physically enclosed by development and infrastructure. Unmet need followed from the Council's supply shortfall. The site adjoins the built-up area with good pedestrian links, so it passed GB7(1)(g)(iii)/TR3. Not being inappropriate, it was approved under the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010260 · Shropshire · Appeal · 11 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• GB7(1)(e) fail former cottages on site had "blended into the landscape" through garden use, so excluded from PDL definition (DL 10-11)
• GB7(1)(a) not-engaged appellant cited it (and GB3(2)(a), a plan-making policy); nothing to show agriculture/forestry/nature use (DL 12)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate; limited spatial loss of openness, very limited visual (DL 15-16)

PIP for one or two houses in the garden of a rural cottage near Albrighton, on land that once held four earlier cottages. It was dismissed. The former buildings had "blended into the landscape", so the site was not PDL under GB7(1)(e). No other exception was argued, so the scheme was inappropriate. Location on a narrow, unlit, national-speed-limit lane added spatial-strategy and car-dependence harm.

Full summary and sources

26/00918/PIP · Stratford-on-Avon · Council committee · 11 Sept 2026 · 9 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass undeveloped paddock but Tanworth is "a village, some distance from large built-up areas and towns", so no strong contribution to (a), (b) or (d); officer also tested (c) and (e) for the "fundamentally undermine" limb and found only minor encroachment
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 2.21-year supply treated as evidenced unmet need for market housing
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass footway along site frontage; village centre c.400 m, short unfooted sections in historic core; Category 4 LSV with primary school next door and a limited bus service; "not be solely reliant on the use of private motor vehicles"
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged 0.47 ha, 9 dwellings max, under 1,000 sq m, not major, so no Golden Rules

Permission in principle for 3 to 9 market homes on a paddock at the edge of Tanworth-in-Arden, a Category 4 village washed over by the West Midlands Green Belt. The officer treated the site as grey belt, found all four limbs of GB7(1)(g) met, and ran the S5(5) balance: limited to moderate landscape harm against substantial weight to housing with a 2.21-year supply. Committee granted 9–0, with 2 abstentions, on 9 September 2026. The decision notice is dated 11 September.

Full summary and sources

26/00434/FUL · Bromsgrove · Council (delegated) · 11 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(b) fail about +21% floor area and +17% volume is "material", so not "not materially larger"
• GB6(2) pass very special circumstances from a larger-home extension prior approval fallback (25/00890/HHPRIO), under which the dwelling plus extension would be larger than the proposal, together with a child's medical needs (Article 8 and UNCRC art 3)

A replacement dwelling in the Green Belt about 21% larger in floor area and 17% in volume than the bungalow it replaces. It was therefore "materially larger" and fails GB7(1)(b). Very special circumstances were found in a larger-home extension prior approval, which would give a bigger building than the proposal, together with the medical needs of the applicants' child. Permission was granted.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6005495 · Cheshire West and Chester · Appeal · 10 Sept 2026 · 6 homes

• GB7(1)(g) fail grey belt not demonstrated; in any event the new-build dwelling is not in a sustainable location with reference to transport policies (DL 28)
• GB7(1)(b) not-engaged the "replacement dwelling" is a new additional dwelling; subdivision into two dwellings is unauthorised (DL 5-6, 28)
• GB6(2) harm inappropriate; net volume reduction limits spatial harm, but visual openness harm from a new house on rising, open land (DL 29-32, 35)

Conversion of a Grade II* farmstead's traditional buildings, plus one new detached house presented as a "replacement dwelling". The conversions were acceptable and a heritage benefit. The new house was inappropriate in the Green Belt: it was not a replacement, grey belt was not shown, and it was in any event unsustainably located under TR3. It harmed visual openness and the setting of the farmhouse, and it failed S5(1)(j) because it was not well-related to a settlement. Dismissed. The joint LBC appeal (PINS-6005497) was dismissed on the same heritage reasoning.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007030 · Epping Forest · Appeal · 10 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(b) fail floor area 141 to 301 sqm, volume 583 to 1237 m3, ridge 5.5 to 8.46 m — over 100% increase so materially larger (DL 4-6)
• GB7(1)(e) fail first-floor height with no fallback causes "local substantial harm" to openness by blocking views to trees (DL 11-15)
• GB6(2) harm improved accommodation and short-term economic benefit not VSC; neutral on housing stock (DL 16-18)

Replacement of a single-storey 1960s bungalow with a two-storey self-build house that more than doubles floor area and volume. It was dismissed. The new building was "materially larger" under GB7(1)(b). Prior-approval and CLD fallbacks covered the ground-floor extensions, but not the added height. The first-floor bulk would cause substantial local harm to openness, so GB7(1)(e) also failed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011301 · Bromsgrove · Appeal · 10 Sept 2026 · 5 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass undisputed grey belt; no strong contribution to (a), (b) or (d); small scale does not undermine purposes across the plan area (DL 7-8)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass Council accepts supply deficient (2.24 years per costs decision) (DL 8; Costs DL 4)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass up to 5 dwellings is significant movement for Bournheath; 3 pubs and hall walkable; Fairfield school/shop reachable on 30 mph lit roads with some footway; twice-weekly bus is no alternative but county on-demand bus serves the site; Connectivity Tool 43/100 (90th percentile nationally) (DL 9-18)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged not major development (DL 8)

Permission in principle for 3 to 5 dwellings on grey belt land outside the Bournheath settlement boundary, in the Bromsgrove Green Belt. Allowed. All the GB7(1)(g) limbs passed. Limb (iii) passed despite a twice-weekly scheduled bus and car dependence for higher-order services, on the strength of walkable village facilities, lit 30 mph lanes to Fairfield's school and shop, a county on-demand bus serving the site, and a Connectivity Tool score of 43/100 (90th percentile nationally). S5 then applied, and conflict with the settlement boundary did not substantially outweigh the benefits. The appellant's costs application was refused (local copy PINS-6011301-costs.pdf).

Full summary and sources

25/01880/MOA · Dacorum · Council committee · 10 Sept 2026 · 1400 homes

• GB7(1)(h) pass Tring station well-connected (4-5 London trains/hour in one direction); only the part of the site within c.800 m qualifies; GB8 capable of being met (50% affordable)
• GB6(2) fail members declined to find VSC now exist even with HC4 uplift

This was not a fresh determination. The committee decided whether to keep defending Green Belt reason for refusal 1 at the forthcoming inquiry into its April 2026 refusal of 1,400 homes east of Tring, after the new Framework was published. Officers made no recommendation. Their report found three benefits moving from limited to substantial weight under HC4: schools, community facilities and recreation. It also found that the new station route GB7(1)(h) could cover the part of the site within about 800 m of Tring station, but that part would then breach the new L3 minimum density of 45 dph. On a recorded vote of 6-5, members refused to concede that very special circumstances now exist, so the Council will continue to defend RfR1.

Full summary and sources

26/00617/PIP · Stratford-on-Avon · Council committee · 10 Sept 2026 · 5 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass undeveloped former Ecosite paddock held grey belt because Snitterfield is "a village, some distance from large built-up areas and towns"; (c) encroachment limited as the site is bordered by development on two sides
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 2.21-year supply
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass 0.5 miles (15 min) to village centre; the report assumed the first 100 m was in the Snitterfield Lane carriageway (30 mph, no footway), but the committee Update Report corrected this, saying that with the proposed footpath link to Park Lane services "can be reached entirely on made footpath"; infrequent buses; car trips to Stratford "relatively short"
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged 0.472 ha, minor development

Permission in principle for up to 5 market homes on a paddock behind linear frontage housing at the edge of Snitterfield. The village is washed over by Green Belt, and a 9-home scheme on the site was dismissed at appeal in 2019 on character grounds. The officer found the site grey belt, passed all of GB7(1)(g) and found "significant harm" to character, weighted substantial. The officer still concluded that the benefit of 5 homes was not "substantially outweighed". Committee granted 6–0, with 3 abstentions, on 9 September 2026. The notice is dated 10 September.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6005150 · Mole Valley · Appeal · 9 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(b) pass re-use of permanent and substantial building, no extension; domestic paraphernalia is not operational development and not a disproportionate increase (DL 8-9, 11)
• GB7(1)(g) not-engaged unnecessary once (b) passed (DL 12)

Conversion of redundant stables to a one-bed dwelling in the Green Belt near Headley. The scheme passed GB7(1)(b) (re-use), so it was not inappropriate. The case then fell under the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance, where the NDSS shortfall triggered DP3(3)'s direction to refuse via S5(2). Car dependence and inadequate BNG evidence added to the harm. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011803 · Three Rivers · Appeal · 9 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• GB7 pass parties agreed not inappropriate; limb not specified (DL 4)

A replacement dwelling plus two tandem self-build houses in a deep rear garden on Toms Lane, a linear road washed over by the Green Belt. The parties agreed the scheme was not inappropriate under GB7, so the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance applied. The tandem layout was alien to the linear pattern and in clear conflict with the local backland policy. That engaged DP3(3), a "should be refused" policy and so an S5(2) trigger, and the appeal was dismissed despite substantial weight to the housing.

Full summary and sources

25/00575/OUT · Basildon · Council committee · 9 Sept 2026 · 49 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass officers — 2.1 km to Billericay centre, bus stop 900 m (11 min) with 2-3 buses/hour, station 2.5 km; bus contribution; members did not contest in reasons
• GB6(2) fail members — substantial harm to openness, conflict with purposes, VSC not shown

49 homes (50% affordable) on an edge-of-Billericay Green Belt site in a borough with a 2.05-year supply. Officers treated it as grey belt passing all four GB7(1)(g) limbs, with VSC as a fallback, and recommended approval. Members voted 5-2 against on 19 August 2026, two days after the new Framework took effect. On 9 September they adopted a refusal reason finding that the site makes a "strong contribution to Green Belt Purpose (a)" and so is not grey belt, that openness harm is substantial, and that VSC are not shown.

Full summary and sources

Appeal APP/G2245/C/26/3377906 · Sevenoaks · Appeal · 8 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass would not fundamentally undermine purposes of remaining GB (DL 11)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 2025 GTAA need 115 pitches in first five years; no 5-year traveller supply; significant weight (DL 14-15)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass "somewhat remote", narrow lanes, service village, station 3+ miles; would fail for general housing, but "some flexibility" applied via HO12 for traveller sites (DL 16-19)

Enforcement appeal against a single-family Gypsy and Traveller pitch (one mobile home, one tourer) in the Metropolitan Green Belt and Kent Downs National Landscape, opposite ancient woodland. The inspector accepted the land as grey belt, noting that footnote 7 has been removed from the definition. On sustainable location, the inspector applied "some flexibility" under HO12 even though the site would have failed GB7(1)(g)(iii) as general housing. National Landscape harm and the policy balance pointed to refusal, but the children's best interests and the unmet pitch need justified a **temporary 3-year personal permission**, with ancient-woodland remediation and contamination conditions.

Full summary and sources

25/01052/FULMAJ · Chorley · Council committee · 8 Sept 2026 · 58 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 3.4-year supply
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass adjoins village; Morrisons 0.5 km (7 min), medical centre 0.3 km, station 0.5 km (hourly to Preston, 16 min); buses 337/347 Mon-Sat; lit footways, 20 mph; new 2 m footways, DDA bus stops, two crossings, £100k bus subsidy

58 affordable homes on a Green Belt field at the edge of Croston, a village with a station. Officers found grey belt: a village is not a "large built-up area", so purpose (a) is weak. They passed all GB7(1)(g) limbs and recommended approval. The appeal against non-determination was already running. Members unanimously said they would have refused, but gave only the Core Strategy spatial strategy (Policy 1) and the emerging plan as the reason. They did not give a Green Belt reason.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011103 · Staffordshire Moorlands · Appeal · 7 Sept 2026 · 9 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass modest size, contained by development, position relative to settlements (DL 17)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass undisputed lack of five-year supply (DL 18)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass services, school, shop, pharmacy, bus stops within walking distance via footways and lighting; a modest stretch of Hot Lane without footway accepted as flat, straight, good visibility (DL 19-20)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged not major (DL 21)

Permission in principle for up to nine dwellings on a field at the edge of the Green Belt village of Biddulph Moor. The appeal was allowed. The dispute was purpose (a): the inspector held that a "larger village" separate from Biddulph town is not a "large built-up area", so the site is grey belt. All the GB7(1)(g) limbs were met, including sustainable location, despite a short stretch of lane with no footway. The remaining conflict with the local plan's spatial strategy did not substantially outweigh the benefits under S5. A separate costs decision (local copy PINS-6011103-costs.pdf) refused costs.

Full summary and sources

26/00845/PIP · Bromsgrove · Council (delegated) · 7 Sept 2026 · 6 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass purpose (a) weak (Hollywood is not a large built-up area, citing appeal 3356219); (b) weak (Solihull 7.53 km away, no loss of separation from Birmingham); (d) none; (c) and (e) not fundamentally undermined
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass fn41, no five-year supply
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass 7 m outside the Hollywood/Wythall boundary (a large settlement under BDP2); footways and lighting on both sides of Alcester Road; bus stop 60 m away with regular services to Redditch and Birmingham
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged not major development, so the Golden Rules do not apply

PIP for up to six homes on a small greenfield plot 7 m outside the Hollywood/Wythall settlement boundary, in the Green Belt. Bromsgrove has no five-year supply. The officer ran all four GB7(1)(g) limbs and granted permission in principle. Grey belt was accepted because Hollywood is not a large built-up area and no towns would merge. Unmet need follows from fn41. The location is sustainable: lit footways both sides and a bus stop 60 m away with regular services. The drainage body's refusal recommendation on surface-water flooding was left to the technical details stage.

Full summary and sources

Appeal APP/P0119/C/26/3378284 · South Gloucestershire · Appeal · 4 Sept 2026 · 9 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass would not affect ability of remaining GB across plan area to serve purposes "in a meaningful way" (DL 41)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass council accepts no 5YHLS (3.93 yrs) so evidenced unmet need (DL 42)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass sustainable location undisputed (DL 43)
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged 9 statics + a touring pitch is not "major"; the touring plot does not count toward the 10-unit threshold; site <0.5 ha (DL 44-45)

An enforcement notice against a ten-caravan residential site (9 statics, 1 touring pitch) on previously developed Green Belt land just outside Mangotsfield. The notice was quashed and planning permission granted on the ground (a) deemed application. The earlier permission for 3 mobile homes had lapsed because a contamination condition precedent had not been discharged in time. But the site was grey belt and met every GB7(1)(g) limb. The scheme was below the "major" threshold, so the Golden Rules did not apply, and the S5 "substantially outweighed" balance favoured approval.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010313 · Tandridge · Appeal · 4 Sept 2026 · 5 homes

• GB7(1)(b) pass re-use of permanent and substantial building, no increase in size (DL 9); not reconciled with the later finding that the scheme is inappropriate (DL 14), presumably because curtilages and open land go beyond the building
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 1.97-year supply, shortfall over 3,000 homes = evidenced unmet need (DL 11)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail five dwellings in an area with very few homes = significant movement "in this context"; rural, away from settlements, facilities and buses; 40 mph lane without footways or lighting (DL 12-14)
• GB6(2) fail inappropriate; demonstrable loss of openness from curtilages and paraphernalia; VSC not shown (DL 17-18, 37-38)

Conversion of a barn complex to five dwellings in the Tandridge Green Belt, where supply is 1.97 years. Grey belt and unmet need were accepted, but GB7(1)(g)(iii) failed: the site is on a 40 mph lane with no footways or lighting, away from settlements and buses. As inappropriate development causing openness, heritage (Grade II setting), character and amenity harm, it did not show VSC even with an acute shortfall. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

25/00751/FUL · Bromsgrove · Council (delegated) · 4 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass not PDL, but it "does not strongly contribute to Purpose (a)" (about 1.6 km east of Hopwood, not adjoining an urban edge), with a limited contribution to (b) and none to (d); some conflict with (c)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass need for specialist SEND provision accepted on the applicant's evidence; the LPA "has not undertaken an independent assessment" but has no contrary evidence
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass accepted although the site is car-based. The Highway Authority says the use "necessitates a rural agricultural setting", and remote drop-off hubs with a minibus shuttle mitigate trips.

A farm-based SEND school, with a temporary rural worker's cabin, barn, learning pods and polytunnels, on open Green Belt farmland near Hopwood. The officer used the GB7(1)(g) grey belt route for a non-housing use. Need was accepted on the applicant's uncontested evidence. GB7(1)(g)(iii) was passed although the site is car-dependent, because the Highway Authority accepted that the specialist use needs a rural setting and the minibus hub arrangement reduces trips. Permission was granted under delegated powers.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008062 · Calderdale · Appeal · 3 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB6(1) fail temporary rural worker dwelling falls within none of the GB7 exceptions → inappropriate (DL 5-6)
• GB6(2) harm new building where none exists reduces spatial openness, and to lesser degree visual openness, despite screening (DL 7)

A temporary rural worker's dwelling on a smallholding in the Calderdale Green Belt. The appeal was dismissed. The dwelling fell within no GB7 exception. No essential need under HO11(1)(a) was shown. The site was isolated and car-dependent, and the access and drainage were unsatisfactory. Limited-weight benefits did not clearly outweigh the harm.

Full summary and sources

26/01458/FUL · Stratford-on-Avon · Council (delegated) · 3 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g)(i) pass Earlswood "a village, some distance from large built-up areas and towns"; site bordered by development to north and west
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 2.21-year supply
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass passed in one sentence because the dwelling footprint lies within the BUAB of a Category 3 LSV; no TR3 analysis of routes or services
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) not-engaged 0.49 ha, 1 dwelling

A replacement of a field barn with a self-build house behind a row of cottages at Earlswood, a Green Belt village in Tanworth parish. The officer routed it through GB7(1)(g) as grey belt. The report was scanned and read by OCR. The sustainable-location limb was passed because the footprint lies within the Built-Up Area Boundary. Moderate landscape harm, given substantial weight, was held not to substantially outweigh one home plus self-build benefits. Granted under delegated powers on 3 September 2026.

Full summary and sources

25/04952/EOUT · Bath and North East Somerset · Council committee · 2 Sept 2026 · 200 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 2.5-year supply
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass edge of Keynsham, c.25 min walk to town centre, buses, DfT connectivity rating B ('well connected'), c.1 km upgraded walking/cycling route and crossing secured; LHA said sustainability 'critical'

Outline permission for up to 200 homes (45% affordable) on a greenfield Green Belt parcel on the edge of Keynsham, in an authority with a 2.5-year supply. Officers treated the site as grey belt even though the strategic WECA assessment rated the wider parcel "significant" on purposes (a) and (b). They assessed the site on its own: contained, not an incongruous finger, and a small part of the Keynsham–Bristol gap. They passed every GB7(1)(g) limb, with the Golden Rules uplift taking affordable housing from 30% to 45%. They then ran the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance and recommended approval. Members agreed 5-4.

Full summary and sources

W/26/0134 · Warwick · Council (delegated) · 28 Aug 2026 · 1 home

• GB7 fail a new dwelling is not a GB7 exception; "well established in appeal decisions that … essential rural workers dwellings should be considered as inappropriate development"
• GB6(2) pass very special circumstances from the demonstrated essential need, modest single-storey scale and siting next to existing buildings

Outline permission for a permanent single-storey rural worker's dwelling in the Green Belt at Forge Farm, Shrewley (Claverdon postal area), replacing a temporary caravan at an equine rehabilitation yard. Warwick DC held that a new dwelling is inappropriate development because it is not a GB7 category. It treated a proven HO11(1)(a) essential need as very special circumstances.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6004344 · Tandridge · Appeal · 27 Aug 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(e) pass PDL common ground; scale compared to the barn means no substantial openness harm → not inappropriate (DL 6-8)

Replacement of a storage barn with a single dwelling in the Tandridge Green Belt. As PDL redevelopment without substantial openness harm the scheme fell within GB7(1)(e), so it was not inappropriate. It was dismissed in the S5(5) balance on design, living conditions, car dependence and unevidenced surface-water drainage.

Full summary and sources

26/00849/FUL · Lichfield · Council (delegated) · 26 Aug 2026 · 1 home

• GB6(2) pass a new permanent rural worker's dwelling is not a GB7 category, so it is inappropriate. Very special circumstances were found in the continuing essential need, removal of the mobile home and an occupancy condition.

A permanent rural worker's house replacing a temporary mobile home at an equestrian yard in the Green Belt near Shenstone. The officer held that a new rural worker's dwelling is not a GB7 exception and so is inappropriate. The established and continuing essential need under HO11(1)(a), removal of the mobile home and an occupancy condition together amounted to very special circumstances, and permission was granted.

Full summary and sources

25/01429/FUL · Bromsgrove · Council (delegated) · 21 Aug 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(b) fail a replacement must be "for the same use"; agricultural/equestrian to residential does not qualify
• GB7(1)(e) fail not PDL, because Annex B excludes land last occupied by agricultural buildings
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail rural site; first school 180 m away but no other facilities; bus one each way on Tuesdays and Fridays only
• GB6(2) pass very special circumstances shown by the Class Q fallback plus a reduction of 125.4 m³ in volume and 19.1 m² in footprint compared with the existing buildings

A new dwelling in place of a barn (with Class Q consent) and stables in the Green Belt at Dodford. It fails GB7(1)(b), because a replacement must be for the same use. It fails GB7(1)(e), because agricultural land is not PDL. It fails GB7(1)(g)(iii): with a bus on two days a week, the site is not in a sustainable location. It was therefore inappropriate development. Very special circumstances were found in the Class Q fallback combined with a net reduction in built volume, and the application was approved four days into the new Framework.

Full summary and sources

W/25/0302 · Warwick · Council (delegated) · 21 Aug 2026 · 1 home

• GB6(2) pass inappropriate development, justified by very special circumstances arising from the essential need

A permanent three-bedroom rural worker's house with a garage at an equestrian rehabilitation enterprise near Pinley Green, in the Green Belt, replacing a temporary log cabin. It uses the same Warwick DC template as W/26/0134: HO11(1)(a) essential need, verified by a consultant, provides the very special circumstances for inappropriate development.

Full summary and sources

25/2168/OUT · Three Rivers · Council committee · 20 Aug 2026 · 70 homes

• GB7(1)(h)(i) fail Officers: Bushey (well-connected) c.1,100 m / 16 min walk via lit footways is 'around 800m'. Members: c.1,100 m does not meet 'around 800m'
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass Officers: lit footways, 30 mph road, hourly 346 bus, contributions; members still weighed 'sustainable location' as a (limited) benefit though several doubted it
• GB6(2) fail members held inappropriate; VSC not shown despite substantial weight to market and affordable housing

Outline scheme for up to 70 homes (50% affordable) on a Green Belt field at Oxhey Lane, on the edge of Watford Heath/Carpenders Park, in a district with a 1.2-year supply. Officers recommended approval. Three days after the new Framework was published, their addendum said the site was grey belt and also qualified under the new station route GB7(1)(h), treating Bushey station at about 1,100 m as "around 800m". Members refused 5-4. They held the site was not grey belt and that 1,100 m is not "around 800m". So the scheme was inappropriate, and the Golden Rules benefits did not amount to very special circumstances against Green Belt harm plus harm to a Grade II listed lodge.

Full summary and sources

24/01047/OUT · Basildon · Council committee · 19 Aug 2026 · 11 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass supply shortfall
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass immediately adjacent to settlement; school c.400 m
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) fail 11 dwellings = major; zero affordable vs 50% default; no viability evidence
• GB6(2) fail moderate harm to openness; 11 market homes 'limited' benefit, 'further diminished by the absence of any affordable housing'

Eleven market houses on a grey belt paddock at Billericay's edge. Grey belt, need and location limbs all passed. The scheme failed only the Golden Rules limb because it offered no affordable housing and no viability case. That made it inappropriate, and the committee unanimously held that an 11-home market benefit did not amount to VSC.

Full summary and sources

25/01188/OUT · Basildon · Council committee · 19 Aug 2026 · 71 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass supply shortfall, persistent under-delivery
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass adjoins Wickford built-up area; London Road bus network; bus improvements
• GB6(2) fail officers found VSC (acute need, 50% AH, BNG well above 10%); members did not

71 homes (50% affordable) on the edge of Wickford. Officers accepted that the site is not grey belt, because it makes a strong contribution to purpose (a), but recommended approval on very special circumstances: a 2.05-year supply, 36 affordable homes, and BNG well above 10%. Members disagreed 4-2 and resolved that they would have refused. The non-determination appeal will now proceed.

Full summary and sources

25/01190/OUT · Basildon · Council committee · 19 Aug 2026 · 56 homes

• GB6(2) fail officers found VSC (1.96/2.05-year supply, 28 affordable, bus enhancements, speed limit reduction, c.£320k contributions); members did not

56 homes (50% affordable) on farmland between Crays Hill and Wickford. Officers agreed it was not grey belt, as the parcel is strong on purposes (a) and (b), but recommended approval on VSC. Members resolved 4-2 that they would have refused, citing coalescence and the cumulative effect of London Road development.

Full summary and sources

25/2053/FUL · Cheshire East · Council committee · 19 Aug 2026 · 68 homes

• GB7(1)(e) fail mostly PDL but substantial harm to openness (as found on 2021 appeal for 26 dwellings)
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 3.3-year supply plus applicant's care-bed needs assessment (569-bed undersupply by 2030) not disputed by commissioner
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass lit footway on Sagars Road; shops/bus 0.7 km, health centre 600 m, Handforth station 750 m; Connectivity Tool 59-62% (below national average, 'comparably well connected for a rural edge location')
• GB7(1)(g)(iv) fail care home treated as major development involving provision of housing; no affordable housing offered → Golden Rules failed → inappropriate
• GB6(2) pass VSC found — grey belt status, enclosed PDL site, specialist housing need (significant weight), employment

A 68-bed care home on the enclosed, previously developed site of a burnt-out nursing home on the edge of Handforth, decided two days after the new Framework was published. Officers found the site grey belt, with unmet need met and a sustainable location. They also treated the care home as "major development involving the provision of housing", so it had to meet the Golden Rules. No affordable housing was offered, so it failed GB7(1)(g)(iv) and was inappropriate. Officers then found very special circumstances, and the committee approved. The update report added a Connectivity Tool score (59–62%) and said the 2026 NPPF made no material change.

Full summary and sources

TM/25/01976/PA · Tonbridge and Malling · Council committee · 19 Aug 2026 · 350 homes

• GB7(1)(e) fail majority of site is PDL (former commercial plant nursery, glasshouses) but quantum would cause substantial harm to openness
• GB7(1)(g)(ii) pass 2.96-year supply; HDT 63%
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) pass adjoins Tonbridge (Tier 1); local parade, supermarkets, medical centre, schools within walking distance; town centre c.2 km; buses 218/219 twice hourly to town/station; lit footway/cycleway

350 homes (50% affordable) on a closed commercial plant nursery on the edge of Tonbridge, in the Metropolitan Green Belt. The site is mostly PDL, but the quantum would cause substantial harm to openness, so GB7(1)(e) failed. Officers instead found it grey belt and passed all four GB7(1)(g) limbs, with the Golden Rules met. The committee approved 10-1-2 two days after the new Framework took effect, on a supplementary report whose 2024→2026 comparison table was drafted by the applicant and endorsed by officers.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008539 · Staffordshire Moorlands · Appeal · 18 Aug 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g) pass council's grey belt / not-inappropriate assessment accepted; 2026 GB7(1)(g) makes "not fundamental changes" from 2024 so no re-consultation (DL 3, 15)

One bungalow on a vacant plot at the southern edge of Bagnall village, next to the Conservation Area. The council accepted the site was grey belt and not inappropriate. The appeal was nonetheless dismissed because building on the plot would erode the rural gateway and views that form part of the CA's setting. One dwelling's benefits did not outweigh that heritage harm.

Full summary and sources