S5 does not apply in the Green Belt

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

• S5(5) not-engaged inappropriate and no VSC, so "policy S5 of the Framework is not engaged" (DL 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

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

• S5(1)(j) not-engaged Council argued conflict with S5(1)(j); S5(5) takes Green Belt proposals out of S5(1) (DL 28)
• S5(5) pass not inappropriate, so approve unless benefits substantially outweighed; no adverse effects found (DL 28, 31)

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

• S5(3) not-engaged S5(3) does not apply in the Green Belt, but the home is found to be isolated on the same definition (not within a group of houses or a settlement) (DL 7, 19)
• S5(2) fail HO11 treated as engaged through S5(2) and S5(5) even though S5(3) is not (DL 18-19)
• S5(5) fail not inappropriate, but the HO11 conflict substantially outweighs the benefits (DL 30, 34)

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

• S5(5) not-engaged S5 does not apply to inappropriate Green Belt development (DL 31)

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 6009919 · Thurrock · Appeal · 29 Sept 2026

• AnnexB:settlement not-engaged Fobbing is washed over by the Green Belt, so not a settlement; S4 not engaged and S5 does not apply to inappropriate development (DL 49)

A covered pool and "eco annexe" on a former builder's yard behind two houses in Fobbing, a washed-over Green Belt village and conservation area. Only part of the site was PDL, so GB7(1)(e) failed. The site was grey belt and the location passed (g)(iii), but there was no evidenced unmet need for an annexe and pool, so (g)(ii) failed and the scheme was inappropriate. With openness loss and moderate conservation-area harm, VSC was not shown. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

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

• S5(5) not-engaged S5 does not apply in the Green Belt; decided under GB6/GB7 (DL 29)

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

26/01447/FUL · Stratford-on-Avon · Council (delegated) · 28 Sept 2026

• S5(5) not-engaged "Policy S5 does not apply to sites within the Green Belt" (p.3); inappropriate development, so no S5(5) balance

A retrospective farm shop on an egg farm in the Green Belt at Kings Coughton, near Alcester, granted under delegated powers on 28 September 2026. The officer went through every category in GB7(1) and found that none applied, so the shop was inappropriate development. Very special circumstances were then accepted: the farm can lawfully sell eggs direct to the public only at the holding, and the shop brings about a fifth of its income. The report is a scanned image and was read by OCR; page numbers are PDF pages.

Full summary and sources

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

• S5(1)(j) not-engaged supply shortfall acknowledged, but S5(5) means S5 does not apply in the Green Belt (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

26/01614/FUL · Stratford-on-Avon · Council (delegated) · 24 Sept 2026

• AnnexB:settlement fail "the application site is not considered to be within a settlement because it lies within the Green Belt" (p.2); the Annex B exclusion of washed-over villages applied in terms
• S5(5) not-engaged S5 "does not apply to development proposals within the Green Belt"; assessed under GB6 and GB7 (p.2); the scheme was inappropriate, so no S5(5) balance

A householder refusal in Earlswood, a village washed over by the Green Belt, issued under delegated powers on 24 September 2026. A two-storey side and rear extension would take the house from about 374 m3 to about 970 m3. The officer held that to be a disproportionate increase under GB7(1)(b), rejected the applicant's alternative case under GB7(1)(e) because a garden within a built-up area is not previously developed land, and found no very special circumstances. The report opens by applying the Annex B definition of settlement: the site is not within a settlement because it is in the Green Belt. The report is a scanned image and was read by OCR; page numbers are PDF pages.

Full summary and sources

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

• S5(5) not-engaged S5 does not apply; determined under GB6/GB7; presumption not engaged (DL 19)

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

• S5(5) not-engaged S5 does not apply to Green Belt proposals that are inappropriate; decide under GB6/GB7; presumption does not apply (DL 19)

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

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

• S5(5) not-engaged S5 does not apply in the Green Belt; the proposal is taken to GB6/GB7

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

• S5(5) not-engaged S5 does not apply in Green Belt unless the proposal is not inappropriate under GB7 (DL 19)

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

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

• S5(5) not-engaged fails GB6/GB7 so S5 does not apply (DL 20)

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 6010165 · Stafford · Appeal · 7 Sept 2026

• S5 not-engaged Inspector says S5 is not engaged once VSC fails (DL 21); consistent with S5(5) routing GB proposals to GB6-GB8

A proposal to replace a stable block with a larger equipment store on a domestic landholding in the Green Belt and Cannock Chase National Landscape. Dismissed. It was not agricultural (GB7(1)(a)). It was not a like-for-like replacement (GB7(1)(b)). As PDL redevelopment (GB7(1)(e)) the extra bulk would cause substantial harm to spatial openness. Moderate-weight benefits did not clearly outweigh the harm.

Full summary and sources

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

• S5(5) not-engaged noted S5 does not apply in Green Belt (DL 3)

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