Green Belt PIP appeal wins as M25-separated Merstham site counts as village infill

A Green Belt PIP appeal for three homes at Rockshaw Road, Merstham has been allowed after an Inspector found that land separated from the main built-up area by the M25 could still count as village infill.

Appeal 6007999 concerned land next to Clouds on the northern side of Rockshaw Road. Reigate and Banstead Borough Council resisted the proposal, but Inspector B Plenty concluded that the site fell within the limited infilling exception in the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework.

The route to permission is the interesting part. The site could be treated as grey belt, but that route failed because the council had at least five years of housing land supply and a 2025 Housing Delivery Test result of 102%. The appeal still succeeded because the separate Green Belt exception for limited infilling in villages applied.

Green Belt PIP appeal fails the grey belt need test

The application sought permission in principle for three detached dwellings. That matters because permission in principle is deliberately narrow: at this stage the decision maker considers location, land use and the amount of development. Detailed design, access, drainage and other technical matters wait for a technical details consent application.

The appeal site lies in the Metropolitan Green Belt. The parties agreed that the land could be considered grey belt and that development would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the Green Belt across the wider area. But the August 2026 Framework also requires an evidenced unmet need for the type of development proposed where the grey belt route in Policy GB7(1)g is relied upon.

That requirement was not met. Reigate and Banstead could demonstrate at least five years of housing land supply and its 2025 Housing Delivery Test result was 102%. On those figures there was no evidenced unmet housing need for the purposes of the grey belt policy, so the proposal could not pass through GB7(1)g.

For anyone working with the new policy, this is a useful warning. A site being grey belt does not by itself make a housing proposal acceptable. Planning Geek’s grey belt and Green Belt guide explains the distinction.

Why the M25 did not put the site outside the village

The appeal then turned to Policy GB7(1)c, which allows limited infilling in villages. The Framework does not define every boundary of a village for this purpose, and the decision stressed that the answer is ultimately a matter of planning judgement rather than simply following a settlement line on a policies map.

Rockshaw Road sits north of the main developed area of Merstham and is physically separated from it by the M25. The Council relied on that separation. The appeal decision, however, looked at how the settlement actually works on the ground.

The Inspector’s representative noted that transport infrastructure already creates physical divisions between different parts of Merstham. Rockshaw Road was still served by the village’s facilities, including the railway station and high street, both within or only marginally beyond a reasonable walking distance. The conclusion was that the site could still be regarded as being within a village.

The decision referred to the approach in Julian Wood v SSCLG and Gravesham Borough Council, where a development plan boundary was treated as relevant but not automatically determinative. The practical question was the relationship between buildings, services, spacing and open land.

Three detached homes were limited infilling

Having decided that the site was within a village, the next question was whether three dwellings amounted to limited infilling. Again, the Framework leaves room for planning judgement.

Rockshaw Road is characterised by detached two-storey homes in generous plots. The appeal site sits between two such plots and is roughly twice their width. Indicative drawings showed three detached houses, each with its own plot.

Those plots would be narrower than the two immediately adjoining properties, but plot sizes in the wider road vary. The decision found there was a real prospect that three homes could be accommodated in a way that respected the established pattern and density. That was enough at the permission-in-principle stage.

Crucially, detailed house design was not being approved. The decision was about whether the amount of development, namely three homes, could reasonably fit the site at the next stage. On that basis the proposal qualified as limited infilling and was not inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Conservation area setting could be dealt with at stage two

The Rockshaw Road Conservation Area lies opposite the site, so the appeal also had to consider heritage implications. Its significance was said to derive in part from spacious plots, detached houses, historic layout and a strong sense of visual unity.

The Inspector was satisfied that a maximum of three dwellings had a real prospect of being arranged without harming that setting. Matching the exact form, layout and architectural treatment would remain for technical details consent. The important point was that the amount of development proposed did not make an acceptable design unrealistic.

This is another reason permission in principle needs to be handled carefully. It is not a shortcut around heritage policy, but neither should detailed design objections be used to decide matters that properly belong to the second stage. Planning Geek’s permission in principle guide explains the two-stage process.

Wildlife, parking and drainage were mostly outside the first-stage test

Third parties raised concerns including parking, congestion, neighbouring amenity, trees, drainage, sewage and wildlife. Most of those issues did not fall within the narrow permission-in-principle assessment and would need to be addressed through technical details consent if relevant.

The wildlife objection was considered separately. The Inspector found that the site was not a “habitats development” within the specific Planning Practice Guidance definition, so there was no mechanism to determine that issue at the permission-in-principle stage.

The decision also rejected an argument about harm to the Surrey Hills National Landscape. The site was outside the designated area and outside the area proposed for extension. The National Landscape planning adviser had raised no objection.

Costs were refused despite the successful appeal

The appellant sought a full award of costs, arguing that the Council had misunderstood the latest local and national policy. That application failed.

The costs decision found that the Council had considered the correct development plan and the previous version of national policy when it made its decision. The appeal outcome differed because planning judgement was exercised differently, not because the authority had behaved unreasonably. The later August 2026 Framework also changed the policy landscape during the appeal.

That distinction matters. Winning an appeal does not by itself mean the Council’s original refusal was unreasonable.

What this Green Belt PIP appeal tells applicants

The Green Belt PIP appeal is useful because the successful route was not the one that might first catch the eye. Grey belt status was accepted, but the lack of unmet housing need closed that gateway. Limited village infilling then provided the route to permission.

It also shows why motorway or railway separation should not automatically be treated as proof that land sits outside a village. The real-world relationship with the settlement, services and neighbouring development can be more important than a simple visual break.

For applicants, the lesson is to test every potentially relevant Green Belt exception rather than relying on one label. For councils, it is a reminder that permission in principle must stay focused on location, land use and amount of development, with genuinely technical issues reserved for stage two.

Appeal 6007999 was allowed on 5th October 2026. The full decision and separate costs decision were reviewed via AppealBase. The official Planning Inspectorate record is available here. Planning Geek’s planning appeals guide covers the wider appeal process.