A grey belt appeal at Pipehill, near Lichfield, has overturned the refusal of four homes after an Inspector found that a small roadside site met the revised national Green Belt exception. The outline permission was granted on 12 November 2026, with access approved and the other detailed matters reserved.
Inspector A O’Neill allowed the appeal concerning land behind Boythorpe and Wyndfield on Walsall Road, reversing Lichfield District Council’s rejection of application 26/00016/OUT. The dispute centred on how the site contributed to Green Belt purposes, whether residents could reach everyday services without relying entirely on cars, and the protection of Cannock Chase.
The grey belt appeal is significant because the Inspector applied the National Planning Policy Framework published on 17 August 2026, rather than relying on the terminology or tests in earlier versions. The decision also shows that a housing scheme can succeed under that exception while still conflicting with the council’s settlement strategy.
Why the grey belt appeal succeeded
The appeal site is an undeveloped plot adjoining a ribbon of buildings along Walsall Road. The council had refused the four-home outline scheme in April, saying the land was not grey belt and that its position outside a settlement boundary was unsustainable. Contemporary reporting by Lichfield Live recorded those concerns when the refusal was issued.
Under Policy GB7(1)(g) of the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework, qualifying grey belt development is not inappropriate in the Green Belt if it meets the policy’s tests, including an unmet need and a sustainable location. The Inspector therefore examined what the particular land actually did, rather than simply treating its Green Belt designation as the end of the matter.
Purpose (a) is concerned with urban sprawl. Although the land was undeveloped, the Inspector found its established hedges, trees and neighbouring buildings offered containment. It was not directly adjacent to Lichfield’s large built-up area, and limited development alongside an existing ribbon of properties would not create an incongruous pattern.
The site also lay within the broad gap between Lichfield and Burntwood, which raised purpose (b), preventing towns merging. But the plot occupied only a very small part of that gap. Building four homes there would not remove the visual separation between the towns. The parties did not dispute that the site made no strong contribution to the historic-town purpose (d).
The grey belt appeal therefore turned on the Inspector’s conclusion that the land met the Framework definition of grey belt. For an explanation of those distinctions, Planning Geek’s guide to grey belt, Green Belt, greenfield and brownfield land sets out why the labels must not be used interchangeably.
An older Green Belt review could not decide the issue
A notable feature of this grey belt appeal was the treatment of Lichfield’s Stage 2 Green Belt Review from 2021. The council cited it to support its objection, but the Inspector had not been provided with the underlying methodology or reasoning for its conclusions about the land. That review also predated the Framework’s current grey belt policies.
In consequence, the review carried limited weight on the question being decided. The test was whether this particular site met the current national exception and whether its development would fundamentally undermine the remaining Green Belt across the plan area. Mature boundaries, nearby buildings and the very small scale of the plot all mattered.
The Inspector accepted that the land was countryside in development plan terms, but found that its well-defined boundaries of mature trees and hedging would help to limit encroachment. Given the site’s small size, the scheme would not fundamentally undermine the Green Belt’s purposes across the wider district. With the three elements of Policy GB7(1)(g) satisfied, no separate assessment of openness or very special circumstances was required.
Walking, buses and the five-year housing supply
The third test in the exception concerns sustainable location, with particular reference to national transport policy. The site had a pavement along Walsall Road, a nearby public house and nursery, and other services around a 20-minute walk away. Existing bus stops alongside the site offered services towards Lichfield city centre, while cycle routes linked to other destinations.
The Inspector expressly rejected the idea that every destination needs a direct bus: It is not reasonable to expect public transport networks to provide direct services to all destinations.
That is a useful distinction when assessing smaller rural-edge proposals. The availability of genuine travel choices, rather than a perfect public transport network, was decisive on this point.
There was also common ground that Lichfield could not demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land. That was sufficient to establish an unmet housing need for the purpose of the exception. Planning Geek’s five-year housing land supply guide explains why this evidence can change the weight given to new housing.
Even so, the grey belt appeal did not erase all local plan conflict. The scheme remained outside the council’s identified settlements and allocations and therefore conflicted with Core Policy 6 on the distribution of housing. The Inspector acknowledged that conflict, then considered it in the overall balance against the four additional homes and the revised national policies.
Cannock Chase mitigation secured on appeal
The third refusal concern related to Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation, an internationally protected heathland site. Development creating additional homes within 15 kilometres can increase recreational pressure, so the planning authority needed confidence that the scheme would not adversely affect the integrity of the designated habitats.
The appellant submitted a completed unilateral undertaking dated 13 July 2026 securing a financial contribution to the established mitigation arrangements. The council accepted that this overcame its earlier objection. Natural England also indicated that the measures would prevent an adverse impact on the conservation site.
As the competent authority, the Inspector carried out the required Appropriate Assessment and was satisfied that the site’s integrity would be protected. This is an important practical point: a habitat-related refusal reason can sometimes be resolved during an appeal, but only where the necessary assessment and legally effective mitigation are in place. See Planning Geek’s Habitats Regulations Assessment guidance for the wider process.
Conditions, agricultural land and the planning balance
The decision also dealt with concerns about agricultural land. An interested party described the field as Grade 2. The Inspector recognised that some agricultural land would be lost, but considered the amount small in the district context and did not find significant harm to the best and most versatile agricultural land resource. Biodiversity net gain would be secured through its statutory mechanism.
The council had sought to remove extensive household permitted development rights, including Classes A to H of Part 1 and Class A of Part 2 of the General Permitted Development Order. The Inspector was not persuaded that such a broad restriction had been justified by the evidence, and declined to impose it. Conditions were instead directed towards matters such as tree protection, drainage and ecological management.
Under Policy S5 of the new Framework, the Inspector applied the approval test for development outside settlements that is not inappropriate under GB7. The housing benefits carried substantial weight, while the limited agricultural loss and conflict with the settlement strategy did not substantially outweigh them. The four-home outline appeal was therefore allowed, subject to conditions and the unilateral undertaking.
The wider lesson from this grey belt appeal is the need to test each limb of the current exception with up-to-date site evidence. A historic Green Belt study, a countryside location and a lack of direct buses to every destination do not, individually, settle the planning balance. Equally, grey belt status does not remove the need to address ecology, access, local plan conflict or conditions.
The decision was issued on 12 November 2026 under reference 6012875. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments