A grey belt housing appeal for up to nine homes at Bearley in Warwickshire has been dismissed despite an Inspector accepting that the site qualified for the newer Green Belt exception. The decisive obstacles were harm to the village’s historic setting, its listed building and the character of the surrounding countryside.
Inspector D Marley issued the decision on 29 October 2026 following a September site visit. The appeal concerned a 0.55-hectare field at Oaktree Close, where permission in principle was sought after Stratford-on-Avon District Council refused application 26/01098/PIP. The decision was made against the National Planning Policy Framework introduced on 17 August 2026.
The grey belt housing decision is particularly useful because the Council could demonstrate only 2.21 years of housing land supply, and both sides accepted that the land was grey belt. The Inspector nevertheless found that a proposal can meet the Green Belt gateway and still fail the separate heritage and design policies.
Why this grey belt housing site met the Green Belt test
The Inspector examined policy GB7(1)(g) of the August 2026 Framework. It permits certain development on grey belt land to be treated as not inappropriate in the Green Belt where the remaining Green Belt purposes are not fundamentally undermined, there is evidenced unmet need, the location is sustainable and any applicable Golden Rules are met. Each requirement matters; a grey belt classification alone is not permission.
The land made no strong contribution to the relevant Green Belt purposes, and developing this relatively small parcel would not undermine the remaining Green Belt across the plan area. On the evidence in this case, Stratford-on-Avon could demonstrate only a 2.21-year housing land supply. That shortfall established an unmet need for the proposed homes, an important part of the policy test rather than an automatic approval.
Bus stops and a railway station were accessible from Bearley. The Inspector accepted that future residents would have a genuine choice of travel modes despite services not always being immediately available. A scheme of up to nine homes was also unlikely to cause significant transport impacts. The grey belt housing site therefore passed the sustainability element of GB7, with detailed access questions potentially reserved for the second consent stage.
Nine homes but major development under the NPPF
There was a less obvious policy point. Although the proposal involved no more than nine homes, the field measured 0.55 hectares. For housing, the Framework treats a proposal as major development when it involves ten or more dwellings or a site of at least 0.5 hectares. Consequently, the Inspector said the Golden Rules in policy GB8 applied to this proposal.
That did not mean permission in principle was legally unavailable. The Council argued that permission in principle cannot be granted for major development, but the Inspector distinguished the definition used in the Permission in Principle Order 2017 from the Framework’s separate definition. Developers should not assume that the same phrase has an identical meaning in different legislative and policy contexts.
For grey belt housing applications, the timing of obligations also matters. Permission in principle determines location, land use and amount of development, not a complete design or final planning obligations. The Inspector found no reason why affordable housing and accessible green space consistent with GB8 could not be secured at technical details consent stage. Their absence from this initial application was therefore not the reason for dismissal.
Historic fields mattered beyond direct views
The appeal field lay outside but near Bearley Conservation Area, with the Grade II listed Bearley Manor and Barn Adjoining also close by. A 1994 conservation area study identified the open farmland between the historic village core and newer houses around Grange Road and Oaktree Close as significant open space. The Inspector considered that this undeveloped gap allowed the older village to retain its identity and its historic relationship with agriculture.
Vegetation obscured views of the listed building from the appeal site during the inspection. That did not dispose of the heritage issue. The Council’s evidence linked the field with the building’s wider historic agrarian setting, and the Inspector found no substantive contrary evidence. Setting can involve a historical relationship between places, not just whether someone can see a listed building across a field.
Both designated heritage assets would suffer harm at the lower end of the spectrum, the Inspector found. Nevertheless, that harm required considerable importance and weight in the decision. The grey belt housing land’s contribution to separating historic and newer parts of Bearley could not simply be left to landscaping or architectural details at a later stage.
Why the housing shortfall did not outweigh harm
The Inspector recognised that nine homes would contribute towards housing needs in an authority with a serious shortfall. Policy HO7 of the Framework requires substantial weight to be given to housing that meets evidenced needs. Construction activity and spending by future residents would bring smaller economic and local benefits, while proximity to village services was also acknowledged.
But the Inspector concluded that the public benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the considerable importance and weight
attached to harm to the heritage assets. That short quotation comes from paragraph 50 of the official appeal decision. The assessment under policy HE6 did not treat the harm as negligible simply because it was towards the lower end of the spectrum.
The result was not a finding that grey belt housing must always be refused near conservation areas. It was a site-specific judgment about this field’s contribution to two designated heritage assets and the village’s wider landscape character. The Inspector found that a residential scheme here would erode the rural separation and agrarian character even before detailed layouts and building materials were settled.
Village boundary rules received very limited weight
The field was outside Bearley’s built-up area boundary and outside the physical confines of the village, although close to existing housing. On a literal reading, the scheme conflicted with parts of the Core Strategy and neighbourhood plan governing countryside development. The Inspector nevertheless gave the restrictive aspects of those policies very limited weight where they were materially inconsistent with the newer national grey belt exception.
That finding did not remove the separate planning objections. The proposed development failed to respect the historic relationship of the settlement with the landscape and conflicted with the design requirements of policy DP3. Policy S5 did not direct approval because the Inspector judged the adverse effects to substantially outweigh the benefits, having regard to the national decision-making policies.
No very special circumstances balance was necessary: the Inspector had already decided that the proposal was not inappropriate Green Belt development. That distinction is central. The grey belt housing appeal was lost on heritage, landscape and design grounds, not because it failed to show very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development.
Practical implications for applicants and landowners
Before pursuing grey belt housing beside a historic settlement, establish how the land contributes to the setting of conservation areas and listed buildings, including field patterns and historical separation. The absence of a protected building in a direct sightline may say little about the site’s true significance. The viability of a later detailed design is not a substitute for demonstrating that development is acceptable in principle.
Our guide to grey belt and Green Belt explains the current 2026 definition and GB7 gateways. The heritage impact assessment guide covers the role of setting, while our settlement boundary guidance explains why the national and local policy tests must be kept distinct.
There is another lesson about the Golden Rules. A nine-home scheme on more than half a hectare can be major development for the Framework even where it remains within the scope of a permission in principle application. But passing that aspect of the grey belt housing test cannot displace the statutory duty to consider the setting of listed buildings or the requirement to assess harm to a conservation area.
Decision and source documents
Inspector D Marley dismissed appeal 6013252 on 29 October 2026, concerning Land at Oaktree Close, Bearley, Stratford-on-Avon District Council, application 26/01098/PIP. The Planning Inspectorate appeal record, the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework and the government’s permission in principle guidance provide the primary decision and policy context. The quotation is from Planning Inspectorate material available under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase. The key outcome is that this grey belt housing proposal passed the Green Belt exception but failed because the harm to designated heritage assets and village character outweighed its housing benefits.
0 Comments