An LNG station appeal has been dismissed in South Staffordshire even though the Inspector accepted that the site could qualify as grey belt land. Inspector Richard Snow rejected a retrospective scheme for a liquefied natural gas refuelling installation at Saredon Filling Station, Shareshill, on 30 October 2026. The proposal failed a separate policy test requiring evidence of an unmet need for the development in that location.
The scheme was promoted by Vigo Bioenergy Limited at the existing HGV refuelling station on Cannock Road, alongside the A460. It involved a substantial LNG storage tank, dispenser, control room and safety barriers already installed along the southern boundary of the forecourt. South Staffordshire District Council refused application 25/01100/FUL, prompting appeal 6014275.
The LNG station appeal provides a useful contrast with recent Green Belt infrastructure decisions. Identifying land as grey belt does not automatically make development appropriate. The application still needs to satisfy the relevant national-policy conditions, and unsupported claims about a beneficial environmental or economic purpose may not be enough.
Why the LNG station appeal was dismissed
The Inspector addressed whether the completed installation was inappropriate development in the Green Belt, whether it harmed openness and local landscape character, and whether other considerations justified permission. The decision was made under the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published on 17 August 2026, with the parties given a chance to comment on the updated policy.
The existing petrol and HGV forecourt was already hard surfaced and contained pumps and a modest kiosk. The LNG installation added a white cylindrical tank measuring approximately 14.7 metres in length and 2.5 metres in diameter, together with associated equipment. It therefore introduced a distinct new built feature, rather than merely changing the fuel dispensed at an existing pump.
Grey belt status was accepted, but the need test failed
The Inspector found that the site made no contribution to Green Belt purposes concerning the merger of towns or the setting of historic towns. He also accepted that it could fall within the grey belt definition. That finding was only the start of his assessment of the exception in policy GB7(1)(g), however, not the end.
In the LNG station appeal the first and third criteria under that exception were satisfied. The stumbling block was criterion (ii), which required evidence of an unmet need for the development. Although the filling station had access to important freight routes, the applicant had not adequately demonstrated the scale of any unmet demand for LNG refuelling or why this facility was necessary at the chosen site.
The Inspector noted the absence of detailed evidence about usage frequency, quantities of fuel sold, the operators using the installation or the economic benefits actually generated. He concluded that the evidence falls short of establishing an evidenced unmet need
. That is a particularly important passage for applicants relying on practical demand or infrastructure gaps to justify Green Belt development.
The decision also considered an alternative exception for transport infrastructure in policy GB7(1)(f)(i). Despite accepting that a fuelling station was transport infrastructure, the Inspector found insufficient convincing evidence that it had to be in a Green Belt location. The LNG station appeal therefore failed that route as well.
A large tank affected the openness of the Green Belt
The tank occupied part of an apron that had previously been open despite the forecourt’s hard surface. Its bulk reduced spatial openness, while its distinctive white finish made it visible from Cannock Road and a nearby public right of way. Mature trees softened some longer views but did not entirely conceal the development.
The Inspector was not convinced that the proposed landscaping could sufficiently reduce the effect. A landscape masterplan offered new hedgerow, tree and shrub planting, but it did not accurately show the position and dimensions of the installation. Access openings needed for vehicles would also limit how much screening could be introduced.
The LNG station appeal illustrates why the fact that a site already has commercial activity is not a complete answer to visual and spatial harm. The existing pumps and kiosk were much smaller, and intermittent HGV movements did not have the same permanent visual effect as the added tank and associated structures.
Carbon and economic benefits carried limited weight
The appellant argued that providing LNG for heavy lorries could support lower-carbon freight movements, help logistics operators and encourage investment. The Inspector accepted that such benefits could arise and gave them positive weight. He nevertheless found insufficient evidence to quantify likely emissions reductions or demonstrate how far this specific installation would promote freight decarbonisation.
He treated the economic contribution of one refuelling installation as modest. Weighing the claims against the identified Green Belt openness and landscape harm, he concluded that the other considerations did not provide very special circumstances capable of justifying the inappropriate development.
This is not a finding that alternative-fuel infrastructure is inherently undesirable. The problem in the LNG station appeal was the connection between a general policy ambition and the particular evidence for this site, this demand and this built form. The planning system requires that relationship to be demonstrated, not simply asserted.
What grey belt applicants should learn
The first question is which policy exception genuinely applies. Under GB7(1)(g), identifying grey belt land is not enough on its own: the remaining requirements must be met. Under the alternative infrastructure provision, applicants may need to explain why a Green Belt location is required rather than merely convenient.
The second question is evidence. Operators claiming unmet need should provide credible usage forecasts, demand surveys, location comparisons, catchment evidence and quantified environmental or economic effects where those matters drive the case. Previous operation of an unauthorised development does not itself demonstrate that planning permission should follow.
The third is design. Even a fuel forecourt can contain pockets of relative spatial openness, and a permanent new structure can materially change the surrounding rural character. Planning Geek’s NPPF policy guide explains the national decision-making framework within which Green Belt exceptions are assessed.
The contrast with the separate South Staffordshire telecommunications appeal published today is instructive. That proposal benefited from different infrastructure evidence and an applicable exception. Neither Inspector decision changes the law, and it would be unsafe to assume that success in one type of infrastructure appeal guarantees the same outcome for another.
Decision and sources
Inspector Richard Snow dismissed appeal 6014275 on 30 October 2026 following South Staffordshire District Council’s refusal of application 25/01100/FUL. The site is Saredon Filling Station, Cannock Road, Shareshill. See the official Planning Inspectorate appeal record. The decision quotation above is reproduced from the Inspector’s published document under the Open Government Licence v3.0. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments