An M42 employment appeal has allowed a substantial industrial and logistics scheme on Green Belt land beside Junction 9 in North Warwickshire. Inspector R Aston granted outline planning permission on 3 November 2026 for Richborough Commercial Limited’s proposal, following an inquiry held in May. Access is approved, with the layout, scale, landscaping and appearance still to be settled.
The development would include general industrial and storage and distribution uses, with ancillary business space, yards, parking, routes for pedestrians and cyclists and habitat works. The land sits among the M42, M6 Toll and A446 corridors close to Coleshill and Curdworth. The Inspector accepted that the proposal would cause landscape harm but found the site qualified as grey belt.
The M42 employment appeal matters because it combines a large employment land shortfall with the revised national approach to grey belt. The decision explains why Green Belt status need not make development inappropriate, yet also shows that serious landscape and agricultural land effects still have to be weighed. The economic benefits, including a forecast of hundreds of jobs, were decisive.
Why the M42 employment appeal succeeded
This was not an appeal against a formal refusal. North Warwickshire Borough Council had failed to determine application PAP/2024/0297 within the prescribed period. Richborough Commercial Limited brought forward an outline proposal for Use Classes B2 and B8, with ancillary E(g) floorspace and associated infrastructure. The inquiry took place in May 2026, and the Inspector considered the revised National Planning Policy Framework published on 17 August 2026 before issuing his decision on 3 November. The council’s public inquiry documents record the evidence.
Only the access arrangements were for approval at this stage. A condition caps gross internal B2 and B8 floorspace at 65,032 square metres, with ancillary office space. The southern land parcel covers about 19.51 hectares beside Lichfield Road and the motorway junction, with agricultural fields, hedgerows and infrastructure. A separate 2.99-hectare western parcel would provide habitat creation and public access, rather than industrial buildings. The scheme is therefore considerably more than a conventional warehouse extension.
In its case to the inquiry, the council accepted an immediate, evidenced need for employment land and considered that the resulting economic and social benefits deserved substantial weight. The principal difference concerned the environmental and policy consequences of developing this particular land. Those questions shaped the M42 employment appeal and the Inspector’s eventual planning balance.
Why agricultural Green Belt land was treated as grey belt
The site was not previously developed land, but that does not automatically prevent land qualifying as grey belt. The Inspector assessed its contribution to the relevant Green Belt purposes, including limiting urban sprawl and preventing neighbouring towns from merging. The transport network, existing development and landform provided important context, although the land retained an appreciable rural character.
Inspector Aston found a moderate contribution to the relevant purposes concerned with sprawl and preventing towns from merging, rather than a strong one. He also considered the functioning of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area. His conclusion was that the site’s development would not fundamentally undermine that wider Green Belt, with the vast majority remaining unaffected. The other applicable national policy tests, including evidenced employment need and sustainability, were met.
The result was a finding that the land fell within the grey belt definition and the proposed development would not be inappropriate in the Green Belt. The Inspector did not have to find very special circumstances to overcome inappropriateness. For background on these distinctions, see our grey belt and Green Belt guide and the separate Wrotham grey belt case-law analysis.
The language in the decision is important. The Inspector said that “the vast majority of Green Belt in the area would be unaffected”. That is an extract from paragraph 54 of his Planning Inspectorate decision, reproduced under the Open Government Licence v3.0. It is not a blanket endorsement of development close to a motorway: this was a site-specific assessment of the land and the wider designation.
Landscape harm and farming land still counted
The M42 employment appeal was not a finding that the countryside was unimportant. The Inspector accepted moderate adverse landscape effects, including changed landform and the presence of large buildings, service areas, lighting and associated infrastructure. Buildings could reach 20 metres above ground level. Some residents and users of nearby public rights of way would experience significant changes to views.
He also identified the permanent loss of best and most versatile agricultural land. The site contains a mixture of grades, including grades 2 and 3a, and the loss weighed against the scheme, albeit with limited weight in the overall balance. A conclusion that development is not inappropriate in the Green Belt does not cancel out its separate landscape and agricultural effects.
Substantial planting, landscape management, ecological requirements and detailed reserved matters will still be needed. Those controls may reduce some effects over time, but the Inspector expressly recognised that a rural landscape would be replaced by large industrial and distribution buildings. That distinction is useful when comparing the decision with other grey belt proposals.
Employment need and the economic balance
North Warwickshire’s evidence showed a shortfall of about 42 hectares of local employment land to 2045 and a further 50 to 100 hectares of strategic storage and distribution land within the relevant study area. The Inspector attached very substantial importance to this immediate need, in the context of the region’s established logistics sector and government policy supporting freight and logistics facilities.
If the development operated as a regional B8 distribution facility, the evidence forecast approximately 845 full-time equivalent jobs, potentially more if some space were used for general industrial activity. That is a forecast, not a job guarantee. Our Use Class B8 guidance explains the storage and distribution use, while the Use Class B2 guide covers the general industrial component.
The M42 employment appeal also shows why the parties’ different arguments about local plan policy did not need a definitive answer. Even giving the relevant policies full weight, Inspector Aston found that the substantial employment and social benefits outweighed the limited to moderate conflicts with the development plan. He allowed the appeal under the material-considerations balance.
What the section 106 agreement and conditions provide
A signed section 106 agreement dated 2 June 2026 secures transport, ecology and employment measures. The obligations include £1,213,200 towards bus service improvements over five years, plus separate contributions towards bus stops, fares promotion, pedestrian crossings and an employment skills programme. The No. 76 bus service improvements were given moderate positive weight as a public benefit.
Ecological commitments include habitat works and biodiversity net gain arrangements, with the Inspector noting a proposed ten per cent habitat gain on the western parcel and scope for additional off-site provision if necessary. Details of noise protection, highways, lighting, landscaping and drainage will be controlled through conditions and later submissions. The approval does not settle every operational or design detail now.
The Inspector recorded that Richborough Commercial Limited had also made an application for appeal costs. That application is dealt with in a separate decision; the planning permission itself does not establish any costs award. The M42 employment appeal therefore needs to be read as a planning judgment on the merits of the outline development, subject to its specific obligations and conditions.
What this decision means for other sites
The M42 employment appeal is a significant example of how grey belt policy can apply to employment land, not just proposed housing. It does not mean that every site next to a major road qualifies. The degree of contribution to the Green Belt purposes, the effect on the remaining designation, proven need, sustainable access and the other development impacts each required individual evidence and assessment.
It also illustrates the value of separating different kinds of planning harm. Even once the Inspector found that the scheme was not inappropriate in the Green Belt, he still weighed landscape character, agricultural land, public views and national economic policy. Applicants and councils will need the same discipline in their own evidence rather than assuming one favourable policy conclusion decides the whole application.
The official Planning Inspectorate appeal record is reference 6002069, relating to North Warwickshire application PAP/2024/0297. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments