A Prestwood housing appeal for 18 homes, including nine affordable homes, has been dismissed even though the Inspector accepted that the site is grey belt. The decision, issued on 14th October 2026, concerns land beside Hampden Farm Barn on Greenlands Lane in Buckinghamshire.
The proposal sought outline planning permission, with access to be decided now and the remaining detailed matters left for later approval. Inspector Lewis Condé rejected the appeal against Buckinghamshire Council’s refusal after a hearing and site visit on 28th July 2026. This scheme therefore has no outline permission from the appeal.
I would read the Prestwood housing decision with this distinction in mind: accepting grey belt status did not settle whether these homes were acceptable. The Inspector found no secured contribution to publicly accessible green space, alongside harm to Green Belt openness, the Chilterns National Landscape and the setting of a historic farmstead.
Prestwood housing and the missing green-space commitment
The appeal, reference 6007290, concerned application PL/25/1732/OA. The parties no longer disputed that the site met the revised national definition of grey belt. The Inspector also accepted demonstrable unmet housing need and a sufficiently accessible location.
However, the relevant grey belt exception required this major residential proposal to satisfy the national policy’s Golden Rules. These address affordable housing, necessary infrastructure and publicly accessible green space. The submitted legal undertaking secured nine affordable homes and infrastructure contributions, but did not resolve the green-space element.
For the Prestwood housing scheme, the illustrative layout identified no meaningful publicly accessible green space within the site. Nor did a capacity assessment, alternative layout or parameter plan show how 18 homes, access, parking, private gardens and the required public space could fit on its constrained, elongated shape.
The outline stage did not require every design detail to be fixed. It did require enough evidence to show that the proposed amount of development could meet the policy. Leaving the layout for later approval was not an answer to uncertainty over whether the necessary provision was achievable.
Better walking routes were not enough
Off-site highway works would improve pedestrian connections, potentially including access to existing green spaces. But the Inspector explained that these works would not create public green space or improve an existing space’s quality, capacity or function.
The distinction was expressed plainly: “Better access is not equivalent to its provision or improvement.” A safer or more convenient route can be useful infrastructure without itself providing the separate green-space contribution.
In the Prestwood housing appeal, a suggestion that levy receipts could fund improvements also failed. No specific project, delivery programme or commitment to spend those receipts had been identified. There was insufficient certainty that relevant works would actually follow.
The appellant also suggested using other land under its control, but no legal obligation or other mechanism secured its delivery, public access or long-term management. I would treat that as the practical warning: identifying somewhere that might work is different from demonstrating how it will be provided and maintained.
The Inspector considered the argument that the policy says contributions should be made, rather than must be made. That did not remove the need for clear justification where a contribution was omitted. No viability evidence or other robust justification had been supplied, and the absence of a council request at application stage did not displace national policy.
Openness and the Chilterns landscape
The Prestwood housing site was previously developed land, but remained predominantly open paddocks. Eighteen homes, infrastructure and domestic activity would substantially reduce its openness. Existing vegetation could filter views, yet it could not avoid the physical occupation of open land.
The site is also within the Chilterns National Landscape, beside ancient woodland. The Inspector found that its paddocks and established vegetation made a limited but positive contribution to local landscape character and formed an undeveloped transition between the village and woodland.
This was not a finding that the site defined the whole protected landscape. Its views were contained and many of the designation’s more distinctive features were absent. Nevertheless, replacing the paddocks with suburban development would cause moderate, localised and lasting harm, to which substantial weight was attached.
A useful technical distinction appears in the decision. Although the homes were a major residential proposal for the Green Belt policy assessment, the Inspector did not regard them as major development under the separate National Landscape policy test. The exceptional-circumstances test under that latter policy was therefore not applied.
Affordable housing carried substantial weight
The council’s March 2026 position identified just 0.86 years of housing land supply in its East Planning Area. The Inspector described an acute, longstanding deficit and gave substantial weight to additional housing, with further substantial weight for the nine affordable homes.
Other considerations included reuse of previously developed land, improved pedestrian connections and biodiversity benefits. The healthcare contribution addressed extra demand from the scheme, so it was treated as mitigation rather than an additional benefit.
The Prestwood housing proposal would cause minor harm to the significance of Hampden Farm and Hampden Farm Barn through changes to their wider setting. Its public benefits outweighed that harm in the heritage assessment, but the harm remained relevant to the overall Green Belt balance. The benefits were counted only once.
What the dismissal means
Because the Golden Rules were not satisfied, the grey belt exception did not apply. The Inspector then weighed the benefits against the Green Belt and other harm, concluding that the very special circumstances needed to justify the development had not been demonstrated.
I would use this decision to check the whole delivery package before relying on grey belt status. The outcome does not establish that affordable housing lacks weight or that every site in the Chilterns is undevelopable. It shows how an unsecured policy requirement and site-specific environmental harm can remain decisive despite substantial housing benefits.
The complete Inspector’s decision explains the separate assessments. For comparison, our Guiseley homes appeal report concerns a different Green Belt outcome on different evidence.
0 Comments