A Runnymede enforcement appeal has failed even though an inspector accepted that the appeal land qualified as grey belt under the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework. The decisive problem was the lack of evidence demonstrating an unmet need for the particular mixed use: a commercial storage yard incorporating a residential caravan site.
Inspector Jessica Graham upheld Runnymede Borough Council’s enforcement notice, with significant corrections, on 19 October 2026. The land north of Green Lane, Addlestone, was being used for storage and distribution together with residential occupation of a mobile home. Planning permission was refused on the deemed application, while the 12-month compliance period remained in place.
What makes this decision valuable is that it separates three questions that are too easily rolled together: which land forms the planning unit, whether a change of use has become immune from enforcement and whether a grey belt site qualifies for a planning policy exception. The answers were not all in the council’s favour, but the notice ultimately survived.
Why the Runnymede enforcement appeal arose
The notice, issued on 13 March 2026, alleged that agricultural land had changed to a mixed use comprising a residential caravan site and storage and distribution. Able Grab Hire challenged it under grounds (a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. An inquiry took place in July, with further submissions on the new Framework after its publication in August.
The business had originally operated elsewhere and moved its depot to the western part of the appeal land in 2022. A caravan had initially been occupied by a staff member for security following thefts. The landowners subsequently began living there themselves and replaced the touring caravan with a mobile home in 2024.
The inspector accepted that the owners considered another property their main home, but she found that the mobile home was occupied day and night and had the attributes of a permanent dwelling. Full-time residential occupation was not a function normally associated with a storage and distribution yard. It was therefore a separate primary use, not merely incidental security accommodation.
Two planning units, but not a successful appeal
The Runnymede enforcement appeal raised an important issue about the extent of the land affected. Although two adjoining parcels were owned together, the inspector found that the western and eastern areas were physically distinct and used for different purposes. The western area contained the fenced commercial compound, mobile home and storage operation, while the eastern area remained largely open with peripheral storage.
She concluded that they should be treated as separate planning units. That meant the council’s notice needed correction to identify only the western area. But it did not make the notice invalid: an enforcement notice need not itself identify the planning unit, and the inspector could amend its scope without causing injustice to either side.
The distinction between grounds (b) and (c) was also addressed. Where the actual activities have occurred, but the argument concerns whether they form a mixed use or the correct planning unit, the issue is generally one of characterising the use rather than denying that the activities happened. The inspector considered the substance of the appellant’s arguments and dismissed the challenge on that basis.
Why historic storage did not establish lawfulness
The appellant argued that storage activities went back to the early 1980s and had achieved immunity from enforcement. The inspector reviewed photographs and historic aerial evidence spanning several decades. Some showed machinery and materials along the boundaries; others showed predominantly open land. Agricultural storage was capable of forming an incidental part of the lawful use of the land.
For the Runnymede enforcement appeal, the evidential gap was continuity. The inspector was not satisfied that a material non-agricultural storage use had been demonstrated to continue uninterrupted for the necessary ten-year period. Fluctuation in activity was not automatically fatal, but the evidence did not establish that the nature and extent of storage was consistently more than incidental agricultural use.
By contrast, the move of the commercial depot and introduction of residential occupation in 2022 and 2023 represented a clearly documented change. Even if a separate historic B8 storage use had been established, the subsequent addition of a distinct residential primary use would still require assessment as a further material change of use.
Grey belt status was not sufficient for permission
In the Runnymede enforcement appeal, the inspector examined the Framework’s Green Belt policies GB6 and GB7. Earlier hardstanding did not bring the land within the relevant definition of previously developed land. The historic surfaced areas were relatively limited and much had become obscured by vegetation, blending back into the landscape.
However, the inspector took a different view of grey belt. Although the land lay in a gap of approximately 630 metres between Chertsey and Addlestone, she found its contribution to preventing the towns merging was moderate rather than strong. Development would reduce visual separation but not remove it. The western area therefore met the grey belt element of policy GB7(1)(g).
That was only one of the policy’s requirements. There was an undisputed shortfall in Runnymede’s housing supply, recorded as 2.89 years, and an agreed unmet need for B8 storage land. But the application was not simply for one dwelling or a commercial storage yard. It sought a combined residential caravan and storage use, and there was no evidence demonstrating unmet need for that particular form of development.
Without satisfying the evidenced-need criterion, the proposal did not qualify as development that was not inappropriate under GB7. This is the point practitioners should not miss: a grey belt finding is not itself planning permission and does not remove the need to satisfy the remaining policy tests.
Why the Green Belt planning balance still failed
The inspector assessed the harmful effect of extensive storage, vehicles, structures, surfacing and residential occupation on the openness and semi-rural character of the land. The appellant proposed landscaping, lighting controls and restrictions on storage height, but these would provide only limited mitigation. The scheme was regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
The Runnymede enforcement appeal did include acknowledged benefits. The established business employed three staff and supported subcontractors, and the inspector gave substantial weight to the economic benefits of providing a lawful base. An additional dwelling also attracted significant weight, although no evidenced need existed for a dwelling within the storage yard itself.
Those benefits did not clearly outweigh the harm to Green Belt openness and the area’s character and appearance. Very special circumstances were therefore not demonstrated, and the deemed application for planning permission failed. Separate mitigation offered for the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area meant that nature conservation concern was not itself a reason for refusal.
What corrections were made to the enforcement notice?
Ground (f) succeeded to a limited but important extent. The inspector narrowed requirements that might otherwise have captured caravans, vehicles, agricultural machinery and other items unrelated to the unauthorised mixed use. The revised notice made clear that only caravans and mobile homes associated with the breach had to be removed, and that the existing palisade fence and gate were not required to be removed.
She also removed an unnecessary general requirement concerning waste, and replaced a direction to restore the land specifically to agricultural use with a requirement to return it to its condition before the unauthorised material change of use. The enforcement allegation and plan were corrected to apply to the western area.
But the Runnymede enforcement appeal did not succeed in obtaining permission or extending the compliance period from 12 to 18 months. The inspector considered one year reasonable, notwithstanding difficulties in finding another storage site.
The decision is APP/Q3630/C/26/3378418, dated 19 October 2026, and is also available via AppealBase. It is an inspector’s enforcement decision, not a court ruling. Read the corrected notice and formal decision together before applying its reasoning to another case.
0 Comments