The Thundersley grey belt appeal has allowed up to 58 homes on land south of Daws Heath Road after an Inspector applied the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework.
The outline scheme includes 50% affordable housing. It follows an earlier appeal involving a larger site which was dismissed in July 2024.
This was not the Inspector simply overturning the earlier decision. The appeal site had been reduced and, more importantly, national policy had changed materially with the introduction and subsequent development of the grey-belt regime.
The decision is especially useful because it shows why grey-belt assessment is site-specific. A broad Green Belt parcel assessment had rated the appeal land with adjoining land as making a strong contribution, but the Inspector reached a different conclusion after examining the actual appeal site and its boundaries.
The earlier Thundersley appeal was dismissed in 2024
A previous proposal for land south of Daws Heath Road was dismissed on 16th July 2024 under appeal APP/M1520/W/23/3329585.
The current appeal, reference 6007184, involved a somewhat smaller site boundary. The Inspector also had to determine it against a very different national policy framework.
The decision expressly recognised the earlier appeal but did not treat it as fixing the result forever. The introduction of the grey-belt policy was a material change in circumstances, and the reduced site had to be assessed on its own merits.
That distinction matters. A later approval does not necessarily mean an earlier Inspector was wrong. Planning decisions are made against the proposal, evidence and policy framework in force at the relevant time.
A broad Green Belt parcel did not answer the site-specific question
Castle Point’s earlier Green Belt work had looked at the land within much larger parcels. Its 2018 review placed the site within Parcel 4 and assessed that wider parcel as making a very strong contribution.
The council’s 2025 evidence identified the appeal land as Parcel GB14 but assessed it together with adjoining GB29 at Ragwood Riding Centre. Collectively, that broader area was said to make a strong overall contribution, including a strong contribution to checking unrestricted sprawl.
The Inspector did not simply import that parcel score into the appeal.
The actual development site was physically contained by Daws Heath Road to the north, ancient woodland to the south and partly to the east, existing Thundersley housing to the west, and the riding centre with nearby bungalows to the east.
Those were regarded as enduring boundaries. The Inspector found that development would cause some urban sprawl and countryside encroachment, but the contained form of the site meant that it would not amount to unrestricted sprawl or materially undermine the Green Belt purpose of checking it.
This is a useful reminder when applying our guide to grey belt and Green Belt: strategic Green Belt studies are important evidence, but the decision-maker still has to assess the land actually before them.
Planning Geek analysis: Annex E of the August 2026 NPPF now reinforces that point. It says assessment areas should be small enough to reveal variations in their contribution to Green Belt purposes and should be subdivided into smaller units where necessary to identify grey belt. The site-specific approach in this appeal therefore sits closely with the methodology now written into national policy.
Green Belt purpose (b) refers to neighbouring towns, not villages
The decision also makes a neat point about Green Belt purpose (b), which is to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another.
Castle Point was concerned about the perceived separation between Thundersley and Daws Heath. However, the parties agreed that Daws Heath is a village.
The Inspector therefore found that reducing separation between Thundersley and Daws Heath did not engage purpose (b) in the same way as the merger of two neighbouring towns.
The council also referred to Thundersley and Hadleigh, both towns, but the Inspector found that substantial intervening land and landscape meant development of this contained site would not lead to their merging.
Purpose (d), preserving the setting and special character of historic towns, did not weigh against grey-belt status either because Thundersley was not considered a historic town for this purpose.
For the grey-belt definition, the relevant Green Belt purposes are (a), (b) and (d). The Inspector separately recognised countryside encroachment under purpose (c), but concluded that development of this small, contained parcel would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area.
Why the Thundersley grey belt test was met
Under the August 2026 NPPF, grey belt includes Green Belt land which does not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b) or (d), subject to the rest of the policy definition and exclusions.
On the site-specific evidence, the Inspector concluded that the appeal land met that test.
That did not automatically mean housing had to be approved. The Inspector still had to work through the additional grey-belt requirements, including whether development would fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt, whether there was evidenced unmet need, whether the site was sustainably located and whether the Golden Rules applied.
Castle Point had just 0.91 years of housing land supply
The housing position was exceptionally severe.
Castle Point could demonstrate only 0.91 years of housing land supply.
The Housing Delivery Test figures available at the hearing showed serious under-delivery. The Inspector also took account of the August 2026 publication of the latest results, recording delivery of 29% for 2024 and only 11% for 2025.
That persistent and acute shortfall established a clear unmet housing need and gave substantial weight to the delivery of up to 58 homes.
Planning Geek explains the wider supply calculation in our guide to five-year housing land supply.
The Golden Rules were met
The scheme proposed 50% affordable housing, together with public green space and the necessary local infrastructure contributions.
The Inspector found that the relevant Golden Rules were met and gave that compliance substantial weight.
Because the development satisfied the applicable grey-belt policy tests, it was treated as not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. That meant the appellant did not need to demonstrate very special circumstances to overcome Green Belt harm in the way that would be required for inappropriate development.
This is one of the most important practical consequences of the current grey-belt framework. The route is not a looser version of the very-special-circumstances test. Where the policy requirements are satisfied, the development is not inappropriate in the first place.
The riding-centre concerns remained speculative
The appeal land had been used as grazing associated with Ragwood Riding Centre. Castle Point argued that losing the grazing could damage the viability of the business, potentially causing closure, employment losses and animal-welfare consequences.
The Inspector did not dismiss those concerns as inherently unimportant. The difficulty was evidential.
The grazing lease had expired in April 2026 and no horses were on the appeal paddock during the site visit. There was not substantive evidence showing that alternative grazing could not be found, that a reduced-scale operation would be unviable or that development of the appeal land would inevitably cause the riding centre to close.
Concerns about construction noise and fireworks disturbing horses were also raised, but the Inspector found the claimed chain from housing development to business closure insufficiently demonstrated.
Even if some economic harm arose, the Inspector regarded it as modest in the overall planning balance.
BNG above the statutory minimum received significant weight
The proposal offered approximately 29.45% habitat biodiversity net gain and 21.29% hedgerow gain.
That was well above the statutory 10% minimum. The Inspector gave the additional gain significant positive weight and imposed a condition relating to the habitat management and monitoring arrangements beyond the statutory minimum.
This contrasts neatly with the recent Vale housing supply appeal, where the Inspector gave the scheme’s statutory 10% BNG neutral weight because it merely met the legal minimum.
The two decisions should not be turned into a rigid mathematical rule for every appeal. They do, however, illustrate the planning-balance difference between complying with a mandatory baseline and voluntarily delivering a materially greater ecological benefit.
For the underlying regime, see our guide to Biodiversity Net Gain.
The Planning Geek takeaway
Thundersley is one of the clearer grey-belt decisions to date because several strands come together in the same appeal.
A broad Green Belt parcel assessment was not treated as a substitute for examining the appeal site itself. Purpose (b) was applied according to its actual wording about neighbouring towns rather than widened to cover the perceived merging of a town and a village. And the Inspector expressly recognised that national policy had changed materially since the 2024 dismissal.
Once grey-belt status was established, the combination of a 0.91-year housing supply, severe Housing Delivery Test under-performance, 50% affordable housing and compliance with the Golden Rules produced a very different planning balance.
There is also a small Planning Geek connection: Ian Walmsley lived in Thundersley until he was about five.
Sources and documents
- Planning Inspectorate appeal 6007184 full decision, Land south of Daws Heath Road, Thundersley, issued 14th September 2026
- Planning Inspectorate appeal record 6007184
- Earlier appeal APP/M1520/W/23/3329585 full decision, dismissed 16th July 2024
- National Planning Policy Framework, August 2026
Created: 15th September 2026
0 Comments