Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors [2025] EWHC 2360 (Admin)
Walsall is a Planning Court permission judgment concerning a proposed 49.35MW battery energy storage system at Chapel Lane, Great Barr.
The Inspector had allowed the planning appeal and treated the Green Belt site as grey belt under the national policy then in force. Walsall Council sought statutory review. HHJ Jarman KC refused permission to pursue the challenge on all four grounds.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2025] EWHC 2360 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, Planning Court
- Judgment date
- 16th September 2025
- Judge
- HHJ Jarman KC, sitting as a judge of the High Court
- Case number
- AC-2025-BHM-000085
The Inspector treated the site as grey belt
The appeal concerned temporary permission for a battery energy storage facility in the Green Belt. Applying the December 2024 NPPF, the Inspector concluded that the land met the then definition of grey belt and that the relevant national-policy criteria were satisfied.
The Planning Court was not conducting the planning balance again. The question at the permission hearing was whether Walsall had an arguable public-law challenge to the Inspector’s decision.
The alternative-site assessment was not irrational
The developer had carried out an alternative-site assessment focused on a search area around the available grid-connection point. Proximity to a viable connection and available grid capacity were central practical constraints.
Walsall criticised the search area and the exclusion of land which was likely to be used for higher-value housing or commercial development.
The court held that no local or national policy required an alternative-site assessment in a prescribed form. The Inspector was entitled to assess the evidence presented and to attach substantial importance to the grid connection and the absence of a realistically deliverable alternative.
The Inspector could use planning judgment on noise
The council also challenged the treatment of noise. One issue was a 15dB allowance for attenuation through closed windows, despite there being no site-specific evidence about the construction of every affected window.
The Inspector expressly recognised the limitation in the evidence. He was nevertheless entitled to bring planning experience and judgment to the issue rather than treating the absence of more detailed evidence as fatal.
The court also rejected the argument that national noise policy had been misunderstood. The decision and conditions, including acoustic fencing and external noise criteria, disclosed no arguable error in the Inspector’s approach.
This was a refusal of permission to challenge
That procedural point matters. The court did not conduct a full statutory-review trial and then dismiss the claim on its merits. It concluded that none of the proposed grounds had a real prospect of success and refused permission for the challenge to proceed.
The judgment is still useful because it shows the high threshold for attacking planning judgments on site search, technical noise evidence and the application of grey-belt policy.
The national Green Belt policy has since changed
Walsall concerned the version of the NPPF in force when the Inspector decided the appeal in 2025. Planning Geek now works from the August 2026 Framework.
The case should therefore be used for its legal approach to planning judgment and evidence, not as a substitute for checking the current Green Belt and grey belt policy.
Read the full Walsall judgment
The approved Planning Court judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Walsall Case Law Page Updated: 9th September 2026