There have been three examples in recent weeks of either the High Court considering arguments that an inspector had misapplied the grey belt tests within the NPPF or of the government legal department conceding that an inspector had misapplied the tests, each example useful in isolating a specific element of the required decision-making process:
How should footnote 7 be applied?
“Grey belt” is defined in the NPPF glossary as follows:
“Grey belt: For the purposes of plan-making and decision-making, ‘grey belt’ is defined as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143. ‘Grey belt’ excludes land where the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.”
Footnote 7 reads:
“The policies referred to are those in this Framework (rather than those in development plans) relating to: habitats sites (and those sites listed in paragraph 194) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, a National Landscape, a National Park (or within the Broads Authority) or defined as Heritage Coast; irreplaceable habitats; designated heritage assets (and other heritage assets of archaeological interest referred to in footnote 75); and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change.”
In Wrotham Parish Council v Secretary of State (Lieven J, 30 January 2026) the specific question arose as to whether “development” for the purposes of that sentence I emboldened above, means any hypothetical development, or whether it means the specific development the subject of the application or appeal.
The case concerned a proposal by Moto Hospitality for a secure 24-hour truck stop facility on the A20 in Wrotham, Kent. An inspector had allowed Moto’s appeal against refusal of planning permission by Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council. The inspector had allowed the appeal and, in her reasoning, had determined that the proposal would “only limited and localised harm to the setting of the [Kent Downs National Landscape] and no harm to the special characteristics of the views into or out of the Protected Landscape. Notwithstanding that the proposal will not conserve and enhance the landscape and its setting considered together, I do not consider the identified harm would provide a strong reason to refuse or restrict the development.”
The claimant, Wrotham Parish Council, argued that the impact of development generally on the national landscape should be considered and whether impact generally of development on the setting of a national landscape would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.
Lieven J rejected that argument:
“In my view the Inspector in DL/41 was correct to apply the footnote 7 test to the development that was the subject of the application and not to all development, or any hypothetical development.”
“For development control purposes the acceptability or otherwise of that impact will fundamentally turn on the impact of
the development applied for. This is particularly clear with heritage and habitats impacts, where some developments might have minimal impact, while others provide a strong reason for refusal.”
This “interpretation is strongly supported by the policy purpose of the introduction of the Grey Belt. That purpose, as set out in NPPF paragraph 155, is to allow the release of Green Belt land where it does not strongly contribute to the purposes of the Green Belt; and where there is no strong reason for refusal by reference to the important policy safeguards in footnote 7. It is obviously intended to lead to the release of some additional Green Belt land to meet development needs. It is a further exception to Green Belt policy, but that is not a reason to interpret the policy in a restrictive manner. The interpretative principle is to consider the words in context and with regard to the policy purpose.”
“In this case the Inspector found that the Site did not strongly contribute to the Green Belt purposes in NPPF paragraph 143(a), (b) or (c), and that finding is not challenged. Further, she found that footnote 7 did not provide a strong reason for refusing the Development. A conclusion that, despite those findings, planning permission should be refused is plainly contrary to the purpose of the introduction of the Grey Belt into the NPPF. It is not an answer that the developer can fall back on broader Green Belt policies and show very special circumstances. The point of the introduction of the Grey Belt is to avoid that policy requirement.”
What does “strong reason for … restricting development” mean?
What if one of the policies listed in footnote 7 would provide a strong reason for resisting development within a particular part of the relevant site, even though the specific development proposal being determined does not entail development within that part of the site? You can perhaps guess the correct answer to that test, in the light of the Wrotham case.
By her decision letter dated 13 November 2025 an inspector had dismissed an appeal by Boningdale Homes following South Staffordshire District Council’s refusal of planning permission for up to 100 dwellings in Boscobel Lane, Bishops Wood, Staffordshire. Following a six day inquiry, the inspector agreed with the council that the impact the scheme would have on the local grade II listed Church of St John “represents a strong restriction on development”, concluding that “the appeal site is not grey belt land”.
She said this:
“66. The parties differ regarding the application of footnote 7 with reference to the potential heritage impact of the proposed development. The appeal site extends close to the Grade II listed Church of St John. There was no heritage reason for refusal and the parties agree that the eastern part of the site is not proposed for development because of the harm that it would cause to the heritage significance of the Church of St John. The Council maintain that this represents a strong restriction on development and for this reason the proposed development would not be grey belt development.”
“71. When considered together with the definition of grey belt, I consider that grey belt is an assessment of the land rather than the proposed development, and that the Council’s interpretation correctly reflects the definition of grey belt within the Framework. Consequently, even though the parties agree that the heritage harm would not be a strong reason for refusal, it is a strong reason for restricting the development and as such I conclude that the appeal site is not grey belt land.”
Lord Charlie Banner KC posted on LinkedIn on 22 December 2025 that in the face of a legal challenge brought by Boningdale, the government has now agreed to consent to judgment on the basis that the inspector’s approach was unlawful.
[NB Of course, the December 2025 draft NPPF proposes removing footnote 7 in its entirety and the reference to it within the “grey belt” definition.]
How does one interpret “fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan”? (NPPF paragraph 155a)
Is it relevant to consider whether the proposed development would fundamentally undermine the Green Belt purposes of the development site itself, rather than simply the purposes of such parts of the Green Belt as would remain? One might think that the latter interpretation is obviously the case. I’m glad that the government legal department plainly agrees, given that again it has agreed to consent to judgment, this time following a decision letter dated 22 December 2025 in relation to an appeal by O15 from refusal by Warwick District Council of permission in principle for up to three dwellings.
The inspector dismissed the appeal, with her decision letter including this reasoning:
“18. Criterion a. requires the development to not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. This refers to all five Green Belt purposes set out at paragraph 143 of the Framework, not only the three purposes referred to in the definition of grey belt.
19. Green Belt purpose c) seeks to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. I have characterised the site as countryside rather than as part of the village. The proposal would introduce built development onto land which is currently free from development. As such, the proposal would result in encroachment into the countryside and thus would fundamentally undermine purpose c). Consequently, the proposal would fail to meet the requirements of criterion a.”
Another Lord Charlie Banner KC quick win. Planning magazine reported on 2 February 2026 that following receipt of a pre-action letter the Secretary of State had confirmed by letter on 23 January 2026 that it was minded to concede.
Taking a step back… the introduction of grey belt has not seen the avalanche of litigation catastrophised by some. This is the system working as it should. The NPPF grey belt tests are relatively clear in my view but inevitably there are uncertainties and/or misinterpretations. The acceptance of MHCLG to admit where a mistake has been made is always welcome.
Simon Ricketts, 7 February 2026
Personal views, et cetera
SIMONICITY 