Grey belt and a sustainable location: an early reading of GB7 and TR3.

What the inspector decided

As an application for permission in principle, the scope was limited to location, land use and the amount of development (paragraph 3). The site was in the Green Belt, outside any settlement. The appellant did not pursue a previously developed land argument, and the inspector found the site was not previously developed land in any event (paragraph 13).

The case therefore rested on the grey belt exception in policy GB7 1(g). It was common ground that the site was grey belt, that development would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the Green Belt, and that the council could not show a five-year housing land supply. The first two criteria of GB7 1(g) were satisfied (paragraphs 15 to 17). Criterion iii requires development to be in a sustainable location, with particular regard to policy TR3 (paragraph 18). That was the issue.

How criterion iii was applied

1. Distance and route. The edge of South Nutfield is about 800 metres from the site, with the first services a similar distance beyond. The routes are country roads, Coopers Hill Road at 40mph and Kings Cross Lane at 30mph, without continuous footways or street lighting, so pedestrians and cyclists would share the carriageway for much of the way. These factors would materially reduce the attractiveness of walking and cycling (paragraph 21).
2. The bus service. The appellant referred to a hail-and-ride service, but provided limited evidence of its frequency, hours of operation, destinations or reliability. Without that, the inspector could not be satisfied that it offered a convenient and attractive alternative to the car (paragraph 22).
3. Scale and TR3. The inspector accepted that five dwellings would generate only modest movement, so criterion (a) of TR3 was not engaged to the same degree as for a larger scheme. TR3 must, however, be read as a whole. The proposal would not promote sustainable patterns of movement, limit the need to travel or offer a genuine choice of transport modes. Some reliance on the car is expected in a rural location, but here it would be especially pronounced (paragraph 27).
4. Conclusion. Criterion iii was not met, the exception did not apply, and the proposal was inappropriate development. It also conflicted with local plan policy DP5 on access by sustainable modes (paragraphs 28 to 31).

With the exception unavailable, the proposal had to be justified by very special circumstances. The housing benefit carried substantial weight and the economic benefits moderate weight, but they did not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, openness, character and sustainable travel (paragraphs 39 and 44 to 46). The presumption in policy S5 did not assist, because it does not apply to proposals in the Green Belt (paragraph 50).

The previous decision

An appeal for nine dwellings on the same site had been dismissed in November 2025, with the inspector finding the location unsuitable. The present inspector gave that decision significant weight. There was no evidence that the accessibility of the site, the highway network, the opportunities for active travel or the availability of public transport had changed, and consistency in decision-making is an important principle (paragraphs 24 and 25).

The appellant's examples of other permissions and appeal decisions were given limited weight, because they concerned different sites and little was provided about the reasoning behind them (paragraphs 19 and 26). The appellant also argued that the county highway authority had exceeded its role in commenting on sustainability. The inspector gave that little weight, noting that the conclusion on location had been reached independently of the highway authority's response, which had simply reinforced it (paragraph 43).

Points of interest and doubt

The grey belt policy is intended, in part, to release land for housing where the Green Belt contribution is limited. A small scheme close to an existing settlement is the kind of site it might be expected to assist. There is a reasonable argument that the inspector's approach, applying a sustainable location test with real force to five dwellings, narrows the practical reach of the exception for rural sites.

The decision itself addresses that point. The inspector recognised that the scale of development reduced the relevance of one limb of TR3, and that some car dependency is inherent in rural locations. The finding rested on the particular combination of distance, unlit roads without footways and an unevidenced bus service. On different facts, for example with a continuous footway or a demonstrably useful bus service, the outcome could differ.

Two further observations. First, the previous decision did significant work, and an appellant returning to a site after a dismissal on location needs to show what has changed. Second, the decision deferred objectors' concerns about visibility splays to the technical details stage, finding no substantive evidence that they could not be achieved (paragraph 41). Access design was not the issue; location was.

Practical points

• Treat criterion iii as a transport question. For grey belt proposals, the sustainable location test needs the same kind of evidence as any accessibility assessment, even for small schemes.
• Evidence the bus service. Frequency, hours, destinations and reliability. A reference to a hail-and-ride service without that detail carried little weight.
• Describe the routes as they are. Footways, lighting, speed limits and the distance to services, not just the distance to a settlement boundary.
• Address TR3 as a whole. Small scale may reduce the relevance of some parts of the policy, but not of the policy overall.
• Deal with earlier decisions directly. Where a site has been found unsustainable before, identify the material change in circumstances, whether new infrastructure, services or a deliverable improvement.
• Use comparable decisions carefully. Other permissions need to be shown to be comparable, with their reasoning, to carry weight.