Recent Case on Caravan Development in the Grey Belt

The High Court clarified in the recent case of Mole Valley DC v SSHCLG [2025] EWHC 2127 (Admin), that not inappropriate (or “appropriate”) development does not harm the green belt, and the Court of Appeal decision in Lee Valley Regional Park Authority v Epping Forest District Council & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 404 is still good law.

In Mole Valley, the local planning authority challenged an inspector’s decision to grant planning permission for gypsy and traveller pitches on 3 grounds: (1) “appropriate” development in the green belt can still give rise to harm to the green belt and the decision in Lee Valley, which was decided under the NPPF 2012 did not apply to the NPPF 2024 and/or was wrongly decided; (2) misinterpretation of national policy for traveller sites; and (3) inadequate reasoning around the need for new traveller pitches.

The Court held all three grounds of challenge were unarguable. This article focuses on ground (1).

Facts of the case

Retrospective permission was refused, and Mole Valley District Council issued an enforcement notice against Mrs Meloney in June 2024 for the change of use of a green belt site from agricultural use to the stationing of residential caravans and touring caravans for residential purposes. The Council was concerned about the impact of the development on the “visual and spatial impact to the openness of the green belt.” Mrs Meloney appealed, and a planning inspector granted planning permission for the pitches.

Council’s grounds of challenge

The Council’s argument in respect of the first ground was that the reliance of the Court of Appeal decision in Lee Valley, which was decided under the NPPF 2012, was misplaced because the decision was wrongly decided and/or didn’t apply to the NPPF 2024.

The inspector, in applying NPPF 2024, had concluded that the site was “grey belt” land, a concept introduced by the revised NPPF, for green belt land that does not “strongly contribute” to the core green belt purposes of:

i.    preventing urban sprawl

ii.    the merging of towns

iii.    the preservation of the setting of historic towns

The inspector held:

·   “…the aim of preserving the openness of the green belt cannot be compromised by development that is ‘not inappropriate’”.

·   “Viewed as a whole, the adverse impacts of the development” did not “significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits”.

In Lee Valley “openness” was defined as follows:

·   The concept of openness means the state of being free from built development, the absence of buildings, as distinct from the absence of visual impact.

·   The “essential and enduring function of government policy” is to “keep green belt land free from development”.

NPPF 2024 provides:

Paragraph 153:

·   When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure

that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its

openness (Footnote 55) […]

Footnote 55:

·   55 Other than in the case of development on previously developed land or grey belt land, where development is not inappropriate.

The Council argued that the paragraph 153 requirement to attach substantial weight to harm to the Green Belt in connection with “any planning application” gave the decision-maker the discretion to attach at least some weight to such harm, and the function of Paragraph 55 was simply to moderate the weight to such given to not inappropriate development on previously developed land or the grey belt.

The High Court decision

The Court considered this misconceived:

-    “…as it failed to take account of the fact that in policy terms substantial weight is to be afforded to any harm to the Green Belt…once the threshold of requirement of 'any' harm is met, the weight to be attached is predetermined; there is no scope…to attach anything less than substantial weight to such harm.”

-    The approach runs contrary to the established policy position (as explained in Lee Valley) that not inappropriate development is to be treated as not giving rise to any harm.

-    The Council’s interpretation of the policy would undermine the purpose of the new exception for grey belt development [155 of NPPF 2024].

The Court held:

·   Lee Valley was not wrongly decided.

·   The distinction between inappropriate and non-inappropriate development in assessing the effect of openness is one of general application that was properly taken into account in the present case.

·   The inspector’s statement that “the aim of preserving the openness of the green belt cannot be compromised by development that is ‘not inappropriate’” was “consistent with the interpretation of the NPPF” as set out in Lee Valley and was not incorrect.

Key take-aways

•   The policy position in Lee Valley is correct and remains good law under the 2024 NPPF.

•   Caravan sites may be “not inappropriate” development in the green belt.

•   Once a development is found to be in principle “not inappropriate”, the question of the impact of that development on openness is no longer an issue.

•   Greater development opportunities arise in the grey belt where there isn’t, in any event, the requirement to give substantial weight to harm to the green belt, including openness.

How Tozers can help

Our team of experienced professionals understands the nuances of planning law and can provide tailored advice to ensure compliance with the latest regulations.

Contact our legal experts