The High Court clarified in the recent case of Mole Valley DC v SSHCLG [2025] EWHC 2127 (Admin), relating to a caravan site in the Mole Valley, that not inappropriate (or “appropriate”) development does not harm the green belt.
High Court grounds of challenge
In Mole Valley, the local planning authority challenged an inspector’s decision to grant planning permission for gypsy and traveller pitches on various grounds, including that “appropriate” development in the green belt can still give rise to harm to the green belt.
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 on the openness of the green belt.” Mrs Meloney appealed, and a planning inspector granted planning permission for the pitches.
The inspector had concluded that the site was “grey belt” land, a concept introduced by the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2024), for green belt land that does not “strongly contribute” to the core green belt purposes of:
- preventing urban sprawl
- the merging of towns
- 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”
What is meant by ‘openness’?
In high-level summary, this means the state of being free from built development, the absence of buildings, as distinct from the absence of visual impact. It links to the essential function of government policy to keep the green belt free from development.
What the NPPF 2024 says
‘not inappropriate’
Paragraph 155 of the NPPF 2024 provides that development in green belt is “not inappropriate” if the requirements of paragraphs a) to d) are satisfied.
“155. The development of homes, commercial and other developments in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where all the following apply:
- The development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan;
- There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed [F/N 56];
- The development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework; and
- Where applicable, the development proposed meets the ‘Golden Rules’ requirements set out in paragraphs 156-157 below.”
‘not substantial weight’
Paragraph 153 of the NPPF 2024 provides:
“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 provides:
“55. Other than in the case of development on previously developed land or grey belt land, where development is not inappropriate.”
Why does this matter?
- If development is inappropriate in the green belt, it can only be justified by “very special circumstances”
- This is a stringent policy test
- Harm to the green belt needs to be “clearly outweighed by other considerations”
The High Court decision
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 Court considered this misconceived, for the following reasons:
- The approach runs contrary to the established policy position 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
The Court held:
- 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” and was not incorrect
Key takeaways
- 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
Find out more
If you would like any help or advice, please contact our specialist solicitors today.