Appeal 6001120

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs has been made by the Council against [name], the appellants. This is subject to a separate decision.

The application was submitted in outline with all matters reserved. I have treated all plans as illustrative.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any development plan policies, including any relevant effects on the openness of the Green Belt; • if inappropriate, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal; • the effect of the development upon protected and priority species; and, • the effect of the development upon trees and hedgerows.

The appeal site is within the Green Belt. The Framework sets out at Paragraph 154 that the provision of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate other than for certain exceptions. The appellant suggests that the appeal proposal would represent a logical, sustainable infill or rounding off of the settlement. Paragraph 154 (e) of the Framework is concerned with limited infilling in villages, which is an exception to development within the Green Belt.

Saved Policy EV1 of the Ashfield Local Plan Review 2002 (LPR) states that planning permission will not be granted for inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Although the policy identifies certain forms of ‘appropriate development’, including ‘limited infilling’, this is restricted to four specifically named villages. It does not reflect the broader concept of limited infilling in villages as set out in the Framework. As a result, the policy is out of step with the Framework. I have therefore given substantial weight to the Framework in assessing this main issue.

In consideration of whether the site is within a village, the Framework does not provide a definition of the term ‘village’ and therefore, one must utilise their own planning judgement on this matter. Selston comprises two distinct components. The first is its main centre, which contains a range of services and facilities and is characterised by a relatively compact and cohesive built form. The second component is more dispersed in nature, with areas of Green Belt land separating it from the main centre. The appeal site is situated within this more dispersed part of Selston, and lies within land designated as Green Belt.

However, [address] is characterised by several residential properties located opposite and adjacent to the appeal site. These dwellings maintain a close and functional relationship with the main centre of Selston due to their convenient accessibility. Having regard to the established settlement pattern and the physical circumstances on the ground, I consider the appeal site to fall ‘within a village’ for the purposes of this appeal and in the context of the Framework.

The appeal site is positioned between the grounds of the properties known as ‘[address]’ on one side and ‘Dunroamin’ and ‘[address]’ on the other. Opposite the site, several dwellings are arranged in a linear ribbon pattern along [address]. Taken together, the site is enclosed on two sides by residential development and is directly faced by further housing across [address]. In this context, the proposal would amount to infilling.

I now turn to the question of whether the proposal would be ‘limited’. The appeal site comprises a wide and visually prominent frontage. Although there are existing dwellings along [address], the spacing between properties in this location is notably more generous than the tighter, more compact pattern of development found within the core of Selston. Here, the open backdrop of fields forms an important component of the area’s character, reinforcing the separation between the two distinct parts of Selston and allowing the Green Belt to be readily perceived. The proposal would introduce 16 dwellings, which represents a substantial amount of development. Taken together, these factors lead me to conclude that the scheme would not amount to ‘limited infilling’. Paragraph 155 of the Framework and the ‘[name]

Paragraph 155 also notes that the development of homes in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where the development meets all of the criteria set out under four bullet points.

I shall firstly turn to whether the appeal site is Grey Belt land. Paragraph 143 of the Framework identifies the five purposes of the Green Belt. Purpose (a) seeks to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built‐up areas; purpose (b) aims to prevent neighbouring towns from merging; and purpose (d) seeks to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. None of these purposes are engaged in relation to the appeal site. Accordingly, for the purposes of assessment under the Framework, the site is regarded as Grey Belt land, and criterion (a) of Paragraph 155 is satisfied.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five‐year supply of deliverable housing land, and criterion (b) of Paragraph 155 of the Framework is therefore satisfied. As previously outlined, the appeal site is positioned between existing residential development to the front and on both sides. These properties form part of the settlement of Selston and maintain a clear functional relationship with the wider settlement. On this basis, I consider the proposed development would be located in a sustainable location, and criterion (c) of Paragraph 155 of the Framework is met.

Criterion (d) of Paragraph 155 of the Framework requires compliance with a series of ‘[name], where these are engaged. These rules apply to major development involving the provision of housing on Green Belt land that is the subject of a planning application. For housing proposals, the Framework defines major development as schemes comprising 10 or more dwellings, or those situated on a site of 0.5 hectares or more.

At this point in my assessment of the appeal before me, my attention is drawn by the appellant to a previous appeal decision1 on this very exact site. It is asserted that the Inspector in that case indicated that the site could potentially comply with the ‘[name]. This is not an accurate reflection of that decision. The Inspector expressly found that the proposal before them did not meet the ‘[name], and nothing within that decision suggests that compliance might be achievable. Moreover, the earlier proposal involved 8 dwellings, whereas the current appeal concerns 16 dwellings. The two schemes are therefore materially different. I have accordingly considered the present appeal on its own merits and reached my own conclusions.

Paragraph 156 of the Framework sets out the ‘[name]. When initially assessed, the proposed development seeks to provide several contributions towards affordable housing, public open space, a community transport scheme, bus stop infrastructure, secondary education and access to green space in order to meet these rules.

However, the Council draws attention to its assessment of the submitted [name] (UU). In its evidence, the Council identifies several flaws within the document, including an error at paragraph 4 of the introduction, which incorrectly states that the applicants have lodged an appeal against non‐determination. In actual fact, the appeal was submitted following the Council’s determination of the application. The Council also highlight several other minor amendments required to ensure consistency and to correct drafting inaccuracies. In my assessment of the submitted UU, I also have concerns regarding its completeness and, consequently, its ability to be executed. In addition to the issues already identified, the document is neither signed nor dated, and it lacks an accompanying plan. As submitted, it is incomplete. It is the responsibility of the parties to ensure that any planning obligation is both provided and complete. 1 Appeal Reference: APP/W3005/W/24/3347049

At this stage, it is relevant to note that the appellant has provided a photograph of what appears to be a signed page from a deed. While the page is signed, it is undated and, more importantly, it does not form part of the main UU before me, which is the document required to secure the contributions referred to above. It is merely a single, standalone page and does not constitute a complete legal agreement. This procedural defect raises a clear concern as to whether the UU can be relied upon to secure the contributions the appellant indicates would be provided.

The Planning Inspectorate Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England (updated 30 June 2025) is clear on this matter in chapter 18. It states that if an appeal is following the written representations procedure, the appellant must ensure that an executed and certified copy of this obligation is provided at the time of making their appeal. Furthermore, the procedural guide also makes it clear that a decision should not be delayed to await a revised obligation unless very exceptional circumstances exist. No such circumstances have been demonstrated in this case.

Therefore, although the intention to provide the necessary contributions to meet the ‘[name] is clearly apparent, the deficiencies within the UU lead me to conclude that these obligations and contributions would not, in practice, be secured. While criteria (a), (b) and (c) of the ‘[name] in Paragraph 156 of the Framework may appear to be satisfied on the basis of the contributions referenced in the application material, I am not persuaded that the submitted UU can be reasonably relied upon as a legally sound or competent document.

Consequently, the ‘[name] would not be complied with. It also does not alter the fundamental principle that this form of development within the Green Belt would be inappropriate. I therefore conclude that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt when assessed against the Framework. Such development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and must be afforded substantial weight.

I shall now turn to the effect of the development upon the openness of the Green Belt. Paragraph 153 of the Framework notes that when considering any planning application, it should be ensured that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness.

During my site visit, I observed that the appeal site contained several small caravans, assorted waste materials, and a small wooden structure resembling a stable or shelter. The site forms part of a wider expanse of open fields that separate the core of Selston from the properties situated along the village’s periphery. When viewed from [address] or from the public footpath running along the site’s boundary, the openness of the Green Belt is readily appreciable.

The proposed development of 16 units, by virtue of its scale and appearance, would introduce a substantial amount of built form, together with its associated domestic curtilages and paraphernalia, would result in a significant reduction in the openness of the Green Belt.

Overall, for the purposes of Paragraph 154(e) of the Framework, I conclude that the proposed development would be situated within the village of Selston and would constitute infilling. However, owing to the scale of the development proposed, it cannot be regarded as limited. As such, it does not fall within the exception to inappropriate development in the Green Belt set out in Paragraph 154(e) of the Framework.

The proposal was therefore assessed against the four criteria in Paragraph 155 of the Framework. It was demonstrated that the development would satisfy criteria (a), (b), and (c). However, criterion (d) requires such developments to comply with the ‘[name] set out in Paragraphs 156 and 157 of the Framework. Although the submitted material indicates an intention to provide the necessary contributions, the UU contains errors of sufficient significance to cast doubt on whether these provisions would, in practice, be secured. Consequently, the significant weight that should be afforded to a proposal which demonstrably complies with the ‘[name], as referenced in Paragraph 158 of the Framework, is not engaged. The development therefore cannot benefit from the additional exception to inappropriate development identified in Paragraph 155 of the Framework.

In assessing the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt, I conclude that the introduction of 16 dwellings would result in a significant adverse impact on its openness.

To conclude, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt.

The appellant submits that, in the previous appeal relating to this site, the Inspector found no demonstrable evidence to suggest that the proposed development would be likely to have an adverse effect on protected or priority species.

The application was accompanied by a [name] prepared by [name], dated 22 September 2023. However, the Council has identified that the information within this report is now out of date. I note in particular the survey dates of 21 November 2022 and 7 June 2023, as well as the report’s publication date. More significantly, the appraisal refers to an earlier scheme for 8 dwellings, as considered in the previous appeal on this site, rather than the 16‐dwelling proposal currently before me. I therefore concur with the Council that the submitted appraisal is out of date.

It is essential to understand the presence of protected species on the site and to assess the impact of the development actually proposed. In this case, the proposal is not adequately informed by up‐to‐date evidence regarding protected species within the appeal site and, as a result, does not demonstrate that appropriate mitigation or compensation would be secured. While it has been suggested that a planning condition could be used to ensure adequate safeguarding, the use of conditions to require further ecological surveys should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that such exceptional circumstances exist.

To conclude, the development would therefore be contrary to the Framework on this matter at Paragraphs 187 and 193, which seek to enhance the natural and local environment and sets out the principles for determining planning applications where such matters are applicable.

The appeal site is bordered by several trees and hedgerows across three of its boundaries in particular. The application was supported by the submission of a Tree Survey Report (prepared by [name], dated 14/10/2023). The Council contend that there are several flaws with the survey submitted.

However, I am mindful that the application is submitted in outline with all matters reserved. The plans before me are an indicative layout of a possible scheme. I am therefore of the view that the effect of the development upon trees could be conditioned to be determined at the reserved matters stage, where a more concrete proposal would be forthcoming.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would be in general accordance with Policies ST1 and EV8 of the LPR. These policies note that development which adversely affects trees will not be permitted, and where they are lost, replacement or mitigating planting will be required.

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Substantial weight should be given to the harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations as set out at Paragraph 153 of the Framework.

The Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. The scheme would provide 16 dwellings to the supply of housing. Economic benefits would also be experienced through the construction of the scheme, such as through the procurement of materials. It would also provide a source of employment during the construction phase. Furthermore, once completed, the future occupants of these dwellings would utilise local shops, services and contribute towards Council tax receipts. These are positive benefits which attract moderate weight.

Other supposed benefits and considerations are identified by the appellant. However, the realisation of these benefits is critically dependent on a legally sound or competent UU being included within the evidence before me. As such, these matters carry extremely limited weight.

These other considerations attract moderate weight, but they would not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan. Material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.