How Developers Won their Appeal for Housing on "The Batch" in Hanham: What the Inspector’s Decision Means for Us
- Hanham Green Belt
- Sep 20
- 3 min read
On 4 July 2025, the Planning Inspectorate delivered a serious setback to those of us working to protect Hanham’s countryside. Planning Inspector Matthew Nunn allowed an appeal by developers Ashfield Land Ltd and Redrow Homes Ltd against South Gloucestershire Council’s refusal of outline permission for up to 140 houses on land south of Hencliffe Way and west of Castle Farm Road.
The site – farmland bordered by ancient woodland – had been refused permission in August 2024 because of its Green Belt status and the harm that inappropriate development would cause. But the developers succeeded on appeal, thanks to shifting national planning policy and new rules which downgraded the land’s protection.
This article sets out why the Inspector reached his decision, and what lessons we as a community must draw from it.
Background: The Application and Appeal
The outline planning application (Ref: P23/01330/O) was lodged in April 2023. It sought permission to demolish one home and build up to 140 new dwellings, along with open space, landscaping, drainage and access works.
South Gloucestershire Council refused it on five counts, citing Green Belt harm, damage to local landscape character, impacts on neighbours, and inadequate infrastructure. The developers appealed under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
At the inquiry in May 2025, many of these concerns were revisited. A legal agreement under Section 106 had already tied the developers to certain infrastructure contributions, so the Inspector’s focus narrowed to four main issues: Green Belt harm, landscape impacts, living conditions for nearby residents, and heritage.
The National Policy Shift
Between the Council’s refusal and the appeal, the Government revised the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in December 2024. These changes, intended to speed up housing delivery, significantly altered the rules:
Mandatory housing targets were reinstated, binding councils to centrally calculated figures.
Five-year housing land supply requirements were restored, with South Gloucestershire shown to be short of provision. This triggered the “tilted balance” rule (NPPF Paragraph 11), meaning permission should be granted unless harms clearly outweighed benefits.
A new category – the so-called “Grey Belt” – was introduced. This covers Green Belt land that makes only a weak contribution to national Green Belt purposes, or that has already been degraded.
These reforms were decisive. The Inspector applied them, even though they came after the Council’s refusal.
Why the Site Was Classed as “Grey Belt”
Traditionally, development in the Green Belt could only proceed if “very special circumstances” were proven. But the Grey Belt definition lowered the bar.
The Inspector judged the Hanham site’s contribution to Green Belt purposes as follows:
Checking urban sprawl (purpose a): only “moderate” contribution, given existing physical boundaries such as ancient woodland and Castle Farm Road.
Preventing towns from merging (purpose b): “limited” contribution.
Preserving historic settings (purpose d): no contribution.
Because it did not strongly serve these purposes, the land was treated as Grey Belt, and development was considered “not inappropriate.” The Inspector gave weight to the developers’ promises of affordable housing (50%), open space (45% of the site), and biodiversity gains.
Other Issues Considered
Landscape and character: The Inspector accepted there would be harm to views and local character, especially from nearby public footpaths, but judged this could be softened over time with landscaping.
Living conditions: Some disturbance was acknowledged for residents near the new access, but mitigation measures were deemed sufficient.
Heritage: The effect on listed and locally listed buildings was categorised as “less than substantial harm,” and outweighed by public benefits.
Infrastructure: Highways, ecology, flooding and local services were addressed via conditions and legal obligations.
The Planning Balance
Ultimately, the “tilted balance” worked against the community. The Inspector weighed the following:
Harms: loss of countryside character (given substantial weight), neighbour impacts and heritage concerns (limited weight).
Benefits: delivery of 140 homes, including 70 affordable units (substantial weight), economic activity from construction (significant weight), environmental enhancements (moderate weight).
The benefits were judged to outweigh the harms.
What This Means for Hanham
This appeal shows how national policy changes are weakening the protections we rely on. By reclassifying land as Grey Belt, the Government has created a loophole that developers can exploit, particularly in areas like ours where housing land supply falls short.
It also demonstrates how quickly planning decisions can shift once central housing targets and land supply calculations come into play. South Gloucestershire’s outdated Core Strategy was a major weakness in this case.
For our Society, the lesson is clear: we must stay alert, keep engaging with the emerging Local Plan, and push for stronger protections for Hanham’s remaining Green Belt.
If you would like to get involved in our ongoing campaigns, please contact us using the form on our website www.hanhamgreenbelt.com. Together, we can make sure our community’s voice is heard.
Comments