DevAssist: Hemel Hempstead “Grey Belt” Planning Appeal

Hemel Hempstead “Grey Belt” Planning Appeal: Inspector Approves 390 Homes and Orders Councils to Pay Costs

A major housing scheme in Hemel Hempstead has been approved on appeal after a planning inspector found the site met the national definition of “grey belt” land. The ruling paves the way for 390 homes and a 70-bed care home, and also requires both Dacorum Borough Council and Hertfordshire County Council to make partial cost payments to the developer, Fairfax Strategic Land.

Background to the Appeal

The application concerned land to the west of Leighton Buzzard Road, currently made up of grassland and small woodland blocks on the edge of Hemel Hempstead and the historic village of Piccotts End. Dacorum Borough Council refused permission, citing nine reasons, including green belt harm, landscape impact, and flood risk. Fairfax Strategic Land appealed, arguing that the site’s contribution to the green belt was limited and that it met pressing housing needs in the area.

Defining “Grey Belt” Land

Inspector C. Dillon considered how the land related to the green belt purposes set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). While the site sits wholly within the Metropolitan Green Belt, Dillon found it did not strongly contribute to preventing urban sprawl, maintaining gaps between towns, or protecting historic settings. This meant the land fell into the category of “grey belt” – areas technically within the green belt but with weaker justification for ongoing protection.

Reasons for Approval

The inspector acknowledged some harm from encroachment into the countryside, but concluded that development would not fundamentally undermine the integrity of the wider green belt. Importantly, the borough has only 1.03 years of housing land supply against a requirement for five, demonstrating what Dillon described as a “chronic” shortage.

The scheme’s commitment to provide 50 per cent affordable housing was also decisive. Alongside new publicly accessible green spaces, improved pedestrian and cycle routes, and infrastructure contributions secured through a section 106 agreement, the proposals were judged to meet the NPPF’s requirements for releasing green belt land. Because of this, the development was not considered “inappropriate” and did not need to demonstrate the usual “very special circumstances” normally required for green belt approvals.

Other Issues Considered

On landscape, Dillon recognised that the development would change the site’s character, but noted that views would generally be limited to partial glimpses rather than wide-open exposure. In relation to flood risk, only a small part of the site lies within a higher-risk zone, and mitigation measures were considered capable of reducing this to an acceptable level. The inspector also referenced a Court of Appeal ruling stressing that councils must apply the sequential test with “realism and flexibility”, particularly in areas with significant unmet housing need.

Costs Awarded Against Councils

In separate decisions, Dillon ordered both local authorities to pay partial costs. Hertfordshire County Council was found to have acted unreasonably by refusing to release individual liability in the section 106 agreement, creating unnecessary work and expense for the appellant. Dacorum Borough Council was criticised for adding an extra refusal reason late in the process, which forced Fairfax’s team to expand its evidence and led to two additional days of inquiry time.

The county council’s own attempt to claim costs from the appellant was dismissed, with Dillon instead noting a lack of constructive engagement on its part.

Local Responses

Fairfax Strategic Land welcomed the outcome, highlighting the delivery of market and affordable housing, opportunities for self-build, a care facility, and extensive green infrastructure. Dacorum’s Liberal Democrat councillor Sally Symington described the decision as “very disappointing” but not unexpected given national housing policy and government pressure to release land. Hertfordshire County Council confirmed it was reviewing the costs ruling but reassured residents that financial contributions and planning obligations had nonetheless been secured.

Significance of the Decision

This case illustrates how inspectors are applying the concept of “grey belt” land under the NPPF. Where a site makes only a weak contribution to green belt purposes and there is an acute housing shortage, national policy is increasingly likely to support development. For local authorities, the ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of constructive engagement and the risks of incurring costs where refusal reasons are not robustly justified.

Kindly shared by DevAssist