DEVASSIST: Minister intervenes in refused green belt scheme following local plan direction

Planning minister Matthew Pennycook has stepped in to call in a 256-home development on green belt land, just days after the scheme was refused by the local planning authority – despite the same site being earmarked for allocation in its emerging local plan.

The application, submitted by Burlington Developments, relates to land east of Oxhey Lane in Carpenders Park and includes proposals for 256 homes, housing with care and a children’s home. Three Rivers District Council’s planning committee voted to refuse the scheme on 19 March, going against officer recommendations.

This decision came only one day after the minister issued a formal direction requiring the council to include the site within its Regulation 19 local plan, using powers under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Following the refusal, the developer urged the minister to intervene. In correspondence, Burlington Property Group managing director Nathan Stevenson highlighted what he described as a wider trend of decisions on green belt sites:

“The members’ decision is in direct defiance of your ministerial direction, a direct affront to your ministerial authority; it is nothing short of a declaration of war on the government’s core policy objective to increase the delivery of new homes … we invite you to consider calling in the above planning application prior to a formal decision being issued.”

In response, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has now directed that the application be referred to the Secretary of State for determination.

The call-in will focus on several key considerations, including whether the proposal aligns with national policy on housing delivery, its impact on green belt land under the NPPF, and consistency with the local development plan.

Tension between local decision-making and national policy

The case highlights an increasingly visible tension between local planning committees and central government priorities around housing delivery.

While the minister’s direction related to the emerging local plan rather than the specific application, the proximity of the two decisions raises questions about consistency in decision-making and the weight given to national policy objectives.

Council leader Stephen Giles-Medhurst OBE commented:

“The minister is directing the council’s emerging local plan, not the council’s consideration of this specific planning application. This site is not in the local plan yet.”

‘Grey belt’ interpretation at the centre of the debate

A key issue in the case is the classification of the site. Planning officers concluded that the land could be considered “grey belt”, meaning it makes only a limited contribution to core green belt purposes.

Their assessment found the site contributed only moderately to preventing urban sprawl and the merging of settlements, supported by both the applicant’s and the council’s legal advice.

The officer report stated:

“Officers consider that the site is grey belt and the proposal accords with criteria (a) – (d) of paragraph 155 of the NPPF.”

However, councillors rejected this conclusion, determining that the development would still constitute inappropriate green belt development, causing harm to openness and conflicting with green belt purposes. They also concluded that the required “very special circumstances” had not been demonstrated.

A further reason for refusal was the absence of a completed section 106 agreement to secure infrastructure contributions.

A wider signal for developers and conveyancers

This case is a clear example of how planning risk is evolving, particularly on sites involving green belt or “grey belt” classification.

Even where sites are being promoted through the local plan process and supported by officer recommendations, outcomes at the committee level can diverge significantly. The result is increased uncertainty around deliverability, timing and ultimately value.

For property professionals and buyers, it reinforces the importance of understanding not just the planning designation of land, but the real-world likelihood of development proceeding.

As the central government continues to push for increased housing supply, further interventions of this kind may become more common – particularly where local decisions are seen to conflict with national policy objectives.

Kindly shared by DevAssist