Weekly planning news

High Court clarifies how ‘grey belt’ land should be assessed in planning decisions

The High Court has ruled on how the government’s new “grey belt” planning policy should be interpreted, following a legal challenge over a motorway services development in Kent.

The case was brought by Wrotham Parish Council, which argued that a planning inspector had wrongly approved a large truck stop and fuel station on green belt land near Wrotham Water Farm. The local authority, Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council, had previously refused the scheme, citing harm to the green belt and surrounding landscape.

At the heart of the dispute was the meaning of “grey belt” - a planning concept introduced in late 2024. The parish council argued that land should only be classed as grey belt if it would not be strongly protected from development in general. However, the inspector - and now the High Court - took the view that the assessment should focus on the specific development being proposed, rather than hypothetical future schemes.

Mrs Justice Lieven confirmed that decision-makers should consider whether the particular project conflicts with key protective policies, not whether the land should be shielded from all possible development. She added that the purpose of grey belt policy is clearly to enable the release of some green belt land to meet development needs, and should not be interpreted too narrowly.

The court also rejected claims that the inspector had overstated the need for the fuel station element of the scheme, agreeing it was a rational part of the wider truck stop facility to avoid additional traffic movements.

Man jailed for planning breaches

A man has been jailed for repeatedly ignoring court orders to demolish unauthorised buildings in the Cheshire countryside, following a long-running planning enforcement case.      

Cheshire East Council said the man built two residential dwellings and several other structures on land known as Six Acres, on Wirswall Road near Whitchurch - all without planning permission and in open countryside.

The council first issued an enforcement notice in 2014, but Merrill continued developing the land, claiming he had the right to “live on the land” and that planning laws did not apply to him - an argument rejected by the courts.

In October 2022, the High Court granted an injunction ordering all residential use to stop and the buildings to be demolished. Merrill failed to comply.

He was initially given a suspended 12-month sentence in January 2024 for contempt of court and further time to remove the developments. When he again ignored the order, the case returned to court.

In May 2025, Merrill was sentenced in his absence to 12 months in prison, with a warrant issued for his arrest. He was also ordered to pay nearly £17,000 in council costs.

Council leaders said prison was a last resort but necessary due to the “flagrant breach of planning control.”

They added that even after serving his sentence, Merrill is still legally required to demolish the unauthorised buildings.