Greystoke v South Oxfordshire District Council: The Waterstock Green Belt is ‘Green’ not ‘Grey’ – Appeal dismissed
Planning and Environment, Local Government
Waterstock is a tiny village on the edge of the River Thame and located just the other side of a golf course from jn8a of the A40. It is an historic place, remarkably unchanged from its medieval origins. The river and its immediate environs are a rich haven for wildlife.
Greystoke’s proposals were for 120,000 m2 of advanced manufacturing floorspace on part of the golf course, adjacent both to the river and the village edge, in the heart of the Oxford Green Belt. Their application had been refused for 17 reasons by South Oxfordshire District Council, distilled into nine main issues for consideration at inquiry over four weeks ending in January 2025. The Parish Meeting was a rule 6 party in the appeal and called evidence on all issues.
We believe it’s a decision letter worthy of attention, particularly for the way the Inspector dealt with the question of grey belt and heritage impact. It is a balanced decision letter, albeit the outcome was decisive against the appeal proposals. The headline point is that the heritage impact of the proposals represented ‘a strong reason for refusal’ within footnote 7 of the NPPF: for that reason the site was not Grey.
While the parties agreed the conservation area would be harmed by the proposed development in its setting, there were in addition four listed buildings on which the Inspector concluded – contrary to the appellant’s evidence – the appeal proposals would have a harmful effect via changes to their setting. As he found at §43:-
In each case, bearing in mind that these heritage assets would not be directly physically affected by the development, the harm would be less than substantial in the terms of the Framework. For the reasons outlined above, including intervisibility, the effect on the significance of Waterstock House and Bow Bridge would be considerable, to the middle of the less than substantial range. Although they are more visually contained, given their group value with Bow Bridge the effect on Waterstock Mill and Waterstock Mill Bridge would also be to the middle of the less than substantial range. Due in part to proximity and intervisibility, combined with the identified harm to the four listed buildings, the effect on the significance of the Conservation Area would also be considerable, to the middle of the less than substantial range.
It was, ultimately, this finding that caused him at §118-128 to find that the combined harm to the heritage assets identified would firmly outweigh the totality of the public benefits of the appeal proposals, despite the fact they were “very weighty.” [§128] The policy consequence of this finding is then set out at §130: the appeal site is not Grey Belt.
Another issue of particular interest is the treatment given to the prospect of losing the golf course, a highly valued local sports facility. The Inspector found that “Waterstock Golf Course performs an important role for a number of reasons” [§73] and “the likely effect that the proposed development would have … would be likely to be significantly harmful, including in respect to health, well-being and recreation.” [§80].
Emmaline Lambert acted for South Oxfordshire District Council; Harriet Townsend KC acted for the Waterstock Parish Meeting. Ian Ponter and John Hunter acted for the Appellant, Greystoke.
