Royal borough to challenge decision by planning inspector that metropolitan open land can be ‘grey belt’

Inspector Alison Fish said the proposal to replace a former tennis court and disused land with four new build four-bedroom houses should be allowed on appeal.

Greenwich had rejected this as inappropriate development on metropolitan open land, a designation use only in Greater London for sites that hold the same status as green belt.

Ms Fish said in her decision letter the appeal site was of limited size, and constrained by recreation land, a river and housing.

“This means that the appeal site makes a useful but not strong contribution to checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas as set out in…the Framework,” Ms Fish said.

There was no substantive evidence before her that the site would strongly contribute to preventing neighbouring towns merging or preserve the setting and special character of historic towns, and nor had she been referred to policies that would provide a strong reason to refuse permission.

That meant the site constituted grey belt land and if developed there would be no conflict with policies that sought to protect metropolitan open land, she concluded.

A Greenwich spokesperson said: “The Royal Borough of Greenwich has challenged the decision made by the Planning Inspectorate.

“The matter is due to be considered by the court to determine whether a full hearing should be granted.”

Commenting on the case, Paul Addison of the DevAssist consultancy, said: “The decision is significant because the inspector treated national green belt policy as applicable to metropolitan open land.”

Mr Addison said the decision showed that land may carry a protected designation, but still be deemed suitable for development, in this case because of its small size and lack of contribution to preventing urban sprawl.

He said: “A piece of land may look underused, protected or unlikely to change. It may sit within a designation that most people assume gives strong protection.

“But when national policy, local policy, housing need and site-specific factors are considered together, the answer can become much less straightforward.”

Mark Smulian