Doncaster Council has withdrawn its green belt objection to a proposed solar farm near the village of Marr, following a High Court judgment that clarified how the government’s new ‘grey belt’ planning rules should be interpreted.
In December 2025, the council’s planning committee refused permission for a 77-acre solar farm on land south of Barnsley Road, citing three main grounds: harm to the green belt, unacceptable landscape and visual impacts, and the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land. The developer, Enviromena, immediately confirmed it would appeal .
But a High Court ruling has now overturned the legal basis for the council’s green belt objection . The judgment clarified how the ‘grey belt’ definition in the National Planning Policy Framework should be applied – a term introduced by the government to identify less valuable parts of the green belt where development may be acceptable.
At the time of the December committee meeting, planning officers had advised members that different interpretations of the grey belt rules were circulating, with conflicting appeal decisions creating uncertainty. The Wrotham judgment has now resolved that ambiguity.
Applying the clarified legal test, officers concluded the Marr site must now be considered ‘grey belt’ land, meaning the proposed solar farm cannot be regarded as inappropriate development in the green belt. Crucially, this removes the requirement for the developer to demonstrate ‘very special circumstances’ to justify the scheme .
Council officers warned that persisting with the green belt objection at any future appeal would be ‘highly unlikely to be successful’ and could be considered unreasonable behaviour, risking a costs award against the authority of between £100,000 and £500,000.
At a meeting on 10 March, planning committee members reluctantly agreed to withdraw the green belt ground of refusal, while expressing deep frustration. Councillor Steve Cox told officers: ‘It feels like it is being taken out of local authority hands. We made a decision and now we’re being told it’s not green belt anymore.’
Councillor Rob Dennis added: ‘I think we’re all disappointed,’ but acknowledged the committee was not expert in planning law and should ‘accept the case law that has been passed down.’
The council will now proceed with defending the appeal on the remaining two grounds – landscape and visual impact, and loss of agricultural land – albeit with references to green belt impacts removed from those objections. However, officers conceded that losing the green belt argument, which carries significant weight, weakens the council’s overall case.
The Wrotham judgment, which concerned a proposed lorry stop in Kent, established that when applying the grey belt definition, decision-makers must consider whether footnote 7 policies – protecting assets such as conservation areas and listed buildings – provide a strong reason for refusing the specific development proposed, rather than development in general . The site’s proximity to a conservation area and listed buildings was deemed insufficient to justify refusal.
Photo: Red Zeppelin
Leave a Reply