The Planning Inspectorate has allowed Richborough Commercial's appeal for up to 65,032 sq m of B2/B8 employment development, with ancillary E(g) uses, at Junction 9 of the M42 in North Warwickshire.

Although the site is within the Green Belt, the Inspector concluded that it comprises Grey Belt and that the proposal is therefore not inappropriate development.

LSH acted as employment expert for Richborough Commercial, with Alex Roberts presenting evidence at the public inquiry. Gareth Denning and Aled Barcroft, contributed to the initial planning application report and supported the preparation of the proof of evidence.

The decision brings together grey belt policy, employment land need and the real-world locational requirements of logistics. It also offers useful insights for other employment sites across the West Midlands and further afield.
The employment case

• The employment evidence addressed several key considerations:
• The datedness of North Warwickshire's existing Local Plan.
• Changes in government policy and the increased importance placed on logistics.
• The scale and urgency of local and strategic employment land need.
• The shortage of land capable of accommodating strategic B8 and Big Box logistics.
• The importance of Junction 9 and the Golden Triangle to the logistics market.
• The specific locational and operational requirements of strategic logistics development.
• The employment, skills and wider economic benefits of the scheme.

The Inspector accepted that there was an evidenced unmet need for both local and strategic employment land. This included a 42-hectare local employment land shortfall to 2045 and a 50–100-hectare strategic B8 shortfall across the relevant market area, including an immediate need for Big Box logistics.

The Inspector also recognised the commercial realities of the sector. Junction 9 offers access to the M42 and M6 Toll within the Golden Triangle, while the Council accepted that B8 logistics development is characteristic of motorway junctions. Strategic units cannot simply be accommodated within existing settlements because of their scale and operational requirements.

The scheme was forecast to create 845 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs based on B8 use, potentially increasing if B2 uses come forward. The Inspector concluded that employment need, alongside the economic and social benefits, should receive the "highest level of weight" in favour of the proposal.

Why the decision matters for Green Belt employment sites

1. Green Belt does not automatically rule out commercial development

The Inspector confirmed that Grey Belt land does not have to be previously developed. In this case, an undeveloped agricultural site was found to qualify as Grey Belt, based on its contribution to Green Belt purposes and its wider context.

2. Infrastructure and commercial geography matter

The site's relationship with the M42, M6 Toll, A446, nearby employment development, HS2 and other infrastructure influenced the Inspector's assessment of its contribution to Green Belt purposes. This highlights the importance of location and surrounding infrastructure when considering employment opportunities around motorway junctions and established transport corridors.

3. Employment need is integral to the Green Belt case

Evidence of unmet local and strategic employment need was central to the case for development. It was not simply an additional benefit in the planning balance, but an important part of demonstrating that the proposal met the relevant national Green Belt policy requirements.

4. Logistics development has specific locational requirements

The decision recognises that strategic logistics occupiers have particular requirements around accessibility, scale and operations. Evidence of market demand, unit sizes, take-up, available supply and motorway access can therefore be directly relevant to planning decisions. This is an important consideration reflected in the NPPF 2026.

5. Harm does not have to be eliminated

The Inspector acknowledged the landscape and visual harm, loss of agricultural land and conflict with the development plan. However, these adverse effects did not substantially outweigh the employment, economic and social benefits of the scheme, and the appeal was allowed.

The Junction 9 decision provides a valuable example of how employment land need, the requirements of the logistics sector and grey belt policy can come together in support of a major employment development. It also highlights the importance of robust evidence in demonstrating why a particular site is suitable for the development proposed.

Are you a landowner, developer or promoter considering an employment or logistics scheme in the Green Belt? Contact Alex Roberts in our Economics & Planning Policy Team to discuss your site's employment land evidence, market context and locational requirements, and how these can inform a robust planning case at application or appeal.