Friends of Kingstone Green BeltKingstone · Barnsley
The proposal

Bellway have announced plans to build on Kingstone’s Green Belt.

Bellway Strategic Land — part of Bellway, one of the UK's largest housebuilders — has held an agreement to buy land south of Keresforth Hill Road, Barnsley, subject to conditions, since December 2021. Bellway are not the current owner; they would buy the land from the current owner if the conditions in their agreement are met. Through the spring of 2026 their contractors undertook extensive ground investigations on the site — borehole drilling, trial pits and ground gas monitoring.

In August 2026 they went public: a published notice of their intention to submit an outline planning application, an illustrative masterplan covering both fields, a consultation leaflet through local letterboxes, and a public exhibition on 20 August. No planning application has yet been submitted — but one is now clearly coming.

The site is crossed by a well-used bridleway — a public right of way that passes the Grade II listed stable block to Keresforth Hall and draws walkers and riders from well beyond the immediate area. It connects to a wider network of paths through the historic countryside south of Barnsley.

The land in question has been designated Green Belt for many decades. Under national planning policy, most development on Green Belt is automatically classed as "inappropriate" and should be refused unless the developer can demonstrate "very special circumstances" — a deliberately high bar.

Friends of Kingstone Green Belt has been formed by local residents who intend to engage constructively and properly with the planning process when an application is submitted, and to make sure the public interest is properly represented.

Where it is

The site sits on the southern edge of Kingstone — bordered by existing housing, two schools and the fire station to the north, and open countryside and the historic Keresforth Hall estate to the south.

Aerial photograph looking across Kingstone, with the Green Belt site outlined in red. Greenacre School, the fire station, Trinity Academy St Edward's and Locke Park are labelled around it, with open countryside and large houses to the south.
Aerial view of the site · Kingstone · May 2026

What we are protecting

This is the open countryside in question. Working farmland on the southern edge of Kingstone, designated Green Belt for decades and crossed by a public bridleway. Every photograph here was taken by people who live here.

The bigger picture

A third major housing scheme. The same small corridor.

The Keresforth Hill Road site is not being proposed in isolation. Two further housing schemes are advancing on nearby land released from the Green Belt through the 2019 Local Plan — one already under construction, the other in planning. All three sites share the same road network, schools, GP surgeries and emergency service provision.

i
South of Keresforth Hill Road
Bellway Strategic Land · agreement to buy if conditions are met (December 2021) · consultation announced August 2026, application expected
Bellway’s working figure up to 180 homes · council capacity 259 · Green Belt
ii
Keresforth Road (west of M1)
Separate scheme · in determination at the council (ref. 2022/0016) · proposals revised down from 215 homes
up to 126 homes · former Green Belt
iii
Smithy Wood Gate, Gilroyd
Permission granted · under construction (ref. 2021/1642)
198 homes · former Green Belt
583
up to 583 homes proposed or possible across three sites in one corridor, all sharing the same roads, schools and services. Two schemes are already in the planning system — 324 homes between them — and the council's own evidence says the Bellway field could take a further 259. This corridor has already absorbed substantial Green Belt release through the 2019 Local Plan; the Bellway site is the one piece of remaining protected Green Belt.
Report · August–September 2026

Bellway’s consultation, and what we did

Bellway’s own consultation closed on Thursday 10 September. They have told us the project team “will continue to have regard to relevant correspondence received while the proposals are being developed”. This was the developer’s consultation, not the council’s: the formal chance to object comes when an application is submitted, and we will tell you the moment it is.
Dates worth knowing
  • Wed 7 OctoberBarnsley Council’s Cabinet is due to consider the review of the Local Plan — the document that decides which land is protected and which is released. Meetings of Cabinet are held in public.
  • Not yet knownThe planning application itself. Nothing has been submitted, and Bellway have now told us that “no fixed date has been set” and that the reference on Board 1 to an application “in the coming weeks” “should not be treated as a confirmed programme”. They have not yet decided whether it will be a full or an outline application.
  • When it landsThe formal objection period. This is the one that counts, and we will publish the reference number, the deadline and how to write an objection that carries weight.
Read the full report: the exhibition, what they told us, and what we did

Bellway’s public exhibition took place on Thursday 20 August at Shaw Lane Sports Club. It was busy. We counted 98 people through the doors across the three hours — 34, 29 and 35 in each. There was no sign-in sheet, so that count is ours rather than theirs. Thank you to everyone who came, asked questions and reported back; it made a real difference to what we now know.

Bellway Strategic Land, their planning consultants Johnson Mowat, their highways consultant and their architect were all in the room and answered questions for three hours. Their material sets out an outline planning application covering both fields, with the main vehicle access off Keresforth Hill Road, 25% affordable homes in a mix of 2–5 bedroom properties, new pedestrian and cycle connections, the public right of way kept within the layout, areas of open space, and sustainable drainage. Their boards and plans are still available on the developer’s own consultation page — we would encourage you to read them at source.

One thing worth knowing about that 25%. It is presented as a community benefit. But under the national rules the government published in August, a developer releasing Green Belt land for housing is expected to provide a higher proportion of affordable homes than on an ordinary site. For a site like this one, 25% is at or about the level the rules now require — rather than something offered over and above them.

The two things worth knowing from the night

1. Their own timetable does not agree with itself. The printed boards say an application will be submitted “in the coming weeks”. On the night, residents were told there would be another consultation event first, over the winter. Both cannot be right, and we have asked which it is.

2. Nothing is imminent on the ground. Residents were told the site would not be built on for four to five years — worth remembering whenever this scheme is described as an answer to a housing shortage now.

Commenting to Bellway was not the same as objecting to the council. That exhibition was the developer’s own consultation. Anything said there is useful, but it was not a formal objection and it does not go to Barnsley Council. The chance to object properly comes when the application is submitted and validated — and we will tell you exactly when that is, what the reference number is, and how to write an objection that gets taken seriously.

What we have done since. On 24 August we sent twenty-four written questions to Johnson Mowat on behalf of the group, and on 8 September we wrote again asking them to confirm the closing date. They replied in full on 9 September. We said at the time that we would publish what came back, including if nothing did. It is set out below, in their words. We have also met the council’s Head of Planning, on 1 September, and our Member of Parliament has replied to the group.

We are not going to pretend a consultation is a decision, and we are not going to overstate what any of this means. What we will do is ask precise questions, publish the answers, and be ready with proper evidence when the application lands.

What we asked, and what they said

Bellway’s answers to our 24 questions

On 24 August we put twenty-four written questions to Bellway’s planning consultants, and said we would publish what came back. They replied in full on 9 September. This is the substance of it, in their words. Tap a question to read their answer.

How many homes are proposed?
Up to 180. This is the first number they have given. They say the technical reports for any application are expected to assess “a development of up to 180 dwellings”, and that the earlier figures of 200 and around 225 “reflected earlier capacity work and should not be treated as the current assessment basis”. The site is about 8.1 hectares; how much of it would be built on is “not yet established”.
Where did the figures on Board 6 come from?
A Home Builders Federation calculator, “based at that time on an illustrative development of 225 dwellings”. Because the working figure is now up to 180, they say those figures “should therefore be treated as illustrative and will need to be updated”. That applies to all of them — the jobs, the education and infrastructure sums, and the tax revenue.
Is the £10,125,000 “affordable housing contribution” money instead of homes?
No. They say it is “an indicative modelled value associated with affordable housing provision. It is not a proposed cash payment in place of affordable homes on the site and should not be interpreted as an additional planning obligation.” Affordable housing would be 25% of the final number, built on the site, secured through a Section 106 agreement.
And the 782 jobs?
Not 782 permanent jobs here. They say the figure “does not represent 782 permanent jobs located on the site”, that the effects “would principally arise during the construction period”, and that the calculator “does not provide a reliable breakdown between local and non-local employment”. They cannot say how many would go to Barnsley residents.
When will an application be submitted, and in what form?
“No fixed date has been set.” The Board 1 reference to an application “in the coming weeks” “should not be treated as a confirmed programme”. Whether it is a full or an outline application “has not yet been determined”.
Is it their position that this is “grey belt”?
Yes. They state it plainly: “It is the Applicant’s position that the site meets the definition of grey belt land.” They also confirm that the assessment behind the exhibition material was “principally undertaken against the December 2024 version of the National Planning Policy Framework”, which was revised on 17 August 2026, and that having reviewed the revision their position is unchanged.
How was the exhibition publicised, and how many came?
A leaflet to about 350 properties, delivered on 10 August by a distribution company, with letters to the MP and ward councillors. They estimate about 150 people attended, “based on observations and headcounts” and “an approximate attendance figure rather than an exact count”. Our own count on the night, taken in three hourly blocks, was 98. There was no sign-in sheet, so both figures are estimates.
The two boards listed different bus services. Which is right?
Board 3. They accept the discrepancy and apologise for it: “The reference on Board 2 to services 23, 24, 24A and 34 was inconsistent with the more detailed information on Board 3.” Walking distances and journey times to schools, shops and the surgery have not yet been assessed — that comes with the Transport Assessment.
Will our questions appear in the consultation report?
Yes. They confirm our correspondence and their answers “will be retained as part of the consultation record and reflected in the Statement of Community Involvement”, which will be published alongside any application. It will identify the principal issues, explain how they were considered, and where a change has not been made, explain why.
Will the technical surveys be published before an application?
No. They remain “working documents… not currently intended to be published separately in advance of an application”.
We said we would publish what came back, including if nothing did. They answered every question we asked, in writing, within a fortnight, and they have offered to meet us as the proposals develop. We disagree with them about whether these fields should be built on. That is a separate thing from whether they have engaged with us, and on this occasion they have.
What we stand for

We are not opposed to all development. We are for the proper protection of the Green Belt.

Protecting open countryside

The Green Belt around Kingstone exists to safeguard countryside from encroachment and to keep land permanently open. This is what national planning policy was designed to defend.

Defending public rights of way

The bridleway across the site is a public right of way used by walkers and riders from well beyond Kingstone. It forms part of a historic approach past Keresforth Hall, whose stable block is a Grade II listed building. The route itself, and its long-standing relationship to the hall and the countryside around it, matter to a wide community.

Proper scrutiny of cumulative impact

When multiple sites are proposed in one corridor, the combined effect on roads, schools, GP capacity and emergency services must be properly assessed — not considered in isolation.

Evidence-based engagement

We are building a careful evidence base on every relevant material consideration so that our engagement with the planning process is credible, accurate and effective.

Campaign fund
Help fund independent planning advice for Kingstone

We’re raising £4,000 for an independent chartered planning consultant. Suggested donation £30 — every amount helps.

Donate →