# Land off Oakdene Crescent, Hatton Station, Warwick - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Smith - **Authority:** Warwick (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6006637 - **Application reference:** W/24/0706 - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** 28 dwellings (100% affordable, 75% social rent / 25% shared ownership) with access, parking, landscaping, POS - **Homes:** 28 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, rural-lane, near-station - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.96 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, GB8(1)(b), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Warwick District Local Plan 2017 DS18, TR1, BE1, NE4, H3 - **Main issues:** grey belt / sustainable location, Golden Rules infrastructure, affordable concentration, character, VSC - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-fail, golden-rules-fail, golden-rules, near-station, station-route-h, not-well-connected-station, rural-lane-no-footway, shared-carriageway-rejected, vsc-not-shown, affordable-led, housing-shortfall, emerging-allocation, stratford-relevant ## Summary 28 affordable homes on a grey belt field next to Hatton Station, a small West Midlands Green Belt settlement, 350 m from a railway station reached along unlit Station Road with no footway. Dismissed after a hearing. The site failed GB7(1)(g)(iii): 28 homes would generate significant movement in this context, the location did not limit the need to travel, and the route to the station was unsafe for pedestrians. It also failed GB8(1)(b), because the necessary local highway improvements were not secured. The station fell short of the "well-connected station" definition, so GB7(1)(h) was not available. Very significant weight to affordable housing (1.96 years' supply) did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The Framework was published three days before the hearing; the parties had sufficient opportunity to address it (DL ¶2). - **(g)(i)/(ii): common ground** (DL ¶10). - **Station and GB7(1)(h).** "the station does not meet the Framework's definition of a 'well-connected station' because fewer than four trains per hour serve it throughout the daytime on a typical weekday and fewer than two trains per hour operate in any one direction" (DL ¶18). - **Walking route.** Station Road is "principally designed to accommodate vehicular movement … Slimline grassed verges … provide limited opportunities to step clear of the carriageway … forward visibility is restricted … the route is also unlit" (DL ¶21). "I also accept that the absence of continuous footways does not automatically render Station Road unsuitable for pedestrian use. Nonetheless … Station Road cannot reasonably be regarded as providing a safe route for all users, particularly pedestrians" (DL ¶24). The absence of recorded collisions "must be treated with caution in light of the clear physical constraints evident on the ground" (DL ¶23). Observed pedestrian use "do[es] not demonstrate that the route is universally perceived as safe", because "some journeys arise out of necessity rather than choice" (DL ¶26). - **"Significant movement" threshold.** Only about 112 vehicle movements a day, but "28 additional households … could reasonably be expected to generate a significant amount of movement when assessed in the context of the host area" (DL ¶29). - **GB7(1)(g)(iii) / TR3: FAIL.** "the site's location does not limit the need to travel" (DL ¶30). "notwithstanding the station's proximity to the site, the connecting route is subject to significant useability and safety constraints … [which] undermine any proposition that future residents would necessarily enjoy a genuine choice of transport modes" (DL ¶32). The mitigation offered (signage, surface colour, road-safety contribution) was "relatively minor", and a 20 mph TRO had "no legally binding mechanism" (DL ¶34-35). "the development would not be located in a sustainable location as required by Policy GB7(1)(g)(iii)" (DL ¶39). Single-dwelling appeal comparators were distinguished (DL ¶38). - **GB8(1)(b): FAIL.** "necessary local highway infrastructure improvements have not been suitably identified, substantiated, or secured. This conclusion aligns with the position of the Highway Authority" (DL ¶44). - **Emerging allocation.** B1/HAT's sustainability depends on uncertain new railway crossings and station access (DL ¶43). - **100% affordable concentration:** no harm (DL ¶49). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Harm: substantial weight to inappropriateness and to a "distinct loss of openness, most especially in a spatial sense" on 1.17 ha (DL ¶55), plus limited character harm. Benefits: very significant weight to 28 affordable homes, considerable weight to economic benefits, moderate to BNG, minor to POS. "The scheme's benefits would, in cumulative terms, be substantial. However, such benefits would not clearly outweighed the substantial harm identified to the Green Belt" (DL ¶60). ## What made the difference The walking route to the station. The site was close to a railway station, but the 350 m route was an unlit, narrow road with no footway and a pinch-point bridge, so the station's proximity did not deliver a genuine choice of modes. Low traffic speeds and volumes, no collision record, and observed pedestrian use did not carry the day. Failure on that one point also knocked out GB8(1)(b), because the pedestrian safety improvements were not secured. The appellant would have needed a deliverable, secured footway or equivalent segregated route to the station (via s278 or a Grampian condition with the Highway Authority's support), plus certainty over any speed limit change. ## Transferable points - Proximity to a station does not make a location sustainable if the walking route to it is unsafe or unattractive (DL ¶32). - A station with fewer than four trains per hour in daytime is not "well-connected", so GB7(1)(h) is unavailable (DL ¶18). - A missing footway is not automatically fatal, but a narrow, unlit, vehicle-dominated lane with restricted visibility cannot be a safe route for all users (DL ¶21-24). - A nil collision record and observed walking counts are of limited weight where people walk out of necessity (DL ¶23, 26). - "Significant amount of movement" under TR3 is judged in the context of the host area; 28 dwellings in a small settlement qualifies even with modest vehicle trips (DL ¶29). - Minor signage and markings, or an unsecured 20 mph TRO, do not make a location sustainable (DL ¶34-35). - GB8(1)(b) "necessary improvements to local infrastructure" can fail where the highway improvements needed for pedestrian safety are not secured (DL ¶41-44). - The prospective sustainability of an emerging allocation is not relied on where its infrastructure is uncertain (DL ¶43). - Very significant weight to 100% affordable housing on a 1.96-year supply still did not clearly outweigh Green Belt harm (DL ¶57, 60). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** common ground (DL 10) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** common ground (DL 10) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** common ground; 1.96 yrs supply, 3,466 shortfall (DL 10, 56) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): fail.** Hatton Station has very few facilities; unlit Station Road without footways, narrow bridge; bus 1.1 km with twice-weekly service; station 350 m but not "well-connected" and only partly step-free; 28 homes are "significant movement" in context (DL 14-39) - **TR3: fail.** location does not limit need to travel; no genuine choice of modes; signage, markings and possible 20 mph TRO too minor or uncertain (DL 27-39) - **GB8(1)(b): fail.** (a) affordable and (c) green space met, but necessary local highway improvements for pedestrian safety not identified, substantiated or secured; Highway Authority considered mitigation inadequate (DL 12-13, 41-44) - **GB7(1)(h): not-engaged.** station fails "well-connected station" definition (fewer than 4 tph daytime; fewer than 2 tph each direction) (DL 18) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriate; distinct spatial loss of openness on an undeveloped 1.17 ha site (DL 55) - **HO8: benefit (very-significant weight).** 28 affordable homes, 1.96 yrs supply, weak affordable delivery; not tied to a specific local need (DL 49, 56-57) - **DP3 / local BE1, NE4: harm (limited weight).** limited urbanising harm to a discreet, enclosed edge site (DL 52) ## Key facts - Site adjoins the Infill Village Boundary of Hatton Station (railway station, yacht club and nursery only) - 350 m walk to the station along unlit, narrow Station Road with slim verges and a railway bridge; no continuous footway; kerb refuge on the bridge - Traffic 653 vehicles a day, 64 two-way in peaks, mean 23-26 mph, 85th percentile ~30 mph; no injury collisions since 2014 - CCTV recorded 70 pedestrians and 13 cyclists over 12 hours, but "some journeys arise out of necessity rather than choice" - Shop and pub at Shrewley 1.7-1.8 km, school 2.3 km (served by minibus), canal towpath unlit and unsurfaced - Hatton station has fewer than 4 trains per hour and fewer than 2 per hour each way, so not a "well-connected station" - Emerging SWLP allocation B1/HAT (new settlement) includes the site but its infrastructure is uncertain - s106 secured affordable housing, POS, education, health, library, PROW and road safety education ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006637 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/701d49de-a57d-40d1-ab37-2ad4d152121c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006637.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.