Upper Farm, Shut Lane Head, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Decision

dismissed, 29 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: K Stephens

Authority

Newcastle-under-Lyme (West Midlands)

Appeal reference

6007668

Application reference

26/00082/OUT

Procedure

written representations

Development

Outline for one serviced self-build plot (all matters reserved except access and scale) in an open field beyond the end of Shut Lane Head

Homes

1

Site context

green belt, open countryside, rural lane

Green Belt

Yes (grey belt not argued)

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, GB6(2)

Development plan policies

Newcastle-under-Lyme Local Plan 2020-2040 (adopted July 2026) PSD1, PSD2, PSD3, PSD4, PSD5, PSD7, HOU6, SE10, SE12, Chapel and Hill Chorlton, Maer and Aston, and Whitmore NDP DC2

Main issues

suitability of location; Green Belt; character and appearance; living conditions; VSC

Summary

One self-build plot in an open Green Belt field beyond the end of a rural lane near Newcastle-under-Lyme. The inspector tested the route in detail: the quiet no-through lane itself was walkable, but it ends at the A53 with no footway, and the only bus runs six times a day with no evenings or Sundays. That failed TR3 and GB7(1)(g)(iii), so the dwelling was inappropriate. With openness and character harm and modest benefits, VSC did not exist. Dismissed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "The main parties have had the opportunity to comment on the relevance of any new Framework policies on the appeal scheme" (DL ¶5).
• The lane. "being a no-through road, traffic would most likely be light ... As such walking or cycling along the lane would not be unduly difficult or unsafe" (DL ¶14).
• The main road. "having walked some 800 metres and on reaching the A53 there is no footpath and nowhere to walk, cycle or wheel to" (DL ¶14).
• Bus. Six services a day Monday to Saturday; "there is no service on a Sunday or bank holidays. Anyone working shifts or wanting to access other services, such as leisure, in the evenings, on Sundays or bank holidays would not be able to do so" (DL ¶15).
• TR3: FAIL. "the presence of a bus stop at the bottom of the lane does not, of itself, make the location suitable or sustainable" (DL ¶19). The highway authority reached a similar conclusion but raised no objection; the inspector still found "the appeal site is in an unsustainable location which would not support sustainable patterns of movement or enable good accessibility for different users" (DL ¶19).
• GB7(1)(g)(iii): FAIL, so inappropriate. "the proposal would not meet all of the criteria of Framework policy GB:7.g and hence would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt" (DL ¶26). S5 "does not apply" (DL ¶31).
• Openness. "there would be a significant degradation and reduction in the visual and spatial openness of the Green Belt" (DL ¶28).
• Character: HARM. Full-height glazing would be "somewhat like a beacon of light, at odds with the general darkness of an agricultural rural landscape" (DL ¶37).

Planning balance

GB6(2) VSC: substantial weight to Green Belt harm plus location and character harm, against modest economic and housing benefits with the self-build status unsecured. "the ‘other considerations’, alone or in combination, do not clearly outweigh the totality of the harm to the Green Belt and the other harms I have identified" (DL ¶48). Plan-led conclusion under a newly adopted plan (DL ¶49).

What made the difference

The walk to the bus ends on an A-road with no footway, and the bus has no evening or Sunday service. The inspector separated a quiet lane (acceptable) from the main road (not). A site in or next to a Rural Centre with services, or a secured footway link, would have been needed.

Transferable points

• A quiet no-through lane without footway or lighting can be acceptable to walk, but the route must lead somewhere safe: a main road with no footway breaks it (DL ¶14).
• A bus stop about 800 m away with six weekday buses, none in the evening or on Sundays, does not make a location sustainable, and "does not, of itself, make the location suitable" (DL ¶15, ¶19).
• A highway authority's lack of objection does not settle TR3 (DL ¶19).
• A bus accepted elsewhere as one of several village services does not transfer to a site where the bus is the only facility (DL ¶17).
• (g)(iii) failure alone makes a Green Belt dwelling inappropriate, without deciding (i) or (ii) (DL ¶26).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Non-determination appeal; council's putative reasons form the main issues (DL 2)
• New Local Plan adopted July 2026 during the appeal; parties consulted on both it and the new Framework (DL 5-6)
• Shut Lane Head single-width, no pavements or lighting, but a no-through road with light traffic, so walking or cycling on it "would not be unduly difficult or unsafe"; the failure is at the A53 (DL 14)
• Baldwins Gate appeal (APP/P3420/W/23/3314808, No 64 bus accepted) distinguished - there the bus was one of several village services (DL 17)
• Local Green Belt policy PSD5 "broadly consistent with the Framework" (DL 23); NDP DC2 "not out of date" (DL 39)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.