# Land adjacent to Fulwood, School Road, Bagnall - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer Kim Vo) - **Authority:** Staffordshire Moorlands (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6008539 - **Application reference:** SMD/2025/0197 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline for one self-build bungalow with garage at the village edge - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan 2020 SS9, SS10, H1, DC1, DC2, DC3 - **Main issues:** conservation area setting, character and appearance - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, small-scheme, self-build, transitional-no-consultation, appeal-planning-officer ## Summary One bungalow on a vacant plot at the southern edge of Bagnall village, next to the Conservation Area. The council accepted the site was grey belt and not inappropriate. The appeal was nonetheless dismissed because building on the plot would erode the rural gateway and views that form part of the CA's setting. One dwelling's benefits did not outweigh that heritage harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition handled without consultation.** "Policy GB7 1.g. reflects the relevant stance on inappropriate development, making not fundamental changes in regard to what grey belt land is … I therefore see no reason to either disagree with or cause the Council to revisit their assessment on Green Belt matters" (DL ¶3). On heritage, "the actions of finding harm to a designated heritage asset is not materially different … The stance and thus mechanisms of paragraph 11 of the previous Framework are no longer relevant" (DL ¶4). - **Green Belt:** "Whilst the proposal would not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt due to the appeal site comprising grey belt land, that finding does not in itself justify the grant of planning permission, nor does it override the identified harm" (DL ¶15). - **Heritage (HE6): HARM.** The site and adjacent green "contributes to an attractive and distinctly rural gateway to the village … reinforces the pastoral character that is integral to the significance and setting of the CA" (DL ¶7). The scheme "would result in further encroachment into the rural landscape" (DL ¶8). "Substantial weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets irrespective of the degree of harm" (DL ¶10). - **Benefits:** one home had moderate weight, self-build (private, retirement) limited, BNG limited (DL ¶11-13). ## Planning balance An HE6 harm-versus-public-benefits balance: "the proposal would not provide sufficient public benefits that would outweigh the harm" (DL ¶13). The letter does not expressly run the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" test, even though it found the scheme not inappropriate. ## What made the difference Heritage setting. The plot is part of an identified green gateway to a Conservation Area. Grey belt status gave no protection against a heritage-based refusal. ## Transferable points - Grey belt / not-inappropriate status "does not in itself justify the grant of planning permission" (DL ¶15). - An inspector may decide under the 2026 Framework without re-consultation where the relevant tests (GB7(1)(g), heritage harm) are not materially changed (DL ¶3-4). - An old exploratory Green Belt study identifying a site as potentially suitable carries limited weight (DL ¶15). - Self-build for the appellant's own needs is a private benefit (DL ¶12). - Note: the letter did not run the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance for a not-inappropriate scheme. Compare PINS-6007130 and PINS-6006286, which did. ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(g): pass.** council's grey belt / not-inappropriate assessment accepted; 2026 GB7(1)(g) makes "not fundamental changes" from 2024 so no re-consultation (DL 3, 15) - **S5(5): not-engaged.** noted S5 does not apply in Green Belt (DL 3) - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** harm to setting of Bagnall Conservation Area — rural gateway, green open space, views out; public benefits insufficient (DL 6-13) - **DP3: conflict.** harm to character of village edge/ribbon extension (DL 8-9, 14) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** one dwelling in shortfall context (DL 11) ## Key facts - Decided on 18 Aug 2026 (day after new Framework) without re-consulting parties; inspector reasoned that grey belt and heritage-harm tests not materially changed - Grey belt/not-inappropriate status accepted - "not inappropriate … does not in itself justify the grant of planning permission" - Site faces "important green open space" identified in Conservation Area Appraisal; gateway to village - Old (10+ year) Green Belt Study identifying site as potentially suitable given limited weight - Self-build for appellant's retirement treated as private benefit, limited weight ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008539 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/96952798-8a47-4ffb-b029-f8b7cd81a0d1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008539.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.