# The Crown Inn, 97 Station Road, Cradley Heath - **Decision:** allowed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Bromley - **Authority:** Sandwell (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010155 - **Application reference:** DC/25/70389 - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Demolition of public house and erection of retail unit (convenience store) with parking and landscaping - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HC6(1)(c), DM4, S4 - **Development plan policies:** Sandwell SADDP 2012 SAD H1, emerging Sandwell Local Plan 2024-2041 SEC3, SDM8, SDS6 - **Main issues:** principle, loss of public house - **Tags:** pub-loss, hc6-alternative-provision, community-facility, emerging-plan-weight, s4-approve, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Demolition of a closed pub in Cradley Heath and its replacement with a convenience store. The appeal was allowed. The adopted plan has no pub-protection policy, so the inspector applied HC6 directly. It was met through limb (1)(c), sufficient alternative provision: other pubs within walking distance meant access would not be diminished. Marketing evidence was therefore not needed. The emerging employment-area policy got considerable weight under DM4. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties addressed the 2026 Framework in writing and at the hearing (DL ¶4). - **DM4: emerging plan.** "it is not disputed that there are no outstanding objections to Policy SEC3 of the eSLP. Therefore, having regard to Policy DM4 of the Framework, I afford it considerable weight" (DL ¶12). - **HC6 applied directly.** "there are no policies within the SADDP that prevent the loss of public houses. However, Policy HC6 of the Framework, sets out that development proposals should not result in the loss of key community facilities … which includes public houses, unless a set of limited circumstances apply" (DL ¶20). Emerging SDM8 is "broadly consistent with Policy HC6" (DL ¶21). - **HC6(1)(c): PASS.** "The residential area surrounding the appeal site is well served by other public houses which include the Waterfall, the Spring Meadow and the Haden Cross. They are each within walking distance … the loss of The Crown Inn would not diminish access to key community facilities and public service infrastructure. As such, the loss of the public house would not conflict with Policy HC6" (DL ¶22). - **S4.** "No such adverse effects have been identified" (DL ¶24). ## Planning balance S4 with no adverse effects, so approve. It accorded with the adopted plan (a gap in shop provision under SAD H1) and with the emerging SEC3 and SDM8. ## What made the difference HC6(1)(c). Several pubs within walking distance let the appellant bypass the 12-month marketing requirement in HC6(1)(a) entirely. Compare Liverpool (PINS-6008083), where nearby pubs did not help because the local policy required no need for any community use; and York (PINS-6011055), where no alternative existed because the venue's cultural role was specialised. ## Transferable points - HC6's three limbs are alternatives. Where there are alternative pubs within walking distance, limb (c) can be met without any marketing evidence (DL ¶20-22). - Where the development plan is silent on pub loss, HC6 applies directly as a national decision-making policy (DL ¶20). - Under DM4, an emerging policy at main-modifications stage with no outstanding objections can carry considerable weight (DL ¶12). ## Policy findings - **HC6(1)(c): pass.** other pubs within walking distance (Waterfall, Spring Meadow, Haden Cross) and many more in the wider area, so the loss "would not diminish access"; no 12-month marketing needed on this route (DL 20-22) - **DM4: accord (considerable weight).** emerging SEC3 (Local Employment Area) at main-modifications stage with no outstanding objections given considerable weight (DL 12) - **SEC3 (emerging Sandwell LP): accord (considerable weight).** the shop is an ancillary employment-generating use serving the employment area and residents (DL 13-18) - **SAD H1 (SADDP): accord.** housing allocation allows local shops where there is a gap in provision; gap found (DL 7-10, 23) - **S4: pass.** no adverse effects identified, so approve (DL 24) - **TC3: not-engaged.** council withdrew its sequential and impact reason after more information (DL 5) ## Key facts - Pub intermittently closed for 12 months and shut since January 2026 - Site allocated for housing (SAD H1) but hemmed in by industry; council accepts housing is hard to deliver - Emerging plan reallocates it as a Local Employment Area (SEC3), at main-modifications stage - Nearest similar shops are a Londis and a Lifestyle Express towards Old Hill; Heron Foods too far; gap in provision found - No marketing evidence relied on; the HC6(1)(c) alternative-provision route decided it ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010155 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fa88a84d-41b2-40ae-ab66-ef09f4004787 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010155.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.