- Decision
- dismissed, 7 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: P Barton
- Authority
- Stafford (West Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6010165
- Application reference
- 25/41298/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Replacement of stables with a larger building for storing land-maintenance equipment, on an existing concrete pad, with permeable access paving
- Site context
- green belt, national landscape, PDL
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt not argued)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(a), GB7(1)(b), GB7(1)(e), GB6(2)
- Development plan policies
- Plan for Stafford Borough 2011-2031 SP7
- Main issues
- inappropriate development; openness; VSC balance
Summary
A proposal to replace a stable block with a larger equipment store on a domestic landholding in the Green Belt and Cannock Chase National Landscape. Dismissed. It was not agricultural (GB7(1)(a)). It was not a like-for-like replacement (GB7(1)(b)). As PDL redevelopment (GB7(1)(e)) the extra bulk would cause substantial harm to spatial openness. Moderate-weight benefits did not clearly outweigh the harm.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The policy emphasis of the parts of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have not changed. As a result, I have not sought comments on the new version" (DL ¶2).
- GB7(1)(a): FAIL. "There is no compelling case that the activities are of a scale and nature that it is for agriculture, horticulture and forestry" (DL ¶8).
- GB7(1)(b): FAIL. "the replacement building would not be in the same use and would be materially larger" (DL ¶9).
- GB7(1)(e): FAIL. The concrete slab was treated as PDL. Visual harm was limited, but "the increase in the quantum of development by virtue of the substantially greater footprint and height … would result in significant harm to the spatial openness … would cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt" (DL ¶11).
- GB7(1)(f)(i): PASS for the paving. Permeable paving "would not result in an area of urban-style hardstanding" (DL ¶13).
Planning balance
GB6(2). Substantial weight to harm. Benefits (securing machinery, replacing a building, upkeep of land) were given moderate weight. VSC not shown. "for this reason, policy S5 of the Framework is not engaged" (DL ¶21).
What made the difference
Size. Low visibility did not save a scheme whose footprint and height grew substantially: spatial openness alone carried the finding of "substantial harm" under (e). A same-size replacement, or evidence of a genuine agricultural use, would have been needed.
Transferable points
- Under GB7(1)(e), strong visual containment does not prevent a finding of substantial harm to openness where spatial bulk increases significantly (DL ¶11).
- Maintaining private land does not count as "agriculture" for GB7(1)(a) (DL ¶8).
- Where the relevant GB policy wording is unchanged, an Inspector may apply the 2026 Framework without consulting the parties (DL ¶2).
- An Inspector read S5 as "not engaged" where GB7 fails and VSC is not shown (DL ¶21), consistent with S5(5).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB7(1)(a) | fail | equipment store for maintaining private land, not agriculture/horticulture/forestry or nature conservation (DL 8) | |
| GB7(1)(b) | fail | replacement not in the same use and materially larger (DL 9) | |
| GB7(1)(e) | fail | concrete slab treated as PDL; limited visual harm, but much larger footprint and height → substantial harm to openness (DL 10-11) | |
| GB7(1)(f)(i) | pass | permeable paving engineering operation minimises openness impact (DL 13) | |
| GB6(2) | harm | substantial | inappropriateness and openness harm (DL 20) |
| N4 | neutral | no harm to Cannock Chase National Landscape (DL 16) | |
| S5 | not-engaged | Inspector says S5 is not engaged once VSC fails (DL 21); consistent with S5(5) routing GB proposals to GB6-GB8 |
Key facts
- Existing stables used mainly for log storage; replacement substantially larger in footprint and height
- Building sits in a dip, surrounded by dense vegetation, so limited visual harm
- Site within Cannock Chase National Landscape and 15 km SAC zone
- Inspector did not seek comments on the new Framework because the relevant policy emphasis was unchanged
Sources
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.