# The Ferns, 6 Broc Hill Way, Brocton - **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 - **Tags:** openness-harm, vsc-not-shown, pdl-e-limb, replacement-building-materially-larger, agricultural-exception-fail, transitional-no-consultation, national-landscape ## 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 - **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 weight).** 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 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010165 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/75bfc575-c4b5-4bb0-8c79-d079a244a380 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010165.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.