# Land east of Old Shackerley Lane, Albrighton - **Decision:** dismissed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C McDonagh - **Authority:** Shropshire (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010260 - **Application reference:** 25/04594/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 1 or 2 detached dwellings in the garden of a rural cottage (site of former cottages) - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.81 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), GB7(1)(e), AnnexB:previously-developed-land, TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Shropshire Core Strategy 2011 CS1, CS5, SAMDev 2015 MD2, MD7a - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, PDL, openness, suitable location, spatial strategy - **Tags:** PIP, pdl-e-limb, pdl-blended-into-landscape, grey-belt-not-argued, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, rural-lane-no-footway, sustainable-location-fail, old-balance-wording ## Summary PIP for one or two houses in the garden of a rural cottage near Albrighton, on land that once held four earlier cottages. It was dismissed. The former buildings had "blended into the landscape", so the site was not PDL under GB7(1)(e). No other exception was argued, so the scheme was inappropriate. Location on a narrow, unlit, national-speed-limit lane added spatial-strategy and car-dependence harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The August 2026 Framework was applied, and the parties were invited to comment (DL ¶5). - **GB7(1)(e): FAIL.** "the Framework is clear that previously developed land excludes land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape … it was clear from my observations that the former dwellings had blended into the landscape given the domestic use of the site" (DL ¶11). - **Openness:** "a limited loss of openness … This harm must be given substantial weight" (DL ¶16). - **S5 inapplicable:** "section 5 of S5 is clear that this policy does not apply to proposals in the Green Belt, unless the proposal would not be inappropriate in accordance with policy GB7" (DL ¶19). - **Location / TR3:** "Shackerley Lane, which is narrow, unlit and has a national speed limit … highly unlikely prospective future residents would choose to walk or cycle … highly reliant on the private vehicle" (DL ¶20). ## Planning balance The inspector gave substantial weight to inappropriateness and to loss of openness "in each instance", plus spatial-strategy harm, against limited housing and construction benefits (DL ¶30). Oddly, the conclusion uses the 2024 tilted-balance wording, "significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶31), not the GB6(2) "clearly outweighed" VSC formula. The result is the same. ## What made the difference The PDL argument failed on the "blended into the landscape" exclusion. Historic dwellings replaced by lawn and domestic garden use do not count. With no grey belt case put and no other exception, the scheme was inappropriate. The benefits of 1-2 unsecured self-build homes were too small. A grey belt argument would probably have failed on (iii) anyway, given the lane conditions at DL ¶20. ## Transferable points - Demolished buildings whose sites have become garden lawn have "blended into the landscape" and are not PDL for GB7(1)(e) (DL ¶11). - S5 does not apply in the Green Belt unless the scheme is not inappropriate under GB7 (S5(5)) (DL ¶19). - A narrow, unlit, national-speed-limit lane means occupiers are "highly reliant on the private vehicle" (DL ¶20). Extra spending in local services is cancelled out where trips are by car (DL ¶28). - Unsecured self-build attracts no weight without an obligation (DL ¶27). - Absence of heritage or ecology harm is neutral (DL ¶28). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(e): fail.** former cottages on site had "blended into the landscape" through garden use, so excluded from PDL definition (DL 10-11) - **GB7(1)(a): not-engaged.** appellant cited it (and GB3(2)(a), a plan-making policy); nothing to show agriculture/forestry/nature use (DL 12) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriate; limited spatial loss of openness, very limited visual (DL 15-16) - **S5(5): not-engaged.** S5 does not apply in Green Belt unless the proposal is not inappropriate under GB7 (DL 19) - **TR3: harm.** narrow, unlit, national speed limit lane; residents "highly reliant on the private vehicle" (DL 20, 28) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** 3.81-year supply; 1-2 dwellings "important but limited contribution"; self-build unsecured so no weight (DL 26-27) - **DP3: neutral.** character harm unsubstantiated at PIP stage (DL 24-25) ## Key facts - Garden of No.5 Shackerley Cottages; four earlier cottages once stood on the site but remains had blended into the landscape - Shackerley Lane narrow, unlit, national speed limit; M54 to the south - Council supply 3.81 years; no officer report or LPA appeal statement - Neither party identified which GB7 exception applied; grey belt not argued ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010260 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9f3bfd27-8a29-4d32-aa30-8b9cd91d2d22 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010260.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.