- Decision
- allowed, 25 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: K Townend
- Authority
- South Staffordshire (West Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6010537
- Application reference
- 26/00161/PIP
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Permission in principle for residential development of 4 to 5 dwellings in rear gardens
- Homes
- 5
- Site context
- green belt, settlement edge
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt accepted)
- Housing land supply
- 0.87 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(g), S5(5)
- Development plan policies
- South Staffordshire Core Strategy 2012 Core Policy 1, GB1, EQ2, emerging Publication Plan (Reg 19) 2024 NB3
- Main issues
- inappropriate development in Green Belt; suitability incl. Cannock Chase SAC
Summary
Permission in principle for four to five houses in rear gardens at Newtown, a Green Belt village in South Staffordshire with 0.87 years' supply. Allowed under GB7(1)(g): gardens in a built-up area are not PDL, but the site itself (not the wider study parcel) was grey belt. An executed unilateral undertaking secured Cannock Chase SAC mitigation at PIP stage. The sustainable-location limb was passed in one sentence.
Issues and findings
- Framework version. "Any reference to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in this decision, unless otherwise specified, will be in relation to the August 2026 version" (DL ¶6).
- Infill and PDL: FAIL. "the appeal site is not a gap within a built-up frontage" (DL ¶16); gardens in a built-up area are excluded from PDL, and "Contrary to the appellant's assertion, the site's location outside the development boundary does not preclude it from being considered part of the built-up area" (DL ¶17).
- Grey belt: PASS. "The Council has not provided any compelling evidence that the contribution the appeal site makes to any of the purposes of the Green Belt has been assessed, separate to the wider parcel of land" (DL ¶21). "By reason of being a 'other village or hamlet', albeit a built-up area, it is not a large built-up area" (DL ¶22).
- (g)(iii): PASS. "the appeal site is in a suitable location with convenient access to public transport and opportunities for walking to a range of services and facilities" (DL ¶28). No distances, route or bus facts.
- SAC. "there is no legal reason why an obligation cannot be entered into at any time" (DL ¶36).
Planning balance
Plan conflict (Core Policy 1) given limited weight "given that Core Policy 1 seeks to restrict development and given the significant shortfall in housing land supply" (DL ¶44). Housing: "substantial weight to the moderate benefit" (DL ¶46). The conclusion first uses 2024 wording: "would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶47), then correctly applies S5(5) (DL ¶48). The slip is immaterial to the outcome because S5(5) was then applied.
What made the difference
Judging the site, not the study parcel: the council had no site-level Green Belt assessment. Combined with 0.87 years' supply, the principle followed.
Transferable points
- Grey belt is judged on the site; a high-level parcel rating does not settle it without site-specific assessment (DL ¶21–23).
- A village is a built-up area for the PDL garden exclusion, but not a "large built-up area" for purpose (a) (DL ¶18, ¶22).
- A SAC mitigation UU can be accepted at PIP stage where executed and Natural England agrees (DL ¶34–36).
- Weak authority on (g)(iii): one-sentence finding with no route evidence (DL ¶28).
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)(c) | fail | letter calls it "(d) limited infilling in villages"; not a gap in a built-up frontage (DL 14, 16) | |
| GB7(1)(e) | fail | residential gardens in a built-up area are not PDL; Newtown is a built-up area even though site partly outside boundary; letter miscites "GB5:1(e)" (DL 17-18) | |
| AnnexB:grey-belt | pass | Green Belt Study parcel (strong for a, b, c) is high level; site judged on its own; village not a large built-up area; not next to listed towns; no historic town (DL 19-25) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(i) | pass | encroachment contained by housing and landscaping; would not fundamentally undermine purposes (DL 26-27) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(ii) | pass | no 5YHLS (0.87 years) (DL 28, 42) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iii) | pass | one sentence - "convenient access to public transport and opportunities for walking to a range of services"; no route facts (DL 28) | |
| N6 | pass | Cannock Chase SAC; executed UU GBP 1,675.10 accepted at PIP stage; Natural England satisfied (DL 30-38) | |
| Transitional(2) | neutral | limited | CS GB1 "only partially consistent" (omits PDL and grey belt) (DL 15); Core Policy 1 conflict given limited weight because it restricts development and because of the "significant shortfall" (DL 44) |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | letter gives "substantial weight to the moderate benefit" of 4-5 homes (DL 46) |
| S5(5) | pass | conclusion first framed as harm would not "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" (2024 wording, DL 47), then S5(5) stated correctly (DL 48) |
Key facts
- Supply 0.87 years (council officer report) (DL 42)
- Site partly within Newtown development boundary and over half in Green Belt; assessed as Green Belt development (DL 11, 13)
- PIP for minimum 4, maximum 5 dwellings (DL 5)
- UU for SAC mitigation accepted at PIP stage despite PPG (DL 36)
- Emerging plan examined but limited weight (DL 8)
- Costs application decided separately (DL 2)
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.