96 Church Road, Blurton, Stoke-on-Trent

Decision

dismissed, 7 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: P Barton

Authority

Stoke-on-Trent (West Midlands)

Appeal reference

6010701

Application reference

25/OUT/00727

Procedure

written representations

Development

Outline for three dwellings in the garden of 96 Church Road (access for approval)

Homes

3

Site context

inside settlement, TPO

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

3.73 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S4(2)(a)(ii), L2(1)(d), S4(2)(c), DP3(3), N2(1)(f)

Development plan policies

Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy 2006-2026 CSP1, CSP4

Main issues

character; protected species; highway safety

Summary

Three houses in a large, well-treed garden on a spacious stretch of Church Road, Blurton, including two in a backland position reached by a new access. Appeal against non-determination, dismissed. The supply was 3.73 years and housing had substantial weight. But the inspector found two S4(2) triggers: S4(2)(a)(ii), a "substantial adverse impact" under L2(1)(d) (visible, out of keeping, under 50% of undeveloped curtilage retained, more than double the footprint), and S4(2)(c) via DP3(3). Inconsistent bat surveys added an N2(1)(f) failure.

Issues and findings

• Transition. Parties commented (DL ¶2).
• Character: significant harm. "the introduction of houses behind No. 96 would result in a level of development where there is currently nothing of that nature … Consequently, the development to the rear of the site would appear incongruous" (DL ¶10).
• Bats. "I cannot conclude with reasonable certainty that the correct trees with a low potential for roosting bats have been appropriately surveyed" (DL ¶22).
• L2(1)(d) / S4(2)(a)(ii). "the appeal scheme would be visible from the street frontage and would not be consistent with the overall street scene … less than 50% of the non-developed area would be retained … more than twice the footprint … it represents a substantial adverse impact" (DL ¶34).
• S4(2)(c). "Policy S4(2)(c) applies as the proposal fails to comply with Policy DP3(3)" (DL ¶35).

Planning balance

S4. For the scheme: substantial weight to three homes with a 3.73-year supply, plus BNG and economic benefits (DL ¶31). Against: substantial weight to the DP3(1) and N2(1)(f) conflicts (DL ¶32), plus both S4(2) triggers. "the presumption … does not apply" (DL ¶36).

What made the difference

The L2(1)(d) numeric criteria (50% of undeveloped area, twice the footprint) gave the inspector an objective hook for a "substantial adverse impact" finding under S4(2)(a)(ii). Combined with DP3(3), this outweighed a significant shortfall. A single frontage plot keeping most of the garden open would have been far stronger.

Transferable points

• The L2(1)(d) criteria (street-frontage visibility, 50% undeveloped area retained, footprint doubling) are used to decide whether S4(2)(a)(ii) is triggered (DL ¶33-34).
• S4(2)(a)(ii) and S4(2)(c) can be triggered together, and together they outweigh HO7 substantial weight even with a 3.73-year supply (DL ¶31-36).
• Inconsistent ecology reports (surveyed trees that do not match the roost assessment) are a free-standing N2(1)(f) failure (DL ¶20-22).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Council supply 3.73 years
• 7 trees removed, 2 TPO (category C); moderate canopy harm
• Non-determination appeal

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.