# 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 (years):** 3.73
- **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
- **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, l2-residential-curtilage, backland, design-refusal, housing-shortfall, non-determination, protected-species, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## 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
- **L2(1)(d): fail.** visible from street, inconsistent with street scene, under 50% of undeveloped curtilage retained, more than twice existing footprint - a "substantial adverse impact" (DL 33-34)
- **DP3(3): fail (substantial weight).** backland plots and wide access road incongruous in a spacious verdant stretch; S4(2)(c) engaged (DL 7-18, 35)
- **N2(1)(f): fail (substantial weight).** bat survey inconsistencies (trees surveyed do not match PBRA); effect on roosting bats unknown (DL 19-23, 32)
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** three homes, supply 3.73 years, sustainable location (DL 31)
- **TR6(4): pass.** fire-tender swept paths show access acceptable (DL 24-26)

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

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010701
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c5871765-0953-453f-a19b-67aae0c269e9

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010701.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.