- Decision
- dismissed, 19 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: John Morrison (APO Kim Vo)
- Authority
- East Staffordshire (West Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6010986
- Application reference
- P/2025/00476
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Subdivision of planning unit and conversion of garage/outbuilding to separate 2-bed dwelling
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- open countryside, rural lane
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- No Framework version cited
- Determinative policies
- TR3
- Development plan policies
- East Staffordshire Local Plan 2015 SP1, SP8, SP35, Newborough NDP 2016 SP1, HE2, HE3, Re-use of Rural Buildings SPD
- Main issues
- sustainable location; highway safety
Summary
Conversion of a detached garage and outbuilding into a separate two-bed dwelling half a mile outside Newborough. Dismissed on sustainable location, because the only walking route is a 40mph unlit B-road with no footway. The letter, recommended by an appeal planning officer, cites "the Framework" generically. It never identifies the 2026 version or applies S5, HO7 or L2. The single home got "very limited" weight and the PDL re-use "limited" weight, below the 2026 "substantial weight" defaults.
Issues and findings
- Location — TR3 (mapped): FAIL. "walking and cycling between the appeal site and the village would be neither safe nor convenient, particularly during hours of darkness or inclement weather" (DL ¶7). "The fact that rural locations often rely on private vehicles does not justify additional development in unsustainable locations" (DL ¶10).
- No record of collisions is not proof of no harm. "the absence of recorded incidents does not, in itself, demonstrate an absence of harm" (DL ¶9).
- Access visibility — TR4: PASS. The access is an existing constraint and its function is unchanged (DL ¶17-19).
- Benefits. The extra home carries "only very limited weight". PDL re-use gets "limited weight as … the proposal would not be sustainably located" (DL ¶26).
Planning balance
A s38(6) plan-led conclusion. Location conflict with local SP1, SP8 and NDP policies, with benefits of very limited or limited weight. No S5(1) "substantially outweighed" balance was run.
What made the difference
The walking route to the village. Under a full 2026 analysis, re-use of an existing building would engage S5(1)(c), and HO7 and L2 would call for substantial weight to the home and the PDL re-use. The outcome would then depend on whether the TR3 failure "substantially outweighs" those benefits. The letter does not test this.
Transferable points
- A no-footway, 40mph, unlit rural road makes a site car-dependent even for a small village half a mile away (DL ¶6-7).
- Home working and deliveries do not remove the need to travel (DL ¶10).
- Caution: letters dated after 17 August 2026 that do not name the Framework version may apply pre-2026 weightings. Here one home got "very limited" weight where HO7 now says "substantial" (DL ¶26).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| TR3 | fail | half a mile to Newborough along 40mph B5234 with no footway, unlit, high hedges; peak-only buses; letter cites only "the Framework" — code mapped by harvester (DL 6-13) | |
| HO7 | benefit | very-limited | one smaller home gets "only very limited weight given the modest contribution" — not HO7 substantial weight (DL 26) |
| L2 | benefit | limited | effective use of PDL given "limited weight" because unsustainably located — not L2 substantial weight (DL 26) |
| S5(1)(c) | not-engaged | re-use of existing building outside settlement not assessed under S5 — letter applies local settlement-boundary policy (DL 11-14); code mapped by harvester | |
| TR4 | pass | substandard visibility towards Duffield Lane is an existing constraint on an established access; no material increase in risk (DL 15-21) |
Key facts
- B5234 40mph, no footway, narrow, unlit; about 0.5 mile to village with school, pub, tearoom, church (DL 6-8)
- Earlier dismissed appeal 3200932 on the same building (DL 22)
- Appellant's health needs and SAC contribution noted; costs application decided separately (DL 3, 11, 25)
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.