Land between Rudyard Road and Hot Lane, Biddulph Moor

Decision

allowed, 7 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: P Barton

Authority

Staffordshire Moorlands (West Midlands)

Appeal reference

6011103

Application reference

SMD/2025/0537

Procedure

written representations

Development

Permission in principle for up to 9 dwellings

Homes

9

Site context

green belt, settlement edge

Green Belt

Yes (grey belt accepted)

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

AnnexB:grey-belt, GB2(a), GB7(1)(g)(i), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, S5, HO7

Development plan policies

Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan 2020 SS1, SS2, SS8, SS10, H1, DC3, Biddulph Neighbourhood Plan 2023 DES1, HOU2

Main issues

grey belt; large built-up area; sustainable location; character; spatial strategy

Summary

Permission in principle for up to nine dwellings on a field at the edge of the Green Belt village of Biddulph Moor. The appeal was allowed. The dispute was purpose (a): the inspector held that a "larger village" separate from Biddulph town is not a "large built-up area", so the site is grey belt. All the GB7(1)(g) limbs were met, including sustainable location, despite a short stretch of lane with no footway. The remaining conflict with the local plan's spatial strategy did not substantially outweigh the benefits under S5. A separate costs decision (local copy PINS-6011103-costs.pdf) refused costs.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The parties were consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶4).
• Grey belt: ACCEPTED. "No definition of a large built-up area is provided by the Framework, though Annex E is clear that villages should not be considered as such" (DL ¶12). "I found Biddulph Moor to be distinctly separate from, and not an offshoot of, Biddulph" (DL ¶15). "whilst it is a built-up area, I do not consider that Biddulph Moor constitutes a large built-up area" (DL ¶16).
• GB7(1)(g)(i): PASS. "modest size of the site, degree of containment by existing development" (DL ¶17).
• GB7(1)(g)(ii): PASS. The lack of a five-year supply is evidenced unmet need (DL ¶18).
• GB7(1)(g)(iii): PASS. "Routes … have footpaths and street lighting, except for a stretch along Hot Lane, which I saw had no footpath. Nevertheless, I observed that this stretch was of a modest distance, the road was relatively flat and straight with good visibility … this location should limit the need to travel, particularly by private car, and offer a genuine choice of transport modes" (DL ¶19).
• Openness. Not assessed, because the scheme was not inappropriate (DL ¶23).
• Spatial strategy: CONFLICT. The site is outside the settlement boundary and "does not constitute limited infill" (DL ¶28-29).

Planning balance

S5 / S3 presumption. Up to nine homes got substantial weight, plus economic benefits and BNG (DL ¶31). "Due to the current housing supply shortfall, I have found the harm arising from the conflict with the development plan to be moderate … the adverse effects of the development would not substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶32). The presumption justified a decision contrary to the plan (DL ¶34).

What made the difference

Two findings of fact. Biddulph Moor is a village visibly separate from Biddulph, so purpose (a) is not strongly served. And the walking route to village services mostly had footways and lighting. The short gap in footway was on a flat, straight road with good visibility, which is the kind of gap inspectors will tolerate. A longer unlit stretch, a bend, or a 40 mph limit, as at Branford Wells (6010313) and Chedworth (6009966), would have put limb (iii) at risk.

Transferable points

• A village, even a local plan "larger village" with a good range of services, is not a "large built-up area" for purpose (a) (DL ¶12-16; costs DL ¶7).
• A short stretch without footway does not fail GB7(1)(g)(iii) if it is modest in length, flat, straight and has good visibility, and the rest of the route has footways and lighting (DL ¶19).
• Once GB7(1)(g) is met, openness and VSC are not considered (DL ¶23).
• The residual spatial-strategy conflict goes into the S5 "substantially outweighed" balance, and the supply shortfall reduces its weight to moderate (DL ¶32).
• Costs: a committee overturning its officers on the "large built-up area" question was not unreasonable, because it is a matter of judgement (costs DL ¶7).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Undeveloped field bounded by housing to the south and west, a house to the east and the village hall to the north
• Biddulph Moor has a pub, post office/store, pharmacy, school, village hall and bus stop
• Footways and lighting on Rudyard Road and most of Hot Lane; a short unfootwayed stretch was flat and straight with good visibility
• Council refused against its officers' recommendation. The appellants' costs application was refused (a separate costs decision)

Sources

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