# 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
- **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, PIP, sustainable-location-pass, village-not-large-built-up-area, substantially-outweighed, housing-shortfall, committee-overturn, costs-refused, small-scheme

## 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
- **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** Biddulph Moor ("larger village" in LP) is not a "large built-up area" — distinctly separate from Biddulph town; (b), (d) agreed not strong (DL 12-16)
- **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** modest size, contained by development, position relative to settlements (DL 17)
- **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** undisputed lack of five-year supply (DL 18)
- **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** services, school, shop, pharmacy, bus stops within walking distance via footways and lighting; a modest stretch of Hot Lane without footway accepted as flat, straight, good visibility (DL 19-20)
- **GB7(1)(g)(iv): not-engaged.** not major (DL 21)
- **DP3: pass.** logical, proportionate extension to settlement edge; localised effects (DL 24-26)
- **LP SS1/SS10/H1, NP HOU2: conflict (moderate weight).** outside settlement boundary; too long to be "limited infill"; harm moderated by supply shortfall (DL 27-32)
- **S5: pass.** adverse effects would not substantially outweigh benefits; presumption applies (DL 32-34)
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** up to 9 homes in a sustainable location, plus economic benefits and BNG (DL 31)
- **S6: neutral.** no evidence to assess; even if engaged benefits outweigh (DL 33)

## 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011103
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a0bfb4e0-6338-4e76-9db1-9d9393c46f4a
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3403e024-3251-4991-a1f3-61df5fcd67cf

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011103.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.