Land off Welshpool Road, adjacent to Southerly, Chavel

Decision

dismissed, 17 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: P Barton

Authority

Shropshire (West Midlands)

Appeal reference

6011150

Application reference

25/04311/PIP

Procedure

written representations

Development

Permission in principle for 7 to 8 dwellings

Homes

8

Site context

open countryside

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(j)(i), S5(4), AnnexB:settlement, DP3(3), TR3

Development plan policies

Shropshire Core Strategy 2011 CS1, CS5, CS6, CS11, CS17, SAMDev Plan 2015 MD1, MD2, MD7a

Main issues

spatial strategy and accessibility; character and appearance

Summary

Permission in principle for seven to eight houses on part of a field beside the A458 at Chavel, a roadside group with a petrol-station shop, restaurant and takeaway. Dismissed. The inspector held Chavel is not a "settlement" under the 2026 definition (not a predominantly built-up area), so S5(1)(j) failed despite no five-year supply. Under S5(4) the site's car dependence and urbanising effect on the countryside (a DP3(3) refusal trigger) were not substantially outweighed by the housing benefits.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "The main parties were given the opportunity to comment, and the comments received have been taken into account" (DL ¶2).
• Is Chavel a settlement? — Annex B: NO. "Due to the modest area covered by development and the prevailing sense of openness between the buildings with views of the surrounding countryside, I found that Chavel did not comprise a predominantly built-up area and therefore does not constitute a settlement for the purposes of my assessment" (DL ¶11).
• Accessibility — TR3 / CS6: FAIL. Despite a lit footway and services 400–450 m away, "the footpath is narrow in places and positions pedestrians in close proximity to the busy traffic flow … a noticeable proportion of large commercial vehicles that create a distinctive wind blast as they pass" (DL ¶13); "due to a lack of genuinely sustainable travel choices, the occupants … would be heavily reliant on private motor vehicles" (DL ¶14).
• Character — DP3: FAIL. "a significant urbanising intrusion into the countryside, eroding the rural character and appearance of the area" (DL ¶24); not rounding off (DL ¶23).
• S5 route. "irrespective of the scale of the housing land supply shortfall, the proposed development does not fall within any of the forms of development given in policy S5(1) … including S5(1)(j) as … the appeal site is not physically well-related to an existing settlement. Consequently, the appeal scheme falls to be considered under policy S5(4)" (DL ¶32).
• Local plan weight — Annex A. Plan policies not reduced "simply because they were adopted prior to the publication of the Framework"; spatial strategy consistent, but "considering the lack of a 5-year housing land supply, I attribute moderate weight to this conflict" (DL ¶33).
• PIP scope. Affordable housing "could not be secured since planning conditions or obligations cannot be included" (DL ¶30).

Planning balance

S5(4) exceptional-circumstances balance. Against: spatial strategy conflict (moderate), character conflict (significant), DP3(3) refusal direction (DL ¶¶33–34). For: 7–8 homes with "substantial weight", potential affordable housing, economic benefits, BNG (DL ¶35). "Having regard to the scale and permanence of the development, the benefits would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects, and exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated" (DL ¶36).

What made the difference

The settlement finding. With Chavel ruled out as a settlement, the scheme dropped from the S5(1)(j) presumption (approve unless substantially outweighed) to S5(4) (refuse unless benefits substantially outweigh). Services within 450 m on a lit footway were not enough because the footway ran along a busy HGV route and was unpleasant to use. If Chavel had been a settlement, or the site adjoined Ford, the outcome might have differed; the inspector distinguished comparator cases on exactly these points (bus stop 250 m; allocation adjoining Ford).

Transferable points

• A roadside ribbon with a shop, pub/restaurant and takeaway can still fail the Annex B "settlement" definition where openness between buildings dominates (DL ¶11).
• If the place is not a settlement, S5(1)(j) fails regardless of the scale of the supply shortfall, and S5(4) applies (DL ¶32).
• Distance alone does not settle accessibility: a lit footway 400–450 m to services failed on quality (narrow, beside a busy HGV route) (DL ¶13).
• Unlit, unmade field PROWs do not provide a genuine walking alternative (DL ¶13).
• Council decisions made before the 2026 settlement definition carry little weight as comparators (DL ¶16).
• Emerging-plan connectivity scoring (draft Community Hierarchy) gets limited weight at scoping stage (DL ¶19).
• Pre-2026 spatial-strategy policies stay consistent with the Framework under Annex A para 2, but their conflict may be moderated where there is no five-year supply (DL ¶33).
• Drafting slip: DP3(3) described as "advises" refusal where it conflicts with DP3(1) (DL ¶34); the policy says "should be refused".

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Supply agreed below five years; Council 4.61 years, appellant cites 3.81 years from another appeal (DL 32)
• Distances 400 m restaurant, 440 m takeaway, 450 m convenience store; bus stop about 700 m, primary school about 800 m; lit footpath with central refuge crossing (DL 12)
• Footpath narrow in places beside busy A458 (40 mph) with large commercial vehicles; PROWs to Ford unlit and unmade across fields (DL 13)
• [object Object]
• Emerging plan "Community Hierarchy" connectivity score given limited weight (DL 19)
• 7-8 dwellings under PIP not major development; floorspace refusal reason rejected (DL 27)
• Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 2)

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.