# Land east of Lichfield Road, Little Haywood (dog walking field)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Barton
- **Authority:** Stafford (West Midlands)
- **Appeal reference:** 6011209
- **Application reference:** 25/41603/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use to a bookable dog walking field with parking and associated works (partly retrospective)
- **Site context:** open-countryside
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** TR6, S5(2)
- **Development plan policies:** Plan for Stafford Borough 2011-2031 T2
- **Main issues:** highway safety
- **Tags:** highway-safety-fail, s5-2-refusal-policy, rural-diversification, old-wording-slip, transitional-no-consultation, small-scheme

## Summary
A dog walking field off the A51 was dismissed on highway safety at the access. The inspector applied S5 and treated TR6's refusal instruction as an S5(2) circumstance. The conclusion, though, uses the old "significantly outweighed" formula rather than the Framework's "substantially outweighed".

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** No consultation; "policy emphasis … not changed" (DL ¶2).
- **Access: FAIL.** "a lack of an on-site presence to actively enforce the arrangements means that I am not persuaded that there would not be occasions where an overlap between visitors … would occur" (DL ¶9). There would be vehicles "waiting on the A51 or overriding the adjoining highway verge" (DL ¶11).
- **S5(2).** "Policy S5 applies as the type of development proposed would be located outside of a settlement. However, policy TR6 of the Framework is clear that development proposals should be refused if they would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Applying policy S5 (2), the moderate benefits listed above are significantly outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶18).

## Planning balance
Moderate benefits (a service, rural diversification) against significant-weight highway harm. S5(2) was applied.

## What made the difference
The access geometry, combined with reliance on a booking system nobody on site would police. Widened radii kerbs would probably have resolved it. The claim that they were unviable was unsubstantiated (DL ¶17).

## Transferable points
- TR6 unacceptable highway safety is an S5(2) trigger for refusal outside settlements (DL ¶18).
- Booking systems and buffers do not secure highway safety without on-site management (DL ¶7-9).
- Inspectors are still slipping into the 2024 "significantly outweighed" wording (DL ¶18).

## Policy findings
- **TR6: fail (significant weight).** A51 access too tight for simultaneous entry/exit; booking buffer unenforceable without on-site presence; vehicles would wait on A51 or overrun verge (DL 5-15)
- **S5(2): fail.** TR6 "clear that development proposals should be refused" on unacceptable highway safety impact; moderate benefits (service, diversification) outweighed (DL 18)

## Key facts
- Existing field access off the A51, a straight road where traffic travels at the limit
- 15-minute booking buffer and CCTV proposed; no on-site staff
- Inspector did not consult on new Framework (DL 2)
- Conclusion says benefits "significantly outweighed" - 2024 wording, not S5's "substantially outweighed" (DL 18)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011209
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1e74b138-9f4e-4e8d-928d-69164483426e

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011209.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.