Heather Lodge, 2 Old Acre Lane, Brocton, Stafford

Decision

dismissed, 25 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: K Stephens

Authority

Stafford (West Midlands)

Appeal reference

6011888

Application reference

25/40867/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Replacement of a single-storey dwelling with a two-storey, double-gabled, timber-clad dwelling (self-build declared) in Cannock Chase National Landscape

Homes

1

Site context

inside settlement, national landscape

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

DP3(3), DP3(1), S4(2)(c)

Development plan policies

Plan for Stafford Borough C5, N1, N7

Main issues

character and appearance

Summary

Replacing a modest bungalow on Old Acre Lane, Brocton, on the edge of Cannock Chase National Landscape, with a much larger two-storey timber-clad house. The National Landscape would be conserved, but the house would dominate the lane's low-lying side and fail DP3(1). With no clear justification, DP3(3) and S4(2)(c) applied. The replacement added no net dwelling. Dismissed.

Issues and findings

• Scale. "As a result there would be a significant increase in the height, volume and massing of the dwelling compared to what is currently there." (DL ¶11). "This would create the impression of a cramped and over developed form of development" (DL ¶13).
• National Landscape, N4(1): PASS. "I am satisfied that the landscape and scenic beauty of the Cannock Chase National Landscape would be conserved" (DL ¶19).
• Benefits. "as the proposal is for a replacement dwelling there would not be any net gain in the number of dwellings" (DL ¶22).
• S4, not S5. "the Council has already described the site as being within the village, and I saw this to be the case, and so Framework policy S4 would be more relevant as it deals with development within settlements" (DL ¶23). The letter paraphrases S4(2)(c) loosely: "This directs that development that fails to comply with one of the decision-making policies in the Framework should be refused." (DL ¶23).
• DP3(3): FAIL. "I have not been provided with any clear justification for the proposal that would outweigh conflict with design policies in the Framework. Therefore the proposal would not accord with the Framework and should be refused." (DL ¶24).

Planning balance

S4 via S4(2)(c) and DP3(3); benefits very modest (no net dwelling, short-term construction) (DL ¶22-26).

What made the difference

The jump from a low bungalow to a two-storey house filling the plot width, beside a village hall and a stepped neighbour, on the lower side of the lane. Landscape-scale effects were acceptable; street-scale effects were not.

Transferable points

• DP3(3) clear justification framed as benefits outweighing the conflict (the Didcot reading), with DP3(3)'s substantial weight to compliance with plan design policies (DL ¶24).
• A National Landscape pass (N4(1)) does not answer local character harm under DP3(1) (DL ¶19-20).
• A replacement dwelling adds no net housing, so HO7 weight is minimal (DL ¶22).
• Drafting slip: S4(2)(c) paraphrased as a direction to refuse, rather than making it likely that the benefits are substantially outweighed (DL ¶23).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Replacement, so no net gain in dwellings; self-build shortfall not quantified (DL 22)
• Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 22)
• No street-scene drawings; artist's impression reinforced concerns (DL 15)
• Costs application by the appellant decided separately (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.