- Decision
- approved, 18 September 2026
- Decided by
- Council officer (delegated): Tom Watts (recommending officer)
- Authority
- Lichfield (West Midlands)
- Application reference
- 26/00855/OUT
- Procedure
- delegated
- Development
- Outline, access only, for up to two dwellings on an undeveloped plot between houses
- Homes
- 2
- Site context
- green belt, settlement edge, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt accepted)
- Housing land supply
- 3.5 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(g)(i), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB7(1)(g)(iii), S5(5), TR3
- Development plan policies
- Lichfield Local Plan Strategy 2015 CP1, CP3, CP6, NR2, NR3, NR4, NR7, BE1, Stonnall Neighbourhood Plan 2025 D1, T1, LE1, LE4
- Main issues
- grey belt via a council review; need; sustainable location; neighbourhood plan conflict
Summary
Up to two houses on a gap plot between dwellings on Church Road, Stonnall, just outside the settlement boundary in the Green Belt. The same proposal had been refused in June 2025 as inappropriate development. Since then Lichfield's 2026 Green Belt Review found the parcel makes no or only a weak contribution to purposes (a), (b) and (d). With a 3.5-year supply and a walkable village, all GB7(1)(g) limbs passed and the scheme was approved under delegated powers. S5(5)'s "substantially outweighed" test was then applied as the default.
Issues and findings
- Grey belt, GB7(1)(g)(i): PASS. "The relevant assessment of parcel STO06 concluded that the parcel makes no contribution to purpose (a), a weak contribution to purpose (b), and no contribution to purpose (d) … the application site does not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b) or (d) and therefore constitutes grey belt land" (Report, Principle). "the development would not project materially beyond the established pattern of development along Church Road … would not fundamentally undermine the purposes" (Principle).
- Need, GB7(1)(g)(ii): PASS. "The Council's most recent published assessment identifies a housing land supply of 3.5 years. There is therefore an evidenced unmet need" (Principle).
- Location, GB7(1)(g)(iii): PASS. "the site lies immediately adjacent to the built form of Stonnall and within walking and cycling distance of a range of services and facilities including a primary school, public house, village hall, medical facilities, sports provision and a convenience store. Public transport connections are also available within approximately 500 metres" (Principle).
- S5(5). "National Policy S5 further provides that, where development within the Green Belt is not inappropriate through the application of Policy GB7, proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects" (Principle).
Planning balance
S5(5) "substantially outweighed". No technical objections (highways, trees, ecology, archaeology). The parish objection was not "supported by the technical evidence". Approved subject to a unilateral undertaking for the Cannock Chase SAC.
What made the difference
The Council's own 2026 Green Belt Review. The same scheme had been refused a year earlier as inappropriate. The new parcel assessment, together with the 3.5-year supply, turned it into grey belt with a presumption in favour under S5(5).
Transferable points
- A council's recent Green Belt review parcel scoring is being applied directly to individual sites to establish grey belt. Scrutinise the parcel scoring for any site.
- Once GB7(1)(g) is met, officers apply S5(5) as a positive presumption ("should be approved unless … substantially outweighed").
- A 2025 neighbourhood plan opposing Green Belt development did not prevent approval. The report does not analyse S6, which applies only to plans with housing allocations made within five years.
- An officer disclosed using AI (Copilot) as a drafting aid (¶12). This may become standard wording.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB7(1)(g)(i) | pass | the Council's 2026 Green Belt Review parcel STO06 makes no contribution to (a), a weak one to (b) and none to (d); the site is contained by houses north and south, the road and woodland; a localised loss of openness does not fundamentally undermine the purposes | |
| GB7(1)(g)(ii) | pass | 3.5-year supply | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iii) | pass | adjoins the built form of Stonnall; primary school, pub, village hall, medical, sports and shop within walking and cycling distance; public transport within about 500 m | |
| S5(5) | pass | once not inappropriate under GB7, "should be approved unless the benefits … would be substantially outweighed" | |
| Stonnall NP (Green Belt stance) | conflict | the parish says the made 2025 NP opposes Green Belt development; the officer gives the up-to-date national policy and the Green Belt Review precedence. S6 is not discussed. |
Key facts
- The same scheme (all matters reserved) was refused on 26 Jun 2025 for five reasons, including inappropriate development in the Green Belt
- Staffordshire/Lichfield Green Belt Review, April 2026, now records the parcel as grey belt
- The site is outside the Stonnall settlement boundary; houses north and south; Grade II Church of St Peter about 100 m south
- The parish objection (Green Belt, speeding traffic, hedgerow loss, NP conflict) was not treated as a "significant objection", so the application was decided under delegated powers
- The report discloses that Copilot Chat was used as a drafting aid only
Sources
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.