Summary
28 affordable homes on a grey belt field next to Hatton Station, a small West Midlands Green Belt settlement, 350 m from a railway station reached along unlit Station Road with no footway. Dismissed after a hearing. The site failed GB7(1)(g)(iii): 28 homes would generate significant movement in this context, the location did not limit the need to travel, and the route to the station was unsafe for pedestrians. It also failed GB8(1)(b), because the necessary local highway improvements were not secured. The station fell short of the "well-connected station" definition, so GB7(1)(h) was not available. Very significant weight to affordable housing (1.96 years' supply) did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm.
The location finding
- GB7(1)(g)(iii): fail. Hatton Station has very few facilities; unlit Station Road without footways, narrow bridge; bus 1.1 km with twice-weekly service; station 350 m but not "well-connected" and only partly step-free; 28 homes are "significant movement" in context (DL 14-39)
- TR3: fail. location does not limit need to travel; no genuine choice of modes; signage, markings and possible 20 mph TRO too minor or uncertain (DL 27-39)
Route facts recorded
- Site adjoins the Infill Village Boundary of Hatton Station (railway station, yacht club and nursery only)
- 350 m walk to the station along unlit, narrow Station Road with slim verges and a railway bridge; no continuous footway; kerb refuge on the bridge
- Traffic 653 vehicles a day, 64 two-way in peaks, mean 23-26 mph, 85th percentile ~30 mph; no injury collisions since 2014
- CCTV recorded 70 pedestrians and 13 cyclists over 12 hours, but "some journeys arise out of necessity rather than choice"
- Shop and pub at Shrewley 1.7-1.8 km, school 2.3 km (served by minibus), canal towpath unlit and unsurfaced
- Hatton station has fewer than 4 trains per hour and fewer than 2 per hour each way, so not a "well-connected station"
What made the difference
The walking route to the station. The site was close to a railway station, but the 350 m route was an unlit, narrow road with no footway and a pinch-point bridge, so the station's proximity did not deliver a genuine choice of modes. Low traffic speeds and volumes, no collision record, and observed pedestrian use did not carry the day. Failure on that one point also knocked out GB8(1)(b), because the pedestrian safety improvements were not secured. The appellant would have needed a deliverable, secured footway or equivalent segregated route to the station (via s278 or a Grampian condition with the Highway Authority's support), plus certainty over any speed limit change.
A summary of a public appeal decision from the research dataset behind this page, written from the decision letter. Quotations are checked against the letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Text, data and images on this page are released under the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence: share and adapt them freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.