Appeal 6001103

The appeal is dismissed.

The site is located in the North Staffordshire Green Belt, and the appellant and Council agree that the proposed development would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt and would not harm the openness or permanence of the Green Belt. I see no reason to disagree with their conclusions in this regard. The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on highway safety; and • whether the proposed development would meet the statutory requirements for the provision of biodiversity net gain.

The appeal site currently comprises agricultural land and falls within the North Staffordshire Green Belt. The appeal scheme would introduce an agricultural track to access an existing agricultural building. The proposed track would be accessed from [address] and would be constructed of a permeable hardcore with a grass centre.

Based on the evidence before me, including the location plan, in my planning judgement the access point off [address] is within the red line boundary and therefore forms part of the appeal before me. It is surrounded by mature trees and there is a relatively steep gradient from [address].

The appellant has provided a highways and traffic assessment by SCP Transport Planning dated October 2025. The procedural guide for planning appeal advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme as it is important that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the local planning authority and by interested parties at the application stage. The Highways Authority are a statutory consultee and it has not been adequately demonstrated in the evidence before me that they have seen the assessment. I therefore cannot assume its accuracy.

Consequently, in the absence of adequate visibility splays, there is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the visibility of the access would not result in an unacceptable harmful effect upon highway safety. This is especially pertinent given the mature trees and telegraph pole/streetlight near to the proposed access.

Within the evidence before me the history of the appeal site including a map from around 1901, a sales catalogue from approximately 1985 as well as a timeline of images and photographs of the gateway from [address] onto the appeal site has been outlined. Nevertheless, whilst it may have been used during these times, it remains that there is limited substantive evidence to adequately demonstrate that the access point is safe for use.

I acknowledge that a temporary access which had been allowed over a section of an adjoining field has been removed and the fence line reinstated. Additionally, I recognise that the appeal site is also used by other individuals to access fields, maintain infrastructure, manage livestock and trees amongst other things, as well as the relatively light and routine character of vehicle use as evidenced in a vehicle log for September 2025. Nevertheless, considering all of the above as well as seasonal variations and a possible decrease in use over winter months, it remains in my planning judgement, that there is limited substantive evidence to adequately demonstrated that the proposed access would not result in harm to highway safety.

Given all of the above, the appeal scheme would therefore conflict with Policy T2 of The Plan for Stafford Borough 2011-2031 insofar as it seeks to ensure that new development must have safe and adequate means of access as well as not materially impair highway safety or traffic movement.

The appellant provided an updated [name] report dated 19 August 2025 during the appeal process. The procedural guide for planning appeal advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme as it is important that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the local planning authority and by interested parties at the application stage.

The Biodiversity Net Gain report dated 5 December 2024 and the submitted biodiversity metric calculation spreadsheet concludes that the mandatory 10% uplift in biodiversity net gain would not be achieved.

Consequently, based on the evidence before me, the appellant has not adequately demonstrated that the proposed development would result in a 10% net gain in biodiversity.

Nevertheless, I am mindful that Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)1 outlines that it would be generally inappropriate for decision makers, when determining a 1 Paragraph: 019 [name]: 74-[phone] planning application for a development subject to biodiversity net gain, to refuse an application on the grounds that the biodiversity gain objective would not be met.

PPG further provides that decision makers may need to consider more broadly whether the biodiversity gain condition is capable of being successfully discharged. Consequently, in this case whilst the mandatory 10% uplift in biodiversity net gain has not been adequately demonstrated, this does not mean that the biodiversity gain condition could not be successfully discharged in other ways, such as by way of off-site gains or through biodiversity credits.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development could meet the statutory requirements for the provision of BNG through the requirements of the Biodiversity Gain Plan required to discharge a deemed biodiversity gain condition as outlined in Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021.

The appeal scheme would enable the appellant to conduct daily welfare checks, move livestock safely as well as provide reliable access for veterinary and emergency purposes. Consequently, it would support the efficient and sustainable operation of the farm and support rural enterprise. I therefore attach moderate weight to this benefit.

I am aware that the site is close to a Scheduled Monument known as ‘[name], [name]’2. The monument includes an artificial mound situated on a natural hill approximately 1km to the west of the [name]. I have had regard to its national importance. I am satisfied that no harm to its significance would arise from the appeal scheme. However, a lack of harm in this respect does not alter my overall conclusions.

A lack of harm to the Green Belt and to the surrounding character and appearance of the appeal site are neutral factors in my determination of this case.

The Council has not raised the need for the proposed development as a putative reason for refusal. Based on the evidence before me, I find no reason to disagree with its conclusion on this matter.

I am satisfied that the proposal could provide the mandatory 10% uplift in biodiversity net gain. Nevertheless, for the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan considered as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.