Appeal 6001212

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the retention of former [site address] as a dwelling and associated domestic curtilage at [site address] , [site address] , Willoughbridge, Staffordshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/00858/FUL, subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall be retained in accordance with drawing nos: 100/1040/2024 (Plans and Elevations), 100/1041/2024 (Location Plan) and 100/1042/2024 (Block Plan).

The application form states that the application is retrospective. Based upon my site visit and on the evidence before me, I have considered the appeal on the basis that the development has already taken place.

The Council has referred to the Newcastle-under-Lyme Local Plan 2020-2040 at main modifications stage. However, I have little information to suggest when the plan is likely to be adopted, if any policies have been modified, or if there are any unresolved objections. I have not therefore referred to it in my determination.

The Government launched a consultation on reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework in December 2025, but as the proposals are still subject to change, they carry little weight. Accordingly, the decision was made with reference to the December 2024 version of the Framework.

The main issue is whether the development is suitably located having regard to relevant development plan policies concerning sustainable locations.

[site address] (the Lodge) is a detached dwelling with an area of associated driveway and forms part of the wider [site address] estate. It is located within the open countryside for planning purposes.

Policies H1 and H9 of the Newcastle under Lyme Local Plan 2011 (the LP) outline, amongst other things, that regarding the conversion of rural buildings for living accommodation a list of criterion needs to be met, one of which is the requirement that the building does not require reconstruction, extension or substantial alteration as well as ensuring its form, bulk and general design assimilates with its surrounding.

[address] has undergone repair work previously to enable its use as storage in connection with the management and maintenance of the wider estate. However, there is limited substantive evidence to adequately demonstrate the condition of the Lodge prior to the works carried out in relation to the appeal scheme subject of this decision.

Consequently, whether the Lodge has been reconstructed rather than converted is a matter of planning judgement. I acknowledge that the original structure has been used in the building works relating to the Lodge, however, there remains limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the works undergone on the Lodge constituted a conversion without substantial alteration given that the aerial photograph from approximately 2018 shows significant vegetation and limited built form. Therefore, in the absence of adequate evidence, in my planning judgement the appeal scheme constitutes a reconstruction.

Paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) provides that isolated homes in the countryside should be avoided unless it would meet one of the exceptions it outlines. Notably, in this appeal the appellant contends that the appeal scheme constitutes an exception under paragraph 84(c) regarding the re-use of redundant or disused buildings and the enhancement of its immediate setting. However, I have identified the significant vegetation and absence of built form on the aerial photograph. Consequently, based on the evidence before me, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the appeal scheme comprises the re-use of a redundant or disused building. It therefore does not benefit from support from Policy LNPG1 of the Loggerheads Neighbourhood Plan 2013-2033 (online version).

Furthermore, [name]/[name] is defined in Annex 2 of the Framework as land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it, including the curtilage of the developed land. However, it excludes land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape. Consequently, given the evidence before me regarding the vegetation, to my mind the remains of the previous structure had blended into the landscape. It therefore does not constitute [name]/ [name].

The appellant has referred to the appeal scheme constituting a self-build dwelling. However, there is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the appeal scheme is indeed self-build.

[name] acknowledge the historical relationship of a lodge on the appeal site, given all of the above, the appeal scheme results in a dwelling within the open countryside for planning purposes.

The settlement of [name] is approximately 5.7km from the Lodge. Additionally, the appeal site is around 1.9 miles from the hamlet of Knighton and 2.4km from the hamlet of Blackbrook where bus services are provided. I also note that [name] and Ashley are approximately 1.9km and 5.1km from the appeal site respectively whilst the village of Woore is around 3.5km in distance. Whilst there are public footpaths close to the appeal site to both Blackbrook and Ashley, there remains limited lighting available for the occupants of the appeal scheme to access these settlements for daily facilities and services.

The Framework outlines in paragraph 110 that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Nevertheless, considering all of the above, it is likely that the occupants of the development are reliant upon private motor vehicle to access daily services and facilities.

Regarding the appeal decisions at [address], Acreswood and [name] of [address] and East of [address], I do not have the full circumstances of these decisions before me. Consequently, I cannot be certain that they are wholly comparable to the appeal scheme before me. Nevertheless, each application is determined on its own merits and for the reasons given above, they do not lead me to a different conclusion.

In conclusion, the appeal site is not a suitable location for the development and results in a dwelling in the open countryside. It therefore conflicts with Policies SP1 (online version) and ASP6 of the Newcastle-under-Lyme and [name] 2006-2026 and Policies H1 and H9 of the LP insofar as they seek to ensure that residential development including the conversion of rural buildings for living accommodation are in sustainable locations and protect the countryside.

The Council has stated that they are able to demonstrate a housing land supply of 3.08 years. This is significantly below the housing land supply the Council is expected to deliver in line with the Framework. Whilst the appeal scheme would deliver one unit it would nonetheless boost the housing stock in circumstances where there is a shortfall.

In determining this appeal, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who do and do not share a protected characteristic.

From the evidence my decision has the potential to affect a person with a protected characteristic for the purpose of the PSED such as age. The appeal scheme provides independent living accommodation for the appellant’s elderly Aunt. Consequently, there is a potential for an adverse impact upon a person with a protected characteristic.

A lack of harm regarding character and appearance of the surrounding area is a neutral factor in the determination of this appeal.

As set out above, the appeal scheme would result in an isolated dwelling in an unsuitable location and would therefore conflict with the development plan as a whole. However, because of the Council’s housing land supply position, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged.

The proposal would deliver an additional housing unit in a Borough that is falling significantly below the level of housing required by national policy. One unit would make a modest but important contribution as indicated in paragraph 73 of the Framework.

Furthermore, I have identified above that the appeal scheme provides the opportunity to further the aims of the PSED regarding independent living accommodation for a person with a protected characteristic. It therefore attracts moderate weight in this case.

In conclusion, when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole, the unsuitable location of the proposed dwelling does not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of an additional home in this case. Accordingly, the presumption in favour of development applies and this indicates that permission should be granted.

Additionally, I have had regard to the PSED and the personal circumstances of the appellant and their family. Consequently, it is also necessary and proportionate to allow the appeal.

The Council has provided a suggested condition which I have considered against the Framework, and advice contained in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have amended the wording of the suggested condition for clarity and to ensure accordance with the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework.

I have attached a condition specifying the approved plans to provide certainty (1).

I have not imposed a condition requiring the dwelling to remain in the estate ownership and not to be let or sold without prior approval of the local planning authority as well as a condition requiring the parking area to be approved prior to its occupation as suggested by the Highways Authority. This is because the need for these conditions to make the development acceptable in planning terms has not been adequately demonstrated.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan, but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.