Appeal 6001959

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for proposed residential development for between 1 and 2 dwellings at [site address] , [site address] , Audley, Newcastle-under-Lyme [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00689/PIP.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second (‘technical details consent’) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted1. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent [name] application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The Council did not refer to any development plan policies within their decision notice, however, since determination the Newcastle-under-Lyme Local Plan 2020- 2040 (the Emerging Local Plan) has reached an advanced stage. Based on the evidence before me, the Emerging Local Plan is at an advanced stage and the policies relevant to this appeal are not subject to unresolved objections, as such, I give significant weight to the policies of the Emerging Local Plan referred to in the Council’s evidence in accordance with Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). 1 Paragraph: 012 [name]: 58-[phone]

A draft National Planning Policy Framework ‘Plan-making and national decision-making policies’ was issued by the Government for consultation on 16 December 2025 (Consultation Draft Framework) and with a deadline for comments by 10 March 2026. A Written Ministerial Statement was published on the same day outlining the key changes proposed. The Consultation Draft Framework has limited weight as a material planning consideration. In respect of the main issues which are pertinent to the consideration of this appeal I have continued to afford full weight to the published National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) as a whole from the point of view of determining this appeal. The Consultation Draft Framework does not alter or outweigh my conclusions below

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development.

The appeal site is an open parcel of land located approximately 1.8km from the settlement of Audley which has a number of services and facilities. Most of the route is served by a surfaced footway, however, in order to access the footway from the appeal site there would be a short stretch of road that would need to be walked along.

I acknowledge that the distance to reach the footway would be short and the road is lightly trafficked with no reported accidents, however, it would nonetheless be an unattractive option for most users. Furthermore, sections of the footway are unlit which would also reduce the likelihood of future occupiers using the route. These reasons, combined with the overall distance would mean that walking would be an unattractive option for future occupiers.

There is a public footpath close the appeal site which also provides access to Audley; however, this still requires walking along the road and the route is not surfaced or lit which would make it an unlikely option for future occupiers.

The appeal site is not located close to any bus stops and therefore using public transport would not be an option for future occupiers. The moderate distance to services and facilities could allow for cycling, however, as some of the route is unlit this would not be suitable for all users.

The proposed dwellings would comply with building regulations in providing electric car charging points, however, this does not attract any weight in favour of the proposed scheme as there is no guarantee that future occupiers would have an electric car.

I note that planning applications have been granted for new development near to the appeal site, however, this would not alter the unattractive walking route to access services and facilities. I also note that the appellant has walked the route previously, but I must have regard to future occupiers of the proposed scheme.

I therefore conclude that the appeal site would not be appropriately located and future occupiers would be reliant on the use of a private car to access services and facilities. The proposed development would conflict with Policies PSD1, PDS2 and PSD4 of the Emerging Local Plan which amongst other things, seek to ensure that development is well relates to existing settlements, infrastructure and sustainable transport modes.

The appellant has referred to other developments and an appeal decision in an attempt to justify the proposed development. I do not have the full details in respect of such examples so I cannot be sure of the circumstances. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits, based on the evidence before me.

In regard to Barthomley Road2, this would be located closer to Audley and would require walking a shorter section of a road without a footway, which differs from the proposal before me.

In respect of the Waggon and Horses3, conflict with the Frameworks aims which seek to promote the use of sustainable transport modes together with minimising the need to travel and reduce journeys by car were identified. The appeal was allowed on balance; however, the size of the scheme and other considerations differ from the appeal proposal before me.

The proposed development would not be appropriately located, and future occupiers would be reliant on the use of a private car to access services and facilities. In the context of the appeal site’s location which would have some limited access by walking and cycling to services and facilities, the magnitude of harm would be low.

The proposal would be contrary to Policies PSD1, PDS2 and PSD4 of the Emerging Local Plan. [name] are generally consistent with the Framework in ensuring that development is focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. Therefore, the conflict between the proposed development and the Policies outlined should be given significant weight and the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites in accordance with Paragraph 72 of the Framework. The appellant states that the Council is only able to demonstrate a 3.08 year supply which represents a significant undersupply. Paragraph 11 d) of the Framework indicates that, in such circumstances where the requisite housing land supply cannot be shown, the Policies which are important for determining the application should be deemed out-of-date and permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the Policies in the Framework taken as a whole. 2 25/00571/PIP 3 APP/P3420/W/18/3200823

The proposal would provide a small but important contribution to housing supply which in the context of the Council’s significant undersupply would attract significant weight as a benefit to the proposed scheme.

Consequently, when assessed against the Policies in the Framework when taken as a whole, the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan but material considerations, especially the presumption in the Framework, outweigh this conflict. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should be allowed.