Appeal 6002046

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted erection of between 1 and 9 dwellings at Land adjacent to 1 & 2 [name] and [address], [address] and [address], Butterton [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00747/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 technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

Since determination of the planning application. the [site address] 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 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. With particular regard to whether the appeal site is grey belt land and whether the proposal would be inappropriate development.

The appeal site lies in the Green Belt, where the Framework states that development is inappropriate, other than in a few exceptions which are set out in paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework. Policy PSD5 of the Emerging Local Plan sets out that planning permission will not be granted for inappropriate development within the Green Belt, in accordance with the approach set out within the Framework. I have therefore had regard to Policy PSD5 insofar as it is consistent with the Framework.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework states that the development of homes in the Green Belt is not inappropriate where the development would utilise grey belt land and where other certain circumstances apply. It is common ground that the site does not strongly contribute to any of the Green Belt purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143 of the Framework, and I see no reason to take a different view.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework sets out that the development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where all the following apply: a. The development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan; b. There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed; c. The development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework; and d. Where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘[name] requirements set out in paragraphs 156-157.

The Council have found that criteria a) and b) would be met and that criteria d) would not apply as the proposed development would noy constitute major development. I have no reason to reach a different conclusion, as such the only criterion in dispute is c), which is whether the development would be in a sustainable location.

The appeal site is located close to a footway, however the distance to access services and facilities by walking would be great. As such, the appeal site would unlikely enable future occupiers to access any services and facilities within a reasonable walking distance. Notwithstanding the distance by walking, there would be services and facilities within a reasonably short cycling distance which could represent an option for future occupiers.

There are two bus stops within a very short walking distance from the appeal site which provide a regular service to Newcastle as well as Hanley and Shrewsbury, as well as scheduled services to a local school. These bus services would provide access to a large number of services and facilities and due to the very close relationship with the appeal site and frequency of services, this would provide a genuine alternative to the private car.

I note the Council’s concern that future occupiers may not attend the school that the scheduled bus service is provided for, but it is nonetheless a benefit in favour of the proposed scheme as it would provide an option for sustainable travel should future occupiers require it.

The Council have referred to advice within the Active Travel England Standing Advice Note: Active travel and sustainable development. This guidance recommends that a mix of local amenities should be located within 800m walking and wheeling distance which the proposal would be contrary to. However, this guidance also recommends off-site cycling infrastructure to a range of local amenities and the application site should be within 400m of a high-frequency bus stop. While there would be some conflict with the guidance in terms of walking and wheeling distance, this attracts limited weight against the proposal due to access to cycling and bus routes.

The proposed development would unlikely provide suitable access to services and facilities by walking, due to the distance required to travel, however, there would be opportunity to cycle and use the bus to reach a broad range of services and facilities. Having regard to Paragraph 110 of the Framework, which recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, the cycling and bus options would represent a genuine alternative to the private car for future occupiers.

I therefore conclude that the appeal site would be in a sustainable location and would therefore meet the criteria outlined within Paragraph 155 of the Framework and would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. I find no conflict with Policy PSD5 of the Emerging Local Plan.

The Council have referred to an appeal in an attempt to justify their case. 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 Land off Wesleyan Road2, this differs from the appeal proposal as a five-minute walk was required to reach the nearest bus stop along an unlit and unsurfaced footpath which differs from the proposal before me where the bus stops would be closer and accessible in part by a surfaced footway.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.