Appeal 6003241

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Newcastle-under- Lyme Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

I have taken the description of development in the banner heading above from the Decision Notice of the Council as it describes the development in a more concise manner than that on the application form. Whilst there is no record of a formal agreement to the change in front of me, given that the appellant has utilised the same description within their appeal statement I am satisfied that neither party is prejudiced by this course of action.

The appeal scheme relates to an outline proposal, with access to be considered at this stage, and with all other matters reserved for future consideration. I have considered the appeal accordingly.

The Council’s decision notice did not cite any development plan policies in the reason for refusal. However, since the Council made its decision, progress has been made on the Draft Emerging Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council Local Plan. The hearing sessions have taken place and the Inspector has written to the Council setting out suggested main modifications. The Council have consulted on these main modifications and shared consultation responses with the Inspector in February 2026. Moreover, the appellant has had the opportunity to comment on the relevance of the emerging policies through the appeal process. In these circumstances I consider moderate weight can be placed on the policies within it.

The main issue is whether the site is a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to accessibility to local facilities and sustainable modes of transport.

The proposal is for a pair of self-build dwellings that would be located on an undeveloped parcel of land within open countryside. Although the size of the dwellings is not established at the outline stage, given the size of the plots it is reasonable to suppose that both properties would accommodate families. Hence, future occupants would be likely to have a range of needs necessitating regular travel to access work, education, leisure and retail facilities. Loggerheads and Ashley are the nearest settlements. These provide some limited facilities, but it is likely that future occupants would need to travel further afield to access work and a wider range of facilities.

There is an existing footpath and bridleway between the appeal site and [address]. Regular bus services run along [address], which is close to the settlement boundary of Loggerheads.

On my site visit I walked from the appeal site along the bridleway and footpath down to [address] where the bus stops are located. Whilst this walk, took little over 5 minutes it is an undulating route which is both unlit and unsurfaced. Furthermore, much of the footpath is lined with mature hedgerows and trees on both sides, which means that there is no form of natural surveillance for users of the route. Consequently, the path feels relatively secluded. I am therefore not satisfied that this path offers a suitable route for frequent use by pedestrians, particularly during hours of darkness or poor weather. It is pertinent that during winter months any commuters would be undertaking at least one leg of their journey in total darkness along this path. The absence of lighting, combined with the uneven, enclosed and isolated nature of the path would deter use by future occupiers of the proposed development, particularly those with limited mobility, parents with pushchairs or anyone travelling alone.

The only other realistic route to reach the bus stop on [address] or other nearby facilities would be to utilise the A53. This road is unlit, has no footpath and due to its 50mph speed limit carries fast moving traffic. Such a walking route would make pedestrians feel vulnerable to traffic and unsafe. Hence, they would avoid it. Consequently, future occupiers would most likely rely on the use of private vehicles to access everyday services and employment.

My findings on this are consistent with, and reinforced by, a previous recent appeal decision concerning the site (Ref: APP/P3420/W/25/3359643). The development was made in outline for 2 detached dwellings and so is directly comparable. Therefore, that decision is highly material in this determination.

Moreover, a number of policies within the emerging Local Plan are relevant to the scheme. Policy PSD1 requires windfall development to be physically well located to settlements, infrastructure and sustainable transport modes. Policy PSD3 sets out a development hierarchy which directs development to the main settlements in the Borough, indicating that the rural areas are not a focus of growth. Policy PSD4 sets out the 11 types of development that can be acceptable in open countryside locations. Pertinently, the list includes at point j) self-build and custom build dwellings that comply with policy HOU6. Policy HOU6 provides support for self-build developments within defined centres. Given the appeal site is not within a defined centre and located within open countryside the emerging Local Plan does not provide support for the appeal proposals. This factor counts against allowing the scheme.

The appellant has referenced an appeal decision at [address] (Ref: APP/P3420/W/24/3348254) dated 7th March 2025 which is within walking distance of the appeal site. The appeal on [address] was for a single self-build dwelling and from the plan provided shows that it is located to the north of the appeal site. It is evident that occupiers of the [address] development would require access along the same footpath to reach the bus stop positioned south of the appeal site on [address]. In the determination of this appeal the Inspector commented that during daylight hours, I consider that it would be a realistic and attractive walking route for the occupants of the proposed development to utilise and would provide a safe and continuous route segregated from vehicular traffic and consequently allowed the appeal.

Nevertheless, the [address] appeal precedes the more recent and directly relevant appeal decision at the appeal site and concerned a single unit. In these circumstances, whilst limited positive weight is derived from the [address] appeal, greater weight is attributed to the subsequent appeal decision concerning the same site.

A number of other appeal decisions have been highlighted by the appellant. However, the limited information provided inhibits a full comparison with the appeal proposal. Nevertheless, it is highly unlikely that they hold more resonance with the appeal proposal than the previous recent appeal for two dwellings at the site. As such, they carry little weight and do not lead me to a different view.

For the reasons given, the appeal site would not be served by suitable walking routes providing access to local facilities and sustainable modes of transport. Future occupants would not have a genuine choice of transport modes as they would be likely to be heavily reliant on the private car. Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to the sustainable transport objectives in paragraphs 110 and 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The principal difference between the current appeal proposal and the earlier dismissed appeal on the same site is that the 2 dwellings in this case would be self-build or custom build houses (SBH). The appellant has outlined the importance placed on the provision of SBH by successive governments. This is evident in the encouragement given to such development in national policy and reinforced by statutory duties. The appellant asserts that there is unmet local need for SBH and I have not seen evidence to suggest otherwise. Accordingly, the provision of 2 such units is an important benefit that attracts positive weight in the overall balance.

Nevertheless, it is not shown that the provision of SBH has paramountcy over other objectives in national policy, including those that seek to promote sustainable transport. Furthermore, it is not fully explained how the SBH would be secured. The appellant does not provide a completed planning obligation, whereas the Council suggests a planning condition. The enforceability of the latter is doubtful as it is not clear what remedy there would be in the event of a breach. As such, it would not meet the tests for conditions set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework. [name] am not assured that the proposed dwellings would be secured as SBH, this limits the positive weight attributed to this factor.

Both parties accept that the Council does not currently have a 5 year housing land supply. No figure has been provided by the Council however this is estimated by the appellant to be 3.08 years and I have no basis to find otherwise. This represents a significant shortfall. Both parties also agree that paragraph 11 d) of the Framework applies which aligns with the approach set out in footnote 8. There is nothing before me to suggest that there are strong reasons to refuse the development as outlined in paragraph 11 d) i). Accordingly, paragraph 11d) ii) is engaged.

This stipulates that 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, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination. Footnote 9 of the Framework sets out the specific policies referred to in paragraph 11 d) ii). These include paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework.

The proposal would deliver two additional houses, contributing to housing supply where there is unmet need and supporting the Framework’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. Moreover, the proposal seeks to provide SBH where there is a particular local shortfall. The development would also provide economic benefits during both the construction phase and in future occupation. However, given the proposal is for just 2 dwellings, the benefits would be modest in extent.

Furthermore, it will be seen from my reasoning above that I have found the proposal would conflict with paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. This is because the appeal site would not be served by suitable walking routes thereby increasing private car use to access local services and facilities. This is a major shortcoming of the appeal scheme, and I attach significant weight to this harm.

Taking all matters into account, the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

[name] have no basis to find that the proposal conflicts with the development plan, adverse impacts have been identified which would conflict with national policy in the Framework and emerging development plan policies. These are important material considerations which outweigh the benefits of the proposal such, that the appeal should be dismissed.