Appeal 6003334

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle for 1 or 2 dwellings. The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development proposed. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent technical details consent (TDC) application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

Cannock Chase Local Plan (2014) (CCLP) referred to in the Decision Notice has been superseded by the Cannock Chase District Local Plan 2018-2040 (CCDLP), which was adopted on 23 March 2026. The main parties were provided with the opportunity to comment on the CCDLP in the context of this planning appeal.

Appeal decisions must be based on the policies from the development plan prevailing at the time of determination. Policies referred to in the reasons for refusal from the CCLP are no longer relevant and are disregarded. The Council has identified the relevant policies from the CCDLP to this appeal.

The main issues are 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 proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the Cannock Chase National Landscape (CCNL) and the effect on protected trees; and • whether other considerations clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm as to amount to very special circumstances.

The appeal site is located within the Green Belt. The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The Framework states that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

CCDLP Policy SO7.6 broadly reflects national Green Belt policy and states that inappropriate development in the Green Belt will be refused, except in very special circumstances. As such there is consistency with the Framework.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework sets out that certain types of development are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, subject to four criteria. Criterion (b) relates to a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. The appellant acknowledges that the Council’s housing land supply position has altered. On the basis of the recently adopted CCDLP, its housing requirements in the spatial strategy, and the absence of any evidence of the [name] being below the relevant thresholds, criterion (b) has not been demonstrated. As all the criteria of paragraph 155 must be satisfied, the proposal would not fall under this exception.

Other exceptions are also identified in paragraph 154 of the Framework where development would be regarded as not inappropriate. Whilst not directly raised by the main parties, Part g) is relevant in this case as it relates to the limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL), whether redundant or in continuing use, which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The appeal site has open fields to the north and south and holds distinctly different characteristics to the suburban housing to the opposite side of [address]. Therefore, I am satisfied that the site constitutes PDL as per the definition in Annex 2 of the Framework in that it constitutes a residential garden outside of a built-up area.

The appeal site consists primarily of maintained lawns and areas of landscaping, hardstanding, a brick pergola and 2 shipping containers. Notwithstanding the absence of evidence relating to the status of the shipping containers and whether they have been lawfully developed, the site forms part of a large open garden.

Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt, and it broadly has spatial and visual dimensions. Whilst detailed matters of the dwellings are not considerations for permission in principle, the proposal would place up to 2 dwellings on open garden land where there is a noticeable absence of permanent buildings. This would result in significant harm to spatial openness.

Despite the presence of hedgerows and trees along parts of the site’s boundaries, views into the site can be achieved from the access off [address], as well as through gaps in vegetation across the adjoining fields from public highways. Due to these conditions and the intervening distances involved, the proposal would result in limited harm to visual openness.

In addition, due to the size of the garden and the resulting space between No. 49, [name] and a modest workshop building, the proposal would not represent limited infilling.

Taking all these factors together, the proposed development would have both spatial and visual impacts, which would result in substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Consequently, it would not comply with exception 154 g) of the Framework.

An appeal decision1 presented in support of the proposal is materially different to the appeal scheme before me as the Inspector in that case found the proposed development would accord with paragraph 155 of the Framework due to amongst other things, the lack of a 5-year housing land supply. As such a comparison is of limited relevance in this instance and I have therefore considered the appeal on its individual planning merits.

In conclusion, the proposed development would not accord with any of the exceptions contained in paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework and is therefore inappropriate development in the Green Belt in terms of the Framework and CCDLP Policy SO7.6.

[address] marks a clear boundary between the built-up area to the east and the contrasting open countryside to the west, the latter of which is characterised by very few properties that are predominantly set within generous grounds scattered amongst open fields and areas of woodland.

The provision of up to 2 dwellings would reduce the noticeable gap in built form between No. 49, [name], and the workshop building, eroding the existing open nature of the site. Creating a tighter form of development with smaller plots than those currently found would also lessen the clear distinction between the built-up area and the open countryside. Whilst the existing landscaping would partly screen the urbanising impact of the proposal, it would still be visible through breaks in the vegetation, from the access point off [address], as well as from No. 49 and [name].

The appeal site is also within the CCNL. The Framework directs that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes.

Reference is made to the [name]: Etchinghill and Springfields residential character but no supporting documentation has been provided. However, it was evident on my site visit that the landscape beyond the built-up area was distinctively rural with far reaching views across undulating fields and woodland. Due to the topography and the presence of open fields, the site forms a prominent part of the countryside landscape at the edge of the built-up area, particularly when viewed from [address] and [address]. 1 Appeal Decision Ref: APP/M3645/W/24/3347328

Details such as appearance, layout and landscaping would be considered at the TDC stage. Nevertheless, the built form of up to 2 dwellings at this location, resulting in a greater density of development compared to the sparse distribution of dwellings in this part of the countryside landscape, would be appreciable given its slightly elevated positioning adjacent to open fields.

This would result in a visual extension of the more densely developed suburban housing found on the opposite side of [address] into the countryside. It would diminish the sensitive countryside landscape setting to the built-up area, harming the strong rural character and appearance of the area. This is materially different to the Inspector’s findings in an appeal decision2 relating to a garage at a nearby property.

A Tree Preservation Order covers part of the appeal site. Based on the evidence before me and from my own observations, I am satisfied that an appropriate area has the potential for up to 2 dwellings to be constructed in a manner that would not have a harmful impact on protected trees. The details of the existing trees, including matters such as impact on root protection areas, would be a matter for the TDC stage.

Whilst the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on protected trees, I have identified an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the CCNL. This conflicts with [name] SO1.2, SO7.4 and SO7.5, which seek, amongst other things, development proposals that protect and conserve local distinctiveness, scenic qualities, rural openness and sense of place, and resist those which adversely impact on the landscape and scenic beauty of the CCNL.

The proposed development would deliver up to 2 dwellings to the housing supply. There would also be associated economic benefits during the period of construction and once the dwellings are occupied. However, the limited scale of the development means that I afford these benefits limited weight.

Although the potential to construct outbuildings under permitted development rights is a material consideration, no details of such a scheme is before me, and without such information a full and detailed comparison with the case cannot be made. Additionally, there is no compelling evidence that the fallback position is a greater than theoretical possibility, or that if the appeal is dismissed the fallback would be pursued. As such, I give this limited weight.

I note reference to the consultation on the proposed revisions to the Framework. While the revised draft is a material consideration, it is subject to change. I therefore attribute it very limited weight.

The appeal site falls within the Zone of Influence for the Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation (SAC), which is a European Site as defined in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). The appellant has provided a signed unilateral undertaking (UU), which would secure a financial contribution towards measures to mitigate the adverse impacts resulting 2 Appeal Decision Ref: APP/X3405/D/24/3348165 from increased recreational pressures. This accords with the mitigation developed for the SAC. Notwithstanding the UU, as I have found that the appeal scheme would be unacceptable for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to consider whether there would be any likely significant effects on the integrity of the SAC or undertake an Appropriate Assessment. [name] were to find that suitable mitigation had been appropriately secured, a lack of harm would be a neutral factor.

Paragraph 153 of the Framework is clear that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. I have found that there would be harm to the Green Belt by reason of the proposed development’s inappropriateness and its effect on openness. The proposal would also have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the CCNL.

The Framework states that the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm resulting from the development must be clearly outweighed by other considerations for permission to be granted. The other considerations in this case, as detail above, do not have sufficient cumulative weight to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm. As such, the very special circumstances necessary to justify this development do not exist. This would be contrary to the Framework and CCDLP Policy SO7.6.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.