Appeal 6004807

The appeal is dismissed.

The submitted application form clearly indicates the proposed dwelling would have 4 bedrooms. On the decision notice, the Council describes the proposal as being for a 4-bedroom dwelling and determined the proposal as a 4-bedroom dwelling in its delegated report, as did consultees, including the Highways Authority.

However, as part of the appeal I have been presented with several sets of floor plans and elevations that refer to a 3-bedroom dwelling. Modified plans reposition the window of the master bedroom and make an upper floor window ‘opaque’ to serve an ensuite. Unhelpfully, two of the different proposed elevations share the same plan and revision reference (1046-004-PL1). In their appeal statement (under Reason 2 Highways) the appellant refers to the house design having “received a minor internal amendment and reduces the number of bedrooms to 3” and also makes reference to moving the upper floor bedroom to the side and opaque glazing a bathroom window, in response to addressing separation distances for amenity issues. There are two different versions of the floor plans showing a 3-bedroom dwelling (1048-003-PL1 and 1046-003-PL2).

Planning appeals: Procedural Guide - England (updated May 2026) states that “The appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and there are no provisions within the Rules for amendments to be submitted. It is important that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the LPA and by interested parties at the application stage.” It goes on to say that “Accepting an amendment without it being subject to re-consultation would result in procedural unfairness.”

From the evidence before me I am of the view that amendments showing a 3- bedroom dwelling were not the plans the Council considered, and that the plans require consultation and that consultation has not taken place, otherwise the Highway Authority may have responded differently. [name] shall proceed on the basis that the appeal is as it was submitted and described and determined by the Council (and what interested parties understood to be the case), namely a 4- bedroom dwelling.

A Planning Obligation in the form of a [name] (the UU) has been submitted with the appeal and states that the dwelling would be a [name] dwelling (SBCH) within the definition of the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016) and the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Regulations. Based on this I am willing to accept that the proposed dwelling would not be for open market housing, as originally applied for, but would be a SBCH dwelling in accordance with the statutory definition. Should the dwelling not be a SBCH dwelling, then the Council can take the appropriate action if it deems necessary.

The UU seeks to confirm the dwelling would be a SBCH dwelling; donate land to the Council for the purpose of supplementing the open space in this location and pay a financial contribution towards mitigation of the Cannock Case Special Area of Conservation (the SAC). However, there are some shortcomings of the UU.

Whilst the planning application reference number is shown on the title page of the UU, there is no appeal reference, and no planning reference for the definitions of “the Application” and “the Planning Permission”. There is no Location Plan identifying “the Land” – only a Proposed Landscaping Plan. Obligation 5 refers to ‘additional land’ indicated on the attached plan, but there is no definition of this additional land and the attached plan is not clearly identified for this purpose. The UU does not include appropriate timescales for the various obligations.

With the various shortcomings and defects of the UU, I am not satisfied it confers the Council with the necessary safeguards. Consequently there is inadequate provision for securing a SBCH dwelling (that would then be exempt from the mandatory [name] (BNG) requirements), and to provide the necessary mitigation financial payments for the SAC, or for donating the nearby land to the Council.

The main issues in this appeal are: • The effect of the proposal on the character of the surrounding area; • The effect of the proposed development on highway safety, with regard to access and parking provision, • Whether adequate provision can be made for BNG, and • Whether the proposal makes adequate mitigation measures for the SAC.

The appeal site is a triangular parcel of grassland, with some scrub trees and undergrowth that forms part of a larger swathe of wider grassland and informal open space. The appeal site and open space are located at the end of a residential cul-de-sac [site address] , which itself is part of a larger housing estate. Dwellings around the turning-head face towards and overlook the appeal site and surrounding open space. Nearby is Green Belt and designated [name].

I am led to understand that the appellant owns part of the wider swathe of open land around the appeal site although the submitted Land Registry Title Plan shows the appellant owns some of the surrounding land but it does not appear to be contiguous with the appeal site. The appellant also advises there is no public right of access across the appeal site or the adjacent land, but he has allowed public access. [name] saw a number of people walk from the cul-de-sac turning head and head off with their dogs. For my benefit, the appellant had demarcated the appeal site with orange plastic barrier fencing as there are no physical boundaries or features to separate the appeal site from the surrounding land.

The open space as a whole extends from the end of the cul-de-sac to a small brook and woodland. Beyond there is the Wyrley & [name] and in the distance a housing estate under construction. The open land also extends to the north and south, such that the site forms part of a largely uninterrupted wider belt of land and vista. The appeal site and surrounding land are free of built development. With its informal and unkempt nature it provides a semi-rural backdrop and setting to the suburban estate and the edge of Pelsall and reads as part of a much wider swathe of open semi-rural land. Hence the appeal site positively contributes to the open and semi-rural character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would involve the erection of a two storey, pitched roof, brick and tile 4-bedroom dwelling, not dissimilar to the general form of dwellings in [site address] . It would have a square footprint and would be located towards the wider part of the site, about two-thirds into it.

The proposal would see the loss of this open site. The dwelling would be sited beyond the end of built development in the cul-de-sac and hence would be an encroachment into the open land. There are no existing boundaries to the appeal site, although its longest western boundary would align with garden fences of properties off [address] and [address]. Nonetheless it would be an incongruous visual and physical encroachment into the surrounding open space, at odds with the existing building lines and clusters of development. Hence the proposal would harmfully reduce the contribution the site makes to the semi-rural open character of the surrounding area. Consequently, the proposal would cause harm to the character of the area.

Accordingly the proposal would conflict with saved Policies GP2 and LC1 of the Walsall Unitary Development Plan (the UDP). These policies together seek, amongst other things, to ensure development contributes positively to the quality of the environment and would not have an unacceptable adverse impact, including on the countryside and urban open spaces.

A new access and driveway would be created off the turning-head of the cul-de-sac at the bottom of [site address] . It would be at an oblique angle to the kerb to allow sufficient space to get into the apex of the triangular site. The plans show there would be a hard surfaced driveway and two cars parked side by side near the front door. The ‘car turning’ plan shows it would be possible for a vehicle to make multiple manoeuvres within the driveway in order to turn round and leave the site in a forward manner.

Whilst drivers may choose to reverse straight down the drive and exit onto the turning head in reverse, [site address] is a short cul-de-sac as part of a larger residential estate. Furthermore, it is not a main road, nor a main spine road through the estate with passing traffic. Vehicle speeds would likely be low and vehicles using it would likely to be turning round or turning to the properties that are sited around the turning head. Visibility to the turning head is generally open and unobstructed, although there is a street light column at the turning head, which is not shown on the plans and which may need moving.

Nonetheless, a 4-bedroom dwelling would require provision of 3 on-site parking spaces to meet the Council’s parking standards. There would be inadequate space for the on-site provision for 3 cars and this would make any on-site vehicle manoeuvres very difficult to achieve. It would therefore be likely that the inadequate on-site parking provision would increase the likelihood of vehicles being parked on the road for convenience.

During my site visit, albeit a snap shot in time, I saw a number of cars parked on the road approaching the turning head even though most properties in [site address] have garaging and driveway parking. There are no parking restrictions along [site address] or the turning head. However, to allow a new dwelling with inadequate parking provision of its own would likely increase the pressure for on-street parking in [site address] , including for visitors, and would likely result in vehicles regularly parking on the road and turning head. This in turn would impede the turning/manoeuvring facility of the cul-de-sac to the detriment of all users, including the occupiers of the appeal property if they chose to reverse out of their drive.

It may be that some existing nearby dwellings do not have sufficient on-site parking for the number of cars, but I am assessing a new proposal in line with the current parking standards.

Accordingly, the proposal would be unacceptable and conflict with saved [name] T7 and T13 and Policy TRAN2 of the Black Country Core Strategy (the [name]). These seek, amongst other things, to ensure that transport impacts are managed and adequate levels of parking are provided that respect the character of the local area and are in accordance with the Council’s parking standards.

The third reason for refusal relates to the lack of details provided to confirm that the works will provide BNG, either in the form of incorporating native species via landscaping provision, and/or bat and bird boxes on the proposed building.

The appellant’s landscape plan shows there would be new native tree planting, although this would effectively replace some of the planting that would be removed from the site to facilitate the new dwelling. There would also be a new native mixed hedge boundary planted along the site’s longest western side with the adjacent open space. This would see some biodiversity net gain. The appellant also confirms that bat boxes would be placed on the dwelling and bird boxes throughout the site. Their provision could be conditioned, if I were minded to allow the appeal.

The Council’s ecologist makes reference to the proposed ecological mitigation measures and refers to a wildflower strip to offset the loss of grassland. This is not shown on the landscape plan, however this too could also be conditioned as part of a landscaping condition.

However, in terms of the mandatory national requirements that came into force for BNG, the [name] (Exemptions) Regulations 2024 set out development that is exempt. I have already concluded that the submitted UU does not satisfactorily secure the proposal as a SBCH dwelling for that purpose. Therefore, the proposal would not be exempt from the BNG requirements and therefore the appellant would need to demonstrate that there would be potential to secure the on-site 10% mandatory BNG. [name] am satisfied that there would be some BNG, it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that there would be a minimum of 10% net gain sufficient for the standard condition to be satisfactorily discharged.

Accordingly, there would be conflict with saved UDP Policy ENV23 and Core Strategy Policy ENV1. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that new development takes account of the natural environment and any necessary mitigation, and protects and safeguards the Black Country’s diversity and nature conservation, inside and outside its boundaries.

The site lies within a 15km ‘zone of influence’ (ZOI) of the [name], which is a European designated and protected habitat site. Natural England has advised that it is anticipated that new residential development within the ZOI is likely to have a significant effect on the qualifying features of the SAC due to risk of increased recreational pressure. Therefore the proposal, albeit for a single dwelling, would see an increase in the population and this would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC. I have therefore undertaken an Appropriate Assessment.

It is not disputed that specific identified measures, including a financial contribution, can mitigate against the adverse impact on the integrity of the SAC. During determination of the application, the appellant indicated a willingness to pay the [name] partnership a mitigation fee. Indeed this willingness is reiterated in the appellant’s submitted UU where it states that the appellant will enter into an agreement under section 111 to pay to the Council the sum of money required to discharge the ecology obligation under the SAC.

While it would be better if the specific sum of money was identified and specified in the UU, there is no specified timescale for the required payment. Therefore, notwithstanding the defects I have already identified with the UU, I cannot be sure that the payment would be appropriately made and mitigation secured. Consequently, I cannot conclude that the proposal would not have a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC. Accordingly, this would see conflict with saved UDP Policy ENV23 and Core Strategy Policy ENV1, whose aims are already outlined above.

The appeal site has been subject to previous applications for a pony grazing/stabling and for a dwelling. The appellant has sought to overcome previous reasons for refusal, some of which related to the absence of technical reports. That may be so and some of those issues no longer form reasons for refusal for the appeal proposal. However, I am considering the proposal as it has been presented and the current refusal reasons before me - I am not comparing the appeal proposal with previous iterations.

The appellant intends to donate nearby land in his ownership to the Council to help it supplement the open space provision in this location and replace that which would be removed by the proposal. Laudable as this is, there is nothing to indicate that the Council needs or wants the land or has the resources to look after it. Neither does the UU satisfactorily secure this given there is no timescale for the transfer to be completed. [name] give this only limited weight.

The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and would provide inadequate parking and access arrangements. Furthermore, in light of the shortcomings of the UU, the proposal would harm the integrity of the SAC and fail to provide the mandatory 10% BNG. As such the proposal would conflict with a number of development plan policies such that the proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole.

However, the appellant contends that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply (5YHLS), although neither party has advised what the Council’s 5YHLS position is or the degree of housing shortfall.

Assuming a shortfall, for applications involving the provision of housing and where there is a lack of a 5YHLS, footnote 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) directs that the policies which are most important are out-of-date. This engages Framework paragraph 11d)ii), often referred to as the ‘tilted balance’, and means that planning permission should be granted, unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

Notwithstanding the above, with reference to footnote 7 in Framework paragraph 11d)i) and given my conclusions above, the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance, which includes protected habitats such as SACs, provides a strong reason for refusing the proposed development. Therefore, I do not need to apply paragraph 11d)ii) of the Framework.

The proposed dwelling would help reduce the Council’s housing deficit, albeit in a very modest way, and accord with one of the Framework’s aims of boosting the supply of homes. The proposal would be a small windfall site and the Framework recognises that small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting housing requirements as they can often be built out relatively quickly. There would also be some very modest associated short-term socio-economic benefits from jobs and the supply chain during the construction phase, and some longer-term spending by future occupiers.

The proposal would also be for a SBCH dwelling. Local planning authorities have a duty to grant a sufficient number of suitable permissions to meet the demand for SBCH in their area, although there is no information before me as to the Council’s current supply and demand situation of such housing. Nonetheless, the provision of a SBCH dwelling would accord with the Framework’s aim of providing housing to meet the type and tenure of housing for different groups of the community, including “people wishing to commission or build their own homes”. However, I can only ascribe it limited weight as there is no satisfactory method of securing it, as already discussed. There would be some biodiversity gain, however the extent is undefined. The appellant’s intended donation of adjacent land to the Council attracts limited weight for the reasons already mentioned.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as whole. The material considerations outlined above are not sufficient to outweigh this conflict.

For the reasons above, the appeal should not succeed.