Proposed development is a single storey outbuilding to form residential annex

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 May 2026 by P B Jarvis DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007233 Thornby Lodge, Consall Forge, Wesley Rock, ST9 0AJ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Sinfield against the decision of Staffordshire Moorlands District Council. • The application Ref. is SMD/2025/0516. • The proposed development is a single storey outbuilding to form residential annex. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey outbuilding to form residential annex at Thornby Lodge, Consall Forge, Wesley Rock, ST9 0AJ in accordance with the terms of application ref: SMD/2025/0516 and subject to the following conditions: 1) This development hereby permitted shall be begun within three years of the date of this decision. 2) This permission shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2522-CTD-00-SI-DR-A-010-P01 (site location plan), 2522-CTD-00-SI- DR-A-011-P02 (site block plan as existing), 2522-CTD-00-XX-DR-A-012-P02 (site sections as existing), 2522-CTD-00-SI-DR-A-013-P03 (site block plan as proposed), 2522-CTD-00-00-DR-A-015-P01 (proposed floor plans and elevations), 2522-CTD-00-XX-DR-A-016-P01 (coloured elevations as proposed), 2522-CTD-00-SI-DR-A-014-P02 (site sections as proposed). 3) No development shall take place above ground until details and samples of all external facing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4) No development shall take place until details of an archaeological watching brief to be undertaken during all groundworks have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed scheme and all archaeological works must be undertaken by an appropriately experienced archaeological organisation or historic environment professional. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: Appeal Decision 6007233 2 • Whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies. • Effect on Green Belt openness • Effect on the character and appearance of the site and surroundings • Effect on the setting of nearby heritage assets • Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal Reasons 3. The appeal site lies in a remote rural location within the North Staffordshire Green Belt. It is located at the end of a long narrow lane and track which runs through woodland and provides access to a car park at its end. The appeal site lies to the north of the car park beyond another residential property, Rock Cottage. It comprises an extensive, steeply sloping plot with a number of trees and vegetation located across its terraced slopes. The existing attractive 18th century Thornby Lodge is a large detached dwelling of stone elevations under a Staffordshire blue tiled roof. It has been extended to the front by a glazed conservatory. It sits about halfway up the site facing towards the valley bottom to the east. 4. The wider surroundings comprise ancient woodland within the Churnet Valley at the bottom of which are the River Churnet, Caldon Canal and Churnet Valley railway running north-south. The area is of rich industrial and historic interest with Consall Forge lime kiln (Grade II listed) just to the north of the appeal site and the canal bridge (Grade II) further to the east. The Caldon Canal Conservation Area (CA) encompasses the land along the valley bottom though the appeal site does not lie within it. The listed forge (lime kiln) is also a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM). On the far eastern side of the railway tracks is the Black Lion public house and a further residential property. 5. The area is traversed by a number of public rights of way with Consall 4 running directly along the northern side of the appeal site. This part of the path comprises steep steps running up the sloping valley side between the appeal site and woodland to the north which is also a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Despite its remoteness, the area is popular with local residents with many visitors there at the time of my site visit. Whether inappropriate development 6. Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one the listed exceptions apply. Policy SS10 (Other Rural Areas Strategy) of the of the Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan (2020) (LP) seeks to maintain the Green Belt with strict control over inappropriate development allowing only for exceptions as defined by Government policy. The Framework exceptions do not include detached outbuildings and the parties agree that none of the paragraph 154 exceptions apply. 7. However, the appellant contends that the appeal site falls within the definition of ‘grey belt’ as set out in Framework paragraph 155. That paragraph states that the Appeal Decision 6007233 3 development of homes, commercial or other development in the Green Belt should not be considered inappropriate where the criteria as set out all apply. 8. Grey belt is defined within the Framework glossary as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that in either case does not strongly contribute to any of purposes a, b or d in paragraph 143. It does not apply to land where the application of policies relating to areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development. In this case the nearby heritage assets and SSSI are such relevant areas or assets. 9. In respect of the heritage assets, their significance is derived mainly from their historic industrial associations and relationship with the river, canal and railway. The individual listed buildings are mainly of functional appearance though also display architectural features associated with their origins. The CA centres on the canal itself though extends close to the eastern boundary of the appeal site encompassing the track alongside the canal that extends up to the front of the lime kilns to the north of the appeal site. It is a pleasant and attractive area providing interest within the remote and wooded wider setting. Given the siting of the proposed building, set down into the slopes of the well vegetated site, I concur with the Council that it would not be visible from the CA and would not affect its setting. 10. The proposed building would be sited some distance from the listed canal bridge and would have little if any effect on its setting. It would be closer to the listed Consall Forge which is sited just to the north of the appeal site beyond the footpath. Whilst the proposed building would be seen in approaches along the footpath within the context of the adjoining forge, given that it would be set into the slope of the land at a lower level, within a well vegetated context, it would not appear unduly prominent or visually compete with it. Whilst of modern design it would incorporate traditional local materials sympathetic to its setting. 11. The Archaeology Officer confirms that there is evidence of an iron forge and slitting mill in use from the mid 17th century through to early 18th century though the main activities were likely to be located closer to the river. Notwithstanding this, it is likely that the site and immediate vicinity have been the focus of sustained industrial activity from at least the 17th century onwards hence there is some archaeological potential within it. Whilst raising no objections a condition to secure a watching brief during groundworks is recommended. 12. Overall, the proposal would not harm the setting or significance of the nearby heritage assets. There would be no strong reason for refusing or restricting the development in this regard. 13. With regard to the SSSI the Council did not raise any concerns and based on the evidence before me I have no reason to disagree. 14. In respect of whether the site contributes strongly to Green Belt purposes a (to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas), b (to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another) or d (to preserve the special character and setting of historic towns), I note that the appellant has referred to the Council’s Green Belt Review. It concluded that the site is part of a larger parcel of land that was found to make only a limited contribution to these purposes. The site does not lie close to Appeal Decision 6007233 4 any built-up areas or towns, historic or otherwise, and thus I agree that it does not make a strong contribution to any of these purposes. 15. Therefore, the site does fall within the definition of grey belt. However, in order for the proposal to be considered not inappropriate, the criteria of Framework paragraph 155 must all be met insofar as they apply. 16. In respect of criterion (a) the proposal would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt land across the area of the plan given the very small size of the site and the considerable area that would remain which would continue to serve the wider purposes of the Green Belt. 17. Criterion (b) states that there must be a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. In this regard, the appellant refers to the Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment which has identified a general need for persons needing care. However, that type of care typically falls within the C2 Use Class (Residential institutions and accommodation). The proposal would not fall within that use, being ancillary to the existing dwelling which falls under Class C3. Notwithstanding the particular use of the proposed annex in this case, it would not be able to meet the specific use for which the unmet need is evidenced in this case. Therefore, as this criterion would not be satisfied, the proposal is inappropriate development. 18. Given my findings above, it is not necessary to consider whether the proposal would satisfy criterion c, though I note that the site is in a remote location some considerable distance from any services and amenities such that the use of the private motor car is realistically the only option. 19. I conclude that whilst the site can be considered to fall within the definition of grey belt, given that the proposal would not satisfy all the criteria of paragraph 155, it would nevertheless comprise inappropriate development. Effect on green belt openness 20. The Framework states that one of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt is its openness. Openness is the absence of development notwithstanding the degree of visibility of the land in question from the public realm. Openness has both spatial and visual aspects. 21. The proposed single storey annex would be sited into the slope of the site and would be screened to a great extent by the existing trees and vegetation on the site such that there will only be a limited impact on the visual aspect of openness. However, the proposed building would have a fairly considerable footprint, particularly when compared to the existing dwelling, such that there would be a moderate impact on the spatial aspect of Green Belt openness. Effect on character and appearance 22. As noted above, the proposed annex would be set into the slope of the site and screened to significant degree by existing vegetation, with the opportunity for additional planting to add further screening. The building itself would be of contemporary but respectful design complementary in its appearance with the use of sympathetic external materials such as to respect the appearance of the host dwelling and its setting. Appeal Decision 6007233 5 23. Whilst it would introduce an additional building onto the appeal site within an area characterised by few buildings, given that the majority of the appeal site and its wooded character would be unaffected, it would not detract from the character of the site itself. For the same reasons, nor would it result in unacceptable countryside encroachment and whilst it would be seen from the footpath and to a lesser extent within the wider area, it would not appear as an unduly large or prominent building. Overall, the character and appearance of the area would not be harmed. 24. Overall, I consider that the proposal would complement the site and its surroundings. It would accord with LP Policies DC1 an DC3 which require well designed development that reinforces local distinctiveness and enhances local landscapes by resisting development that leads to prominent intrusion into the countryside. Effect on the setting of nearby heritage assets 25. This matter has already been assessed above in respect of ‘grey belt’ matters where it was concluded that the proposal would not harm the setting or significance of the nearby heritage assets. The character and appearance of the CA and the setting of the nearby heritage assets would be preserved and the duty under Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 would be satisfied. Whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is outweighed by other considerations 26. As found above, the proposed development comprises inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is by definition harmful. In addition, there would be harm to Green Belt openness. Substantial weight is to be given to these harms in accordance with Framework paragraph 153. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 27. The appellant has referred to a recently granted lawful development certificate (LDC) for an outbuilding for use as a home gymnasium and home office1. This relates to a building of the same size, siting and appearance as that now proposed in this appeal. Whilst under the current appeal scheme the use would be an ancillary residential annex rather than for a use incidental to the host dwelling, the impact of the current proposal would be very similar. 28. It has been established in case law2 that the prospect of a fall back position does not have to be probable or even have a high chance of occurring, it has to be only more than a theoretical prospect. As such the possibility of it happening may be very slight but this is sufficient to make the position a material consideration. The appellant clarifies that it is his intention to construct an outbuilding on the site. Whilst his preference is for it to be utilised as a residential annex as proposed in this appeal, an acceptable alternative would be for the construction of the home gymnasium / home office as granted by the LDC. As such the fall back position provided by the LDC is a material consideration in this case. 1 SMD/2025/0349 granted 7th November 2025 2 Schneck v SSHACL & West Berkshire DC [2022] WEHC 335 (Admin) Appeal Decision 6007233 6 29. In the above circumstances it is clear that the implementation of the LDC would result in an almost identical building on the same part of the appeal site as that proposed by this appeal. I therefore find that this is a material consideration of significant weight. 30. The appellant also contends that the proposed building would be sympathetic to its setting and would not appear unduly large or intrusive as alleged by the Council. However, whilst I agree that the proposed building would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, this is a factor or neutral weight in this context. 31. It is also of note that the proposed outbuilding would provide accommodation for a disabled relative of the appellant’s partner who needs assistance and care together with a limited degree of independence. This is a factor to which I attach moderate weight given the relationship that the annex would have with the existing dwelling. 32. Overall, these factors do clearly outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness and the harm to green belt openness. Therefore, very special circumstances have been demonstrated. The proposal thus accords with LP Policy SS10. Conditions 33. In addition to the standard time condition, a condition to refer to the approved plans is necessary in the interests of clarity and a condition to require the submission of samples of the materials to be used in the external surfaces of the development is necessary in the interest of the visual amenity and character of the area. A condition to secure an archaeological watching brief during ground works is also necessary to ensure the proper recording of any below ground archaeological remains. Conclusion 34. I conclude that whilst the proposal would comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt very special circumstances have been demonstrated to justify a grant of permission. The proposal therefore accords with the development plan and there are no other material considerations that indicate a decision otherwise. 35. Therefore, the appeal succeeds. P B Jarvis INSPECTOR