Planning appeal decision
The Old Stags Head, 65 Church Hill, Penn, Wolverhampton, WV4 5JB
Planning appeal 3319946 at The Old Stags Head, 65 Church Hill, Penn, Wolverhampton, WV4 5JB (Wolverhampton City Council) was dismissed on 11 October 2023 by Inspector Parsons J, following a hearing. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether the proposal 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 change of use and extension of The Old Stags Head Public House, to provide a 6-bed family home (Use Class C3). Erection of retaining wall in rear garden
- Authority
- Wolverhampton City Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Hearing
- Development
- residential · Change of use
- Inspector
- Parsons J
- Postcode
- WV4 5JB
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the proposal 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 Openness of the Green Belt
- heritage assets, having regard to the Vicarage Road (Penn) Conservation Area and The Old Stags Head public house, a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA)
- the provision of community facilities
- 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 required to justify the proposal
What decided it
The combined harm from inappropriate development and limited loss of openness in the Green Belt, together with less than substantial harm to the Conservation Area and the non-designated heritage asset, was not clearly outweighed by the identified benefits, so very special circumstances did not exist.
The benefits of dwelling creation, energy efficiency improvements, heritage building reuse and economic benefits during construction, weighing significantly in favour, did not clearly outweigh the substantial weight given to Green Belt harm and the considerable weight given to less than substantial heritage harm, so the balance tipped against the proposal.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy C3Policy HE1Policy HE4Policy HE5Policy D6Policy D8Policy D9Policy D12Policy CSP4Policy ENV2Policy G1Policy G2Policy G3
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 149Paragraph 150Paragraph 137Paragraph 202Paragraph 93
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision


More decisions in Wolverhampton
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2023
- Allowed6 June 20253357836Land at Hugh Porter Way, Aldersley, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV6 9NW
- Dismissed22 August 20243334822Land West of 301 Bridgnorth Road, Wightwick, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV6 8BW
- Dismissed18 October 2021327693640 Gerrard Road, Willenhall, WV13 3LB
- Dismissed29 October 20266013350Wergs Road, Wolverhampton, WV6 8QN
- Allowed26 October 20266013623Footpath Outside 43 Dunkley Street, Worverhampton, WV1 4AN
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.
®