# Planning Distilled: the NPPF 2026 decision route and every decision note > Independent research on planning decisions in England under the August 2026 NPPF: an interactive Framework navigator, a verified register of how inspectors use settlement tiers, and local case studies. Everything on this site is free to reuse under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), with credit to "Planning Distilled". That includes quoting, summarising, indexing, retrieval and training AI models. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. Source: https://planningdistilled.org/ (index: https://planningdistilled.org/llms.txt). Not legal advice. # The NPPF 2026 decision route in full Every question the NPPF 2026 Navigator asks, in order, with the condition under which it is asked, the answers it offers, the guidance drawn from decisions and the Framework text it rests on: 75 steps and 74 verbatim quotations from the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026), each checked against the published text. Reading guide: nodes are asked in this order, each only when its **Shown when** condition holds. A **judgement** is a planning judgement the user makes with the policy text, guidance and matching cases in front of them. **Findings** are what the answer records for the final reasons. ## Derived facts | Fact | Value | When | Basis | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | `major` | true | `units` ≥ 10; or Site area = "Yes, 0.5 ha or more" | Annex B: 10 or more homes, or a site of 0.5 ha or more. | | `major` | false | always | | | `unmetNeed` | true | Housing land supply = "No, below five years"; or Housing Delivery Test = "Yes, below 75%" | GB7 footnote 41; S5(1)(j). | | `unmetNeed` | false | always | | | `tr3Lean` | "fail" | Walking route: footway = "Gaps with no footway, where people walk in the carriageway or on the verge"; or Walking route: footway = "No pedestrian provision for most of the route"; or (Walking route: footway = "Narrow for some or all of the route: too narrow for a wheelchair or pushchair to pass another person", and (Walking route: traffic speed = "40 mph"; or Walking route: traffic speed = "50 mph or more")); or ((Bus service = "Minimal: one or two days a week, or demand-responsive without evidence it serves the site" or Bus service = "None"), and Everyday services = "More than 2 km, or not available locally", and not Rail = "A well-connected station (Annex B) within about 800 m") | Provisional: the route answers point to car reliance. | | `tr3Lean` | "pass" | Walking route: footway = "A continuous footway of adequate width for the whole route", and not (Walking route: footway = "Gaps with no footway, where people walk in the carriageway or on the verge"), and not (Walking route: footway = "No pedestrian provision for most of the route"), and not (Walking route: footway = "Narrow for some or all of the route: too narrow for a wheelchair or pushchair to pass another person"), and Walking route: lighting = "Lit throughout", and not (Walking route: traffic speed = "40 mph"; or Walking route: traffic speed = "50 mph or more"), and (Bus service = "Frequent: at least hourly through the day, including weekends"; or Rail = "A well-connected station (Annex B) within about 800 m"), and not Everyday services = "More than 2 km, or not available locally" | Provisional: a continuous route with a genuine transport alternative. | | `tr3Lean` | "balanced" | always | | | `heEffectLean` | "total-loss" | HE5(2): what would the effect be? = "Demolition, or removal of every element that gives the asset significance" | | | `heEffectLean` | "substantial" | HE5(2): what would the effect be? = "Seriously affects a key element of significance — for example the legibility of a principal historic elevation"; or HE5(2): what would the effect be? = "Removes the main feature from which the asset draws its significance" | | | `heEffectLean` | "harm-high" | HE5(2): what would the effect be? = "Removes a historic functional link — for example a farmhouse losing its adjoining farmland" | | | `heEffectLean` | "harm-moderate" | HE5(2): what would the effect be? = "The development would dominate a key element of the setting, or erode the rural or open context in which the asset is experienced" | | | `heEffectLean` | "harm-low" | HE5(2): what would the effect be? = "A minor part of the setting; the proposal is subordinate, glimpsed or peripheral, leaving the main significance legible" | | | `heEffectLean` | "positive" | HE5(2): what would the effect be? = "Positive: removes a harmful later addition, or reveals or restores a lost feature" | | | `heEffectLean` | "none" | always | | | `dp3Lean` | "conflict" | DP3(3): what does the scheme conflict with? = "DP3(1) context — does not respond to the history, character and features of the site and its setting, or fails to integrate with and enhance its surroundings"; or DP3(3): what does the scheme conflict with? = "An explicit design standard in the development plan — a Village Design Statement, design guide, code or masterplan"; or DP3(3): what does the scheme conflict with? = "DP3(2)(a) Liveability — mix, tenures, social interaction, robustness"; or DP3(3): what does the scheme conflict with? = "DP3(2)(b) Climate — layout, orientation, massing, materials; overheating and net zero"; or DP3(3): what does the scheme conflict with? = "DP3(2)(c) Nature — green infrastructure and habitats (tree cover is the separate DP3(2)(c) step above)"; or DP3(3): what does the scheme conflict with? = "DP3(2)(d) Movement — walking, wheeling, cycling and public-transport connections"; or DP3(3): what does the scheme conflict with? = "DP3(2)(e) Built form — streets, spaces, density and the pattern of buildings"; or DP3(3): what does the scheme conflict with? = "DP3(2)(f) Public space — safe, secure, inclusive, accessible spaces"; or DP3(3): what does the scheme conflict with? = "DP3(2)(g) Identity — attractive, distinctive, characterful development and local character" | | | `dp3Lean` | "none" | always | | | `outside` | true | Green Belt = "No", and (Settlement = "Outside any settlement" or Settlement = "Partly within, partly outside") | S3(1)(b), S3(2). | | `outside` | false | always | | | `designated` | true | Heritage assets = "Grade II listed building"; or Heritage assets = "Grade I or II* listed building"; or Heritage assets = "Conservation area"; or Heritage assets = "Registered park or garden"; or Heritage assets = "Scheduled monument, or other asset of the highest significance" | Annex B: designated heritage assets. | | `designated` | false | always | | | `s5pass` | true | (S5(1) category = "S5(1)(c): reuse, extension, alteration or replacement of an existing building", and S5(1)(c): existing building = "Yes"); or (S5(1) category = "S5(1)(d): redevelopment of previously developed land", and S5(1)(d): previously developed land = "Yes"); or (S5(1) category = "S5(1)(e): limited infilling within a group of houses", and S5(1)(e): limited infilling = "Yes"); or (S5(1) category = "S5(1)(f): an exception site (HO10), or a Community Right to Build or Neighbourhood Development Order", and S5(1)(f): exception site = "Yes"); or (S5(1) category = "S5(1)(h): land around a well-connected station", and S5(1)(h): well-connected station = "Yes"); or (S5(1) category = "S5(1)(i): land allocated for this purpose in the development plan", and S5(1)(i): allocated land = "Yes"); or (S5(1) category = "S5(1)(j): evidenced unmet need, physically well-related to an existing settlement", and S5(1)(j): unmet need = "Yes") | | | `s5pass` | false | always | | | `route` | "S5(5)" | (Green Belt = "Yes, open Green Belt" or Green Belt = "Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt"), and ((GB7 category = "GB7(1)(b): reuse, extension, alteration or replacement of an existing building", and GB7(1)(b): existing building = "Yes: all conditions met"); or (GB7 category = "GB7(1)(c): limited infilling in a village lying within the Green Belt", and GB7(1)(c): limited infilling in a village = "Yes: limited infilling in the village"); or (GB7 category = "GB7(1)(d): limited affordable housing for local community needs", and GB7(1)(d): limited affordable housing = "Yes"); or (GB7 category = "GB7(1)(e): redevelopment of previously developed land", and GB7(1)(e): previously developed land = "Yes: PDL, and no substantial harm to openness"); or (GB7 category = "GB7(1)(h): land around a well-connected station", and GB7(1)(h): land around a well-connected station = "Yes: every limb is met"); or (GB7 category = "GB7(1)(g): grey belt — or none of the categories above apply", and not (GB7(1)(g)(i): is it grey belt? = "(a) Checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built-up area"; or GB7(1)(g)(i): is it grey belt? = "(b) Preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another"; or GB7(1)(g)(i): is it grey belt? = "(d) Preserving the setting and special character of historic towns"), and GB7(1)(g)(i): would it fundamentally undermine the Green Belt? = "No", and unmetNeed = "true", and TR3: is this a sustainable location? = "Yes: a sustainable location", and (not major = "true"; or GB7(1)(g)(iv): Golden Rules = "Yes"))) | GB7 category met: not inappropriate (S5(5)). | | `route` | "GB6(2)" | Green Belt = "Yes, open Green Belt" or Green Belt = "Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt" | Inappropriate development (GB6). | | `route` | "S4" | Green Belt = "No", and Settlement = "Within a settlement" | S3(1)(a). | | `route` | "S5(1)" | outside = "true", and s5pass = "true" | S5(1). | | `route` | "S5(3)" | outside = "true", and S5(3): isolated homes = "Yes: isolated" | S5(3). | | `route` | "S5(4)" | outside = "true" | S5(4). | ## The site and the proposal ### Green Belt `gb` (question) **Shown when:** always **Asks:** Is the site in the Green Belt? - No - Yes, open Green Belt - Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt **Guidance:** - In the Green Belt, policies S4 and S5 do not apply: the route is GB6, GB7 and GB8 (S5(5)). - Grey belt is still Green Belt, so answer Yes. Grey belt is not a designation or a line on the policies map. It is a label for Green Belt land that meets the Annex B definition: previously developed land, or land that does not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b) or (d). Being grey belt does not take the site out of the Green Belt. It only opens a route to being "not inappropriate" under GB7(1)(g), which this tool tests later. - A council's Green Belt assessment may identify areas of grey belt (Annex E). That is evidence for the judgement, not a finding that binds a decision on a particular site. - Local Green Space (HC8) is decided consistently with Green Belt policy. This version of the tool does not cover it. **Framework text:** > **S5(5)** This policy does not apply to development proposals in the Green Belt or on land designated as Local Green Space, which should instead be determined in accordance with policies HC8, GB6, GB7 and/or GB8 (as appropriate). However, where development would not be inappropriate in these locations (through the application of policies HC8 and GB7), proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework, and applying paragraph 2 of this policy. > > **GB6(1)** Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within one of the categories in policy GB7. ### A washed-over village is not a "settlement" `washedOverSettlement` (info) **Shown when:** Green Belt = "Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt" **Asks:** Annex B excludes villages that lie within, and are defined as part of, the Green Belt from the Framework's definition of "settlement". S4 (within settlements) cannot apply, and S5(5) sends the proposal to GB6 to GB8 in any event. Village facilities still matter under TR3, but as facts about the location, not as a settlement category. **Contested:** Some council reports have treated a washed-over village as a settlement: asking whether a site is "well-related to an existing settlement" (an S5(1)(j) test), or treating a site within the village boundary as a sustainable location without examining the route. Appeals have now gone both ways. One applied the exclusion squarely: villages defined as part of the Green Belt "are not settlements for the purposes of the Framework, and consequently Policy S4 is not engaged" (6009919 ¶49). Another ran S4 for a Green Belt site inside a village's defined settlement boundary, leaving the Green Belt question undecided because the appeal failed on heritage (6010097 ¶15, ¶20). - *Annex B: not a settlement*: The Framework definition applies "for the purpose of this Framework". S4 is not engaged, and the proposal is decided under GB6 and GB7 (6009919 ¶49). The location question is answered under GB7(1)(g)(iii) and TR3 on the facts of the route. - *Treated as a settlement in practice*: Council reports that ran settlement-based tests for washed-over villages, and one appeal that applied S4 to a Green Belt site within a village's defined settlement boundary: "As the proposal is within a settlement, it benefits from the in-principle support provided by policies S3 and S4 of the Framework" (6010097 ¶15). **Framework text:** > **AnnexB:settlement** Includes cities, towns, villages and other predominantly built-up areas, including land which is allocated or has permission for development which will form part of the built-up area once the development is complete. This includes areas defined as a settlement in the development plan (whether using defined settlement boundaries or equivalent terms, or criteria for identifying settlement extents where boundaries have yet to be defined). Settlements do not include hamlets and scattered groups of houses located outside predominantly built-up areas, unless specifically defined as a settlement in the development plan. For the purpose of this Framework they also exclude villages which lie within and are defined as part of the Green Belt in the development plan. > > **S5(5)** This policy does not apply to development proposals in the Green Belt or on land designated as Local Green Space, which should instead be determined in accordance with policies HC8, GB6, GB7 and/or GB8 (as appropriate). However, where development would not be inappropriate in these locations (through the application of policies HC8 and GB7), proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework, and applying paragraph 2 of this policy. ### Settlement `settlementLoc` (question) **Shown when:** Green Belt = "No" **Asks:** Is the site within a settlement, as the Framework defines it? - Within a settlement - Outside any settlement - Partly within, partly outside **Findings:** - if Settlement = "Partly within, partly outside": *note* **S3(2)**: The site is partly within and partly outside a settlement: S4 applies to the part inside and S5 to the part outside, before an overall view is reached on the whole proposal (S3(2)). **Guidance:** - Settlements include land allocated or with permission that will form part of the built-up area. - Hamlets and scattered groups of houses outside predominantly built-up areas are not settlements unless the development plan defines them as such. **Cases:** policies AnnexB:settlement, S3 **Framework text:** > **S3(1)** Decisions on development proposals should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This means: a. Policy S4 in this Framework should be applied when considering development proposals within settlements; b. Outside settlements, policy S5 should be applied; and c. In all locations, development proposals that accord with both an up-to-date development plan and the decision-making policies in this Framework should be approved without delay. > > **AnnexB:settlement** Includes cities, towns, villages and other predominantly built-up areas, including land which is allocated or has permission for development which will form part of the built-up area once the development is complete. This includes areas defined as a settlement in the development plan (whether using defined settlement boundaries or equivalent terms, or criteria for identifying settlement extents where boundaries have yet to be defined). Settlements do not include hamlets and scattered groups of houses located outside predominantly built-up areas, unless specifically defined as a settlement in the development plan. For the purpose of this Framework they also exclude villages which lie within and are defined as part of the Green Belt in the development plan. > > **S3(2)** Where a development proposal falls partly within and partly outside a settlement, policies S4 and S5 should be applied to the relevant parts which are inside or outside of the settlement boundary (as appropriate), before coming to an overall view on the proposal. ### Proposal `devType` (question) **Shown when:** always **Asks:** What is proposed? - New-build housing on a greenfield or undeveloped site - Affordable housing for local needs (rural exception site or similar) - Reuse, conversion, extension or replacement of an existing building for housing - Housing on previously developed land **Guidance:** - This version covers residential development. Other development types (commercial, telecoms, householder and so on) are outside its scope. **Framework text:** > **AnnexB:PDL** Land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed). It also includes land comprising large areas of fixed surface infrastructure such as large areas of hardstanding which have been lawfully developed. Previously developed land excludes: land that is or was last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; land that has been developed but where provision for restoration has been made through development management procedures (including development related to minerals extraction, waste disposal by landfill and renewable and low carbon energy development, where provision for restoration exists); land in built-up areas such as residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape. ### Number of homes `units` (question) **Shown when:** always **Asks:** How many homes (net)? Number (homes) **Guidance:** - For a permission in principle with a range, use the upper end: inspectors assess the maximum (e.g. appeal 6003055, ¶9). ### Site area `largeSite` (question) **Shown when:** `units` < 10 **Asks:** Is the site 0.5 hectares or more? - No, under 0.5 ha - Yes, 0.5 ha or more **Framework text:** > **AnnexB:major-development** For housing, development where 10 or more homes will be provided, or the site has an area of 0.5 hectares or more. ### Heritage assets `heritage` (question) **Shown when:** always **Asks:** Which heritage assets could the proposal affect, including through development in their setting? Select all that apply, or none. - Grade II listed building - Grade I or II* listed building - Conservation area - Registered park or garden - Scheduled monument, or other asset of the highest significance - Non-designated heritage asset (identified by the council: e.g. on a local heritage list, in a neighbourhood plan or the Historic Environment Record, or during the decision; such as an unregistered historic park) **Guidance:** - Setting is "the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced". It is not limited to views: inspectors have found harm through lost historic and functional relationships without intervisibility (e.g. 6006475 ¶14, ¶32; 6007136 ¶21). **Framework text:** > **AnnexB:setting** The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral. > > **AnnexB:heritage-asset** Heritage asset: A building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. It includes but is not limited to designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing). > > **HE5(1)** Development proposals affecting heritage assets should be accompanied by an assessment of the significance of the assets affected (including any contribution made by their setting) and of the potential effect of the proposal on their significance. ### Housing land supply `supply` (question) **Shown when:** always **Asks:** Can the local planning authority demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites (with the relevant buffer)? - No, below five years - Yes, five years or more - Not known **Framework text:** > **GB7(1)(g)(ii)** Which, in the case of applications involving the provision of housing, means the lack of a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, including the relevant buffer where applicable, or where the Housing Delivery Test result was below 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years > > **S5(1)(j)** j. Development which would address an evidenced unmet need (including, but not limited to, development proposals involving the provision of housing where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites or scores below 75% in the most recent Housing Delivery Test), and where the development would: i. Be physically well-related to an existing settlement (unless the nature of the development would make this inappropriate) and be of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the existing or proposed availability of infrastructure; or ### Housing Delivery Test `hdt` (question) **Shown when:** not Housing land supply = "No, below five years" **Asks:** Was the most recent Housing Delivery Test result below 75%? - Yes, below 75% - No, 75% or more - Not known **Framework text:** > **GB7(1)(g)(ii)** Which, in the case of applications involving the provision of housing, means the lack of a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, including the relevant buffer where applicable, or where the Housing Delivery Test result was below 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years ### Site constraints `constraints` (question) **Shown when:** always **Asks:** Which of these apply? Select all that apply, or none. Each one opens the policies that govern it. - Known risk from any form of flooding (river, sea, surface water, groundwater), now or in the future - Within a National Park, National Landscape or the Broads - Within the setting of a Protected Landscape - Ancient woodland, or ancient or veteran trees, affected - Habitats or protected species that could be significantly harmed - Established trees or hedgerows lost or cut back (including for visibility splays) - New or altered vehicular access onto a public road - A railway station within about 800 m walk - A neighbourhood plan covers the site (made, or approved at referendum) ## Green Belt ### GB7 category `gb7cat` (question) **Shown when:** Green Belt = "Yes, open Green Belt" or Green Belt = "Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt" **Asks:** Which GB7 category does the proposal rely on to be "not inappropriate"? - GB7(1)(b): reuse, extension, alteration or replacement of an existing building _(offered when Proposal = "Reuse, conversion, extension or replacement of an existing building for housing")_ - GB7(1)(c): limited infilling in a village lying within the Green Belt _(offered when Green Belt = "Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt")_ - GB7(1)(d): limited affordable housing for local community needs _(offered when Proposal = "Affordable housing for local needs (rural exception site or similar)")_ - GB7(1)(e): redevelopment of previously developed land _(offered when Proposal = "Housing on previously developed land" or Proposal = "Reuse, conversion, extension or replacement of an existing building for housing")_ - GB7(1)(h): land around a well-connected station _(offered when Site constraints = "A railway station within about 800 m walk")_ - GB7(1)(g): grey belt — or none of the categories above apply **Guidance:** - Choose the category the application relies on. If it argues more than one, run the tool again for each. - Categories that cannot apply to the proposal type you chose are not offered. - Each category is a separate test in the steps that follow. The last option, GB7(1)(g), is the residual route: choose it when the scheme relies on grey belt or when none of the specific categories fit. If it is not grey belt, or another part of (g) fails, the proposal is inappropriate development, approvable only in very special circumstances where the harm is clearly outweighed (GB6(2)) — and the tool records the reason. **Cases:** policies GB7(1); grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **GB6(1)** Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within one of the categories in policy GB7. > > **GB7(1)** The following categories of development are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, and therefore should not be regarded as harmful to the Green Belt or be required to demonstrate very special circumstances: ### GB7(1)(g): how this is tested `gb7gPlan` (info) **Shown when:** (Green Belt = "Yes, open Green Belt" or Green Belt = "Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt"), and GB7 category = "GB7(1)(g): grey belt — or none of the categories above apply" **Asks:** Grey belt development is "not inappropriate" only if all four parts are met. The next steps take them in turn. **Guidance:** - (i) Grey belt. The land must meet the Annex B grey belt definition — it must not strongly contribute to Green Belt purposes (a), (b) or (d) — and the development must not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt. - (ii) Unmet need. There must be an evidenced unmet need. For housing, footnote 41 makes this a five-year-supply or Housing Delivery Test question. - (iii) Sustainable location. The site must be a sustainable location, with particular reference to policy TR3. - (iv) Golden Rules. Major development must also comply with GB8. - If any part is not met, GB7(1)(g) does not apply and the proposal is inappropriate development — approvable only in very special circumstances, where the harm is clearly outweighed (GB6(2)). **Framework text:** > **GB7(1)** The following categories of development are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, and therefore should not be regarded as harmful to the Green Belt or be required to demonstrate very special circumstances: > > **GB6(2)** Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Such circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm resulting from the proposed development, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In making this assessment, substantial weight should be given to the harm to the Green Belt which would be caused, including harm to its openness. ### GB7(1)(b): existing building `gb7b` (judgement) **Shown when:** (Green Belt = "Yes, open Green Belt" or Green Belt = "Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt"), and GB7 category = "GB7(1)(b): reuse, extension, alteration or replacement of an existing building" **Asks:** Is the existing building of permanent and substantial construction and lawful, and would any extension or alteration avoid a disproportionate increase over the original building (or a replacement be for the same use and not materially larger)? - Yes: all conditions met - No: at least one condition is not met **Findings:** - if GB7(1)(b): existing building = "Yes: all conditions met": *pass* **GB7(1)(b)**: Falls within GB7(1)(b), so it is not inappropriate development. - if GB7(1)(b): existing building = "No: at least one condition is not met": *fail* **GB7(1)(b)**: Does not meet GB7(1)(b), so it is inappropriate development. **Guidance:** - "Original building" means the building as it existed on 1 July 1948, or as originally built if later (footnote 40). **Cases:** policies GB7(1)(b); grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **GB7(1)(b)** b. The reuse, extension, alteration or replacement of an existing building, provided that the existing building is of permanent and substantial construction, is lawful in planning terms, and any extension or alteration will not result in a disproportionate increase in size compared to the original building. In the case of proposals for a replacement building, it should be for the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces; ### GB7(1)(c): limited infilling in a village `gb7c` (judgement) **Shown when:** (Green Belt = "Yes, open Green Belt" or Green Belt = "Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt"), and GB7 category = "GB7(1)(c): limited infilling in a village lying within the Green Belt" **Asks:** Is the site in the village (as it exists on the ground), and is the proposal limited infilling? - Yes: limited infilling in the village - No **Findings:** - if GB7(1)(c): limited infilling in a village = "Yes: limited infilling in the village": *pass* **GB7(1)(c)**: Limited infilling in a village within the Green Belt, so it is not inappropriate development. - if GB7(1)(c): limited infilling in a village = "No": *fail* **GB7(1)(c)**: Not limited infilling in a village, so it is inappropriate development. **Guidance:** - Whether a site is "in a village" is a matter of judgement on the ground; a settlement boundary in the plan is relevant but not decisive. - Infilling usually means filling a small gap in an otherwise built-up frontage. **Cases:** policies GB7(1)(c), S5(1)(e); grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **GB7(1)(c)** c. Limited infilling in villages lying within the Green Belt; ### GB7(1)(d): limited affordable housing `gb7d` (judgement) **Shown when:** (Green Belt = "Yes, open Green Belt" or Green Belt = "Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt"), and GB7 category = "GB7(1)(d): limited affordable housing for local community needs" **Asks:** Is the proposal limited affordable housing for local community needs under Framework or development plan policies (for instance a rural exception site)? - Yes - No **Findings:** - if GB7(1)(d): limited affordable housing = "Yes": *pass* **GB7(1)(d)**: Limited affordable housing for local community needs, so it is not inappropriate development. - if GB7(1)(d): limited affordable housing = "No": *fail* **GB7(1)(d)**: Does not meet GB7(1)(d), so it is inappropriate development. **Framework text:** > **GB7(1)(d)** d. Limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in this Framework or the development plan (for instance, on a rural exception site); ### GB7(1)(e): previously developed land `gb7e` (judgement) **Shown when:** (Green Belt = "Yes, open Green Belt" or Green Belt = "Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt"), and GB7 category = "GB7(1)(e): redevelopment of previously developed land" **Asks:** Is the land previously developed land as Annex B defines it, and would the redevelopment avoid substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt? - Yes: PDL, and no substantial harm to openness - No: the land is not PDL - No: substantial harm to openness **Findings:** - if GB7(1)(e): previously developed land = "Yes: PDL, and no substantial harm to openness": *pass* **GB7(1)(e)**: Redevelopment of previously developed land without substantial harm to openness, so it is not inappropriate development. - if GB7(1)(e): previously developed land = "No: the land is not PDL": *fail* **AnnexB:PDL**: The land is not previously developed land as defined in Annex B, so GB7(1)(e) does not apply and the proposal is inappropriate development (GB6). - if GB7(1)(e): previously developed land = "No: substantial harm to openness": *fail* **GB7(1)(e)**: Redevelopment would cause substantial harm to openness, so it is inappropriate development. **Guidance:** - Annex B excludes land last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings, and remains that have blended into the landscape. **Cases:** policies GB7(1)(e), AnnexB:PDL; grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **GB7(1)(e)** e. The redevelopment of previously developed land (including a material change of use to residential or mixed-use including residential), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt; > > **AnnexB:PDL** Land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed). It also includes land comprising large areas of fixed surface infrastructure such as large areas of hardstanding which have been lawfully developed. Previously developed land excludes: land that is or was last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; land that has been developed but where provision for restoration has been made through development management procedures (including development related to minerals extraction, waste disposal by landfill and renewable and low carbon energy development, where provision for restoration exists); land in built-up areas such as residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape. ### GB7(1)(g)(i): is it grey belt? `greyBelt` (judgement) **Shown when:** (Green Belt = "Yes, open Green Belt" or Green Belt = "Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt"), and GB7 category = "GB7(1)(g): grey belt — or none of the categories above apply" **Asks:** Judged on the ground, which of Green Belt purposes (a), (b) and (d) does the land strongly contribute to? Tick each that applies. Leave all unticked if it does not strongly contribute to any — that makes the land grey belt. - (a) Checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built-up area - (b) Preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another - (d) Preserving the setting and special character of historic towns **Findings:** - if not (GB7(1)(g)(i): is it grey belt? = "(a) Checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built-up area"; or GB7(1)(g)(i): is it grey belt? = "(b) Preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another"; or GB7(1)(g)(i): is it grey belt? = "(d) Preserving the setting and special character of historic towns"): *pass* **AnnexB:grey-belt**: The land is grey belt: it does not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b) or (d). - if GB7(1)(g)(i): is it grey belt? = "(a) Checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built-up area"; or GB7(1)(g)(i): is it grey belt? = "(b) Preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another"; or GB7(1)(g)(i): is it grey belt? = "(d) Preserving the setting and special character of historic towns": *fail* **AnnexB:grey-belt**: The land strongly contributes to purpose (a), (b) or (d), so it is not grey belt: GB7(1)(g) cannot apply and the proposal is inappropriate development (GB6). **Guidance:** - This is a planning judgement about the site, not a check against a map. Grey belt is a label for Green Belt land that meets the Annex B definition, not a designation. A council's Green Belt assessment is evidence, but it does not settle the question. - Only purposes (a), (b) and (d) count for grey belt. Purpose (c), encroachment on the countryside, and purpose (e), regeneration, do not — so they are not listed below. - A strong contribution to any one of (a), (b) or (d) excludes the land from grey belt. Tick none and the land is grey belt; the next step then tests whether the development would fundamentally undermine the wider Green Belt. - Annex E: villages are not "large built-up areas" for purpose (a); purpose (b) concerns towns merging, not villages; purpose (d) concerns historic towns, not villages. Inspectors apply Annex E directly on this point (e.g. 6011103 ¶12, 6007428 ¶10). **Cases:** policies AnnexB:grey-belt, GB7(1)(g)(i); grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **AnnexB:grey-belt** For the purposes of plan-making and decision-making, 'grey belt' is defined 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 policy GB2. > > **GB2(1)** a. Check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; b. Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; c. Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; d. Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and e. Assist urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. > > **AnnexE(3)** This purpose relates to the sprawl of large built-up areas. Villages should not be considered large built-up areas. > > **AnnexE(4)** This purpose relates to the merging of towns, not villages. > > **AnnexE(5)** This purpose relates to historic towns, not villages. ### GB7(1)(g)(i): would it fundamentally undermine the Green Belt? `greyBeltUndermine` (judgement) **Shown when:** ((Green Belt = "Yes, open Green Belt" or Green Belt = "Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt"), and GB7 category = "GB7(1)(g): grey belt — or none of the categories above apply"), and not (GB7(1)(g)(i): is it grey belt? = "(a) Checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built-up area"; or GB7(1)(g)(i): is it grey belt? = "(b) Preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another"; or GB7(1)(g)(i): is it grey belt? = "(d) Preserving the setting and special character of historic towns") **Asks:** Would the development fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan? - No - Yes **Findings:** - if GB7(1)(g)(i): would it fundamentally undermine the Green Belt? = "No": *pass* **GB7(1)(g)(i)**: Uses grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the remaining Green Belt. - if GB7(1)(g)(i): would it fundamentally undermine the Green Belt? = "Yes": *fail* **GB7(1)(g)(i)**: Would fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt, so GB7(1)(g) cannot apply and the proposal is inappropriate development (GB6). **Guidance:** - This is rarely met, so the answer is usually "No". Across the decisions reviewed, no scheme was found to fundamentally undermine the remaining Green Belt. A "Yes" needs a genuinely plan-wide effect, not just local harm to the site and its edges. - The test is plan-wide and weighs all five Green Belt purposes together: (a) checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; (b) preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another; (c) safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; (d) preserving the setting and special character of historic towns; and (e) assisting urban regeneration. It is wider than the grey belt question, which uses only (a), (b) and (d). - Decisions on small village-edge schemes have usually found the effect limited (e.g. stratford-26-00617-PIP, stratford-26-00918-PIP). **Cases:** policies GB7(1)(g)(i); grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **GB7(1)(g)(i)** i. The development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan; ### GB7(1)(g)(ii): evidenced unmet need `unmetNeedCheck` (info) **Shown when:** (Green Belt = "Yes, open Green Belt" or Green Belt = "Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt"), and GB7 category = "GB7(1)(g): grey belt — or none of the categories above apply" **Asks:** For housing, footnote 41 makes this limb mechanical: there is unmet need if the authority lacks a five-year supply (with buffer) or its Housing Delivery Test result was below 75%. The finding follows from your earlier answers. **Findings:** - if unmetNeed = "true": *pass* **GB7(1)(g)(ii)**: There is an evidenced unmet need for housing (footnote 41). - if not unmetNeed = "true": *fail* **GB7(1)(g)(ii)**: An evidenced unmet need is not shown on the supply and delivery answers given. **Cases:** policies GB7(1)(g)(ii); grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **GB7(1)(g)(ii)** ii. There is an evidenced unmet need for the type of development proposed > > **GB7(1)(g)(ii)** Which, in the case of applications involving the provision of housing, means the lack of a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, including the relevant buffer where applicable, or where the Housing Delivery Test result was below 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years ### GB7(1)(h): land around a well-connected station `gb7h` (judgement) **Shown when:** (Green Belt = "Yes, open Green Belt" or Green Belt = "Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt"), and GB7 category = "GB7(1)(h): land around a well-connected station" **Asks:** Does the proposal meet every limb of GB7(1)(h), applying the Annex B definitions of "well-connected station" and "reasonable walking distance"? - Yes: every limb is met - No **Findings:** - if GB7(1)(h): land around a well-connected station = "Yes: every limb is met": *pass* **GB7(1)(h)**: Meets GB7(1)(h), so it is not inappropriate development. - if GB7(1)(h): land around a well-connected station = "No": *fail* **GB7(1)(h)**: Does not meet GB7(1)(h): the station is not well-connected, or the site is not within reasonable walking distance, so the proposal is inappropriate development (GB6). **Guidance:** - A well-connected station needs at least four trains an hour overall, or two an hour in one direction, through the daytime on a normal weekday, and must be within a top-80 Travel to Work Area by GVA. - Only the part of a site within reasonable walking distance qualifies (Annex B). - An hourly or two-hourly rural service does not qualify (e.g. 6006637 ¶18). **Cases:** policies GB7(1)(h), S5(1)(h); grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **GB7(1)(h)** h. Residential or mixed-use development which would: i. Be within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station (applying the definitions in the glossary at Annex B); ii. Be physically well-related to the station or the settlement within which the station is located; iii. Be of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the existing or proposed availability of infrastructure; iv. Not prejudice any proposals for long-term comprehensive development in the same location; and v. In the case of proposals for major development, comply with policy GB8. > > **AnnexB:well-connected-station** Railway stations and underground, tram and light rail stops located within a top 80 Travel to Work Area located partially or fully within England by Gross Value Added (GVA) and which, in the normal weekday timetable, are served (or have a reasonable prospect of being served due to planned upgrades or through agreement with the rail operator) throughout the daytime by at least four trains or trams per hour overall, or at least two trains or trams per hour in any one direction. > > **AnnexB:reasonable-walking-distance** For the purpose of policies S5, L3, GB7 (relating to land around well-connected stations), this should be considered to be around 800 metres, or around 10 minutes' walk time if topography, route availability and quality or physical barriers would prevent or discourage walking from up to 800 metres away. ### GB7(1)(g)(iv): Golden Rules `gb8` (judgement) **Shown when:** ((Green Belt = "Yes, open Green Belt" or Green Belt = "Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt"), and GB7 category = "GB7(1)(g): grey belt — or none of the categories above apply"), and major = "true" **Asks:** Does the proposal comply with GB8: affordable housing at the required level, necessary infrastructure improvements, and new or improved green space accessible to the public? - Yes - No **Findings:** - if GB7(1)(g)(iv): Golden Rules = "Yes": *pass* **GB7(1)(g)(iv)**: Complies with the Golden Rules (GB8), which carries substantial weight (GB8(2)). - if GB7(1)(g)(iv): Golden Rules = "No": *fail* **GB7(1)(g)(iv)**: Does not comply with the Golden Rules (GB8). **Guidance:** - GB8 does not apply to every major scheme. Footnote 43 excludes traveller sites, land released from the Green Belt through a plan adopted before 12 December 2024, and development permitted before that date; for those, the Golden Rules are not a requirement. - Where GB8 does apply and there is no development plan requirement, the default affordable level is 15 percentage points above the highest existing affordable requirement, capped at 50%; 50% where there is no existing requirement (GB8(1)(a)(ii)). Footnote 44 sets out the limited circumstances in which the cap does not apply. **Cases:** policies GB8, GB7(1)(g)(iv); grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **GB7(1)(g)(iv)** iv. In the case of major development involving the provision of housing, the development proposed complies with policy GB8. > > **GB8(1)** Where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed on land released from the Green Belt through plan preparation or review, or on sites in the Green Belt subject to a planning application, all of the following contributions ('Golden Rules') should be made > > **GB8(2)** In considering applications for major development involving the provision of housing on land released from the Green Belt through plan preparation or review, or on sites in the Green Belt subject to a planning application, substantial weight should be given to the importance of complying with the Golden Rules. ## Outside settlements ### S5(1) category `s5cat` (question) **Shown when:** outside = "true" **Asks:** Which S5(1) category does the proposal rely on? - S5(1)(c): reuse, extension, alteration or replacement of an existing building _(offered when Proposal = "Reuse, conversion, extension or replacement of an existing building for housing")_ - S5(1)(d): redevelopment of previously developed land _(offered when Proposal = "Housing on previously developed land" or Proposal = "Reuse, conversion, extension or replacement of an existing building for housing")_ - S5(1)(e): limited infilling within a group of houses - S5(1)(f): an exception site (HO10), or a Community Right to Build or Neighbourhood Development Order _(offered when Proposal = "Affordable housing for local needs (rural exception site or similar)")_ - S5(1)(h): land around a well-connected station _(offered when Site constraints = "A railway station within about 800 m walk")_ - S5(1)(i): land allocated for this purpose in the development plan - S5(1)(j): evidenced unmet need, physically well-related to an existing settlement _(offered when unmetNeed = "true")_ - None of these **Guidance:** - Choose the category the application relies on. Categories that cannot apply to the proposal type or your earlier answers are not offered. **Cases:** policies S5(1); grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **S5(1)** Only certain forms of development should be approved outside settlements, as set out in the following list. These should be approved, unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework: ### S5(1)(c): existing building `s5c` (judgement) **Shown when:** outside = "true", and S5(1) category = "S5(1)(c): reuse, extension, alteration or replacement of an existing building" **Asks:** Is the existing building permanent, substantial and lawful, with no disproportionate increase in size over the existing building (or a replacement for the same use, not disproportionately larger)? - Yes - No **Findings:** - if S5(1)(c): existing building = "Yes": *pass* **S5(1)(c)**: Falls within S5(1)(c). - if S5(1)(c): existing building = "No": *fail* **S5(1)(c)**: Does not meet S5(1)(c). **Guidance:** - Unlike GB7(1)(b), S5(1)(c) compares with the existing building as it stood on the Framework's publication date (footnote 25). **Cases:** policies S5(1)(c); grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **S5(1)(c)** c. The reuse, extension, alteration or replacement of an existing building, provided that the existing building is of permanent and substantial construction, is lawful in planning terms, and any extension or alteration will not result in a disproportionate increase in size compared to the existing building. In the case of proposals for a replacement building, it should be for the same use and not disproportionately larger than the one it replaces; ### S5(1)(d): previously developed land `s5d` (judgement) **Shown when:** outside = "true", and S5(1) category = "S5(1)(d): redevelopment of previously developed land" **Asks:** Is the land previously developed land as Annex B defines it? - Yes - No **Findings:** - if S5(1)(d): previously developed land = "Yes": *pass* **S5(1)(d)**: Redevelopment of previously developed land under S5(1)(d). - if S5(1)(d): previously developed land = "No": *fail* **S5(1)(d)**: The land is not previously developed land, so S5(1)(d) does not apply. **Cases:** policies S5(1)(d); grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **S5(1)(d)** d. The redevelopment of previously developed land (including a material change of use to residential or mixed-use including residential); > > **AnnexB:PDL** Land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed). It also includes land comprising large areas of fixed surface infrastructure such as large areas of hardstanding which have been lawfully developed. Previously developed land excludes: land that is or was last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings; land that has been developed but where provision for restoration has been made through development management procedures (including development related to minerals extraction, waste disposal by landfill and renewable and low carbon energy development, where provision for restoration exists); land in built-up areas such as residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape. ### S5(1)(e): limited infilling `s5e` (judgement) **Shown when:** outside = "true", and S5(1) category = "S5(1)(e): limited infilling within a group of houses" **Asks:** Is the proposal limited infilling within an existing group of houses? - Yes - No **Findings:** - if S5(1)(e): limited infilling = "Yes": *pass* **S5(1)(e)**: Limited infilling within a group of houses under S5(1)(e). - if S5(1)(e): limited infilling = "No": *fail* **S5(1)(e)**: Not limited infilling within a group of houses. **Guidance:** - Decisions have accepted a gap between two houses fronting the same road (6009593 ¶15), but rejected a plot with houses on one side only, which "would extend built form beyond the existing edge of the hamlet rather than being within it" (6008739 ¶9). **Cases:** policies S5(1)(e); grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **S5(1)(e)** e. Limited infilling within groups of houses; ### S5(1)(f): exception site `s5f` (judgement) **Shown when:** outside = "true", and S5(1) category = "S5(1)(f): an exception site (HO10), or a Community Right to Build or Neighbourhood Development Order" **Asks:** Is the proposal an exception site under HO10, or brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order or Neighbourhood Development Order? - Yes - No **Findings:** - if S5(1)(f): exception site = "Yes": *pass* **S5(1)(f)**: An exception site under S5(1)(f). - if S5(1)(f): exception site = "No": *fail* **S5(1)(f)**: Does not meet S5(1)(f). **Cases:** policies S5(1)(f); grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **S5(1)(f)** f. An exception site as provided for in policy HO10, or development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order or Neighbourhood Development Order; ### S5(1)(h): well-connected station `s5h` (judgement) **Shown when:** outside = "true", and S5(1) category = "S5(1)(h): land around a well-connected station" **Asks:** Does the site meet every limb of S5(1)(h), applying the Annex B definitions? - Yes - No **Findings:** - if S5(1)(h): well-connected station = "Yes": *pass* **S5(1)(h)**: Within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station under S5(1)(h). - if S5(1)(h): well-connected station = "No": *fail* **S5(1)(h)**: Does not meet S5(1)(h). **Cases:** policies S5(1)(h); grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **S5(1)(h)** h. Residential and mixed-use development which would: i. Be within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station (applying the definitions in the glossary at Annex B); ii. Be physically well-related to the station or the settlement within which the station is located; iii. Be of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the existing or proposed availability of infrastructure; and iv. Not prejudice any proposals for long-term comprehensive development in the same location. > > **AnnexB:well-connected-station** Railway stations and underground, tram and light rail stops located within a top 80 Travel to Work Area located partially or fully within England by Gross Value Added (GVA) and which, in the normal weekday timetable, are served (or have a reasonable prospect of being served due to planned upgrades or through agreement with the rail operator) throughout the daytime by at least four trains or trams per hour overall, or at least two trains or trams per hour in any one direction. > > **AnnexB:reasonable-walking-distance** For the purpose of policies S5, L3, GB7 (relating to land around well-connected stations), this should be considered to be around 800 metres, or around 10 minutes' walk time if topography, route availability and quality or physical barriers would prevent or discourage walking from up to 800 metres away. ### S5(1)(i): allocated land `s5i` (judgement) **Shown when:** outside = "true", and S5(1) category = "S5(1)(i): land allocated for this purpose in the development plan" **Asks:** Is the land allocated for this purpose in the development plan? - Yes - No **Findings:** - if S5(1)(i): allocated land = "Yes": *pass* **S5(1)(i)**: Allocated land under S5(1)(i). - if S5(1)(i): allocated land = "No": *fail* **S5(1)(i)**: The land is not allocated for this purpose. **Cases:** policies S5(1)(i); grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **S5(1)(i)** i. The development of land allocated for that purpose in the development plan (where this lies outside settlements); and ### S5(1)(j): unmet need `s5j` (judgement) **Shown when:** outside = "true", and S5(1) category = "S5(1)(j): evidenced unmet need, physically well-related to an existing settlement" **Asks:** Is the site physically well-related to an existing settlement, and of a scale that existing or proposed infrastructure can accommodate? - Yes - No **Findings:** - if S5(1)(j): unmet need = "Yes": *pass* **S5(1)(j)**: Addresses an evidenced unmet need and is physically well-related to an existing settlement under S5(1)(j). - if S5(1)(j): unmet need = "No": *fail* **S5(1)(j)**: Not physically well-related to an existing settlement, or of a scale infrastructure cannot accommodate. **Guidance:** - "Existing settlement" takes the Annex B definition, which excludes villages washed over by the Green Belt. - The unmet need limb is met on your supply answers. **Cases:** policies S5(1)(j); grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **S5(1)(j)** j. Development which would address an evidenced unmet need (including, but not limited to, development proposals involving the provision of housing where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites or scores below 75% in the most recent Housing Delivery Test), and where the development would: i. Be physically well-related to an existing settlement (unless the nature of the development would make this inappropriate) and be of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the existing or proposed availability of infrastructure; or ### S5(3): isolated homes `isolated` (judgement) **Shown when:** outside = "true", and not s5pass = "true" **Asks:** Would the homes be isolated: outside settlements or groups of houses? - No: they would be by a group of houses or on a settlement edge - Yes: isolated **Cases:** policies S5(3), HO11; grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **S5(3)** Development proposals comprising isolated homes, which are those lying outside settlements or groups of houses, should not be approved other than in accordance with policy HO11. ### HO11: isolated homes `ho11` (judgement) **Shown when:** outside = "true", and S5(3): isolated homes = "Yes: isolated" **Asks:** Does the proposal meet one of the circumstances in policy HO11 for isolated homes? - Yes - No **Findings:** - if HO11: isolated homes = "Yes": *pass* **HO11**: An isolated home justified under HO11. - if HO11: isolated homes = "No": *fail* **S5(3)**: An isolated home that does not meet HO11: S5(3) says it should not be approved. **Cases:** policies HO11, S5(3); grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **S5(3)** Development proposals comprising isolated homes, which are those lying outside settlements or groups of houses, should not be approved other than in accordance with policy HO11. ## Sustainable location ### TR3(1)(a): is a significant amount of movement generated? `tr3Engaged` (judgement) **Shown when:** outside = "true" **Asks:** Would the proposal generate "a significant amount of movement, in the context of the area within which [it] would be situated"? - Yes: a significant amount of movement in this context - No: not a significant amount of movement in this context - No, but the car reliance still carries moderate weight here (for example a poor walking route) **Findings:** - if TR3(1)(a): is a significant amount of movement generated? = "Yes: a significant amount of movement in this context": *note* **TR3(1)(a)**: TR3(1)(a) is engaged: the proposal would generate a significant amount of movement in this context, so the location must offer a genuine choice of transport modes. - if TR3(1)(a): is a significant amount of movement generated? = "No: not a significant amount of movement in this context": *harm* (limited) **TR3(1)(a)**: The proposal would not generate a significant amount of movement in this context, so TR3(1)(a) is not engaged; any reliance on the car carries limited weight. - if TR3(1)(a): is a significant amount of movement generated? = "No, but the car reliance still carries moderate weight here (for example a poor walking route)": *harm* (moderate) **TR3(1)(a)**: TR3(1)(a) is not engaged, as the proposal would not generate a significant amount of movement in this context, but its reliance on the car still carries moderate weight (as at 6010422 ¶49). **Guidance:** - There is no fixed number — judge it against the size and pattern of the surrounding area, not in the abstract. - A handful of homes has been significant in a small or sparsely built village: five homes were "a significant amount of movement in this context" (6010313 ¶13). A single dwelling among existing houses has not (one home was not significant at 6010973 ¶20). - If it is not engaged, TR3(1)(a) is not a decisive matter, but reliance on the car is still weighed in the planning balance (P12). Inspectors have differed on how much: limited weight is common, but one home with TR3(1)(a) not engaged was given "moderate negative weight" for a poor walking route (6010422 ¶49), and another single home was held to conflict with TR3's "more general principles about sustainable patterns of movement" (6008773 ¶30–32). Car dependence has also been treated as a DP3(2)(d) conflict without clear justification, engaging DP3(3) (6007677 ¶27). If it is engaged, the location must offer a genuine choice of transport modes, tested in the next steps. - One inspector read the proviso "unless the nature of the development would make this impractical" as covering a change of use of an existing building (6009619 ¶18). The proviso refers to the nature of the development; whether a conversion meets it is a judgement to state. - This step is not asked in the Green Belt: GB7(1)(g)(iii) requires a sustainable-location finding whatever the scale of the scheme. One home failed there on the route alone, "notwithstanding the small scale of the proposal" (6010253 ¶18). **Cases:** policies TR3(1)(a); grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **TR3(1)(a)** a. Development proposals which could generate a significant amount of movement, in the context of the area within which they would be situated, should be in locations that are sustainable (or which can be made so, taking into account planned improvements, including any provided for as part of the development itself). This means the location should limit the need to travel, particularly by private car, and offer a genuine choice of transport modes for residents and users, unless the nature of the development would make this impractical; ### Walking route: footway `tr3Footway` (question) **Shown when:** ((Green Belt = "Yes, open Green Belt" or Green Belt = "Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt"); or outside = "true"), and not (outside = "true", and (TR3(1)(a): is a significant amount of movement generated? = "No: not a significant amount of movement in this context" or TR3(1)(a): is a significant amount of movement generated? = "No, but the car reliance still carries moderate weight here (for example a poor walking route)")) **Asks:** On the everyday walking route from the site to shops, school and public transport, which of these describe the pedestrian provision? Select all that apply. - A continuous footway of adequate width for the whole route - Narrow for some or all of the route: too narrow for a wheelchair or pushchair to pass another person - On the far side of the road only, so residents must cross to reach it - Gaps with no footway, where people walk in the carriageway or on the verge - Broken or uneven surface, or obstructions such as poles or overgrown vegetation - Not step-free: full-height kerbs, no dropped kerbs or tactile paving at crossings or the destination - No pedestrian provision for most of the route **Guidance:** - Measure the route people would actually use, not a straight-line distance. - Width matters: a lit, continuous but narrow footway beside a busy road failed at 6008688 (¶14). - TR4 is framed around the design of the development, but it asks for priority to walking, wheeling and cycling "both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas" (TR4(1)(a)) and for measures that "meet the needs of disabled people, older people and children" (TR4(1)(c)(ii)). A route to services that a wheelchair or pushchair cannot use is not a genuine choice for them under TR3(1)(a). ### Walking route: lighting `tr3Lit` (question) **Shown when:** ((Green Belt = "Yes, open Green Belt" or Green Belt = "Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt"); or outside = "true"), and not (outside = "true", and (TR3(1)(a): is a significant amount of movement generated? = "No: not a significant amount of movement in this context" or TR3(1)(a): is a significant amount of movement generated? = "No, but the car reliance still carries moderate weight here (for example a poor walking route)")) **Asks:** Is the walking route lit? - Lit throughout - Partly lit - Unlit ### Walking route: traffic speed `tr3Speed` (question) **Shown when:** ((Green Belt = "Yes, open Green Belt" or Green Belt = "Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt"); or outside = "true"), and not (outside = "true", and (TR3(1)(a): is a significant amount of movement generated? = "No: not a significant amount of movement in this context" or TR3(1)(a): is a significant amount of movement generated? = "No, but the car reliance still carries moderate weight here (for example a poor walking route)")) **Asks:** What speed limits apply where people walk beside or in the road? Select any that appear along the route. - 20 or 30 mph - 40 mph - 50 mph or more **Guidance:** - Where the footway is narrow or absent, the speed beside it matters as much as the limit; a measured 85th-percentile speed is better evidence than the posted limit. ### Walking route: evidenced traffic speed `tr3SpeedEvidence` (question) **Shown when:** ((Green Belt = "Yes, open Green Belt" or Green Belt = "Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt"); or outside = "true"), and not (outside = "true", and (TR3(1)(a): is a significant amount of movement generated? = "No: not a significant amount of movement in this context" or TR3(1)(a): is a significant amount of movement generated? = "No, but the car reliance still carries moderate weight here (for example a poor walking route)")) **Asks:** What is the highest traffic speed evidenced anywhere on the walking route? Use the largest recorded figure at or below the 95th percentile (for example an 85th- or 95th-percentile speed from a speed survey or automatic traffic count). Number (mph) **Guidance:** - Take the figure from the application's own survey where there is one, or from a highway authority, parish or community speed-watch survey. Note the source and date in your own record. - The 85th-percentile speed is the usual design measure: highway authorities set visibility splays from it. - Where recorded speeds exceed the limit beside a narrow or missing footway, that is evidence about how attractive the route is to walk, not only about highway safety. ### Everyday services `tr3Services` (question) **Shown when:** ((Green Belt = "Yes, open Green Belt" or Green Belt = "Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt"); or outside = "true"), and not (outside = "true", and (TR3(1)(a): is a significant amount of movement generated? = "No: not a significant amount of movement in this context" or TR3(1)(a): is a significant amount of movement generated? = "No, but the car reliance still carries moderate weight here (for example a poor walking route)")) **Asks:** How far is the walk to everyday services (food shop, primary school, GP)? - Within about 800 m - About 800 m to 2 km - More than 2 km, or not available locally **Guidance:** - Measure to the services, not to the edge of the settlement: distances of 0.72 km and 1.15 km to two town edges did not count, because "the distance to key services, facilities and public transport would be significantly further" (6006224 ¶13). ### Bus service `tr3Bus` (question) **Shown when:** ((Green Belt = "Yes, open Green Belt" or Green Belt = "Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt"); or outside = "true"), and not (outside = "true", and (TR3(1)(a): is a significant amount of movement generated? = "No: not a significant amount of movement in this context" or TR3(1)(a): is a significant amount of movement generated? = "No, but the car reliance still carries moderate weight here (for example a poor walking route)")) **Asks:** What bus service is within reasonable walking distance? - Frequent: at least hourly through the day, including weekends - Limited: a few journeys a day, or weekdays only - Minimal: one or two days a week, or demand-responsive without evidence it serves the site - None **Guidance:** - Inspectors want evidence of frequency, hours, destinations and reliability (6009966 ¶22). A twice-weekly bus did not help at 6006637 (¶15). With a timetable in evidence, six buses a day Monday to Saturday, with none in the evenings, on Sundays or bank holidays, was not frequent enough for day-to-day needs (6007668 ¶15, ¶19). - At inquiry, a bus about every two hours, with no service at commuting times, was still "a genuine sustainable transport mode" for daytime trips such as grocery shopping, alongside term-time school buses; the inspector accepted that commuting by public transport would be challenging (6006497 ¶37–40). ### Rail `tr3Rail` (question) **Shown when:** ((Green Belt = "Yes, open Green Belt" or Green Belt = "Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt"); or outside = "true"), and not (outside = "true", and (TR3(1)(a): is a significant amount of movement generated? = "No: not a significant amount of movement in this context" or TR3(1)(a): is a significant amount of movement generated? = "No, but the car reliance still carries moderate weight here (for example a poor walking route)")) **Asks:** Is there a railway station within reasonable walking distance? - A well-connected station (Annex B) within about 800 m - A station within walking distance, but not well-connected, or reached on a poor route - No ### Connectivity Tool `tr3Tool` (question) **Shown when:** ((Green Belt = "Yes, open Green Belt" or Green Belt = "Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt"); or outside = "true"), and not (outside = "true", and (TR3(1)(a): is a significant amount of movement generated? = "No: not a significant amount of movement in this context" or TR3(1)(a): is a significant amount of movement generated? = "No, but the car reliance still carries moderate weight here (for example a poor walking route)")) **Asks:** What does the DfT Connectivity Tool score the site (overall, excluding driving)? - Low: under about 30 - Middle: about 30 to 50 - High: over about 50 - Not run → *note* TR3(2): Evidence gap: the Connectivity Tool has not been run, although TR3(2) says it "should be used alongside other relevant quantitative or qualitative evidence". **Guidance:** - TR3(2) says the tool "should be used alongside other relevant quantitative or qualitative evidence". - The same score has gone both ways: 52 failed at 6011736 and passed at 6010471. The tool does not measure footway width or lighting. - The score "is a relative measure not an absolute measure of connectivity" and "should always be interpreted comparatively" (6006497 ¶42, inquiry). There a 52 was read against the authority's own bands and against settlements where development is accepted (¶43–44). A high percentile within a rural class did not help where the route failed (6006224 ¶11, ¶13), and a bare score with a map carried little weight (6010253 ¶19). ### TR3: is this a sustainable location? `tr3` (judgement) **Shown when:** ((Green Belt = "Yes, open Green Belt" or Green Belt = "Yes, in or on the edge of a village washed over by the Green Belt"); or outside = "true"), and not (outside = "true", and (TR3(1)(a): is a significant amount of movement generated? = "No: not a significant amount of movement in this context" or TR3(1)(a): is a significant amount of movement generated? = "No, but the car reliance still carries moderate weight here (for example a poor walking route)")) **Asks:** Taking the route, the services and the transport together, would the location limit the need to travel, particularly by private car, and offer a genuine choice of transport modes for residents? - Yes: a sustainable location - No: residents would be reliant on the private car **Findings:** - if GB7 category = "GB7(1)(g): grey belt — or none of the categories above apply", and TR3: is this a sustainable location? = "Yes: a sustainable location": *pass* **GB7(1)(g)(iii)**: A sustainable location with particular reference to TR3. - if GB7 category = "GB7(1)(g): grey belt — or none of the categories above apply", and TR3: is this a sustainable location? = "No: residents would be reliant on the private car": *fail* **GB7(1)(g)(iii)**: Not a sustainable location with reference to TR3: the location does not offer a genuine choice of transport modes, so GB7(1)(g) is not met. - if not (GB7 category = "GB7(1)(g): grey belt — or none of the categories above apply"), and TR3: is this a sustainable location? = "Yes: a sustainable location": *pass* **TR3(1)(a)**: The location offers a genuine choice of transport modes (TR3(1)(a)). - if not (GB7 category = "GB7(1)(g): grey belt — or none of the categories above apply"), and TR3: is this a sustainable location? = "No: residents would be reliant on the private car": *harm* **TR3(1)(a)**: The location would not limit the need to travel by private car or offer a genuine choice of transport modes (TR3(1)(a)). **Guidance:** - The walking route usually decides this limb, not the distance. Contested inspector failures have had one or more of: no footway or a broken one, no lighting, walking in the carriageway, 40–60 mph traffic, and thin or unevidenced public transport (6010313, 6009966, 6011736, 6007428, 6008528, 6012481, 6006637). - Contested passes had a continuous footway for most of the route, or a short benign gap, plus an evidenced bus service (6010471, 6011103, 6009645, 6011301, 6005877). - Walking in the carriageway on the everyday route is the most reliable failing fact. Lighting does not cure it, and a short distance does not excuse it (6007428 ¶15–16). - Small schemes are not exempt: five homes were "a significant amount of movement in this context" (6010313 ¶13). - A highway authority's "no objection" answers highway safety and network capacity (TR3(1)(c), TR6(4)). It does not answer whether the location limits the need to travel by car and offers a genuine choice of transport modes (TR3(1)(a), GB7(1)(g)(iii)). At 6007668 ¶19 the highway authority raised no objection, but the inspector still found "an unsustainable location". - Counts, housing only: inspectors passed this limb 11 times and failed it 9; councils passed it 15 times and failed it twice. Appeals are mostly of refusals, so the two groups are not like for like. **Contested:** Is a route acceptable because existing residents already walk it? - *Accepted: villagers already cope*: A council decision accepted short unfooted sections in a historic village core because "Villagers appear to cope with this existing situation without any great trouble" (stratford-26-00918-PIP, p.9). On appeal, a footway condition for one home was removed where existing houses relied on the verge with no recorded pedestrian injury collisions (6010706 ¶9), though the inspector accepted this "may well result in access not being suitable for all people" (¶13). - *Not enough on its own: use can show necessity, not safety*: Hatton Station (6006637 ¶26): "at least some journeys arise out of necessity rather than choice … the recorded levels of activity do not demonstrate that the route is universally perceived as safe." **Cases:** policies GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3; grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **TR3(1)(a)** a. Development proposals which could generate a significant amount of movement, in the context of the area within which they would be situated, should be in locations that are sustainable (or which can be made so, taking into account planned improvements, including any provided for as part of the development itself). This means the location should limit the need to travel, particularly by private car, and offer a genuine choice of transport modes for residents and users, unless the nature of the development would make this impractical; > > **TR3(1)(e)** e. In rural areas, opportunities to improve walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport and enhance the connectivity of an area should be taken where they exist and can be supported by the development proposed. > > **TR3(2)** The Connectivity Tool (Connectivity Tool - GOV.UK) should be used alongside other relevant quantitative or qualitative evidence in assessing the connectivity of particular locations proposed for development. > > **GB7(1)(g)(iii)** iii. The development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to policy TR3 of this Framework > > **TR4(1)(a)** To contribute to creating well-designed places, transport considerations should be integral to the design of development, proposals for which should: a. Give priority first to walking, wheeling and cycle movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas; and second – so far as possible – to facilitating easy access to high quality public transport, with layouts and densities which maximise the catchments for bus or other public transport services; > > **TR4(1)(c)** c. Ensure that the arrangement of streets and other routes help to create places that are safe, inclusive and attractive for all users (particularly for women and girls, for other groups who may be vulnerable to crime or the fear of crime, and for those with limited mobility). > > **TR4(1)(c)(ii)** This includes reflecting relevant aspects of policy DP3(2), as well as employing measures to: … ii. Meet the needs of disabled people, older people and children in relation to all modes of transport, and ## Heritage ### HE5: is the heritage assessment adequate? `he5` (judgement) **Shown when:** designated = "true"; or Heritage assets = "Non-designated heritage asset (identified by the council: e.g. on a local heritage list, in a neighbourhood plan or the Historic Environment Record, or during the decision; such as an unregistered historic park)" **Asks:** Does the evidence identify the significance of each asset (including the contribution of its setting) and the effect of the proposal on it, well enough for the decision-maker to be satisfied it is accurate? - Yes - Gaps, but the decision-maker can fill them (e.g. with specialist conservation advice) - No: the effect on significance cannot be properly assessed → *fail* HE5(1): The effect on the significance of the heritage assets has not been properly assessed (HE5(1), HE5(4)). → *harm* HE5(1): Harm to the heritage assets cannot be ruled out on the evidence; the burden is on the applicant, so the gap counts against the proposal in the balance (e.g. 6006330 ¶16, ¶23). **Guidance:** - HE5(3): it is the effect on significance, not the scale of the development, that matters. - Where the applicant accepts harm but disputes its degree, specialist conservation advice is the usual way to satisfy HE5(4). - Inspectors have dismissed appeals where the assessment of significance was missing or inadequate (HE5(1) fail: 3 decisions in the dataset). They carried the gap into the heritage balance rather than refusing on HE5 alone: "I am unable to determine whether the proposal would result in the loss of any historic fabric", then the public benefits were weighed against the harm (6006330 ¶16, ¶23). - HE5 is an assessment requirement, not a policy that says development "should be refused". A failed assessment means harm cannot be ruled out; it counts against the proposal in the balance, and the burden of filling the gap is on the applicant. **Cases:** policies HE5; grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **HE5(1)** Development proposals affecting heritage assets should be accompanied by an assessment of the significance of the assets affected (including any contribution made by their setting) and of the potential effect of the proposal on their significance. > > **HE5(4)** Decision-makers should be satisfied that assessments accurately reflect the effects on heritage assets caused by development proposals. > > **HE5(3)** In making this assessment it is the effect on a heritage asset's significance rather than the scale of the development which should be considered. ### HE5(2): what would the effect be? `heHarmFactors` (question) **Shown when:** designated = "true", and not HE5: is the heritage assessment adequate? = "No: the effect on significance cannot be properly assessed" **Asks:** Which of these describe the effect on the significance of the asset? Select all that apply — the next step suggests a degree from your answers, for you to confirm. - Positive: removes a harmful later addition, or reveals or restores a lost feature - No historic, functional or visual link; the site makes no contribution to the asset’s significance - A minor part of the setting; the proposal is subordinate, glimpsed or peripheral, leaving the main significance legible - The development would dominate a key element of the setting, or erode the rural or open context in which the asset is experienced - Removes a historic functional link — for example a farmhouse losing its adjoining farmland - Seriously affects a key element of significance — for example the legibility of a principal historic elevation - Removes the main feature from which the asset draws its significance - Demolition, or removal of every element that gives the asset significance **Guidance:** - Judge the effect on significance, not the scale of the development (HE5(3)). Setting is read historically and functionally, not only visually (6007136 ¶21). - "Substantial harm" is reached only where a key element of significance is seriously affected (HE5(2)); below that, harm sits on a scale. "Less than substantial harm" is a 2024 term and is not used in the 2026 Framework. **Framework text:** > **HE5(2)** Assessments of the potential effects of development proposals on the significance of heritage assets (including through effects on their setting) should identify whether proposals would be likely to: a. Have a positive effect, which is where the significance of a heritage asset would be enhanced, or better revealed; or b. Have no effect on the significance of a heritage asset; or c. Result in harm to the significance of a heritage asset, either from work affecting the asset itself or from development within its setting. The degree of harm should be identified: substantial harm would occur where the development proposal would seriously affect a key element of the asset's significance; or d. Cause the total loss of the significance of a heritage asset. > > **AnnexB:setting** The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral. ### HE5(2): effect on the designated asset `heEffect` (judgement) **Shown when:** designated = "true", and not HE5: is the heritage assessment adequate? = "No: the effect on significance cannot be properly assessed" **Asks:** Confirm the degree of effect on the significance of the asset. If several are affected, answer for the most harmed. - Positive: significance enhanced or better revealed - No effect - Harm: very low to low - Harm: moderate - Harm: high, short of substantial - Substantial harm: a key element of significance seriously affected - Total loss of significance **Findings:** - if HE5(2): effect on the designated asset = "Harm: very low to low" or HE5(2): effect on the designated asset = "Harm: moderate" or HE5(2): effect on the designated asset = "Harm: high, short of substantial": *harm* (considerable) **HE6(3)**: Harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset. Any harm is "a matter of considerable importance and weight" (HE6(3)), with substantial weight given to the asset's conservation (HE6(1)). - if HE5(2): effect on the designated asset = "Substantial harm: a key element of significance seriously affected" or HE5(2): effect on the designated asset = "Total loss of significance": *harm* (considerable) **HE6(5)**: Substantial harm to, or total loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset. - if HE5(2): effect on the designated asset = "No effect": *note* **HE5(2)**: No effect on the significance of the designated heritage assets. - if HE5(2): effect on the designated asset = "Positive: significance enhanced or better revealed": *benefit* **HE5(2)**: A positive effect on the significance of a designated heritage asset. **Guidance:** - The Framework no longer uses "less than substantial harm". It asks for the degree of harm to be identified; "substantial harm" means seriously affecting a key element of significance. - Setting is read functionally and historically, not only visually. For example, a farmhouse "would become an historic farmhouse without adjoining farmland" (6006475 ¶32); "impact on setting is not limited to intervisibility" (6007136 ¶21). - Across the dataset, inspectors dismissed 124 of 134 appeals in which they found harm to a designated asset. Where they found no harm, 52 of 81 were permitted. **Cases:** policies HE6; grouped by outcome **Framework text:** > **HE5(2)** Assessments of the potential effects of development proposals on the significance of heritage assets (including through effects on their setting) should identify whether proposals would be likely to: a. Have a positive effect, which is where the significance of a heritage asset would be enhanced, or better revealed; or b. Have no effect on the significance of a heritage asset; or c. Result in harm to the significance of a heritage asset, either from work affecting the asset itself or from development within its setting. The degree of harm should be identified: substantial harm would occur where the development proposal would seriously affect a key element of the asset's significance; or d. Cause the total loss of the significance of a heritage asset. > > **AnnexB:setting** The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral. ### HE6(4): public benefits in the balance `heBenefits` (question) **Shown when:** designated = "true", and (HE5(2): effect on the designated asset = "Harm: very low to low" or HE5(2): effect on the designated asset = "Harm: moderate" or HE5(2): effect on the designated asset = "Harm: high, short of substantial") **Asks:** Which public benefits weigh on the other side of this balance, and at what level? Tick the rows that fit. A benefit that is not secured or not evidenced carries no weight. - Housing — a larger scheme where housing supply is short - Housing — one or a few homes - Affordable housing — secured by obligation - Affordable housing — offered but not secured - Long-term reuse of a vacant or underused listed building — secured - Energy efficiency or low-carbon heating — beyond the regulatory minimum - Economic — ongoing: permanent jobs or sustained local activity - Economic — short-term only: construction spend and jobs during the build - Biodiversity net gain beyond the statutory 10% — secured - Publicly accessible green space — secured - Environmental benefit claimed but not demonstrated - Other public benefit (describe it in the notes at the next step) **Guidance:** - Only public benefits count; private benefits such as extra living space are excluded (6011314 ¶39). - Reduce the weight of any benefit that is not secured, could be delivered elsewhere without the harm, or could be achieved with less harm (6007466 ¶23). Where a benefit is claimed but not demonstrated — for example the application does not address more recent survey findings, conditions or standards — give it no weight and tick the "not demonstrated" row. - HE6(4) names two important public benefits: securing the long-term reuse of a vacant or underused listed building, and enabling energy efficiency or low carbon heating. - These are the same public benefits weighed in the overall balance later; here they inform only the HE6(4) heritage balance. Weigh each one once. For each benefit, tick the single row that best fits its level. **Framework text:** > **HE6(4)** Where a development proposal would harm the significance of a designated heritage asset the effect on the asset and its significance should be weighed against any public benefits resulting from the proposal. Important public benefits can include securing the long-term reuse of a vacant or underused listed building, and enabling energy efficiency and low carbon heating measures to be employed. ### HE6(4): harm against public benefits `he64` (judgement) **Shown when:** designated = "true", and (HE5(2): effect on the designated asset = "Harm: very low to low" or HE5(2): effect on the designated asset = "Harm: moderate" or HE5(2): effect on the designated asset = "Harm: high, short of substantial") **Asks:** Giving the harm considerable importance and weight, and substantial weight to the asset's conservation, do the public benefits of the proposal outweigh it, with a clear and convincing justification? - Yes: the public benefits outweigh the harm - No: the harm is not outweighed **Findings:** - if HE6(4): harm against public benefits = "Yes: the public benefits outweigh the harm": *pass* **HE6(4)**: The heritage harm is outweighed by the public benefits (HE6(4)). - if HE6(4): harm against public benefits = "No: the harm is not outweighed": *fail* **HE6(4)**: The heritage harm is not outweighed by the public benefits (HE6(4)); there is no clear and convincing justification (HE4(2)). **Guidance:** - Only public benefits count: private benefits such as extra living space are excluded (e.g. 6011314 ¶39, 6004673 ¶37). - Benefits discounted in decisions: unsecured benefits, those achievable with less harm, and those that could be delivered elsewhere (6007466 ¶23). - Small housing schemes have lost this balance on "low" harm despite supply shortfalls (6009545: 1 home, 3.68 years; 6007054: moderate harm, 1 home, 2.98 years). At 6010097 ¶14 one home was given substantial weight and still did not outweigh harm that was "modest in extent". - An informal public benefit that is not secured carries reduced weight: community use "on an informal ad-hoc basis" got modest weight (6001939 ¶14). - Minor harm has been outweighed by larger schemes with a shortfall (3375062: 20 homes; 6005664: 110 homes). - No appeal since August 2026 in the dataset allows 1 to 9 homes against "low" (as opposed to "very low") harm to a designated asset. **Contested:** Should HE6(4) be run as its own balance, or folded into the overall S4/S5 balance? - *Run separately, then carried into the overall balance*: The usual appeal sequence: HE6(4) first (6007221 ¶40), then the overall balance, where the unjustified harm has led inspectors to find the benefits substantially outweighed (6007221 ¶51; 6006475 ¶59, ¶68; SDC at Ilmington, stratford-26-01399-PIP). The failure is weighed there; it is not a "should be refused" trigger. - *Folded into one balance*: Heritage harm treated as one input to the overall balance with no separate HE6(4) exercise (SDC at Long Marston, stratford-26-01906-PIP, granted). **Cases:** policies HE6(4); grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **HE6(4)** Where a development proposal would harm the significance of a designated heritage asset the effect on the asset and its significance should be weighed against any public benefits resulting from the proposal. Important public benefits can include securing the long-term reuse of a vacant or underused listed building, and enabling energy efficiency and low carbon heating measures to be employed. > > **HE6(1)** When considering the potential effect of a development proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset, substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential effect amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss of its significance. > > **HE6(3)** Any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight, which should be dealt with in accordance with paragraphs 4 to 6 of this policy. > > **HE4(2)** Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (including from development within its setting) should have a clear and convincing justification in accordance with the policies in this chapter. ### HE6(5): substantial harm or total loss `he65` (judgement) **Shown when:** designated = "true", and (HE5(2): effect on the designated asset = "Substantial harm: a key element of significance seriously affected" or HE5(2): effect on the designated asset = "Total loss of significance") **Asks:** Is the harm necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh it, or do all four conditions (a) to (d) apply? - Yes - No **Findings:** - if HE6(5): substantial harm or total loss = "Yes": *pass* **HE6(5)**: The substantial harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh it (HE6(5)). - if HE6(5): substantial harm or total loss = "No": *trigger* **HE6(5)**: Substantial harm without the justification HE6(5) requires: consent "should be refused". **Cases:** policies HE6(5); grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **HE6(5)** Where a development proposal would cause substantial harm to, or the total loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset, consent should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm or loss, or if all of the following apply: a. The nature of the heritage asset would otherwise prevent all reasonable uses of the site; b. No suitable use for the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; c. Conservation by grant-funding or some form of not for profit, charitable or public ownership is not possible; and d. The harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the asset back into use. ### HE7(2): non-designated heritage asset `he7` (judgement) **Shown when:** Heritage assets = "Non-designated heritage asset (identified by the council: e.g. on a local heritage list, in a neighbourhood plan or the Historic Environment Record, or during the decision; such as an unregistered historic park)", and not HE5: is the heritage assessment adequate? = "No: the effect on significance cannot be properly assessed" **Asks:** Having regard to the scale of any harm and the asset's significance, is any harm to the non-designated asset outweighed by the benefits? - No harm - Harm, outweighed by the benefits - Harm, not outweighed **Findings:** - if HE7(2): non-designated heritage asset = "Harm, outweighed by the benefits": *harm* (limited) **HE7(2)**: Harm to a non-designated heritage asset, outweighed in the balanced judgement (HE7(2)). - if HE7(2): non-designated heritage asset = "Harm, not outweighed": *harm* (significant) **HE7(2)**: Harm to a non-designated heritage asset that the benefits do not outweigh (HE7(2)). **Guidance:** - This is a balanced judgement, not the HE6 test. Limited harm to a non-designated asset is routinely outweighed (e.g. 6007184); total loss of one was not outweighed by one replacement home (6007188). **Cases:** policies HE7; grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **HE7(2)** Where a development proposal would harm the significance of a non-designated heritage asset, this should be weighed against the benefits of the proposal and a balanced judgement made, having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the non-designated heritage asset. ## Other national policies ### F7(2): flood risk from any source `f7` (judgement) **Shown when:** Site constraints = "Known risk from any form of flooding (river, sea, surface water, groundwater), now or in the future" **Asks:** Has the applicant demonstrated all five matters (a) to (e) in F7(2)? - Yes: all five are demonstrated - No, or not evidenced **Findings:** - if F7(2): flood risk from any source = "No, or not evidenced": *trigger* **F7(2)**: In a location known to be at risk of flooding, F7(2)(a) to (e) are not demonstrated, so the proposal "should be refused". **Guidance:** - F7(2) covers any form of flooding, including surface water and groundwater, now or in the future. - The sequential test (F5) applies separately in areas at risk. F5 is worded "should not be located"; the "should be refused" wording is in F6(1)(a) and F7(2). Inspectors treat failure of either as decisive. **Cases:** policies F7, F5; grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **F7(2)** Where development is proposed in a location known to be at risk from any form of flooding, now or in the future, it should be refused unless: a. Within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk, unless there are overriding reasons which justify a different arrangement; b. The development will be safe throughout its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users; c. Any residual risk can be safely managed, and safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate, as part of an agreed emergency plan; d. The development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient such that, in the event of a flood, it could be quickly brought back into use without significant refurbishment; and e. It can be demonstrated that flood risk will not be increased elsewhere. ### N4(2): major development in a Protected Landscape `n4major` (judgement) **Shown when:** Site constraints = "Within a National Park, National Landscape or the Broads" **Asks:** Is this "major development" for the purposes of N4, judged on its nature, scale and setting and whether it could significantly harm the purposes for which the area is designated (footnote 59)? - No - Yes, but there are exceptional circumstances and it is in the public interest - Yes, without exceptional circumstances **Findings:** - if N4(2): major development in a Protected Landscape = "Yes, without exceptional circumstances": *trigger* **N4(2)**: Major development in a Protected Landscape without exceptional circumstances "should be refused" (N4(2)). **Cases:** policies N4; grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **N4(1)** Development proposals within Protected Landscapes should be limited in scale and extent and sensitively located and designed to avoid harm to the statutory purposes and special qualities of the Protected Landscape. Substantial weight should be placed on the importance of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of these areas, and to conserving and enhancing wildlife and cultural heritage in National Parks and the Broads. > > **N4(2)** Proposals for major development within Protected Landscapes should be refused other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. ### N4: harm to a Protected Landscape `n4harm` (judgement) **Shown when:** Site constraints = "Within a National Park, National Landscape or the Broads"; or Site constraints = "Within the setting of a Protected Landscape" **Asks:** Would the proposal harm the natural beauty or special qualities of the Protected Landscape? - No - Yes **Findings:** - if N4: harm to a Protected Landscape = "Yes": *harm* (substantial) **N4**: Harm to a Protected Landscape, whose natural beauty carries substantial weight (N4(1)). **Cases:** policies N4; grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **N4(1)** Development proposals within Protected Landscapes should be limited in scale and extent and sensitively located and designed to avoid harm to the statutory purposes and special qualities of the Protected Landscape. Substantial weight should be placed on the importance of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of these areas, and to conserving and enhancing wildlife and cultural heritage in National Parks and the Broads. > > **N4(4)** Development proposals within the setting of Protected Landscapes should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the Protected Landscape. ### N6(2): irreplaceable habitats `n62` (judgement) **Shown when:** Site constraints = "Ancient woodland, or ancient or veteran trees, affected" **Asks:** Would the proposal cause loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitat and, if so, are there wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy? - No loss or deterioration - Loss, with wholly exceptional reasons and compensation - Loss without that justification, or not assessed **Findings:** - if N6(2): irreplaceable habitats = "Loss without that justification, or not assessed": *trigger* **N6(2)**: Loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitat without wholly exceptional reasons "should be refused" (N6(2)). **Guidance:** - An unassessed mature tree may be veteran. If no one has assessed it, the question cannot be answered on the evidence. **Cases:** policies N6; grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **N6(2)** Irrespective of a site's status in nature conservation terms, development proposals which would entail the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. ### N2(2): significant harm to biodiversity `n22` (judgement) **Shown when:** Site constraints = "Habitats or protected species that could be significantly harmed" **Asks:** Can any significant harm to biodiversity be avoided, adequately mitigated or, as a last resort, compensated for, on the evidence submitted? - Yes - No - Cannot tell: surveys missing, out of date or out of season **Findings:** - if N2(2): significant harm to biodiversity = "No": *trigger* **N2(2)**: Significant harm to biodiversity that cannot be avoided, mitigated or compensated for: the proposal "should be refused" (N2(2)). - if N2(2): significant harm to biodiversity = "Cannot tell: surveys missing, out of date or out of season": *trigger* **N2(2)**: Without adequate surveys, significant harm to biodiversity cannot be ruled out, and the gap cannot be filled by condition. **Guidance:** - Missing or out-of-season protected-species surveys cannot usually be left to a condition (Circular 06/2005 ¶99): e.g. 6012481, 6008404, 6010616 (nesting-bird survey "outside of the optimal period"). **Cases:** policies N2, N6; grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **N2(2)** If significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated or, as a last resort, compensated for, then the development should be refused. ### N2(1)(d): established trees and hedgerows `n21d` (judgement) **Shown when:** Site constraints = "Established trees or hedgerows lost or cut back (including for visibility splays)" **Asks:** Would established trees or hedgerows of visual, historic or nature-conservation value be lost, including any cleared for visibility splays, where retaining them was possible? - No: they are retained - Some loss, unavoidable and adequately replaced - Yes: avoidable or unassessed loss **Findings:** - if N2(1)(d): established trees and hedgerows = "Yes: avoidable or unassessed loss": *harm* **N2(1)(d)**: Loss of established trees or hedgerows of value where retention was possible (N2(1)(d)). **Guidance:** - Splays can remove far more than the tree report assumes. At 6007807 (¶9–11) the arboricultural assessment ignored the splays; replanting "would take years to mature". - Hedgerow in the highway lost to splays had "amenity value as part of the landscape character" even where biodiversity could be offset (6006819 ¶22). - Counter-example: a replacement hawthorn hedge longer than the length lost was accepted (6007231). **Cases:** policies N2, DP3; grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **N2(1)(d)** d. Conserve and enhance existing natural features of visual, historic or nature conservation value (such as established trees and hedgerows) where possible; and use appropriate landscaping to help create a well-designed place and integrate the development into its surroundings; ### DP3(2)(c): tree cover `dp32c` (judgement) **Shown when:** Site constraints = "Established trees or hedgerows lost or cut back (including for visibility splays)" **Asks:** Would the proposal reduce tree cover, rather than maintain and enhance it, without clear justification? - No - Yes **Findings:** - if DP3(2)(c): tree cover = "Yes": *trigger* **DP3(3)**: Loss of tree cover conflicts with DP3(2)(c) without clear justification, so DP3(3) says the proposal "should be refused". **Guidance:** - A conflict with DP3(2) principles without clear justification engages DP3(3) ("should be refused"). At 6005325 (¶23, ¶30–31) loss of a prominent tree did exactly that, and the benefits of one home were "substantially outweighed". **Cases:** policies DP3; tags dp3-refuse-trigger; grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **DP3(2)(c)** c. Nature: incorporate and/or connect to a network of high quality, accessible, multi-functional green infrastructure to provide opportunities for recreation and healthy living, strengthen habitats, improve climate change resilience and improve air and water quality. This should include maintaining and enhancing tree cover and incorporating sustainable drainage systems in accordance with policies N3 and F8; > > **DP3(3)** Development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 of this policy or relevant aspects of the principles in paragraph 2, or with any explicit design standards set out in the development plan (including those in locally-specific policies, guides, codes or masterplans). Substantial weight should be given to compliance with relevant development plan policies when assessing the design quality of proposals. ### TR6(4): highway safety `tr64` (judgement) **Shown when:** Site constraints = "New or altered vehicular access onto a public road" **Asks:** After mitigation, would the access have an unacceptable impact on highway safety or a severe impact on the network? Can the visibility splays be delivered on land within the site or the highway? - Acceptable: safe access, splays deliverable - Not demonstrated: splays depend on third-party land or unassessed works - Unacceptable impact on highway safety **Findings:** - if TR6(4): highway safety = "Unacceptable impact on highway safety": *trigger* **TR6(4)**: An unacceptable impact on highway safety: the proposal "should be refused" (TR6(4)). - if TR6(4): highway safety = "Not demonstrated: splays depend on third-party land or unassessed works": *trigger* **TR6(4)**: A safe access is not shown to be deliverable, so an unacceptable impact on highway safety cannot be ruled out (TR6(4)). **Guidance:** - The safety limb stands alone: an impact need not be "severe" to be unacceptable (6006819 ¶20). - Splays that depend on third-party land or unassessed hedge removal have failed (6009997 ¶14–15, 6012481 ¶37). - An absence of recorded injury collisions is "not a reliable indicator" on its own (6009573 ¶23). **Cases:** policies TR6(4); grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **TR6(4)** Development proposals should be refused if they would have a severe adverse impact on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion, including cumulative impacts), or an unacceptable impact on highway safety; taking into account any mitigation measures proposed as well as any wider network improvements, including measures to support sustainable patterns of movement. This applies both during the construction phase and following completion. ### DP3(3): what does the scheme conflict with? `dp3Conflicts` (question) **Shown when:** always **Asks:** Which of these does the proposal conflict with? Select all that apply. Leave all unticked if it responds well to its context and complies with the design policies — the next step then asks, for any conflict, whether there is a clear justification. - DP3(1) context — does not respond to the history, character and features of the site and its setting, or fails to integrate with and enhance its surroundings - An explicit design standard in the development plan — a Village Design Statement, design guide, code or masterplan - DP3(2)(a) Liveability — mix, tenures, social interaction, robustness - DP3(2)(b) Climate — layout, orientation, massing, materials; overheating and net zero - DP3(2)(c) Nature — green infrastructure and habitats (tree cover is the separate DP3(2)(c) step above) - DP3(2)(d) Movement — walking, wheeling, cycling and public-transport connections - DP3(2)(e) Built form — streets, spaces, density and the pattern of buildings - DP3(2)(f) Public space — safe, secure, inclusive, accessible spaces - DP3(2)(g) Identity — attractive, distinctive, characterful development and local character **Guidance:** - DP3(3) gives national "should be refused" force to a conflict, without clear justification, with DP3(1) (context), the relevant DP3(2) principles, or an explicit design standard in the development plan. Substantial weight is given to compliance with relevant development-plan design policies. - Tree-cover loss is picked up separately at the DP3(2)(c) step, so it is not repeated here. Design harm that falls short of a conflict is weighed under landscape and character instead. - "Explicit design standards" includes a Village Design Statement, design guide, code or masterplan adopted through a development-plan policy (the clearest dataset example is 6010826). **Framework text:** > **DP3(1)** Development proposals should respond to their context (the history, character and features of their site and its setting), so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings; such as through the arrangement of development plots and buildings, the use of materials and architectural features, and the restoration, reuse and integration of heritage assets. > > **DP3(3)** Development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 of this policy or relevant aspects of the principles in paragraph 2, or with any explicit design standards set out in the development plan (including those in locally-specific policies, guides, codes or masterplans). Substantial weight should be given to compliance with relevant development plan policies when assessing the design quality of proposals. ### DP3(3): is the conflict clearly justified? `dp3` (judgement) **Shown when:** always **Asks:** For any conflict identified above, is there a clear justification — or is there no conflict at all? Answer this on its own terms; it is stricter than the S4/S5 "substantially outweighed" test. - No conflict - Conflict, but clearly justified (state the reading) - Conflict without clear justification **Findings:** - if DP3(3): is the conflict clearly justified? = "Conflict without clear justification": *trigger* **DP3(3)**: Conflicts with DP3(1) or (2), or with explicit local design standards, without clear justification: DP3(3) says it "should be refused". - if DP3(3): is the conflict clearly justified? = "Conflict, but clearly justified (state the reading)": *note* **DP3(3)**: There is a design conflict, but it has a clear justification, so DP3(3) is not engaged. **Guidance:** - In a review of 157 appeals with design harm, 53 named DP3(3) and applied it, and about 20 made the clear-justification finding in so many words (e.g. 6008167 ¶21, 6006720 ¶34). It has beaten substantial housing weight (6008167 ¶21). - Most other inspectors dismissed on the design harm without naming DP3(3), which reaches the result the policy points to. The error to avoid is the reverse: allowing a scheme with a design conflict after running only the S4/S5 "substantially outweighed" test, without asking whether there is clear justification (e.g. 6011253 ¶26; a council report did the same, stratford-26-00617-PIP). - This step is not where a plan policy that conflicts with the Framework is handled: whether a development-plan policy keeps full weight, or is materially inconsistent with the Framework and reduced to very limited weight, is tested separately at the development-plan step (Annex A(2)) — and a conflict with a policy that has lost weight there carries correspondingly less force here. Neighbourhood-plan protection is dealt with under S6. **Contested:** What counts as a "clear justification"? The Framework does not define it, and inspectors have read it two ways. - *Necessity*: The conflict is justified only if it is needed to deliver the development: "there would be clear justification for the conflict with Framework Policy DP3" because the tree loss "would be necessary as part of the appeal development" (6008314 ¶43). Applied to refuse at a hearing: "I do not find the specific and significant harm to the character and appearance of the countryside to be necessary to achieve the substantial public benefits" (6007133 ¶59). - *Level balance*: The conflict is justified if the benefits outweigh the harm: "There would, therefore, be clear justification for the harm that would arise, as is required by Policy DP3.3" (6009340 ¶22). At a hearing, "the substantial benefits are sufficient to provide clear justification for the conflict with Policy DP3", which caused limited harm (6008253 ¶86). The same reading has refused: substantial weight to two homes and significant weight to affordable housing "do not amount to the clear justification required by Policy DP3(3) to depart from explicit accessibility standards" (6005590 ¶46). Still stricter than the S4/S5 "substantially outweighed" test. **Cases:** policies DP3(3), DP3(1); grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **DP3(1)** Development proposals should respond to their context (the history, character and features of their site and its setting), so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings; such as through the arrangement of development plots and buildings, the use of materials and architectural features, and the restoration, reuse and integration of heritage assets. > > **DP3(3)** Development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 of this policy or relevant aspects of the principles in paragraph 2, or with any explicit design standards set out in the development plan (including those in locally-specific policies, guides, codes or masterplans). Substantial weight should be given to compliance with relevant development plan policies when assessing the design quality of proposals. ### Landscape and character `character` (judgement) **Shown when:** always **Asks:** How much harm would there be to landscape character and to the character and appearance of the area? - None - Limited - Moderate - Significant - Substantial **Findings:** - if Landscape and character = "Limited": *harm* (limited) **N2(1)(a)**: Harm to landscape character and the character of the area, given limited weight. - if Landscape and character = "Moderate": *harm* (moderate) **N2(1)(a)**: Harm to landscape character and the character of the area, given moderate weight. - if Landscape and character = "Significant": *harm* (significant) **N2(1)(a)**: Harm to landscape character and the character of the area, given significant weight. - if Landscape and character = "Substantial": *harm* (substantial) **N2(1)(a)**: Harm to landscape character and the character of the area, given substantial weight. **Cases:** policies N2, DP3; tags landscape-harm; grouped by outcome **Framework text:** > **N2(1)(a)** a. Consider the environmental qualities of land proposed for development, including habitats, landscape character and the natural beauty of the countryside, and identify opportunities for those qualities to be conserved or enhanced (including through requirements for biodiversity net gain where these apply); > > **DP3(1)** Development proposals should respond to their context (the history, character and features of their site and its setting), so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings; such as through the arrangement of development plots and buildings, the use of materials and architectural features, and the restoration, reuse and integration of heritage assets. ### S6: neighbourhood plan `s6` (judgement) **Shown when:** Site constraints = "A neighbourhood plan covers the site (made, or approved at referendum)" **Asks:** Was the neighbourhood plan made five years or less before the decision, does it allocate sites to meet its housing requirement, and does the proposal conflict with it? - Yes to all three - No: older than five years, no allocations, or no conflict **Findings:** - if S6: neighbourhood plan = "Yes to all three": *trigger* **S6(1)**: Conflicts with a recent neighbourhood plan that allocates for its housing requirement: the benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed (S6(1)). **Guidance:** - S6 applies to every proposal that provides housing, whatever the housing land supply position. A shortfall does not switch it off. - "Made" means formally brought into force by the council after examination and referendum. S6(1)(a) counts five years from when the plan "became part of the development plan". Inspectors have counted from the date the plan was made (6007104 ¶29: made 23 June 2021, decided 24 August 2026, so S6(1)(a) failed). Under Annex B a plan is part of the development plan from its referendum, so the clock may start slightly earlier. No decision in the dataset has turned on the difference. - The five years are measured to the date of the decision, not the application. A plan can drop out of S6 while an application or appeal is pending. - Allocations still count while they are being delivered slowly, unless there is evidence they cannot be delivered (6007431 ¶21–23). - Outside S6, a neighbourhood plan is still part of the development plan. Its policies keep their weight unless they are materially inconsistent with the Framework (Annex A(2), which includes policies in made neighbourhood plans). They are then ordinary conflicts in the balance, not an S6 trigger. **Cases:** policies S6; grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **S6(1)** For development proposals involving the provision of housing, the benefits of approving development are likely to be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects where a proposal would conflict with a neighbourhood plan, provided the following apply: a. The neighbourhood plan became part of the development plan five years or less before the date on which the decision is made; and b. The neighbourhood plan contains allocations to meet its identified housing requirement (see policy HO2). ### Development plan `devPlan` (judgement) **Shown when:** always **Asks:** Does the proposal conflict with development plan policies that are not materially inconsistent with the Framework? - No conflict - Some conflict: limited weight - Clear conflict with policies that keep their weight **Findings:** - if Development plan = "Some conflict: limited weight": *harm* (limited) **s38(6)**: Conflict with development plan policies, given limited weight. - if Development plan = "Clear conflict with policies that keep their weight": *harm* (significant) **s38(6)**: Conflict with development plan policies that are not materially inconsistent with the Framework (Annex A(2)); the plan is the starting point (s38(6)). **Guidance:** - Only policies (or parts of policies) that are materially inconsistent with the national decision-making policies drop to very limited weight. Others should not lose weight simply because of their age. - Locational policies that restrict housing outside settlement boundaries have commonly been held inconsistent with S5(1)(j) or GB7. Heritage, design and landscape policies have more often been held consistent (e.g. 6006475 ¶66, 6007541 ¶4), though practice varies. **Contested:** Which local policies are "materially inconsistent", and can a consistent policy still lose weight? Inspectors have applied Annex A(2) in three ways, and not always with the very limited weight it prescribes. - *Part by part: only the inconsistent part loses weight*: At 6005809 ¶76 the "restrictive elements" of two spatial policies were materially inconsistent with the Framework, while three related policies kept great weight (the inspector gave the restrictive parts limited, not very limited, weight). At 6001260 ¶28 only the aspects restricting development outside settlement boundaries were given very limited weight, and the conflict still counted. - *Held consistent: full weight*: Design, heritage and landscape policies are commonly held consistent and keep full weight (6008359 ¶23, 6007541 ¶4, 6006475 ¶66). - *Consistent, but reduced for housing supply*: The spatial strategy is found consistent, then given moderate weight "considering the lack of a 5-year housing land supply" (6008785 ¶38), or because it is "not delivering a sufficient supply of homes" (6007466 ¶25). The same route helped a hearing appeal succeed: "given that the housing land supply shortfall is substantial, I give conflict with the relevant policies limited weight" (6008253 ¶39). Annex A(2) gives no basis for this: its only ground for reduced weight is material inconsistency. The reduction follows the 2024 "out-of-date" approach. Conversely, one inspector found spatial policies materially inconsistent with S5 but gave the conflict "only moderate weight" rather than very limited (6007352 ¶25). **Cases:** policies Transitional(2), AnnexA(2); grouped by finding **Framework text:** > **AnnexA(2)** Development plan policies (or parts of those policies) which are materially inconsistent with national decision-making policies in this Framework should be given very limited weight. The only exception to this is where they have been examined and adopted or made against this Framework. Other development plan policies should not be given reduced weight simply because they were adopted prior to the publication of this Framework. ## Benefits ### HO7(1): the benefit of new homes `homes` (info) **Shown when:** always **Asks:** Substantial weight is given to providing homes that contribute to evidenced accommodation needs. **Findings:** - *benefit* (substantial) **HO7(1)**: New homes towards evidenced needs attract substantial weight (HO7(1)). **Guidance:** - The weight for very small numbers is not settled. Some decisions have tempered it: five homes were given moderate weight, and only modest weight in the very special circumstances balance (6010313 ¶33, ¶38); three homes moderate weight (6011585 ¶17); one home limited weight (6010642 ¶26). Others give one home the full substantial weight under HO7 (6010097 ¶11; one secured self-build home at 6010020 ¶23). **Cases:** policies HO7; grouped by outcome **Framework text:** > **HO7(1)** In applying the policies in this Framework, substantial weight should be given to the benefits of providing homes which will contribute towards meeting the evidenced accommodation needs of the community, as identified through needs assessments prepared for the area of the local planning authority and other relevant evidence. ### Other benefits `otherBenefits` (question) **Shown when:** always **Asks:** Which other benefits does the proposal secure? Select all that apply, or none. Weights shown are typical of decisions, not fixed. - Affordable housing, secured by obligation → *benefit* HO7: Affordable housing, secured. - Self-build or custom housing, secured by obligation → *benefit* HO7: Self-build or custom housebuilding, secured. - Construction jobs and local spending → *benefit* E2: Short-term economic benefits of construction and occupation. - Biodiversity gain beyond the statutory 10% → *benefit* N2: Biodiversity gain beyond the statutory requirement. - Energy performance clearly beyond Building Regulations → *benefit* CC2: Energy performance beyond the regulatory minimum. **Guidance:** - At inquiry, affordable homes, homes for older people and custom self-build were each given substantial weight under HO7, as separate benefits (6008238 ¶139). Record a higher weight in your own reasons where the evidence supports it. ## The decision ### Route: inappropriate development in the Green Belt `routeGB6` (info) **Shown when:** route = ""GB6(2)"" **Asks:** No GB7 category is met, so the proposal is inappropriate development. It can only be approved in very special circumstances. **Findings:** - *route* **GB6(2)**: Inappropriate development in the Green Belt, to be approved only in very special circumstances (GB6). **Framework text:** > **GB6(1)** Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within one of the categories in policy GB7. > > **GB6(2)** Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Such circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm resulting from the proposed development, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In making this assessment, substantial weight should be given to the harm to the Green Belt which would be caused, including harm to its openness. ### Route: not inappropriate, so the S5(5) balance applies `routeS55` (info) **Shown when:** route = ""S5(5)"" **Asks:** A GB7 category is met, so the proposal is not inappropriate. It should be approved unless the benefits are substantially outweighed by adverse effects, applying S5(2). **Findings:** - *route* **S5(5)**: Not inappropriate development in the Green Belt: approve unless the benefits are substantially outweighed (S5(5)). **Framework text:** > **S5(5)** This policy does not apply to development proposals in the Green Belt or on land designated as Local Green Space, which should instead be determined in accordance with policies HC8, GB6, GB7 and/or GB8 (as appropriate). However, where development would not be inappropriate in these locations (through the application of policies HC8 and GB7), proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework, and applying paragraph 2 of this policy. > > **S5(2)** In applying this policy, the circumstances in which the benefits of approving development proposals are likely to be substantially outweighed by adverse effects include, but are not restricted to, situations where the development proposal would fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances. ### Route: within a settlement, so S4 applies `routeS4` (info) **Shown when:** route = ""S4"" **Asks:** Development within settlements should be approved unless the benefits are substantially outweighed by adverse effects. **Findings:** - *route* **S4**: Within a settlement: approve unless the benefits are substantially outweighed (S4(1)). **Framework text:** > **S4(1)** Development proposals within settlements should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework. > > **S4(2)(c)** In applying policy S4, the circumstances in which the benefits of approving development are likely to be substantially outweighed by adverse effects include (but are not restricted to) situations where the development proposal would: … c. Fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances. ### Route: an S5(1) category outside settlements `routeS51` (info) **Shown when:** route = ""S5(1)"" **Asks:** The proposal falls in an S5(1) category. It should be approved unless the benefits are substantially outweighed by adverse effects. **Findings:** - *route* **S5(1)**: Outside settlements, in an S5(1) category: approve unless the benefits are substantially outweighed (S5(1)). **Framework text:** > **S5(1)** Only certain forms of development should be approved outside settlements, as set out in the following list. These should be approved, unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework: > > **S5(2)** In applying this policy, the circumstances in which the benefits of approving development proposals are likely to be substantially outweighed by adverse effects include, but are not restricted to, situations where the development proposal would fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances. ### Route: an isolated home `routeS53` (info) **Shown when:** route = ""S5(3)"" **Asks:** Isolated homes should not be approved other than in accordance with HO11. **Findings:** - *route* **S5(3)**: An isolated home, decided under S5(3) and HO11. **Framework text:** > **S5(3)** Development proposals comprising isolated homes, which are those lying outside settlements or groups of houses, should not be approved other than in accordance with policy HO11. ### Route: outside the S5(1) categories `routeS54` (info) **Shown when:** route = ""S5(4)"" **Asks:** The proposal is not in an S5(1) category, so it should be approved only in exceptional circumstances, where the benefits substantially outweigh the adverse effects. **Findings:** - *route* **S5(4)**: Outside settlements and outside the S5(1) categories: approve only in exceptional circumstances (S5(4)). **Framework text:** > **S5(4)** Development proposals which do not fall within one of the categories set out in this policy should only be approved in exceptional circumstances, where the benefits of the proposal would substantially outweigh the adverse effects, including to the character of the countryside and in relation to promoting sustainable patterns of movement. ### S3(2): the part inside the settlement, and the overall view `s32Overall` (info) **Shown when:** Green Belt = "No", and Settlement = "Partly within, partly outside" **Asks:** The route above is for the part of the site outside the settlement. The part inside is judged under S4: approve unless the benefits are substantially outweighed. Take both into account in the final balance, which is your overall view on the whole proposal. **Framework text:** > **S3(2)** Where a development proposal falls partly within and partly outside a settlement, policies S4 and S5 should be applied to the relevant parts which are inside or outside of the settlement boundary (as appropriate), before coming to an overall view on the proposal. > > **S4(1)** Development proposals within settlements should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework. ### Harm to the Green Belt `gbHarm` (info) **Shown when:** route = ""GB6(2)"" **Asks:** Inappropriate development is harmful by definition. Substantial weight is given to that harm, including harm to openness. **Findings:** - *harm* (substantial) **GB6(2)**: Harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and to its openness, carries substantial weight (GB6(2)). **Cases:** policies GB6(2); tags vsc-not-shown, vsc-shown; grouped by outcome **Framework text:** > **GB6(2)** Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Such circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm resulting from the proposed development, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In making this assessment, substantial weight should be given to the harm to the Green Belt which would be caused, including harm to its openness. ### GB6(2): very special circumstances `vsc` (judgement) **Shown when:** route = ""GB6(2)"" **Asks:** Is the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, clearly outweighed by other considerations? The findings so far are listed alongside. - Yes: clearly outweighed, so very special circumstances exist - No: very special circumstances do not exist - Too finely balanced to call **Guidance:** - A housing shortfall alone has rarely been enough. At 6010313, five homes at a 1.97-year supply got only modest weight in this balance (¶38). - An absence of other harm is neutral. It does not count in favour (6010313 ¶36). - Heritage harm counts as "any other harm". A failed HE6(4) balance adds harm of considerable importance and weight that is not outweighed even by the public benefits. **Cases:** policies GB6(2); tags vsc-shown, vsc-not-shown; grouped by outcome **Framework text:** > **GB6(2)** Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Such circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm resulting from the proposed development, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In making this assessment, substantial weight should be given to the harm to the Green Belt which would be caused, including harm to its openness. ### The balance, with a "should be refused" policy failed `balanceTriggered` (judgement) **Shown when:** (route = ""S4"" or route = ""S5(1)"" or route = ""S5(5)"" or route = ""S5(3)""), and not HO11: isolated homes = "No", and a trigger finding **Asks:** The proposal fails at least one national policy that says development "should be refused". S4(2)(c) and S5(2) say the benefits are then likely to be substantially outweighed. Is there anything that displaces that? - Yes: the benefits are substantially outweighed, so refuse - No: the benefits are not substantially outweighed, so approve - Too finely balanced to call **Guidance:** - In the dataset, decisions that found a trigger policy failed were dismissals or refusals, with no counter-examples (e.g. 6008167, 6005325). **Cases:** policies S5(2), S4(2)(c); grouped by outcome **Framework text:** > **S5(2)** In applying this policy, the circumstances in which the benefits of approving development proposals are likely to be substantially outweighed by adverse effects include, but are not restricted to, situations where the development proposal would fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances. > > **S4(2)(c)** In applying policy S4, the circumstances in which the benefits of approving development are likely to be substantially outweighed by adverse effects include (but are not restricted to) situations where the development proposal would: … c. Fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances. ### The balance: substantially outweighed? `balancePlain` (judgement) **Shown when:** (route = ""S4"" or route = ""S5(1)"" or route = ""S5(5)"" or route = ""S5(3)""), and not HO11: isolated homes = "No", and not (a trigger finding) **Asks:** Weighing the adverse effects listed alongside against the benefits, are the benefits of approval substantially outweighed? - Yes: the benefits are substantially outweighed, so refuse - No: the benefits are not substantially outweighed, so approve - Too finely balanced to call **Guidance:** - "Substantially outweighed" is a strong tilt towards approval. In some council decisions, harm given substantial weight did not substantially outweigh substantial housing benefit (stratford-26-00617-PIP, stratford-26-01458-FUL) (but see DP3(3): that report did not ask whether there was clear justification). - A failed HE6(4) balance is not a "should be refused" trigger, but it is weighed here as harm of considerable importance and weight with no clear and convincing justification (HE6(3), HE4(2)). Inspectors who found HE6(4) failed went on to find the benefits substantially outweighed (6007221 ¶40, ¶51). - Inspectors have found substantial housing weight substantially outweighed by heritage harm (6009545) and by design conflict (6008167). **Cases:** policies S4(1), S5(1), S5(5); grouped by outcome **Framework text:** > **S4(1)** Development proposals within settlements should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework. > > **S5(1)** Only certain forms of development should be approved outside settlements, as set out in the following list. These should be approved, unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework: > > **S5(5)** This policy does not apply to development proposals in the Green Belt or on land designated as Local Green Space, which should instead be determined in accordance with policies HC8, GB6, GB7 and/or GB8 (as appropriate). However, where development would not be inappropriate in these locations (through the application of policies HC8 and GB7), proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework, and applying paragraph 2 of this policy. ### S5(4): exceptional circumstances `exceptional` (judgement) **Shown when:** route = ""S5(4)"" **Asks:** Would the benefits substantially outweigh the adverse effects, including to the character of the countryside and to sustainable patterns of movement? - Yes: exceptional circumstances - No - Too finely balanced to call **Cases:** policies S5(4); grouped by outcome **Framework text:** > **S5(4)** Development proposals which do not fall within one of the categories set out in this policy should only be approved in exceptional circumstances, where the benefits of the proposal would substantially outweigh the adverse effects, including to the character of the countryside and in relation to promoting sustainable patterns of movement. ## Outcomes (first match wins) | Verdict | When | Title | Test | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | refuse | route = ""S5(3)"", and HO11: isolated homes = "No" | Refuse: an isolated home outside HO11 | Isolated homes should not be approved other than in accordance with HO11 (S5(3)). | | refuse | GB6(2): very special circumstances = "No: very special circumstances do not exist" | Refuse: inappropriate development, no very special circumstances | The harm to the Green Belt and any other harm are not clearly outweighed (GB6(2)). | | approve | GB6(2): very special circumstances = "Yes: clearly outweighed, so very special circumstances exist" | Approve: very special circumstances | The harm to the Green Belt and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations (GB6(2)). | | balanced | GB6(2): very special circumstances = "Too finely balanced to call" | Finely balanced: very special circumstances | Turns on whether the Green Belt harm and other harm are clearly outweighed (GB6(2)). | | approve | S5(4): exceptional circumstances = "Yes: exceptional circumstances" | Approve: exceptional circumstances | The benefits substantially outweigh the adverse effects (S5(4)). | | refuse | S5(4): exceptional circumstances = "No" | Refuse: outside the S5(1) categories, no exceptional circumstances | The benefits do not substantially outweigh the adverse effects (S5(4)). | | balanced | S5(4): exceptional circumstances = "Too finely balanced to call" | Finely balanced: exceptional circumstances | Turns on whether the benefits substantially outweigh the adverse effects (S5(4)). | | refuse | `balance` = "Yes: the benefits are substantially outweighed, so refuse", and a trigger finding | Refuse: fails a policy that says development "should be refused" | Failing a "should be refused" policy means the benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed (S4(2)(c), S5(2)), and they are. | | refuse | `balance` = "Yes: the benefits are substantially outweighed, so refuse", and (a fail finding under HE6(4); or a fail finding under HE5(1)) | Refuse: unjustified heritage harm, benefits substantially outweighed | The heritage harm, of considerable importance and weight, has no clear and convincing justification (HE6(4), HE4(2)), and carried into the overall balance it substantially outweighs the benefits. | | approve | `balance` = "No: the benefits are not substantially outweighed, so approve", and (a fail finding under HE6(4); or a fail finding under HE5(1)) | Approve, although the heritage harm is not justified | The benefits are not substantially outweighed, but the heritage harm has no clear and convincing justification (HE4(2)) and was not outweighed by public benefits (HE6(4)). A grant on this basis must explain how harm of considerable importance and weight (HE6(3)), and the section 66 duty for a listed building's setting, were weighed; decisions that omit that step are the ones most open to challenge. | | refuse | `balance` = "Yes: the benefits are substantially outweighed, so refuse" | Refuse: benefits substantially outweighed | The benefits are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects, assessed against the national decision-making policies. | | approve | `balance` = "No: the benefits are not substantially outweighed, so approve" | Approve: benefits not substantially outweighed | The benefits are not substantially outweighed by the adverse effects. | | balanced | `balance` = "Too finely balanced to call" | Finely balanced | Turns on whether the benefits are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects. | --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/route/ Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land north of Bottomdale Road, Halton - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Grahame J Kean - **Authority:** Lancaster (North West) - **Appeal reference:** APP/A2335/C/26/3378663 - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Enforcement appeals A-C (3378663/4/5): material change of use of field to storage of caravans and significant land-level changes (appellants claimed a 3-pitch traveller site) - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(5), GB6(2), GB7(1)(e), GB7(1)(g)(ii), N2 - **Development plan policies:** Lancaster Development Management DPD 2025 DM29 - **Main issues:** whether the breach occurred, inappropriate development, openness, character - **Tags:** enforcement-ground-a, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, unlawful-use-not-pdl, unmet-need-type-specific, travellers ## Summary Three linked enforcement appeals against caravans stored on a Green Belt field at Halton, with substantial earthworks. The appellants argued it was a three-pitch traveller site, but the inspector found the land was being used to store caravans, and the deemed application could only be for that use. Unlawful development cannot create PDL, so GB7(1)(e) failed. There was no evidence of unmet need for caravan storage, so (g) failed. The notice was upheld. ## Issues and findings - **Route.** "The development is outside a settlement boundary, therefore National Policy (NP) S5.5 … applies, which states that development proposals in the Green Belt should be determined in accordance with certain NPs of which GB6 and GB7 are relevant here" (DL ¶29). - **GB7(1)(e): FAIL.** "development that has never been lawful development is not capable of rendering land PDL, therefore the exception in sub-paragraph (e) does not apply" (DL ¶30). - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): FAIL.** "No evidence is advanced to suggest that there is an unmet need for the unauthorised storage use or indeed the embankment" (DL ¶31). - **Openness: harm.** "visual as well as some spatial harm", and the land-level changes "have had a deleterious visual impact on the previously undisturbed contours of the field" (DL ¶33). ## Planning balance GB6(2): substantial weight to inappropriateness and openness harm, plus character harm (DM29 and N2). No VSC was advanced (DL ¶35–36). ## What made the difference The appellants' pleaded case did not match the development actually enforced against. With no residential occupation proven at the date of the notice, the only use before the inspector was caravan storage, for which no need case existed. Traveller need arguments could only help a properly made application for a traveller site. ## Transferable points - Unauthorised development cannot make land previously developed land for GB7(1)(e) (DL ¶30). - Limb (ii) is tied to the "type of development proposed". In an enforcement appeal that means the use alleged, not what the appellant would like to do (DL ¶6, 31). - S5(5) is read as sending Green Belt proposals outside settlements through GB6/GB7 (DL ¶29). ## Policy findings - **S5(5): neutral.** site outside a settlement boundary, so S5(5) sends Green Belt proposals to GB6/GB7 (DL 29) - **GB7(1)(e): fail.** "development that has never been lawful development is not capable of rendering land PDL" (DL 30) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): fail.** no evidence of unmet need for caravan storage or the embankment (the deemed application is for the use alleged, not a traveller site) (DL 31) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** visual and some spatial openness harm from caravans and earthworks; no VSC (DL 32-36) - **N2: harm.** harm to rural character contrary to DM29 and N2 (DL 34) ## Key facts - Three touring caravans stored on a former open field plus land-level changes up to about 2 m (DL 11-13) - [object Object] - Deemed application limited to the alleged storage use; could not grant a traveller site (DL 6, 28, 38) ## Sources - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3378663 - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewDocument.aspx?fileid=66111579 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/APP-A2335-C-26-3378663.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Limehouse Nursery, The Drive, Rayleigh - **Decision:** dismissed, 2 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Thomas Shields - **Authority:** Rochford (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** APP/B1550/C/25/3372995 - **Procedure:** inquiry - **Development:** Enforcement appeals (A: ground (a) deemed application; B linked APP/B1550/C/25/3375598): 47 shipping containers for private rented self-storage on former caravan-storage land - **Site context:** green-belt, PDL, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(e), GB7(1)(g)(ii), DP3, P3, S5(5) - **Development plan policies:** Rochford Core Strategy 2011 GB1, ED3, Development Management Plan 2014 DM10, DM11 - **Main issues:** whether containers are buildings, inappropriate development, character and appearance, living conditions - **Tags:** not-inappropriate, pdl-e-limb, grey-belt-accepted, unmet-need-type-specific, enforcement-ground-a, design-refusal, s5-5-balance, substantially-outweighed, costs-refused, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Two alternative enforcement notices against 47 self-storage shipping containers on a former nursery and caravan-storage site in the Metropolitan Green Belt at Rayleigh. The inspector held the containers were buildings (operational development), quashed Notice B, and corrected and upheld Notice A. The scheme was **not inappropriate** under GB7(1)(e) because openness harm was only moderate. The site was also grey belt, but the (g) route failed on limb (ii) because the evidenced need was for warehousing, not containers. The deemed application still failed: poor design (substantial weight) and noise meant the benefits were "substantially outweighed" under the S5-style presumption. ## Issues and findings - **Containers are buildings.** Despite arriving whole and resting under their own weight, they are "substantial in size, have been on site for some time, and likely to be so for the foreseeable future, and have resulted in physical change to the character of the land" (DL ¶16). - **GB7(1)(e): PASS.** "I find the development to have no more than a moderate overall level of harm to the openness of the Green Belt. This falls short of being 'substantial harm', within Policy GB7:1e. Consequently the development is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt" (DL ¶29). - **Grey belt: accepted** (DL ¶30). **GB7(1)(g)(ii): FAIL.** "the 'type of development proposed' is operational development, comprising the siting of metal shipping containers. While there is evidence before me of a need for employment floorspace, that identified need relates more particularly to storage and distribution warehousing … it would not meet requirement (ii)" (DL ¶31). - **Local GB policies.** Core Strategy GB1 and DM10/DM11 "do not fully reflect latest national policy … I place greater weight on the Framework" (DL ¶22). - **Design (DP3): significant harm.** "not a high-quality designed form of industrial storage building(s)" (DL ¶34–35). - **Living conditions (P3): harm.** No site-specific noise data (DL ¶37–38). ## Planning balance Because the scheme was not inappropriate, no VSC balance was needed (DL ¶32). The inspector ran the Framework presumption instead. Design harm carried substantial weight and noise added further weight, against moderate economic benefits. The Titchfield fallback to lawful caravan storage added nothing because it would be less harmful (DL ¶41). "the benefits of the development are substantially outweighed by its adverse effects, and is in conflict with the Council's Development Plan taken as a whole" (DL ¶43). ## What made the difference Passing the Green Belt gateway (PDL, with moderate rather than substantial openness harm) did not carry the scheme. It lost on ordinary merits: the industrial appearance of 47 containers next to a row of houses, plus unproven noise impacts. The limb (ii) finding matters too: for non-housing uses, "unmet need" is read against the specific type of development, and a generic employment-land need does not count. ## Transferable points - For non-housing grey belt schemes, GB7(1)(g)(ii) needs evidence of need for the specific "type of development proposed". General employment-floorspace need for warehousing did not cover container self-storage (DL ¶31). - GB7(1)(e) openness is judged against the lawful baseline use. Moderate harm is below the "substantial harm" bar (DL ¶27–29). - Unattractiveness is a character issue, not an openness issue (DL ¶28). - Passing GB7 moves the case to an ordinary S5-type balance, which can still be lost on design and amenity (DL ¶39–44). - Where the appellant genuinely contested whether development had occurred, the breach is not "intentional unauthorised development" (DL ¶42). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(e): pass.** PDL redevelopment; moderate spatial and visual openness harm against the caravan-storage baseline falls short of "substantial harm", so not inappropriate (DL 25-29) - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** lawful commercial use, largely surrounded by other commercial uses; not strong on (a), (b) or (d) (DL 30) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** would not fundamentally undermine purposes of remaining GB (DL 31) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** sustainable location notwithstanding unmade access track (DL 31) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): fail.** "type of development proposed" is siting of shipping containers; the employment-need evidence was for storage and distribution warehousing, not this type (DL 31) - **DP3: harm (substantial weight).** 47 industrial containers are poor design; conditions (planting, no stacking, painting) would not mitigate (DL 34-35, 39) - **P3: harm.** noise to neighbouring houses not ruled out; desk-top noise model based on an Ipswich site (DL 36-38) - **S5(5): fail.** benefits "substantially outweighed" by adverse effects under the Framework presumption (DL 43) - **DM8: neutral.** not intentional unauthorised development because appellant genuinely argued no development/no material change of use (DL 42) ## Key facts - 47 containers, mostly 6.1 x 2.4 x 2.6 m, two double-stacked, on site since 2022; held to be buildings (Skerritts tests) (DL 10-16) - Baseline was LDC caravan storage plus other B1/B8 uses (DL 27) - Openness harm moderate, not substantial, so GB7(1)(e) passed - Economic benefits (jobs, rates, supply chains) moderate weight (DL 40) - Inquiry closed before 17 Aug; parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework, none received (DL 2) - Compliance period extended from 3 to 6 months on ground (g); appellant's costs application refused ## Sources - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Appeal-A-APP_B1550_C_25_3372995-Land-at-Limehouse-Nursery-The-Drive-Rayleigh-Essex.pdf - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Costs-A-APP_B1550_C_25_3372995-Land-at-Limehouse-Nursery-The-Drive-Rayleigh-Essex.pdf - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/2026/shipping-container-appeal-rayleigh/ - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3372995 - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3375598 - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewDocument.aspx?fileid=66029467 - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewDocument.aspx?fileid=66026831 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/APP-B1550-C-25-3372995.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Great Dunns Close, Beckington - **Decision:** allowed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Philip Major - **Authority:** Somerset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** APP/E3335/W/25/3375062 - **Application reference:** 2024/1865/FUL - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** 20 dwellings including 6 affordable (5 social rent), open space, pumping station - **Homes:** 20 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), HE6(1), HE6(4), TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Mendip Local Plan Part 1 CP1, CP2, CP23, DP3, DP8, DP9, Mendip Local Plan Part 2 - **Main issues:** heritage setting, bathing water quality, sustainable location - **Tags:** s5-1-j, heritage-harm-outweighed, costs-award, transitional-no-consultation, primary-village, water-quality, housing-shortfall ## Summary 20 homes (6 affordable) outside the village envelope of Beckington, a primary village, adjoining the conservation area. Allowed at hearing, with full costs against Somerset Council. Minor harm to the setting of listed buildings and the CA was clearly outweighed by housing and affordable housing in the absence of a five-year supply; bathing-water pollution concerns resolved by a CSO storage condition; the location was sustainable. ## Issues and findings - **Transition — not referred back.** "Since the hearing closed a new (August 2026) version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has been published … it is my judgement that the new NPPF does not materially affect the considerations before me such that it was necessary to refer back to the parties" (DL ¶3). Heritage: "As in previous iterations of national policy substantial (previously great) weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets" (DL ¶4). - **S5(1)(j) framing.** "as there is no 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites the NPPF indicates (at Policy S5) that such sites may be suitable for development where (amongst other matters) there is evidenced unmet need, subject to being well related to the settlement and of a scale which can be accommodated" (DL ¶5). - **Heritage — HE6: minor harm.** "This development would change the setting again, but minimally … any harm, would be minor" (DL ¶12); "I must afford considerable importance and weight to this limited harm" (DL ¶13). - **Water quality: PASS.** Causal link between WTW discharges and poor bathing water "not established on the balance of probabilities"; Grampian-style on-site storage in CSO events (DL ¶¶20–22). - **Location — TR3: PASS.** "Beckington has facilities which enables residents to avoid many day to day excursions by car" (DL ¶26); council's refusal inconsistent with its own larger permission to the east (DL ¶¶27–28). ## Planning balance HE6(4) balance: heritage harm (considerable weight) vs market housing (significant), affordable (significant), open space/economic (moderate) — "the benefits of the proposal clearly outweigh the harm to heritage assets" (DL ¶40). Then S5: "there are no adverse impacts which would lead to conflict with Policy S5 of the NPPF" (DL ¶41). Note: market housing given "significant" rather than HO7's "substantial" weight. ## What made the difference A primary village with walkable shop, school, GP and frequent buses; heritage harm only minor because the setting had already changed; the drainage objection (the reason the earlier scheme failed) engineered away by condition; and the council's own recent permission next door undermined its case (hence full costs). ## Transferable points - Inspectors may decide under the 2026 Framework without consulting the parties where it "does not materially affect the considerations" (DL ¶3) — a transitional approach contrasting with most letters, which sought comments. - HE6(1) "substantial (previously great) weight" treated as continuity, not a change (DL ¶4). - Minor setting harm to listed buildings/CA is readily outweighed by 20 homes plus affordable housing where supply is short (DL ¶¶39–40). - Council inconsistency (permitting a comparable adjacent site) supports full costs (costs DL ¶¶25–26). - Settlement-limit policy that "largely precludes the opportunity to make judgements" outside limits is not wholly NPPF-consistent (DL fn3). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): pass.** no 5YHLS undisputed; well related to primary village; "no adverse impacts which would lead to conflict with Policy S5" (DL 5, 41) - **HE6(1): harm (considerable weight).** minor harm to setting of listed buildings on Goose Street and Beckington CA; "substantial (previously great) weight" noted at DL 4; applied as "considerable importance and weight" (DL 12-13, 39) - **HE6(4): pass.** benefits "clearly outweigh" heritage harm (DL 40) - **TR3: pass.** shop <5 min walk, school, GP, cafe, two pubs within 10-11 min; frequent buses <5 min (DL 25-26) - **P3: pass.** bathing-water pollution risk (Farleigh Hungerford) not established; Grampian-type on-site storage condition during CSO events (DL 14-24) - **HO7: benefit (significant weight).** market housing where evidenced unmet need (DL 39) - **HO8: benefit (significant weight).** 6 affordable, 5 social rent (DL 35, 39) - **CP2 (Mendip): conflict (limited weight).** minor conflict with numerical settlement targets; CP2 not wholly consistent with NPPF (DL 30 fn3) ## Key facts - Somerset (Mendip area) cannot demonstrate five-year supply (figure not stated) - Earlier 30-dwelling appeal on same land dismissed (APP/Q3305/W/21/3289537) when allocated — drainage/bathing water - Council had recently permitted a larger scheme to the east no better located - Full costs awarded against Somerset Council (members' refusal, inconsistency) - New NPPF published after the hearing; inspector decided not to refer back to parties ## Sources - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Beckington-Great-Dunns-Close-Appeal-3375062.pdf - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Beckington-Great-Dunns-Close-Costs-Decision-3375062.pdf - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/2026/beckington-appeal-costs/ --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/APP-E3335-W-25-3375062.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south east of Oaklands, St Clere Hill Road, West Kingsdown - **Decision:** allowed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: T C King - **Authority:** Sevenoaks (South East) - **Appeal reference:** APP/G2245/C/26/3377906 - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Enforcement appeal (ground (a)): change of use of agricultural land to residential (one mobile home + one tourer for a Gypsy/Traveller family), hardstanding, fencing, gate, CCTV pole, cesspit — temporary 3-year personal permission granted - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, national-landscape, ancient-woodland, open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** AnnexB:grey-belt, GB7(1)(g), HO12, S5(1), N4, N6 - **Development plan policies:** Sevenoaks Core Strategy LO8, Allocations and Development Management Plan EN5 - **Main issues:** grey belt, traveller need, sustainable location, National Landscape, ancient woodland, best interests of the child, intentional unauthorised development - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, travellers, enforcement-ground-a, temporary-personal-permission, national-landscape, ancient-woodland, footnote-7-removed, traveller-supply-shortfall, sustainable-location-flex-ho12, intentional-unauthorised-development, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Enforcement appeal against a single-family Gypsy and Traveller pitch (one mobile home, one tourer) in the Metropolitan Green Belt and Kent Downs National Landscape, opposite ancient woodland. The inspector accepted the land as grey belt, noting that footnote 7 has been removed from the definition. On sustainable location, the inspector applied "some flexibility" under HO12 even though the site would have failed GB7(1)(g)(iii) as general housing. National Landscape harm and the policy balance pointed to refusal, but the children's best interests and the unmet pitch need justified a **temporary 3-year personal permission**, with ancient-woodland remediation and contamination conditions. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The Framework was published after the hearing and the parties commented (DL ¶7). HO12 now carries the PPTS content (DL ¶4–6). - **Footnote 7 removed: grey belt accepted.** "This footnote has, however, been removed from the latest version … The removal means that land is classified purely on its Green Belt contribution, while individual constraints are still fully protected by standard national policies" (DL ¶9–10). The council agreed the site is grey belt (DL ¶13). - **Unmet need: significant weight.** "a substantial level of unmet need, and I give this significant weight" (DL ¶15). - **Sustainable location: flexed for travellers.** "Were this proposal for general residential development then it would not satisfy the Framework's requirements under Policy GB7(1)(g). However, in view of the particular need I have applied some flexibility here with reference to policy HO12" (DL ¶19). "the site cannot be considered as sustainable in terms of public transport provision" (DL ¶18). - **National Landscape: conflict.** Hardstanding and light pollution; "would go against the general aims and objectives of protecting the natural character of the KDNL" (DL ¶22–24). - **Ancient woodland buffer.** "the recommendation for a buffer zone is not planning policy nor a statutory requirement but rather guidance … development within a buffer zone does not automatically equate to harm" (DL ¶31). A retrospective impact assessment and remediation are required by condition (DL ¶34, 61). - **Intentional unauthorised development.** The appellant "did not properly explain why no planning application was submitted" (DL ¶48). The inspector tempered this by the low-key single-family use (DL ¶49). ## Planning balance The development plan and environmental policies "suggest that the deemed planning application should be refused" (DL ¶52). Against that: the children's best interests (a primary consideration, Stevens), the need for a settled base, and the council's emerging GT1 allocations. Together these justified temporary personal permission (DL ¶53–54). The letter does not state an explicit VSC or S5 formula. ## What made the difference Family circumstances (two young children in local schools) and a large unmet pitch need, alongside an emerging plan that will allocate sites. Those justified a time-limited permission despite National Landscape conflict and a location that would fail limb (iii) for ordinary housing. A general housing scheme on the same site would have failed. ## Transferable points - Removing footnote 7 means protected-area designations (National Landscape, ancient woodland) no longer stop land being grey belt. The constraints are applied through their own policies instead (DL ¶9–10). - For traveller sites, inspectors may apply "some flexibility" to GB7(1)(g)(iii) through HO12. But the same location "would not satisfy" (iii) for general housing (DL ¶17–19). That is a useful concession for objectors to open-market schemes on remote lanes. - The ancient woodland buffer in Standing Advice is guidance, not policy. Harm is a matter of judgment, but works done without a baseline survey call for a remediation condition (DL ¶31–34). - Temporary personal permissions remain available where need is unmet and a plan will allocate sites (DL ¶51–54). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** council accepted site is grey belt under the revised definition; removal of footnote 7 means National Landscape / ancient woodland no longer exclude land from grey belt (DL 9-13) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** would not fundamentally undermine purposes of remaining GB (DL 11) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass (significant weight).** 2025 GTAA need 115 pitches in first five years; no 5-year traveller supply; significant weight (DL 14-15) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** "somewhat remote", narrow lanes, service village, station 3+ miles; would fail for general housing, but "some flexibility" applied via HO12 for traveller sites (DL 16-19) - **N4: harm.** conflict with protecting Kent Downs National Landscape (hardstanding, light pollution); local LO8/EN5 conflict (DL 21-24) - **N6: harm.** works within 15 m ancient woodland buffer without baseline survey; addressed by retrospective impact assessment and remediation condition (DL 25-34, 61) - **DM8: harm.** intentional unauthorised development — appellant gave no proper explanation for occupying without permission; tempered as low-key single-family use (DL 47-49) ## Key facts - One mobile home + one tourer for a family with two young children at local school/nursery (DL 35) - Sevenoaks 2025 GTAA — 192 pitches to 2042, 115 in first five years; no 5-year supply (DL 14-15) - Site in Kent Downs National Landscape, opposite ancient woodland across a lane - Inspector says the scheme would fail GB7(1)(g)(iii) if it were general housing (DL 19) - Temporary (3-year) personal permission pending the emerging Local Plan GT1 allocations (DL 51, 54) ## Sources - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3377906 - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewDocument.aspx?fileid=66053053 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/APP-G2245-C-26-3377906.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land rear of Hillside, Brick Kiln Road, Raunds (reserved matters, Appeals B and C) - **Decision:** allowed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M Chalk - **Authority:** North Northamptonshire (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** APP/M2840/W/25/3364729 - **Application reference:** NE/24/00649/REM - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Reserved matters for up to 21 dwellings (two alternative schemes, Appeals B 3364729 and C 3364730) - **Homes:** 21 - **Site context:** settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** development-plan-only - **Development plan policies:** North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy - **Main issues:** uncontested reserved matters - **Tags:** tier-2, transitional-no-consultation, reserved-matters, costs-award, old-style-acp ## Summary Two alternative reserved-matters schemes for 21 homes at Raunds, uncontested by the council at the hearing, both approved 22 Sep 2026. Principle had been settled by the 2022 outline. ## What made the difference The council stopped defending the appeals; the inspector found no harm on highway or neighbour-amenity grounds raised by residents (DL ¶¶10–11). The inspector expressly did not seek views on the 2026 Framework because the appeals "did not turn on the interpretation of the Framework" (DL ¶6). ## Policy findings - **DP3: pass.** council withdrew objections to materials/open space before the hearing; neighbour amenity acceptable (DL 4, 11) ## Key facts - Also covers Appeal C APP/M2840/W/25/3364730 (NE/24/01260/REM, non-determination) - "As these appeals did not turn on the interpretation of the Framework, the parties' views were not sought on the update" (DL 6) ## Sources - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewDocument.aspx?fileid=66106413 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/APP-M2840-W-25-3364729.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # New Barn Farm Industrial Estate, Brick Kiln Road, Raunds - **Decision:** allowed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M Chalk - **Authority:** North Northamptonshire (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** APP/M2840/W/25/3366988 - **Application reference:** NE/23/01228/FUL - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Mixed-use employment extension to an existing rural industrial estate, access improvements - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N6 - **Development plan policies:** North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Policy 4, Raunds Neighbourhood Plan R16, R19 - **Main issues:** effect on Special Protection Area - **Tags:** tier-2, transitional-no-consultation, functionally-linked-land, habitats-sites, costs-award, old-style-acp ## Summary Extension of a rural industrial estate at Raunds, allowed on 22 Sep 2026 alongside the 86-home outline (APP-M2840-W-25-3366989). The council conceded rural location and open space; the SPA functionally-linked-land objection failed on uncontested one-winter survey evidence. ## What made the difference Same as the companion housing appeal: the council's own ecology advice that the land was not functionally linked, and no competing technical evidence. The 2026 Framework was held not to change the protected-sites approach, so parties were not consulted (DL ¶5). ## Policy findings - **N6: pass.** not functionally linked land to Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA; one winter's survey sufficient (DL 8-11) - **E2: accord.** council withdrew rural-location objection after the Thrapston appeal (APP/M2840/W/25/3362393) led it to reconsider policy weight (DL 4; Costs DL 17) ## Key facts - Companion to APP-M2840-W-25-3366989; same SPA reasoning and same transitional note (parties not consulted on the 2026 Framework) - Full costs sought; award made against the council for the SPA handling ## Sources - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewDocument.aspx?fileid=66106637 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/APP-M2840-W-25-3366988.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent Hillside, Brick Kiln Road, Raunds - **Decision:** allowed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M Chalk - **Authority:** North Northamptonshire (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** APP/M2840/W/25/3366989 - **Application reference:** NE/23/01242/OUT - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Outline for up to 86 dwellings (27 affordable), access and landscaping - **Homes:** 86 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.6 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N6, DM6 - **Development plan policies:** North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Policy 4, Raunds Neighbourhood Plan R16, R19, Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA SPD - **Main issues:** effect on Special Protection Area / functionally linked land - **Tags:** transitional-no-consultation, habitats-sites, functionally-linked-land, costs-award, conceded-reasons, housing-shortfall, old-style-acp ## Summary Outline for up to 86 homes (27 affordable) on paddocks at the edge of Raunds, within the zone of influence of the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA. Allowed after a hearing held in April 2026, decided 22 Sep 2026. The council conceded location, character, parking and amenity reasons; the only live issue was whether the site was functionally linked land for wintering birds. One season's survey showed it was not, and recreational disturbance was mitigated by an SPD tariff. ## Issues and findings - **Transition — decided without consultation.** "The National Planning Policy Framework was updated on 17 August. The update does not substantially alter the objective of conserving and enhancing the natural environment as it applies to protected sites and species. The parties' views were therefore not sought on the update" (DL ¶5). - **Functionally linked land — N6 / Habitats Regs: PASS.** Natural England wanted two winters of surveys, but "shorter survey periods can be justified in low-risk situations" (DL ¶8). "The results of the survey were not challenged by competing technical evidence … I am satisfied that this is a low-risk situation. The evidence from one winter's survey is sufficient" (DL ¶11). Threeways (APP/X1545/W/25/3369961) and Wood Lodge (APP/M2840/W/24/3354297) distinguished because there the survey evidence showed suitable habitat or use (DL ¶12). - **Recreational disturbance: mitigated.** £412.43 per dwelling under the SPD; "the development would not therefore have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA" (DL ¶15). - **Housing supply.** "the parties agreed during the Hearing that the council can only demonstrate a 4.6 year supply … In such circumstances windfall sites such as this contribute to making up the shortfall" (DL ¶19). ## Planning balance Plan-led: "The appeal proposal accords with the development plan. There are no material considerations to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise" (DL ¶29). No S3–S5 analysis — the council had withdrawn its rural-location objection. ## What made the difference The council's case collapsed at the hearing: it conceded everything except the SPA point, and its own ecologist had advised in December 2024 that the land was not functionally linked. Uncontested survey evidence (grazed paddocks, foxes present, no target species recorded) let the inspector accept one winter's data despite Natural England's two-winter preference. ## Transferable points - The 2026 Framework was treated as not changing the approach to protected sites, so parties were not consulted (DL ¶5) — an example of the "no material change" transitional route. - One winter's bird survey can suffice for functionally-linked-land questions where the site is low-risk and the evidence is unchallenged (DL ¶¶8–11). - A council withholding its own consultee's favourable advice is "plainly unreasonable" and supports costs (Costs DL ¶23). - Reasons such as parking and neighbour amenity that could be handled at reserved matters should not be reasons for refusing outline permission (Costs DL ¶25). ## Policy findings - **N6: pass.** site not functionally linked land to Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA; one winter's bird survey sufficient in a "low-risk situation" despite Natural England seeking two (DL 8-11); recreational disturbance mitigated by £412.43/dwelling s106 contribution (DL 14-15) - **HO7: benefit.** agreed 4.6-yr supply; "windfall sites such as this contribute to making up the shortfall" — no weight stated (DL 19) - **TR6: pass.** wide access with good visibility; no highway objection (DL 18) - **development plan: accord.** council conceded rural location, character, parking and living-conditions reasons at the hearing (DL 4, 29) ## Key facts - One of four linked appeals on adjoining sites (A outline 86 homes; B/C reserved matters 21 homes 3364729/3364730; D employment extension 3366988), all allowed 22 Sep 2026 - Hearing opened 14 April 2026 (postponed from Oct 2025 for wintering-bird surveys); decision issued after the 2026 Framework was published, without seeking parties' views - Agreed supply 4.6 years - Council's own ecology consultee had advised in Dec 2024 the site was not functionally linked land but this was not disclosed until the week before the hearing - Partial costs awarded against the council (Appeals A and D; B/C for deed-of-variation handling) ## Sources - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3366989 - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewDocument.aspx?fileid=66105531 - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewDocument.aspx?fileid=66108615 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/APP-M2840-W-25-3366989.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to Orchard Farm Cottage, Pomphrey Hill, Mangotsfield - **Decision:** allowed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Merrett - **Authority:** South Gloucestershire (South West) - **Appeal reference:** APP/P0119/C/26/3378284 - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Enforcement appeal (ground (a) deemed application): change of use of land to a residential caravan site (9 static caravans + 1 touring pitch), hardcore and utility building - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, PDL - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.93 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(i), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB7(1)(g)(iii), GB7(1)(g)(iv), AnnexB:grey-belt, S5(5) - **Development plan policies:** South Gloucestershire Core Strategy 2013 CS1, CS5, CS9, CS34, Policies, Sites and Places Plan 2017 PSP1, PSP2, PSP7, PSP21, PSP40 - **Main issues:** grey belt, inappropriate development, character and appearance, contamination, intentional unauthorised development - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, not-inappropriate, enforcement-ground-a, caravans, pdl-grey-belt, large-built-up-area, housing-shortfall, s5-5-balance, costs-refused, golden-rules-threshold, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary An enforcement notice against a ten-caravan residential site (9 statics, 1 touring pitch) on previously developed Green Belt land just outside Mangotsfield. The notice was quashed and planning permission granted on the ground (a) deemed application. The earlier permission for 3 mobile homes had lapsed because a contamination condition precedent had not been discharged in time. But the site was grey belt and met every GB7(1)(g) limb. The scheme was below the "major" threshold, so the Golden Rules did not apply, and the S5 "substantially outweighed" balance favoured approval. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶4). - **Grey belt, purpose (a): PASS.** Mangotsfield is "technically a village" but "has effectively been subsumed within the wider Bristol conurbation, it would be appropriate in my judgment to interpret it as part of a large built-up area" (DL ¶36). Even so, "the overall site boundary characteristics mean the site cannot be said to lack physical features in reasonable proximity that could restrict and contain development" (DL ¶39). "when assessed in the round, the appeal site does not make a strong contribution" (DL ¶40). The inspector applied the PPG as "reflected in Annex E of the Framework" (DL ¶36). - **GB7(1)(g)(ii) and (iii): PASS**, both uncontested (DL ¶42–43). - **GB7(1)(g)(iv) / GB8: not engaged.** "I do not regard the provision of a plot that may or may not become used as a base for a permanent home, as contributing to the ten-unit threshold" (DL ¶45). - **Consequence.** "as the development is not inappropriate it should not be regarded as harmful to the openness of the Green Belt" (DL ¶46). - **Character: no harm**, subject to repositioning, landscaping and a dark boundary finish (DL ¶52–53). - **DM8 intentional unauthorised development: not engaged.** "whilst there may have been intention not to comply with the relevant condition, this does not equate to the intentional unauthorised development opposed by the Framework" (DL ¶60). ## Planning balance The S5 route for a not-inappropriate Green Belt scheme: "where development in the Green Belt would not be inappropriate, proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶69). Significant weight went to the supply shortfall and to more affordable rented units, very limited weight to local spending. Absence of harm was neutral (DL ¶66–67). The benefits were not substantially outweighed, and the scheme was in accordance with the development plan read as a whole (DL ¶70–71). ## What made the difference The site was PDL, and it was physically contained on three sides by a traveller site, playing fields behind deep mature planting, and the road. That defeated purpose (a) even though the inspector accepted the settlement was part of a large built-up area. The council had conceded unmet need and sustainable location. Keeping the unit count at nine permanent homes kept it below "major", so no Golden Rules affordable housing was required. An open-sided or greenfield site, or ten permanent pitches, would have faced a harder test. ## Transferable points - A village absorbed into a conurbation can be treated as part of a "large built-up area" for purpose (a) (DL ¶36). - PDL status does not by itself make land grey belt. Purpose (a) still requires a fact-and-degree assessment, so a council is not unreasonable to contest it (costs DL ¶9). - A touring-caravan pitch that "may or may not" become a permanent home does not count toward the 10-dwelling "major" threshold for GB8 (DL ¶45). - Where GB7(1)(g) is met, the S5 "substantially outweighed" test is applied to the Green Belt site (DL ¶69–70). - Breaching a unit-number condition in the belief that permission existed is not "intentional unauthorised development" under DM8 (DL ¶60). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** PDL undisputed; not strong on (b)/(d); Mangotsfield treated as part of the Bristol large built-up area but site contained by roads, playing fields, dense planting and existing development so not strong on (a) (DL 34-40) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** would not affect ability of remaining GB across plan area to serve purposes "in a meaningful way" (DL 41) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** council accepts no 5YHLS (3.93 yrs) so evidenced unmet need (DL 42) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** sustainable location undisputed (DL 43) - **GB7(1)(g)(iv): not-engaged.** 9 statics + a touring pitch is not "major"; the touring plot does not count toward the 10-unit threshold; site <0.5 ha (DL 44-45) - **DM8: neutral.** breach of the 3-unit condition was not "intentional unauthorised development" because appellant believed permission existed (DL 57-60) - **S5(5): pass.** GB site not inappropriate so S5 "substantially outweighed" test applied; no adverse effects under national policies (DL 69-70) - **HO7: benefit (significant weight).** small number of cheaper rented units against ~1,900-home shortfall (DL 61-62, 67) ## Key facts - Earlier 2022 permission for 3 mobile homes lapsed because contamination condition precedent not discharged before 15 Jul 2025 (DL 17-23) - Site had 9 statics + 1 touring caravan + utility building; PDL agreed - Bounded by traveller site, playing fields behind deep mature planting, Pomphrey Hill; open only to a paddock then the A4174 - Council supply 3.93 years, shortfall ~1,900 dwellings (DL 61) - Costs application by appellant refused — grey belt status was a matter of judgment, not "inevitable" even for PDL (costs DL 9) ## Sources - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3378284 - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewDocument.aspx?fileid=66037700 - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewDocument.aspx?fileid=66038034 - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Appeal-Decision-3378284-Orchard-Farm-Cottage-Pomphrey-Hill-Mangotsfield-Bristol-BS16-9NF.pdf - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/2026/grey-belt-caravan-enforcement/ --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/APP-P0119-C-26-3378284.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Northwick Road, Pilning - **Decision:** part-allowed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andy Harwood - **Authority:** South Gloucestershire (South West) - **Appeal reference:** APP/P0119/C/26/3378286 - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Enforcement appeal (ground (a) deemed application): residential caravans, hardcore, buildings and fencing; permission granted for 6 Gypsy and Traveller pitches on two sub-areas, notice upheld on the rest - **Homes:** 6 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(i), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB7(1)(g)(iii), AnnexB:grey-belt, HO12 - **Development plan policies:** South Gloucestershire Core Strategy 2013 CS5 - **Main issues:** grey belt, inappropriate development, traveller site need and supply, sustainable location - **Tags:** transitional, grey-belt-accepted, not-inappropriate, travellers, enforcement-ground-a, sustainable-location-pass, traveller-supply-shortfall ## Summary Enforcement appeal against unauthorised residential caravans on Green Belt land at the northern edge of Pilning. At the hearing the council conceded six Gypsy and Traveller pitches on two sub-areas. The inspector found those sub-areas were grey belt with an unmet pitch need and a sustainable location, so not inappropriate. Permission was granted for six pitches; the notice was upheld for the rest of the land. The letter is dated 17 August 2026 but applies the **December 2024** Framework throughout. ## Issues and findings - **Framework version.** The letter cites 2024 paragraphs 143, 154(g), 155 and 156–157, plus footnote 7 in the grey belt definition (DL ¶10–15). The 2026 Framework is not mentioned. Hearing held 22 July 2026. - **PDL: FAIL** for most of the site. "much of it cannot be considered as previously developed … the Framework definition excludes agricultural land which would seem to be the lawful use of most of the site area" (DL ¶11). - **Grey belt: PASS** for the two sub-areas. "a small-scale addition occupying land that is visually and physically well-related to existing caravan sites and the built form of the settlement" (DL ¶14). "any harm to the Green Belt purpose of checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and preventing neighbouring towns merging, would be very limited" (DL ¶15). - **Unmet need: PASS.** Five-year pitch target 58, supply 9, so "a 5 year supply of pitches cannot be demonstrated" (DL ¶17). - **Sustainable location: PASS.** Footpaths "link with another leading into the core of Pilning which contains a good range of commercial and community facilities as well as public transport links … means of travelling elsewhere without reliance on private vehicles" (DL ¶19). - **Conclusion.** "the development is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt" and accords with the development plan read as a whole (DL ¶22). ## Planning balance No VSC balance was needed because the six-pitch scheme was not inappropriate. Development plan compliance (CS5 defers to the Framework) led directly to permission (DL ¶22). The wider site was refused by default, the parties having agreed to confine the deemed application to the two areas (DL ¶7). ## What made the difference The council's concession, which followed an earlier inspector's need and supply findings in the Pilning appeal 6004905. Cutting the scheme to two small pockets tucked into the settlement edge next to existing traveller sites made purposes (a) and (b) weak. Continuous footways into a village with services satisfied the sustainability test. Had the whole enforced area been pursued, grey belt status and openness would have been much harder. ## Transferable points - A decision dated 17 Aug 2026 can still apply the 2024 Framework. Check the paragraph citations before relying on such letters as 2026 authority (DL ¶10–15). - For traveller sites, limb (ii) is met by a traveller pitch supply shortfall (PPTS), and sustainable location is read with PPTS para 13 (DL ¶16–21). - Cutting a scheme down to small pockets well related to the settlement edge and to existing development can turn non-grey-belt land into grey belt (DL ¶14–15). - Footways linking the site to a village core with services and buses support a sustainable-location pass (DL ¶19). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(e): fail.** most of the site is not PDL; lawful use agricultural; only a small part had a (possibly unimplemented) earlier permission. Decided under 2024 para 154(g) (DL 11) - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** two small sub-areas within the curve of the road on Pilning's northern edge, well related to existing caravan sites; very limited harm to purposes (a) and (b); no footnote 7 constraint (2024 definition applied) (DL 13-15) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** would not fundamentally undermine purposes of remaining GB (DL 22) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** agreed no 5-year supply of traveller pitches — target 58, supply 9 (PPTS; following appeal 6004905) (DL 16-17) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** sustainability judged under PPTS para 13; footways along/opposite the site link into Pilning village with school, surgeries, shops, pubs and public transport (DL 18-21) - **GB7(1)(g)(iv): not-engaged.** Golden Rules do not apply (DL 12) ## Key facts - Dated 17 Aug 2026 (the day the new Framework took effect), but reasoned entirely under 2024 NPPF paras 143, 154, 155 and footnote 7 - Council conceded 6 pitches at the hearing, following the inspector's need/supply findings in Pilning appeal 6004905 (25 Jun 2026) - Pitches split 3 + 3 between two areas separated by substantial open land; notice upheld on the remainder - Traveller 5-year pitch target 58, deliverable supply 9 (DL 17) - Occupation limited to Gypsies and Travellers (PPTS 2024 definition); site development scheme and contamination conditions ## Sources - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3378286 - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewDocument.aspx?fileid=65965163 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/APP-P0119-C-26-3378286.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Raja Farm, Whalley Old Road, Langho - **Decision:** dismissed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Hitchcock - **Authority:** Ribble Valley (North West) - **Appeal reference:** APP/T2350/C/25/3374492 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Enforcement appeal (ground (a)): timber building claimed for agriculture (poultry/tractor store) and a CCTV pole with solar panel; access barred under s174(2A) - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), GB7(1)(a) - **Development plan policies:** Ribble Valley Core Strategy 2008-2028 Key Statement EN1, DMG1, DMG2 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, agricultural exception, character and appearance, VSC - **Tags:** vsc-not-shown, enforcement-ground-a, agricultural-building-exception, transitional-no-consultation, openness-harm ## Summary Enforcement notice against a timber building and a CCTV pole on Green Belt land at Langho. The appellant said the building was used for agriculture (a small poultry and tractor store) and so was not inappropriate under GB7(1)(a). The inspector found the claim unevidenced: the building held domestic and garden items. The notice was corrected and upheld, and the deemed permission refused. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "the Green Belt and design policies that are relevant to this appeal have not materially changed and there was no need, therefore, to invite the parties to make further submissions" (DL ¶4). - **GB7(1)(a) agriculture: FAIL.** "at the time of my site inspection there was no fowl, poultry or livestock present … the planting and mowing of the western area of the site appeared typically domestic in scale and character" (DL ¶17). "The maintenance of land is not a land use … the development has not been shown to meet any of the listed exemptions in Policy GB7 … and the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt" (DL ¶20). - **Character: harm.** "As an isolated structure bordered by domestic style fencing, the design and appearance appear incongruous" (DL ¶24). The recycled-lamppost CCTV pole "stands out as a prominent singularity with unnecessarily excessive height" (DL ¶25). ## Planning balance GB6(2): substantial weight to Green Belt harm, plus character harm. The rural economy and smallholding arguments got limited weight because no agricultural enterprise was shown (DL ¶28). "very special circumstances have not been demonstrated" (DL ¶30). ## What made the difference Evidence of actual agricultural use. The site visit found a domestic garden building rather than a farm store, and the appellant had already been told (refusal 3/2025/0454) that such evidence was needed. With livestock, feed and working equipment present, the GB7(1)(a) exception could have applied. ## Transferable points - The GB7(1)(a) agriculture exception needs evidence of actual agricultural use, and the inspector will test the claim against what is on site (DL ¶17–20). - "The maintenance of land is not a land use" (DL ¶20). - Some inspectors treat the 2026 Green Belt and design policies as materially unchanged and do not re-consult (DL ¶4). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(a): fail.** agricultural use not shown — no livestock, no feed, domestic garden furniture/tools, half the building given to seating; "maintenance of land is not a land use" (DL 16-20) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriate development; rural-economy considerations limited weight as unsupported; VSC not shown (DL 28-30) - **DP3: harm.** rudimentary building and recycled lamppost CCTV pole incongruous in open upland landscape (local DMG1/DMG2) (DL 22-26) ## Key facts - Site on a raised, prominent brow in open upland pasture, visible from rights of way - Inspector's site visit found no fowl or livestock, no feed, no tractor access; domestic items and seating inside - Earlier application 3/2025/0454 refused for insufficient evidence of an agricultural exception - Not re-consulted on the 2026 Framework because Green Belt and design policies "have not materially changed" (DL 4) ## Sources - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3374492 - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewDocument.aspx?fileid=66031024 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/APP-T2350-C-25-3374492.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Berry Hill Phase 2 (Plots 9A, 9B, 10, 12A), Mansfield - **Decision:** allowed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Elaine Moulton - **Authority:** Mansfield (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** APP/X3025/W/25/3370422 - **Application reference:** 2025/0159/VCON - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73 variation/removal of highway conditions on reserved-matters approval for 484 dwellings (strategic urban extension SUE3) - **Homes:** 484 - **Site context:** settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM6, TR4 - **Development plan policies:** Mansfield District Local Plan 2013-2033 SUE3, IN8, IN9 - **Main issues:** highway safety effect of varying conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, transitional-no-consultation, s73-conditions, old-style-acp, large-scheme ## Summary Bellway's non-determination s73 appeal to vary or remove five highway conditions on reserved matters for 484 homes at the Berry Hill urban extension, Mansfield. Allowed, with a full planning permission issued and the disputed conditions reworded rather than simply removed. ## What made the difference The inspector held that a s73 application on a reserved-matters approval results in a new full permission (DL ¶¶5–8), then reworded the parking, bus-route and visibility conditions so that they meet the DM6 tests without leaving a highway-safety harm (DL ¶38). The 2026 Framework was applied without seeking further submissions, because the relevant policy had "not been significantly changed" (DL ¶10). ## Policy findings - **DM6: pass.** conditions 10 and 13 reworded (not deleted) to meet DM6 tests; condition 11 replaced by bin-collection-point condition; 'unless otherwise agreed' tailpieces removed (DL 13, 38-44) - **TR4: pass.** no conflict with local highway-safety policy IN9 once conditions amended (DL 38) ## Key facts - A s73 application cannot grant a new reserved-matters approval; allowing it produces a full planning permission (DL 5-8; Fulford PC [2019] EWCA Civ 1359 distinguished) - Framework published during the appeal; "policy content insofar as it relates to the main issues ... has not been significantly changed", so no further submissions sought (DL 10) - Costs application made (separate decision, not read) ## Sources - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewDocument.aspx?fileid=66048769 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/APP-X3025-W-25-3370422.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Windmill Down Farm, Church Lane, Hambledon - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M Aqbal - **Authority:** South Downs National Park Authority (South East) - **Appeal reference:** APP/Y9507/W/25/3362380 - **Application reference:** SDNP/23/04750/CND - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73 to raise soil-recycling throughput from 10,000 to 40,500 t/yr, relax HGV movement and size limits (up to 44 t GVW) - **Site context:** national-park, rural-lane, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N4, DM6 - **Development plan policies:** South Downs Local Plan SD4, SD7, SD20, SD21, Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan Policy 4 - **Main issues:** National Park landscape character and relative tranquillity, amenity - **Tags:** national-park, tranquillity, s73-conditions, transitional-no-consultation, old-style-acp, minerals-waste ## Summary s73 appeal to loosen throughput, HGV-movement and vehicle-size conditions on a small soil-recycling facility in the South Downs National Park. Dismissed. The cumulative change would permit "a substantially different pattern and scale of activity" (DL ¶36), eroding the relative tranquillity that is a special quality of the National Park and the amenity of a historic rural lane network. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "the appeal principally concerns matters relating to landscape character, relative tranquillity and amenity within the South Downs National Park and I have identified no aspect of the revised Framework that materially alters my assessment of those matters" (DL ¶2). - **National Park — N4 / SD4, SD7: FAIL.** "I attach substantial weight to the conservation and enhancement of landscape character, scenic beauty and the special qualities of the South Downs National Park" (DL ¶27). Tranquillity is "a particularly important consideration in this appeal, being both a recognised special quality of the South Downs National Park" (DL ¶30). The effects would be felt by walkers and cyclists across the lane network, "not confined to the point where a right of way meets the highway" (DL ¶35). - **Amenity — SD20, SD21: FAIL** (DL ¶39). - **Highways.** "the absence of a highway objection does not outweigh the harm I have identified" (DL ¶40). ## Planning balance Plan-led. The significant economic and waste-recovery benefits (DL ¶41) are outweighed "having regard to the statutory purposes of National Park designation, the requirement to seek to further those purposes, and the importance of tranquillity as a recognised special quality" (DL ¶44). ## What made the difference The original permission had been granted on the basis of a small-scale operation held in check by those very conditions (DL ¶42). A fourfold throughput increase and 44 t lorries on a narrow historic lane changed the operation's character. The absence of a highway-safety objection was irrelevant to a tranquillity-based harm. ## Transferable points - In a National Park, relative tranquillity and the experience of rural lanes can decide the case on their own, without any visual or highway-safety harm (DL ¶¶30–36, 40). - Conditions that underpinned the original planning balance will not be relaxed where doing so changes the scale of the operation (DL ¶¶36, 42). - A further example of an inspector deciding under the 2026 Framework without consulting the parties because nothing material had changed (DL ¶2). ## Policy findings - **N4: fail (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conserving landscape character, scenic beauty and special qualities of the National Park (statutory "seek to further" duty); increased HGV activity erodes relative tranquillity of Church Lane and the route network (DL 27, 30-36) - **P3: harm.** amenity of residents and users of rights of way and historic rural roads harmed (SD20, SD21) (DL 37-39) - **E1: benefit (significant weight).** waste recovery, employment and local economy (DL 41) ## Key facts - Transition: "I have identified no aspect of the revised Framework that materially alters my assessment" (DL 2); decided without further consultation - Four-fold throughput increase; removal of the separate cap on HGVs over 16.5 t; vehicles up to 44 t GVW on a narrow historic lane - No highway-safety objection, but that did not outweigh the landscape and amenity harm (DL 40) ## Sources - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3362380 - https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewDocument.aspx?fileid=66059047 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/APP-Y9507-W-25-3362380.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Grenfell Tower, North Kensington (Crown development) - **Decision:** approved, 25 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: T Gilbert-Wooldridge (appointed person under s293I TCPA) - **Authority:** Kensington and Chelsea (London) - **Appeal reference:** CROWN/2026/0000003 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Works to take down Grenfell Tower to ground level (s293D Crown development application of national importance; s73A retrospective as works began under Part 19 Class Q PD) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM3, DP3, HE4, HE5 - **Development plan policies:** RBKC Local Plan 2024 CD1, CD3, CD4, CD5, CD15, GB6, GB7, GB8, GB11, GB12, GB14, GB16, PLV3, TR5, TR6, London Plan 2021 D4, HC1, G6, G7, T4, T7, D14, SI1, SI12, SI13 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, heritage setting, trees and biodiversity, highways, air quality and noise, flooding - **Tags:** crown-development, transitional-no-consultation, demolition, bng ## Summary MHCLG applied directly to the Planning Inspectorate, under the Crown development "national importance" route (TCPA s293D), for the works to take down Grenfell Tower. The works had begun in September 2025 under emergency Crown permitted development rights, which lapse after 12 months. A person appointed by the Secretary of State granted permission on 25 August 2026, with a single plans condition, under the August 2026 NPPF. It is an early example of how the new Framework's codes (DP3, HE4/HE5, N2, N3, TR6, P3, F7) are cited in a decision by an appointed person. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "An updated version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 17 August 2026. The changes to relevant sections of the NPPF were not substantive for this particular case, so it has not been necessary to conduct additional consultation" (SoR ¶9). The decision lists the "most relevant chapters from the August 2026 version" (SoR ¶18). - **Character and appearance (DP3): harm outweighed.** "there will be significant townscape and visual effects in the area immediately around the tower" (SoR ¶25), but "the tower is structurally unsound and its taking down is already well advanced under permitted development rights. Moreover, its removal would facilitate the delivery of a memorial on the site. Therefore, these factors outweigh the effects" (SoR ¶26). - **Heritage (HE4/HE5): no harm.** Removing the tower from the setting of listed buildings and six conservation areas caused no harm to significance (SoR ¶36-37). "The development would also follow NPPF Policies HE4 and HE5" (SoR ¶39). - **Biodiversity (N2/N3).** The statutory BNG condition applies to a Crown permission. The appointed person, not the council, is the "planning authority" for the gain plan under Sch 7A para 12(1)(d)(i) (SoR ¶42-45). - **Highways, pollution, flooding.** All acceptable, citing TR6, P3 and F7 (SoR ¶48, ¶52, ¶53). ## Planning balance This was a plan-led s38(6) decision: "there would be accordance with the development plan, with no material considerations (including consideration of the NPPF) to indicate that planning permission should be refused" (SoR ¶56). The only harm, the townscape and visual effect, was balanced within the main issue and not in a separate tilted or heritage balance. ## What made the difference The building was structurally unsound, the works were well under way lawfully, and the PD rights were about to expire. Permission was close to inevitable, so the Framework mattered little. ## Transferable points - Appointed persons under the new Crown development route apply the 2026 Framework directly. Where changes are "not substantive" for the issues, they need not re-consult (SoR ¶9). - Significant townscape harm from removing a landmark can be outweighed by safety, by the progress of lawful works and by the enabling of a future beneficial use (SoR ¶26). - On a Crown development permission, the appointed person may be the "planning authority" for the biodiversity gain plan (SoR ¶44). ## Policy findings - **DP3: harm.** significant townscape and visual effects close to the tower, outweighed by structural unsoundness, advanced PD works and enabling a memorial (SoR 25-26) - **HE5: neutral.** no harm to setting of Grade II 1-2 Whitchurch Road, Church of St Clement, the Freston Road cluster or six conservation areas (SoR 36-39) - **N2: accord.** statutory 10% BNG condition applies; -13.90% on site; appointed person is the planning authority for the gain plan (SoR 42-46) - **N3: accord.** all extant trees retained with protection (SoR 40, 46) - **TR6: accord.** about 10 lorries and 17 vans a day under the Traffic Management and Logistics Plan (SoR 47-48) - **P3: accord.** dust, noise and vibration mitigated and monitored (SoR 49-52) - **F7: accord.** Flood Zone 1 but a critical drainage area; existing attenuation unaffected (SoR 53) ## Key facts - First Crown development application found decided under the s293D "national importance" route after 17 Aug 2026; written representations; site visit 12 Aug 2026 - Works began Sept 2025 under Part 19 Class Q (Crown emergency) PD, which expires 23 Sept 2026, so permission was needed to finish - Appointed person held the 17 Aug 2026 NPPF changes "not substantive for this particular case" and did not re-consult (SoR 9) - Single condition (approved plans and documents), since the works had started ## Sources - https://find-crown-development.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/applications/14b28f84-5dfa-45e7-b529-85e4ac0c2753/application-information - https://find-crown-development.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/applications/14b28f84-5dfa-45e7-b529-85e4ac0c2753/documents/01LFF32MN3HMOBLXUCWNCZ7JTSN7IF2ZJ5 - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/grenfell-tower-crown-development-application-given-approval --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/CROWN-2026-0000003.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 41 Brent Park Road, Brent Cross - **Decision:** allowed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Dickson - **Authority:** Barnet (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6000405 - **Application reference:** 25/1337/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Part single, part two storey rear extension and loft conversion to create 2 self-contained flats from an end-terrace house - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (2025) HOU03, CHD01 - **Main issues:** family housing provision - **Tags:** tier-2, no-framework-reference, flat-conversion, plan-conflict-outweighed ## Summary Conversion and extension of an end-terrace house in Barnet into two flats. Allowed despite a breach of the size thresholds in local policy HOU03(C), because the scheme kept a 3-bed family unit and so met the policy's "overarching aims" (DL ¶9-10). The letter never mentions the Framework. The footer carries a different reference (6006098), which looks like a template slip. ## What made the difference Keeping a family-sized unit, and a second flat that exceeds NDSS, outweighed a numerical conflict with the plan (DL ¶18: "material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it"). No Framework policy was engaged. L2(1)(d) (additional homes within existing plots) could have been cited but was not. ## Policy findings - **HOU03 (Barnet LP): conflict.** criterion C breached (existing GIA under 135 sq m; flat 2 under 61 sq m), but "overarching aims" met because a 3-bed/4-person family unit is retained (DL 7-10) - **CHD01 (Barnet LP): accord.** good standard of amenity; flat 2 exceeds NDSS (DL 9-10) - **DM6: neutral.** council-requested PD-removal condition not imposed as "overly restrictive" (DL 17); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Existing GIA below the 135 sq m threshold in HOU03(C); flat 2 below the 61 sq m target but above NDSS - One 3-bed 4-person family flat retained ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6000405 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2dd1581a-ad27-4b49-9883-f91faadc0f4f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6000405.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Kilcummer Barn, Tregeath Lane, Trewarmett, Tintagel - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Perrins - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6000903 - **Application reference:** PA25/02674 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use and conversion of a former piggery to a holiday cottage - **Site context:** open-countryside, isolated, national-landscape, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(b), S5(1)(c), S5(4), TR3, E4(2), N2 - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan 2010-2030 Policies 2, 5, 7, 21, 23, Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1, G2, T1 - **Main issues:** location and accessibility, re-use of building, biodiversity net gain - **Tags:** sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, rural-tourism, s5-1-b-necessity, s5-1-c-reuse, s5-4-exceptional, bng-exemption-not-shown, small-scheme ## Summary An appeal to convert a former piggery in open countryside near Tintagel to a single holiday cottage was dismissed. The inspector applied the August 2026 Framework without a separate consultation round, as the issues were already in play. The site was car-dependent, the appellant did not show a countryside location was necessary for the tourism use (S5(1)(b)), and the building was not shown to be capable of conversion without, in effect, rebuilding (S5(1)(c)). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I am satisfied that no party has been prejudiced by its publication, as the determinative matters in this appeal were already in issue between the parties" (DL ¶2). - **Holiday let or dwelling.** The inspector left the characterisation open because "Framework policy S5(1)(c) applies substantively the same construction-quality test to the re-use of any existing building outside a settlement regardless of that characterisation" (DL ¶3). If it were a dwelling it would be an isolated home under S5(3)/HO11 (DL ¶12). - **Location: FAIL (S5(1)(b), TR3, E4(2)).** The lanes are "narrow, hedge-enclosed, unlit, and lack footways … Walking for day-to-day purposes is largely unrealistic" (DL ¶7). "visitors would be at least as car-dependent as residents" (DL ¶8). S5(1)(b) "supports rural tourism development outside settlements only where such a location is shown to be necessary", and the appellant "does not identify why this location, rather than a site within or better related to a settlement, is necessary" (DL ¶9). - **TR6(4) is the wrong test.** "TR6(4) addresses matters of capacity and safety … The concern here is the car-dependent travel pattern the development would generate" (DL ¶10). - **Re-use: FAIL (S5(1)(c)).** The building "would derive its structural integrity from new work rather than from the existing fabric" (DL ¶15). Embodied-carbon benefit was given no weight (DL ¶18, 26). - **BNG: FAIL (N2).** The exemption was not demonstrated and there was no metric (DL ¶20-22). ## Planning balance The decision was taken under s38(6), with conflict with the plan as a whole (DL ¶25). The benefit, one holiday unit with no evidence of need, carried limited weight. Against it, car-reliant location with no demonstrated necessity carried considerable weight, plus the conversion failure and the BNG conflict (DL ¶26-27). Because the scheme fell within no S5(1) category, it went to S5(4): "No such circumstances exist and the limited benefits fall short of that test" (DL ¶28). ## What made the difference The absence of evidence. There was no structural survey supporting conversion, no reason why the tourism use had to be at this site, and no BNG baseline. The inspector read S5(1)(b) as requiring a positive demonstration of locational necessity, not a general appeal to the tourism economy. A sound structural report and a site-specific case for the rural location would have moved the scheme into S5(1)(b)/(c) and the "substantially outweighed" balance. Even then, the transport harm would have remained. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(b) requires the appellant to show why *this* countryside location is necessary. General tourism benefits do not do that (DL ¶9). - S5(1)(c)'s "permanent and substantial construction" test applies to any re-use outside a settlement, whether the use is a dwelling or tourism (DL ¶3, 12). - Holiday occupiers are at least as car-dependent as residents, so holiday use does not cure an unsustainable location (DL ¶8). - TR6(4)'s "unacceptable/severe" test concerns highway safety and capacity. It does not answer a TR3 objection about car-dependent travel patterns (DL ¶10). - E4(2) and TR3(1)(e) are expectations the proposal must meet, not only support. A scheme that takes no opportunity to improve connectivity or use a well-related site conflicts with them (DL ¶10-11). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(b): fail.** rural tourism outside a settlement supported only where the location is shown to be necessary; appellant argued general tourism benefit but not why this site (DL 9, 11) - **S5(1)(c): fail.** re-use of an existing building must be of permanent and substantial construction whatever the use is called; 2019 survey showed new steel frame, foundations and roof needed, so in substance a new building (DL 3, 12-19) - **S5(3): neutral.** if the unit is a dwelling it would be an isolated home, engaging HO11; not resolved because S5(1)(c) applies either way (DL 12) - **TR3: fail (considerable weight).** narrow unlit lanes without footways; bus every two hours, Mon-Sat only; visitors at least as car-dependent as residents (DL 7-8, 10-11, 27) - **TR6(4): not-engaged.** appellant's "severe impact" argument rejected; TR6(4) deals with capacity and safety, which were not in dispute; the objection is to car-dependent travel patterns (DL 10) - **E4(2): fail.** did not take opportunities to improve rural connectivity or use PDL or well-related sites (DL 10-11) - **N2: fail.** BNG exemption not demonstrated (red line over 1,000 sq m against a claimed 123 sq m); no metric (DL 20-22) - **S5(4): fail.** outside all S5(1) categories; no exceptional circumstances; limited benefits well short of "substantially outweigh" (DL 28) - **E2: benefit (limited weight).** one holiday unit is a modest economic contribution; no evidence of unmet need (DL 26) ## Key facts - Single-storey breeze-block former piggery, c.400 m from Trewarmett (a hamlet, not a settlement) and over 1 km from Tintagel - In Cornwall National Landscape and Heritage Coast; no landscape objection (DL 23) - Previous appeal for a dwelling on the site dismissed in 2020 (APP/D0840/W/19/3243906) - Structural survey of 2019 showed conversion needed a new steel frame on new foundations and a new roof - Bus 95 every two hours, 07:35-18:45, Mon-Sat only ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6000903 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/627a68aa-4762-4fbe-8dd3-6cf735582380 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6000903.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Paddock land adjoining 39a Stone Lane, Lydiard Millicent - **Decision:** allowed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M Aqbal - **Authority:** Wiltshire (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6001260 - **Application reference:** PL/2024/07426 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** 9 dwellings with landscaping, sustainable drainage and vehicular access from Stone Lane - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.03 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), HO7, TR4 - **Development plan policies:** Wiltshire Core Strategy CP1, CP2, CP19, CP61, Lydiard Millicent Neighbourhood Plan LM1 - **Main issues:** suitability of location, highway safety - **Tags:** s5-1-j, sustainable-location-pass, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, annex-a-weight-reduction, rural-lane-no-footway, habitats-mitigation ## Summary Nine homes on a paddock outside any settlement boundary, next to housing at Common Platt on the western edge of Swindon. Allowed. The site conflicts with the Wiltshire settlement strategy. But the Council has only about 2.03 years' supply, and the site passes S5(1)(j) as "physically well-related". The Inspector held that this test does not need a site to adjoin the main village or to have a continuous footway. A 43 m stretch where pedestrians walk in the carriageway was acceptable under TR4 on the speed, traffic-flow and accident evidence. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were afforded an opportunity to comment on any implications arising from this" (DL ¶2). - **Development plan: CONFLICT.** The site is outside the boundary and within no exception, so it "would conflict with the settlement strategy of the development plan" (DL ¶5). It is not infill under NP LM1 (DL ¶6). - **S5(1)(j)(i): PASS.** "I do not read Policy S5 of the Framework as requiring a site to adjoin the principal built form of a particular settlement or to be served by a continuous segregated footway. Rather, the policy requires an assessment of whether a site is physically well-related to an existing settlement" (DL ¶24). "Whilst the absence of a continuous segregated footway weighs against the proposal, I do not consider that factor alone demonstrates that the site is not physically well-related" (DL ¶25). - **S5(1)(j)(ii): PASS.** "no substantive evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the development would exceed the capacity of existing or proposed infrastructure" (DL ¶26). - **Highway safety (TR4): PASS.** "Whilst a continuous segregated footway would be preferable, pedestrians would be required to walk within the carriageway only for a short distance in circumstances where vehicle speeds and traffic volumes are relatively low" (DL ¶20). "I nevertheless attach considerable weight to the objective accident evidence before me" (DL ¶18). - **Annex A.** Restrictive parts of CP2 and CP19 "are materially inconsistent with Policy S5 of the Framework and, to that extent, attract very limited weight" (DL ¶28). - **Accessibility.** Future occupiers "would be likely to rely to some degree upon private car travel". But the site "is not isolated from existing built development" and is "reasonably connected" (DL ¶7). ## Planning balance The balance was the s38(6) plan-led test, not an express "substantially outweighed" test. S5(1)(j) was treated as a material consideration: the policy "indicates that such development should be approved unless its benefits are substantially outweighed by adverse effects", and its support was given significant weight (DL ¶27, ¶55). - **Against:** conflict with the spatial strategy and NP LM1; loss of undeveloped land (limited weight); some car reliance (DL ¶53). - **For:** housing (substantial weight, HO7); local services, economic and biodiversity benefits (moderate weight) (DL ¶¶54-56). - **Conclusion:** the benefits "outweigh the identified conflict with the development plan" (DL ¶57). ## What made the difference The Inspector read "physically well-related" as a relationship with existing built development in general, not with the named village. He also held that a gap in the footway is not fatal in itself. Together with a 2.03-year supply, that let S5(1)(j) override the settlement boundary. On the walking route, three things carried it: the LHA had withdrawn its objection, speeds and flows at the 43 m gap were low, and there were no recorded pedestrian injury accidents. The outcome would likely have been different if the Council had produced its own traffic-speed or collision evidence. It would also likely have differed if the gap had been longer, on a faster road, or without the gateway and speed-reduction works. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(j)(i) does not require a site to adjoin the principal built form of a settlement or to have a continuous segregated footway (DL ¶24). - A missing footway section "weighs against" a scheme but does not by itself show the site is not physically well-related (DL ¶25). To win the point, an objector must show the gap is unsafe on evidence: speeds, flows and collisions. - Objective accident data got "considerable weight" over residents' anecdotal near misses (DL ¶18). Objectors should bring recorded data of their own. - Settlement-boundary policies that restrict development outside settlements were accepted as materially inconsistent with S5 and given very limited weight under Annex A (DL ¶28). - An inspector may run S5(1)(j) inside an ordinary s38(6) balance, giving the policy's support "significant weight" (DL ¶¶27, 55-57). - Finding that occupiers would rely on the car to some degree did not defeat S5(1)(j) where the site adjoins existing housing (DL ¶¶7, 53). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j)(i): pass (significant weight).** physically well-related to Common Platt / western Swindon edge; S5 does not require adjoining the principal built form or a continuous segregated footway (DL 24-25, 27) - **S5(1)(j)(ii): pass.** no infrastructure provider objection; no evidence capacity exceeded (DL 26) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 9 homes against 2.03-year supply (DL 29, 54) - **TR4: pass.** safe and suitable access despite 43 m walk in carriageway; low speeds and flows, LHA no objection, gateway/speed measures (DL 14-21) - **Wiltshire CS CP1, CP2, CP19: conflict (very-limited weight).** conflict with settlement strategy; restrictive aspects materially inconsistent with S5 under Annex A, very limited weight (Council broadly accepted) (DL 5, 8, 28) - **Lydiard Millicent NP LM1: conflict.** not infill within built area of village (DL 6) ## Key facts - Council accepts about 2.03 years supply (DL 23) - Pedestrians must walk in the carriageway for about 43 m between two footway sections, with dropped kerbs, tactile paving and visibility splays at transitions (DL 14) - Stone Lane 30 mph, low speeds and flows at the gap; no recorded pedestrian injury accidents (DL 15-18) - Site adjoins Common Platt housing, outside any settlement boundary; encroachment given limited adverse weight (DL 25, 37) - Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6001260 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/912b1387-2a62-48b5-a4f9-b463868a343b --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6001260.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 5 More London Place, Southwark (restaurant pergola and awning) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Catcheside - **Authority:** Southwark (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6001859 - **Application reference:** 25/AP/1051 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Extension of outdoor seating area with pergola structure, glazed side screens, planters and retractable awning to a restaurant - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1), DP3(3), S4(2)(c), S4 - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D4, HC1, Southwark Plan 2022 P13, P14, P19, P20, P21 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, setting of conservation area and Grade I Tower Bridge - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, heritage-no-harm, conservation-area-setting, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip, tier-2 ## Summary A restaurant on More London Place, Southwark, sought a larger outdoor seating area enclosed by a 2.8 m pergola, glazed screens, planters and an awning. The inspector found no harm to the settings of the Tooley Street Conservation Area or Grade I Tower Bridge, but held that the structure would be incongruous in the cohesive contemporary frontage. That conflict with DP3(1) lacked clear justification, so the S4(2) trigger applied and the modest benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The parties were invited to comment on the revised Framework, and I have taken account of the comments received" (DL ¶2). - **Heritage settings: NO HARM.** "there would be no harm caused to the significance of these designated heritage assets as a result of this proposal within their settings" (DL ¶14). - **Design, DP3(1): CONFLICT.** "the development would have an incongruous appearance, and it would be harmfully conspicuous in views from the walkway" (DL ¶16). "It follows that there would be conflict with Policy DP3(1) of the Framework, which expects proposals to respond to their context, and to integrate with and enhance their surroundings" (DL ¶17). - **Benefits.** TC2 substantial weight is "relevant here" (DL ¶22), but "the social and economic benefits that would arise from the proposed development would be modest, and this limits the weight that they carry in this case" (DL ¶23). - **DP3(3) / S4(2)(c): FAIL.** "In my judgement, the scheme lacks clear justification and its benefits would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶24). The letter cites "Policy S4(2)(a)(c)", a slip for S4(2)(c). ## Planning balance S4 (inside a settlement). The design harm was routed through DP3(3) and the S4(2) trigger, then set against modest leisure and economic benefits. Conclusion framed plan-led: conflict with the development plan as a whole and no material consideration indicating otherwise (DL ¶25). ## What made the difference The size and permanence of the enclosure against a sleek, cohesive frontage where alfresco seating is otherwise loose, low furniture. The heritage objection fell away because the structure sits in line with an existing advertisement screen and keeps the central views to Tower Bridge. A lighter, lower structure aligned with the tall ground-floor windows might have passed. ## Transferable points - A DP3(1) conflict, found to lack clear justification, engages S4(2)(c) and makes the benefits substantially outweighed. This is the full DP3(3) route in a short letter (DL ¶17, ¶24). - TC2's substantial weight to town-centre vitality does not attach in full to modest benefits from a single premises (DL ¶22–23). - Setting harm depends on whether the scheme interrupts the views through which the setting is experienced (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **HE6: neutral.** site outside but in setting of Tooley Street CA and of Grade I Tower Bridge; no harm to significance, views from busiest central walkway kept (DL 11, 13-14, 19) - **DP3(1): conflict.** 2.8 m solid pergola and tall planters conceal the ground-floor frontage, openings at odds with tall windows, awning sits awkwardly under the overhang; incongruous and longstanding (DL 15-17) - **DP3(3): fail.** explicit step - "the scheme lacks clear justification" (DL 24) - **TC2: benefit.** TC2 substantial weight to town-centre vitality said to be relevant, but the social and economic benefits are "modest", which limits their weight (DL 22-23) - **S4(2)(c): fail.** letter says "S4(2)(a)(c)"; DP3(1) conflict without clear justification routed through the S4(2) trigger (DL 24) - **S4: fail.** inside settlement; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 21, 24) ## Key facts - Pedestrian walkway between Tooley Street and the Thames, flanked by large contemporary buildings - Proposed structure 2.8 m high with solid frame and tall planters along most of the frontage; replaces a smaller existing pergola - Loose low furniture of neighbouring cafes treated as the characteristic alfresco form - Council's approval at 5A More London Place not comparable (open space on Tooley Street, mixed context) (DL 18) - Mayor of London's support for alfresco dining noted (DL 22) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6001859 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/abb6613f-ecfc-4cfd-95e0-a9c0a1302459 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6001859.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Castle End, Lea (PIP, setting of Grade II* manor house) - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Phillips - **Authority:** Herefordshire (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6001896 - **Application reference:** 251639 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for up to six dwellings on an open field beside a Grade II* listed 17th-century manor house - **Homes:** 6 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE6(3), S5 - **Development plan policies:** Herefordshire Core Strategy 2015 LD1, LD4, SD1 - **Main issues:** setting of Grade II* listed building, character and appearance - **Tags:** PIP, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, substantially-outweighed, s5-limb-not-identified, s4-or-s5-not-decided, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Permission in principle for up to six homes on a field next to Castle End, a Grade II* 17th-century manor house at Lea. Dismissed. The field has no value for the character of the area, because it is surrounded by development. But it is the last open buffer that lets the manor be read in its historic landscape. The inspector found moderate harm to the setting, gave it considerable importance and weight, and held that housing (substantial weight) did not outweigh it. The benefits were then "substantially outweighed" under S5 (DL ¶30), and the letter says the same would follow under S4. ## Issues and findings - **Setting.** The site "is the one remaining buffer between development in this direction and Castle End, providing a visual separation that increases the prominence of the listed building" (DL ¶10). Development "would diminish the way the listed building is experienced" (DL ¶13). - **Degree of harm.** "I find the degree of harm to the heritage asset to be at a moderate level but nevertheless is of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶16). - **HE6(1) and HE6(4).** "substantial weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss of its significance" (DL ¶19). The harm "would not be outweighed by the public benefits that the proposal would generate" (DL ¶19). - **HE4(2).** The harm "has not been supported by clear and convincing justification" (DL ¶20). - **Character: no harm.** The site "has the character of being within the wider built form rather than the nearby open countryside" (DL ¶22). - **Housing.** HO7 substantial weight; no five-year supply (DL ¶17, ¶28). ## Planning balance The HE6(4) balance was run first and failed (DL ¶19). In the overall balance, benefits got moderate weight each and housing substantial weight, against harm to a Grade II* asset that "is extremely important" (DL ¶29). "in accordance with Framework Policy S5, the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects" (DL ¶30). "This would also be the case if the site was within the settlement and Framework Policy S4 was relevant" (DL ¶31). Heritage harm is not a listed example, but "this is not a closed list" (DL ¶31). ## What made the difference The grade of the asset and the site's role as the last open link to its historic landscape. The same field raised no character objection. The letter never settled whether the site was inside a settlement or which S5(1) category applied, and it did not need to: the heritage harm decided the balance either way. ## Transferable points - A field that is visually part of the built-up area can still be important to the setting of a listed building, as the last buffer that keeps the asset legible (DL ¶10-13, 21-23). - Moderate harm to a Grade II* asset outweighed six homes with substantial HO7 weight, despite a supply shortfall (DL ¶16-19, 28-30). - Heritage harm counts under both S4 and S5 even though the policies' examples do not name it; the list "is not a closed list" (DL ¶31). - A PIP can fail at the first stage on setting alone, as the setting is part of the location question (DL ¶4, 6). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation; Grade II* asset "extremely important"; the field is the last open buffer between development and Castle End, so harm to setting at "a moderate level" (DL 10-16, 19, 29) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** moderate harm "nevertheless is of considerable importance and weight" (DL 16) - **HE6(4): fail.** housing and moderate social/economic benefits do not outweigh the harm (DL 17-19) - **HE4(2): fail.** harm "has not been supported by clear and convincing justification" (DL 20) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** up to six homes; no five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 17, 28) - **S5: fail.** benefits "substantially outweighed" by the heritage harm; the letter does not decide whether the site is inside or outside a settlement, or identify an S5(1) category, and says the result would be the same under S4 (DL 30-31) - **DP3: neutral.** mapped: no character harm; site reads as part of the built form (DL 21-24) ## Key facts - Castle End is Grade II* (list entry 1348810); a separately listed Grade II dovecote stands in its grounds (DL 7) - The appeal field is enclosed on three sides by a school and houses, so no character harm, but it is the last open link between the manor and its historic landscape (DL 10, 21-23) - River Wye SAC foul drainage objection not pursued because the appeal failed on heritage (DL 25-26) - Parties consulted on the August 2026 Framework (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6001896 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e33480d8-28c5-40b6-ab9e-ad07e6a62bd3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6001896.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Adsdean House, Adsdean (listed building consent - stair lift) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Phillips - **Authority:** South Downs National Park Authority (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6001939 - **Application reference:** SDNP/25/02152/LIS - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Installation of a through-floor lift from ground to first floor in a Grade II listed house (listed building consent) - **Site context:** national-park, open-countryside, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(3), HE6(4), HE4(2) - **Development plan policies:** South Downs Local Plan 2014-33 (2019) SD5, SD12, SD13, SD1 - **Main issues:** special interest of Grade II listed building - **Tags:** tier-2, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-harm-graded, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, national-park, psed ## Summary Listed building consent for a through-floor lift in Adsdean House, a Grade II listed house in the South Downs National Park. The lift would cut through a c.1900 ceiling and floor and seal two doors. The inspector graded the harm as low but gave it "considerable importance and weight", found the informal public benefits and the appellant's access needs worth only modest weight, and dismissed the appeal. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The Council and the appellant have had opportunity to comment on this and I have taken into account any representations received" (DL ¶3). - **Significance of later fabric.** "The siting of the lift would be within a non-original later addition to the property. Nevertheless, given its age and history of this part of the property, it contributes positively to the evolution and architectural phasing of the building" (DL ¶10). - **HE6(3): HARM, low.** "I find the harm to the heritage asset to be, at a low level of harm but nevertheless is of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶13). - **Public benefits: modest.** Tours and community meetings are "done on an informal ad-hoc basis, and as such, there is no guarantee of this continuing in any formal manner" (DL ¶14). - **HE6(4) / HE4(2): FAIL.** "in giving considerable importance and weight to the harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset, I find that this would not be outweighed by the public benefits that the proposal would generate" (DL ¶17); the harm "has not been supported by clear and convincing justification" (DL ¶18). - **Reversibility condition rejected** as not precise enough (DL ¶15). ## Planning balance HE6(4) harm against public benefits, with HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation and HE6(3) considerable weight to the harm stated correctly (DL ¶17). Personal access needs under the PSED counted as modest (DL ¶23). ## What made the difference The lift took historic fabric from a part of the house that is not original but is still part of its evolution, and the public benefits were informal and unsecured. Evidence that no less harmful route to the upper floor existed, or secured public access, might have tipped the balance. ## Transferable points - Later, non-original parts of a listed building can still carry significance through its "evolution and architectural phasing" (DL ¶10). - Informal, ad hoc public access is not a secured public benefit and gets modest weight (DL ¶14). - A reversibility condition fails if it cannot say when reinstatement is triggered (DL ¶15). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to the asset's conservation stated (DL 17); loss of c.1900 lath and plaster ceiling and floorboards, doors sealed shut, "inelegant and awkward siting" (DL 8-11) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** "at a low level of harm but nevertheless is of considerable importance and weight" (DL 13) - **HE6(4): fail.** community use, tours and memorabilia informal and ad hoc, so modest weight; economic and housing-stock benefits; harm not outweighed (DL 14, 16-17) - **HE4(2): fail.** harm not supported by clear and convincing justification (DL 18) - **DM6: fail.** mapped: condition requiring reinstatement of floorboards and removal of the lift when no longer required not sufficiently precise (DL 15) - **PSED: benefit.** access benefit to the appellant (age/disability) given modest weight; limited evidence the lift is the only option (DL 22-23) ## Key facts - Grade II house of c.1850, enlarged by Norman Shaw 1877; lift sited in a later (c.1900) part that still contributes to the building's evolution (DL 6-10) - Being outside the list description does not mean a part lacks significance (DL 10) - National Park purpose to conserve cultural heritage engaged; SD1 not determinative for LBC (DL 19-21) - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6001939 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/177f7e3f-9299-45cd-bf8d-1305d85dd770 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6001939.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Uphill Farm walled garden, Yelverton - **Decision:** allowed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Kent - **Authority:** West Devon (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6002006 - **Application reference:** 0895/25/VAR - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73 variation of noise conditions (11 and 12) on a wedding and events venue in a walled garden and barn - **Site context:** open-countryside, national-landscape, listed-building-setting, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3, N4 - **Development plan policies:** Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2019 DEV1, DEV25, Tamar Valley Management Plan 2026-2031 - **Main issues:** living conditions (noise), National Landscape tranquillity, SAC - **Tags:** national-landscape, noise, conditions, tranquillity, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, rural-tourism ## Summary A wedding venue in a walled garden in the Tamar Valley National Landscape sought to replace an "inaudible at the boundary" music condition with a limit of 5 dB(A) above background at residential facades. The Inspector held that P3 sets the bar at avoiding significant observed adverse effects, not audibility. Tranquillity under N4 would not be eroded relative to the permitted use. Allowed, with amplified-music events capped at 20 a year. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were invited to comment on the new Framework (DL ¶4). - **Noise: P3 PASS.** P3 "states that development proposals should be appropriate for their location and, amongst other things, not result in levels of noise exposure which would have a significant observed adverse effect" (DL ¶15). The inaudibility condition "is effectively requiring there to be a No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) of noise exposure" (DL ¶16). Policy "do[es] not require that the level of noise generated by an activity must not be inaudible" (DL ¶17). - **National Landscape: N4 PASS.** P3's definition of tranquil areas was read alongside the Management Plan. Because the permitted use already brings amplified music, "its tranquillity relative to the use which has already received planning permission would not be eroded" (DL ¶39). - **Heritage.** The noise effect on the Grade II* farmhouse "would be a transient effect" and would not harm significance (DL ¶44). - **Conditions.** The "tailpiece" allowing revisions to the Noise Management Plan by agreement was removed because it "can deprive third parties of the opportunity to comment" (DL ¶20, ¶48). ## Planning balance No balance was needed. The development complied with DEV1, DEV25, P3 and N4. ## What made the difference Technical acoustic evidence showing noise below LOAEL at the most sensitive receptor. There were no measured contrary readings, complaints had dropped after the Zone Array system was installed, and events and hours were already capped by other conditions (DL ¶¶21–26). ## Transferable points - P3 is read as a SOAEL/LOAEL test. A condition requiring noise to be inaudible over-reaches (DL ¶¶15–17). - P3's "tranquil areas" definition can be used with N4 to assess National Landscape tranquillity, measured against the baseline of what is already permitted (DL ¶¶34, 39). - Tailpiece wording that lets approved plans be revised by agreement was struck out of the conditions (DL ¶¶20, 48). ## Policy findings - **P3: pass.** "inaudible at boundary" condition effectively demands a No Observed Effect Level; P3 only requires noise below SOAEL. 5 dB(A) above background at facade, below LOAEL, is acceptable (DL 15-17, 25, 29) - **N4: pass.** substantial weight to natural beauty; tranquillity (as defined in P3 and the AONB Management Plan) not eroded relative to the permitted use (DL 31-39) - **HE5(2)(b): neutral.** noise a transient effect on the Grade II* farmhouse; no harm to significance (DL 43-44) - **DM6: neutral.** tailpiece allowing the Noise Management Plan to be revised by agreement struck out; events with amplified music capped at 20 of 55 (DL 20, 48-49) ## Key facts - Existing condition 12 required amplified music to be inaudible at the boundary of any residence - Proposed limit of 5 dB(A) above background at facades; background 21-25 dB(A); Zone Array sound system installed - Venue in Tamar Valley National Landscape; Grade II* Uphill farmhouse adjoining ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/10a5ff4e-5497-4fd7-9830-2fe98c4fe1fb - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6002006 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6002006.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Mytax Farm, Bourbles Lane, Preesall (sand and gravel quarry) - **Decision:** dismissed, 26 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Stephen Normington - **Authority:** Lancashire County Council (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6002168 - **Application reference:** LCC/2023/0030 - **Procedure:** inquiry - **Development:** Extraction and processing of c.500,000 t of sand and gravel over about 5 years (about 100,000 tpa) on 20.7 ha, with washing plant, new access road and restoration using c.220,000 m3 imported inert fill (EIA development) - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4), M3(1) - **Development plan policies:** Joint Lancashire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy 2009 CS3, CS4, CS8, Joint Lancashire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Part 1 2013 M1, DM2, WM1, Wyre Local Plan 2019 CDMP1, CDMP4, CDMP6 - **Main issues:** need / landbank, highway safety, noise, dust and air quality - **Tags:** minerals, highway-safety-decisive, tr6-refuse, visibility-splay, third-party-land, grampian-no-prospect, transitional-no-consultation, old-wording-slip, landbank-shortfall ## Summary A 20.7 ha sand and gravel quarry near Preesall (Wyre), refused by Lancashire County Council and appealed to an 8-day inquiry. The inspector accepted a "critical" county landbank shortfall and found noise, dust and air quality acceptable with conditions. But the required access visibility splay depended on a hedge owned by an objector, and the narrow B-road could not take two-way HGV traffic safely. That was an unacceptable highway-safety impact, and TR6(4) says such proposals "should be refused". Appeal dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "In having regard to the matters that are most relevant to this appeal, there are no material changes to the Framework of relevance to the substance of this appeal. Therefore, I am satisfied that no party to this appeal would be prejudiced" (DL ¶13). - **Need: significant weight.** "I am satisfied that there is a critical shortfall in sand and gravel supply in Lancashire, with the County being a net importer of sand and gravel mineral which, in my view, is not a sustainable strategy" (DL ¶38). The fact "that the vast majority of the Council's landbank is bound in a single site is itself contrary to the principle of Policy M1(2)(d) of the Framework" (DL ¶30). "I have attached significant weight to the identified need" (DL ¶51). - **Access visibility: FAIL.** The council's 2.4 m x 52 m splays were justified (DL ¶72). A 1.2 m x-distance was rejected (DL ¶74). With no agreement from the hedge owner, "there are no prospects at all that the requirements of a Grampian condition could be delivered" (DL ¶77). "The proposed access arrangement would present an unacceptable highway safety risk" (DL ¶79). - **Route suitability: FAIL.** HGVs meeting on sub-6.2 m sections would reverse or mount verges, with vulnerable users having "limited verge protection". The inspector described this "as resulting in a severe impact from a safety perspective to the local highway network" (DL ¶101). The traffic management UU would "merely highlight" the constraints (DL ¶104). - **TR6(4).** "Policy TR6(4) of the Framework sets out that development proposals should be refused if they would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. This National Decision-Making Policy is unambiguous" (DL ¶102). Local Plan DM2 and Wyre CDMP6 are consistent with it and carry full weight (DL ¶103). - **Noise and dust: acceptable.** "Subject to the imposition of the suggested noise conditions … I do not consider that noise emitted from the site would give rise to a significant adverse effect" (DL ¶152). DM2 "remains consistent with the overall objectives of Policy M4(1)(b) and Policy P3 of the Framework and therefore should be afforded full weight" (DL ¶155). - **Habitats.** Appropriate assessment was not needed because the competent authority was not minded to consent (DL ¶182). ## Planning balance "Policy M3(1) of the Framework sets out that … substantial weight should be given to the benefits of mineral extraction … I have therefore attached significant weight to these benefits" (DL ¶188). Against that, the TR6(4) failure: "Notwithstanding the weight that I have attached to the benefits … these would be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the unacceptable highway safety risk" (DL ¶191). ## What made the difference The access. The landbank case was about as strong as it gets (under one year excluding one dormant site), and amenity passed. But a visibility splay over hedges the appellant did not control, owned by an objector, could not be secured by condition or obligation. And the B-road's width made HGV passing unsafe. With control of the splay land, or a wider haul route, need would very probably have won. ## Transferable points - TR6(4) is read as a free-standing refusal instruction ("unambiguous"). It can defeat even a critical mineral-supply need (DL ¶102, ¶190-191). - A Grampian condition is unavailable where a hostile third-party owner makes delivery a "no prospects at all" case (DL ¶77, citing PPG). - A landbank concentrated in one inactive site is itself contrary to M1(2)(d)'s aim of productive capacity. Headline landbank figures can be looked behind (DL ¶30-31). - **Wording slips.** "Significant weight" is given where M3(1) says "substantial" (DL ¶188). The balance uses the 2024 "significantly and demonstrably outweighed" formula (DL ¶191). The obligations test is cited as "paragraph 58 of the Framework", the old numbering (DL ¶186). The inquiry closed in May 2026 and the parties were not re-consulted on the new Framework. ## Policy findings - **M1(2)(d): benefit.** nearly all of the landbank sits in one inactive site (Runshaw), which is itself contrary to the principle of M1(2)(d) (DL ¶30) - **M2: neutral.** 7-year sand and gravel landbank benchmark (cited as "M2(a)"); county landbank only 0.45-0.69 years excluding Runshaw (DL ¶25, ¶31) - **M3(1): benefit (significant weight).** M3(1) says "substantial weight" but the inspector attached "significant weight" to meeting the critical landbank shortfall (DL ¶51, ¶188) - **TR6(4): fail.** required 2.4 x 52 m visibility splays cross hedges on third-party land (owner objects); no Grampian prospect; narrow B-road with no footways means HGV passing and reversing conflicts, a "severe impact from a safety perspective" (DL ¶72-79, ¶85-105) - **M4(1)(b): pass.** noise within the PPG limit (background plus 10 dB, max 55 dB) with bunds and a Noise Management Plan; dust slight adverse at worst, controlled by a DMP; LP DM2 consistent with M4(1)(b) and P3 and given full weight (DL ¶106-156) - **P3: pass.** air quality and RCS risk negligible; perception of health harm given limited weight (DL ¶166-172) - **N6: not-engaged.** SPA/SAC/Ramsar 1.5 km away; Natural England did not engage with the shadow HRA; appropriate assessment unnecessary because the appeal fails anyway (DL ¶173-182) - **CS3 / CS4 / M1 (Lancashire M&W plans): neutral (limited weight).** out-of-date restrictions on new mineral permissions given little weight (DL ¶23, ¶38) ## Key facts - Lancashire landbank about 4.3 Mt, but 4.1 Mt of it is at the non-operational Runshaw Quarry (permission expiring July 2026); without Runshaw, 0.45-0.69 years (DL ¶28-31) - Council and appellant agreed a "critical landbank and supply shortage" (DL ¶31) - Average 74, maximum about 120 two-way HGV movements a day on the B5270 Lancaster Road, a 30 mph single carriageway below the 6.2 m width needed for two HGVs to pass, with no pedestrian facilities (DL ¶20, ¶53, ¶82-86) - Visibility splay over a hedge owned by an objector who would not sell (DL ¶75-77) - Rule 6 party (residents' group); 8-day inquiry; the inquiry closed in May 2026, before the new Framework, and the inspector did not re-consult (DL ¶13) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6002168 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1a622e1b-6963-496b-8ebb-ebfdbc86326e - https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/environment-and-planning/planning/bourbles-lane-preesall/ --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6002168.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 72 Prebend Street, Islington (Class MA prior approval) - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Unwin - **Authority:** Islington (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6002628 - **Application reference:** P2025/2589/PRA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class MA prior approval: conversion of ground and first floors of a former public house building to 4 self-contained flats - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Class MA - **Main issues:** scope of Class MA - **Tags:** tier-2, prior-approval, class-ma, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A Class MA prior approval for four flats in a former pub building failed because the upper floors were never in Class E use; they retained the pub's sui generis use. The prior-approval matters (conservation area, light, noise) were not reached (DL 10-11). ## What made the difference The planning unit history: the earlier permission changed only the ground and lower ground floors to Class E, so the proposal was not permitted development at all. ## Policy findings - **GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Class MA: fail.** first and second floors retain former public house (sui generis) use; only ground and lower ground are Class E, so change from sui generis to C3 is outside Class MA (DL 7-10) ## Key facts - 2021 appeal changed only ground/lower ground floors from pub to Class E cafe (APP/V5570/W/21/3281724) - Inspector: the 17 Aug 2026 Framework 'does not change the planning policy context in respect of the main issue' (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6002628 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ab1b02ad-ca69-4ff1-9a64-cd00e97265c2 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6002628.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 4 Ruthys Lane, Padstow - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Lewis Condé - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6002703 - **Application reference:** PA25/05946 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73 variation/removal of conditions 2 and 3 of PA22/03842 to keep a front parking area in place of a reinstated garden and stone boundary wall - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE6(1), HE6(3) - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 Policies 1, 2, 12, 24, Padstow Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2030 PAD4, PAD15 - **Main issues:** conservation area character - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, less-than-substantial-legacy-wording, conservation-area, transitional-no-consultation, private-benefit-discounted, section-73 ## Summary A s73 application to drop the condition requiring a front garden and stone wall to be reinstated, so that open frontage parking in the Padstow Conservation Area could stay. Dismissed. The loss of the traditional stone enclosure harmed the conservation area. The only public benefits were small visual tidying and a slight easing of parking pressure, and they did not outweigh the harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "there have not been any fundamental changes to national policy that have necessitated re-consultation" (DL ¶3). - **Conservation area — HE6: HARM.** "the proposed permanent loss of a substantial part of the traditional stone boundary and its replacement with open parking would erode the historic plot enclosure, weaken the sense of enclosure and introduce a more open, vehicle-dominated frontage" (DL ¶10). - **Harm grading.** "The harm to the designated heritage asset would be less than substantial. Still, the Framework outlines that substantial weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets and that any harm is a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶11). Old grading vocabulary is used alongside the new HE6(1) and HE6(3) wording. - **Public benefits.** Parking "would primarily benefit the occupiers"; the reduced parking pressure benefit "would be limited" (DL ¶13). "the public benefits would be minor and together would not outweigh the identified harm" (DL ¶14). ## Planning balance HE6(4) harm against public benefits, then s38(6): conflict with the plan, "no material considerations, including the approach of the Framework," to indicate otherwise (DL ¶18). ## What made the difference Boundary walls were identified as a key feature of this conservation area's significance, so their loss counts even when nearby frontages have already been opened up (DL ¶9). Parking for occupiers is a private benefit. The wall's poor condition was no answer because a sympathetic rebuild was achievable (DL ¶10). ## Transferable points - Surviving harmful precedents nearby do not normalise further erosion: "such changes have often weakened rather than reinforced the character of the area" (DL ¶9). - Parking for the occupiers of a scheme is a private benefit; a public benefit from reduced on-street pressure is limited when the scheme is small (DL ¶13). - Early post-August letters still grade harm as "less than substantial" while adopting the HE6(1)/(3) weight wording (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): harm (considerable weight).** grading "less than substantial" (legacy wording) (DL 11); HE6(1) "substantial weight ... to the conservation" and HE6(3) "considerable importance and weight" both stated; s72 not expressly cited. Loss of traditional stone boundary wall and open vehicle-dominated frontage erode historic plot enclosure (DL 10) - **HE6(4): benefit (limited weight).** public benefits (removal of concrete dwarf wall, new gulley, reduced on-street parking pressure) "modest"/"limited"/"minor" — do not outweigh (DL 12-14); private parking benefit discounted - **HE4(3): neutral.** wall partly collapsed from an undetected water leak; poor condition did not justify loss because a sympathetic rebuild is achievable (DL 10); code mapped by harvester, deliberate neglect not alleged ## Key facts - Front stone boundary wall removed and garden laid to hardstanding during construction of approved conversion - Nearby frontages opened up for parking treated as eroding rather than defining character (DL 9) - Parties not re-consulted; "no fundamental changes" relevant to the scheme (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6002703 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/afa5be38-6dac-49d8-a489-f22995a55348 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6002703.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south of Westwood Heath Road, Burton Green - **Decision:** allowed, 18 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Samuel Watson - **Authority:** Warwick (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6002759 - **Application reference:** W/25/0388 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline planning permission for up to 140 homes on safeguarded land (access only) - **Homes:** 140 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, agricultural-land-BMV - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** S3 - **Development plan policies:** Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2029 DS20, DS21, BE1, NE4, Burton Green Neighbourhood Plan BG7, BG8, NE5 - **Main issues:** safeguarded land - **Tags:** transitional, old-wording-slip, housing-shortfall, large-scheme, safeguarded-land, reason-not-substantiated ## Summary Outline permission for up to 140 homes on safeguarded land at the Coventry edge was allowed. The Council had not substantiated its single reason for refusal (prejudice to future comprehensive development), and its own officers had found the scheme compliant with DS20/DS21. The letter was issued the day after the new Framework took effect but runs the 2024 ¶11(d) tilted balance. ## Issues and findings - **Safeguarded land: accord.** The Inspector had "no reason to believe, given the nature of the development and its scale, that it would prejudice the comprehensive development of the safeguarded land" (DL ¶6), noting "the Council have not substantiated their reason for refusal" (DL ¶7). - **Character / BMV: modest harm.** "the harm stemming from the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, and from character and appearance, [is] only modest" (DL ¶26). - **Emerging Green Belt re-inclusion.** "only at a very early stage and so this plan has not been determinative" (DL ¶16). ## Planning balance The 2024 tilted balance: "the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Consequently, the application of Framework Paragraph 11d indicates that permission should be granted" (DL ¶28). 140 homes with no 5YHLS got substantial weight (DL ¶27). ## What made the difference The Council abandoned its reason for refusal, and the land was already identified for future growth. The Framework version made no difference to the result, but this is an example of a letter dated 18 Aug 2026 that neither mentions nor applies the new Framework. ## Transferable points - A letter issued on 18 Aug 2026 still applied 2024 ¶11(d) without comment. It is useful evidence of how uneven the transition was (DL ¶28). - Early-stage proposals to put land back into the Green Belt carry no weight (DL ¶16). ## Policy findings - **S3: pass.** letter applies "Framework Paragraph 11d" (2024 wording, "significantly and demonstrably"); no mention of the 17 Aug Framework (DL 28) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 140 homes incl. affordable, no 5YHLS (DL 27) - **DP3: harm (limited weight).** loss of rural character "only modest" given relationship to settlement and recent development (DL 14, 26) ## Key facts - Site is safeguarded land (DS21) within area where DS20 directs growth; officers had found it policy-compliant - Council did not substantiate its reason for refusal (prejudice to long-term planning) - Council cannot show a five-year supply (figure not stated) - Site being considered for return to Green Belt in an early-stage new plan; given no weight (DL 16) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a7e39ff9-ac29-4ebd-8b12-ee410c006888 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6002759 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6002759.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land South East of Haven Lodge, Lower Castle Road, St Mawes - **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Butcher - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6002880 - **Application reference:** PA24/08310 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Engineering works to sea cliff retaining structure and galvanised steel steps down to the water - **Site context:** inside-settlement, national-landscape, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N4, HE6, S4 - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan 2010-2030 Policies 1, 2, 12, 23, 24, Roseland NDP LA1, LA2, CV1, CV3, GP1, GP2 - **Main issues:** national landscape, heritage coast, conservation area - **Tags:** tier-2, national-landscape, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, private-benefit-not-public, s4-substantially-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Galvanised steel steps down a gabion-faced sea cliff to the water at St Mawes, within the Cornwall National Landscape, heritage coast and conservation area. Dismissed. The stairs were found "a contrived and artificial feature" that would stand proud of the wall in a prominent spot (DL ¶10). This harmed the conservation area (lower-end harm), the NL and the heritage coast. The mainly private benefits could not justify it, and under S4 the harm substantially outweighed the benefits (DL ¶22). ## What made the difference The problem was the materials and the stairs' position: steel standing proud of the wall, visible from road and sea. Local precedents were stone and recessed into the cliff. Private water access and cheaper construction carried very little weight against N4's substantial weight and the heritage harm. Note that the index's "TR2" hit for this letter is the postcode (TR2 5DR), not the policy. ## Policy findings - **N4: harm (substantial weight).** N4 substantial weight to conserving natural beauty; LURA 2023 duty to "seek to further"; prominent steel stairs harm NL and heritage coast (DL 6, 15) - **HE6: harm.** harm to St Mawes CA "at the lower end of the scale"; benefits almost entirely private; HE4/HE6 wording paraphrased without codes ("clear and convincing justification") (DL 12-14) - **S4: fail.** combined harm substantially outweighs limited benefits (DL 22) ## Key facts - Cliff engineering already approved separately (PA25/06272); appeal turned on the steel stairs only (DL 3) - Other water-access stairs in the area mostly stone and recessed; one steel example atypical (DL 11) - Parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6002880 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/234b2fa2-b0f6-4297-a211-b3778f87ab30 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6002880.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pavement outside 5 The Triangle, Tilehurst, Reading (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Pickernell - **Authority:** Reading (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6002960 - **Application reference:** PL/25/1394 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub with 2 digital 75-inch advert screens, replacing a BT kiosk (Appeal B 6002961 advert consent PL/25/1403, also dismissed) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** CO1, DP3(1) - **Development plan policies:** Reading Borough Local Plan 2019 OU3, OU4, CC7, CC8 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, listed building setting, living conditions, public safety - **Tags:** tier-2, telecoms, bt-street-hub, co1-substantial-weight, transitional-no-consultation, design-refusal ## Summary A BT Street Hub with digital advert screens in a small local centre with green space. Both the planning appeal and the advert consent appeal were dismissed. The hub would be "monolithic" and incongruous (DL ¶11). CO1's substantial weight to connectivity benefits did not outweigh "very significant and long-lasting harm" to character (DL ¶35). There was no harm to the nearby listed war memorial, and noise and safety concerns could be handled by conditions. ## What made the difference CO1's own siting limb ("sited and designed to minimise the visual impact") cuts against the benefit it gives substantial weight to. Visual prominence in a low-scale green setting outweighed that weight (DL ¶34). ## Policy findings - **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to connectivity benefits, but CO1 also requires siting to "minimise the visual impact"; very prominent siting, "significant negative visual impact" (DL 33-35) - **DP3(1): fail.** hub "monolithic" and "incongruous" beside local-centre green space (DL 11, 15); decided under local OU3/CC7; code mapped by harvester, DP3(3) not invoked - **HE6: neutral.** s66 cited; no effect on significance of Grade II Tilehurst War Memorial because of distance and intervening vegetation (DL 12-14, 19) - **P3: pass.** night-time call noise controllable by condition (DL 21-24); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Hub footprint smaller than existing kiosk, so no added clutter (DL 10) - Advert panels occupy most of both faces; digital format "significantly more eye-catching" than local fascia signs (DL 18) - Parties not re-consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6002960 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e013fa76-91e3-485e-a64a-c0e0a6094186 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6002960.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Prow Park Business Village, Treloggan Industrial Estate, Newquay - **Decision:** dismissed, 27 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Lewis Condé - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6002971 - **Application reference:** PA25/08160 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Refusal to discharge conditions 3 (landscaping), 4 (biodiversity management plan) and 5 (drainage) on a parking and container storage use - **Site context:** settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM6 - **Main issues:** discharge of conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, discharge-of-conditions, bng-unsecured, costs-refused ## Summary Appeal against refusal to discharge three conditions. The landscaping details lacked specifications, the off-site biodiversity gain was not legally secured, and the drainage as built did not match the approved plan. Dismissed. The new Framework made "no changes material to this appeal" (DL ¶5). ## What made the difference Off-site BNG "must be secured by a planning obligation or conservation covenant" (DL ¶15), and a condition requiring compliance with an approved drawing cannot be met by an "equally or more effective" alternative (DL ¶21). Costs applications from both sides were the subject of separate decisions (DL ¶2), so the `costs-refused` tag is unconfirmed. ## Policy findings - **DM6: fail.** details did not satisfy conditions; off-site BNG at Perranporth Airport not secured by a s106 or conservation covenant; drainage not built to the approved drawing (DL 11-22) ## Key facts - Off-site BNG relied on a letter of intent only - ACO drains and manholes not where shown on the approved drawing ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a953e907-ac14-49e2-a073-2e663483f3ff - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6002971 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6002971.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Eyhurst Farm House, Outwood Lane, Kingswood - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Timothy King - **Authority:** Reigate and Banstead (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6003001 - **Application reference:** 25/01468/F - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of curtilage-listed stables (in dwelling use) and erection of a relocated single-storey 3-bed "replacement" dwelling in an open field - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB7(1)(b), GB6(2), HE4, HE6 - **Development plan policies:** Reigate & Banstead DMP 2019 NHE5, DES1, NHE9, Core Strategy 2014 - **Main issues:** grey belt, replacement building, openness, character, heritage, VSC balance - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, unmet-need-evidence-fail, sustainable-location-fail, replacement-dwelling-relocated, athlone-house-baseline, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, heritage-harm-decisive, curtilage-methuen-campbell, inspector-raised-own-ground, small-scheme ## Summary Demolition of a curtilage-listed stables building (used as a dwelling) and a new single-storey dwelling in an adjoining open field in the Metropolitan Green Belt. The land was grey belt, but GB7(1)(g) failed for want of evidenced unmet need and a sustainable location. It was not a "replacement" under GB7(1)(b) because it moved to a different site. Openness, character and heritage harms were unjustified, and no VSC was shown. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Application submitted under the Dec 2024 Framework, but the inspector gave "full regard … to the latest government guidance" (DL ¶2–3). - **Grey belt: PASS.** The field "is not PDL. However, it does not perform strongly on any of the above points, and I consider that the land meets the grey belt classification test" (DL ¶5). - **GB7(1)(g)(ii)–(iii): FAIL.** "The single dwelling … although it is not in a sustainable location, would be unlikely to generate a significant amount of movement … However … I have not been provided with any details to illustrate that there is an evidenced unmet need for additional housing in this area" (DL ¶7). - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** The baseline is "what is physically there, not what could theoretically be built under an unimplemented planning permission" (Athlone House), though that may matter as fallback at the VSC stage (DL ¶19). "relocating it a significant distance away … considerably lessens the 'replacement' exception" (DL ¶20). - **Openness.** "moving the building into an open field will almost certainly trigger the requirements to demonstrate very special circumstances" (DL ¶10). - **Heritage: FAIL** under HE4, HE5 and HE6, with no clear and convincing justification for losing the curtilage-listed stables (DL ¶30, ¶36). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Harm on every main issue. The expired 2013 permission was "unrealistic" to rely on, and the 2024 householder fallback was "of limited value" (DL ¶38, ¶40). VSC not demonstrated (DL ¶41). ## What made the difference Relocating the "replacement" into an open field destroyed the GB7(1)(b) argument, and the appellant produced no unmet-need evidence for (g)(ii). Heritage failings (loss of a curtilage-listed building with a thin statement) would have sunk it anyway. ## Transferable points - Limb (ii) is not automatically presumed. Where the appellant supplies no evidence of the housing shortfall, the inspector may find no "evidenced unmet need" (DL ¶7). Contrast the cases where a shortfall is common ground (e.g. PINS-6009966). - A single dwelling may not generate "significant movement" and yet still not be in a sustainable location for (g)(iii) (DL ¶7). - A GB7(1)(b) replacement moved a significant distance, even within the same planning unit, is not a replacement (DL ¶20). - The replacement baseline is the existing physical building. Unimplemented permissions count only as fallback at the VSC stage (DL ¶19). - Inspectors will raise grey belt themselves where the parties haven't (DL ¶2, ¶5). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** field beyond farmhouse curtilage is not PDL but does not perform strongly on (a), (b), (d); grey belt raised by the inspector, not the parties (DL 2, 5) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): fail.** no details given of an evidenced unmet need for housing in the area (DL 7-8) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): fail.** "not in a sustainable location", though one dwelling would not generate significant movement (DL 7) - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** relocated into an open field outside curtilage a significant distance away, so not a replacement; baseline is the physical building, not an unimplemented extension permission (Athlone House) (DL 13-21) - **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** inappropriate; materially greater effect on openness, visual and spatial (DL 10, 21, 41) - **HE4: fail.** no clear and convincing justification for loss of Victorian curtilage-listed stables; heritage statement inadequate (DL 26-30) - **HE5: fail.** inadequate assessment of significance and drawings (DL 27-28, 34) - **HE6: harm (substantial weight).** harm to setting of 14th/15th C Grade II farmhouse; benefits private not public (DL 33-36) - **DP3: harm.** expansive single-storey footprint obtrusive; conflict with DMP DES1 (DL 22-25) ## Key facts - Grade II 14th/15th C timber-framed farmhouse; Victorian stables curtilage listed and in dwelling use - Proposed dwelling sited in an open field across the driveway, outside the farmhouse's residential curtilage - Appellant relied on an expired 2013 permission and an unimplemented 2024 householder permission to inflate the baseline - Neither party raised grey belt; inspector raised it ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6003001 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/851833de-2dcb-405f-a1c1-3b8bfce6eac6 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6003001.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # J Sainsbury, 73 High Street, Chislehurst (rooftop telecoms) - **Decision:** dismissed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Sabu - **Authority:** Bromley (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6003034 - **Application reference:** 25/01478/FULL1 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Rooftop telecoms installation on a supermarket (6 antennas on tripod frames, 4 dishes, 4 cabinets); apparatus to 20.6 m AGL, 5.6 m above the roof - **Site context:** conservation-area, listed-building-setting, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(5), HE6(6), CO1(1)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Bromley Local Plan 2019 Policies 37, 38, 41, 89 - **Main issues:** heritage (CA and Grade II* setting), character and appearance, alternative sites - **Tags:** telecoms, co1-substantial-weight, heritage-harm-decisive, substantial-harm-setting, alternative-sites ## Summary A rooftop mobile installation on the Chislehurst Sainsbury's, replacing lost coverage for EE/Three and the Emergency Services Network. The inspector gave the network benefit substantial weight under CO1. But the inspector found *substantial* harm to the Chislehurst Conservation Area and to the setting of a Grade II* church, and alternatives had not been ruled out. Under HE6(5)/(6) the harm was not justified. Appeal dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Heritage: substantial harm.** "As the equipment would be significantly taller than the roof of the host building and would be visible in close proximity to the Church, the harm to the significance of the CA would be substantial" (DL ¶10). "It would result in substantial harm to the setting of the Church" (DL ¶11). - **CO1: substantial weight to the benefit.** "Framework Policy CO1 states that in considering proposals for the expansion or upgrading of electronic telecommunications networks, substantial weight should be given to the benefits of maintaining or improving network coverage … As the network would serve the ESN and replace a network deficit, I attribute substantial weight to the public benefit" (DL ¶15-16). - **Alternatives / CO2.** The car-park pole prior approval had been discounted, but "details of the design and associated implications … are not before me to discount this site altogether" (DL ¶17). "It has not been demonstrated that there are no alternative sites that would not be within the setting of listed buildings" (DL ¶18). - **CO1(1)(b): FAIL.** "While I note the operation requirements of the proposal, given the proximity of the proposal to the listed building, I find that the proposal would not accord with this part of the Policy" (DL ¶19). ## Planning balance This was the HE6(5)/(6) heritage balance. "As it has not been demonstrated that alternative sites which do not affect the listed building could not yet be found, the substantial weight attributed to the public benefit would not outweigh the substantial harm to the CA and Church. Accordingly, the development would not be wholly exceptional to justify the substantial harm to a Grade II* listed building" (DL ¶22). ## What made the difference The alternatives evidence. Under HE6(5) the harm must be "necessary" to achieve the benefit. An unexplored nearby consented site, plus no search outside listed-building settings, meant necessity was not shown. With a robust sequential site search, the CO1 substantial weight could have been tested against the harm on better terms. The "substantial harm" label for rooftop kit in a setting is itself a strong finding. ## Transferable points - CO1 substantial weight does not override heritage harm where alternatives have not been properly explored. The CO2(1)(b) evidence feeds the HE6(5) "necessary" test (DL ¶17-18, ¶22). - Setting harm from rooftop telecoms can be rated "substantial" where the apparatus is seen close to a Grade II* building (DL ¶10-11). Contrast the usual "less than substantial" findings; the 2026 HE6 drops that label but keeps the substantial-harm tier. - CO1(1)(b) "minimise visual impact" is assessed against heritage context, not just operational need (DL ¶19). ## Policy findings - **HE6(5): fail.** "substantial harm" found to the significance of Chislehurst CA and to the setting of the Grade II* Church of the Annunciation; not necessary to achieve substantial public benefits because alternatives were not excluded (DL ¶10-13, ¶22) - **HE6(6): fail.** substantial harm to a Grade II* asset should be "wholly exceptional"; not shown (DL ¶21-22) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** harm is "a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶21) - **CO1(1): benefit (substantial weight).** replaces a lost rooftop site (network deficit), two operators and the Emergency Services Network (DL ¶14-16) - **CO1(1)(b): fail.** not sited or designed to minimise visual impact given proximity to the listed church (DL ¶19) - **CO2(1)(b): fail.** alternatives not adequately explored, including an unimplemented 17.5 m pole prior approval in the car park and sites outside listed-building settings (DL ¶17-18) - **Policies 37, 38, 41, 89 (Bromley LP 2019): conflict.** design, listed building setting, conservation area, telecoms (DL ¶23) ## Key facts - Earlier coverage from a rooftop at 3 High Street was decommissioned; replacement site agreed as needed (DL ¶14) - Apparatus 20.6 m AGL; mast element 5.6 m above the roof; on the high northern end of a 1970s-style brick supermarket (DL ¶9) - Seen in views with the Grade II* James Brooks church and along the High Street (DL ¶9, ¶11) - Unimplemented prior approval for a 17.5 m pole in the rear car park, discounted by the appellant as not shareable, but details not before the inspector (DL ¶17) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6003034 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/08075490-7230-4935-9aa5-6283c26a9616 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6003034.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land east of Gwel An Syllan, Truthwall Lane, Truthwall (St Just) - **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Butcher - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6003055 - **Application reference:** PA25/04202 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 1-9 dwellings - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, conservation-area, national-landscape, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.8 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), N4(1), S5(1), S4(2)(a)(ii) - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 Policies 1, 2, 3, 12, 23, 24, Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1, St Just in Penwith NP 2021-2030 AH6, AD1, AD8, Chief Planning Officer's Advice Note on Infill/Rounding Off 2017 - **Main issues:** suitability of location, land use and amount for PIP, rounding off, conservation area, National Landscape - **Tags:** PIP, s5-1-j, substantially-outweighed, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, national-landscape, housing-shortfall, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, both-s5-routes-run, s4-or-s5-not-decided ## Summary Permission in principle for 1–9 dwellings on a field opposite a short row of cottages in the very small village of Truthwall, near St Just. The site lies within a conservation area, the Cornwall National Landscape and a World Heritage Site. Dismissed. Nine dwellings would be disproportionate and would not be "rounding off". The scheme would erode the village's transition to countryside, harming the conservation area and the NL. That harm substantially outweighs the moderate benefits, both under S5 and, in the alternative, under S4. The Council's supply was 3.8 years. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "In the interests of fairness, I provided the main parties with an opportunity to provide comments on the new Framework" (DL ¶4). - **PIP scope and amount.** "The proposal before me presents a range in the quantum of proposed homes of between one to nine. I therefore must consider the potential impacts of the upper end of that range" (DL ¶9). Nine dwellings "would inevitably appear as being disproportionate to the size of Truthwall" (DL ¶9). - **Rounding off: FAIL.** "The lane itself, and the Cornish hedgebank on its southern side therefore appear as a logical boundary to the settlement" (DL ¶11). Even with dwellings on two sides, the site "seems to have a much closer visual connection to the surrounding countryside than it does to the village itself" (DL ¶11). - **Conservation area: HE6 HARM.** "the undeveloped nature of the appeal site plays an important role in maintaining the existing highly verdant, bucolic and rural character of the settlement" (DL ¶14). Under HE6(1) the proposal "would result in 'harm'", and under HE6(4) the moderate public benefits "do not outweigh the harm" (DL ¶¶16–17). - **National Landscape: N4(1) CONFLICT.** "it is inevitable in this instance that the described harm would also extend to the scenic beauty of the NL" (DL ¶19). - **WHS: no harm found.** The site's link to a mining smallholding was too uncertain. "the WHS designation is not a moratorium on new development" (DL ¶21). - **S5(1)(j): PASS but outweighed.** "The site is outside of the settlement boundary of Truthwall but is well related to the existing built form. The requirements of Policy S5(j)(i) of the Framework could therefore be said to be met. However … the harm I have identified would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶27). - **S4 in the alternative: FAIL.** "even if it was considered that the appeal site was within the settlement, the appeal would still not succeed … Furthermore, in relation to Policy S4(2)(a)(ii) … the proposal would also have a substantial adverse impact upon the NL" (DL ¶28). - **HO7.** "It is unclear to me whether this is sufficient to trigger Policy HO7. However, even if it was of relevance, and substantial weight was to be afforded … I would still conclude that the harm substantially outweighs the benefits" (DL ¶29). ## Planning balance First the HE6(4) heritage balance, which failed because the benefits were moderate (DL ¶17). Then S5(1), where the harm to the CA and NL "would substantially outweigh" the benefits (DL ¶27), with an alternative S4(1) and S4(2)(a)(ii) route reaching the same answer (DL ¶28). The benefits were up to nine homes, possible affordable units, reasonable public transport and economic activity, "moderate in nature when considered in combination" (DL ¶25). The development plan conflict was not outweighed (DL ¶30). ## What made the difference The site's role as the undeveloped edge giving a small historic village its rural transition. That role counted twice, as conservation-area harm and as NL harm, with statutory and N4 substantial weight on both. The PIP format also hurt the appellant: a 1–9 range is judged at nine, and nine was out of scale for the village. A PIP for one or two dwellings might have fared better on "amount", but the heritage and NL objection to any built form on the site would probably remain. ## Transferable points - For a PIP with a unit range, the inspector judges the upper end of the range (DL ¶9). - A site "well related to the existing built form" can meet S5(1)(j)(i) and still fail the S5 "substantially outweighed" balance on conservation area and NL harm (DL ¶27). - Where it is unclear whether a site is inside or outside a settlement, inspectors run S4 and S5 in the alternative. S4(2)(a)(ii) (substantial adverse impact on a Protected Landscape) is a ready route to refusal inside a settlement (DL ¶28). - A lane plus a hedgebank can form the "logical boundary" of a small settlement, so development on the far side is an incursion into the countryside (DL ¶¶10–11). - The inspector doubted whether HO7 substantial weight is triggered by a modest market and possible-affordable scheme without evidenced need (DL ¶29). - WHS objections need specific evidence of the site's contribution to OUV. Vague records will not do (DL ¶¶20–21). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): harm (substantial weight).** less-than-substantial ("harm" under HE6(1)) to Botallack and Truthwall CA - loss of village-to-countryside transition; moderate public benefits do not outweigh (DL 14-17) - **N4(1): conflict (substantial weight).** Cornwall NL; CA harm "would also extend to the scenic beauty of the NL"; LURA 2023 duty to further purposes (DL 18-19) - **World Heritage Site: neutral.** Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape WHS (St Just district) - smallholding link too uncertain to find harm to OUV (DL 20-21) - **S5(1)(j)(i): pass.** outside settlement boundary but well-related to built form; 3.8-yr supply - "could therefore be said to be met" (DL 26-27) - **S5(1): fail.** harm to CA and NL "would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL 27) - **S4(1): fail.** alternative finding - even if within the settlement, harm substantially outweighs benefits (DL 28) - **S4(2)(a)(ii): fail.** alternative finding - substantial adverse impact on the NL (N4) (DL 28) - **HO7: benefit.** inspector unsure HO7 is triggered; even with substantial weight the outcome is the same (DL 29) - **L3: neutral.** harm means no efficient use of land - "Given the identified harm, I do not find that the proposal would result in an efficient use of land" (DL 25) - **CLP Policy 3 (rounding off): conflict.** 9 dwellings disproportionate to very small village; lane and Cornish hedge form logical boundary; not rounding off (DL 8-12) ## Key facts - PIP for 1-9 dwellings; inspector assessed the upper end of the range (9) - Truthwall is a very small village - crossroads nucleus plus short linear ribbon - Site opposite a row of cottages on the south side of Truthwall Lane; hedges to south and east - Within Botallack and Truthwall Conservation Area, Cornwall National Landscape and the St Just Mining District WHS - Council supply 3.8 years with no prospect of short-term improvement - Area "relatively well served by public transport" - Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6003055 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/99b60c4d-fcc4-440b-ba62-052ebd79b668 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6003055.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Turnpike Lane near Green Lanes junction, Haringey (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** dismissed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Jones - **Authority:** Haringey (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6003086 - **Application reference:** HGY/2025/2365 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub 3 unit (about 3 m high, 1.2 m wide) with two 75-inch digital advertising screens (linked advertisement appeal 6003076, ref HGY/2025/2426) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, near-station - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3, S4(2)(c), S3 - **Development plan policies:** Haringey Local Plan Strategic Policies 2013 SP11, Haringey DM DPD DM1, DM2, DM3, London Plan 2021 D3, D8, T4 - **Main issues:** character and appearance / visual amenity, highway safety - **Tags:** telecoms, street-hub, co1-substantial-weight, dp3-refuse-trigger, s4-2-c, substantially-outweighed, design-refusal ## Summary A BT Street Hub with two 75-inch digital screens at a busy junction by Turnpike Lane station. Both the planning and advertisement appeals were dismissed for visual clutter and proliferation, despite no highway harm. The decision is useful for its S3/S4 reasoning. The inspector treated DP3 as one of the national decision-making policies that say proposals "should be refused", so S4(2)(c) applied. That meant the adverse effects "substantially outweighed" even benefits given substantial weight under CO1. ## Issues and findings - **Character: harm.** "The proposed street hub unit and the associated advertisements would introduce additional street clutter and visually prominent features into the street scene which would be unsympathetic and which would harm visual amenity" (DL ¶11). The existing digital unit 6.2 m away means "a proliferation of such units in the area" (DL ¶10). - **DP3: conflict.** "The Appeal A and Appeal B proposals would not respond, integrate with or enhance their surroundings. They would not result in visually attractive, distinctive and characterful development … the proposals conflict with Policy DP3 of the Framework" (DL ¶15). - **Highway: acceptable.** A clear pavement of 5.8 m remained, and TR4 and TR6 were complied with (DL ¶16-23). - **CO1.** "Given the scale and nature of the development these would be quite modest, nevertheless, having regard to Policy CO1 of the Framework these benefits are of substantial weight" (DL ¶30). ## Planning balance The S3/S4 presumption was run for both the planning and the advertisement appeals. "Policy S4 sets out a non-exhaustive list of situations when the benefits of approving development are likely to be substantially outweighed by adverse effects. This includes a failure to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances" (DL ¶29). "As they would harm the character and appearance of the area and visual amenity, I have found that the street hub and the advertisements conflict with Policy DP3 of the Framework. Therefore … each fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that proposals should be refused in specific circumstances" (DL ¶32). "Having regard to Policy S4 of the Framework, I conclude that the adverse effects of both appeal proposals substantially outweigh their respective benefits" (DL ¶33). ## What made the difference Proliferation: an existing digital unit only 6.2 m away. The S4 route then made a DP3 design conflict close to decisive, because a DP3(3) conflict "without clear justification" triggers S4(2)(c). Compare Mile End Road (PINS-6012153), where no visual harm was found, and Denmark Hill (6010838, not written up), where there were "no adverse effects" and S4 favoured approval. ## Transferable points - DP3(3) ("should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict…") is treated as a "should be refused" national decision-making policy for S4(2)(c). A design conflict therefore makes it "likely" that adverse effects substantially outweigh benefits (DL ¶29, ¶32-33). - CO1 substantial weight applies even to "quite modest" hub benefits, but is not enough against a DP3 conflict (DL ¶30, ¶33). - The S3/S4 presumption was applied to an advertisement appeal as well as the planning appeal (DL ¶29, ¶33). This is arguably beyond the Advertisement Regulations' amenity and public safety scope. Note it with care. - Removal of legacy kiosks is not a benefit unless it is secured (DL ¶12). ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail.** bulky, prominent unit with intrusive digital screens 6.2 m from an existing digital advertising unit, a proliferation of clutter; would not "respond, integrate with or enhance" surroundings (DL ¶9-15) - **S4(2)(c): fail.** DP3 treated as a national decision-making policy that says proposals "should be refused", so the S4(2)(c) circumstance applies (DL ¶29, ¶32) - **S4(1): fail.** adverse effects "substantially outweigh" the benefits, for both the planning and advertisement appeals (DL ¶33) - **CO1(1): benefit (substantial weight).** benefits "quite modest" given scale and nature, "nevertheless, having regard to Policy CO1 … of substantial weight" (DL ¶30) - **TR4: pass.** 5.8 m clear pavement; 2.8 m from the crossing (DL ¶16-18, ¶23) - **TR6(4): pass.** no driver distraction at a signalised junction; conditions could bar moving images (DL ¶19-23) ## Key facts - Unit about 3 m high and over 1.2 m wide; screens about 1.6 m x 1 m (DL ¶9) - 6.2 m from an existing pavement digital advertising unit; another digital unit across the junction (DL ¶10) - Removal of legacy kiosks not secured by any mechanism, one already gone (DL ¶12) - Parties' consultation on the 2026 Framework not recorded; the inspector "had regard to" it (DL ¶5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6003086 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6e261091-abea-45fb-9e77-83fbfb48dfc6 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6003086.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Flat 4, 99 Kennington Park Road, Southwark - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Catcheside - **Authority:** Southwark (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6003226 - **Application reference:** 25/AP/1749 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective listed building consent for internal alterations to an upper-floor flat in a Grade II Georgian terrace (widened openings with sliding doors, blocked doorway, removal of two chimney breasts) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(3), HE6(4), HE4(2) - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 HC1, Southwark Plan 2022 P19, Southwark Historic Environment Heritage SPD 2021 - **Main issues:** special interest of Grade II listed terrace - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, private-benefit-not-public, energy-efficiency, public-benefits-unevidenced, retrospective, listed-building-consent, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary Retrospective listed building consent for opening up the rooms of an upper-floor flat in a Grade II late-18th-century terrace in Kennington, including removing the last two chimney breasts and most of the spine wall. The inspector found that the works had eroded the cellular plan form and caused a high degree of harm to the listed building's significance. The claimed structural and energy benefits were unevidenced, and the layout gains were private. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The parties were invited to comment on the revised Framework, and I have taken account of the comments received." (DL ¶6). - **Effect.** The new and extended openings, and the loss of the historic doorways, "have significantly eroded the traditional cellular plan form of the building" (DL ¶17). Because the building was not shown to be unsound, "the works have not been carried out in a way that has sought to avoid or minimise harm" (DL ¶19). - **Degree of harm (HE5(2)(c)).** "In my judgement and utilising the terminology of the 2026 version of the Framework, the works have resulted in harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset. Given the cumulative effect of the appeal scheme works, the degree of that harm would be high." (DL ¶22). - **HE6(1)/(3) and HE4(2).** Substantial weight to conservation; the harm "is a matter of considerable importance and weight in my decision." (DL ¶24). - **Public benefits, HE6(4): FAIL.** "Any works that were necessary to preserve the building would amount to heritage and public benefits." (DL ¶26), but none were shown to be necessary. On energy: "It is feasible that the works could have improved the energy efficiency of the building, which would amount to an important public benefit." (DL ¶27), yet "any energy efficiency improvements that have occurred do not provide clear and convincing justification for the harm that has been caused" (DL ¶27). The layout, light and circulation gains are "private rather than public benefits" (DL ¶28). - **Conservation area.** "Because no external alterations have occurred as part of the appeal works, the character and appearance of the CA is preserved." (DL ¶23). ## Planning balance HE6(4): "the public benefits in this case are not sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight that I ascribe to the heritage harm I have identified" (DL ¶29). ## What made the difference The absence of any record of the flat before the works, and of any structural or energy evidence. Energy efficiency was accepted in principle as "an important public benefit", but it could not be credited without figures showing the gains and how they were achieved, or without showing that a less harmful route was unavailable. ## Transferable points - The inspector expressly replaced the appellant's "less-than-substantial" label with the 2026 method: identify harm, then grade its degree (here, high) (DL ¶22). - Energy efficiency is an important HE6(4) public benefit, but only if evidenced, and it does not justify harm if less harmful ways of achieving it exist (DL ¶27). - Works necessary to preserve a building can be public and heritage benefits; the claim fails without evidence of prior disrepair or structural need (DL ¶26). - Previous internal alterations do not lessen the importance of the surviving plan-form elements (DL ¶11-12, 18, 21). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation; harm to significance of Grade II terrace (loss of cellular plan form, spine wall and last chimney breasts); degree of harm graded high (DL 17-18, 22, 24) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** harm a matter of considerable importance and weight (DL 24, 29) - **HE4(2): fail.** no clear and convincing justification; structural necessity and energy gains unevidenced; less harmful alternatives possible (DL 19, 24, 26-27) - **HE6(4): fail.** claimed investment/stability benefit unevidenced; energy efficiency would be an important public benefit but not demonstrated; layout gains private (DL 26-29) - **HE9: pass.** no external alterations so Kennington Park Road CA preserved (DL 23) ## Key facts - Works already carried out; no photographs, method statements or condition records of the flat before the works (DL 3, 20, 26) - Removed spine wall and chimney breasts replaced by prominent beams; no evidence building was structurally unsound beforehand (DL 19) - Appellant argued harm was less-than-substantial and minor; inspector reframed in 2026 terminology and graded the harm high (DL 22) - External door and Juliet balcony shown on plans are subject of separate appeals and not considered (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6003226 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fe0d5731-5490-4895-a2c8-a8b909b0a1d6 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6003226.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land North of Lubstree Barns, Donnington, Telford (Class Q) - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Brennan - **Authority:** Telford and Wrekin (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6003286 - **Application reference:** TWC/2025/0346 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class Q (pre-May 2024 version) prior approval for conversion of two steel-framed agricultural barns to 5 dwellings - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Class Q(b), GPDO Q.1(i) - **Main issues:** conversion or rebuild - **Tags:** tier-2, prior-approval, class-q, hibbitt-rebuild, no-framework-cited ## Summary Class Q prior approval for five dwellings in two barns was refused. The inspector accepted agricultural use but found the works amounted to a rebuild rather than a conversion (DL 20-22). The Framework played no part. ## What made the difference The proposal relied on new independent timber structures inside stripped frames, with unknown foundation works, which put it on the Hibbitt side of the conversion/rebuild line. ## Policy findings - **GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Class Q(b): fail.** barns stripped to skeletal frames with independent self-supporting timber frames inside; a rebuild on Hibbitt principles (DL 16-22) - **GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Class Q(a): pass.** barns were in agricultural use as part of an established unit on 20 March 2013 (DL 23-26) ## Key facts - Dwellings to be built as self-supporting timber structures inside the reclad steel frames; no foundation assessment (DL 12-18, 21) - Application under the Class Q wording in force before 21 May 2024 (transitional SI 2024/579) (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6003286 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/561394e1-de9d-4265-a6c5-b911784c31d7 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6003286.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Robinia, 18 Blyth Hall, Blyth - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Moore - **Authority:** Bassetlaw (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6003318 - **Application reference:** 25/00800/HSE - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Appeal A: two-storey front porch and first-floor side extensions to a modern house; Appeal B (6003486, 25/00871/HSE): appeal against materials/design conditions on an approved outbuilding - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE4(2) - **Development plan policies:** Bassetlaw Local Plan 2024 ST33, ST40, ST41, Blyth CAAMP 2012 - **Main issues:** setting of listed church, setting of conservation area, character and appearance, conditions - **Tags:** transitional, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, less-than-substantial-legacy-wording, conservation-area, householder, setting-harm, disputed-conditions, old-framework-applied-silently ## Summary Householder extensions to a modern house on the former grounds of Blyth Hall, just outside the Blyth Conservation Area and in the immediate setting of a Grade I priory church. There was also a conditions appeal on an approved outbuilding. Both were dismissed. The two-storey glazed front porch would intrude into the view of the church from the street entrance, causing less than substantial harm that minor construction benefits could not outweigh. The disputed materials conditions were necessary to protect the heritage settings. ## Issues and findings - **Framework version.** The letter is dated 17 August 2026, the day the new Framework took effect, but it applies the December 2024 Framework (paras 208, 212, 213, 215) without comment. It is recorded as transitional. - **Setting of a conservation area.** "This duty [s72] is exercised in relation to any building or other land in a CA, and not in relation to its setting. However, paragraph 213 ... establishes the need to consider any negative impact of development within the setting of a CA" (DL ¶6). - **Setting of the listed church.** "the volume and mass of the front extension would intrude into the left-hand side of the frame of view within which the listed Church is seen at the entrance to the street ... The extensive glazing ... would draw attention to this part of the proposal, detracting from views of the listed Church" (DL ¶22). - **Harm grading.** "I find the harm to be less than substantial in this instance but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶31). - **Balance.** "Such limited public benefits would not outweigh the harm that I have found, to which I am required to attach great weight" (DL ¶32). - **Conditions (Appeal B).** "Even small details could draw the eye and detract from their settings" (DL ¶34). Conditions 3 to 6 were retained. ## Planning balance Heritage balance under NPPF 2024 para 215 (now HE6(4)). The only benefits were temporary construction benefits. ## What made the difference A specific, identifiable view of the Grade I church from the public street entrance. The side extension, which stayed within the existing depth and height, caused no harm (DL ¶23). Larger neighbouring houses on the other side of the street did not help, because they do not interrupt the church view (DL ¶26). ## Transferable points - Setting harm to a conservation area is assessed through the Framework, not s72 (DL ¶6). HE4(2) and HE6 do the same job under the 2026 Framework. - A transient, kinetic view still counts: the effect was "limited in duration" but still failed to preserve the immediate setting (DL ¶24). - Materials conditions on outbuildings in a heritage setting are justified where the plans do not define the final appearance clearly (DL ¶36). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): harm (great weight).** decided under NPPF 2024 paras 208, 212, 213, 215 (= HE4(1)(b), HE6(1), HE4(2), HE6(4)); "less than substantial ... but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight"; "great weight" to conservation; s66 and s72 cited; front extension intrudes into the frame of view of the Grade I Blyth Priory Church from the street entrance (DL 22-24, 31) - **HE6(4): benefit (limited weight).** only temporary construction jobs; no specific public benefits advanced (DL 32) - **HE4(2): fail.** setting harm needs clear and convincing justification; used to bring CA setting into play because s72 does not apply to setting (DL 6); mapped from NPPF 2024 para 213 - **DM6: pass.** Appeal B: disputed materials, eaves/verge and no-tile-vent conditions are reasonable and necessary to protect settings (DL 34-39); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Only the boundary wall of the plot is inside the conservation area; the house and extensions are outside it, in its immediate setting (DL 5) - Grade I church (list entry 1239182) seen from the street entrance; extension would obscure part of its roofscape and elevation (DL 22) - Dated 17 August 2026 but cites NPPF 2024 paragraph numbers throughout with no mention of the new Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6003318 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e7ba6493-5a9d-4a5f-8f97-8427b91897e4 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6003318.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Blackett Street (outside No 42), Newcastle upon Tyne - **Decision:** allowed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Dowsett - **Authority:** Newcastle upon Tyne (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6003400 - **Application reference:** 2025/1512/01/DET - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Replacement of an InLink unit with a BT Street Hub 3 with two 75-inch digital advertising screens (linked advert appeal 6003398) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** HE5(2)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and Newcastle 2015 UC12, UC14, CS15, Newcastle Development and Allocations Plan 2020 DM16, DM20 - **Main issues:** heritage setting, character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, street-hub, telecoms, advertisement, fallback, heritage-no-harm ## Summary A slightly larger BT Street Hub was allowed to replace an existing InLink unit on a busy Newcastle city-centre footway beside the Central Conservation Area and within the setting of the Grade I Earl Grey Monument. The Inspector found "a neutral effect" on the settings of the listed buildings and on the conservation area (DL ¶¶24–25). The letter, dated 17 Aug, cites the Framework only for the definition of setting and does not say which version. ## What made the difference There had been a like-for-like advertising structure on the spot for 10 or more years. The views affected were fleeting, and the Council had no evidence of how its significance was harmed: "change does not necessarily equate to harm" (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **HE5(2)(b): neutral.** neutral effect on setting of Grade I Earl Grey Monument, Grade II Parsons' Polygon, Eldon Buildings and Central CA; like-for-like replacement, Council gave no evidence of harm (DL 21-25) - **DP3: pass.** busy city-centre street already cluttered with black street furniture (DL 26) ## Key facts - Replacement unit 286 mm wider, 70 mm deeper and 90 mm taller than the existing InLink - Advertising structure on the site for at least 10 years; Council's conservation officer said the impact would be unchanged ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7fe13b0f-0bdc-4c84-b9a9-4d2da6e965e0 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6003400 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6003400.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Robinia, 18 Blyth Hall, Blyth (disputed conditions on outbuilding) - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Moore - **Authority:** Bassetlaw (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6003486 - **Application reference:** 25/00871/HSE - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Appeal B: appeal against conditions 3-6 (joinery, materials, roof ventilation, verges and eaves) on permission for a detached garage, store and golf simulation room; linked Appeal A (6003318) against refusal of extensions to the dwelling - **Site context:** conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** DM6 - **Development plan policies:** Bassetlaw Local Plan 2024 ST33, ST40, ST41 - **Main issues:** heritage setting, conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, transitional, conditions-appeal, heritage-setting ## Summary Conditions controlling the joinery, materials, roof ventilation and eaves of an approved outbuilding next to Blyth Conservation Area and a listed church were upheld as reasonable and necessary. The linked Appeal A against refusal of extensions was also dismissed on heritage harm. The letter is dated 17 Aug 2026 and applies the 2024 Framework paragraphs. ## What made the difference The outbuilding would be visible in views towards the listed church, and the approved plans did not define its final appearance. Detailing controls were therefore justified (DL 34-36). ## Policy findings - **DM6: pass.** disputed conditions reasonable and necessary to avoid or minimise harm to the settings of Blyth CA and the listed church (DL 34-39) - **HE6(4): harm (great weight).** Appeal A: less than substantial harm to settings of CA and listed church; applied as 2024 paras 212, 213 and 215 ('great weight') (DL 31-33) ## Key facts - Decision dated 17 Aug 2026 but applies the 2024 Framework (paras 212, 213, 215; Chapters 12 and 16) (DL 31-33, 40) - Only part of the site (boundary wall and entrance) is within the Blyth Conservation Area (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6003486 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/277b8214-8893-4d60-ac2e-d923dd102bb6 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6003486.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # High Kays Lea Farm, Hamsterley - **Decision:** allowed, 20 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Lancaster - **Authority:** County Durham (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6003496 - **Application reference:** DM/25/02546/FPA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of grazing paddock to private all-weather horse arena (50m x 30m, post-and-rail fence, no lighting) - **Site context:** open-countryside, valued-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** County Durham Plan 2020 Policies 10, 13 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, rural landscape - **Tags:** tier-2, equestrian, transitional-no-consultation, landscape-harm-rejected ## Summary A private horse arena in a paddock at a Durham farmstead, in a locally designated Area of Higher Landscape Value. Allowed. The arena would sit against existing field boundaries, in a lower-lying position behind a tree belt. Its change would be "modest and localised", so it complied with local equestrian policy 13 (DL ¶18). The letter decides the appeal entirely under the local plan and applies no Framework policy. ## What made the difference Siting that makes use of existing boundaries and landform, and no lighting or buildings. The council's concern that the arena was too large for personal use carried no weight without evidence (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **County Durham Plan Policy 13(c)-(d): accord.** sited against existing boundaries, low-lying, tree belt reinforced; change "modest and localised" in the Area of Higher Landscape Value (DL 11-18) - **HE7: neutral.** farmhouse is a NDHA; no harm because of separation and level difference (DL 17); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Arena 5.5m below the farmhouse, screened by a mature tree belt; close-range views only from a short stretch of PROW 13 - Local AHLV designation; no lighting - Parties not re-consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6003496 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/66f42c20-3a0c-49eb-b630-1daa8507604f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6003496.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land opposite 17 Harper Royd Lane, Sowerby Bridge (stable block) - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Chris Mayes - **Authority:** Calderdale (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6003507 - **Application reference:** 25/01008/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Private stable block with fodder store and tack room, hardstanding and engineering works - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, valued-landscape - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(f)(iv), GB2(c), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Calderdale Local Plan 2023 GB1, GN4 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, Green Belt purposes, landscape character, VSC - **Tags:** outdoor-recreation-f-limb, equestrian, encroachment-purpose-c, openness-harm, vsc-not-shown, landscape-harm, old-wording-slip ## Summary A private stable on an open valley side in the Calderdale Green Belt. The appeal was dismissed. The stable was an outdoor recreation facility and was designed to minimise its effect on openness, but it failed GB7(1)(f) because a new isolated building on open land conflicts with Green Belt purpose (c), countryside encroachment. There was also landscape harm, and the limited private benefits did not amount to VSC. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The appeal was decided under the 2026 Framework. The parties had addressed Green Belt matters, so there was no prejudice (DL ¶2). - **GB7(1)(f)(iv) facility for outdoor recreation: YES.** "The keeping and riding of horses for private recreational purposes can be treated as outdoor recreation" (DL ¶6). - **But GB7(1)(f) not met.** "Policy GB7(1)(f) is not satisfied merely because a building is connected with outdoor recreation. The relevant exception applies only where the development minimises its impact on the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it" (DL ¶7). **Caution: this is the 2024 wording.** The August 2026 GB7(1)(f) reads "there would not be a *significant* conflict with the Green Belt purposes". The inspector did not ask whether the purpose (c) conflict was significant. Openness impact was minimised (DL ¶10). However, "the proposal would introduce a new isolated building into that setting. As such, it would conflict with the purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment" (DL ¶11). Result: inappropriate (DL ¶12). - **Openness.** The stable would cause spatial and visual harm (DL ¶8-9). - **Landscape.** Harm to the Special Landscape Area: "The issue is not solely whether the building would appear incongruous, but whether its introduction would conserve or enhance the landscape character" (DL ¶16). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Limited weight each went to stabling (a private benefit), replacement of stabling that the extant house permission would remove, biodiversity, and local support (DL ¶18-21). Highways, drainage and amenity were neutral (DL ¶22). These did not clearly outweigh the substantial Green Belt harm plus landscape harm (DL ¶24). ## What made the difference The inspector read the purposes limb of GB7(1)(f) strictly, as "does not conflict", which is the 2024 wording. The 2026 text requires only that there be no *significant* conflict, and the letter does not engage with that change. It is therefore vulnerable, and weak authority on this point. Any new free-standing building on open land was held to be encroachment under purpose (c), even though the openness impact had been minimised. Siting next to the existing stable and manège, on already developed ground, would probably have avoided the purpose (c) conflict. ## Transferable points - Private horse-keeping counts as outdoor recreation for GB7(1)(f)(iv) (DL ¶6). - GB7(1)(f) has two separate hurdles. Minimising the impact on openness is not enough if the building conflicts with a GB2 purpose (DL ¶7, ¶10-12). But the 2026 text asks about *significant* conflict, which this letter did not apply. Contrast Stonards Hill (PINS-6008989), where the inspector quoted the 2026 "significant conflict" wording. - A new isolated building on undeveloped countryside conflicts with purpose (c), and nearby similar buildings do not change that (DL ¶11). - Mainly private benefits attract no more than limited weight in a VSC balance (DL ¶18). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(f)(iv): fail.** private stable is an outdoor recreation facility and "seeks to minimise" openness impact, but conflicts with purpose (c) encroachment → exception not met; inspector applied 2024 "does not conflict" wording, not 2026 "significant conflict" (DL 6-12) - **GB2(c): conflict.** new isolated building on undeveloped valley side = encroachment; other stables nearby do not alter that (DL 11) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** spatial and visual harm to openness from new building, hardstanding and engineering works (DL 8-9, 23) - **LP GN4: conflict.** harm to Ringstone Edge and Norland Moor Fringes Special Landscape Area (DL 13-17) ## Key facts - Stable sited on an undeveloped part of the holding next to the lane, apart from the existing stable and manège - Set below road level, dark timber, low roof, but visible from the lane and across the valley - The extant permission to replace the existing stable with a dwelling would remove the current stabling. That fallback need got only limited weight - Local support from neighbours got limited weight ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6003507 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/acd5256c-a9cf-4b45-9474-4db04720cfe8 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6003507.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Marina Court, 34 Banks Road, Sandbanks, Poole - **Decision:** allowed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Reeves - **Authority:** Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6003539 - **Application reference:** P/25/03296/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of garage to form access and erection of a detached bungalow on backland plot (non-determination) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** F5, CC3, P3 - **Development plan policies:** Poole Local Plan 2018 PP27, PP28, PP37, PP38, PP32, PP39, Sandbanks Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan 2023 SAND5 - **Main issues:** character, living conditions, flood risk, habitats - **Tags:** tier-2, flood-risk, backland, non-determination, habitats-mitigation, small-scheme ## Summary A backland bungalow at Sandbanks was allowed despite the Council's concern that the whole peninsula could be cut off by rising tides. The dwelling and its access lie outside the modelled future flood extent, and "the peninsula-isolation scenario is not a mapped constraint" (DL ¶21). Character and living conditions were acceptable. ## What made the difference The Council's own mapping put neither the dwelling nor its access in a future flood zone. It was distinguished from an earlier Banks Road appeal where both the building and its escape route were inside the modelled extent (DL ¶24). F5 and CC3 are paraphrased loosely as requiring safe access "for the lifetime of the development" (DL ¶22). ## Policy findings - **F5: pass.** dwelling and access outside modelled future flood extent; the Council's concern that the whole peninsula could be cut off is "not a mapped constraint" (DL 17-25) - **CC3: pass.** read with F5 for climate-change future flood conditions (DL 22) - **P3: pass.** daylight modelling unchallenged by technical evidence; garden adequate (DL 11-16) - **DP3: pass.** enclosed backland pocket in a varied townscape (DL 5-10) ## Key facts - Only a strip at the rear of the garden falls in modelled future flood area; Banks Road access could flood by ~200 mm at MHWS by 2125 - SAMM contributions for Dorset Heathlands and Poole Harbour secured by unilateral undertaking ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4681e473-ed40-46b8-a519-b70aa733f9de - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6003539 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6003539.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Crockmore Cottage, Fawley (200 kW ground-mounted solar) - **Decision:** allowed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Plenty - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6003569 - **Application reference:** 24/07796/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Ground-mounted solar array, 200 kW (12 rows of panels) in the upper half of a small field in the grounds of a cottage, Chilterns National Landscape - **Site context:** national-landscape, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** W3, N4(1), S5(1)(a) - **Development plan policies:** Wycombe District Local Plan 2019 DM30, DM33, DM44, Chilterns AONB Management Plan 2019-2024 - **Main issues:** landscape and visual effect on National Landscape - **Tags:** renewable-energy, national-landscape, landscape-harm, s38-6-material-considerations, drafting-slip ## Summary A 200 kW ground-mounted solar array on part of a small field at a cottage in the Chilterns National Landscape. Buckinghamshire refused it on landscape grounds and ecology; the ecology reason fell away at appeal. The inspector found modest, localised landscape harm, a "minor adverse" effect on the NL and negligible visual effects. Conflict with the development plan and the statutory "further the purpose" duty was outweighed by the renewable-energy benefits. Appeal allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Policy context: W3.** The inspector summarised W3: "substantial weight should be given to the benefits of improving energy security … It also states that planning authorities should not require a developer to demonstrate a need for low carbon or renewable energy development … substantial weight should be given to the contribution that small-scale community-led renewable projects can make" (DL ¶10). The policy context "provides compelling evidence for the need for solar schemes, such as proposed, and conveys significant weight in favour of the proposal" (DL ¶12). - **Protected Landscape: N4(1). Modest harm.** "The Framework identifies that development within Protected Landscapes … requires substantial weight to be afforded to conserving and enhancing their natural beauty. It requires development to be limited in scale and extent, be sensitively located … Main parties agree that the scheme is not major development" (DL ¶17). The effect on the NL would be "minor adverse, causing only modest landscape harm" (DL ¶19). Views from outside the site "would be negligible" (DL ¶21). - **Statutory duty.** The scheme "would also fail to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB, in conflict with Section 85 of the CRoW Act, due to the identification of modest landscape harm" (DL ¶22). - **Principle: S5(1)(a).** "The Framework recognises at policy S5(1), that only certain forms of development should be approved outside settlements, including at (a) infrastructure projects for energy, supporting the principle of the scheme" (DL ¶24). ## Planning balance This was a s38(6) balance. The scheme conflicted with LP DM30 and DM44 and with the development plan as a whole (DL ¶23). On the harm side: localised, "(at most) moderate" landscape harm, a minor adverse NL effect, and inconsistency with the statutory purpose. On the benefit side: "extensive environmental, social and economic benefits" (DL ¶26). The harm, the plan conflict and the statutory inconsistency "are outweighed by the scheme's substantial benefits" (DL ¶26). ## What made the difference Screening and scale. Thick, year-round boundary vegetation kept the visual effect negligible, and 200 kW in a corner of one field was tiny against the whole NL. That kept the case in N4(1), weighing the modest harm, rather than N4(2), where major development is refused save exceptional circumstances. A larger or more open scheme treated as "major" would have faced the N4(2) presumption. ## Transferable points - Even where a scheme fails to "further" the NL purpose (CRoW s85 as amended by LURA s245), permission can still be granted if the harm is outweighed (DL ¶22, ¶26). The duty is not treated as a veto. - Small solar is supported in principle outside settlements under S5(1)(a) (DL ¶24). - Winter photographs showing that hedge screening persists can defeat a council's "temporary screening" argument (DL ¶18, ¶20). - **Drafting slips.** ¶10 paraphrases W3(1)(a) as including "electricity network infrastructure" and W3(1)(c) as "small-scale community-led", whereas the policy says "small-scale and community-led". ¶29 speaks of "great weight" and "conservation of designated heritage assets", though no heritage issue is discussed. It looks like carried-over template text. Quote with care. ## Policy findings - **W3(1): benefit (substantial weight).** renewable benefits "extensive environmental, social and economic"; DL ¶10 paraphrases W3 and ¶12 gives the local and national policy context "significant weight"; ¶26 calls the benefits "substantial" - **W3(2): benefit.** no requirement to demonstrate need, noted in DL ¶10 - **N4(1): harm (substantial weight).** not major development (agreed); modest landscape harm, "minor adverse" effect on the NL, negligible visual effects; substantial weight to conserving natural beauty (DL ¶17-24) - **N4(2): not-engaged.** parties agreed the scheme is not major development (DL ¶17) - **S5(1)(a): pass.** energy infrastructure is a listed form of development outside settlements, "supporting the principle of the scheme" (DL ¶24) - **CC2: benefit.** cited with W2 as seeking substantial weight for renewables (DL ¶25) - **DM44 (Wycombe LP countryside): conflict.** meets none of criteria a)-i); council accepted benefits could outweigh (DL ¶13) - **DM30 (Wycombe LP AONB): conflict.** modest conflict; also fails to further NL purpose under CRoW Act s85 as amended by LURA s245 (DL ¶22) ## Key facts - 200 kW, about 203 MWh/yr, "powering up to 70 homes"; existing three-phase low-voltage grid connection within the property (DL ¶7) - Site within the Chilterns National Landscape; parties agreed it is not major development (DL ¶17) - Dense tree and hedge screen, robust even in winter; views from the lane "barely perceptible"; views from the South Oxfordshire Way negligible (DL ¶18-21) - EN-1 and EN-3 given moderate weight for a sub-NSIP scheme (DL ¶7) - Council withdrew its ecology/BNG reason after a PEA and small sites metric were submitted (DL ¶3-4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6003569 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f6441340-bbd0-4559-bc2a-7405b1429523 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6003569.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Barn, Bull Lane, Tiptree - **Decision:** allowed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Housden - **Authority:** Colchester (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6003588 - **Application reference:** 251039 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** One custom and self-build dwelling on a paddock with a dilapidated stable - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** development-plan-only - **Development plan policies:** North Essex Authorities Shared Strategic Section 1 Plan 2021 SP2, SP3, SP6, SP7, Colchester Local Plan Section 2 2022 SG1, OV2, ENV1, DM15, Tiptree Neighbourhood Plan 2023 TIP01, TIP02, Essex Coast RAMS SPD 2020 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, location outside settlement boundary, accessibility, infrastructure contributions - **Tags:** transitional, transitional-no-consultation, old-framework-para-cited, self-build, small-scheme, previous-appeal-consistency, changed-circumstances, unmade-lane-accessible, contributions-reg122-fail, habitats-mitigation, pd-rights-condition-refused, s5-not-considered ## Summary One self-build dwelling on a triangular paddock beyond Tiptree's settlement boundary on an unmade lane. An earlier two-dwelling scheme had been dismissed on character and car-dependence grounds. This appeal was allowed, in accordance with the development plan. One house in a large plot suited the low-density settlement edge, and the lane was now in much better condition, so walking and cycling to Tiptree's services within 1 km was realistic. The decision is dated 17 August 2026, the day the new Framework was published. It cites 2024 Framework paragraph numbers and never engages with S5. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The letter does not mention the new Framework. It refers to "paragraph 58 of the Framework" (DL ¶36) and "Paragraph 55 of the Framework" (DL ¶43). The 2026 Framework has no paragraph numbers, so these are 2024 NPPF paras 58 (obligation tests) and 55 (conditions restricting PD rights), now DM6 and DM6(2)(c). S5 is not considered, although the site is outside the settlement boundary. - **Character: ACCORD.** "the area is influenced by existing built form rather than being an undeveloped rural environment. The development for a single dwelling would be set within a large plot which would be in keeping with the low-density pattern of development" (DL ¶8). The previous inspector's "conspicuous domestic cluster" concern was overcome by "reducing the overall density, massing and bulk" (DL ¶10). - **Location: ACCORD.** Countryside policy OV2 allows housing that respects landscape and built character, so with no harm found, SG1, TIP01 and SP3 were all complied with (DL ¶13-16). Coalescence with Tiptree Heath was avoided because the site is "broadly surrounded by existing built form" (DL ¶15). - **Accessibility: ACCORD.** "on my visit I observed Bull Lane to be in a materially different condition … a consistent and even surface finished with compacted stones … easily navigable by foot or cycle" (DL ¶18). "Whilst the section of Bull Lane outside the settlement boundary is unlit, given the improved condition of the surface compared to the previous appeal, low volume of traffic, close proximity to the bus stop and Tiptree itself, overall it would be comfortable, convenient and perceived as safe" (DL ¶20). - **Contributions: FAIL Reg 122.** "I have very limited evidence before me to justify these infrastructure contributions … no evidence of how these existing facilities cannot meet the additional demands" (DL ¶24). The blue-pencil clauses were given "no effect and carry no weight" (DL ¶26). - **PD rights.** The blanket removal of Classes A–E was refused because "There is no clear justification to remove such rights" (DL ¶43). ## Planning balance No tilted or S5 balance. Plan-led under s38(6): "The proposed development is in accordance with the development plan and there are no material considerations that indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it" (DL ¶45). ## What made the difference Two changes since the previous dismissal: one dwelling instead of two, and a resurfaced lane. The site-visit evidence on the lane directly displaced the earlier car-reliance finding. The local plan's countryside policy OV2 is criteria-based (character, heritage, biodiversity) rather than a blanket restriction, so a no-harm finding meant full plan compliance without needing any Framework balance. Under the 2026 Framework the scheme would need an S5 route, probably S5(1)(j) if there is a supply shortfall, or S5(1)(e). The letter does not address this. ## Transferable points - An unmade, unlit lane can still give realistic walking and cycling access if it is evenly surfaced, lightly trafficked and short (services within 1 km, bus stop at the end) (DL ¶18-20). - Previous-appeal findings on accessibility can be overcome by physical change on the ground, evidenced at the site visit (DL ¶20). - A criteria-based countryside policy such as OV2 can be met in full by a single dwelling that causes no character harm. Plan compliance then decides the appeal (DL ¶13-16, 45). - LPA infrastructure contributions for a single dwelling fail Reg 122 without quantified demand, a capacity shortfall and a calculation method (Planning Obligations good practice advice 2025) (DL ¶23-25). - Blanket removal of householder PD rights needs clear justification (now DM6(2)(c)) (DL ¶43). - Transition slip: a decision issued on 17 August 2026 applied 2024 paragraph numbering and did not consider S5 for a site outside a settlement boundary (DL ¶36, 43). ## Policy findings - **LPS2 OV2 / SG1, NP TIP01, SS1P SP3: accord.** countryside policy OV2 allows housing that respects landscape/built character; no harm found so spatial strategy complied with (DL 12-16) - **LPS2 SG1 (accessibility): accord.** unmade but now compacted-stone lane, lightly trafficked, bus stop and services within 1 km; earlier inspector's car-reliance finding overcome (DL 17-21) - **LPS2 DM15, SS1P SP7, NP TIP02: accord.** single dwelling in large plot fits low-density settlement edge; earlier 2-dwelling scheme's "conspicuous domestic cluster" objection overcome (DL 8-11) - **DM6: pass (significant weight).** self-build UU meets obligation tests — letter cites "paragraph 58 of the Framework" (2024 NPPF para 58, obligation tests) (DL 36) - **DM6(2)(c): fail.** council's PD-rights removal condition refused, no clear justification — letter cites "Paragraph 55 of the Framework" (2024 NPPF para 55) (DL 43) - **SS1P SP6 (infrastructure): accord.** open space (£13,348.95) and community facilities (£4,104.05) contributions unevidenced, fail CIL Reg 122; blue-pencilled (DL 22-27) - **SS1P SP2, LPS2 ENV1 (habitats): accord.** RAMS £169.45 secured; appropriate assessment with Natural England (DL 29-34) ## Key facts - Decision dated 17 August 2026, the day the 2026 Framework was published; letter cites 2024 Framework paragraph numbers (55, 58) and never mentions S5 - Previous appeal APP/A1530/W/23/3323572 for two dwellings dismissed on character and car reliance (DL 10, 17) - Bull Lane beyond settlement edge unpaved and unlit but now "consistent and even surface finished with compacted stones", very lightly trafficked (DL 18) - Bus stop at Bull Lane/Station Road junction; variety of services within 1 km in Tiptree (DL 19) - Council's infrastructure contributions not justified by evidence, per Planning Obligations good practice advice 2025 (DL 23-25) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6003588 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8421edee-0c9c-4204-b62c-895a1467bc14 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6003588.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The New Inn, Main Road, Totton - **Decision:** allowed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Butcher - **Authority:** New Forest (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6003718 - **Application reference:** 25/10601 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion of public house into 3 dwellings and erection of 2 semi-detached dwellings - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HC6(1)(a), HC6(1)(c) - **Development plan policies:** New Forest Local Plan Part 2 2014 DM19, DM2, Local Plan Part 1 2016-2036 ENV1 - **Main issues:** loss of public house, habitats sites - **Tags:** pub-loss, hc6-alternative-provision, hc6-marketing-12-months, community-facility, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Conversion of the New Inn pub in Totton into three dwellings, plus two new houses. The appeal was allowed. The marketing report covered only 9–10 months, so the inspector held HC6(1)(a) was not met. HC6(1)(c) was met instead, because other pubs and community halls lie within walking distance, and the scheme complied with local policy DM19. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "In the interests of fairness, I provided the main parties with an opportunity to provide comments on the new Framework" (DL ¶3). - **DM19: important local facility?** "public houses cannot be considered to automatically meet that description by default" (DL ¶9). The viability study and marketing showed the pub "has not attracted sufficient custom to enable it to be regarded as an important local facility for some time" (DL ¶10). - **HC6(1)(a): not met.** "given that the presented MR does not cover a twelve month period, I do not find conformity with the stipulation in part 1(a) of the policy" (DL ¶32). The inspector applied the 12 months strictly, to the evidence actually before her. - **HC6(1)(c): met.** "Part 1(c) of the policy provides an alternative route … there are sufficient alternative facilities in the area which ensure that access to such facilities is not diminished. The proposal therefore conforms with Policy HC6 of the Framework" (DL ¶33). ## Planning balance Accordance with the development plan as a whole, with HC6 met through limb (c) (DL ¶34). No S4 balance was set out. ## What made the difference The alternative-provision limb. Without nearby pubs and halls, the short marketing period would have failed HC6. This inspector treated the 12 months as a hard threshold on the evidence submitted. The York inspector (PINS-6011055) treated it as evidential. The difference did not matter here because limb (c) carried the case. ## Transferable points - HC6(1)(a) and (1)(c) are independent routes. Failing the 12-month marketing test is not fatal if alternative provision within walking distance is shown (DL ¶31-33). - Assertions that marketing continued beyond the period covered by the report do not count towards the 12 months (DL ¶32). - Local policies protecting only "important" local facilities let the decision-maker find that a failing pub is not important (DL ¶9-10). ## Policy findings - **HC6(1)(a): fail.** marketing report covered only 9-10 months; appellant's claim of 13+ months not evidenced in the report, so "I do not find conformity" (DL 31-32) - **HC6(1)(c): pass.** Peg and Parrott within reasonable walking distance, town-centre pubs, two community halls; access not diminished, so HC6 met overall (DL 11, 33) - **DM19 (New Forest LP2): accord.** Savills viability study (declining barrelage) plus marketing show the pub was not an "important local facility"; alternatives exist (DL 5-13) - **DM6: neutral.** PD rights not removed because there was no "clear justification" (DL 29) - **HE7: neutral.** pub is a council-identified non-designated heritage asset (rounded gables, window surrounds); minor external changes, no harm to significance (DL 23); code mapped by appeals-nongb - **N6: neutral.** appropriate assessment — UU contributions (air quality £560, recreation £4,995 + £4,535 + £34,110) and nutrient-credit condition accepted by Natural England; no adverse effect on integrity (DL 14-22); code mapped by appeals-nongb ## Key facts - Punch Partnerships pub; barrelage declining for years except 2021 - 12 enquiries, several viewings, no offers for pub or community use in 9-10 months of marketing - Over 100 objections to the loss of the pub - Recreational and air-quality mitigation contributions accepted by Natural England for European sites - Nutrient neutrality secured by condition, backed by a nutrient calculator and credit-provider email (DL 21) - Appellant applied for costs against the council; separate costs decision (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6003718 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/875edce6-af4f-4c38-8be2-d64f88c1b043 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5771dab1-d9d3-4bac-bf59-d1c49d048402 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6003718.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 19 Millway, Mill Hill (conversion to 2 flats) - **Decision:** allowed, 26 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Dickson - **Authority:** Barnet (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6003738 - **Application reference:** 25/4039/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion of a semi-detached house to 2 self-contained flats, with retention of a replacement porch and first-floor extension - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** London Plan D6 - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, D6, Barnet Local Plan 2025 CHD01 - **Main issues:** living conditions of future occupiers - **Tags:** tier-2, no-framework-cited, living-conditions, conversion, small-scheme ## Summary The inspector allowed a two-flat conversion despite ceiling heights below the London Plan D6 standard. The rooms still felt spacious, were dual aspect and would not overheat, so the policy's aims were met (DL 6-9). The Framework is not cited. ## What made the difference The inspector's own inspection of the rooms and the daylight and overheating evidence showed the purpose of D6 was met despite the numerical shortfall. ## Policy findings - **London Plan D6: accord.** floor-to-ceiling heights below the 2.5 m standard but meet NDSS 2.3 m; dual aspect and daylight study show the policy's aims are met (DL 5-9) ## Key facts - Ground and first floors below the London Plan 2.5 m ceiling height but above NDSS 2.3 m (DL 5) - Earlier appeal on the site (3351024) dismissed; changes to windows and a daylight study distinguished it (DL 8) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6003738 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8cd9e6c1-0873-4bed-af47-bd398399cfe2 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6003738.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south east of Kildale, Maidstone Road, Headcorn - **Decision:** dismissed, 20 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Parsons - **Authority:** Maidstone (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6003947 - **Application reference:** 25/504705/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of land to one-plot residential Gypsy site (static, touring caravan, dayroom), fencing, hardstanding, cesspit, landscaping (part retrospective) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Maidstone Local Plan Review 2024 LPRSS1, LPRSP9, LPRSP15, LPRTRA2, LPRHOU8 - **Main issues:** highway safety - **Tags:** travellers, traveller-supply-shortfall, highway-safety-decisive, highway-safety-visibility, tr6-highway-safety, retrospective, best-interests-of-children, psed, temporary-permission, fallback-not-evidenced, transitional-no-consultation, limited-nppf-engagement, ppts-superseded-still-applied ## Summary One-family Gypsy pitch on a former donkey-sanctuary paddock beside the 60 mph A274 near Headcorn. The appeal was dismissed on highway safety alone. The access has poor visibility in one direction, and the appellant could not show that the previous use generated as much traffic. The council accepted every other LPRHOU8 criterion. The unmet need (considerable weight), the children's best interests (considerable), personal circumstances (moderate) and the PSED did not outweigh a "risk to life and limb", and temporary permission was also refused. No Framework policy is cited by code. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The revised National Planning Policy Framework has recently been published … It has been taken into account in this decision. There has been no requirement to re-consult parties as the changes to the Framework do not materially affect this decision" (DL ¶3). No 2026 policy is named anywhere in the letter. - **Highway safety (LPR SP15, TRA2, HOU8; TR6(4) in substance): FAIL.** "The poor visibility has particular importance given the strategic and relatively high speed nature of the A274, with a speed limit is 60mph" (DL ¶8). The fallback trip argument was rejected: "In absence of any detailed justification, daily vehicle movements for these purposes would appear excessive" (DL ¶9); "this argument in favour has little merit" (DL ¶10). - **Unmet need.** "The Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply for Gypsy and Traveller sites … the need for Gypsy and Traveller sites attracts considerable weight" (DL ¶12). This was reasoned under the PPTS, which the 2026 Framework (Annex, "Written Ministerial Statements and other planning policy documents which have been incorporated or superseded") lists as incorporated or superseded. HO12 is not cited. - **Children / PSED / Article 8.** The children's best interests were given "considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶18). "In terms of public safety, the risk to life and limb is a decisive consideration … dismissing the appeal would be a proportionate response" (DL ¶25). ## Planning balance s38(6) plan-led balance: conflict with the plan as a whole through LPRHOU8, SP15 and TRA2 (DL ¶21). Benefits were unmet need, a settled base, education and healthcare access, and equality. "However, these benefits are not great enough to outweigh the harm arising from highway safety which is overriding given the danger to human life. Such harm would be substantial" (DL ¶24). Temporary permission: the benefits "would not be so weighty as to clearly outweigh the harm" (DL ¶27). ## What made the difference Visibility at a single access onto a 60 mph strategic road, backed by a County Highways objection. The appellant's best argument, that the donkey sanctuary had generated more trips (including horseboxes and hay lorries), failed for lack of evidence on how often those trips happened. Detailed, dated evidence of previous vehicle movements, or a visibility-splay improvement within the appellant's control, might have changed the result. Everything else (need, sustainability, character, flood, ecology) was agreed in the appellant's favour. ## Transferable points - Highway safety from an intensified substandard access onto a high-speed road can be "overriding" and decisive against considerable-weight traveller need and children's best interests (DL ¶24-26). - A fallback of previous traffic generation must be evidenced by frequency and type. Estimated daily movements without detail are given little weight (DL ¶9-10). - An accident record with no significant injuries does not outweigh a highway authority objection on visibility at 60 mph (DL ¶7-8). - Harm to highway safety counts against temporary permission as well as permanent, even though a temporary permission limits how long the harm lasts (DL ¶27). - Transition slip: the inspector did not re-consult because the changes "do not materially affect this decision", then applied the PPTS (para 13 and its five-year supply duty), which the 2026 Framework lists as incorporated or superseded, and did not cite HO12 or TR6 (DL ¶3, 12, 23). ## Policy findings - **TR6(4): fail (substantial weight).** intensified use of access onto 60 mph A274 with poor visibility in one direction (215 m the other); County Highways objection; previous donkey-sanctuary trip claims unevidenced. Letter relies on LPR policies only — TR6 code mapped by harvester (DL 8-11, 24) - **HO12: benefit (considerable weight).** no 5-year traveller-site supply; G&T DPD at early stage; unmet need "considerable weight" — reasoned under PPTS, not HO12 (DL 12) - **LPRHOU8: conflict.** all criteria met (status, accessibility, character, flood, ecology) except safe access by all vehicles (DL 20-21) - **LPRSP15, LPRTRA2: conflict.** highway safety (DL 11, 21) ## Key facts - A274 Maidstone Road, 60 mph, strategic route; visibility about 215 m one way, poor the other despite vegetation cut-back; exiting vehicles must cross one lane (DL 8) - Proposed use estimated at 5 trips/day (private housing proxy, 4.19 rounded up) vs claimed 6+/day for donkey sanctuary; inspector found the fallback trip claims unevidenced (DL 7, 9-10) - No significant injury accidents in 10 years; one slight accident at nearby golf course entrance (DL 7) - Council has no 5-year supply of Gypsy and Traveller sites (figure not stated) (DL 12) - Family of four including two children, one at Kingswood primary; best interests of children given "considerable importance and weight"; personal circumstances moderate weight (DL 14, 17-18) - Temporary permission also refused (DL 27) - [object Object] ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6003947 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4db47b6e-1017-4b78-9e60-67a5406bc5d1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6003947.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pavement outside 100 High Street, Crawley (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Catcheside - **Authority:** Crawley (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6004062 - **Application reference:** CR/2025/0512/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub with two 75-inch digital displays, removal of payphones (Appeal A planning; Appeal B 6004064 advert consent CR/2025/0511/ADV) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, CO1, DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Crawley Borough Local Plan 2023-2040 CL1, CL2, DD1, DD6 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, amenity and public safety (advert) - **Tags:** tier-2, street-hub, telecoms, digital-advertising, co1-substantial-weight, s4-substantially-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary BT Street Hub with digital advertising screens on a wide town-centre footway in Crawley. Both the planning and advert appeals were dismissed. The solid, dark hub would block long views along a spacious street and clash with the light-coloured street furniture. The screens' proposed night brightness was above the ILP guidance maximum. Parties were invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶5). ## What made the difference The S4 balance was run expressly: CO1 connectivity benefits got "substantial weight", but CO1's own requirement to site infrastructure "to minimise the visual impact" and DP3 integration were failed, so "the benefits ... would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects" (DL ¶¶22–26). The hub's colour, which did not match the existing light street furniture, set this case apart from earlier allowed hub appeals (DL ¶12). A 600 cd/m2 night luminance, compared with the ILP 300 cd/m2 maximum, was enough to find public safety harm (DL ¶¶19–21). ## Policy findings - **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** digital connectivity benefits substantial weight, but CO1 siting/design limb failed as hub not sited to minimise visual impact (DL 23, 25) - **DP3: fail.** would not integrate with and enhance surroundings; dark solid hub clutters open spacious street (DL 11-12, 25) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed by adverse effects (DL 22, 26) ## Key facts - 600 cd/m2 night luminance proposed vs ILP PLG Table 10.4 maximum 300 cd/m2; public safety harm found (DL 19-21) - Kiosk removals give only localised benefit; one removal site far away on Buckmans Road (DL 15-17) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004062 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/972d2f11-5e33-492c-9b48-e87b8182f1e8 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004062.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south of Warren Lane, Hurst Green - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Jennifer Wallace - **Authority:** Tandridge (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6004144 - **Application reference:** 2025/613 - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Outline for up to 132 dwellings (50% affordable), open space, access from Holland Road - **Homes:** 132 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, listed-building-setting, agricultural-land-BMV - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 2 - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 38 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3, P4(2), S5(1)(j), S3, GB7(1)(g), GB8 - **Development plan policies:** Tandridge Local Plan Part 2 Detailed Policies 2014 DP10, DP13, DP20 - **Main issues:** odour, grey belt, sustainable location, Golden Rules, heritage, S5 balance - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-pass, golden-rules, station-route-h, large-scheme, affordable-led, housing-shortfall, substantially-outweighed, costs-award, odour, annex-e, connectivity-tool, s5-1-j ## Summary 132 homes (50% affordable) on a contained field at the edge of Hurst Green/Oxted, decided after a two-day hearing. The inspector found the site was grey belt and passed all four GB7(1)(g) limbs, including sustainable location and the Golden Rules, so the scheme was not inappropriate. The station route GB7(1)(h) failed on walking distance. The appeal was still **dismissed**, on odour from the adjoining wastewater works, which arose late through a Southern Water objection. Odour harm "substantially outweighed" the benefits under S5(1)(j). A separate costs decision (costs PDF, 21 Sep 2026) awarded Wates full costs against Tandridge for unreasonable grey belt, sustainability and heritage reasons. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Views were sought on the August 2026 Framework and 2025 HDT (DL ¶5). - **Grey belt: ACCEPTED.** On purpose (a): "The appeal site has well defined boundaries. It is effectively enclosed by development to the north, west and east" (DL ¶20). "While landscaped boundaries can be removed, this is also true of many forms of development … That this use may be not inappropriate in the Green Belt, or that it does not have the robustness of a physical building do not alter the fact that the landscaped boundary and sports facility would serve to restrict development" (DL ¶21). "Having regard to the advice in Annex E of the Framework, the appeal site clearly makes a moderate contribution towards purpose A. The precise layout of the proposed development is not necessary to allow this assessment to be made" (DL ¶22). There was no contribution to (b) or (d) (DL ¶23-24). - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): PASS.** No 5YHLS and HDT failure (DL ¶27). - **GB7(1)(g)(iii) / TR3: PASS.** "There is no requirement that every service for day-to-day living should be within walking distance of a site … Stops would be 430 or 530m from the site. Neither of these is an impractical or unreasonable distance" (DL ¶28). "The location would therefore offer a genuine choice of transport modes" (DL ¶30). On the Connectivity Tool: "It seems only logical for the accessibility of a site to be assessed in the context of the area in which it is located … TR3 makes reference to the context of the area" (DL ¶32). - **GB7(1)(h): FAIL.** "at twice the reasonable walking distance and time identified in the Framework glossary, the site would not meet the requirements of Framework Policy GB7(h)" (DL ¶29). - **GB8: PASS.** Affordable housing, off-site highway and bus stop improvements, and open space and nature recovery were secured (DL ¶33-34). The site was therefore not inappropriate, and openness was not assessed (DL ¶36). - **Heritage HE6:** harm "at the very lowest level" to Grade II Jincox Farm House, "clearly outweigh[ed]" by benefits (DL ¶42). - **Odour P3/P4: FAIL.** "I cannot be certain that the 132 dwellings could be satisfactorily accommodated within the appeal site, irrespective of which odour contour is used" (DL ¶11). "I cannot impose a condition which could prevent the quantum of development sought from being implemented" (DL ¶14). ## Planning balance The inspector moved from GB7 to S5. The site was outside the settlement boundary but "physically well-related to an existing settlement", so S5(1)(j) applied (DL ¶51). On the benefit side there was substantial weight to housing (HO7), to affordable housing (HO8) and to Golden Rules compliance (GB8(2)); economic benefits had moderate weight; open space, BNG and highways had limited weight (DL ¶52). Against these was odour harm under P3 (DL ¶53). The conclusion was: "the benefits of approving the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects … The proposal therefore does not benefit from support from Policy S5 … and consequently would not benefit from the presumption" (DL ¶54). ## What made the difference The Green Belt case was comprehensively won by the appellant, and the council paid costs for it. The appeal failed on a site-specific amenity point, statutory-undertaker odour evidence, that was not a reason for refusal. So on these facts, a 50% affordable scheme adjoining a large settlement passes grey belt and (g)(iii) easily. With 132 homes in outline, uncertainty that the quantum can fit is itself fatal. ## Transferable points - Landscaped boundaries, TPO'd tree belts and even a (not inappropriate) sports use can be "physical features" containing development for purpose (a). They need not be robust or permanent (DL ¶21; costs DL ¶6). - Grey belt purpose assessment does not need a fixed layout (DL ¶22). Withdrawn-plan GB assessments pre-dating grey belt carry little weight (DL ¶35; costs DL ¶5). - (g)(iii) does not require every service to be walkable. Bus stops at 430-530 m are acceptable, and cycling counts towards a "genuine choice" (DL ¶28-30). - The Connectivity Tool should be read in the context of the area (TR3) (DL ¶32). - GB7(1)(h) fails where the station is about twice the Annex B reasonable walking distance, even on a pleasant route (DL ¶29). - Where the GB7(1)(g) route succeeds, the decision proceeds through S5(1)(j) and the "substantially outweighed" balance (DL ¶51-54). - Full costs can be awarded against a council whose grey belt and sustainability reasons were not objectively substantiated, even where the appeal is dismissed on another ground (costs DL ¶5-11). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** moderate contribution to purpose (a) — enclosed by development on three sides, tree/hedge boundaries and a sports facility; none to (b) or (d); Annex E (ex-PPG) applied (DL 19-25) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** would not fundamentally undermine remaining Green Belt across the plan area (DL 26) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** no five-year supply and HDT failed (DL 27) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** daily services within 1.7 km; bus stops 430-530 m; pleasant walking routes; cycling possible; Connectivity Tool read in local context (DL 28-32) - **GB7(1)(h)(i): fail.** station at "twice the reasonable walking distance and time" in the Annex B glossary (DL 29) - **GB8: pass (substantial weight).** 50% affordable, infrastructure, open space secured; GB8(2) substantial weight to compliance (DL 33-34, 52) - **HE6(4): harm.** harm "at the very lowest level" to Grade II Jincox Farm House setting, clearly outweighed by public benefits (DL 40-42) - **P3: fail.** odour from Oxted WWTW — Southern Water late objection (>1.5 ouE/m3 harmful), upgrade uncertain; cannot be sure 132 homes accommodated (DL 9-15, 53) - **P4(2): fail.** agent-of-change; condition cannot cut quantum below that permitted (DL 14) - **S5(1)(j): fail.** gateway met (well-related, unmet need) but benefits "substantially outweighed" by odour harm (DL 51-54) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** ~2-year supply, HDT 38%; affordable housing also substantial (HO8) (DL 51-52) ## Key facts - 132 homes, 50% affordable, adjoining Hurst Green/Oxted (category 1 settlement); council supply about 2 years, HDT 2025 38% - Services within 1.7 km, bus stops 430 m and 530 m, station walk about twice the Annex B reasonable walking distance - Oxted WWTW next to the site; Southern Water objected late, saying no development within 500 m / above 1.5 ouE/m3 - Separate costs decision (21 Sep 2026) - full award AGAINST the council for unreasonable grey belt, sustainability and heritage reasons, even though the appeal was dismissed ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004144 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/25a0f8d8-f115-4d4a-9b16-0955bb432c58 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ff5dbc2f-2f42-453b-adbe-f95e6cb721ba --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004144.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Norbryght, Tilburstow Hill Road, South Godstone - **Decision:** dismissed, 27 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: CM Blair - **Authority:** Tandridge (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6004344 - **Application reference:** 2025/837 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of a storage barn and erection of a dwelling with parking and garden (non-determination appeal) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, PDL, rural-lane, open-countryside, valued-landscape - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(5), DP3, TR3, F8 - **Development plan policies:** Tandridge Core Strategy 2008 CSP1, CSP18, CSP20, CSP21, Tandridge Local Plan Part 2 2014 DP1, DP7, DP13, DP21 - **Main issues:** Green Belt, character and appearance, living conditions, highway safety, sustainable location, flood risk - **Tags:** pdl-e-limb, not-inappropriate, s5-5-balance, sustainable-location-fail, design-refusal, old-wording-slip, transitional-no-consultation, small-scheme, non-determination ## Summary Replacement of a storage barn with a single dwelling in the Tandridge Green Belt. As PDL redevelopment without substantial openness harm the scheme fell within GB7(1)(e), so it was not inappropriate. It was dismissed in the S5(5) balance on design, living conditions, car dependence and unevidenced surface-water drainage. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The Inspector was required to apply the new Framework but did not consult, because it did "not substantially alter the national policy context" (DL ¶4). - **GB7(1)(e): PASS.** "the proposal would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Factors influencing my view include the scale of the proposal compared to the barn that would be replaced" (DL ¶6). - **Design: FAIL.** Render, crown roof and cramped frontage "would fail to respect the established spatial pattern" (DL ¶¶10–13). - **Location: harm, reduced weight.** On the unlit 40 mph lane with no footway, "use of the development would be heavily dependent on private car travel" (DL ¶23). "as the proposal is only for a single dwelling, the overall impact on the pattern of growth … would be limited. This reduces the amount of weight" (DL ¶24). - **Flood risk: FAIL** for lack of drainage evidence (DL ¶¶27–28). ## Planning balance S5(5), after GB7 was passed. Moderate weight to one home and limited weight to local finance. The letter says the adverse effects "would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits … (in accordance with Policy S5)" (DL ¶31). That is the 2024 §11(d) wording; S5 says "substantially outweighed". This is a drafting slip that did not affect the outcome. ## What made the difference Green Belt was not the problem: PDL let a new dwelling through GB7(1)(e). The scheme failed on ordinary merits: poor design, substandard bedrooms, drainage, and a car-dependent location (given reduced weight because it was one dwelling). ## Transferable points - A barn-to-dwelling rebuild on PDL of comparable scale can be not inappropriate under GB7(1)(e) (DL ¶6). - Once GB7 is passed, the S5(5) balance is run, and it can still be lost on design, amenity and drainage (DL ¶31). - An unlit 40 mph lane with no footway gives "heavily dependent on private car travel", though a single dwelling's harm is given reduced weight (DL ¶¶21–24). - Some Inspectors still slip into the "significantly and demonstrably" language under S5 (DL ¶31). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(e): pass.** PDL common ground; scale compared to the barn means no substantial openness harm → not inappropriate (DL 6-8) - **DP3: fail.** smooth render, crown roof, cramped frontage fail to respect context (DL 10-16) - **TR3: harm (limited weight).** unlit 40 mph lane, no footway/cycle provision, no services within walking distance → heavily car-dependent; weight reduced because single dwelling (DL 21-25) - **TR4: pass.** no highway safety harm; no evidence of more trips than the lawful storage use (DL 22) - **P3: fail.** poor outlook and bedrooms below national space standards (DL 18-20) - **F8: fail.** surface water flood risk area; no drainage evidence (DL 27-28) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** one dwelling (DL 30) - **S5(5): fail.** not inappropriate so S5(5) applied, but letter uses old "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" wording (DL 31) ## Key facts - Large metal storage barn with lawful storage use (CLU 2024/699) on a long private lane - Tilburstow Hill Road unlit, 40 mph, no footway; buses on A22; station at South Godstone - Previous outline appeal APP/M3645/W/23/3326161 dismissed for lack of openness detail - Revised plans submitted at final comments were not accepted - Inspector did not consult on the new Framework, saying it does "not substantially alter the national policy context" ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004344 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b038bd7c-86ae-44a4-817f-5c3cc1726bdb --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004344.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Opposite 67 Sandgate Road, Folkestone (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Housden - **Authority:** Folkestone and Hythe (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6004363 - **Application reference:** 25/1919/FH - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub with 2 digital 75-inch advert screens and removal of BT kiosk (Appeal B 6004364 advert consent 25/1962/FH, also dismissed) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), S4(2)(c), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Folkestone & Hythe Places and Policies Local Plan 2020 HB1, RL9, RL2 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, conservation area setting, public benefits - **Tags:** tier-2, telecoms, bt-street-hub, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, conservation-area, dp3-refuse-trigger, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, design-refusal, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, plan-policy-consistent-full-weight ## Summary A BT Street Hub with two 75-inch digital screens on a pedestrianised Folkestone town-centre pavement, in the setting of the Leas and Bayle Conservation Area. The planning appeal and the joint advert appeal (6004364) were both dismissed. The hub would be prominent and intrusive, causing modest harm to the CA through its setting; connectivity and kiosk-removal benefits were small or limited. The letter runs DP3(3) through S4(2)(c) with an explicit clear-justification finding. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I sought the views of the parties on the implications of the new Framework on the appeal" (DL ¶7). - **Character and CA setting: HARM.** "Modest harm to the significance of the CA through its setting would therefore arise" (DL ¶15). - **CO1: small benefit.** "In these circumstances and due to the limited scale of the development this amounts to a small benefit" (DL ¶17). - **HE4(2) / HE6(4): FAIL.** "the public benefits are insufficient to provide such justification and outweigh the identified harm to the significance of the CA through its setting" (DL ¶19). - **Plan weight (Transitional(2)).** HB1 and RL9 "are consistent with section 14 of the Framework in seeking to achieve well-design places, in particular Policy DP3. On this basis the identified conflict with these policies carries significant weight" (DL ¶26). - **DP3(3) via S4(2)(c): FAIL.** "Based on my findings, there are no clear justifications for the harm. The benefits of approving the development are therefore substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶28). ## Planning balance Plan-led (s38(6)) with S4 applied: conflict with HB1/RL9 at significant weight; DP3(3) conflict without clear justification engages S4(2)(c), so benefits substantially outweighed (DL ¶27–29). HE6(4) run separately first (DL ¶16–19). ## What made the difference The hub's height, solid form and large double-sided screens at a crossroads, visible in long views into the CA, against benefits that were not shown to meet any local deficiency. The small-scale CO1 benefit was reduced because no coverage gap was evidenced (DL ¶17). An evidenced coverage deficiency, or a less prominent position, might have shifted the HE6(4) balance. ## Transferable points - CO1's substantial weight can shrink to "a small benefit" where there is no evidence of local deficiency in the services offered (DL ¶17). - Kiosk removal and the Universal Service Obligation carry limited weight where not shown to require this specific location (DL ¶18). - Clear DP3(3) sequence: DP3(1) conflict, "no clear justifications for the harm", therefore S4(2) — benefits substantially outweighed (DL ¶27–28). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation of Folkestone Leas and Bayle CA (DL 9); "Modest harm" to CA significance through setting (DL 15) - **HE6(4): fail.** public benefits (small / limited weight) do not outweigh the modest setting harm (DL 16-19) - **HE4(2): fail.** public benefits "insufficient to provide such justification" (DL 19) - **CO1: benefit.** CO1 substantial weight to coverage noted but, small scale and no evidence of local deficiency, "a small benefit" (DL 17) - **DP3(3): fail.** conflicts with DP3(1) (context, heritage integration) and "no clear justifications for the harm" (DL 28) - **S4(2)(c): fail.** DP3(3) routed through S4(2); benefits substantially outweighed (DL 27-28) - **Transitional(2): neutral (significant weight).** HB1 and RL9 consistent with section 14 / DP3, so conflict carries significant weight (DL 25-26) ## Key facts - Pedestrianised town-centre pavement at a crossroads, outside but within the setting of the Folkestone Leas and Bayle CA (DL 9, 11) - Earlier kiosk already removed at the site visit; site now makes a neutral contribution (DL 5, 11) - Kiosk removal and BT Universal Service Obligation given limited weight as not shown to need this location (DL 18) - No harm to public safety (Appeal B) (DL 23) - Parties' views sought on the 2026 Framework (DL 7) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004363 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e75cbfd7-de9a-41cf-b749-c9a25af85da5 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004363.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Harlestone Road/York Way, Northampton - **Decision:** allowed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Smith - **Authority:** West Northamptonshire (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6004385 - **Application reference:** 2025/0057/MAO - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Outline, up to 100 homes (40% affordable), access from York Way, pedestrian links/permissive paths to Harlestone Firs, visitor car park, public open space - **Homes:** 100 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S3, S5(1)(j), HO7 - **Development plan policies:** West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy LPP1 2014 S1, R1, H2, INF2, Daventry Settlements and Countryside Local Plan LPP2 2020 ENV3 (Green Wedge), RA6, CW2, WN Infrastructure and Developer Contributions SPD June 2026 - **Main issues:** Green Wedge, suitable location, housing land supply, S5(1)(j), accessibility - **Tags:** s5-1-j, substantially-outweighed, housing-shortfall, housing-land-supply-dispute, sustainable-location-pass, large-scheme, local-plan-countryside-policy-departure, green-wedge, emerging-plan-allocation, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, old-wording-slip ## Summary Outline scheme for up to 100 homes (40% affordable) on a greenfield Green Wedge site north of York Way, opposite two urban extensions on the edge of Northampton. The council refused it on Green Wedge grounds. The appeal was allowed after a hearing. The Green Wedge policy was not breached because Harlestone Firs woodland separates the site from the fringe villages. Countryside and spatial-strategy conflicts were agreed but given limited weight. The site passed S5(1)(j) because there is no five-year supply and it is physically well related to Northampton's urban edge. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "There have been significant amendments to its contents. I have therefore requested comment from the main parties on this matter" (DL ¶4). - **Green Wedge (LPP2 ENV3): ACCORD.** "The policy does not impose a blanket prohibition on development within the Green Wedge … the mere fact that a development is located within the Green Wedge does not, in itself, justify a finding of conflict" (DL ¶17). "the physical and visual separation provided by Harlestone Firs, along with the undulating land and its distance to these rural settlements … would ensure that these characteristics are preserved" (DL ¶15). - **Where the settlement edge is.** York Way is a strong physical edge, but "highways do not necessarily function as definitive settlement boundaries" (DL ¶13). - **Accessibility (TR3 by substance): PASS.** "the evidence before me does not demonstrate that the route is so deficient as to prevent or materially discourage access on foot" (DL ¶37). Walking is harder for older people, disabled people and parents with young children, but "Those who are older, disabled or that are accompanying young children would be able to access the relevant bus services … there is a genuine choice of travel modes" (DL ¶39). "future residents would not be expected to forego the use of private cars entirely … decision-makers must take a realistic and pragmatic approach" (DL ¶40). - **Housing land supply.** The inspector declined to decide between 4.3 years and the appellant's lower figure, or between district-wide and sub-area calculation: "The key point for the purposes of decision-making is that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, irrespective of the method of calculation adopted" (DL ¶104). - **S5(1)(j): PASS.** "the proposed development would be physically well related to an existing settlement and is of a scale that can be accommodated, having regard to the availability of existing and proposed infrastructure within the wider area. Accordingly, the proposal satisfies the requirements of Policy S5, Paragraph 1, Criterion J" (DL ¶108). - **Local spatial policies (S1, R1, RA6): CONFLICT, limited harm.** "given the location of the development and its close relationship with the Northampton Related Development Area and the two sustainable urban extensions, the harm that I ascribe to this policy conflict is limited" (DL ¶111). ## Planning balance The S5(1) balance was run inside a s38(6) conclusion. Benefits: 100 homes, "significant weight" (DL ¶107); 40% affordable against a "substantial need" (DL ¶107); quick build-out; crossing and permissive paths to Harlestone Firs, "moderate weight" (DL ¶109); surplus open space, off-site pitch contribution and economic benefits (DL ¶110). Harm: conflict with S1, R1 and RA6, limited (DL ¶111). "the conflict with these policies and the harm that would arise as a result would not substantially outweigh these benefits" (DL ¶112). There was conflict with the development plan as a whole, but material considerations indicated otherwise (DL ¶137). ## What made the difference Physical context. The site reads as part of Northampton's suburban edge, with large new urban extensions directly opposite and development already across New Sandy Lane. A large woodland screens it from the rural villages the Green Wedge protects. That gave both the Green Wedge accord and the "physically well-related" limb of S5(1)(j). The accessibility finding held because bus stops were a short walk away and the scheme added a York Way crossing, which offset the 0.8–2 km walking distances and the imperfect A428 footways. The shortfall was agreed on any method, so the supply dispute did not matter. A site visible from the villages, or one separated from the urban edge by open fields rather than woodland, would probably have failed ENV3. A site without a nearby bus service would have been weaker on accessibility. ## Transferable points - A road is not automatically the settlement edge. Where development already exists on the far side of similar roads, a site across the road can be "physically well-related" to the settlement for S5(1)(j) (DL ¶13, 108). - Green Wedge and strategic-gap policies that call for a functional test are not blanket bans. Conflict depends on actual effect on separation and settlement identity (DL ¶17). - An inspector need not settle a five-year supply dispute (4.3 years vs 3.79, district vs sub-area) once parties agree there is no five-year supply. S5(1)(j) is then engaged (DL ¶102-104). - Walking distances of 0.8–2 km with a nearby hourly bus were a "genuine choice of travel modes". Bus access was treated as meeting the needs of people less able to walk (DL ¶35, 39). - Narrow footways caused by overgrown vegetation are a highway maintenance matter, not an inherent route defect (DL ¶36). - Evening bus provision that ends before 8pm was accepted as adequate because it serves peak commuting and school times (DL ¶33). - Drafting slip: 100 homes were given "significant" weight, although HO7 now calls for "substantial" weight (DL ¶107). - Procedure: the final UU must go on the planning register and be consulted on before decision (Greenfields [2025] EWCA Civ 488) (DL ¶62-63). Late evidence that repeats earlier submissions is refused under Procedural Guide ¶10.11 (DL ¶8). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): pass.** no 5YHLS (agreed); site adjacent to Northampton Related Development Area and two urban extensions across York Way; "physically well related" and scale accommodated (DL 105-108) - **S5(1): pass.** harm from plan conflict "would not substantially outweigh" benefits (DL 112) - **HO7: benefit (significant weight).** 100 homes, "strong contribution"; inspector said "significant" not HO7's "substantial" (DL 107) - **HO8: benefit.** 40% affordable via UU; "substantial need" for affordable housing; weight not separately stated (DL 107) - **TR3: pass.** hourly bus to Northampton/Rugby, facilities 0.8-2 km, A428 footways adequate, new York Way crossing; "genuine choice of travel modes" (DL 32-41) - **TR6: pass.** max 72 two-way peak-hour trips, negligible junction effect; 80 m+ splays on 30 mph road (DL 43-46) - **HC1: benefit (moderate weight).** formalised crossing and three permissive paths to Harlestone Firs (DL 109); code mapped by harvester, not cited in letter - **LPP2 ENV3 (Green Wedge): accord.** not a blanket ban; Harlestone Firs woodland and undulating land separate site from fringe villages; Part B access supported (DL 15-23) - **LPP1 S1, R1, LPP2 RA6: conflict (limited weight).** outside village confines/NRDA, greenfield; conflict agreed in SoCG; harm limited given close relationship with urban extensions (DL 26-30, 111) - **DM4: neutral (very-limited weight).** Reg 18 draft plan allocates the site; very limited weight (DL 5); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Council's 5YHLS disputed at 4.2-4.3 yrs (WN-wide, April 2026 assessment) vs appellant 3.79 yrs; Daventry sub-area under 3 yrs; parties agreed no 5YHLS and inspector declined to fix a figure (DL 97-104) - Brackley appeal APP/W2845/W/25/3367158 had held sub-area supply applies; inspector found no 5YHLS on either basis (DL 99-101) - Site in a designated Green Wedge north of York Way, opposite two sustainable urban extensions; development also exists across New Sandy Lane (DL 12-13) - Hourly bus, last departure from Northampton before 8pm; most facilities 0.8-2 km away (DL 33, 35) - UU secures 40% affordable, education, library, travel plan, open space, pedestrian-only permissive paths; UU re-consulted per Greenfields [2025] EWCA Civ 488 (DL 62-95) - Parties asked to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004385 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/52cf3833-6358-452a-910b-c9d85a13f547 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004385.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 87-89 Golders Green Road (The Promenade), Golders Green - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Samuel Watson - **Authority:** Barnet (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6004393 - **Application reference:** 25/4770/LBC - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective and proposed kitchen extract ducting, fridge and air-conditioning condensers on rear flat roof of Grade II listed parade (planning 6004392 and LBC 6004393) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(3), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 CDH01, CDH08, London Plan 2021 HC1 - **Main issues:** listed building, conservation area - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, retrospective, listed-building, alternative-scheme-not-explored, plant-equipment, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient ## Summary Linked planning and listed building consent appeals for kitchen extract ducting and condensers, partly already installed, on the rear roof of a Grade II listed Golders Green parade. The Inspector found "a modest degree of harm" and gave it considerable importance and weight under HE6(3). The public benefits of a charity café got only moderate weight because a less harmful alternative had not been ruled out. Both appeals dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Heritage harm: HE6(3).** The plant was an "incongruously modern feature" visible from the service road and the public route through the building (DL ¶12). The rear is not mentioned in the list entry, but "the lack of reference does not mean that the rear is afforded any less protection" (DL ¶14). "I find that a modest degree of harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets would occur. Although modest, the Framework is clear that considerable importance and weight should be given to any harm to a designated asset. Paragraph HE6(4) of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits" (DL ¶15). - **Public benefits: HE6(4).** The charity café provides social and economic benefits. The Inspector accepted it could not operate as now without the plant, but "it has not been demonstrated that the business would be entirely unable to operate … without the works" and "there is a potential for an alternative scheme that retains the identified public benefits while also not harming the historic environment" (DL ¶¶17–18). The benefits were given moderate weight and did not outweigh the harm (DL ¶19). ## Planning balance HE6(4) harm against public benefits, with the harm at "considerable importance and weight". The statutory s16(2), s66(1) and s72(1) duties were applied. ## What made the difference The unexplored alternative. Securing the long-term use of the listed building is named in HE6(4) as an important public benefit, but it was discounted because the appellant had not shown that the harm was necessary to achieve it. ## Transferable points - Under the 2026 Framework, harm can be graded on a free scale ("modest") rather than "less than substantial", and HE6(3) still gives it considerable importance and weight (DL ¶15). - HE6(4) public benefits, including a listed building's continued use, are discounted when a less harmful alternative that keeps the benefits has not been explored (DL ¶¶17–19). - Rear and service elevations contribute to significance even when the list entry does not mention them (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** "a modest degree of harm" to listed building and Golders Green CA; rear service elevation still contributes to significance even though list entry is silent on it (DL 12-15) - **HE6(4): fail (moderate weight).** public benefits (charity mental-health café, long-term use of listed building) given moderate weight; an alternative less harmful scheme not shown to be unavailable (DL 16-19) ## Key facts - Plant visible from Accommodation Road and the public route through the archway and along the elevated path - Café run by a mental-health charity; plant needed to keep food cold and café cool - Nearby units not obviously served by similar plant; alternatives not explored ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/392b9aea-1fb3-44fd-8294-16ef9bdeab3f - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004393 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004393.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Rutt Lane, Ivybridge (Aldi foodstore) - **Decision:** allowed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Worley - **Authority:** South Hams (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6004446 - **Application reference:** 2363/24/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** New Aldi retail food store (Class E) with parking, servicing, access works and landscaping - **Site context:** settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** JLP DEV1 - **Development plan policies:** Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2019 DEV1, TTV6 - **Main issues:** living conditions (outlook) - **Tags:** tier-2, no-framework-cited, retail, living-conditions ## Summary An Aldi store on a greenfield parcel at the eastern edge of Ivybridge was allowed. The only issue was outlook from neighbouring new houses, and the landscaped buffer and separation distances made it acceptable (DL 13). The sequential and impact tests were not in dispute (DL 19). The letter does not mention the Framework. ## What made the difference The narrow, terraced rear gardens meant neighbours would not see the building in its entirety. Separation distances of 17-20 m, a planted embankment and green cladding kept it from being overbearing (DL 10-13). ## Policy findings - **JLP DEV1: accord.** 60 m long, 3.6 m high rear elevation 17.3-20.4 m from rear of 4-8 Elm Park; with landscaped buffer and cladding not overbearing (DL 10-13, 18) - **TC3: pass.** Council satisfied no sequentially preferable sites and no adverse impact on Ivybridge centre; accords JLP TTV6 (DL 19) - **N4: neutral.** seen as part of the built-up area from Dartmoor National Park; no harm to its setting (DL 27) ## Key facts - Sole refusal reason: outlook from new houses in Elm Park; finished floor levels up to 4.5 m above neighbours (DL 7) - Letter dated 23 Sep 2026 does not refer to the National Planning Policy Framework at all ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004446 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/86ec4b4a-6fa9-482c-9e46-650867a152db --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004446.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pavement outside 33 Havelock Road, Hastings (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Housden - **Authority:** Hastings (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6004449 - **Application reference:** HS/FA/25/00624 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub and removal of associated payphones (Appeal A, planning); linked Appeal B 6004450 advertisement consent (HS/AA/25/00625), also dismissed - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TC2, S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Hastings Planning Strategy 2014 FA2, FA3, Hastings DM Plan 2015 LP1 - **Main issues:** town centre vitality and amenity - **Tags:** tier-2, telecoms, street-hub, co1-substantial-weight, transitional-no-consultation, s4-substantially-outweighed ## Summary A BT Street Hub on a Hastings town-centre pavement was refused, along with its advertisement consent (linked Appeal B, 6004450). Both appeals were dismissed. The hub would sit on the site of a rain garden in the Council's advanced public-realm scheme, in conflict with TC2 (town-centre vitality). Under S4 the CO1 benefits were limited and "substantially outweighed". There was no heritage harm to the conservation area or the nearby listed buildings. ## What made the difference The Council's public-realm drawings, submitted at appeal, showed the pavement as part of a planned rain garden. The appellant gave no technical evidence that the two could coexist (DL ¶¶9-10). The appellant offered to move the hub, but that was rejected because the appeal is decided on the plans submitted (DL ¶13). The hub's claimed benefits were discounted for lack of evidence that the facilities were needed locally (DL ¶20). ## Policy findings - **TC2: fail (considerable weight).** siting would conflict with the rain-garden layout of the advanced Hastings Town Centre Public Realm Improvement Project, undermining town-centre vitality (DL 9-10, 23) - **CO1: benefit (limited weight).** substantial weight in principle, but small scale and no evidence of deficiency in the facilities offered, so limited benefit (DL 20) - **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed by adverse effects (DL 19, 23) ## Key facts - The Council's town-centre public realm scheme (Town Deal) shows a rain garden on the appeal pavement; given significant weight as a material consideration (DL 9) - Removal of two kiosks elsewhere not secured, so given no weight (DL 22) - Decided without consulting the parties on the 2026 Framework (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004449 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6d0990d6-8490-4999-8840-7ab3c0dc556b --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004449.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 49 Annand Road, Gilesgate, Durham - **Decision:** dismissed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Lancaster - **Authority:** Durham (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6004494 - **Application reference:** DM/25/03386/FPA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Flexible C3/C4 (small student HMO) use under GPDO Class V, with single-storey rear extension - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, DP3(2)(a), DP3(3) - **Development plan policies:** County Durham Plan 2020 Policies 6, 16, 29, 31 - **Main issues:** mixed and balanced communities, living conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, article-4, non-determination, dp3-refuse-trigger, s4-substantially-outweighed, concentration-policy, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Flexible C3/C4 student HMO in a terraced house under an Article 4 Direction. Dismissed. The latest data put the 100 m concentration at 10.4%, just over the Local Plan's 10% "tipping point". The inspector found a failure of DP3(2)(a)'s "mixed and balanced communities" principle and gave it substantial weight, because DP3(3) says such proposals should be refused. That, with moderate harm to living conditions, substantially outweighed very modest benefits under S4 (DL ¶¶26–27). ## What made the difference The most recent twice-yearly council tax snapshot moved the site over the 10% threshold, and the inspector held that even a modest exceedance undermines a tipping-point policy (DL ¶17). DP3(3) then turned a local concentration policy into a national "should be refused" ground carrying substantial weight. ## Policy findings - **DP3(2)(a): fail (substantial weight).** fails "mixed and balanced communities"; DP3(3) says such proposals should be refused, so substantial weight (DL 26) - **CDP 16(3): conflict (significant weight).** student-exempt + unimplemented HMOs within 100 m = 10.4% (April 2026 data) against 10% "tipping point" (DL 14-19) - **S4: fail.** very modest benefits substantially outweighed; moderate harm to living conditions (DL 21, 24-27) ## Key facts - Article 4 Direction removes C3 to C4 PD rights (DL 6) - Updated council tax data moved concentration from 6.3% to 10.4% (DL 14) - Non-determination appeal; parties invited to comment on 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 2-5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004494 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9c382d54-e4b6-473f-a0a6-bed383f331e2 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004494.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Millend, Brookside Farm, North Nibley - **Decision:** dismissed, 19 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: AJ Sutton - **Authority:** Stroud (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6004495 - **Application reference:** S.25/2245/AGR - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Prior approval (GPDO Sch 2 Part 6 Class A) for extension of an agricultural storage barn - **Site context:** open-countryside, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Sch2 Pt6 Class A(a) - **Main issues:** permitted development, reasonable necessity for agriculture - **Tags:** tier-2, no-framework-reference, prior-approval, agricultural-building, reasonably-necessary ## Summary A Part 6 agricultural prior approval for extending a barn on a roughly 48 ha holding in the Cotswolds National Landscape. Dismissed because the development was not permitted development. With three large barns already there, "reasonable necessity" for more storage was not shown (DL ¶17). The Framework does not apply to a question of GPDO eligibility, and the letter does not cite it. ## What made the difference Existing covered capacity, and a lack of evidence about the business. "the existing provision of farm buildings could negate the reasonable need for yet more similar buildings for a unit" unless necessity is evidenced (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **GPDO Sch2 Pt6 Class A(a): fail.** agricultural unit of about 48.4 ha accepted, but "reasonable necessity has not been proven": three large existing barns give ample covered storage; "tipping point at which the provision of storage could be disproportionate" (DL 7-17) ## Key facts - Three sizeable existing barns on the holding; little evidence of the agricultural business supplied - Council alleged an unauthorised log business; not determinative (DL 19) - Costs application made; separate decision ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004495 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7dbe90e9-314e-4d5f-a588-1d80cc648a89 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004495.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land to rear of 223A Main Street, Thornton - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Bartle - **Authority:** Hinckley and Bosworth (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6004496 - **Application reference:** 25/00775/OUT - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline (access and layout) demolition of stables/storage buildings and erection of one detached (claimed self-build) dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N2(1)(a), S3 - **Development plan policies:** Hinckley and Bosworth Site Allocations and DM Policies DPD DM4, DM10, DM17, Good Design Guide - **Main issues:** biodiversity net gain, suitable location, character and appearance - **Tags:** s5-1-j, bng-exemption-not-shown, self-build-unsecured, substantially-outweighed, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, annex-a-weight-reduction, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, old-wording-slip, drafting-slip ## Summary Outline proposal to replace stables and stores behind Main Street, Thornton, with one dwelling claimed as self-build. The location was found acceptable: S5(1)(j) was met, the conflict with countryside policy DM4 got very limited weight under Annex A, and there was no character harm. The appeal was still dismissed. The self-build UU described the wrong land, so the BNG exemption was not secured, and the statutory minimum biodiversity information was never submitted. The inspector gave that N2(1)(a) conflict substantial weight and found it substantially outweighed modest benefits. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were given an opportunity to comment on the implications of the revised Framework … References to the Framework in my decision are to the August 2026 version" (DL ¶8). - **BNG — N2(1)(a): FAIL.** The UU's definition of "Site" was "land adjacent to Welton Lodge, Hunts Lane, Desford … these discrepancies create uncertainty as to the land bound by the planning obligations" (DL ¶6). "I cannot conclude that the proposal would either benefit from an exemption from, or comply with, the statutory BNG requirements. The proposal therefore conflicts with Schedule 7A … and the requirements of the DMPO. It would also conflict with Policy N2 (1) (a) of the Framework" (DL ¶14). - **Location — S5(1)(j): PASS.** "although the proposal would comprise backland development to the rear of properties on Main Street, the site lies within the wider fringe of the built-up edge of Thornton … I therefore find that the proposal satisfies the criteria of Policy S5(1)(j)" (DL ¶21). - **Local countryside policy: very limited weight.** "that policy is not wholly consistent with Policy S5 of the Framework. In accordance with Annex A of the Framework, I have therefore afforded the conflict with Policy DM4 only very limited weight" (DL ¶22). - **Character — DP3 / DM10: PASS.** "the proposal would be viewed against a wider backdrop of some existing development and landscape features rather than as an isolated intrusion into the countryside" (DL ¶18). ## Planning balance BNG conflict: "I attach substantial weight to that harm" (DL ¶27). Benefits (accessibility, one dwelling, economic): "Taken together, I afford moderate weight" (DL ¶28). "the adverse impacts of the proposal would substantially outweigh its benefits. The presumption in favour of sustainable development in Policy S3 of the Framework does not therefore apply" (DL ¶29). The scheme accorded with the development plan as a whole, but material considerations (the BNG failure) indicated dismissal (DL ¶30). ## What made the difference A drafting and evidence failure, not a planning-merits one. The self-build UU named a different site in Desford, so the self-build status, and with it the BNG exemption, could not be relied on. Without a baseline biodiversity assessment the inspector could not find 10% BNG deliverable either. If the UU had been correctly drafted, or a DMPO-compliant baseline supplied, the location, character and S5(1)(j) findings point strongly to an allowed appeal. Giving the housing benefit only moderate weight, below HO7's "substantial", made the balance easier to tip. ## Transferable points - If the BNG exemption is not secured and there is no DMPO Art 7(1A) biodiversity information, inspectors now treat this as an N2(1)(a) conflict and can give it decisive, substantial weight (DL ¶14, 27). - A self-build UU must bind the application land exactly. A mismatch between the site definition and the plan is fatal to self-build status (DL ¶6-7, 12). - A backland plot behind a village frontage, "within the wider fringe of the built-up edge", can be physically well related for S5(1)(j) (DL ¶21). - A countryside or settlement-boundary policy that is "not wholly consistent" with S5 gets very limited weight under Annex A (DL ¶22). - Accordance with the development plan as a whole can still be displaced by a statutory or Framework-level BNG failure (DL ¶30). - Drafting slip: one dwelling was given "moderate" weight rather than HO7 "substantial" weight. The letter does not consider S5(1)(d) (PDL redevelopment of stables) at all (DL ¶20-21, 28). ## Policy findings - **N2(1)(a): fail (substantial weight).** BNG self-build exemption not shown (UU defective) and no DMPO Art 7(1A) biodiversity information; "substantial weight to that harm" (DL 5-14, 27) - **S5(1)(j): pass.** no 5YHLS (figure not stated); backland plot "within the wider fringe of the built-up edge of Thornton"; single dwelling no infrastructure pressure (DL 20-21) - **DP3: pass.** replaces larger footprint of stables/stores; enclosed by vegetation; filtered views from National Forest Way (DL 17-19, 23) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** one dwelling + construction/spend benefits and accessibility, together only "moderate weight" — not HO7 substantial (DL 28) - **TR3: benefit.** site "reasonably accessible" to Thornton services; not wholly car-reliant; counted within moderate benefits (DL 28); code mapped by harvester - **DM4 (H&B DPD): conflict (very-limited weight).** countryside policy "not wholly consistent with Policy S5"; Annex A applied (DL 22) - **DM10 (H&B DPD): accord.** character and appearance acceptable (DL 19, 23) ## Key facts - Unilateral undertaking for self-build had its "Site" defined as land at Welton Lodge, Hunts Lane, Desford, and a plan that differed from the application plan (DL 6) - DMPO Article 7(1A) minimum biodiversity information not submitted; site mainly buildings and hard surfaces (DL 13) - Site reached by a long private track off Main Street; contains stables, stores, hardstanding; proposed dwelling footprint smaller than existing buildings (DL 16-17) - Council accepted no 5YHLS (figure not stated) (DL 20) - Parties given the chance to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 8) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004496 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4c0af6f0-66b0-4ba4-9f7e-8e909d8b8d03 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004496.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 147 Eastcote Lane, Harrow (two bungalows, outline) - **Decision:** allowed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Teasdale - **Authority:** Harrow (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6004526 - **Application reference:** PL/2879/25 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline permission (access reserved) for two detached single-storey dwellings with accommodation in the roof space, on a former grassed strip and part of the garden of No 147 - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, garden-land - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N2 - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, G6, London Borough of Harrow Local Plan 2021-2041 (2026) GR1, GI3, Residential Design Guide SPD 2010 - **Main issues:** privacy, biodiversity net gain - **Tags:** tier-2, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme, living-conditions, bng, pd-rights-condition-refused, costs-application, new-local-plan ## Summary Outline permission for two bungalows with rooms in the roof, on a strip of former grassland beside 147 Eastcote Lane, Harrow. The Council refused on privacy and biodiversity net gain (BNG). The inspector found obscure-glazed, fixed-shut dormers removed any overlooking, and that although garden-based habitat gains could not count, off-site units or credits made the statutory BNG condition capable of discharge. Allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "the parties have had the opportunity to comment on the changes in relation to this appeal" (DL ¶6). - **Privacy: no harm.** The Framework point was set aside: "the revised Framework has altered its approach and does not now refer to amenity in a general sense as it previously did but rather it now refers to amenity in some specific areas. I do not find reference to the Framework to be strictly applicable in the particular circumstances of this appeal" (DL ¶14). - **BNG baseline.** "I reach the same conclusion as the Council that the baseline condition is grassland" (DL ¶19). - **Garden habitat.** "where post-development gardens are private and have no public access, biodiversity net gains cannot be legally secured" (DL ¶24). "The mandatory 10% BNG could not therefore be secured on the site" (DL ¶25). - **Discharge route.** Off-site creation or statutory credits are "a realistic and achievable alternative to onsite gains. Accordingly, this provides sufficient certainty that the biodiversity gain condition is capable of being successfully discharged" (DL ¶26). Accords with N2 (DL ¶27). - **Permitted development rights (DM6).** "conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so" (DL ¶35); the Council's suggested restrictions were omitted. ## Planning balance Plan-led: no conflict with the development plan on either main issue, "having had regard to the development plan as a whole, the appeal is allowed" (DL ¶37). No S4 balance was run. ## What made the difference The fixed obscure glazing removed the privacy objection, and the inspector read the BNG test as whether the statutory condition is capable of discharge, not whether on-site gains are proven. The Council's own later approval of a near-identical scheme also shaped the conditions. ## Transferable points - The 2026 Framework no longer has a general amenity policy; one inspector did not find a Framework-based general amenity refusal "strictly applicable" (DL ¶14). - Private gardens cannot count towards mandatory BNG, but a scheme can still pass if off-site units or credits are realistic (DL ¶24-26). - DM6: conditions removing PD rights need clear justification (DL ¶35). ## Policy findings - **P3: not-engaged.** mapped - privacy harm refused by Council citing the Framework; inspector holds the revised Framework no longer refers to amenity in a general sense, so not strictly applicable; obscure-glazed fixed dormers mean no harm (DL 12-14) - **N2: accord.** BNG baseline is grassland (2020 imagery), not gravel; gains in private gardens cannot count, but off-site units or credits are a realistic route, so the biodiversity gain condition is capable of discharge (DL 19-27) - **DM6: neutral.** suggested conditions removing PD rights omitted; DM6 allows this only with clear justification and none was given (DL 35) ## Key facts - Parties had the opportunity to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 6) - New Harrow Local Plan 2021-2041 adopted during the appeal, superseding the 2012 Core Strategy and 2013 DM policies (DL 7) - Small Sites Metric shows +0.0421 units (30.04%), but relies on habitat in private gardens, which DEFRA's June 2026 metric guide says cannot be legally secured (DL 23-24) - Council had since granted a materially identical scheme without the dormers (PL/0427/26); conditions aligned with it (DL 28) - Two other appeals on the same site (6006890, 6005188) decided by the same inspector (DL 5) - Costs application by the appellant, the subject of a separate decision (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004526 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2ad9ec09-7ea1-4753-b5a6-90698b457901 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004526.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Malthouse Mews, Brew House Lane, Hartley Wintney - **Decision:** dismissed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Pickernell - **Authority:** Hart (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6004528 - **Application reference:** 25/01106/AMCON - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73 removal of condition requiring a private refuse collection strategy for 8 dwellings - **Homes:** 8 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** TR4(1)(d) - **Development plan policies:** Hart Local Plan (Strategy and Sites) 2032 INF3, NBE9, Hartley Wintney Neighbourhood Plan Policy 2 - **Main issues:** refuse servicing - **Tags:** tier-2, conditions, refuse-collection, framework-not-cited ## Summary Residents of an 8-home mews wanted to drop the private bin collection condition and put bins out for Council kerbside collection. The Inspector found the collection point impractical and outside the appellant's control, and the condition still necessary. Dismissed. The letter does not cite any Framework. ## What made the difference The Inspector's own judgement on practicality and future occupiers with mobility issues outweighed the lack of technical objection from the waste and highway authorities (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **TR4(1)(d): fail.** Framework not cited; mapped. Kerbside collection point not in appellant control, long trundle distance, unsuitable for future occupiers with mobility issues (DL 7-12) ## Key facts - Brewhouse Lane not on public collection route; bins for 8 households would sit on a lane corner that may be parked on - Waste and highway authorities did not object technically ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8de48d0c-f976-4534-953d-85c62ace9153 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004528 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004528.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 14 St Catherines Road, Hayling Island (backland bungalow, outline) - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M Aqbal - **Authority:** Havant (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6004592 - **Application reference:** APP/25/00185 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline permission (access, layout, scale) for a single-storey two-bed dwelling in the rear garden with new access past a protected oak - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.3 - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** S4, N3 - **Development plan policies:** Havant Core Strategy CS11, CS16, DM8, Havant Borough Design Guide SPD - **Main issues:** character, protected trees, tilted balance - **Tags:** transitional, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, backland, evidence-gap, trees-tpo ## Summary Outline permission was sought for a bungalow in the rear garden of a house in a spacious, tree-lined part of Hayling Island, with access past a protected oak. The inspector found the backland plot acceptable in character terms. But the appellant had not shown that the fixed access and layout could be built without harming protected trees. That uncertainty outweighed the benefit of one home even with a 1.3-year supply. The letter is dated 17 Aug 2026 and runs the December 2024 paragraph 11(d) tilted balance. ## Issues and findings - **Which Framework.** "The Council's evidence indicates that it can demonstrate only around 1.3 years of housing land supply. Consequently, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged and the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies" (DL ¶26). Trees are assessed under "paragraphs 136 and 187 of the Framework" (DL ¶23), which is the 2024 numbering. - **Character: PASS.** Departure from the frontage pattern "does not in itself establish harm" (DL ¶7), and "the effect on the character and appearance of the area would be limited" (DL ¶14). - **Trees: FAIL.** "the evidence before me does not adequately assess the relationship between the proposed access road and the root protection areas of the protected Oak" (DL ¶19). "conditions should not be used to defer consideration of a matter fundamental to establishing whether the development is acceptable in principle" (DL ¶22). - **Weight.** Housing: "significant weight … given the extent of the housing land supply shortfall" (DL ¶27). Tree uncertainty "attracts substantial weight against the proposal" (DL ¶28). ## Planning balance The 2024 ¶11(d) tilted balance was applied. Under the 2026 Framework the site is inside a settlement, so S4 would apply with its "substantially outweighed" test. Against: substantial weight to the uncertainty over trees, plus conflict with CS11 and DM8. For: significant weight to one home, with modest energy-efficiency and economic benefits. Outcome: harm "would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶29). ## What made the difference The outline sought approval of access and layout, which fixed the access line close to a TPO oak, and the arboricultural evidence was absent from the appeal and not BS5837-compliant. If the access had been reserved, or a proper arboricultural method statement had shown a no-dig solution, the character finding and 1.3-year supply would probably have carried it. ## Transferable points - Even with a very low supply (1.3 years), unresolved harm to protected trees can outweigh a small housing scheme (DL ¶27-29). - Where access and layout are for approval, tree feasibility must be shown now; a condition requiring an arboricultural method statement cannot defer it (DL ¶22). - A backland plot that departs from the frontage pattern is not harmful in itself; its scale and resulting plot sizes decide it (DL ¶7-14). - An example of an inspector applying the 2024 ¶11(d) test on the day the 2026 Framework took effect (DL ¶26). ## Policy findings - **DP3: pass.** backland plot departs from the frontage pattern but modest single-storey scale and retained plot sizes mean only limited effect on character; accords CS16 and Framework design aims (DL 7-15) - **N3: fail (substantial weight).** arboricultural evidence (not BS5837-compliant, not resubmitted at appeal) cannot show the fixed access and layout avoid root protection areas of a TPO oak; condition cannot defer a matter of principle (DL 16-23, 28) - **HO7: benefit (significant weight).** one dwelling given significant weight in view of a 1.3-year supply (DL 27) - **S4: fail.** applied as 2024 para 11(d): adverse impacts 'significantly and demonstrably outweigh' the benefits (DL 26, 29) ## Key facts - Council supply about 1.3 years; 2024 para 11(d) tilted balance applied on 17 Aug 2026 (DL 26) - Access and layout fixed at outline, so the tree impact had to be shown at this stage (DL 16, 22) - Arboricultural report from the application was not put in with the appeal (DL 17) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004592 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7cfb973b-fdac-455c-b4e9-9e9e4a6b370c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004592.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Willow Cottage, Latchmore Bank, Little Hallingbury - **Decision:** dismissed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A James - **Authority:** Uttlesford (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6004605 - **Application reference:** UTT/25/2544/HHF - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Replacement of modern garage with a timber-framed cart lodge in the curtilage of a Grade II listed cottage (Appeal A 6004604 planning dismissed; Appeal B 6004605 LBC UTT/25/2545/LB — consent not required) - **Site context:** green-belt, listed-building-setting, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE6(1), HE6(3), HE4(2) - **Development plan policies:** Uttlesford Local Plan 2021-2041 (adopted March 2026) Core Policies 61, 62 - **Main issues:** setting of listed building - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-harm-graded, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, householder, setting-harm, private-benefit-discounted, lbc-not-required, absence-of-harm-not-benefit ## Summary A new cart lodge to replace a modern garage beside a Grade II listed 16th-century cottage. The planning appeal was dismissed; listed building consent was held not to be required for a new freestanding structure. The cart lodge's wider, more prominent roof would not be subservient, causing harm "at a low level" to the cottage's setting. The inspector stressed that "a low level of harm does not equate to a low planning objection" (DL ¶15). The benefits were limited and mostly private. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶5). - **Setting harm.** "given its height and more prominent roof form ... the proposal would fail to be subservient to the listed building and would result in an unduly prominent new addition" (DL ¶13). - **Harm grading and weight.** "Policy HE6 of the Framework advises that ... substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation ... the harm would be at a low level. Nonetheless, a low level of harm does not equate to a low planning objection and the Framework is clear that any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶15). - **Benefits.** Omitting first-floor accommodation is not a benefit, because the scheme must be judged on its merits "rather than by reference to a more intensive alternative scheme that is not before me" (DL ¶17). "this is principally an absence of harm, rather than a positive public benefit" (DL ¶18). "the benefits which would accrue would primarily be of a private nature" (DL ¶19). ## Planning balance HE6(4): low-level harm, which carries considerable importance and weight, against limited public benefits. Harm prevails, and there is no clear and convincing justification under HE4(2) (DL ¶19-21). ## What made the difference Width and roof massing relative to the listed cottage. A smaller or lower roof that stayed subservient, like the existing garage, would probably have been acceptable. An expired 2021 consent for a replacement garage got limited weight because policy had changed since and its dimensions were unclear (DL ¶22). ## Transferable points - "a low level of harm does not equate to a low planning objection" (DL ¶15). This is a clean statement of how HE6(3) works now that the "less than substantial" label has gone. - Scaling a scheme down from a more intensive, unconsented version is not a public benefit (DL ¶17). - Reusing an already developed part of a curtilage is an absence of harm, not a benefit (DL ¶18). - An expired consent carries limited weight where policy has since changed (DL ¶22). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): harm (considerable weight).** grading "the harm would be at a low level. Nonetheless, a low level of harm does not equate to a low planning objection"; HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation and HE6(3) considerable importance and weight both stated; s66(1) cited; wider, taller roof not subservient to 16th-century cottage (DL 13, 15) - **HE6(4): benefit (limited weight).** small economic investment, removal of modern garage, unspecified landscaping all limited; omitting first-floor accommodation is not a public benefit; reuse of developed curtilage is "principally an absence of harm"; benefits "primarily ... private" (DL 16-20) - **HE4(2): fail.** "there is no clear and convincing justification for the harm" (DL 19) ## Key facts - Grade II Willow Cottage (1322687), 16th century or earlier timber-framed house - Proposed cart lodge wider than the existing garage and, seen from the highway, wider than the two-storey part of the house (DL 13) - 2021 permission and LBC for a replacement garage had expired; limited weight (DL 22) - Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 5); new Local Plan adopted March 2026 (DL 6) - LBC not needed for a new freestanding curtilage structure (DL 3-4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004605 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b3f971d6-9426-4af0-8589-17d1c3da5639 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004605.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Scotlands Farm, Telegraph Hill, Fernhurst (garage and access track) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Claire Coles - **Authority:** South Downs National Park Authority (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6004640 - **Application reference:** SDNP/25/01131/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Three-bay garage and permanent access track (improvement of a temporary construction access) at a refurbished farmstead - **Site context:** national-park, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N4 - **Development plan policies:** South Downs Local Plan SD1, SD4, SD5, SD7, SD11, SD12, SD31 - **Main issues:** landscape character and tranquillity in a National Park - **Tags:** national-park, landscape-harm, transitional-no-consultation, obligation-unsecured, drafting-slip, tier-2 ## Summary A farmstead in the South Downs National Park sought a three-bay garage and a permanent version of an access track first built as a temporary construction access under permitted development. The garage was acceptable, but the track cut through former woodland and brought vehicle movements into a tranquil area. The inspector found significant landscape and tranquillity harm contrary to N4 and the park's local plan. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I have not sought comments from the main parties in respect of the revisions to the Framework as I do not consider the policy emphasis regarding the main issue in this case to have changed" (DL ¶3). - **Access track, N4: FAIL.** "Landscape harms arising from the proposal would be significant" (DL ¶12). The permitted-development track "only lasts for the duration of the construction period, and the provision is explicitly worded to prevent a precedent for permanent development" (DL ¶13). "the proposed development would not conserve or enhance the landscape within which it sits" (DL ¶17). ¶19 calls the same harm "substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area". - **Garage: ACCEPTABLE, but unsecured land swap.** "the proposed garage would have no significant effect on the SDNP" (DL ¶24), but "In the absence of a mechanism for securing the land swap the proposed garage would fall outside the residential curtilage" (DL ¶24). - **Benefits.** BNG planting and avoiding the SSSI access are benefits, but "the access through the SSSI is existing and no further harm would be caused to the SSSI from the proposal, whereas the proposed development would cause additional harm to the NP" (DL ¶19). - **Drafting.** ¶8 describes the purpose of "National Landscapes" in a National Park case. Incidental. ## Planning balance Plan-led (s38(6)): conflict with the development plan as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate otherwise (DL ¶30). N4 substantial weight to conserving natural beauty set out at DL ¶7. No S4/S5 step. ## What made the difference The track, not the garage. A temporary permitted-development access cannot be the baseline for a permanent one, and the historic-track claim was unevidenced. Without firm evidence of a long-established access, and a secured curtilage swap for the garage, the scheme could not succeed. ## Transferable points - A construction access built under GPDO Part 4 Class A gives no precedent or fallback for a permanent track (DL ¶13). - In a National Park, sympathetic surfacing does not overcome the intrusion of a new permanent track through woodland (DL ¶13, ¶18). - Avoiding an existing harmful access is not a benefit that offsets new harm elsewhere in the protected landscape (DL ¶19). - A land swap that surrenders curtilage needs a planning obligation, not a condition (DL ¶23). ## Policy findings - **N4: fail (substantial weight).** access track through previously undeveloped woodland; significant landscape and tranquillity harm; does not conserve or enhance; statutory "seek to further" duty (LURA 2023) not met (DL 7-8, 12-20) - **N4: pass.** garage itself subordinate, screened and grouped with outbuildings; no significant effect on the NP (DL 22, 24) - **N2(1)(d): harm.** mapped - loss of woodland/trees from the construction track counted as part of the landscape harm; trees on own land could be felled anyway (DL 15, 17, 26) - **BNG (Sch 7A TCPA): neutral.** planting/BNG claimed as a benefit; baseline disputed (should predate the PD construction track); not pursued as appeal fails (DL 19, 27) - **PSED: neutral.** improved access might help people with impaired mobility, but no evidence anyone at the property needs it; does not outweigh harm (DL 29) ## Key facts - Temporary construction access built under GPDO Sch 2 Pt 4 Class A; lasts only for the construction period, so no precedent for a permanent track (DL 13) - Claim that the route follows a 35-year-old historic track not borne out; mapping and photos inconclusive (DL 12, 14) - Landscape Character Area O1 Greensand Hills; woodland, isolated farmsteads, tranquillity (DL 11) - Fittleworth stone surface with central grass strip insufficient mitigation (DL 18) - Garage acceptable but relied on a land swap into the residential curtilage with no mechanism to secure it; a condition would not do (DL 23-24) - Alternative access through an SSSI is existing, so avoiding it is not a benefit that offsets new NP harm (DL 19) - Parties not consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004640 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/643413a7-d99d-47a3-9356-4c35949efb72 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004640.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Dean Farm, Long Bottom Lane, Jordans - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Vicky Simpson - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6004673 - **Application reference:** PL/25/5175/VRC - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73 plans variation (Appeal A) and listed building consent (Appeal B, 6004675) for refurbishment, glazed rear extension and link on Grade II farmhouse plus barn and granary conversions - **Site context:** green-belt, listed-building-setting, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 LB1, LB2, Chiltern Core Strategy 2011 CS20, Chalfont St Giles Neighbourhood Plan historic environment policy 1 - **Main issues:** scope of s73, listed building - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, s73-scope, fallback, private-benefit-not-public, benefits-unsecured, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, non-determination ## Summary Revised schemes for a listed farmstead in the Buckinghamshire Green Belt, both non-determination appeals. The s73 appeal failed because the new link and first-floor corridor went beyond the operative part of the original permission. The listed building consent appeal failed on the HE6 balance. The harm to the farmhouse was "to a lower level within this category" but carried considerable importance and weight. The public benefits were discounted because they were unsecured, private, or achievable by less harmful means. ## Issues and findings - **s73 scope.** "a variation to the terms or extent of the 'operative' part of the planning permission would be required, which is not possible under Section 73" (DL ¶15). No other issues were considered for Appeal A (DL ¶16). The Green Belt issues were therefore never reached. - **Harm: HE6(1)/(3).** "In line with policy HE6: 1. … substantial weight is given to the conservation of the Listed Buildings" (DL ¶30). "The harm … would be to a lower level within this category" (DL ¶31). The category is not named; this is the old less-than-substantial scale carried over. "In accordance with policy HE6: 3 … the harm … is attributed considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶32). - **Public benefits: HE6(4).** - Re-use of the farmhouse: "I have no reason to doubt that the building could be brought back into use with less harmful works … modest weight" (DL ¶34). - Barn and granary re-use would "attract substantial weight", but "in the absence of a planning obligation or any suggested condition wording requiring a programme of works for the entire scheme … only a small amount of weight" (DL ¶35). - Better living space "is a private rather than a public benefit" (DL ¶37). - **Fallback.** The extant consent involves less demolition, so "the fallback scheme does not weigh in favour" (DL ¶41). ## Planning balance HE6(4). Considerable weight to low-level harm, against modest, small and very little weight to benefits. The benefits did not outweigh the harm. ## What made the difference The link and the glazed corridor caused new losses of historic fabric that the approved scheme avoided. Heritage benefits that depended on conversion works elsewhere on the site were not tied to the harmful works by an obligation or phasing condition. ## Transferable points - The HE6 sequence applied in order: (1) substantial weight to conservation → (3) considerable importance and weight to harm → (4) weigh against public benefits (DL ¶¶30–33). - Inspectors still grade harm "within this category", keeping the less-than-substantial scale without the label (DL ¶31). - Heritage benefits elsewhere on a site get little weight unless phasing is secured by obligation or condition (DL ¶35). - A s73 cannot add elements outside the original description (Finney) (DL ¶¶13–15). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation of the three listed buildings (DL 30) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** "to a lower level within this category": loss of historic chimney breast, rear wall and dormer fabric; glazed corridor erodes legibility of stacks (DL 23-27, 31-32) - **HE6(4): fail.** re-use of farmhouse modest weight (less harmful works possible); barn and granary re-use would be substantial but only small weight as not secured by obligation or phasing condition; economic very little; better living conditions private benefit (DL 34-37) ## Key facts - s73 appeal fails in limine; new link and first-floor extension fall outside the operative description (Finney v Welsh Ministers [2019] EWCA Civ 1868) - Extant LBC fallback involves less demolition, so it does not weigh in favour (DL 41) - Burnham Beeches SAC zone of influence; appropriate assessment not reached ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/50356b9c-1928-4315-8ba7-ffa055d8f44d - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004673 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004673.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Dean Farm, Long Bottom Lane, Jordans (listed farmhouse extensions, LBC) - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Vicky Simpson - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6004675 - **Application reference:** PL/25/5170/HB - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Listed building consent (Appeal B) for refurbishment and extension of a Grade II farmhouse, barn and granary, including a glazed first-floor rear corridor and a link to the cottage; linked s73 plans-variation Appeal A (6004673); both against non-determination - **Site context:** green-belt, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Chiltern Local Plan 1997 (consolidated 2011) LB1, LB2, Chiltern Core Strategy 2011 CS20, Chalfont St Giles Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2036 Historic Environment Policy 1 - **Main issues:** s73 scope, listed buildings, public benefits - **Tags:** listed-building-consent, heritage-harm-decisive, fallback, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, non-determination, green-belt ## Summary These were linked non-determination appeals about a Grade II farmstead at Jordans. Appeal A sought to vary a plans condition under s73. It was outside s73 because the new link and first-floor corridor were not within the original description of development. Appeal B was listed building consent for the same works. The inspector applied the new HE6(1), (3) and (4) sequence expressly, found low-level harm to the farmhouse, and dismissed it. The substantial weight that reusing the barn and granary could attract was cut to small weight because nothing secured the works. ## Issues and findings - **Section 73 (Appeal A): FAIL.** "a variation to the terms or extent of the 'operative' part of the planning permission would be required, which is not possible under Section 73 of the Act" (DL ¶15, citing Finney [2019] EWCA Civ 1868). - **Harm to the farmhouse.** The first-floor glazed corridor would "draw the observer's eye … away from parts of the chimney stacks" and "harmfully erode the legibility of the composition of the rear elevation" (DL ¶25). The link to the cottage is subservient and does not harm group value (DL ¶28). - **HE6 sequence.** "In line with policy HE6: 1. of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), substantial weight is given to the conservation of the Listed Buildings" (DL ¶30). "The harm … would be to a lower level within this category" (DL ¶31). "In accordance with policy HE6: 3 … considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶32). - **Benefits.** Reusing the barn and granary would attract substantial weight, "However, in the absence of a planning obligation or any suggested condition wording requiring a programme of works for the entire scheme … I cannot be certain that the public benefits … would result. Therefore, only a small amount of weight can be attributed" (DL ¶35). Better living conditions are "a private rather than a public benefit" (DL ¶37). - **Fallback.** The extant consent "does not weigh in favour of Appeal B" because the appeal scheme adds harm (DL ¶41). ## Planning balance This was an HE6(4) balance under s16(2). Harm: low level, with substantial weight to conservation and considerable weight to the harm. Benefits: modest (farmhouse reuse), small (barn and granary, unsecured), very little (economic). The benefits did not outweigh the harm (DL ¶38). Green Belt questions were not reached because Appeal A failed on s73 scope. ## What made the difference Two things. The glazed first-floor corridor enclosing the chimney stacks, and the lack of any mechanism tying the heritage benefits (barn and granary works) to the harmful works. With a phasing obligation, the barn and granary benefit could have carried substantial weight. ## Transferable points - Public heritage benefits count only to the extent they are secured. Unsecured reuse benefits drop from substantial to small weight (DL ¶35). - An extant consent is not a fallback in favour where the appeal scheme adds harm beyond it (DL ¶41). - New elements outside the original description cannot be added by varying a plans condition under s73 (DL ¶13-16). - A clear example of the HE6(1) → (3) → (4) sequence with "lower level" harm (DL ¶30-33). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** loss of small parts of historic fabric (chimney breast, early dormer, side wall) and reduced legibility of the rear chimney stacks; harm 'to a lower level' (DL 23-31) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** harm to the farmhouse attributed considerable importance and weight (DL 32) - **HE6(4): fail.** reuse of farmhouse modest weight (less harmful works possible); barn and granary reuse would be substantial but only small weight because not secured by obligation or phasing condition; economic very little; living space private (DL 33-38) - **TCPA s73: fail.** Appeal A: new link and first-floor corridor go beyond the operative part of the original permission, outside s73 (Finney v Welsh Ministers) (DL 13-16) ## Key facts - Three Grade II buildings (16th-century farmhouse and barn, 17th-century granary) in the Green Belt (DL 4, 17) - An extant alternative LBC was a real fallback but causes less harm, so it did not weigh in favour (DL 41) - Burnham Beeches SAC zone of influence; not pursued because the appeal failed (DL 39-40) - Parties had the opportunity to comment on the new Framework (DL 9) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004675 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6cd95f32-aaeb-4a4d-b81a-3c81286537df --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004675.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 252 Havant Road, Drayton, Portsmouth - **Decision:** allowed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Worley - **Authority:** Portsmouth (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6004676 - **Application reference:** 25/00705/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of part ground floor (Class E) and upper floor flat to a 9-bed sui generis HMO, with mansard roof and single-storey rear extension; front Class E unit retained - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** Portsmouth Plan 2012 PCS13, PCS17, PCS18, PCS23, HMO SPD 2019, Parking Standards SPD 2014 - **Main issues:** local centre, living conditions, parking, character, habitats sites - **Tags:** tier-2, no-framework-reference, hmo, parking-stress-unevidenced ## Summary A 9-bed HMO with a mansard roof above a retained shop unit in the Havant Road local centre, Portsmouth. Allowed. The local-centre role was kept, the council's noise and parking concerns were unevidenced (there was no kerbside survey), the mansard suited the varied roofscape, and Solent SPA mitigation had been paid. The whole decision is plan-led and the letter never cites the Framework. ## What made the difference The council produced no evidence on disturbance, parking stress or the viability of the smaller commercial unit. The inspector also departed from a recent refusal at No. 246 in the same parade (appeal 6001588), finding that the retained frontage unit kept the local centre working (DL ¶8). ## Policy findings - **PCS18 (Portsmouth Plan): accord.** front Class E unit retained so local-centre role supported; no evidence smaller unit unlettable; differs from inspector on 246 Havant Road (appeal 6001588) (DL 6-9) - **PCS23 (Portsmouth Plan): accord.** no material noise/disturbance increase over family occupation of flat; mansard acceptable in eclectic roofscape; 2-space parking shortfall not shown to cause parking stress without a kerbside survey (DL 10-25) - **N6: neutral.** Solent SPA recreation and nutrient contributions paid via s111 undertaking; AA passed (DL 26-30); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - HMO concentration within 50m remains below 10% SPD threshold; no sandwiching (DL 31-32) - No kerbside parking survey by the council (DL 23) - Letter never refers to the National Planning Policy Framework - Costs application made; separate decision ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004676 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3dc03821-4584-43f3-b75e-4aea41aa7ceb --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004676.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south of Woodview House, Perry Hill, Cliffe Woods - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Housden - **Authority:** Medway (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6004691 - **Application reference:** MC/25/1361 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 1-3 self-build dwellings - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.1 - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 60 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j)(i), S5(4), DP3(3), N2 - **Development plan policies:** Medway Local Plan 2003 S1, S2, BNE1, BNE25(i), BNE47, H11, Cliffe and Cliffe Woods Neighbourhood Plan 2023 SUSDEV1 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, S5 location, self-build need - **Tags:** PIP, self-build, s5-1-j, s5-4-exceptional, dp3-refuse-trigger, landscape-harm, housing-shortfall, self-build-shortfall, coalescence, local-policy-consistency, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Permission in principle for 1–3 self-build homes on an open green field off Perry Hill, north of Cliffe Woods. Medway has a 3.1-year supply, a 60% Housing Delivery Test result and a self-build shortfall of about 100 plots. The appeal was dismissed. The site is visually separate from the contained edge of Cliffe Woods, so it failed S5(1)(j)(i). With no S5 category met, S5(4) needed exceptional circumstances. Significant harm to rural character (DP3(3), N2) was not substantially outweighed by the housing and self-build benefits. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I sought the views of the parties regarding the implications of the new Framework on the appeal" (DL ¶4). - **Character — DP3 / N2: significant harm.** "a detrimental domestication of the appeal site where its distinct open, rural and undeveloped nature … would be lost … diminishing the clearly perceptible undeveloped open gap between the rural development within the countryside … and the edge of Cliffe Woods" (DL ¶9). Coalescence between Cliffe and Cliffe Woods was "only … a limited effect" (DL ¶10). - **S5(1)(j)(i): FAIL.** "the first part of paragraph (j) is met. However … the appeal proposal is set away from the defined edge of Cliffe Woods which is visually contained to the other side of Merryboys Road. The development would visually appear away from the settlement and as part of the countryside with an access from Perry Hill, a distinctly rural road. The development would therefore not appear physically well-related to Cliffe Woods" (DL ¶15). - **Consistency of local policies.** The character policies are "broadly consistent" with DP3 and N2, so "the conflict with these policies carries significant weight" (DL ¶24). An earlier inspector found BNE25 inconsistent only in its locational role, which is a different use from the character criterion (i) (DL ¶25). - **Self-build.** The uncontested 93–109 plot shortfall is "a material consideration in favour" (DL ¶17). The UU was sound under DM6, with "significant weight" (DL ¶22). - **DP3(3) refusal direction.** "Of particular note is paragraph 3 of Policy DP3 which advises that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1" (DL ¶28). ## Planning balance S5(4) exceptional-circumstances balance. Benefits: HO7 "substantial weight" (DL ¶27), a small construction and occupier economic benefit, and the self-build shortfall. Harm: significant character harm and DP3/N2 conflict. "these benefits would not substantially outweigh the significant adverse effects to the character and appearance of the area … Exceptional circumstances as required by paragraph 4 of Policy S5 do not exist" (DL ¶29). The scheme conflicted with the development plan and material considerations did not indicate otherwise (DL ¶30). ## What made the difference Visual separation from the settlement edge. Cliffe Woods is "visually contained" behind Merryboys Road, and the site faces a different, rural road (Perry Hill). A plot near a cluster of countryside dwellings (Woodview House) was therefore not physically well-related to the settlement, even though the supply shortfall, HDT and self-build shortfall were all severe. Once outside every S5 category, the bar flipped: benefits had to substantially outweigh harm, not the other way round, and significant landscape harm made that impossible. A site facing the existing built edge, or inside the contained settlement envelope, would likely have passed S5(1)(j) and been decided on the benefits-favoured S5(1) balance. ## Transferable points - "Physically well-related" in S5(1)(j)(i) was judged visually and functionally. A site across a containing road and reached from a "distinctly rural road" fails even if it is close (DL ¶15). - A severe shortfall (3.1 years, HDT 60%) plus a statutory self-build shortfall does not rescue a site that fails the well-related limb. The case then falls under S5(4), and exceptional circumstances were not shown (DL ¶26, 29). - Local character and countryside policies that are "broadly consistent" with DP3 and N2 keep significant weight, even where the same policy was found out of date for locational purposes (DL ¶24-25). - DP3(3) is cited as a refusal direction where development "would not integrate with and enhance its surroundings" (DL ¶28). - Nearby clusters of countryside housing do not justify extending the pattern towards a settlement edge across an open gap (DL ¶9). - For a PIP, an appropriate assessment is not needed if the appeal is dismissed (DL ¶16). A self-build UU at PIP stage can be given significant weight (DL ¶22). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j)(i): fail.** need limb met (3.1 yrs, HDT 60%) but site set away from visually contained edge of Cliffe Woods across Merryboys Road; reads as countryside off a rural lane — not physically well-related (DL 14-15) - **S5(4): fail.** no S5 category met; benefits do not substantially outweigh; no exceptional circumstances (DL 26, 29) - **DP3(3): fail.** would not "integrate with and enhance its surroundings"; DP3(3) refusal direction cited (DL 28) - **N2: conflict.** loss of open rural field, encroachment towards Cliffe Woods; limited coalescence between Cliffe and Cliffe Woods (DL 9-10, 24, 28) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** HO7 substantial weight cited for 1-3 homes (DL 27) - **DM6: pass (significant weight).** self-build UU (delivery details before commencement) meets DM6 tests; significant weight (DL 22) - **DM4: neutral (very-limited weight).** emerging Medway plan, no evidence of examination progress (DL 5) - **LP S1, S2, BNE1, BNE25(i), BNE47, NP SUSDEV1: conflict (significant weight).** character policies "broadly consistent" with DP3/N2, so not reduced under Annex A; BNE25 earlier found inconsistent only for its locational role (DL 12, 24-25) - **LP H11: not-engaged (very-limited weight).** rural settlement strategy; council itself says inconsistent with Framework (DL 13) ## Key facts - 5YHLS 3.1 years; Housing Delivery Test 60% (DL 15) - Self-build shortfall 93-109 plots, uncontested; council failing statutory duty (DL 17) - Green field fronting Perry Hill, a single-carriageway rural road; Cliffe Woods' edge contained on the other side of Merryboys Road (DL 8, 15) - Three earlier appeals on the wider blue-line land (fronting Merryboys Road) dismissed on character grounds (DL 11) - Earlier allowed appeal for three stables on the site not comparable (DL 18) - Parties' views sought on the 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004691 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8e8a44f0-fdea-4ab2-8f30-ba4daffc0016 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004691.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 10 Dew Lane, Ormesby - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Fawcett - **Authority:** Redcar and Cleveland (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6004752 - **Application reference:** R/2025/0238/VC - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73 variation of approved plans condition to reposition a part-built detached dwelling in a rear garden (original permission R/2021/0639/RS) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, garden-land - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N6, S4, HO7 - **Development plan policies:** Redcar and Cleveland Local Plan 2018 N4, SD4, Design of Residential Areas SPD 2011 - **Main issues:** habitats nutrient neutrality, habitats recreational disturbance, living conditions - **Tags:** habitats-mitigation, nutrient-neutrality, s73-variation, fallback, s4-substantially-outweighed, ho7-moderate-weight-no-evidenced-need, transitional-no-consultation, small-scheme, garden-land ## Summary A s73 application to reposition a part-built single house in a rear garden in Ormesby. It was refused, and the appeal was dismissed. Living conditions were acceptable, but Natural England raised nutrient neutrality during the appeal. No mitigation strategy was provided, so an adverse effect on the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA and Ramsar site could not be ruled out, and this defeated the S4 presumption. The fallback of an extant permission for the same dwelling did not save it. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Decided without consulting the parties: "There are no substantive changes in respect of the main issues and therefore no interested parties would be prejudiced by my consideration of the 2026 version" (DL ¶4). - **Habitats, nutrients: FAIL.** "No such mitigation strategy has been provided by the appellant. Consequently, I cannot ascertain beyond reasonable scientific doubt that the proposal would not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA and Ramsar site" (DL ¶10). - **Habitats, recreation: PASS.** A £200 contribution paid under the original permission, though not secured by an obligation, was accepted as mitigation (DL ¶15). - **Living conditions: PASS.** Obscure glazing to the side dormer could be secured by condition (DL ¶20). - **HO7: moderate weight only.** "Policy HO7 gives substantial weight to the benefits of providing homes which will contribute towards meeting evidenced accommodation needs ... However, there is no substantive evidence before me which identifies such a specific need for the type of accommodation proposed ... I therefore afford this benefit moderate weight given its small scale" (DL ¶30). ## Planning balance S4 balance. On the benefit side: moderate weight for one home and small economic benefits. On the harm side, the adverse effect on the SPA/Ramsar: "Policy N6 of the Framework indicates that proposals should be refused. I therefore find the benefits ... would be substantially outweighed ... Policy S4 of the Framework does not point to permission being granted" (DL ¶31). The fallback got significant weight, but "the application of the Habitat Regulations indicates that the proposed development must not be permitted" (DL ¶26). ## What made the difference Nutrient neutrality came up for the first time at appeal and the appellant produced no mitigation strategy. The Habitats Regulations are a legal bar that no fallback or S4 weighting can overcome. A costed, secured nutrient mitigation scheme would very probably have led to the appeal being allowed, since every other issue passed. ## Transferable points - HO7 "substantial weight" is tied to "evidenced accommodation needs". With no evidence of need for the type of home proposed, a single dwelling may get only moderate weight (DL ¶30). - N6 works as a refusal policy inside the S4 balance: an adverse effect on integrity means S4 "does not point to permission" (DL ¶31). - A s73 application creates a fresh permission and brings in a new Habitats assessment even where the original permission was never assessed (DL ¶¶3, 9). - A fallback of significant weight does not outweigh the precautionary Habitats Regulations test (DL ¶26). ## Policy findings - **N6: fail.** no nutrient mitigation strategy; adverse effect on integrity of Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA/Ramsar cannot be ruled out; N6 says refuse (DL 10-12, 31) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** no evidence of specific need for this accommodation type, so HO7 substantial weight not applied; moderate weight for general supply (DL 30) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed by habitats harm; S4 does not point to permission (DL 30-31) - **DP3: pass.** living conditions acceptable with obscure-glazed side dormer (plan policy SD4) (DL 17-24) ## Key facts - Dwelling already started but not built to approved plans; s73 would reposition it about 4 m west - Nutrient neutrality raised by Natural England during the appeal; not assessed at original permission (DL 9) - Fallback of extant permission given significant weight but precautionary Habitats approach prevailed (DL 26) - £200 recreational mitigation paid at original permission accepted as mitigation (DL 15) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004752 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/cf72e7e6-be99-4e14-bf3e-21536daa5393 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004752.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Pear Tree Farm, Alburgh Road, Hempnall Green (PIP, self-build) - **Decision:** allowed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Housden - **Authority:** South Norfolk (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6004780 - **Application reference:** 2025/1962 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for one self-build dwelling and an ancillary storage outbuilding on a field in a scattered rural group - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.85 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO7, AnnexB:settlement - **Development plan policies:** Greater Norwich Local Plan 2024 Policy 3, Policy 7.5, South Norfolk DM Policies 2015 DM1.1, DM1.3, DM1.4, DM4.5 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, location and accessibility, habitats - **Tags:** PIP, self-build, habitats-mitigation, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, rural-lane-no-footway, s5-not-applied, no-s4-s5-analysis, plan-led, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, hamlet ## Summary Permission in principle for one self-build home on a field in Hempnall Green, a scattered rural group about 1.6 km from Hempnall. Allowed. The inspector ran an appropriate assessment and accepted unilateral undertakings for recreational and nutrient mitigation at the PIP stage. She used Annex B to find that Hempnall Green is not a settlement, so the local self-build policy did not apply. She then allowed the scheme under the local plan's "overriding benefits" test for countryside development (DL ¶49). The letter never applies S5: there is no S5(1) category, no S5(3) isolated-home test and no S5(4) balance. ## Issues and findings - **Habitats (PIP Order Art 5B).** "there are no legal reasons why an obligation cannot be entered into at any time" (DL ¶10). The GIRAMS UU "effectively secures the contribution" (DL ¶14). The development "would not adversely affect the integrity of the protected sites" (DL ¶25). - **Character: no harm.** A single dwelling "would in principle be proportionate to its plot and commensurate with the surrounding development" (DL ¶30). - **Accessibility (TR3 not cited).** "Alburgh Road is an unlit countryside road which does not feature a pedestrian footpath" (DL ¶32). Yet "future occupiers would have a convenient, clear, and comfortable cycle route to the village" (DL ¶33). On the footway to the bus stop: "Full details of this footway would be required to come forward as part of the TDC application and I have no evidence before me to suggest that this could not be delivered in principle" (DL ¶34). - **Settlement (Annex B).** "I note Annex B of the Framework specifically sets out settlements do not include hamlets and scattered groups of houses located outside predominantly built-up areas" (DL ¶37). "I do not consider that Hempnall Green comprises a settlement and therefore Policy 7.5 does not apply" (DL ¶38). - **Self-build.** The Council "is not meeting its statutory requirement to provide sufficient self-build and custom housing plots" (DL ¶41). ## Planning balance Plan-led, under SNLP DM1.3. HO7 substantial weight, with 4.85 years' supply and the self-build duty unmet, called "a considerable social benefit" (DL ¶48). The footway gives "some modest social and environmental benefits" (DL ¶48). "the social, environmental and economic benefits of the proposal amount to overriding benefits justifying the spatial location outside of a settlement" (DL ¶49). No Framework balance was run. ## What made the difference The local plan offered an "overriding benefits" (DL ¶49) route for countryside housing, and the inspector found it met by self-build and supply shortfalls. The Annex B finding (not a settlement) took the scheme outside the local self-build policy but did not lead on to S5. Under S5 the site would have needed a category such as S5(1)(e) (infill within a group) or S5(1)(j) (unmet need, physically well-related to a settlement), or an S5(4) balance, and the location would have been tested against TR3. The footway that made the bus stop "convenient" (DL ¶34) was not secured, because a PIP cannot carry conditions. ## Transferable points - A scattered group of rural houses is not an Annex B settlement, so a local policy supporting homes "within or adjacent to settlements" does not apply (DL ¶37-38). - Unilateral undertakings can secure habitats mitigation at the PIP stage and support an appropriate assessment (DL ¶10, 14-15, 21-22). - Caution: this letter accepted a 1.6 km cycle along unlit roads without a footway, and an unsecured footway to a bus stop, without applying TR3 or S5. It is weak authority on location. ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:settlement: fail.** Hempnall Green "appeared as a scattered group of houses", so not a settlement; GNLP 7.5 self-build policy therefore not applied (DL 37-38) - **N6: pass.** mapped: appropriate assessment; GIRAMS recreational tariff and nutrient neutrality (package treatment plants) secured by unilateral undertakings; Natural England content; not habitats development under PIP Order Art 5B(1) (DL 7-26) - **TR3: pass.** mapped: TR3 not cited. Hempnall 1.6 km along unlit roads without footway, found a "convenient, clear, and comfortable cycle route"; appellant intends a footway to the Lundy Green bus stop, details left to TDC and not secured (DL 32-35) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 4.85-year supply and self-build duty not met; the benefits are called "a considerable social benefit" (DL 40-41, 48) - **DM6: pass.** GIRAMS, nutrient-neutrality and self-build UUs meet the obligation tests (DL 44-45) - **DP3: neutral.** mapped: a single dwelling in keeping with the low-density pattern; no harm (DL 28-31) ## Key facts - Hempnall village is about 1.6 km away along unlit Alburgh Road with no footway (DL 32) - Footway to the Lundy Green crossroads bus stop and pub promised, with details deferred to technical details consent (DL 34) - Bus route to Long Stratton and Norwich; frequency not stated (DL 34) - Council supply 4.85 years; self-build duty not met on earlier appeal findings (DL 40-41, 48) - Three unilateral undertakings (GIRAMS, nutrient neutrality, self-build) accepted at the PIP stage (DL 10, 14, 21, 45) - Allowed on the local plan's "overriding benefits" test (DM1.3); no S5 category, S5(3) or S5(4) finding (DL 47-50) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004780 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/076a727a-20d6-4e3b-a1f9-e4688663de14 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004780.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 1029 Oxford Road, Tilehurst, Reading - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Pickernell - **Authority:** Reading (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6004809 - **Application reference:** PL/25/0102 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of building of 4 flats and erection of a 3-storey building of 8 flats (6x1-bed, 2x2-bed) with 6 parking spaces - **Homes:** 8 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL, near-station - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.55 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), DP3(3), DP3(1), P3, L2 - **Development plan policies:** Reading Borough Local Plan 2019 CC7, CC8, H2, H3, H5, H11, TR1, TR3, Parking SPD 2011, Affordable Housing SPD 2021 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, neighbour living conditions, future occupier living conditions, parking, housing mix, affordable housing - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, living-conditions, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip, l2-additional-homes ## Summary Replacement of a building of 4 flats with a 3-storey block of 8 flats on Oxford Road, near Tilehurst station. Dismissed. Scale, height and large front gables harm the street scene, and the scheme harms neighbours' and future residents' privacy and outlook. This triggers DP3(3) and outweighs the S4 benefits, even with only 3.55 years' supply. Parking, housing mix and viability-limited affordable housing were all found acceptable. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The Council and appellant were invited to make further comments" on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶5). - **Character — DP3(1)/(3): FAIL.** "the proposed building would appear excessively scaled and squeezed into its plot resulting in a cramped form of development" (DL ¶16). "I find conflict with DP3(1) because the proposal does not respond to its context in order to integrate with its surroundings" (DL ¶60). - **Living conditions — P3: HARM.** The side bedroom windows would give "clear views of these windows, at close quarters" at No 1031 (DL ¶22). The flats facing the consented block would suffer "a visually dominant and overbearing effect" (DL ¶30). - **Parking — PASS.** The shortfall against the SPD was accepted: "the appeal site is in a location where realistic alternatives to car ownership are possible" (DL ¶40). - **L2.** L2 gives substantial weight to extra homes on existing plots, but "it goes on to state that such proposals should be consistent with the overall street scene and maintain acceptable living standards ... the proposal would not fulfil these criteria" (DL ¶56). - **Local plan consistency.** CC7 and CC8 "are consistent with Policies DP3, P3 and L2 of the Framework", so their breach gets significant weight (DL ¶59). ## Planning balance The S4(1) balance. For: net +4 homes against 3.55 years' supply, efficient use of PDL (L3) and economic benefits, together significant weight; affordable housing limited weight (DL ¶57). Against: "substantial and long lasting" harms to character and living conditions, with CC7/CC8 conflict given significant weight, plus the DP3(3) trigger (DL ¶¶58-60). The Inspector's conclusion is worded "the benefits would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects" (DL ¶61). This inverts the S4 test, which asks whether the benefits are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects. ## What made the difference Design and amenity harm was concrete: ridge above both neighbours, 3-storey front gables on an elevated plot, and side bedroom windows at close range. That was enough to invoke DP3(3)'s "should be refused" limb, so the S4 presumption fell away despite a sub-4-year supply. A scheme that kept to the neighbouring ridge line, used hipped roofs as the consented block next door does, and avoided side-facing habitable windows would likely have passed. The Council's parking and housing-mix objections failed. ## Transferable points - DP3(3) is used as a route to refusal inside S4: a failure to respond to context under DP3(1) is itself a "should be refused" policy (DL ¶¶55, 60). - L2's substantial weight for extra homes on existing plots comes with its own conditions (street scene, living standards). If those fail, L2 does not add weight (DL ¶56). - Local design and amenity policies consistent with DP3, P3 and L2 keep significant weight under the 2026 Framework (DL ¶59). - A parking shortfall against an old SPD is acceptable where there is a station, buses, a cycle route and controlled parking (DL ¶¶38-41). - Drafting slip: the S4 test is stated inverted at DL ¶61. ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): fail (significant weight).** taller than neighbours, cramped, prominent 3-storey front gables; does not respond to context (DL 15-17, 20, 60) - **DP3(3): fail.** refusal trigger engaged by DP3(1) conflict without clear justification (DL 60) - **P3: harm (significant weight).** overlooking and overbearing effect on 1031 Oxford Road and on the consented flats next door; poor outlook and privacy for future side bedrooms (DL 22-35, 59) - **L2: fail.** substantial weight to more homes on existing plots, but only if consistent with the street scene and acceptable living standards, which this scheme is not (DL 56) - **HO7: benefit (significant weight).** net +4 homes against a 3.55-year supply; weighed together with L3 efficient use of PDL and economic benefits as significant (DL 56-57) - **L3: benefit (significant weight).** efficient use of PDL in an accessible location (DL 57) - **S4(1): fail.** recorded with inverted wording: "the benefits would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects" (DL 61) ## Key facts - Agreed supply about 3.55 years; net gain of 4 flats (DL 56) - Parking 6 spaces against an SPD requirement of 10, found acceptable given the station, buses, cycle route and parking controls (DL 38-41) - Scheme unviable; deferred affordable contribution in the UU (maximum £220,500) given limited weight (DL 51-52, 57) - Revised plans at appeal refused for procedural fairness (DL 4); parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004809 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/aadd43d8-7b48-4f0d-8412-6ced5bfabc03 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004809.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 119 Bradford Crescent, Gilesgate, Durham - **Decision:** dismissed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Lancaster - **Authority:** Durham (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6004850 - **Application reference:** DM/25/03413/FPA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Flexible C3/C4 (small student HMO) use under GPDO Class V, with single-storey rear extension (letter materially identical to 6004494, same appellant and inspector) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, DP3(2)(a), DP3(3) - **Development plan policies:** County Durham Plan 2020 Policies 6, 16, 29, 31 - **Main issues:** mixed and balanced communities, living conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, article-4, non-determination, dp3-refuse-trigger, s4-substantially-outweighed, concentration-policy, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Flexible C3/C4 student HMO in a mid-terrace house in Gilesgate under an Article 4 Direction. Dismissed. The latest data put the 100 m concentration at 10.4%, just over the Local Plan's 10% "tipping point". The inspector found a failure of DP3(2)(a)'s "mixed and balanced communities" principle and gave it substantial weight, because DP3(3) says such proposals should be refused. That, with moderate harm to living conditions, substantially outweighed very modest benefits under S4 (DL ¶¶26–27). ## What made the difference The most recent twice-yearly council tax snapshot moved the site over the 10% threshold, and the inspector held that even a modest exceedance undermines a tipping-point policy (DL ¶17). DP3(3) then turned a local concentration policy into a national "should be refused" ground carrying substantial weight. ## Policy findings - **DP3(2)(a): fail (substantial weight).** fails "mixed and balanced communities"; DP3(3) says such proposals should be refused, so substantial weight (DL 26) - **CDP 16(3): conflict (significant weight).** student-exempt + unimplemented HMOs within 100 m = 10.4% (April 2026 data) against 10% "tipping point" (DL 14-19) - **S4: fail.** very modest benefits substantially outweighed; moderate harm to living conditions (DL 21, 24-27) ## Key facts - Article 4 Direction removes C3 to C4 PD rights (DL 6) - Updated council tax data moved concentration from 6.5% to 10.4% (DL 14) - Non-determination appeal; parties invited to comment on 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 2-5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004850 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/77859a9c-81aa-4ca2-911f-69c8c5fd8e96 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004850.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 37 Eastern Esplanade, Southend-on-Sea (shopfront) - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Sylvester - **Authority:** Southend-on-Sea (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6004873 - **Application reference:** 25/01736/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Replacement restaurant shopfront with full-height aluminium bi-fold glazing (retrospective, with proposed solid infill panels) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1), DP3(3), S4(2)(c), S4 - **Development plan policies:** Southend Core Strategy 2007 CP4, KP2, Southend Development Management Document 2015 DM1, DM3, DM5 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, setting of conservation area, setting of listed buildings, non-designated heritage assets - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, heritage-no-harm, ndha, shopfront, retrospective, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A retrospective full-height bi-fold shopfront to a seafront restaurant in Southend replaced a traditional shopfront that formed a matched pair with No 38. The inspector found no harm to the nearby conservation area, the listed fishermen's cottages or the locally listed terrace. But the design conflicted with DP3(1), the modest benefits were not "clear justification", and so under DP3(3) and S4 the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "All references to the Framework relate the revised document" (DL ¶2). - **Design, DP3(1): CONFLICT.** The shopfront has "an overly modern appearance that is at odds with the traditional character of nearby shopfronts" (DL ¶9). "it conflicts with paragraph 1 of Policy DP3 of the Framework" (DL ¶14). - **Heritage: NO HARM.** The development "preserves the settings of the CA and the Grade II listed buildings at Numbers 40-45 Eastern Esplanade, and causes no harm to the significance of the non-designated heritage assets" (DL ¶24). - **DP3(3): FAIL.** The benefits "would be modest and they do not, in my judgement, amount to clear justification for the development’s harm to the character and appearance of the host building and area" (DL ¶27). - **S4(2)(c) trigger.** "the development’s harmful effects on the character and appearance of the host building and area, and the resultant conflict with Policy DP3, amounts to the circumstances in which the benefits of approving the development are substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶28). ## Planning balance S4 inside a settlement, with the DP3(3) clear-justification question asked and answered, then routed through the "should be refused" trigger (DL ¶26-28). Conclusion framed plan-led under s38(6) (DL ¶29). ## What made the difference The loss of the symmetry of a paired traditional shopfront. Benefits from one restaurant's frontage were modest. A shopfront with a true stallriser and matching proportions to No 38 would likely have passed. ## Transferable points - A clean example of the full DP3(3) route: DP3(1) conflict, benefits tested as "clear justification", then the S4(2) trigger (DL ¶27-28). - E2/TC2 "substantial weight" to commercial and town-centre benefits does not supply clear justification when the benefits are modest (DL ¶26-27). - A design guide gets no weight where the council does not identify the guidance breached (DL ¶13). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): conflict.** floor-to-ceiling glazing, vertical emphasis, no stallriser or curved panel; breaks the matched pair with No 38 and the symmetrical facade (DL 6-12, 14) - **DP3(3): fail.** explicit step - modest economic and vitality benefits "do not ... amount to clear justification" for the harm (DL 27) - **S4(2)(c): fail.** DP3 named as a policy stating proposals should be refused; conflict means benefits substantially outweighed (DL 28) - **E2: benefit.** E2/TC2 substantial weight quoted, but benefits "would be modest" (DL 26-27) - **HE6: neutral.** settings of Eastern Esplanade CA and Grade II Nos 40-45 preserved; s66/s72 applied (DL 15-24) - **HE7: neutral.** no harm to locally listed Nos 46-57 (NDHA) (DL 18, 24-25) - **S4: fail.** inside settlement; benefits substantially outweighed; conclusion framed on development plan as a whole (DL 28-29) ## Key facts - Shopfront already built; assessed against photograph of the pre-existing traditional shopfront as baseline (DL 4, 7) - Proposed infill panels inside the bi-fold frames would have no effect when doors open; condition for alternative details not accepted (DL 10) - Aluminium itself a modest difference, not decisive (DL 11) - Council's Design and Townscape Guide given no bearing because no specific guidance was identified (DL 13) - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004873 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/75ea12cb-dc57-49d6-a334-c0947671e69e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004873.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Vicarage Hill, St Day (PIP, World Heritage Site) - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Butcher - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6004909 - **Application reference:** PA25/07349 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 1 to 2 dwellings on a former mineworker's smallholding plot - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE8, HE4(2), HE6(1), HE6(4), S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 Policies 1, 2, 12, 21, 24, Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1, Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape WHS Management Plan 2020-2025, Cornwall Design Guide - **Main issues:** World Heritage Site Outstanding Universal Value, suitable location for PIP - **Tags:** PIP, heritage-harm-decisive, s4-substantially-outweighed, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, world-heritage-site, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, inconsistent-weighting, settlement-definition ## Summary Permission in principle for one or two homes on a small plot at Vicarage Hill, St Day, inside the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site. Dismissed. The inspector accepted the WHS Office's evidence that the plot was part of a mineworker's smallholding that contributes to Outstanding Universal Value. Domestic development would sever it visually from the surviving landholding. Low-end harm under HE5/HE6, given "very significant weight", substantially outweighed limited housing benefits under S4(1), even with HO7 substantial weight. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "In the interests of fairness, I provided the main parties with an opportunity to provide comments on the new Framework" (DL ¶4). - **WHS contribution — HE8.** "given the extent to which St Day was linked to the mining industry … it seems very likely to me that the smallholding would have been worked by mineworkers. Moreover, the lack of an associated dwelling on or near the site does not reduce the historic value or importance of the smallholding. As such, having regard to Policy HE8 of the Framework, it seems to me that the site does contribute to the significance of the WHS" (DL ¶11). - **Harm.** Up to two dwellings with hardstanding and "the inevitable domestic paraphernalia, would result in the site becoming visually separated from the wider landholding … the contribution of the appeal site to the significance of the wider WHS would also be lost" (DL ¶12). "having regard to Policy HE5(2) of the Framework, the proposal would result in 'harm', albeit at the lower end of the scale given the modest nature of the proposal" (DL ¶13). - **HE6(4) balance: FAIL.** "given the modest scale of the proposal, the benefits would be limited … the harm in this instance would clearly outweigh the public benefits" (DL ¶14). - **Settlement status — S4(1).** "while it is situated outside of the main urban area of St Day, I am of the view that it should be regarded as being within a settlement" (DL ¶19). - **HO7.** "Given the shortfall of housing land supply in the area, this clause could be said to be triggered" (DL ¶19). - **L2.** "Given the harm I have identified to the WHS, I cannot conclude that the proposal represents a 'better use' of the land" (DL ¶20). ## Planning balance HE6(4) heritage balance first (DL ¶13-14), then S4(1): "harm to the WHS is a serious matter that must attract very significant weight. I therefore find that the harm would substantially outweigh the limited benefits in this case, even when applying substantial weight in relation to Policy HO7 of the Framework" (DL ¶21). Development plan conflict as a whole (DL ¶17). ## What made the difference Detailed, specific historical evidence from the WHS Office, backed by the appellant's own tithe map showing intact historic boundaries, established that this particular plot was an attribute of OUV (mineworkers' smallholdings). The appellant's argument that there was no definitive proof of mineworker occupation failed on balance of likelihood (DL ¶10-11). Once a WHS contribution was found, even low-end harm outweighed 1-2 homes. A plot whose historic boundaries had been lost, or with no documentary link to mining, would likely have passed S4(1). ## Transferable points - For a WHS, historical uncertainty does not defeat a finding of contribution: "when dealing with historical records, there can sometimes be an absence of certainty" but a detailed, compelling specialist analysis can carry it (DL ¶11). - Harm to a WHS attracts "very significant weight" and can substantially outweigh HO7 substantial-weight housing under S4(1) even where harm is at the lower end (DL ¶21). - PIP stage can consider "the effect of additional built form … in general terms" on heritage to decide if the location is suitable (DL ¶6). - A site outside the "main urban area" but well related to existing homes can be treated as within a settlement for S4 (DL ¶19). - L2 "better use" of underused land is given little weight where the development causes heritage harm (DL ¶20). - Drafting note: the inspector calls benefits "limited" (DL ¶14, 18) while also applying HO7 "substantial weight" (DL ¶21), and grades harm by "the modest nature of the proposal" (DL ¶13), which HE5(3) says is not the test. ## Policy findings - **HE8: harm.** site is part of a historic mineworker's smallholding whose boundaries survive intact on the 1838 tithe map; it contributes to the WHS's Outstanding Universal Value; the absence of an associated dwelling does not reduce its value (DL 6-11) - **HE5(2): harm.** harm "at the lower end of the scale given the modest nature of the proposal" (DL 13) — the inspector scaled harm to the size of the scheme, which sits awkwardly with HE5(3) (effect on significance, not scale of development) - **HE4(2): fail.** cited for the "clear and convincing justification" requirement (DL 13) - **HE6(1): harm (significant weight).** substantial weight to conservation; harm to the WHS "a serious matter that must attract very significant weight" (DL 13, 21) - **HE6(4): fail.** limited public benefits (1-2 homes on PDL, economic) "clearly outweighed" by the harm (DL 14) - **S4(1): fail.** site outside the main urban area of St Day but "well related to existing homes" and treated as within a settlement; harm substantially outweighs benefits (DL 19, 21) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** "Given the shortfall of housing land supply in the area, this clause could be said to be triggered"; yet benefits elsewhere called "limited" (DL 14, 18-19, 21) - **L2: neutral (limited weight).** not a "better use" of land given the WHS harm (DL 20) ## Key facts - Site forms part of the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape WHS; Cornish Mining WHS Office objected with detailed historical analysis - Field owned by the Harvey brothers, suppliers to the mining industry, who leased 30+ plots of dwellings, outhouses and field plots locally (DL 7) - 1838 tithe survey boundaries of the landholding still intact on the ground (DL 9) - Existing buildings on the plot in poor repair; site accepted as PDL - Council has a housing land supply shortfall (figure not stated) - SAC mitigation (Penhale Dunes, Fal and Helford) provided; AA unnecessary as dismissed (DL 16) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004909 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/97bbb0dc-5d8d-4a97-b816-98413fb2a8b7 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004909.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 1-3A Doggett Road, Catford - **Decision:** allowed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Marriott - **Authority:** Lewisham (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6004929 - **Application reference:** DC/25/140280 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of 13-bed HMO and erection of 4-storey building with 9 flats and a commercial unit - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL, flood-zone-3, flood-zone-2, near-station - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 65 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S3, S4, HO7, L2, L3, F5, F6, DM5 - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, H9, HC1, T5, T6, Lewisham Local Plan 2025 QD1, QD8, QD10, HE3, HO1, HO3, HO8, SD7, TR4, Small Site Design Guidance SPD 2021 - **Main issues:** character and heritage, loss of HMO, affordable housing viability, living conditions, cycle parking, neighbour privacy, flood risk - **Tags:** s4-approve, flood-risk, sequential-test-not-done, viability, hmo, ndha, heritage-no-harm, housing-shortfall, pdl-substantial-weight, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme ## Summary A 4-storey building with 9 flats and a café, replacing a poor-quality 13-bed HMO on a corner plot next to Catford Bridge station. Lewisham refused it, and the appeal was allowed. No sequential test had been done, even though part of the site is in Flood Zone 3a. The inspector found conflict with F5 and the plan's SD7, but gave substantial weight to HO7 (HDT 65%) and to L2/L3 PDL reuse. Removing the basement bedrooms was a real flood-safety gain. On that basis the S4 balance favoured approval. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were given the opportunity to comment on the revised Framework" (DL ¶3). - **Character / NDHAs — HE7, DP3: PASS.** The building would make "a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area" and would not harm the settings of the NDHAs (DL ¶19). - **Loss of HMO: acceptable.** The local plan policy protects good-quality HMOs, not ones that merely meet licensing. This HMO fell "short of those reasonably associated with good quality HMO" (DL ¶¶24–25). - **Affordable housing — DM5: viability accepted.** "the Council has not contested the conclusions of the VA ... the VA nevertheless indicates a significant viability deficit even in the absence of those costs" (DL ¶32). - **Flood — F5: FAIL; F6/F7: PASS.** "While a sequential test has not been undertaken in line with Policy F5 of the Framework, the considerations in Policy F6 remain relevant" (DL ¶50). "the ability to make the development safe ... does not negate the requirement to apply the sequential test" (DL ¶52). The resulting conflict is "principally one of policy compliance rather than direct flood risk harm" (DL ¶56). - **DM7.** Accessibility details were left to Building Regulations: "Policy DM7 ... advises decision-makers to assume that other regulatory regimes will operate effectively" (DL ¶17). ## Planning balance S3/S4 balance. For the scheme: HO7 substantial weight (HDT 65%), L2/L3 substantial weight for PDL in a sustainable urban location, limited economic weight. Against it: a sequential-test conflict under F5 and SD7, with flood risk actually reduced. "the benefits of approving the proposed development would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶60). Material considerations justified departing from the plan (DL ¶61). ## What made the difference The Council did not defend its reasons. It produced no appeal statement on viability, no conditions and no sequential-test evidence. The inspector also judged the missing sequential test a matter of procedure: much of the surrounding area floods too, so a sequentially preferable site was unlikely, and moving bedrooms out of the basement reduced actual risk. With HO7 plus L2/L3 both at substantial weight on a PTAL 6a PDL site, the S4 bar of "substantially outweighed" could not be met. A greenfield site, or a scheme that increased the number of people exposed to flooding, would probably have failed on F5. ## Transferable points - A failure to carry out a sequential test (F5) can be outweighed in the S4 balance when it is "principally one of policy compliance rather than direct flood risk harm" and the scheme reduces the number of people exposed (DL ¶¶50, 56, 60). - F6 considerations "remain relevant" even where the sequential test has not been passed (DL ¶50). - HO7 and L2/L3 can each carry substantial weight in the same S4 balance for urban PDL redevelopment (DL ¶57). - Unchallenged viability evidence under DM5 displaces HO8 and the local plan's affordable housing requirement for small sites (DL ¶¶29–33, 59). - DM7 lets accessibility and door-width concerns be left to Building Regulations (DL ¶¶17, 41). ## Policy findings - **F5: fail.** no sequential test done; site partly FZ3a/FZ2; conflict with F5 and LP SD7, described as "principally one of policy compliance rather than direct flood risk harm" (DL 49-52, 56) - **F6: pass.** exception-type considerations still relevant; basement bedrooms removed = significant betterment; PDL in highly sustainable location (DL 50) - **F7: pass.** FRA mitigation, flood warning registration, no EA objection (DL 51) - **HE7: neutral.** no harm to settings of NDHAs Catford Bridge Tavern and station (DL 11, 19-20) - **DP3: pass.** distinctive building with active frontages on three sides; no conflict with Framework design policies (DL 19-21) - **DM7: neutral.** accessibility/ramp details left to Building Regulations; assume other regimes operate effectively (DL 17, 41) - **DM5: pass.** unchallenged viability appraisal shows deficit; no affordable housing required despite LP HO3(J) 2-9 unit requirement (DL 29-33) - **HO8: neutral.** HO8 requires meeting up-to-date plan affordable requirements, displaced by viability (DL 28, 59) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** HDT 65% (previously 32%); modest but important contribution (DL 26, 57) - **L2: benefit (substantial weight).** with L3, substantial weight to redevelopment of PDL in sustainable urban location (DL 57) - **S4: pass.** benefits not substantially outweighed; departure from plan (SD7 conflict) justified (DL 55, 60-61) ## Key facts - Existing 13-bed HMO of poor quality (basement rooms, limited kitchens/showers); loss acceptable under LP HO8 (DL 22-27) - HDT 32% in the past, 65% for 2025 (DL 26) - PTAL 6a, car-free by condition in place of an unsubmitted s106 (DL 53, 64) - Viability appraisal first submitted at appeal and admitted (Wheatcroft-type test) (DL 4) - Bat surveys obtained during the appeal on the inspector's invitation (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004929 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fd392743-b30d-4e80-842e-c89d3bf4c2de --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004929.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 105 Wellburn Road, Donwell, Washington (hair salon) - **Decision:** allowed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Jones (on the recommendation of appeal planning officer J Reed) - **Authority:** Sunderland (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6004934 - **Application reference:** 25/02408/ful - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Front extension and part change of use of a terraced house to a single-chair hair salon - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S3 - **Development plan policies:** Sunderland Core Strategy and Development Plan 2020 HS1, BH1, ST2, ST3, Sunderland UDP 1998 EN10 - **Main issues:** living conditions, highway safety (parking), suitability of location - **Tags:** tier-2, appeal-planning-officer, transitional-no-consultation, limited-nppf-engagement, living-conditions, parking-stress-unevidenced ## Summary Front extension and part change of use of a mid-terrace house in Donwell to a single-chair hair salon. Allowed on an appeal planning officer's recommendation. A conditioned management plan kept activity and parking demand low, and the neighbourhood-compatibility policy did not bar a different use class. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I am satisfied that the Framework’s content does not affect the substance of the main issues in the appeal." (DL ¶4). The parties were not consulted. - **Living conditions and parking: acceptable.** Bus stops are near, so "sustainable transport modes, such as walking and bus travel would be likely to provide a realistic option for some salon clients" (DL ¶11). - **Location (UDP EN10).** The policy does not contain "any criterion or provision requiring development proposals to be refused solely because they would introduce a use falling within a different use class from that which predominates in the surrounding area" (DL ¶14). - **Framework.** "I conclude that no adverse effects would arise from the development, nor any conflict with the Framework’s decision-making policies. Therefore, the Framework’s presumption in favour of sustainable development indicates that the proposed development should be permitted." (DL ¶19). ## Planning balance Plan-led: accords with the development plan as a whole, and the S3 presumption points the same way (DL ¶19). ## What made the difference The management plan (one client at a time, ten a day, daytime hours) secured by condition. ## Transferable points - A home-business conversion can be made acceptable by a conditioned operational management plan limiting throughput and hours (DL ¶8, ¶18). ## Policy findings - **S3: pass.** no adverse effects and no conflict with the decision-making policies, so the presumption indicates permission; S4 not named (DL 19) - **P3: neutral.** mapped; living conditions acceptable with management plan (single chair, max 10 clients a day, 09:00-18:00 Mon-Sat) secured by condition; Framework not cited on this issue (DL 8-9) - **TR6: neutral.** mapped; low, dispersed parking demand, no parking stress seen, bus stops nearby; Framework not cited on this issue (DL 10-13) ## Key facts - Appeal planning officer site visit and recommendation, adopted by the inspector (DL 2, 20) - [object Object] - UDP EN10 (compatibility with neighbourhood use) does not require refusal merely because a different use class is introduced (DL 14) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004934 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/10fcd6d0-b9af-4bac-8862-24fb2abf6bf2 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004934.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Valera Ltd, Plox Brow, Tarleton - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Chris Mayes - **Authority:** West Lancashire (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6004952 - **Application reference:** 2025/0330/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Five dwellings and a block of 4 flats following demolition of former office and warehouse buildings - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL, flood-zone-2 - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** F5, S4 - **Development plan policies:** West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD 2013 GN3, GN4, GN5, EC1, EC2 - **Main issues:** flood risk sequential test, loss of employment land - **Tags:** flood-risk, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, employment-loss-marketing, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, sequential-test-access-route ## Summary Nine homes on a former employment site inside Tarleton. Dismissed because no sequential test was done: part of the access lies in Flood Zone 2, so the F5 exception for sites with no built development in a risk area was not met. The loss of employment land was also unjustified, the buildings having been in storage use until 2023. Substantial weight to housing did not avoid the S4 "substantially outweighed" conclusion. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The parties were given the opportunity to comment on the implications of the revised Framework" (DL ¶2). - **F5 sequential test: FAIL.** "The FRADS identifies part of the access serving the site within Flood Zone 2 … I do not consider that the proposal falls within the exception set out in Policy F5" (DL ¶8). "A proportionate approach to an assessment does not displace the requirement in Policy F5 for a sequential test" and EA silence does not establish an exception (DL ¶9). Mitigation is an F7 matter (DL ¶10). - **Employment land: CONFLICT.** "the proposal would result in the loss of employment land and premises that has not been shown to be justified" (DL ¶17). - **HO7: substantial.** "I therefore attach substantial weight to this benefit" (DL ¶20). - **L2(1)(b): not engaged at substantial weight.** "I am therefore not satisfied that the site is underutilised in the sense contemplated by Policy L2(1)(b)" (DL ¶21); PDL reuse limited weight. ## Planning balance S4(1): housing (substantial), PDL reuse and landscaping/biodiversity (limited) against flood (significant) and employment loss (significant). "the benefits … would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects identified" (DL ¶25). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶26). F5 was not routed as an S4(2)(c) trigger; it was weighed as an adverse effect. ## What made the difference The access route. Placing the houses outside the flood zone did not help because F5's exception expressly covers access and escape routes. A sequential test covering reasonably available lower-risk sites, and up-to-date marketing of the employment premises, were the missing pieces. ## Transferable points - F5's exception requires that no built development, "including access or escape routes", be in an area at risk; dwellings outside the zone are not enough (DL ¶7–8). - F4(3) proportionality does not displace the sequential test; an absent EA objection does not establish an exception (DL ¶9). - A recently used employment site is not "underutilised" under L2(1)(b), so that policy's substantial weight is unavailable (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **F4(3): neutral.** proportionate site-specific FRA; F4(3) concerns scope of the FRA and does not displace the sequential test (DL 5-6, 9) - **F5: fail (significant weight).** part of access in Flood Zone 2 and newer modelling shows wider risk, so the F5 exception (no built development incl. access/escape in risk area) not met; no sequential test (DL 7-10); adverse effect significant weight (DL 23) - **F7: neutral.** FRADS mitigation goes to whether development could be made safe, not to the sequential test (DL 10) - **CC3: conflict.** fails to minimise vulnerability to flooding through F4-F8 (DL 11, 23) - **LP EC1/EC2/GN4 (local): conflict (significant weight).** loss of employment land not justified; storage use until Nov 2023; no up-to-date marketing (DL 12-17, 24) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 9 dwellings; council cannot show adequate supply (figure not stated) (DL 20) - **L2(1)(b): benefit (limited weight).** not "underutilised" in the L2(1)(b) sense because employment use not shown to have ended, so no substantial weight; PDL reuse limited weight (DL 21) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed by flood and employment-loss harms (DL 25) - **Transitional(2): neutral.** GN3 and GN5 "broadly consistent with the sequential approach in the Framework" (DL 5) ## Key facts - Former Valera food-equipment office/warehouse in Tarleton settlement boundary; storage use until November 2023 (DL 4, 15) - Dwellings outside the flood zone but part of the access in Flood Zone 2; newer modelling shows greater extent (DL 8) - No Environment Agency objection, but that does not establish an F5 exception (DL 9) - 2020 outline permission for housing (buildings then unused since 2012) distinguished by the intervening employment use (DL 15) - Council cannot demonstrate an adequate supply; figure not stated (DL 20) - Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004952 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ddec1c59-0333-46a0-a316-4e0e027b3df3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004952.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Former Middleton Conservative Club, 77 Long Street, Middleton (events venue) - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Roger Catchpole - **Authority:** Rochdale (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6004977 - **Application reference:** 25/00577/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of former Conservative Club and banqueting hall (non-designated heritage asset) to multi-functional events space with side extension, ramp, retaining wall and 58-space car parking on former bowling green (non-determination appeal) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE5(1), HE6(1), HE6(4), TR4(1)(a), P3(2)(a), P3(2)(c), N2(1)(f) - **Development plan policies:** Rochdale Core Strategy 2016 DM1, P2, P3, G7, G9, T2, Places for Everyone JDP 2024 JP-S1, JP-S5, JP-C8 - **Main issues:** heritage, highway and pedestrian safety, living conditions noise and air quality, protected species - **Tags:** community-facility, events-venue, heritage-assessment-missing, pedestrian-priority, air-quality-aqma, protected-species-survey, e2-substantial-weight, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Reuse of a derelict former Conservative Club and banqueting hall in Middleton town centre as a multi-functional events venue, with an extension and a car park on the old bowling green. It was a non-determination appeal and was dismissed. The inspector applied a series of new Framework decision-making policies: HE5(1) (no assessment of structural risk to the adjoining Grade II* church), TR4(1)(a) (no safe pedestrian route), P3(2)(a) and (c) (the on-site flat not assessed for noise; no air quality assessment in an AQMA) and N2(1)(f) (no badger survey). Together these outweighed substantial-weight reuse and economic benefits. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties had the opportunity to comment on the Framework published on 17 August 2026 (DL ¶7). - **Heritage: direct fabric risk.** "Policy HE5(1) of the Framework states that development affecting a heritage asset should be accompanied by an assessment of the potential effect of the proposal on its significance … no assessment of direct harm to the LB was considered" (DL ¶27). The inspector said a condition would inevitably be "predicated on an assumption that there would be an acceptable" outcome (DL ¶26). Harm was not substantial, so HE6(4) was engaged (DL ¶28). "there is not a clear and convincing justification for potential serious harm to be accepted which could be resolved through the submission of further information" (DL ¶55). - **"Less than substantial" terminology.** In rejecting the council's claim of less than substantial harm to the conservation area, the inspector added that "this classification no longer applies" (DL ¶23). - **HE9(2).** The conservation area must be judged as a whole; the hidden bowling green "must therefore have a moderate degree of prominence" to matter (DL ¶24). - **Pedestrian priority: FAIL.** "there is no segregation at the existing site entrance and pedestrians would be forced to cross an area where cars are manoeuvring … contrary to Policy TR4(1)(a) of the Framework" (DL ¶35, 37). - **Occupiers and air quality.** "Policy P3(2)(a) of the Framework makes it clear that all development proposals need to provide healthy living conditions for occupiers" (DL ¶43). "it is the responsibility of the appellant to prove that this would not be the case … Policy P3(2)(c) of the Framework clearly states that development proposals should take account of AQMAs" (DL ¶45). - **Badgers.** "The need to ensure surveys are carried out should therefore only be left to planning conditions in exceptional circumstances … contrary to Policy N2(1)(f) of the Framework" (DL ¶50-51). - **Benefits.** "the policy imperative of the weight to be afforded to making better use of vacant buildings and economic growth from commercial development which is substantial, according to the Framework" (DL ¶54). ## Planning balance First the HE6(4) harm against public benefits, which failed (DL ¶55). Then the wider balance: listed-building harm (substantial, HE6(1)); living-conditions and health harm (substantial); pedestrian safety (significant); badgers (moderate). Together these outweighed the benefits: reuse of the NDHA (limited, since no repair schedule), community value (limited, since unmet need unclear), and economic reuse (substantial) (DL ¶53-56). Section 38(6) conflict (DL ¶57). The letter runs no S4 balance even though the site is in a town centre (a notable omission). ## What made the difference Missing technical evidence on four fronts: structural and heritage assessment, the flat's noise exposure, air quality, and badgers. The inspector refused to let conditions fill gaps where the answer might need redesign. A complete application would probably have succeeded, given the council's broadly favourable view of design and the substantial weight for reuse. ## Transferable points - HE5(1) requires an assessment of direct physical risk to adjoining listed fabric (groundworks, vibration), not just setting. Where it is missing, harm "cannot be ruled out" (DL ¶26-27). - The 2026 Framework drops the "less than substantial harm" label (DL ¶23), but the HE6(4) harm-and-benefit weighing is still applied (DL ¶28, 55). - TR4(1)(a) pedestrian priority is a free-standing ground for dismissal where a site entrance forces pedestrians through vehicle manoeuvring (DL ¶35-37). - P3(2)(a) protects occupiers of ancillary on-site accommodation, and P3(2)(c) puts the burden of an air quality assessment on the appellant in an AQMA (DL ¶43-45). - N2(1)(f): protected species surveys should precede permission, with conditions only in exceptional circumstances (DL ¶50-51). ## Policy findings - **HE5(1): fail.** heritage statement did not assess direct structural and vibration risk to the adjoining Grade II* Edgar Wood Methodist church from the ramp and retaining wall (DL 26-27) - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** potential localised (not substantial) harm to the fabric of the Grade II* building; a condition cannot presume acceptability (DL 26-28, 56) - **HE6(4): fail.** significant public benefits (economy, reuse of a vacant building) do not outweigh; no "clear and convincing justification" (DL 55) - **HE9(2): pass.** CA judged as a whole; the hidden bowling green's loss is not prominent; no harm to the CA (DL 23-24) - **HE7(2): neutral (limited weight).** reuse of the NDHA positive in principle but no repair schedule; could be conditioned (DL 29, 53) - **TR4(1)(a): fail (significant weight).** no segregated pedestrian route from Long Street through the vehicle manoeuvring area; not curable by condition without redesign (DL 33-37, 56) - **P3(2)(a): fail (substantial weight).** ancillary first-floor flat within the highest noise contours and not assessed (DL 41-43, 47) - **P3(2)(c): fail (substantial weight).** in the Long Street AQMA with 50+ extra car spaces and no air quality assessment; burden on the appellant (DL 44-47) - **N2(1)(f): fail (moderate weight).** no badger survey before determination; conditioning a survey only in exceptional circumstances (BS 42020) (DL 49-51) - **E2: benefit (substantial weight).** "policy imperative" of substantial weight to reuse of a vacant building and commercial growth (DL 54) ## Key facts - Largely derelict Regency building, an NDHA, in the Middleton Town Centre Conservation Area; adjoins the Grade II* Long Street Methodist Church and Sunday School by Edgar Wood - Two wedding halls could run at once; 58 parking spaces, including on the raised former bowling green reached by a new ramp - Updated noise assessment covered neighbours but not the building's own first-floor flat - Late badger evidence refused as outside the timetable - Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6004977 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1e6ca2a9-77df-4fb1-bed8-295a3749cfc1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6004977.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 33 Craven Road, Bayswater - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L J O'Brien - **Authority:** Westminster (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6005051 - **Application reference:** 25/05033/LBC - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective timber serving hatch on mews flank wall of Grade II listed building (LBC 6005051 and planning APP/X5990/W/26/3377217) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(3), HE6(4), TR6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Westminster City Plan 2019-2040 (rev. Jan 2026) Policies 28, 29, 42, 44, 45, 48 - **Main issues:** listed building and conservation area, highway safety - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, old-heritage-wording, conservation-area, retrospective, highway-safety-fail, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A retrospective cake-shop serving hatch on the mews flank of a Grade II listed Bayswater terrace. It harmed the listed building and the conservation area, partly by bringing commercial activity into a quiet mews, and customers would wait in a carriageway with no footway. Both appeals were dismissed. The parties had been consulted on the 2026 Framework, but the heritage reasoning uses the 2024 vocabulary throughout. ## Issues and findings - **Heritage.** "the harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets is at the lower end of less than substantial. Notwithstanding this, the identified harm is of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶24). The balance: "The Framework indicates that great weight should be given to the conservation of such heritage assets. Consequently, the public benefits … do not outweigh the harm" (DL ¶27). "Great weight" is the 2024 ¶212 wording; HE6(1) says "substantial weight". - **Activity as heritage harm.** "The encroachment of commercial activity into the mews compromises the more peaceful, residential character … In raising the status of Brooks Mews North, the scheme would have a detrimental effect on the hierarchy of the streets" (DL ¶18). - **Reversibility** was "a neutral consideration" (DL ¶19). - **Highway safety: FAIL.** "even a single pedestrian waiting to collect an order would be likely to stand within the road itself" (DL ¶35). ## Planning balance HE6(4) heritage balance plus s16, s66 and s72. The benefits (a small business and footfall) did not outweigh the harm. ## What made the difference The bulk and colour of the hatch compared with the flush panel it replaced, and the commercial activity it brings into a mews valued in the conservation area audit for its quiet. ## Transferable points - Even after consulting on the 2026 Framework, some Inspectors keep "less than substantial" and "great weight" language (DL ¶¶24, 27). - Commercial activity, not just built form, can harm a conservation area where the hierarchy of streets and spaces is part of its significance (DL ¶18). ## Policy findings - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** "at the lower end of less than substantial"; hatch bulky, contrasting colour, brings commercial activity into quiet mews and erodes street hierarchy (DL 16-24) - **HE6(4): fail.** small-business economic benefit and footfall do not outweigh; letter says "great weight" to conservation (2024 wording) (DL 26-27) - **TR6(4): fail.** Framework not cited on highways; customers would wait in narrow mews carriageway with no footway (DL 30-38) ## Key facts - Replaced a smaller flush panel; hatch doors open outward onto the mews - Pre-order and slot system did not overcome risk; no enforceable control - Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 8) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d3ad4451-2529-41c3-bc0e-607d82ec3572 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005051 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005051.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Dingle Bank House, 10 Dingle Bank Close, Lymm (uPVC windows condition) - **Decision:** dismissed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Unwin - **Authority:** Warrington (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6005067 - **Application reference:** 2024/01202/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Appeal against condition 3 (materials as approved) to allow uPVC rather than timber windows in the locally listed Dingle Bank House - **Site context:** conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(4), DM6 - **Development plan policies:** Warrington Local Plan 2023 DC2, DC6 - **Main issues:** conservation area, non-designated heritage asset - **Tags:** tier-2, conditions-appeal, windows, conservation-area, old-wording-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A management company sought to vary a materials condition so that timber windows in a locally listed Victorian house in Lymm Conservation Area could be replaced in uPVC. The inspector found harm to the conservation area and upheld the condition under HE6, although the harm is still labelled 'less than substantial' (DL 11). ## What made the difference uPVC's uniform finish and weathering would be clearly distinguishable from painted timber on a prominent building. The claimed benefits were unevidenced (DL 9, 13). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** uPVC would be an incongruous material on a well-preserved 19th-century locally listed building; harm to Lymm CA at the 'lower end of less than substantial' (DL 9-11) - **HE6(4): fail.** maintenance, thermal performance and cost claims unevidenced; limited weight (DL 13) - **DM6: pass.** condition 3 reasonable and necessary (DL 14, 16) ## Key facts - Parties given the opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) - No evidence that timber windows were undeliverable or disproportionately costly (DL 13) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005067 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/36af6b96-c26b-49e9-af6a-c161a4b761a9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005067.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Albury Dairy, Honey Lane, Selborne - **Decision:** allowed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Claire Coles - **Authority:** South Downs National Park (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6005081 - **Application reference:** SDNP/25/04098/CND - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73 (non-determination) to vary hours condition and remove noise/HGV/electric-plant conditions on a barn-to-B8 storage permission (SDNP/23/01293/FUL) - **Site context:** national-park, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM6, N4 - **Development plan policies:** South Downs Local Plan SD5, SD7, SD54 - **Main issues:** living conditions, National Park tranquillity, conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, disputed-conditions, section-73, national-park, transitional-no-consultation, non-determination ## Summary A s73 appeal to loosen operating conditions on a small B8 storage use in former dairy barns in the South Downs National Park. Allowed in effect only in part. Hours were extended by 1.5 hours a day and the all-electric plant condition was dropped. The reversing-alarm, BS4142 noise and HGV-cap conditions were kept, with the HGV condition made more precise. N4 "substantial weight" and National Park tranquillity underpinned the conditions that were retained. ## What made the difference The EHO's position on each condition, the appellant's own noise assessment (which recommended broadband alarms), and a history of noise enforcement. Unfettered agricultural use is not a fallback that justifies an unconditioned B8 use (DL ¶15). ## Policy findings - **DM6: neutral.** six tests "not changed" by the 2026 Framework (DL 11); hours extended to 07:30-18:00 weekdays and electric-plant condition removed; white-noise alarm, BS4142 noise and 10 HGV/week conditions kept, the latter made more precise (HGV >7.5t; trip = in and out) (DL 14-30) - **N4: neutral (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conserving National Park; tranquillity (SD7) justified keeping reversing-alarm and noise controls (DL 13, 21) - **P3: pass.** code mapped by harvester — living conditions of homes 55m and 85m away protected by retained conditions ## Key facts - Nearest homes about 55m and 85m away; past enforcement for unlawful noisy activity (DL 12, 16) - Six prospective tenants said to be deterred by hours; commercial reasons "not material" (DL 14, 18) - Parties not re-consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005081 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/536660f3-0028-4f55-b60b-57c1dfa28ac9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005081.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Leydens Farm, Lydens Lane, Hever - **Decision:** dismissed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Claire Coles - **Authority:** Sevenoaks (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6005088 - **Application reference:** 25/02484/HOUSE - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Ancillary outbuilding in residential curtilage (three offices, kitchen, WCs, waiting area), with UU to forgo an approved pool building - **Site context:** green-belt, national-landscape, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB6(2), N4 - **Development plan policies:** Sevenoaks ADMP GB3, EN5, Sevenoaks Green Belt SPD - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness and purposes, National Landscape, VSC - **Tags:** openness-harm, vsc-not-shown, outbuilding, unilateral-undertaking-swap, national-landscape, fallback, householder ## Summary An office-like "ancillary" outbuilding at a mixed-use farm complex in the Green Belt and High Weald National Landscape. The appellant offered a UU not to build a larger approved pool building. Dismissed. A new building is not covered by GB7(1)(b), and the swap failed because the appeal building would be sited further out and encroach more. There was also harm to the National Landscape. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were invited to comment on the revised Framework; neither responded (DL ¶2). - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "The replacement of the pool building with the outbuilding would not comply with Policy GB7 b … as the outbuilding would not be in the same use as the pool building" (DL ¶8). - **Condition.** An ancillary-use condition "would not meet the criteria set out in Policy DM6 … as the outbuilding would be functionally more akin to a commercial use" (DL ¶10). - **Openness.** The appeal building "would have a greater effect on openness as it would be located further from the cluster of residential buildings" even though it is smaller than the pool building (DL ¶16). - **N4.** The scheme "would not conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area" (DL ¶24). ## Planning balance GB6(2). VSC not shown (DL ¶27). ## What made the difference Siting and use. A smaller building swapped for a larger approved one still loses if it spreads development further into open land and looks commercial. ## Transferable points - Swapping an unbuilt approved building for a new one does not by itself engage GB7(1)(b); the "same use" requirement applies (DL ¶8). - Openness harm depends on siting relative to existing built clusters, not just footprint and volume (DL ¶16). - An ancillary-use condition cannot rescue a building that is functionally commercial (DL ¶10). - An unevidenced PD fallback carries no weight; use s191/192 (DL ¶25). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** new building, not reuse/extension; as a "replacement" for the unbuilt approved pool building it is not the same use; layout suggests commercial use (DL 6-9) - **DM6: fail.** ancillary-use condition would not be relevant because the building is functionally commercial (DL 10) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** spatial/visual openness harm and encroachment; sited further from the building cluster than the approved pool building (DL 13-18) - **GB2(c): harm.** encroachment into countryside (DL 17) - **N4: harm (substantial weight).** commercial appearance harms High Weald National Landscape (DL 19-24) - **fallback: neutral.** PD outbuilding fallback unevidenced; UU swap with larger pool building did not offset because the new siting encroaches more (DL 16, 25) ## Key facts - Farm complex with car sales/restoration business, equestrian use and dwellings - Approved but unbuilt pool building (25/01208/HOUSE) is larger than the appeal building but closer to the building group - Similar office building previously refused on appeal APP/G2245/C/21/3271033 - Revised plans at appeal rejected under Wheatcroft - Sevenoaks SPD 40 sqm outbuilding guide; proposal significantly larger ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005088 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b9001778-91ed-4bb5-8e38-e7fd149d61bf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005088.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land west of Little Smiths Farm, Drayton - **Decision:** allowed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Stephen Wilkinson - **Authority:** Vale of White Horse (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6005108 - **Application reference:** P25/V0180/O - **Procedure:** inquiry - **Development:** Outline for up to 31 dwellings (35% affordable), open space, SuDS - **Homes:** 31 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, agricultural-land-BMV, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.9 - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 192 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), AnnexD, HO7, HE6(4), N2 - **Development plan policies:** Vale of White Horse LP1 2016 CP3, CP4, CP8, CP43, CP44, LP2 2019 CP4a, CP8a, Drayton NP 2015 P-LF2 - **Main issues:** housing land supply, location vs spatial strategy, infrastructure - **Tags:** s5-1-j, housing-land-supply-dispute, lapse-rate-rejected, oxford-unmet-need, marginal-shortfall, heritage-harm-outweighed, bmv, old-wording-slip ## Summary Outline for up to 31 homes on a well-contained field edge of Drayton, a Larger Village. Allowed after inquiry. The inspector found supply of about 4.9 years (not the council's 5.34), rejecting a blanket lapse-rate discount but also refusing to add Oxford's unmet need to the requirement. With a shortfall, S5(1)(j) was met; settlement-strategy conflict was given only moderate weight because S5 "undermines the essential thrust" of those policies. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties consulted after 17 Aug 2026 (DL ¶4). - **Supply — Annex D.** Oxford's unmet need not added: "There is no basis in policy for including the unmet need of Oxford in the Council's housing requirement" where both use the standard method (DL ¶14). No non-implementation discount: "not advocated by the Framework or the PPG" (DL ¶54). "I find that the Council has a 5YHLS of around 4.9 years" (DL ¶57). Strong HDT "cannot be relied on as a marker of future delivery" (DL ¶22). - **Location / S5(1)(j): PASS.** "Drayton falls within the definition of a settlement identified within Annex B and the site lies outside its built up area. Policy S5 is an important material consideration" (DL ¶137). "The appeal scheme would be consistent with policy S5 … given the 5YHLS position. Furthermore, my conclusions on both landscape and the site's connectivity by a range of transport modes are consistent with the site being well related to Drayton" (DL ¶140). - **Weight to plan policies.** "The effect of this policy [S5] undermines the essential thrust of policies LPC3 and C4 … Accordingly, I give only moderate weight to the conflict" (DL ¶139). - **Heritage: low-end harm, outweighed.** Off-site highway works caused low less-than-substantial harm to the CA and 44 High Street (DL ¶¶105, 130–132). ## Planning balance Benefits: housing substantial (DL ¶124), location/transport significant, highway works and economic moderate, open space limited, BNG and flood zone neutral. Harms: moderate-weight plan conflict, BMV loss, low heritage harm. Note DL ¶145 uses the 2024 formula — "would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" — rather than the 2026 S5 "substantially outweighed" test; the reasoning at DL ¶¶137–140 is framed under S5. DL ¶105 also still speaks of "less than substantial" harm "of great weight" (2024 wording). ## What made the difference Proving a shortfall, even a marginal one (4.9 years), unlocked S5(1)(j). The site was visually self-contained and walkable to village services with good buses, so no significant harm sat on the other side. The case would have gone the other way had the council held 5.34 years — then S5(1)(j)'s housing trigger would not apply (unless another evidenced unmet need) and the site would fall to S5(4). ## Transferable points - A marginal shortfall (4.9 yrs) is enough to engage S5(1)(j); strong HDT results do not offset it (DL ¶¶22, 144). - Blanket lapse/non-implementation discounts to supply are not supported by the Framework/PPG absent evidence (DL ¶¶54–56). - Neighbouring city's unmet need is for plan-making, not to be added to a standard-method requirement in decisions (DL ¶¶14–15). - "Well related" in S5(1)(j) assessed through landscape containment and transport connectivity (DL ¶140). - Settlement-strategy policies that restrict all unallocated edge development get reduced weight because S5 cuts across them (DL ¶139). - Some inspectors still slip into 2024 wording ("significantly and demonstrably", "great weight") — check letters carefully before quoting (DL ¶¶105, 145). ## Policy findings - **AnnexD: fail.** council claimed 5.34 yrs; inspector found c. 4.9 yrs; Oxford unmet-need element not added to standard-method LHN; no blanket non-implementation discount (DL 10-59) - **S5(1)(j): pass.** unmet need via <5YHLS; well related to Drayton by landscape containment and transport connectivity; scale accommodated (DL 137-140) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** market and 35% affordable; plan-led fix not before Feb 2027 (DL 123-124) - **TR3: benefit (significant weight).** walk/cycle to post office, pub, shop, school; 34 and X2 buses; plus highway works moderate weight (DL 66, 127) - **HE6(4): pass (considerable weight).** low-end less-than-substantial harm to Drayton CA and 44 High Street from off-site highway works, outweighed (DL 104-105, 129-132) - **N2: conflict.** loss of Grade 2 BMV, outweighed (DL 106-107, 141) - **LP1 CP3/CP4 (settlement strategy): conflict (moderate weight).** S5 "undermines the essential thrust" of these policies so conflict given moderate weight (DL 139) ## Key facts - HDT 177%, 193%, 192% but supply found c. 4.9 years (council 5.34; appellant 3.27-3.63) - Requirement 4,982 (996 dpa incl. 5% buffer) 1 Apr 2025-31 Mar 2030 - 2.53 ha, two hay fields bounded by tree belts and hedges beside recent estates; visual effects "entirely contained" - Drayton a 'Larger Village' with shop, pub, post office, primary school, 34 and X2 buses - Joint Local Plan adoption earliest Feb 2027 ## Sources - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6005108-Appeal-Decision-Land-West-of-Little-Smiths-Farm-Drayton-OX14-4JP.pdf - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/2026/vale-housing-supply-drayton/ --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005108.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Galowras Farm, St Ewe (redesigned dwelling, National Landscape) - **Decision:** dismissed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Butcher - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6005119 - **Application reference:** PA25/00620 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Redesign (larger, contemporary) of a dwelling permitted under extant permission PA22/08946, implemented but not built - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, national-landscape, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N4(1), S5(1)(c), S5(1)(j) - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 Policies 2, 7, 12, 23, Climate Emergency DPD C1(7), Cornwall Design Guide 2021 - **Main issues:** suitable location under spatial strategy, character and appearance, National Landscape scenic beauty - **Tags:** national-landscape, design-refusal, fallback, replacement-dwelling-materially-larger, s5-1-c-reuse, s5-1-j, housing-shortfall, self-build-unsecured, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, substantially-outweighed ## Summary A larger, highly contemporary redesign of a small dwelling already permitted (and implemented, but unbuilt) in open countryside in the Cornwall National Landscape. Dismissed. The metal-clad, heavily glazed design would be incongruous and harm the NL's scenic beauty (N4), and it was worse than the fallback. Neither S5 route helped: S5(1)(c) replacement fails because it is disproportionately larger than the unbuilt permitted house, and S5(1)(j) fails because the site is not physically well related to a settlement despite the supply shortfall. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties given "an opportunity to provide comments on the new Framework" (DL ¶2). Appellant's arguments about 2024 para 11(d): "Clearly such arguments are no longer of relevance" (DL ¶18). - **Design and NL — N4: CONFLICT.** "despite the use of stone and wood for part of the exterior, it is abundantly clear … that the proposed dwelling would have a highly modern appearance" (DL ¶8); "it would therefore be seen as being incongruous and highly out of place" (DL ¶9). "Policy N4 of the Framework states that substantial weight should be placed on the importance of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of such areas. Furthermore, the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 requires decision makers to actively seek to further the statutory purposes of NL's … The fact that the site is close to the edge of the boundary of the NL does not reduce this harm in any meaningful way" (DL ¶11). - **Fallback.** The permitted dwelling "would have a much more subtle appearance overall … predominantly formed of timber, while there would also be a slate roof"; the larger dwelling would be more intrusive after dark despite shutters (DL ¶12). "whether one is assessing the proposed development before me in isolation, or within the context of the fallback position, it would lead to an unacceptable level of harm" (DL ¶13). - **Replacement — LP7 and S5(1)(c): FAIL.** Not technically a replacement as the permitted house was never built (DL ¶5); "Even if this clause were considered to be activated … the proposed dwelling would clearly be disproportionately larger than the previously permitted dwelling which has not yet been built" (DL ¶20). - **S5(1)(j): FAIL.** "the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year supply … the policy sets out that it applies to development schemes that would be physically well related to an existing settlement. Given the location of the appeal site within the open countryside, that clearly would not be the case here" (DL ¶21). - **Self-build.** "I have some concerns that the pro-forma is not, in itself, sufficient to secure the proposed dwelling as self build" — not determinative (DL ¶16). ## Planning balance Development-plan-led: harm "significant and enduring"; benefits of one self-build home, construction economy, sustainability features, accessible layout, home-working space and a sewage treatment plant were "only limited, even when considered in combination … the harm substantially outweighs the benefits" (DL ¶19). S5 limbs then checked and none engaged (DL ¶20-21). No material considerations outweigh plan conflict (DL ¶22). ## What made the difference The design, not the principle: the permitted fallback established a dwelling here, but the redesign's scale and industrial/modern materials made it incongruous in a visible NL location. Had the redesign kept to broadly the permitted size and traditional materials it would likely have been accepted as an improvement on the fallback. The S5 analysis shows that an unbuilt permission is not an "existing building" that unlocks S5(1)(c) generously, and a housing shortfall does not help a site not well related to a settlement. ## Transferable points - N4 substantial weight plus the LURA 2023 "seek to further" duty: harm to scenic beauty is not reduced because the site is near the NL boundary (DL ¶11). - A fallback permission does not justify a larger, more intrusive redesign; the comparison with the fallback is itself a reason to dismiss (DL ¶12-13). - S5(1)(c) replacement requires the replacement not to be disproportionately larger, measured against an unbuilt permitted dwelling if that is the baseline argued (DL ¶20). - S5(1)(j)(i) housing-shortfall route is closed for sites in open countryside not physically well related to an existing settlement (DL ¶21). - 2024 para 11(d) arguments are "no longer of relevance" after 17 Aug 2026 (DL ¶18). - Completing the council's self-build pro-forma may not be enough to secure self-build status (BNG exemption) (DL ¶16). ## Policy findings - **N4(1): conflict (substantial weight).** highly modern metal-clad, heavily glazed design incongruous in a rural landscape of stone/render and slate; visible from lane corner and nearby PROW; LURA 2023 duty to seek to further NL purposes; proximity to NL boundary does not reduce harm (DL 8-11) - **DP3: fail.** not cited by code; design harm found under LP 12 and Cornwall Design Guide (DL 9, 14) - **S5(1)(c): fail.** "even if this clause were considered to be activated", the dwelling would be disproportionately larger than the permitted but unbuilt dwelling (DL 20) - **S5(1)(j): fail.** council lacks a 5-year supply so S5(1)(j)(i) considered, but site in open countryside is not physically well related to an existing settlement (DL 21) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** single self-build dwelling; benefits limited even in combination (DL 19) — HO7 not cited by name ## Key facts - Extant permission PA22/08946 for a small 1.5-storey, 2-bed timber-clad, slate-roofed dwelling; implemented but not built - Proposal much larger in floorspace and mass; metal roof and cladding, aluminium windows, extensive south glazing, sliding shutters - Site at a lane corner in the Cornwall National Landscape, near its edge; public right of way close by - Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply (figure not stated) - Self-build pro-forma completed but inspector doubted it was sufficient to secure self-build (BNG exemption) (DL 15-16) - Fal and Helford SAC contribution secured; no AA needed as dismissed (DL 17) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005119 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f537fdda-25f9-4512-bb61-dc7b315d3a0c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005119.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Parpan, Eversley Centre, Eversley - **Decision:** dismissed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Pickernell - **Authority:** Hart (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6005123 - **Application reference:** 25/01827/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Replacement two-storey dwelling following demolition of bungalow and garage - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** P3 - **Development plan policies:** Hart Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 saved GEN1, Hart Local Plan (Strategy and Sites) 2032 NBE9 - **Main issues:** neighbour living conditions (outlook) - **Tags:** tier-2, overbearing, framework-not-cited, costs-application ## Summary A replacement two-storey house was dismissed because its long two-storey flank would be overbearing on the neighbour's garden. The effect on the neighbour's rear windows was acceptable. The letter cites no Framework. ## What made the difference The depth and height of the new flank alongside most of the neighbouring garden (DL ¶6). A modern, efficient dwelling and the Council's acceptance of its design did not outweigh this (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **P3: fail.** Framework not cited; mapped. Two-storey flank running along most of neighbour's garden "particularly oppressive and imposing" (DL 5-8) ## Key facts - Replacement moved south and raised from one to two storeys close to boundary of The White House - Outlook from neighbour's rear windows acceptable (peripheral); garden harm decisive ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f37c1935-7cb4-473c-b584-989400c6db45 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005123 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005123.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Stables opposite Manor House, Headley Common Road, Headley - **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Pattison - **Authority:** Mole Valley (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6005150 - **Application reference:** MO/2024/1318 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use and conversion of redundant stables to a one-bedroom dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, rural-lane, valued-landscape - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), S5(5), S5(2), DP3(3), TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Mole Valley Local Plan 2024 EN1, S1, EN4, H10, EN9 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, suitable location, living conditions, BNG - **Tags:** grey-belt-not-needed, gb7-1-b-reuse, not-inappropriate, s5-5-substantially-outweighed, s5-2-refusal-policy, dp3-design-standards, nds-space-standards, sustainable-location-fail, lp-policy-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, small-scheme ## Summary Conversion of redundant stables to a one-bed dwelling in the Green Belt near Headley. The scheme passed GB7(1)(b) (re-use), so it was not inappropriate. The case then fell under the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance, where the NDSS shortfall triggered DP3(3)'s direction to refuse via S5(2). Car dependence and inadequate BNG evidence added to the harm. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶2). - **GB7(1)(b): PASS.** GB7(1)(b) "does not require an assessment of the proposal's impact on the openness of the Green Belt. Consequently, there is a conflict between the LP policy and the Framework" (DL ¶7). Paraphernalia "would not amount to operational development which could be considered a disproportionate increase to the original building" (DL ¶9). LP openness test "materially inconsistent" so "very limited weight" (DL ¶10–11). - **GB7(1)(g): not reached** (DL ¶12). - **Location / TR3: FAIL.** "future occupiers … would have to walk or cycle along the remote, narrow rural lanes, which are unlit, often involve inclines" (DL ¶16). "occupants would be largely reliant on private vehicles … due to the lack of safe pedestrian and cycle routes" (DL ¶18). Not isolated under HO11, but "lack of isolation … does not mean that the site would be reasonably accessible" (DL ¶19). - **Living conditions: FAIL.** 44 sq m vs 50 sq m NDSS (DL ¶22). - **BNG: FAIL** on evidence (DL ¶29). ## Planning balance S5(5) route, because the scheme was not inappropriate after GB7 (DL ¶36). "Policy DP3.3 of the Framework is a national decision-making policy. It directs that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with explicit design standards set out in the development plan … due to the conflict with design standards, the Framework directs that the proposal should be refused" (DL ¶38). Location and BNG conflicts added. Benefits of moderate weight "do not outweigh the significant harm" (DL ¶40). ## What made the difference Green Belt was not the problem: GB7(1)(b) re-use passed cleanly. The loss came from failing a hard development-plan design standard (NDSS), which S5(2)/DP3(3) turn into a near-automatic refusal, together with a car-dependent location. A plan-compliant floor area would have removed the S5(2) trigger and left only the travel and BNG harms in the balance. ## Transferable points - GB7(1)(b) re-use has no openness test. Local plan policies that add one are "materially inconsistent" and get very limited weight (DL ¶7, ¶10–11). - Domestic paraphernalia is not operational development and does not make a re-use "disproportionate" (DL ¶9). - S5(5) applies once a GB proposal passes GB7, and S5(2) applies within it. Conflict with an explicit development-plan design standard (DP3(3)) means the adverse effects are "likely to substantially outweigh" the benefits (DL ¶36–38). - Not being "isolated" under HO11 does not establish accessibility (DL ¶19). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): pass.** re-use of permanent and substantial building, no extension; domestic paraphernalia is not operational development and not a disproportionate increase (DL 8-9, 11) - **EN1 (Mole Valley LP): accord (very-limited weight).** LP openness test for re-use is broader than GB7(1)(b), so materially inconsistent and given very limited weight under Annex A (DL 7, 10-11) - **GB7(1)(g): not-engaged.** unnecessary once (b) passed (DL 12) - **TR3: harm.** Headley (Tier 5) 750 m away; remote, narrow, unlit rural lanes with inclines; stations several miles; occupants largely reliant on private vehicles (DL 15-18) - **HO11: pass.** not isolated (near other dwellings), but that does not make it accessible (DL 19) - **DP3(3): fail.** 44 sq m vs 50 sq m NDSS minimum in LP H10, an explicit design standard, so the Framework directs refusal; engages S5(2) (DL 21-24, 37-38) - **N2: conflict.** BNG evidence unclear (10% claimed vs LP EN9 20%); no post-development habitat plan (DL 25-30) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** one dwelling (DL 33) ## Key facts - Stables on private single-track road off Headley Common Road; Metropolitan Green Belt and Area of Great Landscape Value - Headley village core 750 m as the crow flies; Tier 5 settlement "unsuitable for development" - Unit 44 sq m internal vs NDSS 50 sq m for a 1b2p dwelling - Linked appeal on the storage containers at the same site (PINS-6005433) dismissed the same day ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005150 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/da2d8087-1dae-4a06-8ff6-39c5ef0b8a46 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005150.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 35 Denmark Road, Poole (9 flats, outline) - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D R Kay - **Authority:** Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6005194 - **Application reference:** P/25/04005/OUT - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline (all matters reserved) demolition of workshop/store (Class E(g)(iii)) and redevelopment with 9 flats - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.1 - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** N6(1)(a), HE6(4), HE4, DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Poole Local Plan 2018 PP2, PP27, PP28, PP32, PP34, PP35, PP39, Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework SPD 2020-2025, Poole Harbour Recreation SPD 2019-2024, BCP Parking Standards SPD - **Main issues:** location, character and heritage (conservation area setting), living conditions, habitats sites - **Tags:** transitional, old-wording-slip, habitats-spa, habitats-refusal, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, design-refusal, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, living-conditions-outlook, unilateral-undertaking-swap ## Summary Outline scheme for nine flats replacing a workshop close to Poole town centre, next to the Heckford Park Conservation Area. Dismissed. Although dated 17 August 2026, the letter applies the December 2024 Framework throughout. The unsecured habitats mitigation (a UU that self-terminated on refusal) and low-level harm to the conservation area's setting were each "strong reasons" under footnote 7 disengaging the tilted balance; cramped overdevelopment and overlooking added plan conflict. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** None. The letter makes no reference to the Framework published the same day and cites 2024 paragraphs 11(d), footnotes 7 and 8, 135, 195 and 215 (DL ¶20, 29, 43-44). Recorded as transitional. - **Location — PP2 / TR3: PASS.** "within 500 metres walking distance of the town centre, the central railway and bus stations … a highly sustainable location for residential development" (DL ¶6). - **Heritage — 2024 ¶215 (now HE6(4)): HARM.** "the indicative proposals are illustrative of a cramped form of overdevelopment … It would therefore harmfully fail to preserve or better reveal the significance of the setting of … Heckford Park Conservation Area … at the lower end of the less than substantial harm range" (DL ¶19). Benefits "insufficient to provide the clear and convincing justification to override the less than substantial harm to the CA, which the Framework requires me to assign great weight to its conservation" (DL ¶42). - **Living conditions — 2024 ¶135 (now DP3): FAIL.** Fenestration manipulated to avoid overlooking gives "poor access to natural light and very poor outlook" (DL ¶24); Block A bedroom windows "little more than 8 metres from the first-floor windows" of 2 Cranes Mews — "severe overlooking" (DL ¶25). Limited private amenity space acceptable given proximity to parks and shore (DL ¶26-27). - **Habitats — 2024 ¶195 (now N6(1)(a)): FAIL.** "the submitted UU utilised the Council's standard Fast Track UU form, intended for use only during the planning application process … the deed shall be determined and have no further effect if the Planning Permission is refused. The UU therefore carries no legal weight" (DL ¶36); "a Likely Significant Effect … cannot be ruled out" (DL ¶37). - **Parking.** Car-free acceptable in Parking SPD Zone A with cycle storage (DL ¶39). ## Planning balance 2024 para 11(d)(i): habitats harm "on its own, provides a strong reason for refusing the development"; heritage harm "a further strong reason"; "irrespective of the level of the Council's 5-YHLS shortfall, paragraph 11(d)(ii) is not engaged" (DL ¶44). Plan conflict (character, living conditions) given full weight and "consistent with the Framework" (DL ¶45). Nine homes against a 2.1-year supply given only moderate weight (DL ¶41). Under the 2026 Framework the equivalent route would be S4 with N6(1)(a) as an S4(2)(c) "should be refused" policy. ## What made the difference The procedural failure on habitats mitigation was independently fatal: using the council's application-stage fast-track UU, which self-terminates on refusal, left no secured mitigation at appeal. Without that, the case would have turned on low-end CA setting harm and indicative-layout amenity problems in outline, which a reduced-quantum scheme could probably have designed out. ## Transferable points - An application-stage fast-track UU that terminates on refusal carries no weight at appeal; appellants must submit a fresh s106/UU to secure habitats mitigation (DL ¶36-37). Under 2026 N6(1)(a) this is a "should be refused" policy. - Indicative outline drawings can demonstrate that the quantum sought is overdevelopment (DL ¶19, 28). - Development in a CA's setting that fails to "preserve or better reveal" significance can be harm even where the existing building contributes nothing (DL ¶12, 19). - Housing benefit of 9 homes weighted only "moderate" despite a 2.1-year supply (DL ¶41) — lower than the HO7 "substantial weight" now required. - Drafting slip: a decision dated 17 Aug 2026 applied the superseded Framework without comment; useful as an example of the transition day cut-over. ## Policy findings - **N6(1)(a): fail.** 2024 paras 11(d)(i) fn7 and 195 applied; UU on the council's fast-track form fell away on refusal, so no secured Dorset Heathlands / Poole Harbour mitigation; LSE cannot be ruled out; "strong reason for refusing" (DL 36-37, 43-44) - **HE6(4): harm (great weight).** 2024 para 215 applied; "lower end of the less than substantial harm range" to setting of Heckford Park CA; moderate benefits insufficient (DL 19-20, 41-42) - **HE4: fail.** benefits "insufficient to provide the clear and convincing justification" (DL 42) - **DP3: fail.** 2024 para 135 applied; indicative plans show cramped overdevelopment, poor outlook/light for occupiers, ~8 m window-to-window overlooking of 2 Cranes Mews (DL 24-25, 28-29) - **S3: not-engaged.** 2024 para 11(d) tilted balance disengaged by footnote 7 strong reasons; 2026 S3/S4 not considered (DL 43-44) - **TR3: pass.** within 500 m walk of town centre, rail and bus stations; "highly sustainable location" (DL 6) - **TR2: pass.** car-free in Parking SPD Zone A with cycle storage accepted (DL 39) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** 9 homes "valuable but moderate" contribution despite 2.1-year supply (DL 41) ## Key facts - Decision issued 17 Aug 2026, the day the new Framework was published, but applies the December 2024 Framework throughout (paras 11(d), fn7, fn8, 135, 195, 215) with no mention of the revision - Council housing land supply 2.1 years (as at 1 Apr 2024, 20% buffer) - 0.4 ha site; PP2 corridor density would suggest 20 homes but 9 proposed; surrounded by 2-storey homes on three sides - Unilateral undertaking on council's application-stage fast-track form self-terminated on refusal - Block A–Block B separation about 7.4 m; Block A bedroom windows ~8 m from 2 Cranes Mews ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005194 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/202966fb-626f-4e42-89ce-06c286895e91 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005194.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 1 The Down Cottages, Lamberhurst (rear extensions, listed building) - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Terceiro - **Authority:** Tunbridge Wells (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6005225 - **Application reference:** 25/02947/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Two single-storey rear extensions and patio to a Grade II listed 17th-century cottage (Appeal A; linked LBC Appeal B 6005229) - **Site context:** listed-building-setting, conservation-area, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE4(2), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Tunbridge Wells Local Plan 2025 H11, EN4, EN1 - **Main issues:** listed building - **Tags:** tier-2, listed-building, heritage-harm-decisive, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, national-landscape, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, alternatives-not-explored, householder ## Summary Two single-storey rear extensions to a Grade II Wealden cottage were refused. The roof forms were contrived, the timber shingle contrasted with the host's rare tile-hung and weatherboard combination, and the extensions would overwhelm the rear elevation. Moderate harm was not outweighed by modest benefits (DL 10-17). ## What made the difference The design choices (incoherent roof forms, alien cladding) rather than size alone. There was also no evidence that the energy-efficiency and living-space benefits could not be achieved in a less harmful way (DL 17). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): fail.** moderate harm from contrived roof forms, timber shingle cladding and obscuring of the rear elevation; benefits modest (DL 10-17). Enriched by corpus-rest-1 — grading "moderate harm" (no "less than substantial"); HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation, HE4(2) clear and convincing justification and HE6(3) "considerable importance and weight" all stated (DL 14-15); s16(2)/s66(1)/s72(1) cited - **HE6(4): benefit.** enriched by corpus-rest-1 — larger, more energy-efficient family home (HE6(4) names energy efficiency as an important public benefit), construction jobs, sedum/wildflower roofs: "modest weight"; discounted because "no substantive evidence ... that this could not be achieved in another, less harmful manner" (DL 17) - **N4: neutral.** localised heritage harm would not affect the natural beauty of the High Weald NL (DL 19) - **HE9: pass.** Lamberhurst and The Down CA character preserved (DL 20) ## Key facts - Parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 5) - Inspector gives 'substantial weight' to the harm rather than to the asset's conservation (DL 17) - Linked LBC Appeal B 6005229 (25/02977/LBC) decided in the same letter and also dismissed; no separate case file (corpus-rest-1) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005225 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/74bfb5cf-dabe-46d6-ad8c-87747a06f001 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005225.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 13 Court Yard, Eltham - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Ramsden - **Authority:** Greenwich (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6005312 - **Application reference:** 25/4000/PN5 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Appeal against car-free condition on Class AA prior approval for one-storey rooftop flat - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, near-station - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM6 - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 T6, Royal Greenwich Core Strategy 2014 IM(b), IM(c) - **Main issues:** car-free condition - **Tags:** tier-2, conditions, car-free, transitional-no-consultation, upward-extension ## Summary Appeal against a car-free (no parking permits) condition on a rooftop-flat prior approval. The condition was upheld as necessary because the site has PTAL 5 and is within 800 m of a station, which "is considered in the Framework to be a reasonable walking distance" (DL ¶6). The changes to the Framework did "not affect the merits … in a material way", so the parties were not consulted (DL ¶2). ## What made the difference The appellant offered no s106. Without one, a negatively worded Grampian-type car-free condition was accepted despite the PPG caution against such conditions (DL ¶9). ## Policy findings - **DM6: pass.** car-free condition reasonable and necessary despite PPG caution on negatively worded conditions, in absence of s106 (DL 7-9) - **TR3: neutral.** PTAL 5, within 800 m of Eltham station "considered in the Framework to be a reasonable walking distance" (DL 6) ## Key facts - Controlled parking zone, PTAL 5 - No s106 offered as alternative ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3187e6ec-0309-43fe-93e2-9b5d86ced012 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005312 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005312.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 61 Brackley Square, Woodford Green - **Decision:** dismissed, 27 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Jane Smith - **Authority:** Redbridge (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6005325 - **Application reference:** 3187/25 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline (access only) for garden subdivision and a two-storey detached 3-bed house to the rear - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(2)(c), DP3(3), TR4 - **Development plan policies:** Redbridge Local Plan LP7, LP26, LP38, LP39, London Plan D3, G7, T2, T6.1 - **Main issues:** safe and inclusive access, character and appearance / tree loss - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, s4-substantially-outweighed, dp3-3-refusal, dp3-refuse-trigger, backland, garden-infill, tpo-tree-loss, small-scheme, no-consultation-on-2026-framework, costs-application, inclusive-access ## Summary Outline proposal for one backland house in the rear garden of an end-terrace on Brackley Square, reached via the side garage space. Dismissed. Shared, cramped pedestrian/vehicle access, no demonstrated emergency access and the unavoidable loss of a prominent TPO oak breached DP3 principles without clear justification, so DP3(3) directed refusal; that engaged S4(2)(c) and the small benefits were substantially outweighed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "it has not been necessary to seek further representations from the main parties on its contents. However, the Framework 2026 is a material consideration from the date of publication, and I have taken it into account" (DL ¶4). - **Access — DP3 / TR4: FAIL.** "it does not appear feasible to provide a path for pedestrians, clear of the area required for vehicular access … That raises the risk of conflict" (DL ¶9); would not provide for "future occupiers with mobility challenges, using pushchairs, wheeling bicycles … or carrying furniture or heavy shopping" (DL ¶10); emergency access not demonstrated (DL ¶11). "contrary to Framework Policy TR4, which includes that the arrangement of streets and other routes should create places that are safe, inclusive and attractive for all users, minimising scope for conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles" (DL ¶15). - **Tree loss / character — DP3: FAIL.** The oak "makes a highly positive contribution to the character and appearance of the street scene" (DL ¶18); "no realistic prospect that its removal could be avoided, regardless of the exact siting and scale" (DL ¶19); replacement planting "would not provide adequate compensation" (DL ¶20); "contrary to the key principles in Policy DP3 of the Framework 2026, which include maintaining and enhancing tree cover" (DL ¶23). - **S4 and S4(2)(c).** "the circumstances in which the benefits … are likely to be substantially outweighed … are now more specifically defined within Policy S4. They include where the development would fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances (Policy S4, paragraph 2c)" (DL ¶25). ## Planning balance S4 balance. Benefits: one family home in an area with a delivery shortfall, small site delivered quickly, effective use of plot, accessible urban location near an Underground station, statutory BNG ("modest"), but "inherently limited by its very small scale" (DL ¶¶26–29). Against: DP3 conflict with no clear justification so "Policy DP3 paragraph 3 states that development proposals should be refused", plus TR4 (DL ¶30). "Having had regard to the circumstances listed in Policy S4 paragraph 2 … the benefits of approving the development would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶31). s38(6) conclusion (DL ¶34). ## What made the difference Physical constraints of the access: the only route to the rear plot was the narrow former-garage gap shared by cars and people, with level changes and no fire-appliance access. Separately, the TPO oak's canopy covered most of the plot so no reserved-matters layout could save it. Either on its own engaged DP3(3). A scheme with a separate pedestrian route (e.g. from the rear footpath) and a layout retaining the oak would have had a different S4 balance. ## Transferable points - DP3(3) "should be refused" is a refusal direction that triggers S4(2)(c), turning a within-settlement S4 balance against a small scheme (DL ¶¶25, 30–31). - TR4 applies to on-site access routes, not just streets: shared narrow pedestrian/vehicle access fails "minimising scope for conflict" (DL ¶15). - Where access is the only matter for approval in an outline scheme, inclusive-access failures (pushchairs, wheelchairs, cycles, deliveries, emergency access) can be decisive at outline stage (DL ¶¶8–11). - Loss of a prominent Category B TPO tree offends DP3's tree-cover principle; replacement planting in the same area gives "little net benefit" (DL ¶¶20, 23). - The inspector noted the 2026 S4 test reaches the same place as the 2024 tilted balance but its triggers are "more specifically defined" (DL ¶25). - Inspectors do not always consult on the 2026 Framework where the issues are design-led (DL ¶4). ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail.** DP3(2) principles (functioning well over lifetime; connections) and tree cover breached; no clear justification so DP3(3) says refuse (DL 15, 23, 30) - **TR4: fail.** shared, narrow access through former garage space; pedestrian/vehicle conflict; no clear emergency access (DL 9-11, 15, 30) - **S4(2)(c): fail.** DP3(3) refusal direction engages S4(2)(c); benefits substantially outweighed (DL 25, 30-31) - **S4: fail.** within settlement, S4 applied; small scale limits benefits (DL 24, 29, 31) - **HO7: benefit.** one family dwelling, acknowledged delivery shortfall; weight not quantified (DL 26, 29) - **N3: conflict.** loss of prominent 25 m Category B oak (T001), TPO confirmed; replacement planting inadequate; recorded under DP3 in the letter (DL 16-23) - **RLP LP26, LP38; London Plan D3, G7: conflict.** access/servicing and tree loss (DL 13-14, 22) ## Key facts - Only access to the rear plot is through the space occupied by an attached garage between terraced houses on an outer corner; pedestrians, cycles and cars share it - Change of ground level from front to rear; long narrow route; bins would be dragged a considerable distance - Fire Statement acknowledged no clear unobstructed route for emergency vehicles within the site - Semi-mature oak T001 about 25 m, Category B, TPO served before determination and confirmed; AIA says removal necessary - Council acknowledged a housing delivery shortfall (HDT figure not stated); parties agreed 2024 NPPF para 11d would have applied - Epping Forest SAC UU based on out-of-date figures; not pursued as appeal dismissed on other grounds - No further representations sought on the 2026 Framework - Separate costs decision issued (not read here) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005325 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ee816dbc-62f9-4977-98ed-18f81a6e2fe3 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/72f8cae5-9e37-488f-a72b-aa11421de845 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005325.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land opposite Rose Meadow, Carnkie, Helston - **Decision:** allowed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Nick Davies - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6005328 - **Application reference:** PA25/08915 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 6-9 dwellings - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.9 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), HO7, AnnexA(2) - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 Policies 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 21, 23, Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1, European Sites Mitigation SPD 2021 - **Main issues:** suitability of location for housing, character and appearance - **Tags:** PIP, s5-1-j, housing-shortfall, sustainable-location-pass, annex-a-weight-reduction, old-wording-slip, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme ## Summary Permission in principle for 6-9 homes on a field opposite the western end of the linear village of Carnkie, Cornwall. Allowed. The site was outside the settlement and conflicted with the plan's spatial strategy (not infill, rounding off or PDL), and it caused moderate harm to rural character. With a 3.9-year supply, the inspector treated S5(1)(j) as a "material consideration of critical importance", cut the weight of the spatial-strategy conflict to moderate, and found the harms did not outweigh substantial HO7 weight plus affordable housing. The final balance, however, is expressed in the old "significantly and demonstrably" wording. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Both parties have had the opportunity to comment on its implications for their respective cases. I have considered the new Framework" (DL ¶9). - **Inside or outside the settlement.** Although inside the village sign, the site "is surrounded on three sides by undeveloped land, and is physically and visually detached from the development on the northern side of the road. It is not, therefore, within the settlement" (DL ¶12). But "an intervening road does not prevent land from being immediately adjacent to a settlement" (Corbett), so it adjoins Carnkie (DL ¶13). - **Spatial strategy — LP 2, 3, 7, 21: CONFLICT.** Not infill or rounding off, and "the site does not fall within the definition of PDL in the glossary to the Framework" (DL ¶14). - **Character — LP 12, 23, CEDPD C1: moderate harm.** From the west it "would appear as an isolated group of buildings in the countryside … However, the level of harm would be moderate" (DL ¶17). - **S5(1)(j).** "a material consideration of critical importance … residential development that is physically well-related to an existing settlement, and is of an appropriate scale, should be approved, unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶21). No express finding that the site is "physically well-related" or of appropriate scale; this is implied by the adjoining finding (DL ¶13) and the allowance. - **Annex A(2).** Spatial policies are consistent with the Framework and not reduced for age, "However, it is not delivering a sufficient supply of homes … I can only afford moderate weight to the conflict" (DL ¶22). - **Character harm weight reduced.** "meeting the shortfall in housing provision is unlikely to be achieved without some visual impacts … the site does not lie within a protected landscape, and there is scope to minimise the harm through the technical details consent process … limited weight" (DL ¶23). ## Planning balance Against: moderate weight to the spatial-strategy conflict, limited weight to the character conflict. For: HO7 substantial weight; affordable housing "an additional, and significant benefit"; economic benefits "modest" (DL ¶¶22–25). Conclusion: "When assessed against the policies in the Framework, taken as a whole, the adverse impacts of the proposal do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Therefore, despite the conflict with the development plan, material considerations indicate that permission in principle should be granted" (DL ¶26). This is the 2024 NPPF ¶11(d) formulation, not S5's "substantially outweighed". The outcome is unaffected, since "substantially" is at least as high a bar for refusal. ## What made the difference A 3.9-year supply combined with a site physically adjoining (across a road) the built edge of a recognised settlement. The Corbett "intervening road" point let the inspector treat an outside-settlement field as well related. The weight of the plan's spatial-strategy conflict was then cut to moderate under Annex A(2) because the strategy was under-delivering, and the character harm was cut to limited because it was mitigable at TDC stage and outside a protected landscape. Affordable housing (a 6+ unit threshold) added a significant benefit. A site separated from the village by open land, or a council with a five-year supply, would likely have lost. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(j) is treated as "a material consideration of critical importance" in a shortfall, capable of outweighing conflict with an up-to-date-in-form spatial strategy (DL ¶21). - Annex A(2): consistent spatial-strategy policies are not reduced for pre-dating the Framework, but can be reduced to moderate weight where they are not delivering enough homes (DL ¶22). - Land across a road from the settlement edge can "adjoin" it (Corbett v Cornwall [2022] EWCA Civ 1069) even though it is not "within" it (DL ¶¶12–13). Relevant to "physically well-related" under S5(1)(j). - A village name sign does not define the settlement edge (DL ¶12). - At PIP stage, landscape harm outside a protected landscape can be discounted to limited weight as mitigable at technical details stage (DL ¶23). - European site mitigation can be secured at PIP stage by a s111 LGA 1972 undertaking with payment made (DL ¶¶6–8). - Drafting slip: the final balance uses the 2024 "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" test (DL ¶26) instead of S5's "substantially outweighed", and never states an express S5(1)(j) "physically well-related / appropriate scale" conclusion. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): pass.** invoked as "material consideration of critical importance" at 3.9 yrs; site adjoins Carnkie across road (Corbett) though outside it; no express 'well-related'/scale conclusion (DL 12-13, 21) - **AnnexA(2): neutral.** spatial policies not reduced for pre-dating Framework, but reduced to moderate weight because not delivering sufficient homes (DL 22) - **Cornwall LP 2, 3, 7, 21: conflict (moderate weight).** not infill, rounding off or PDL; open countryside (DL 14-16, 22) - **Cornwall LP 12, 23; CEDPD C1: conflict (limited weight).** moderate harm to rural character, appears as isolated group from west; not prominent in wider landscape; mitigable at TDC stage (DL 17, 23) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** evidenced unmet need, 3.9-yr supply (DL 24) - **HO8: benefit (significant weight).** not cited by code; affordable contribution under LP Policy 8 securable at TDC stage (DL 24) - **E1: benefit (limited weight).** modest weight to construction and spending benefits (DL 25) ## Key facts - PIP for 6-9 dwellings on the south side of a linear village, opposite bungalows forming its western end (DL 4, 12) - Site inside the village name sign but "not … within the settlement"; adjoins it across the road per Corbett v Cornwall [2022] EWCA Civ 1069 (DL 12-13) - Supply 3.9 years, undisputed (DL 21) - Fal and Helford SAC mitigation paid via s111 LGA 1972 undertaking at PIP stage; so not "habitats development" (DL 5-8) - Flood Zone 1; mining legacy, access, drainage and BNG deferred to technical details consent (DL 18-20) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005328 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/684425c5-0d84-456b-a77e-8b53cb860330 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005328.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Storage containers, The Manor House, Headley Common Road, Headley - **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Pattison - **Authority:** Mole Valley (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6005433 - **Application reference:** MO/2025/02228 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retention of two containers used for storage purposes - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, valued-landscape, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB7(1)(g)(iii), GB6(2), HE6 - **Development plan policies:** Mole Valley Local Plan 2024 EN1, EN4, EN6, EN8 - **Main issues:** grey belt, openness, character and AGLV, heritage setting, VSC balance - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, unmet-need-fail-non-housing, sustainable-location-fail, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, heritage-harm-decisive, non-housing-grey-belt ## Summary Retention of two storage containers on grey belt land at Headley. This is a non-housing grey belt case: it failed GB7(1)(g)(ii) because there was no evidenced need for this type of development, and (iii) because the location is car-dependent. As inappropriate development causing moderate openness harm, AGLV character harm and low-level harm to a Grade II setting, it was dismissed with no VSC. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶3). - **Grey belt: accepted** by the Council (DL ¶9). (g)(i) met, (iv) not applicable (DL ¶10). - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): FAIL.** "there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that there is an unmet need for this type of development" (DL ¶11). - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): FAIL.** "Given the absence of nearby and regular public transport services, users of the storage containers would be heavily reliant on private car journeys" (DL ¶12). - **Openness: moderate harm.** Two "relatively large, boxy structures into a space where previously there was no development" (DL ¶16, ¶18). Temporary status and alleged absence of conflict with purposes given limited weight (DL ¶32). - **HE6: harm.** "at the lower end of less than substantial harm" (still using the 2024 label). Storage is "a private rather than a public benefit" (DL ¶28, ¶30). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC: substantial weight to GB harm plus character, AGLV and heritage harm, against the limited weight of site-maintenance storage need. VSC not shown (DL ¶37). ## What made the difference Outside housing, limb (ii) needs positive evidence of unmet need for the specific type of development. Footnote 41's automatic shortfall route is housing-only. The appellant offered only its own storage wishes. ## Transferable points - For non-housing grey belt proposals, limb (ii) needs "substantive evidence … of an unmet need for this type of development"; a private requirement is not enough (DL ¶11). - Limb (iii) is applied to non-residential uses too, judged by how users would reach the site (DL ¶12). - A temporary permission does not avoid openness harm from structures on previously open land (DL ¶16, ¶32). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** Council accepted grey belt; GB7(1)(g)(i) met and (iv) n/a (DL 9-10) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): fail.** no substantive evidence of an unmet need for storage containers (DL 11) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): fail.** rural, relatively isolated, no nearby regular public transport, so users heavily car-reliant (DL 12-13) - **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** inappropriate; moderate openness harm, spatial and visual; VSC not shown (DL 16-18, 35-37) - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** lower end of less than substantial harm to setting of Grade II Manor House (Guy Dawber); private benefit only (DL 28-30) - **DP3: harm.** "strident, angular and utilitarian" containers in AGLV; conflict with LP EN4, EN8 (DL 20-24) ## Key facts - Two shipping containers (two others already removed) on land beside stables, private single-track road, Metropolitan Green Belt and AGLV - Temporary need claimed (site upkeep plus furniture for a hoped-for future dwelling) - Grade II Manor House (1987 listing, early 20th C, Sir Guy Dawber) nearby; limited intervisibility ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005433 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5a640c68-c9c8-44bd-8fb2-f5868b4aeea9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005433.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Chelmer House, Braintree Road, Great Dunmow (home wellbeing studio) - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Reid - **Authority:** Uttlesford (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6005461 - **Application reference:** UTT/25/2680/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective change of use of a dwelling to part residential and part wellbeing business (Pilates and yoga classes of up to 4 people) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR4(1)(e), P3(2)(d) - **Development plan policies:** Uttlesford Local Plan 2021-2041 (adopted March 2026) Core Policies 26, 27, 31, 44, 52, Uttlesford District Wide Design Code 2024 - **Main issues:** parking and access, noise and disturbance, residential character - **Tags:** change-of-use, retrospective, evidence-gap, transitional-no-consultation, e2-substantial-weight ## Summary A retrospective use of two rooms of a Great Dunmow house for small Pilates and yoga classes was refused. Parking and access were not shown to be safe, and the class turnover disturbed neighbours. The letter reads two of the new "substantial weight" benefit policies, E2(1)(a) for business growth and HC4 for health, as conditional on evidence. With little evidence offered, each got only limited weight. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Any policies that are material to this decision have not fundamentally changed in the Framework. As a result, I consider that there is no requirement for me to seek further submissions" (DL ¶3). - **Parking: FAIL.** The layout "does not include dimensions, and the parking layout is not shown to scale" (DL ¶8). The proposal "would also fail to accord with Policy TR4: 1.e of the Framework which states that proposals should provide a suitable number of parking spaces" (DL ¶14). - **Noise: FAIL.** Repeated arrivals and departures "would create a pattern of activity that differs materially from the comings and goings typically associated with a dwelling" (DL ¶17). This conflicts with "Policy P3: 2.d of the Framework" (DL ¶20). Neither conditions nor a temporary permission could cure it, on the evidence (DL ¶18-19). - **Character: PASS.** The effects are localised; the intensity does not erode the area's residential character (DL ¶23-24). - **E2 and HC4 benefits: LIMITED.** "Policy E2: 1.a of the Framework states that … substantial weight should be given to the economic benefits … There is limited information to assess the proposal's economic benefits" (DL ¶25). "In line with Policy HC4 of the Framework, substantial weight should be given to the benefits where development proposals would make a demonstrable contribution towards promoting good health … There is also very little evidence to demonstrate that there is a need" (DL ¶26). "they can only be afforded limited weight" (DL ¶27). ## Planning balance This was a plan-led s38(6) balance. Harm on parking and highway safety and on noise, with conflict with Core Policies 26, 27, 31 and 44 and with TR4(1)(e) and P3(2)(d). Benefits: economic and health, limited weight for want of evidence. The benefits did not outweigh the harm (DL ¶27-28). ## What made the difference Evidence. A scaled parking layout with tracking, an allocation between home and business, and some quantified economic or health contribution were all missing. E2 and HC4 promise substantial weight, but only where the benefit is demonstrated. ## Transferable points - E2(1)(a) and HC4's "substantial weight" is not automatic. It depends on evidence of the economic benefit or of a "demonstrable contribution" to health (DL ¶25-27). - TR4(1)(e) and P3(2)(d) can be decisive refusal grounds for small commercial uses in homes (DL ¶14, ¶20). - Parking adequacy that goes to acceptability cannot be left to condition (DL ¶10). ## Policy findings - **TR4(1)(e): fail.** unscaled parking plan with one car overhanging the pavement and tandem spaces; safe access not shown; cannot be left to condition (DL 8-14) - **P3(2)(d): fail.** regular turnover of attendees morning and evening creates a pattern of comings and goings unlike a dwelling (DL 15-20) - **E2(1)(a): benefit (limited weight).** substantial weight available in principle but 'limited information to assess the proposal's economic benefits' (DL 25, 27) - **HC4: benefit (limited weight).** substantial weight available where a demonstrable contribution to health is shown; no detail or evidence of need (DL 26-27) - **DP3: pass.** residential character of the area not harmed; effects localised (DL 21-24) ## Key facts - Classes six days a week, maximum four attendees, 15-minute gaps between classes (DL 11, 16) - Use operating since May 2025 (DL 19) - Framework 'not fundamentally changed'; no further submissions sought (DL 3) - New Local Plan adopted March 2026 superseded the 2005 plan during the appeal (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005461 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3d6751c7-65b5-4d82-9921-39935733dfae --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005461.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Manor House Farm, Hillfoot Lane, Kingsley (Appeal A — planning) - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Fleming - **Authority:** Cheshire West and Chester (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6005495 - **Application reference:** 24/01335/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion of farm buildings at a Grade II* farmstead to dwellings, removal of later additions, farmhouse extension, and a new-build "replacement" dwelling (six dwellings in total) (non-determination) - **Homes:** 6 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, rural-lane, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, S5(1)(j), HE6 - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire West and Chester LP1 2015 STRAT 1, 2, 8, 9, ENV 5, ENV 6, LP2 2019 DM 1, 3, 9, 22, 47 - **Main issues:** heritage, inappropriate development, openness, location, VSC - **Tags:** vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, visual-openness-only, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, s5-1-j, heritage-harm-decisive, enabling-development, conversion, substantially-outweighed, non-determination, grey-belt-not-demonstrated ## Summary Conversion of a Grade II* farmstead's traditional buildings, plus one new detached house presented as a "replacement dwelling". The conversions were acceptable and a heritage benefit. The new house was inappropriate in the Green Belt: it was not a replacement, grey belt was not shown, and it was in any event unsustainably located under TR3. It harmed visual openness and the setting of the farmhouse, and it failed S5(1)(j) because it was not well-related to a settlement. Dismissed. The joint LBC appeal (PINS-6005497) was dismissed on the same heritage reasoning. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties commented on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶4). - **"Replacement" dwelling.** Subdivision was unauthorised, so "the proposed 'replacement dwelling' would not be a replacement, it would be a new additional dwelling" (DL ¶6). - **Heritage (HE6): harm.** The new house would "dilute the historic relationship between the farmhouse, its associated agricultural buildings and their rural setting" (DL ¶16), and this outweighed the conversion benefits. Enabling-development justification failed under GPA4: "I am not satisfied that alternative, less harmful options have been robustly assessed and discounted" (DL ¶18). - **Location (TR3, S5(1)(j)): FAIL.** "a narrow rural road without footways and some distance from bus stops and day-to-day services … would not be in an attractive location for walking or cycling to services, particularly in inclement weather" (DL ¶24). Under fn28 the site must be physically well-related to a settlement, and it was not (DL ¶25). - **Green Belt: inappropriate.** "It has not been demonstrated that the proposal should be treated as not inappropriate development by reference to the Framework's grey belt provisions. In any event … the proposed new-build dwelling would not be in a sustainable location" (DL ¶28). Net volume reduction "does not, in itself, mean that the proposal would preserve Green Belt openness" (DL ¶29), and there was visual openness harm (DL ¶31). ## Planning balance The inspector ran both tests. S5: "the benefits of the proposal would clearly be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects". GB6(2): "The other considerations also do not clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm and the other harms" (DL ¶37). Six homes attracted substantial weight (DL ¶36). ## What made the difference The single new-build house on open land. Without it, the conversion scheme appears acceptable in Green Belt, heritage and location terms, since the parties agreed the conversions complied with STRAT 9 and DM 22. The appellant had not tested alternative, less harmful ways to fund the restoration. ## Transferable points - A "replacement dwelling" for an unauthorised subdivision is a new dwelling (DL ¶5-6). - A narrow lane without footways, far from buses, fails both TR3 and GB7(1)(g)(iii) (DL ¶24, 28). - An overall reduction in volume does not preclude visual harm to openness where new built form moves onto open land (DL ¶29-31). - An enabling-development or viability case needs evidence that the harmful element is the minimum necessary (GPA4) (DL ¶17-19). - S5(1)(j) unmet need does not assist where the site is not physically well-related to a settlement (fn28) (DL ¶25, 37). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(g): fail.** grey belt not demonstrated; in any event the new-build dwelling is not in a sustainable location with reference to transport policies (DL 28) - **GB7(1)(b): not-engaged.** the "replacement dwelling" is a new additional dwelling; subdivision into two dwellings is unauthorised (DL 5-6, 28) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriate; net volume reduction limits spatial harm, but visual openness harm from a new house on rising, open land (DL 29-32, 35) - **TR3: fail.** narrow rural road without footways, distant from bus stops and services (DL 24) - **S5(1)(j): fail.** meets unmet need, but not physically well-related to a settlement (fn28) (DL 25, 37) - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** residual less-than-substantial harm to Grade II* Manor House after netting off conversion benefits; GPA4 enabling case not proven (DL 14-20) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** six dwellings with no five-year supply (shortfall unquantified) (DL 33, 36) ## Key facts - Grade II* late-17th-century farmhouse with traditional brick ranges; all other elements amount to a heritage benefit - New detached house on open rising land east of the farmhouse; described as a "replacement" of a claimed second dwelling, which the Inspector found unlawful - Hillfoot Lane is narrow with no footways; bus stops and services some distance away - Viability or enabling argument rejected under GPA4 because less harmful alternatives had not been tested - UU and revised drawings submitted late were not considered ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005495 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7c2879cb-e026-4f03-a8f5-e9dbdbf0e457 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005495.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Manor House Farm, Hillfoot Lane, Kingsley (Appeal B — listed building consent) - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Fleming - **Authority:** Cheshire West and Chester (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6005497 - **Application reference:** 24/01336/LBC - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Listed building consent for conversion of farm buildings, removal of later additions, farmhouse extension and new-build dwelling at Grade II* Manor House Farm (non-determination) - **Site context:** green-belt, listed-building-setting, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, HE5 - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire West and Chester LP1 2015 ENV 5, LP2 2019 DM 47 - **Main issues:** heritage - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, enabling-development, non-determination, joint-decision ## Summary The listed building consent limb of the Manor House Farm appeals, decided in the same letter as PINS-6005495. Dismissed. The detached new-build dwelling harmed the setting and significance of the Grade II* farmhouse, and that harm outweighed the heritage benefit of converting the traditional buildings. ## Issues and findings - **HE6: harm.** "This would therefore harm the setting and significance of the designated heritage asset which is, in my view, of sufficient magnitude to outweigh the heritage benefit" (DL ¶16). The residual harm, "whilst not substantial, is a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶20). ## Planning balance Heritage harm weighed against public benefits (HE6); see PINS-6005495 ¶35-38. ## What made the difference See PINS-6005495. The Green Belt analysis sits in Appeal A only. ## Transferable points - Enabling-development arguments must show the harmful element is the minimum necessary (GPA4) (DL ¶17-19). ## Policy findings - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** new detached dwelling dilutes farmstead relationship; outweighs conversion heritage benefits; enabling case not proven (DL 14-20) ## Key facts - Joint decision letter with Appeal A (PINS-6005495); Green Belt issues arise only in Appeal A ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005497 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a3190dff-ae2a-4d4c-b03b-d5279c0b7ca3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005497.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Former Gardens to Knells House, The Knells, Carlisle - **Decision:** dismissed, 27 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Carla Livingstone - **Authority:** Cumberland (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6005528 - **Application reference:** 24/0230 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** 6 detached dwellings around a courtyard in the overgrown former gardens of a country house (now care home) - **Homes:** 6 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6), TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Carlisle District Local Plan 2015-2030 HO 2 - **Main issues:** suitable location for housing - **Tags:** sustainable-location-fail, small-scheme, transitional-no-consultation, rural-lane-no-footway, no-s4-s5-analysis, housing-benefit-moderate, pdl-garden-land, plan-led ## Summary Six detached houses in the overgrown former gardens of Knells House, a country house near Carlisle, in a dispersed hamlet with no services. Dismissed under the local plan's rural housing policy HO 2. The formal courtyard layout jarred with the organic pattern, the scheme would form a separate group, and the only service village, Houghton, is reached by an unlit route that lacks a footway for much of its length. The benefits of six homes were given moderate weight and did not outweigh the "significant harm" from the plan conflict (DL ¶27). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Although there have been significant amendments to its layout and formatting such that previously cited paragraph references are no longer relevant, other changes are not substantive or determinative to the outcome of this appeal" (DL ¶3). - **Character — HO 2(1): CONFLICT.** "Six additional dwellings would result in a substantial increase in the density of the built environment in the vicinity, the scale of which would not be comfortably accommodated within the existing settlement" (DL ¶7). - **PDL.** "it is reasonable to consider it as previously developed land" (DL ¶12). It was then not weighed as a benefit beyond "more efficient use of the land" (DL ¶25). - **Accessibility.** "there is no cycle or footpath for a significant portion of the route linking the appeal site to Houghton; which is also unlit in places. This would make traveling from the appeal site to Houghton unsafe for most pedestrians and cyclists, particularly in the hours of darkness" (DL ¶15). "It is therefore highly likely that future occupants would access shops, services and facilities by private car" (DL ¶18). - **Consistency with the Framework.** HO 2 is "consistent with the Framework, which requires that development proposals that would generate a significant amount of movement ... should be in locations which are sustainable" (DL ¶20). ## Planning balance Plan-led s38(6). Benefits of moderate weight against "significant harm" from the conflict with the plan (DL ¶25-28). There is no S4 or S5 analysis, even though the inspector calls The Knells "a small settlement". There is no housing-supply figure and no presumption. ## What made the difference Lack of safe walking access and a layout out of scale with a scattered hamlet. The letter sidesteps the 2026 principle-of-development tests: it does not decide whether the site is inside a settlement (S4) or outside (S5), and it does not give the six homes HO7 "substantial weight". An appellant might have argued S4 (within "a small settlement") or S5(1) with PDL under L2. As decided, the plan policy was treated as Framework-consistent and determinative. ## Transferable points - A 20-minute walk to a service village is not "good access" where the route lacks a continuous lit footway (DL ¶15-18). - Garden land in the curtilage of a permanent structure outside a built-up area can be PDL (Dartford), but that does not overcome a location or character conflict (DL ¶11-13). - An early post-August letter decides housing location through a local policy said to be "consistent with the Framework" (DL ¶20), with no S4/S5 analysis and housing benefits weighted at moderate. ## Policy findings - **HO 2 (Carlisle DLP): conflict (significant weight).** criteria 1 (formal courtyard layout at odds with organic, dispersed pattern), 2 (no services to support), 3 (not contained, forms separate group) and 4 (no good access to service villages) all failed (DL 7-19); "consistent with the Framework" (DL 20) - **TR3: fail.** Houghton about a 20-minute walk, no footway or lighting for a significant part, no formal bus stop; occupiers "highly likely" to be car reliant (DL 15-18); code mapped by harvester — letter paraphrases the Framework without a code - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** six homes, windfall small site, efficient use of unused garden land, SME builder, construction and spend: "moderate" because of small scale; HO7 "substantial weight" not applied (DL 25, 27); code mapped by harvester - **AnnexB:previously-developed-land: neutral.** former garden in curtilage of a permanent structure outside a built-up area accepted as PDL (Dartford [2017] EWCA Civ 141) but not given L2 substantial weight (DL 11-12) ## Key facts - The Knells described as "a small settlement" of dispersed dwellings with no services (DL 5, 10) - About 20 minutes' walk to Houghton; no footway for much of the route and unlit in places; informal twice-weekly bus (DL 15-17) - Not Green Belt, so grey belt not engaged (DL 13) - Parties not re-consulted; old paragraph references "no longer relevant" but changes "not substantive" (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005528 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/011fd5e7-8497-4318-9f30-d20d584c9d95 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005528.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 2 Highbury Grove Court, Islington (basement conversion to two flats) - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F P Tinsley - **Authority:** Islington (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6005590 - **Application reference:** P2024/0895 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion of the southern portion of a basement to residential units with a courtyard-level entrance (amended from three units to two) - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 69 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), S4(2)(c), S4 - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D5, D6, D7, SI2, SI4, SI5, SI7, SI12, SI13, G4, G5, G6, Islington Strategic and Development Management Policies 2023 PLAN1, H1, H2, H4, S1, S2, S3, S4, S6, S7, S9, S10, G4, G5, Islington Urban Design Guide 2017, Inclusive Design in Islington SPD 2015 - **Main issues:** living conditions, inclusive design and step-free access, sustainability information - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, inclusive-access, psed, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, old-wording-slip ## Summary Conversion of basement storage at Highbury Grove Court, Islington, into two flats reached only by steps from a private courtyard. The inspector found only limited living-conditions and information shortfalls, but the lack of step-free access conflicted with explicit accessibility standards in the development plan. Housing (substantial weight) and an affordable contribution (significant) were held not to be the "clear justification" DP3(3) requires (DL ¶46), so the policy directed refusal. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties consulted on the revised Framework and the 2024 and 2025 HDT results (DL ¶3). - **Living conditions: limited harm, no conflict** (DL ¶10-11). - **Proportionate information (DM1, DM2, DM3, DM7, PM13).** "I have not been provided with substantive evidence demonstrating how the Council's information requirements in respect of energy performance are justified in the context of a development of the scale proposed" (DL ¶30). The sustainability conflict carries "only limited weight" (DL ¶32). - **Step-free access.** "I attach significant weight to the failure to provide step-free access in the overall planning balance" (DL ¶27). - **DP3(3): FAIL.** "Accordingly, there is a clear conflict with the explicit design standards referred to in Policy DP3(3) of the Framework" (DL ¶45). "Notwithstanding that I attach substantial weight to housing delivery and significant weight to the affordable housing contribution, collectively these benefits do not amount to the clear justification required by Policy DP3(3) to depart from explicit accessibility standards in the development plan" (DL ¶46). - **Wording.** The letter slips into "clear and convincing justification" (DL ¶47), the HE4(2) heritage phrase, for the DP3(3) test. Incidental: ¶46 applies the DP3(3) words. ## Planning balance S4 within a settlement, with S4(2)(c) set out (DL ¶35). The benefits side (housing, affordable contribution) was weighed against the conflict as the "clear justification" question (DL ¶46), and DP3(3) "indicates that planning permission should be refused" (DL ¶47). The letter does not separately state the S4 "substantially outweighed" conclusion (the test is set out at DL ¶35). ## What made the difference The development plan's explicit, inclusive-design requirement for step-free access, and no evidence that it could not be achieved. That made the case a DP3(3) "explicit design standards" conflict (DL ¶45), which the benefits could not justify. ## Transferable points - DP3(3) "explicit design standards" (DL ¶44) covers accessibility standards in the development plan, not only character and appearance (DL ¶45). - Clear justification was tested by weighing the benefits against the conflict: substantial housing weight plus significant affordable weight was not enough (DL ¶46). - DM1, DM2, DM3, DM7 and PM13 cut the weight of information-only shortfalls for a small scheme (DL ¶30-32). ## Policy findings - **DP3(3): fail (significant weight).** no step-free access; conflict with explicit design standards (London Plan D5/D7, SDMP H4); housing (substantial) and affordable contribution (significant) do not amount to clear justification (DL 43-47) - **S4(2)(c): fail.** set out at DL 35 as the should-be-refused circumstance; DP3(3) then directs refusal (DL 47) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** two homes against HDT 69% and 252 of 775 delivered in 2024/25; scale of the benefit modest (DL 37-39) - **HO8: benefit (significant weight).** off-site affordable housing contribution secured by UU (DL 34, 40) - **DM7: neutral (limited weight).** with DM1, DM2, DM3 and PM13, information requirements must be proportionate; sustainability information shortfalls given only limited weight (DL 30-32, 42) - **PSED: neutral.** legibility and safety concerns for protected groups given significant weight in principle but not shown to cause disadvantage; limited weight (DL 22-25) ## Key facts - Parties consulted on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework and the 2024 and 2025 HDT results (DL 3) - HDT 2025 is 69% (1,609 of 2,325 homes), shortfall 716 (DL 37) - Access by steps from a secure private courtyard; no evidence step-free access could not be achieved (DL 20, 43) - Proposal not infill, so the London Plan D7 infill flexibility does not apply (DL 18) - Living conditions (dual aspect, railway noise) only limited harm, no policy conflict (DL 10-11) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005590 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/89c3d03c-c5ef-4537-a2bc-32f0e8b76883 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005590.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Contec House, East Street, Farnham (takeaway opening hours) - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Ellis - **Authority:** Waverley (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6005594 - **Application reference:** WA/2025/01751 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Section 73 variation of opening-hours condition on a hot food takeaway to 1000-0200 (Sun-Thu) and 1000-0300 (Fri-Sat), deliveries only after midnight - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3, S4 - **Development plan policies:** Waverley Local Plan Part 1 2018 TD1, Waverley Local Plan Part 2 2023 DM1, Farnham Neighbourhood Plan 2020 FNP1 - **Main issues:** living conditions, noise and disturbance - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, e2-substantial-weight, hot-food-takeaway, noise-night-time, living-conditions, s73-variation, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary A Farnham takeaway sought to vary its opening-hours condition to trade until midnight and then deliver until 0200 or 0300. The inspector found that late-night customers and delivery vehicles would cause unacceptable noise for nearby residents, contrary to P3, and that the operator's delivery-driver policy could not be conditioned. Substantial E2 weight to the business benefit was substantially outweighed under S4. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The appellant and the Council have had the opportunity to comment on the new Framework" (DL ¶2). - **Noise, P3: FAIL.** "The later opening and operating hours would therefore result in a significant likelihood of increased disturbance at unsocial hours when most nearby residents would be sleeping" (DL ¶10). "the proposal would conflict with Policy P3 of the Framework" (DL ¶18). - **Conditions, DM6.** Measures such as closing doors "gently" are not "sufficiently precise or enforceable" (DL ¶8). - **Licensing.** "Whereas there might not be a statutory nuisance under environmental health legislation, it does not follow that the impacts would be acceptable in planning terms" (DL ¶12). - **HC5: no conflict** (DL ¶16). - **E2 benefit.** "I afford substantial weight to the economic benefits of the scheme in accordance with Paragraph 1 of Policy E2 of the Framework" (DL ¶21). ## Planning balance S4(1). Substantial economic weight against P3 harm described as "matters of considerable importance" (DL ¶22). The inspector first says the benefits "would not outweigh the harm", then concludes they "would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶23). Conclusion framed plan-led (DL ¶24). ## What made the difference Residential neighbours across the road, and an operator's noise code that could not be enforced. Trial periods without complaints and a premises licence did not help. Evidence that the business was at risk might have added weight to the benefit side, but none was produced. ## Transferable points - E2(1) substantial weight to a business's ability to adapt does not overcome unacceptable night-time noise under P3 (DL ¶21–23). - A premises licence and no Environmental Health objection do not settle planning acceptability (DL ¶12). - Operator codes using words like "gently" or "careful" fail the precision test for conditions (DL ¶8). ## Policy findings - **P3: fail.** late-night customer and delivery noise in a sensitive location opposite housing; "matters of considerable importance" (DL 6-10, 17-18, 22) - **DM6: fail.** condition requiring the Late-Night Delivery Driver Policy ("gently", "smooth", "careful") not precise or enforceable (DL 8, 18) - **HC5: pass.** no evidence of nearby schools or an over-concentration of takeaways (DL 16) - **E2: benefit (substantial weight).** E2(1) substantial weight to allowing the business to invest, expand or adapt (DL 21); no evidence jobs at risk (DL 13) - **S4: fail.** inside settlement; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 20, 23) ## Key facts - Takeaway in Romans Business Park; housing opposite on East Street and to the west (DL 6) - Existing condition allows 0800-2300 Mon-Sat and 0900-2230 Sun (DL header) - Three trial late-opening periods in April 2025 with no complaints; not a justification for permanent hours (DL 11) - Premises licence granted and no Environmental Health objection; planning is a separate regime (DL 12) - Andover and Basingstoke outlets not comparable (DL 14) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005594 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005594.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 7 Hornfield Cottages, David Street, Meopham - **Decision:** dismissed, 1 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A M Nilsson (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer T Morris) - **Authority:** Gravesham (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6005603 - **Application reference:** 20250952 - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Partly retrospective first-floor side and ground-floor rear extensions, loft conversion, porch, parking - **Site context:** green-belt - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB6(2), DP3(1) - **Development plan policies:** Gravesham Core Strategy 2014 CS02, CS19, Local Plan First Review saved C13, Householder Design Guide SPD 2021 - **Main issues:** disproportionate extension, openness, character and appearance, fallback, VSC - **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, fallback, vsc-not-shown, design-refusal, householder, retrospective, drafting-slip, appeal-planning-officer, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Partly built extensions to a semi-detached cottage, 71.69% larger than the original. They were disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). An extant permission of similar size was a fallback that neutralised the Green Belt and openness harm. But the as-built design, flush with the front and without a dropped ridge, caused character harm the fallback did not cover, so VSC failed. ## Issues and findings - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "The proposed extensions would increase the floor area of the dwelling by 71.69% … the extensions would amount to a disproportionate increase" (DL ¶8). - **Openness:** moderate harm, to which substantial weight is given (DL ¶12). - **Fallback:** "the fallback position provided by the existing planning permission addresses the harm of the proposal by reason of its inappropriateness, as well as the harm to the openness of the Green Belt" (DL ¶23), but "the difference between the fallback scheme and the appeal scheme in terms of character and appearance is substantial" (DL ¶24). - **Design (DP3(1)):** "bulky and conspicuous … would erode the symmetry of the pair" (DL ¶15). ## Planning balance GB6(2). The fallback offset the Green Belt harms, leaving design harm as "other harm" not clearly outweighed (DL ¶26). ¶26 also says the scheme "would not be inappropriate development" because of the fallback. That conflicts with DL ¶8-9 and should be read as meaning the fallback neutralises the inappropriateness harm. ## What made the difference Design. Without the SPD-compliant set-back and set-down of the approved scheme, the fallback could not justify the as-built extension. ## Transferable points - A similar-sized extant permission can neutralise definitional and openness harm in a VSC balance (DL ¶23). - The fallback does not cover harms the approved scheme avoided, here design (DL ¶24). - Design harm counts as "any other harm" in GB6(2) (DL ¶26). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** 71.69% floor area increase vs one-third LP C13 guide; disproportionate (DL 7-9) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** moderate openness harm; fallback (earlier permission of similar size) addresses inappropriateness and openness harm, but not design harm (DL 11-12, 21-26) - **DP3(1): conflict.** no set-back or set-down; unbalances the semi-detached pair (DL 13-20) ## Key facts - 71.69% increase over the original dwelling - Earlier permission (20240708) of similar scale but with a set-back and dropped ridge - fallback neutralises Green Belt harm but not design harm - Letter concludes "Due to the fallback the appeal scheme would not be inappropriate development" (DL 26), inconsistent with DL 8-9 - Decided without re-consultation on the 2026 Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005603 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7f0f56f8-0c71-4f32-9f67-cef8e8fad2c4 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005603.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Mill House, Cryers Hill Road, Cryers Hill - **Decision:** allowed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: SE Hughes - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6005649 - **Application reference:** PL/25/2357/FA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of side extension and conservatory; single-storey rear and side extensions (non-determination appeal) - **Site context:** green-belt, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Wycombe District Local Plan 2019 DM43, DM34 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development - **Tags:** not-inappropriate, disproportionate-extension, volume-neutral-replacement, original-building-baseline, transitional-no-consultation, householder, non-determination ## Summary A non-determination appeal to replace an elongated side extension and conservatory with compact single-storey extensions, at a house already extended beyond the local 50% volume allowance. Allowed. There was no net volume increase and the form was more compact, so despite a "technical conflict" with Wycombe DM43 the additions were not disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "the policies pertinent to this appeal, including those relating to the extension and alteration of buildings in the Green Belt remain unchanged, except for their regrouping under policy GB7 and renumbering. Therefore, there is no need to invite further comments" (DL ¶4). - **GB7(1)(b): PASS.** "whilst I am mindful of the technical conflict with Policy DM43 … and the exceedance of the 50% allowance, as the Framework does not define 'disproportionate' additions, and since, in relative terms, the dwelling would not be larger volumetrically than the existing dwelling, I find that it would not result in disproportionate additions to the original building" (DL ¶13). ## Planning balance No VSC needed. Conflict with the development plan (DM43) was outweighed by the Framework as a material consideration (DL ¶17). ## What made the difference Volume neutrality plus a more compact form. The Inspector effectively allowed the "existing" building to be the practical comparator for a like-for-like swap of past extensions, even though GB7(1)(b) is framed against the original building. ## Transferable points - Replacing existing extensions with no net volume gain and a more compact form can be "not disproportionate" even where the total exceeds a local % cap (DL ¶13). - Local numerical caps (DM43 50%) are consistent with the Framework but not decisive, because "disproportionate" is undefined nationally (DL ¶¶8, 13). - Inspectors are treating the GB7(1)(b) extension wording as unchanged from 2024 §154(c) (DL ¶4). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): pass.** original + previous extensions already exceed DM43's 50% allowance, but the proposal does not increase existing volume and is more compact → not disproportionate (DL 10-14) - **Wycombe DM43: conflict.** technical conflict with 50% volume allowance; outweighed because the Framework does not define disproportionate (DL 13, 17) - **N4: neutral.** no effect on Chilterns National Landscape (DL 15) ## Key facts - Original dwelling c.607-706 m3; existing extensions c.492-591 m3, over the 50% allowance - Proposal removes c.310 m3 and adds c.308 m3 (appellant's survey); Council says net decrease of 32 m3 - Council said it would have approved had it decided the application - Inspector found GB7 extension policy "unchanged" except renumbering, so did not consult on the new Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005649 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ffff837f-56ca-410c-ae84-328f50ebeda5 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005649.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Cud Hill House barn, Upton Hill, Upton St Leonards - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: AJ Sutton - **Authority:** Stroud (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6005652 - **Application reference:** S.25/2010/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of modern outbuildings, alteration and extension of a stone barn and its conversion to one self-build dwelling, in the Cotswolds National Landscape - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, isolated, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.2 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(3), HO11, N4, S5(4) - **Development plan policies:** Stroud District Local Plan CP1, CP2, CP3, CP13, CP14, CP15, ES7 - **Main issues:** suitable location, Cotswolds National Landscape - **Tags:** isolated-home, s5-3-isolated, ho11, s5-1-c-reuse, national-landscape, landscape-harm, self-build, fallback, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, annex-a-weight-reduction, s5-4-exceptional, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Conversion and extension of a stone barn to a self-build home on the Cotswold escarpment, outside any settlement or group of houses. Dismissed. The reuse category in S5(1)(c) appeared to be met, but the home would be isolated. S5(3) therefore routed it to HO11, whose reuse limb requires the scheme to enhance its immediate setting. It would not: the unit would take in a large area of pastureland, causing significant harm to the National Landscape. The walk to the bus was uphill along a road without pavements or lighting. The S5(4) balance was then run and failed. ## Issues and findings - **Location (local policy; TR3 not named).** The walk to the bus stop is on a road "which has no made pavements or significant street lighting" (DL ¶11). "Sharing the road with motorised traffic, this uphill walk, however short, would be unappealing to most pedestrians and probably not feasible for those with restricted mobility or young children, particularly in winter months" (DL ¶12). Occupants "would nonetheless be largely dependent on the car to access a range of services" (DL ¶12). - **National Landscape: significant harm.** "During the life of the development a significant section of existing undeveloped pastureland could be changed to a residential garden" (DL ¶20). "The harmful visual effect would be localised, but it would nevertheless be significant" (DL ¶21). - **Plan weight.** Spatial policies are "largely in keeping with the aims of policies of the Framework. However, the Council’s housing land supply stands at just 3.2 years" and "this limits the weight that local spatial policies should attract" (DL ¶28). This is the 2024 out-of-date reasoning, not Annex A ¶2. - **S5(1)(c).** "The requirements of S5(1) c appear satisfied in these respects" (DL ¶30). - **S5(3) and HO11.** "Framework policy S5(3) defines isolated homes as those lying outside settlements or groups of houses. For the reasons already set out this applies in this case" (DL ¶31). "even with the removal existing sheds, this scheme would not enhance this setting. Therefore, this proposal does not find support from local emerging policy or Framework policies S5(3) and HO11" (DL ¶33). - **Benefits.** Housing "attracts considerable weight" (DL ¶34). Self-build: "I attach substantial weight to this benefit. However, I am not persuaded that this visually harmful development is the only means of securing this benefit at this locale and this reduces the weight of this benefit" (DL ¶35). Reuse of the building gets little weight because of the extant commercial prior approval (DL ¶38). ## Planning balance S5(4). "The failure to conserve the natural beauty of the National Landscape weighs substantially against this development" (DL ¶39). DP3 context harm was added (DL ¶39). "I therefore find that the benefits in this case would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects, including to the character of the countryside and in relation to promoting sustainable patterns of movement" (DL ¶40). ## What made the difference The home would be isolated, so S5(1)(c) alone could not carry it. HO11's reuse limb needed an enhanced setting, and the curtilage creep over National Landscape pasture did the opposite. The extant commercial prior approval also took the weight out of the argument that the scheme would save the barn. A scheme confined to the barn's tight footprint, with no garden over the field, would have had a better chance under HO11. ## Transferable points - Meeting S5(1)(c) (reuse) does not help an isolated home: S5(3) sends it to HO11 (DL ¶30-33). - HO11's reuse limb needs the scheme to enhance its immediate setting; removing sheds does not offset domestic use of open pasture (DL ¶22, 33). - A short walk to a bus stop on a road without pavements or lighting is "unappealing to most pedestrians and probably not feasible for those with restricted mobility or young children" (DL ¶12). - An extant prior approval that already secures the building's future cuts the weight of reuse and repair benefits (DL ¶10, 23, 38). - Self-build benefit is reduced where it could be delivered elsewhere without the harm (DL ¶35). - Caution: DL ¶28 reduces the weight of consistent spatial policies for under-supply, which Annex A ¶2 does not support. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(c): pass.** permanent and substantial building; modest extension not disproportionate; "The requirements of S5(1) c appear satisfied" (DL 4, 30) - **S5(3): fail.** isolated home (outside settlements or groups of houses), so only HO11 can support it (DL 31) - **HO11: fail.** reuse limb needs the scheme to enhance its immediate setting; the domestic curtilage over pastureland would not (DL 32-33) - **N4: harm (substantial weight).** significant localised visual harm; pastureland in the National Landscape turned to domestic use; fails the statutory purpose (DL 14-26, 39) - **TR3: harm.** TR3 not named; uphill walk to the bus stop on a road without pavements or significant lighting, unappealing and "probably not feasible" for some users; car dependence (DL 11-12, 37) - **DP3(1): conflict.** does not integrate with and enhance surroundings; weighed as harm, no DP3(3) clear-justification step (DL 39) - **Transitional(2): conflict.** spatial policies "largely in keeping" with the Framework, but their weight limited because of the 3.2-year supply (the 2024 out-of-date route) (DL 27-28); CP14 and ES7 consistent (DL 29) - **HO7: benefit (considerable weight).** one home against a significant shortfall (DL 34) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** self-build meeting evidenced local need; secured by legal agreement, "substantial weight" but reduced because it could be met elsewhere without harm (DL 35) - **S5(4): fail.** benefits would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects, including countryside character and sustainable movement (DL 40) ## Key facts - Extant prior approval for commercial use of the main barn (94 sqm, tight red line) given significant weight as a fallback that would maintain the building (DL 9-10, 24) - Nearest settlement with services about 2 km; hourly bus to three towns, but the stop is some distance along a main road with no made pavements or significant street lighting (DL 11) - Proposed site plan puts much of the pastureland into the residential unit, beyond the tightly drawn red line (DL 18-19) - Council supply 3.2 years (DL 28) - Cotswold Beechwoods SAC deed not considered because the appeal failed on other grounds (DL 41) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005652 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/27dabb6c-2841-4f46-93b8-61e11eda4615 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005652.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Medvale House, Mote Road, Maidstone - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Ian Dyer - **Authority:** Maidstone (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6005653 - **Application reference:** 25/500559/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of 7-storey former office building to 87 apartments with communal areas and amenity spaces (part retrospective) - **Homes:** 87 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), DP3, P5 - **Development plan policies:** Maidstone Local Plan Review 2021-2038 (2024) LPRQD7, LPRSP15, Maidstone Building for Life 12 (2018) - **Main issues:** living conditions - private amenity space, fire safety - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, old-balance-wording, old-wording-slip, transitional-no-consultation, large-scheme, living-conditions, fire-safety, class-ma, housing-shortfall ## Summary Change of use of Medvale House, a 7-storey former office block in Maidstone town centre, to 87 flats. Dismissed. The flats would have no private outdoor space and inadequate communal space, contrary to Local Plan policy LPRQD7. The fire statement relied on an escape stair in an adjoining third-party building, with no enforceable right of use; the HSE objected. Those two harms were held to outweigh the housing benefit despite a housing-land shortfall. The S4 conclusion is expressed in the old "significantly and demonstrably" wording. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The Framework has not materially altered its approach to the matters in dispute in this appeal and so I have not sought further comment from the parties" (DL ¶4). - **Private amenity space: FAIL.** "public open space does not fulfil all the amenity functions of private space, lacking seclusion and privacy as it does" (DL ¶14). LPRQD7 is read as a requirement with room for justified flexibility, not an aim: "I do not see that a complete lack of personal private provision is an option being offered as a matter of choice for the developer" (DL ¶16). - **Fire safety: FAIL.** "There is, therefore, more to this matter in the determining of a planning application than submitting a document" (DL ¶24). "Access to the escape route cannot be secured through a planning condition as it lies outside of the red line" (DL ¶30). The proposal is "contrary to the fundamental social objective of the Framework to provide well-designed, safe places" (DL ¶32). - **Prior approval history.** "that route is subject to different tests than an application for planning permission" (DL ¶17). ## Planning balance S4 is quoted correctly at DL ¶36. For: 87 homes, significant weight; long-term economic benefit, moderate; construction, limited. Re-use of the building and council tax / New Homes Bonus were neutral. Accessibility was not counted separately, "To consider them again, separately, would be to double count" (DL ¶41). Against: design and living conditions ("significantly") and fire safety ("very significantly") (DL ¶¶34-35). Conclusion: "the adverse impacts of the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶43). This is the 2024 tilted-balance wording, not the 2026 "substantially outweighed" test. ## What made the difference There was no fallback, because the prior approval had lapsed. That meant the scheme was judged as an ordinary planning application against LPRQD7's private amenity standard. There was also no enforceable secondary escape. Either harm alone was said to be enough: the design and its effect on residents' lived experience "would itself be sufficient to overwhelm the benefits accruing" (DL ¶42). To succeed, the appellant would have needed balconies, or a shared outdoor space with a viability case behind it, and a planning-enforceable right to the Kent House stair or a second stair on site. ## Transferable points - Nearby public parks do not replace private amenity space for large flatted conversions (DL ¶14). - A policy phrased as "should have" private space still requires justification for providing none (DL ¶¶15-16). - An inspector can find that a fire statement fails "planning gateway one" when escape depends on third-party land outside the red line and access is not legally secure (DL ¶¶24, 30-32). - Housing supply benefit for 87 dwellings was given only "significant" weight, not HO7's "substantial" (DL ¶37). - Accessibility benefits that underpin the presumption are not counted again as separate benefits (DL ¶41). - Drafting slip: the old "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" formula is used as the S4 conclusion (DL ¶43). ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail (significant weight).** 87 flats with no private outdoor amenity space and only about 115 sq m of internal communal space; "poor design" (DL 8-18, 34, 42). Framework code not named; inferred from "good design is fundamental" - **P5: fail (substantial weight).** fire statement relies on third-party shared stair in Kent House; access not shown to be enforceable; HSE objection; weighed "very significantly"; "planning gateway one" expectations not met (DL 20-32, 35). Framework code not named; mapped from "well-designed, safe places" - **HO7: benefit (significant weight).** 87 homes, town centre, Council cannot show a five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 36-37) - **S4(1): fail.** S4 quoted correctly (DL 36) but conclusion uses old wording: adverse impacts "significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL 43) ## Key facts - Earlier Class MA prior approval commenced but lapsed, so no fallback (DL 7) - Zero private outdoor space for 87 flats; public open space at Mote Park does not substitute for private space (DL 8, 14) - Second escape route depends on a stair in an adjoining building; the scanned legal agreement is unclear and not enforceable in planning terms (DL 26-30) - Decided without consulting the parties on the 2026 Framework ("not materially altered its approach") (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005653 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5d762ba3-823a-468e-a02b-fb510f11d02b --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005653.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land West of Spratts Farm, Queenborough Road, Southminster - **Decision:** allowed, 18 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Nick Fagan - **Authority:** Maldon (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6005664 - **Application reference:** 25/00206/OUTM - **Procedure:** inquiry - **Development:** Outline, up to 110 dwellings (30% affordable), demolition of 46 Queenborough Road for access, POS, structural planting, SuDS; access only for approval - **Homes:** 110 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.04 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S3(1)(b), S5(1)(j), S5(1), HO7, HO1, N2, HE6, P3 - **Development plan policies:** Maldon District Local Development Plan 2014-2029 (2017) S1, S2, S8, D1, D2, H4 - **Main issues:** landscape and visual impact, noise to neighbour, S5 planning balance - **Tags:** s5-1-j, housing-shortfall, large-scheme, no-consultation-on-2026-framework, decided-day-after-publication, s5-limb-misdescribed, old-wording-slip, tilted-balance-2024, plan-conflict-overridden, landscape-harm-limited, n2-does-not-protect-countryside, previous-appeal-distinguished, noise, affordable-weight, s106-benefits-limited-weight ## Summary Outline permission for up to 110 homes (30% affordable) on an arable field on the northern edge of Southminster, outside the settlement boundary. Maldon refused. Allowed after a four-day inquiry, in a decision issued on 18 August 2026, the day after the new Framework was published. The press called it the first appeal decided under S5. The inspector found the site passed S5(1)(j): no five-year supply, evidenced unmet need, physically well-related to Southminster, with infrastructure secured by S106. He gave limited weight to landscape harm and to conflict with the out-of-date spatial strategy, found the noise impact on the neighbour acceptable, and held that the heritage harm was outweighed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition: decided the day after publication, parties not consulted.** "Just before this decision was issued, on 17 August, the Government issued the new revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). I do not consider that there is any need to revert to the main parties regarding this because the new policies for decision making in it do not substantially alter the national policies in the previous NPPF version, certainly not that would benefit the Council's or any third party's cases. Obviously, any reference to the NPPF refers to the policies within this new version." (DL ¶4). He framed the third main issue around S5 (DL ¶5). The evidence and the agreed positions had been prepared under the December 2024 Framework (for example "less than substantial harm", fn 6). - **How much of the 2024 Framework survived in the reasoning.** The letter mixes the two versions: - It cites "NPPF paragraph 187 e)" (2024) on noise alongside "New NPPF Policy P3" (DL ¶¶25–26). - It maps N2 to "previous paragraph 187 b) of the 2024 NPPF" (DL ¶47) and notes that "valued landscape" is no longer used (DL ¶9). - It uses the 2024 para 215 "less than substantial harm" term while applying HE6 (DL ¶49). - It adds the 2024 para 11(d) tilted balance as a fallback (DL ¶59). - **S5 engagement: slip.** "The proposed development would comply with new NPPF Policy S5 because the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply … this lack of a 5YHLS means that NPPF Policy S5 is engaged" (DL ¶44). S5 applies to all development outside settlements (S3(1)(b)). A five-year supply shortfall is what opens limb (j), not S5 itself. - **S5(1)(h) and (j): PASS.** "Sub-paragraph 1 h) of Policy S5 makes clear that residential development physically well-related to a settlement (which this is) of a scale which could be satisfactorily accommodated by necessary infrastructure … would be acceptable. Sub-paragraph 1 j) states that development which would address an evidenced unmet housing need (as in this case) where there is no 5YHLS and that is well-related to an existing settlement with necessary infrastructure is acceptable in principle." (DL ¶45). In the published text, (h) is the "reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station" limb. The paraphrase leaves out the station test. Southminster has a railway station within walking distance (DL ¶6), but the Annex B well-connected definition is not applied. Limb (j) carries the decision. - **S5(2): not engaged.** None of the "refused only in specific circumstances" policies applies (DL ¶45). The paraphrase of S5(2) is garbled but the conclusion is clear. - **Out-of-date spatial strategy.** The plan provides 310 dwellings a year against an uncontested standard-method figure of 586, "almost double" (DL ¶46). Limited weight goes to conflict with S1, S2 and S8, because "if these policies were to be applied with the vigour of full weight, the Council would clearly be unable to meet its current housing needs, contrary to the NPPF, specifically to Policy HO1" (DL ¶48). - **Landscape: N2, limited harm.** Moderate-minor landscape effect at Year 15; moderate visual effect for about 20 houses whose rear windows face the site (DL ¶¶15, 18–19). The Homefield decision was distinguished because this scheme would not extend beyond the existing northern built line: "the northerly extension of the town proposed by this scheme would therefore be sensitive and proportionate, whereas the Homefield scheme clearly wasn't" (DL ¶14). "NPPF Policy N2 … does not 'protect' the countryside for its landscape or intrinsic character and beauty, which Policy S8 specifically endeavours to do; it merely 'considers' the environmental qualities of land … which is not the same as protecting it. This means that even if this level of harm was considered significant and unacceptable, I would attribute only limited weight to the conflict with MLP Policy S8." (DL ¶47). "The Council's argument that such moderate harm is nonetheless significant is illogical and not credible" (DL ¶47). - **Noise to No 48: P3, PASS.** The dispute was over whether night-time maximum (LAmax) levels from the access road should be used, and the threshold to apply. There are 32 night movements at 20 mph design speed, and the access has a bend and a give-way. The inspector held that "it is not unreasonable to use average rather than maximum predicted noise levels" (DL ¶33). He accepted the 2020 AVOG guide as relevant to existing dwellings (DL ¶38). A SOAEL is unlikely (DL ¶41). As a backstop, Condition 26 caps noise at "60dB LAFmax … external to any bedroom window" (DL ¶42). - **Heritage: HE6, PASS.** The agreed harm to the setting of Grade II Spratt's Farmhouse is at the "lowermost end of the spectrum". It is given "considerable importance and weight", and the Council accepts that the market and affordable housing outweighs it (DL ¶49). ## Planning balance The inspector used an agreed weighting scale: substantial, significant, moderate, limited, neutral (fn 7). - **Benefits:** - market housing: substantial; - affordable housing: substantial. He rejected the Council's case for only significant weight: "it is a national requirement for Local Planning Authorities to have a 5YHLS, which Maldon doesn't have and it has a shortfall of AH units" (DL ¶52); - economic benefits: moderate; - POS/GI and BNG: limited, as policy or statutory requirements (DL ¶¶53–54); - bus links and junction works: limited; - other S106 contributions: neutral, as Reg 122 mitigation (DL ¶57). - **Harms:** - landscape and visual harm: at worst moderate; - heritage: very limited; - spatial strategy conflict: limited; - noise: none (even on the Council's case, moderate) (DL ¶50). - **Conclusion.** Through S3 to S5, compliance with S5 plus the reduced weight of S1, S2 and S8 meant "for these reasons alone the proposal would be sustainable development, which should be granted planning permission" (DL ¶58). The S5(1) "substantially outweighed" test is never stated in terms. The conclusion rests on S5 compliance and the harms are not set against that threshold explicitly. The inspector then added the 2024 tilted balance: "the scheme's harms, even if they were to be at the level argued by the Council, would come nowhere near to significantly and demonstrably outweighing the above benefits. Whilst this was the old test in NPPF 2024 paragraph 11, the fact that it is passed only adds to the reasons for allowing this appeal." (DL ¶59). ## What made the difference Three things decided the case: - **An agreed, persistent supply shortfall against a plan requirement about half the standard method.** This opened S5(1)(j) and pushed the settlement-boundary policies to limited weight. - **A site that is truly on the settlement edge.** It is within a comfortable walk of the town centre, GP, school, buses and station. - **A layout that stays within the existing northern built line.** This is what distinguished it from the dismissed 220-home Homefield scheme next door. The Council's landscape case failed because its own witness's grading was only one step (moderate vs moderate-minor) above the appellant's. The noise objection was neutralised by a quantified LAFmax condition. For a different outcome the Council would have needed one of: - a demonstrable five-year supply, which would close limb (j); - a scheme pushing into open farmland beyond the built edge, as at Homefield; - a national "should be refused" policy failure engaging S5(2). As an authority on S5 the letter is weakened by several things: - it was decided without submissions on the new Framework; - it misdescribes S5(1)(h) and treats the supply shortfall as what engages S5; - it relies partly on the 2024 tilted balance. ## Transferable points - An inspector may decide a case under the 2026 Framework without consulting the parties, where the new decision-making policies "do not substantially alter" the previous ones to the detriment of the losing party (DL ¶4). Contrast the later practice of re-opening hearings or inviting comments. - On a settlement-edge housing site with no five-year supply, S5(1)(j) is the main route. "Physically well-related" plus infrastructure secured by S106 and conditions is enough (DL ¶45). - Where the plan's housing requirement is far below the standard method (310 vs 586 dpa), settlement-boundary and countryside policies get limited weight because full weight would conflict with HO1/Annex D (DL ¶¶46, 48). - N2 "considers" natural beauty rather than "protecting" countryside. On this reasoning, a local plan policy that protects the countryside for its own sake carries limited weight when it conflicts with a scheme (DL ¶47). - Substantial weight goes to both market and affordable housing without a 5YHLS, even as supply improves (2.7 → 4.04 yrs), and even where the affordable share is only the policy 30% (DL ¶52). - S106 mitigation that meets Reg 122 gets limited or neutral weight as a benefit, even where existing residents also gain, e.g. bus links (DL ¶57). BNG at about the statutory 10% gets limited weight (DL ¶54). - A neighbouring dismissed appeal can be distinguished on whether built form extends past the existing settlement edge (DL ¶¶13–14). - Night-time access-road noise to one neighbour: average levels can be used where movements are few, and an LAFmax condition (60dB, 1m from window, 23:00–07:00) resolves any doubt (DL ¶¶33, 42). - Caution when citing: - DL ¶44's "lack of a 5YHLS means that … S5 is engaged" is wrong on the text of S3(1)(b). S5 governs all development outside settlements. - DL ¶45's description of S5(1)(h) omits the well-connected-station requirement. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): pass.** no 5YHLS (4.04 LPA / 3.6 appellant, "marginal difference being unimportant"); evidenced unmet need; well-related to Southminster; infrastructure via S106 and conditions (DL 44-45) - **S5(1)(h): pass.** inspector paraphrased (h) as "residential development physically well-related to a settlement" of accommodable scale; the 2026 text of (h) is the well-connected-station limb, not analysed as such (no finding on "well-connected station" definition) — drafting slip (DL 45) - **S5(2): not-engaged.** no national "should be refused" policy applies (DL 45) - **S3(1)(b): pass.** quoted as "1 c) Outside settlements, Policy S5 should be applied" (it is S3(1)(b)); compliance with S5 plus reduced weight to out-of-date plan policies = sustainable development to be permitted (DL 58) - **N2: harm (limited weight).** moderate-minor landscape effect at Year 15, moderate visual effect for ~20 houses; N2 (ex-2024 para 187 b) only "considers" natural beauty and does not "protect" countryside, so conflict with LP S8 limited weight (DL 15, 19, 47) - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** agreed "less than substantial harm" (2024 para 215 term) at lowermost end to setting of Grade II Spratt's Farmhouse; outweighed by public benefits, conceded by LPA; complies with HE6 (DL 49) - **P3: pass.** P3(2)(a) noise; night LAmax dispute; no SOAEL likely; 60dB LAFmax condition on access road/fence siting; cited alongside 2024 para 187 e) (DL 25-43) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to market housing despite improving supply (2.7 → 4.04 yrs) because 5YHLS is a national requirement (DL 51-52) - **HO8: benefit (substantial weight).** 30% affordable (75% rented / 25% intermediate); LPA argument that only a higher % or quantum merits substantial weight rejected (DL 51-52, 56) - **HO1: neutral.** plan requirement 310 dpa vs standard method 586 dpa; applying S1/S2/S8 with full weight would frustrate HO1/Annex D (DL 46, 48) - **MLP S1, S2, S8: conflict (limited weight).** out-of-date spatial strategy (plan requirement ~half standard method); site outside settlement boundary (DL 46-48) ## Key facts - Inquiry closed 28 July 2026; S106 submitted 13 Aug; NPPF published 17 Aug; decision issued 18 Aug without reverting to parties (DL 3-4) - Supply 4.04 years (LPA) vs 3.6 years (appellant); plan requirement 310 dpa vs standard method 586 dpa (DL 44, 46) - Arable field 5.22ha on northern edge of Southminster; 3.77ha built; town centre, GP, primary school, bus and railway station within comfortable walking distance (DL 6) - Homefield, Southminster (220 dwellings, APP/X1545/W/24/3351697) dismissed March 2025 on landscape intrusion; distinguished because this scheme stays within the existing northern built line (DL 13-14) - Recent allowed appeal 6004910, west of the cemetery, London Road, Maldon (275 dwellings, 6 July 2026) (DL 51) - 32 night-time vehicle movements on new access beside No 48; Condition 26 caps 60dB LAFmax outside bedroom windows (DL 33, 42) - £310,000 sustainable transport contribution for bus links; RAMS, education, health, PROW contributions (DL 56) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005664 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/64c70f93-0025-46d7-a1a5-28d1bc3e657b --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005664.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 47 Huddersfield Road, Mirfield (bank to hot food takeaway) - **Decision:** allowed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Armstrong - **Authority:** Kirklees (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6005670 - **Application reference:** 2025/62/90487/E - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of a vacant bank (Class E) to a hot food takeaway (sui generis) with extract equipment and external alterations - **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Kirklees Local Plan 2019 LP13, LP21, LP22, LP24, LP52, Kirklees Hot Food Takeaway SPD 2022 - **Main issues:** highway and pedestrian safety, living conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, tr6-highway-safety, fallback, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary A Domino's takeaway in a vacant bank in Mirfield District Centre. The council refused on parking, pedestrian safety and amenity. The inspector found the concerns unevidenced: parking restrictions already control the frontage, customers can use nearby car parks, and noise can be conditioned. Applying TR6(4), there was no severe or unacceptable highway impact. Allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties "have had the opportunity to make any comments on the implications of that relevant to the appeal" (DL ¶3). - **Highways, TR6(4): PASS.** "having regard to policy TR6(4) of the Framework, there is no compelling evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would have a severe adverse impact on the transport network or an unacceptable impact on highway safety in this location" (DL ¶17). - **Illegal parking.** "there is nothing substantive before me to demonstrate such parking resulting in harm to highway safety would be an inevitable consequence of the proposal. In any event, the existing restrictions would be enforceable by the relevant authority outside of the planning process" (DL ¶12). - **Living conditions: PASS** with conditions on plant, insulation and hours (DL ¶22-24). - **Fallback.** Class E use has a "greater than theoretical possibility", given moderate weight (DL ¶29). ## Planning balance Plan-led: accords with the development plan as a whole and no material consideration indicates otherwise (DL ¶36). No S4 balance was run. ## What made the difference The council had no evidence that parking or crossing behaviour would cause harm, and its own highways officers were content. Existing restrictions and a secured delivery management plan answered the concerns. ## Transferable points - Fear that customers will park illegally is not a TR6(4) harm without evidence; the restrictions are enforceable outside planning (DL ¶12, ¶17). - A delivery management plan can be secured by condition where deliveries are by employees, not third-party operators (DL ¶35). ## Policy findings - **TR6(4): pass.** no severe network impact or unacceptable highway safety impact; parking, pedestrian crossing and refuse concerns unevidenced; LHA content with Highways Technical Note and Delivery Management Plan (DL 5-18) - **TR3: pass.** mapped: district centre site "accessible by other sustainable travel modes", linked trips (DL 14); TR3 not named - **P3: pass.** mapped: noise and activity acceptable with plant, insulation, hours conditions; Framework aim on living conditions met (DL 19-24) - **HC5: neutral.** mapped: no evidence of concentration of takeaways harming health, vitality or antisocial behaviour; Hot Food Takeaway SPD noted (DL 25-26) - **HE6: neutral.** no harm to setting of Grade II Trinity Methodist Church (DL 31) ## Key facts - About 66% of trade by delivery (employees on e-bikes or mopeds); peak 1800-2000 Fri-Sat; no customer parking on site (DL 8-10) - Double yellow lines, box junction at adjacent fire station access; council's fear of illegal parking unevidenced and enforceable outside planning (DL 11-12) - Class E fallback greater than theoretical; moderate weight (DL 29) - Delivery Management Plan secured by condition; hours 1100-2300 (conditions 6-7) - Costs application by the appellant subject of a separate decision (DL 2), not in the corpus - Parties had the opportunity to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005670 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/cc91aa43-c74b-4a0a-a840-65e82efe372e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005670.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Unit 9 Latimer Industrial Estate, Latimer Road, Kensington and Chelsea - **Decision:** allowed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Armstrong - **Authority:** Kensington and Chelsea (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6005682 - **Application reference:** PP/25/06763 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of a light industrial unit and a five-storey building with flexible Class E floorspace and 7 flats - **Homes:** 7 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** L2 - **Development plan policies:** Kensington and Chelsea New Local Plan Review 2024 SA9, CD1, CD2, CD4, CD9, CD10, CD12, CD15, St Quintin and Woodlands Neighbourhood Plan 2018 LR1, LR5, E2, London Plan 2021 D1, D3, D4, D5, D6, D14, HC1, IP1 - **Main issues:** character and appearance and setting of conservation area, neighbours' living conditions, planning obligations - **Tags:** transitional, old-framework-applied-silently, decided-on-publication-day, non-determination, plan-led, brownfield, previous-appeal-followed, small-scheme, tier-2 ## Summary Redevelopment of a single-storey industrial unit on an allocated North Kensington site with a five-storey mixed-use building of Class E space and seven flats. A near-identical scheme had been dismissed only for want of a planning obligation; this time a completed unilateral undertaking was in place. Allowed on 17 August 2026, with the Framework cited only by the 2024 paragraph number for brownfield land. ## Issues and findings - **Background.** The Council confirmed that "had it been in a position to determine the application, it would have resolved to grant planning permission" (DL ¶5), and "the previous appeal decision is a significant material consideration in this instance" (DL ¶8). - **Character and conservation area setting: no harm.** "the proposed development would not result in harm to the significance of the CA as a whole. It would therefore preserve the setting of the CA." (DL ¶19). - **Living conditions: acceptable** (DL ¶45). **Obligations:** the June 2026 UU secures highways, carbon, air quality, tree and car-free obligations (DL ¶47-49). - **Framework (2024 text).** "In the context of paragraph 125 of the Framework, substantial weight should be given to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs, which should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused." (DL ¶56). The HDT showed delivery "was substantially below the housing requirement over the previous three years" (DL ¶56). ## Planning balance Plan-led: "the proposed development would comply with the development plan taken as a whole" (DL ¶68), with 2024 ¶125(c) brownfield weight as supporting material consideration. ## What made the difference The completed UU cured the only defect found in the previous appeal. The Framework played a supporting role only; the letter predates any reference to the 2026 text and applies the 2024 paragraph number. ## Transferable points - A 17 August 2026 letter applying 2024 ¶125(c) (brownfield) with no reference to the new Framework: a transitional example, though the outcome would be the same under 2026 L2 and S4 (DL ¶56). - A near-identical previously dismissed scheme is a significant material consideration where only the obligation has changed (DL ¶8, ¶21). ## Policy findings - **L2: benefit (substantial weight).** 2024 para 125(c) brownfield wording applied as the Framework test (substantial weight, approve unless substantial harm); no 2026 reference in the letter (DL 56) - **HE9: pass.** mapped; site outside but in setting of Oxford Gardens - St Quintin CA; no harm, setting preserved; decided on LP HC1 and s72 terms, no Framework heritage policy cited (DL 19, 22) - **DM6: pass.** UU (6 June 2026) obligations meet the Framework and CIL tests (DL 47-48) ## Key facts - Non-determination appeal; the Council would have granted subject to an obligation (DL 5) - Near-identical scheme dismissed on appeal (APP/K5600/W/25/3367853, 29 Oct 2025) only for lack of a planning obligation; given significant weight (DL 7-8, 21) - Site allocated in KCLP SA9 for homes above retained Class E ground floor (DL 11) - Housing Delivery Test shows delivery substantially below requirement over three years (DL 56) - Decided on the day the 2026 Framework was published, with no switch paragraph; s288 window (to 28 Sep 2026) has passed ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005682 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2b1758d6-b2dc-493b-aee3-d824dba36ccb --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005682.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 2 Bridge Street, Batley - **Decision:** dismissed, 26 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Mee - **Authority:** Kirklees (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6005744 - **Application reference:** 2025/93525 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class MA prior approval, ground-floor commercial to 4 flats - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** P3(2)(a) - **Main issues:** natural light - **Tags:** tier-2, class-ma, prior-approval, natural-light, framework-not-cited ## Summary Class MA prior approval for four ground-floor flats was refused because one bedroom would have no window. New openings proposed under a separate planning application could not be assumed. The Framework is not cited. ## What made the difference Class MA does not authorise external alterations. Natural light has to be judged on the building as it stands unless the other works are secured (DL ¶¶6, 9–10). ## Policy findings - **P3(2)(a): fail.** Framework not cited; GPDO W.(2A) natural-light test. Bedroom in flat 4 has no window; new openings under separate unimplemented application cannot be assumed (DL 9-12) ## Key facts - External alterations relied on a separate application (2025/93526) with no evidence it was granted and no mechanism to secure it first ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a5a47ca0-8615-4525-8e01-463731c8e525 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005744 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005744.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Heyrod Fold, John Street, Stalybridge (one dwelling) - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Unwin - **Authority:** Tameside (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6005788 - **Application reference:** 25/00570/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Detached two-storey dwelling on an overgrown green gap behind Grade II listed weavers' cottages - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Tameside UDP 2004 H9, H10, C1, C6, 1.11, Places for Everyone DPD 2024 JP-P2, JP-G8 - **Main issues:** heritage setting, character, biodiversity - **Tags:** tier-2, transitional, heritage-harm-decisive, small-scheme, bng ## Summary A single dwelling on a green gap behind listed weavers' cottages was dismissed for harm to their rural setting and the character of the area, and because BNG was not shown. The letter is dated 17 Aug 2026 and applies the December 2024 Framework (paras 212, 215). ## What made the difference The open vegetated gap separated the traditional terraces from later development and formed their rural backdrop. One house carried only limited weight against that harm (DL 8-13). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): fail.** less than substantial harm to the rural setting of Grade II 14-18 John Street; 2024 paras 212 and 215 applied with 'great weight'; limited weight to benefits of one dwelling (DL 12-13) - **N2: fail.** no mechanism securing self-build exemption; 10% BNG under JP-G8 not shown (DL 16-19) ## Key facts - Decision dated 17 Aug 2026 and applies 2024 Framework paragraphs 212 and 215 - Council had called the harm substantial; inspector found less than substantial (DL 12) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005788 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b2d71590-3d7a-4748-9ff2-64712d7583a6 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005788.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 273 Abingdon Road, Oxford - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Somers - **Authority:** Oxford (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6005792 - **Application reference:** 25/02635/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Dropped kerb to give vehicle access to a house driveway - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** TCPA s65(5), s327A(2) - **Main issues:** validity of application - **Tags:** tier-2, no-framework-reference, invalid-application, ownership-certificate, procedural-dismissal ## Summary Dropped kerb for a driveway in Oxford. Dismissed without any consideration of the merits. The red line took in highway land, but Certificate A had been signed and no notice was served on the highway authority, so the application was invalid (DL ¶4-6). No Framework policy was applied. ## What made the difference The wrong ownership certificate. A corrected Certificate B could not be accepted at appeal because it would deprive the owner of notification (Wheatcroft) (DL ¶5). ## Policy findings - **TCPA s65 / DMPO art 13-14 ownership certificate: fail.** Certificate A signed but red line included highway footway and kerb owned by the highway authority; late unsigned Certificate B not accepted under Wheatcroft; application invalid, merits not considered (DL 2-7) ## Key facts - Red line boundary covered highway land; no notice served on the highway authority - Appeal dismissed under s79(6) without any merits assessment ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005792 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/46ca1916-b589-4c9a-9094-16c4b2f158bc --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005792.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land north of Spring Hill, Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor - **Decision:** allowed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Nicholls - **Authority:** Vale of White Horse (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6005809 - **Application reference:** P24/V2357/O - **Procedure:** inquiry - **Development:** Outline for up to 249 dwellings (35% affordable), access from Spring Hill - **Homes:** 249 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, agricultural-land-BMV - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 192 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), AnnexA(2), TR3(1)(a), HO7, HO8 - **Development plan policies:** Vale of White Horse LPP1 2016 CP3, CP4, CP8, CP24, LPP2 2019 CP4a, CP8a - **Main issues:** location vs spatial strategy, housing land supply, implications of the 2026 Framework - **Tags:** s5-1-j, unmet-need-without-5yhls-shortfall, affordable-need, marginal-supply, housing-land-supply-dispute, annex-a-limited-weight, large-scheme, substantially-outweighed ## Summary Outline for up to 249 homes (35% affordable) on unallocated farmland at the edge of Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor, a 'Larger Village'. Allowed after inquiry. The inspector found the council still had a five-year supply, but only by about 88 homes. The inspector held that S5(1)(j) was met anyway, because "evidenced unmet need" is "not limited to" a supply shortfall or a low HDT score, and a very marginal supply plus significant affordable need together met it. Restrictive local-plan settlement policies got limited weight under Annex A(2), and the benefits "substantially outweigh" the limited harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties have commented on the relevance of the new Framework policies to the appeal scheme to avoid any prejudice" (DL ¶7). The inquiry closed on 30 June; the decision was made wholly under the 2026 Framework. - **Supply.** The council's claimed 342-home headroom was cut to about 88 after trimming the windfall allowance by 40 and deducting Category B sites (DL ¶¶27–45). "This is a far reduced buffer … and is therefore an even more delicate position which points towards evidence of an unmet need for housing in the district" (DL ¶46). - **S5(1)(j) unmet need: PASS without a shortfall.** "the words 'including, but not limited to', indicat[e] that the absence of a five year deliverable supply and HDT outcomes are not the only means by which an unmet need can be proven to exist. These are key indicators, but the list is not exhaustive" (DL ¶57). The HDT results of 177–193% "do not establish evidence of unmet, but are incapable of being relied upon as a marker of future delivery" (DL ¶58). "the very marginal five year housing land supply position and the evidenced significant unmet need for affordable housing combine together to indicate that the scheme complies with 2026 Framework Policy S5(1)(j)" (DL ¶60). - **Well-related: PASS.** "the appeal site is clearly well-related to the existing settlement of KBS when considered spatially, functionally and visually on the ground" (DL ¶56). - **TR3(1)(a): PASS.** The 20-minute bus to Oxford "is a significant factor in connecting the area to outlying higher order settlements without the need to travel by car" (DL ¶50). The school walk is about double 800 m but "comparable to existing dwellings" (DL ¶51). The letter cites the policy as "T3(1)(a)" at DL ¶53, a slip for TR3(1)(a). - **Annex A(2).** The restrictive parts of CP3 and CP4 are "materially inconsistent with the 2026 Framework. Thus, the conflict … attracts limited weight"; the sub-area allocation policies CP8, CP4a and CP8a are not inconsistent and their conflict "attracts great weight" (DL ¶76). ## Planning balance S5(1)(j) balance. For: housing substantial, affordable housing substantial, transport and accessibility modest, open space, biodiversity and rights-of-way modest, economic modest. Against: great weight to conflict with the sub-area allocation policies, limited weight to CP3/CP4, BMV loss modest, landscape moderate adverse at most. "there are no other technical objections or conflicts with any national decision-making policies which indicate that development proposals should be refused. Conversely, the scheme would meet the requirements Framework Policy S5(1)(j) and that the benefits of approving the scheme would substantially outweigh the limited adverse effects" (DL ¶84). Conflict with the plan as a whole was outweighed by material considerations (DL ¶¶85, 101). DL ¶84 frames the test the other way round ("benefits … substantially outweigh"), which is stricter than S5(1) requires and does not affect the outcome. ## What made the difference S5(1)(j) was read as open-ended. A council with a technically compliant but razor-thin supply, plus a large evidenced affordable-housing need, was held to have an "evidenced unmet need". The site was otherwise unconstrained: no designations, contained by roads, a high-frequency bus at the gate, and no S5(2) refusal-policy conflict. With a comfortable supply, or a DP3, N4 or heritage conflict (compare the same inspector's Whitchurch decision, PINS-6006893), the result would likely have been different. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(j) "evidenced unmet need" can be met without a five-year shortfall or a failed HDT: a very marginal supply combined with significant affordable need is enough (DL ¶¶57, 60). This is the first letter found taking that route. Expect councils to contest it. - A strong HDT is backward-looking and does not rebut unmet need (DL ¶58). - "Physically well-related" was assessed "spatially, functionally and visually" (DL ¶56). Compare Whitchurch (PINS-6006893 ¶69: physical connectivity only), where the same inspector took a narrower reading. - Annex A(2): local policies that restrict all unallocated development outside the built area are materially inconsistent with S5 and get limited weight. Allocation and sub-area policies can keep great weight (DL ¶¶74–76). - A frequent bus service can satisfy TR3(1)(a) even where walking distances to school exceed 800 m (DL ¶¶50–53). - Conflicting findings on the same council's supply within three days (about 4.9 years at Drayton, PINS-6005108; about 5.09 years here) show how evidence-dependent Annex D findings are. ## Policy findings - **AnnexD: pass.** council claimed 5.34 yrs (342 homes over requirement); after windfall (-40) and Category B deductions only about 88 dwellings headroom remains, i.e. the council still just has a five-year supply — a "very marginal" position (DL 20-46, 60) - **S5(1)(j): pass.** unmet need shown despite a (marginal) 5YHLS and HDT of 177/193/192%: "including, but not limited to" means supply and HDT are not the only evidence; marginal supply + significant affordable need (2,904 on register) suffice. Well-related "spatially, functionally and visually"; scale accommodated by existing and proposed infrastructure (DL 55-60) - **TR3(1)(a): pass.** 20-minute bus to Oxford outside the site; walk to primary school about double the 800 m walkable-neighbourhood figure but comparable to existing homes, footway upgrades secured (DL 47-53) - **AnnexA(2): conflict (limited weight).** restrictive parts of CP3/CP4 (only allocated or local-needs development outside built area) materially inconsistent with S5, so conflict gets limited weight (DL 74-76) - **LPP1 CP8 / LPP2 CP4a, CP8a: conflict (great weight).** sub-area allocation policies not materially inconsistent with the 2026 Framework; exceeding the settlement's role attracts "great weight" (DL 76) - **N2: harm (limited weight).** loss of 3.3 ha Grade 2 BMV, "weighs modestly" (DL 77) - **N2: harm (limited weight).** residual landscape/visual harm moderate adverse at most; contained site (DL 78) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** up to 249 homes largely deliverable within five years (DL 80) - **HO8: benefit (substantial weight).** 35% affordable (up to 88 units), meets rather than exceeds CP24 but still substantial (DL 80) ## Key facts - 11.3 ha arable, western edge of a 'Larger Village' (third tier) with no settlement boundary; 600-home allocation already permitted on the east side of the village - Five-year requirement 4,982 (incl. 5% buffer); council 5.34 yrs, appellant 4.24 yrs; inspector left about 88 homes above the requirement - HDT 177%, 193%, 192% - 2,904 households on the housing register at 31 March 2025 - Joint Local Plan at examination, very limited weight; will under-provide against the standard method, so JLP2 needed immediately - Parties made written comments on the 2026 Framework after the inquiry closed (30 June) - Same council as Drayton (PINS-6005108), where three days earlier another inspector found about 4.9 years ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005809 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b3ba2f01-38f8-4aec-b392-07078f2abc10 - https://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1970039/inspector-allows-249-homes-unallocated-farmland-applying-revised-nppfs-new-unmet-need-test --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005809.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Former National Grid Site, Marsh Lane, Stanmore (Aldi) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Longmuir - **Authority:** Harrow (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6005822 - **Application reference:** PL/1370/25 - **Procedure:** inquiry - **Development:** Food retail store (Class E(a)) with warehouse, 94 car parking spaces, cycle parking, access and landscaping - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TC3, S4 - **Development plan policies:** Harrow Local Plan 2021-2041 (adopted 24 Mar 2026) LE1, LE3, M1, M2, O1, GR1, allocation O21 Anmer Lodge, London Plan 2021 D3, E4, T1, T2, T4, T6, T6.3 - **Main issues:** retail sequential test, economy and industrial land, car parking, efficient use of land - **Tags:** sequential-test-fail, town-centre, alternative-sites, plan-led, s4-within-settlement, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, new-local-plan, brownfield, parking, drafting-slip ## Summary An Aldi food store on a vacant former gas-holder site in Stanmore, decided after an inquiry. The inspector found for the appellant on parking, efficient use of land and industrial land, but dismissed on the retail sequential test: an allocated town-centre site (Anmer Lodge) could not be discounted. The recently adopted plan's town-centre policy LE1 governed, and significant benefits did not justify a departure. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Both parties were given the opportunity to comment on the significance or otherwise to the amendments of the 17 August published edition" (DL ¶6). "Both parties agree that the sequential test is materially unchanged from the previous Framework" (DL ¶10). - **TC3 sequential test: FAIL.** "the evidence before the Inquiry is conflicting and taken overall, is not sufficiently clear to demonstrate that the potential for food retail at the Anmer Lodge site can be discounted and the sequential test has not been fully explored" (DL ¶27). - **Parking: mixed.** 94 spaces exceed the London Plan maximum, but "the level of parking is necessary to allow safe functioning, and the proposal would not conflict" with T2 and M2 (DL ¶52). - **Efficient use: PASS.** "this is reuse of a seemingly vacant, but definitely much under used, brownfield site which in itself is positive" (DL ¶67). - **Economy: PASS.** "I therefore find no overriding need for the industrial use of the site" (DL ¶77). ## Planning balance Plan-led. "when taken as a whole I find that the proposal would be in conflict and the Development Plan warrants substantial weight" (DL ¶96). S4 is cited, and of the S4(2) allocation limb the letter says "This supports my conclusion above" (DL ¶97). Benefits "collectively would be significant" (DL ¶98) but "do not warrant a decision other than that in accordance with the Development Plan" (DL ¶99). The letter does not state an S4 "substantially outweighed" conclusion in terms, and applies the S4(2)(a)(i) allocation idea to the alternative site rather than the appeal site (recorded as `drafting-slip`). ## What made the difference Anmer Lodge. A recent pre-application approach, an allocation confirmed by the local plan inspector as suitable for a supermarket, and the council's flexibility argument meant the alternative could not be ruled out, despite its shrunken site and a long history of non-delivery. Evidence that the allocated site was genuinely unavailable or unsuitable for food retail (e.g. market testing) was what the appellant needed. ## Transferable points - The TC3 sequential test requires flexibility on format and scale; an allocated town-centre site with recent developer interest cannot be discounted on non-delivery history alone (DL ¶14, ¶18, ¶27). - Parking above a London Plan maximum can be justified where fewer spaces would cause queuing onto the highway and residential overspill (DL ¶42–43, ¶52). - A retail scheme's jobs can outweigh an argued need for industrial reuse where the plan meets industrial need on existing sites (DL ¶75–77). ## Policy findings - **TC3: fail.** out-of-centre; potential for food retail at allocated Anmer Lodge (O21) site in Stanmore cannot be discounted; sequential test "not been fully explored"; parties agreed test materially unchanged from previous Framework (DL 8-10, 27-28) - **TC4: pass.** retail impact assessment accepted, no significant adverse impact on local centres (DL 2, 82) - **TR2: neutral.** 94 spaces v 38 London Plan maximum conflicts with T1/T6.3; but spaces needed for safe functioning (Cadent easement, queuing on Marsh Lane, overspill); "both support and conflict" with Framework (DL 29, 36-52) - **TR3: conflict.** PTAL 2; TR1 and TR3 cited as reinforcing the town-centre-first conflict (DL 44, 52, 96); no walking-route analysis - **L2: pass.** efficient footprint on constrained 0.9 ha (0.4 ha developable) triangular site; reuse of underused brownfield land "in itself is positive" (DL 54-68) - **E2: pass.** no overriding need for industrial use; 40 jobs; complies with LP E4 and LE3 (DL 69-81) - **S4: fail.** S4 cited; S4(2) allocation limb said to support the conclusion (the allocation is the alternative Anmer Lodge site, not the appeal site); significant benefits do not justify departing from the plan (DL 97-99) - **s38(6): conflict (substantial weight).** LE1 is the most important policy; plan as a whole in conflict and "warrants substantial weight" (DL 94-96) - **DM6: neutral.** UU (BNG, travel plan, highway works, carbon offset, employment and training) meets the tests (DL 89-93) ## Key facts - Inquiry 4-11 Aug 2026; parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug Framework (DL 6) - Site underused since 2012 after gas holders demolished; 0.9 ha, 0.4 ha developable because of easements (DL 56, 65, 73) - Anmer Lodge (allocation O21, mixed use incl. food store) has an extant, barely commenced 2014 permission; recent Gracie Group pre-application interest; Aldi's offer rejected (DL 12-19) - Council did no market testing of Anmer Lodge retail potential (DL 22) - 94 spaces proposed v 38 under London Plan T6.3; TfL demand 85, appellant 89; council highways supported the level (DL 36-49) - PTAL 2; Aldi catchment 5-minute drive time (DL 26, 44) - Benefits (brownfield reuse, 40 jobs, BNG, energy-efficient building, bus stops) "collectively would be significant" (DL 98) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005822 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e9efe4f9-6891-45d7-ae3a-65f8226fb71a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005822.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 17 Allesley Old Road, Chapel Fields, Coventry - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Gary Deane - **Authority:** Coventry (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6005849 - **Application reference:** PL/2025/0001016/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use from Class E to 4 flats next to a live-music pub - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** P3(2)(a) - **Development plan policies:** Coventry Local Plan 2017 DS3, H3, emerging Coventry Local Plan Review EM15 - **Main issues:** living conditions (noise), adjoining pub - **Tags:** tier-2, noise, agent-of-change, conservation-area ## Summary Four flats next to a live-music pub on a busy road. Internal noise could be mitigated, and the pub (agent of change) would not be restricted. But the garden would stay well above the 55 dB upper guideline even with a barrier. Substantial weight was given to that harm, and it outweighed the moderate weight for reusing a vacant building. Dismissed. The letter (dated 17 Aug) cites only "the Framework" without a version. ## What made the difference The acoustic report's own measurements (68.4 dB at the garden façade) contradicted its prediction for the garden, and the residual exceedance "would not be marginal". Conditions could not fix this (DL ¶¶11–14). ## Policy findings - **P3(2)(a): fail (substantial weight).** garden measured at 68.4 dB LAeq,16hr; even with 10 dB barrier attenuation 58.4 dB > 55 dB upper guideline; appellant's prediction used the wrong baseline (DL 8-15, 23) - **P4: pass.** agent-of-change; internal mitigation does not rely on restricting the pub (DL 16-18) - **L2(1)(b): benefit (moderate weight).** vacant building in disrepair back into use plus 4 dwellings (DL 22) ## Key facts - Internal noise mitigated (party-wall treatment predicts ~21 dB(A)) - External amenity exceedance "not marginal", no alternative amenity offered ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c408d832-e77b-488b-ae24-1e1a2c726fe0 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005849 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005849.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 10 Elsenham Street, Wandsworth (6-bed HMO to 8-bed) - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Reeves - **Authority:** Wandsworth (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6005855 - **Application reference:** 2025/2919 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use to an 8-person sui generis HMO (existing lawful 6-person HMO) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, near-station - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** Wandsworth LP29 - **Development plan policies:** Wandsworth Local Plan 2023-2038 LP26, LP27, LP29 - **Main issues:** public transport accessibility, family housing, living conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, plan-led, fallback ## Summary Intensifying an existing 6-person HMO to 8 people failed only on Wandsworth's rule that large HMOs need PTAL 4 or higher. The inspector rejected the argument that PTAL 3 next to an Underground station was close enough, giving the policy significant weight (DL 6-8, 18). ## What made the difference A bright-line local accessibility threshold, consistent with national policy on well-connected housing, outweighed the modest benefits of two extra shared rooms. ## Policy findings - **Wandsworth LP29: fail (significant weight).** PTAL 3 against a PTAL 4 minimum for large HMOs despite Southfields station nearby; objective consistent with the Framework (DL 5-8, 18) - **Wandsworth LP26: pass.** existing lawful 6-person HMO means no loss of a family dwelling (DL 11-12) - **P3: neutral.** technical conflict with LP27 outlook, but the fallback means no worsening (DL 13-16) ## Key facts - Existing use a 6-person HMO under a lawful development certificate (DL 3) - The letter cites the Framework only generically (DL 18) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005855 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e985917d-d809-48fe-a782-df16f4758a50 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005855.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land off Bolshaw Farm Lane, Heald Green - **Decision:** allowed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Laura Bartle - **Authority:** Cheshire East (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6005877 - **Application reference:** 25/0958/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 1-6 dwellings - **Homes:** 6 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g), TR3, S5(5), S3 - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy PG3, SD1, SD2, Handforth Neighbourhood Plan H1, 18 - **Main issues:** grey belt, sustainable location, S5(5) balance - **Tags:** PIP, grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-pass, not-inappropriate, s5-5-balance, contained-site, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, local-plan-gb-policy-out-of-date, cross-boundary-site ## Summary A PIP for up to six dwellings on an undeveloped field on the edge of Heald Green. Allowed. The field was grey belt because it is physically enclosed by development and infrastructure. Unmet need followed from the Council's supply shortfall. The site adjoins the built-up area with good pedestrian links, so it passed GB7(1)(g)(iii)/TR3. Not being inappropriate, it was approved under the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties commented on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶9). - **Local plan GB policy.** PG3 "predates the revised Green Belt provisions … and does not reflect the concept of grey belt land … I attach very limited weight to the policy conflict in accordance with Annex A" (DL ¶12). - **Grey belt: PASS.** "Although the site is undeveloped, it is physically enclosed by development and infrastructure along the majority of its boundaries" (DL ¶16). "The site does not therefore strongly contribute to Green Belt purposes relating to unrestricted sprawl or settlement merging" (DL ¶17). - **Unmet need: PASS** (DL ¶19). - **Sustainable location (iii) / TR3: PASS.** "the site adjoins the built-up area of Heald Green and benefits from access to good pedestrian infrastructure connecting it to some day-to-day services and facilities" (DL ¶20). "Although not all facilities lie within the distances referred to in the supporting text to Policy SD 2 … future occupiers would have reasonable access to shops, education facilities, public transport options and other services" (DL ¶21). - **Not inappropriate** (DL ¶22). ## Planning balance S5(5). Housing benefit given moderate weight; "I have not identified any adverse effects that would substantially outweigh those benefits" (DL ¶27). The S3 presumption applies. ## What made the difference Physical enclosure made the land grey belt despite being greenfield. Adjacency to the built-up edge, with good existing pedestrian infrastructure, carried limb (iii). The PIP format kept other matters (highways, ecology, flooding) out of scope. Compare the Tandridge and Halsall dismissals (PINS-6010313, PINS-6007428), where the walking route had no footway. ## Transferable points - Undeveloped land can be grey belt where it is "physically enclosed by development and infrastructure along the majority of its boundaries" (DL ¶16). - A strong physical barrier (a major road) between two settlements supports a finding of no strong contribution to purpose (b) (DL ¶16). - Pre-2026 local plan GB policies that do not recognise grey belt get "very limited weight" under Annex A (DL ¶12). - Limb (iii) can pass even if not all facilities fall within local accessibility distances, where the site adjoins a built-up area with good pedestrian infrastructure (DL ¶¶20–21). - Once GB7 is passed, S5(5) applies and the decision-maker runs the "substantially outweighed" balance (DL ¶26). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** undeveloped field but "physically enclosed by development and infrastructure along the majority of its boundaries"; Airport Relief Road keeps Heald Green/Handforth apart (DL 15-17) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** agreed would not fundamentally undermine purposes across plan area (DL 18) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** council's latest 5YHLS evidence shows a shortfall (figure not stated) (DL 19) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** adjoins built-up area with "good pedestrian infrastructure"; reasonable access to shops, education, public transport, though not all within SD2 distances (DL 20-21) - **GB7(1)(g)(iv): not-engaged.** not major (DL 22) - **CELPS PG3: conflict (very-limited weight).** predates grey belt / GB7; very limited weight under Annex A (DL 12) - **S5(5): pass.** not inappropriate → S5(5) engaged; no adverse effects substantially outweigh moderate benefits (DL 26-27) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** housing in a reasonably sustainable location (DL 27) ## Key facts - Undeveloped field between the built-up edge of Heald Green and a farm redevelopment; enclosed on most sides - Manchester Airport Relief Road and open land keep Heald Green and Handforth apart - Site adjoins the built-up area with good pedestrian links to day-to-day services - A sliver of the site lies in Stockport; PIP granted only for the Cheshire East part ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005877 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d69428bf-0afd-4558-8f83-6dccc45378f3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005877.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land rear of 49-51 Cheapside, Luton - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Terceiro - **Authority:** Luton (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6005881 - **Application reference:** 25/01027/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of single-storey outbuilding and erection of terrace of 3 two-bed mews houses - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.36 - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), S3 - **Development plan policies:** Luton Local Plan 2011-2031 LLP1, LLP15, LLP25, LLP30, Luton Town Centre Design Guide SPD 2023 - **Main issues:** conservation area, housing mix, living conditions - **Tags:** transitional, old-framework-applied-silently, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, less-than-substantial-legacy-wording, conservation-area, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, design-refusal, strong-reason-for-refusal ## Summary Three mews houses behind Cheapside in Luton's Plaiters Lea Conservation Area, replacing a flat-roofed outbuilding. Dismissed. The mix of pitched and flat roofs and the canted corner wall looked "awkward and contrived", causing less than substantial harm "at the lower end". Significant-weight benefits (three homes against a 3.36-year supply) did not outweigh the great weight given to the harm. The housing mix also conflicted with local policy. Although dated 17 August 2026, the letter applies the December 2024 Framework throughout. ## Issues and findings - **Framework version.** No preliminary note on the new Framework. The letter uses para 11(d) and the "great weight" and "less than substantial" vocabulary (DL ¶11, 31). Recorded as transitional. - **CA harm.** "the proposed terrace with differing roof forms would appear awkward and contrived and result in a form of development that would harm the surrounding street scene and local character" (DL ¶8). Improving a poor site "does not necessarily follow" as successful integration (DL ¶9). - **Harm grading.** "less than substantial in this case, and at the lower end of that spectrum" (DL ¶11). - **Balance.** "These public benefits attract significant weight but fall short of overcoming the great weight I give to the harm" (DL ¶12). - **Tilted balance.** "the application of the heritage related policies within the Framework provides a strong reason for refusing ... Paragraph 11 d) ii) ... is therefore not engaged" (DL ¶31). ## Planning balance Heritage balance under 2024 para 215 (now HE6(4)), then 11(d)(i) disapplication. Under the 2026 Framework the equivalent route would be S4 "substantially outweighed" with HE6(4). This letter predates that framing. ## What made the difference Roof-form design detail. The inspector accepted that the footprint, scale and density were fine in the tight grain (DL ¶10). A consistent pitched-roof terrace might well have succeeded, given the shortfall. ## Transferable points - Harm "at the lower end" of less than substantial still defeated significant-weight housing benefits against a 3.36-year supply (DL ¶11-12). - Replacing an existing detractor does not in itself justify a design that fails to integrate (DL ¶9). - A town-centre SPD's lower amenity-space guide can be given significant weight over a borough-wide garden standard (DL ¶20-21). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): harm (great weight).** decided under NPPF 2024 — "less than substantial ... at the lower end of that spectrum"; "great weight" to conservation; s72 cited; awkward mixed pitched/flat roofs and canted corner harm Plaiters Lea CA (DL 8-11) - **HE6(4): benefit (significant weight).** 3 homes against 3.36-year supply, natural surveillance, economic, quick build-out, reuse of underused land: "significant weight but fall short of overcoming the great weight I give to the harm" (DL 12) - **S3: not-engaged.** NPPF 2024 para 11(d)(i) — heritage policies give a "strong reason for refusing"; tilted balance "not engaged" (DL 31) - **HO5: fail.** housing mix — all 2-bed where evidence shows need for larger homes; LLP15 conflict (DL 14-17); code mapped by harvester - **P3: pass.** future and neighbouring living conditions acceptable; gardens below 45 sq m local standard but above 5 sq m town-centre SPD guide (DL 18-27); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Council cannot show 5YHLS; 3.36 years not disputed (DL 12) - Existing flat-roofed outbuilding said to detract from the CA (DL 7) - Dated 17 August 2026 but applies the December 2024 Framework (para 11, "great weight", "less than substantial") with no reference to the new version ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005881 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/91748258-31cc-4fde-8af1-3502ae98454e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005881.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land north of Bishops Lane, west of Willow Bank, Robertsbridge - **Decision:** dismissed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Sylvester - **Authority:** Rother (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6005903 - **Application reference:** RR/2022/1379/P - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** 41 dwellings (39% affordable) with landscaping, public open space and new access through a sunken-lane bank - **Homes:** 41 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, national-landscape, rural-lane, near-station - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.04 - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 35 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N4, N2(1), DP3(1), DP3(3), S5(1)(j), S5(2) - **Development plan policies:** Rother Core Strategy 2014 OSS2, RA3, EN1, Rother DaSA 2019 DEN1, DEN2, DIM2, Salehurst and Robertsbridge NDP 2018 EN3, HO1, High Weald AONB Management Plan - **Main issues:** landscape and scenic beauty of the High Weald National Landscape - **Tags:** national-landscape, landscape-harm, s5-1-j, s5-2-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, housing-shortfall, hdt-below-75, affordable-led, not-well-connected-station, substantially-outweighed, overturned-officer-rec, sustainable-location-pass, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, large-scheme ## Summary 41 homes (39% affordable) on an arable field at the edge of Robertsbridge in the High Weald National Landscape, in a district with a 3.04-year supply and a 35% HDT score. Dismissed. The scheme met S5(1)(j) and was accessibly located, but the urbanising effect on the field and the loss of a historic sunken-lane bank for the access junction harmed the National Landscape. Given "greater than substantial weight", that harm substantially outweighed substantial housing benefits. DP3(3) was also invoked as a refusal policy. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties have commented on the relevance of the revised National Planning Policy Framework … All references to the Framework are to the revised version" (DL ¶2). - **Landscape and NL — N4 / N2(1): FAIL.** The access "would require an opening to be cut through the raised embankment creating a relatively wide gap that would disrupt its continuity and diminish the sunken lane's sense of enclosure … a distinctly engineered appearance" (DL ¶22). The new houses would have "a comparatively more noticeable and strident appearance than the existing dwellings" (DL ¶19). Not major development in NL terms (DL ¶24), but the scheme "would fail to conserve its statutory purposes and special qualities" (DL ¶27). - **Consultee/officer support.** Officers and design/landscape consultees supported the amended layout; the inspector disagreed (DL ¶¶17, 40). - **S5(1)(j): PASS.** "would be a form of development that meets the terms of Policy S5(1.j.i)" (DL ¶41). - **S5(1)(h): FAIL.** "the evidence does not demonstrate that the station would be a 'well-connected station' within the Framework's definition" (DL ¶42). - **Transport TR3/TR4/TR8: PASS** (DL ¶45). - **DP3(3): FAIL.** "the conflict with paragraph 1 of Policy DP3 would not be justified by the benefits of the proposal. Consequently, the proposal would fail to comply with Policy DP3 and in the circumstances specified in paragraph 3 of the Policy, planning permission should be refused" (DL ¶49). - **Local plan strategy.** The locational strategy "appears to be contributing to the current shortfall"; the inspector would give the locational conflict very little weight, but landscape policy conflict alone puts the scheme in conflict with the plan as a whole (DL ¶¶32-33). ## Planning balance S5(1) "substantially outweighed" balance: "I have given substantial weight to the overall benefits … Nevertheless, given the importance and weight that I attach to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the HWNL, the harm to the HWNL carries greater than substantial weight against the proposal. I conclude that this harm substantially outweighs the development's benefits … The harm is determinative in this instance" (DL ¶47). Separately, DP3(3) refusal (DL ¶49). s38(6) conflict with plan as a whole not outweighed (DL ¶50). ## What made the difference The access junction. Cutting a wide, engineered opening through the bank of a historic sunken lane (a High Weald Management Plan special quality) turned an otherwise acceptable edge-of-village housing site into significant NL harm. Added to that was intrusion into a swathe of fields visible from well-used rights of way. A site whose access did not breach a sunken-lane bank, with a quieter edge treatment, might well have succeeded given the 3.04-year supply, 35% HDT and agreed accessibility. ## Transferable points - Passing S5(1)(j) with 3.04-yr supply, HDT 35% and 39% affordable can still be "substantially outweighed" by National Landscape harm, which can carry "greater than substantial weight" (DL ¶47). - N4 harm is weighed even where the scheme is agreed not to be "major development" in a National Landscape (DL ¶¶24, 46). - Highway engineering (junction, widening, footways) through historic routeway banks is a distinct, significant landscape harm, following the HWMP's "insensitive highway engineering" threat (DL ¶¶12, 22-23). - DP3(1) conflict arising from landscape harm engages the DP3(3) "should be refused" limb unless there is clear justification (DL ¶¶48-49). - Being within walking distance of a station is not enough for S5(1)(h); it must be shown to be a "well-connected station" as defined (DL ¶42). - Supportive officer and consultee advice does not bind the inspector on landscape judgement (DL ¶¶17, 40). - Drafting slips: "H07 and H08" for HO7/HO8 (DL ¶44); "S5(1.j.i)" and "S5(1.h.)" citation style (DL ¶¶41-42). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): pass.** evidenced unmet need; "meets the terms of Policy S5(1.j.i)" (DL 41) - **S5(1)(h): fail.** within reasonable walking distance of Robertsbridge station but not shown to be a "well-connected station" per Annex B (DL 42) - **N4: conflict (substantial weight).** not major development in NL terms, but adverse effects on statutory purposes and special qualities of High Weald NL; harm given "greater than substantial weight" (DL 24, 46-47) - **N2(1): conflict.** harm to landscape character and beauty of the countryside (DL 46) - **DP3(1): fail.** fails to respond to context/integrate; not justified by benefits, so DP3(3) says refuse (DL 48-49) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** important contribution to market housing; 3.04-yr supply, HDT 35% (DL 31, 34, 44, 47) - **HO8: benefit (substantial weight).** 39% affordable; ~1400 on housing register (DL 31, 44); benefits overall substantial weight (DL 47) - **TR3: pass.** agreed accessible; genuine choice of transport modes; also accords with TR4 and TR8 (DL 36, 45) - **N4 (major development limb): not-engaged.** major development test in N4 not engaged — parties agreed scheme not "major" in NL terms (DL 24) ## Key facts - Housing land supply about 3.04 years; HDT 35%; about 1400 on the affordable housing register - Arable field in High Weald National Landscape on the edge of Robertsbridge - Access would cut through the raised embankment of a historic sunken lane (Bishops Lane), with road widening and new footways - Officers had recommended approval; HWNL Unit and County landscape architect broadly supportive of amended layout - Emerging local plan not expected until 2027/2028 - Parties commented on the 2026 Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005903 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ba8f9510-466f-4c30-956a-eb209c7239ea --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005903.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Upper Flat, 23 Ronalds Road, Highbury (extension over outrigger) - **Decision:** allowed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M Cryan - **Authority:** Islington (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6005904 - **Application reference:** P2025/2735/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Extension above an existing rear two-storey outrigger, enlarged rear box dormer, rooflight and replacement rear windows to an upper-floor flat in a Victorian terrace - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, L2(1)(d), DP3(1) - **Development plan policies:** Islington Local Plan Strategic and Development Management Policies 2023 PLAN1, London Plan 2021 D4, Islington Urban Design Guide SPD 2017 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, l2-airspace, l2-substantial-weight, upward-extension, design-refusal, plan-conflict-overridden, material-considerations-outweigh-plan, flat-conversion, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary An extension above a two-storey rear outrigger and a larger box dormer for an upper-floor flat in an Islington terrace. The inspector found the extension boxy, above the main eaves and unbalancing the paired outriggers, so it conflicted with the local plan, London Plan D4 and DP3(1). But the harm was limited, the addition is invisible from the street, and L2(1)(d) gives substantial weight to extra floorspace in the airspace above existing homes. Under S4 the benefits were not substantially outweighed. Allowed against the plan. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I have determined the appeal having regard to the provisions of the new Framework" (DL ¶3). No consultation. - **Character: HARM, limited.** "it would therefore cause some harm to the character and appearance of the area" (DL ¶7). "Though the impacts of this would be limited, there would be conflict with Policy PLAN1 ... and with Policy D4 of the London Plan 2021" (DL ¶13). - **DP3(1): CONFLICT.** "the proposed development would conflict with the requirements of Policy DP3 of the Framework to respond to site context and enhance their surroundings" (DL ¶19). The letter does not mention DP3(3) or ask whether there is clear justification. - **L2(1)(d): BENEFIT, substantial.** "The development would not be visible from the street frontage however and, in line with Policy L2 I attach substantial weight to the provision of additional residential floorspace in a sustainable urban location" (DL ¶19). - **S4: PASS.** "I find that the benefits of approving the proposed development would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶20). ## Planning balance S4. Limited character harm and a DP3(1) conflict against substantial L2 weight for extra floorspace. Then s38(6): the conflict with the development plan is outweighed by material considerations, "including the Framework" (DL ¶21). ## What made the difference L2(1)(d). It gives substantial weight to extra floorspace above existing homes and relieves rear additions not visible from the street of the street-scene test, and that outweighed limited rear-elevation harm. The letter treats the DP3(1) conflict as a weight in the S4 balance and never asks the DP3(3) clear-justification question. A scheme visible from the street, or harming a conservation area, would have faced the L2(1)(d)(i) street-scene test and probably failed. ## Transferable points - L2(1)(d) substantial weight applies to extra floorspace for an existing flat, not only to new homes, where it uses the airspace above existing residential premises (DL ¶18–19). - Rear additions not visible from the street frontage fall within the L2(1)(d)(i) exception to the street-scene test (DL ¶18–19). - Allowed despite a DP3(1) conflict with no clear-justification step, so this is not reliable authority on DP3(3). Contrast letters that route the same conflict through DP3(3) and S4(2)(c). - Existing LDC extensions nearby are not precedent where they illustrate the harm the SPD seeks to avoid (DL ¶9). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): conflict (limited weight).** boxy flat-roofed extension above eaves, unbalances the paired outriggers and raises the party parapet; contrary to SPD guidance; harm "limited" because small, at the rear, not visible from public spaces and with some local precedent (DL 7, 11, 13, 19) - **DP3(3): not-engaged.** DP3(1) conflict found but the refusal limb (DP3(3), clear justification) is never mentioned; the conflict is carried straight into the S4 balance (DL 19-20) - **L2(1)(d): benefit (substantial weight).** additional residential floorspace in the airspace above existing residential premises; not visible from the street frontage, so L2(1)(d)(i) street-scene consistency not required (DL 18-19) - **S4: pass.** benefits not substantially outweighed; plan conflict (PLAN1, D4) outweighed by material considerations including the Framework (DL 16, 20-21) ## Key facts - Five LDC outrigger extensions (Nos 27, 31, 39, 43, 51, 2016-2025) described as "bulky and intrusive"; 2017 appeal for paired extensions at Nos 45-47 distinguished as a unified scheme (DL 8-10) - Seven of 29 houses on this side of the terrace have extensions above outriggers (DL 11) - Extension would not be visible from public spaces, only from rear windows and gardens on Witherington Road (DL 11) - Neighbour light and outlook (45-degree and 25-degree tests) found acceptable; kitchen not a principal habitable room (DL 14-15) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005904 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ab573be0-686a-414c-a25b-8807328ec9ad --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005904.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land to rear of 1A Fancy Road, Poole (backland bungalow) - **Decision:** allowed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D R Kay - **Authority:** Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6005913 - **Application reference:** P/25/04202/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of a garage and outbuildings and erection of one two-bedroom bungalow with bin and bike store, on land split from the garden of 1A Fancy Road - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, garden-land - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.1 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), N6 - **Development plan policies:** Poole Local Plan 2018 PP27, PP32, PP39, Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework 2020-2025 SPD, Poole Harbour Recreation 2019-2024 SPD - **Main issues:** living conditions of future occupiers - **Tags:** tier-2, transitional-no-consultation, s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, backland, habitats-mitigation, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, living-conditions, costs-application ## Summary A backland bungalow on part of a garden in Poole was refused only because the host house's upper bedroom window would overlook the new home's garden and living room. The inspector found the relationship no different from existing neighbour relationships and a bedroom window less intrusive. Habitat tariffs were secured and paid, so N6 was met, and with a 2.1-year supply the S4(1) presumption applied. Allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I have not found the changes to have significant effect on the issues within the case. I have, however, determined the appeal in accordance with the revised Framework" (DL ¶3). - **Privacy: no harm.** "the relationship between the upper floor rear window of the host dwelling and the appeal proposal would not result in harmful levels of overlooking and loss of privacy" (DL ¶13). - **N6: PASS.** Mitigation "has been secured by a signed and dated S106 agreement and mitigation payments have been made, it would comply with Policy N6, and therefore, not provide a strong reason for refusing the proposed development" (DL ¶25). - **S4: PASS.** "Having examined the relevant decision-making policies in the framework outlined in Policy S4(2), I find that the proposal would accord with these requirements" (DL ¶27). ## Planning balance S4(1) inside a settlement, after checking the S4(2) circumstances. Plan-led conclusion: accords with the development plan read as a whole (DL ¶35). ## What made the difference A single, narrow amenity objection that the inspector did not accept, on a site where the Council had no character or neighbour concerns and habitat mitigation was already paid. ## Transferable points - An S4 letter that expressly checks the S4(2) circumstances before approving (DL ¶27). - Habitat mitigation secured and paid before the decision means N6 gives no strong reason for refusal (DL ¶25). ## Policy findings - **P3: pass.** mapped - overlooking from the host bedroom gable window no worse than existing relationships; no harmful loss of privacy (DL 10-13) - **N6: pass.** Dorset Heaths and Poole Harbour tariffs secured by signed UU and paid; Natural England content; no adverse effect on integrity (DL 20-25) - **S4(2): pass.** no should-be-refused policy failed (DL 27) - **S4(1): pass.** benefits not substantially outweighed; 2.1-year supply described as an acute deficit (DL 24, 26-27) ## Key facts - Council supply 2.1 years at 1 April 2024, with a 20% buffer (DL 24) - Parties not consulted on the 2026 Framework; changes found to have no significant effect, but the appeal was decided under it (DL 3) - Habitat mitigation £575 (Dorset Heathlands) and £187 (Poole Harbour) plus admin fees, already paid (DL 20-21) - Council found no harm to character, light or neighbours; the only objection was overlooking of the new dwelling from the host's gable bedroom window (DL 8-9) - Costs application by the appellants, the subject of a separate decision (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005913 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/238179fd-6a71-41d0-8ce0-161569e3be05 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005913.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Parcel 1643 Middle Piece Lane, Burnett (solar farm) - **Decision:** allowed, 19 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R E Jones - **Authority:** Bath and North East Somerset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6005916 - **Application reference:** 24/02489/EFUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Ground-mounted solar farm (c.28 ha) with battery storage, transformers, tracks, landscaping and BNG (EIA development) - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(i), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB7(1)(g)(iii), AnnexB:grey-belt, HE6, W3 - **Development plan policies:** BANES Core Strategy 2014 CP8, BANES Placemaking Plan 2014 GB1, NE2, NE2a, HE1, RE5, Local Plan Partial Update 2023 CP3 - **Main issues:** grey belt, inappropriate development, landscape character, heritage setting - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, renewable-energy, gb7-g-non-housing, landscape-harm, heritage-harm-outweighed, transitional-no-consultation, alternative-sites ## Summary A 28 ha solar farm with battery storage on four fields in the Bristol–Bath Green Belt near Keynsham. Bath and North East Somerset refused it; the appeal was allowed. The inspector found the land to be grey belt and the scheme to meet all the relevant GB7(1)(g) limbs, so it was not inappropriate development. Significant landscape harm and minor harm to the settings of listed buildings were outweighed by substantial weight given to renewable energy and storage. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The inspector decided the appeal under the August 2026 Framework without inviting comments: "In the context of this case and the main issues being considered there are no fundamental changes, in my view, between the new and the previous 2024 Framework" (DL ¶5). - **Grey belt: ACCEPTED.** On purpose (a), the site is 900 m from Keynsham, with no intervisibility and contained by a ridgeline (DL ¶11-12). On (b): "it nevertheless occupies a very small proportion of the intervening Green Belt land between Keynsham and Bath. Its development as a solar farm would not therefore result in a loss of visual separation" (DL ¶13). On (d), Keynsham was not shown to be a historic town, and "Burnett … is a village rather than a town" (DL ¶14). - **GB7(1)(g)(i): PASS.** The scheme would cause "significant encroachment of the countryside at a local level" (DL ¶17). But "the appeal site's 28 hectare area would constitute only a very small fraction of the district's Green Belt … it would not fundamentally undermine the purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment" (DL ¶18). A claimed extra "local" Green Belt purpose, taken from an unadopted 2013 review, got very limited weight (DL ¶21). - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): PASS.** Unmet need was established by the Clean Power 2030 solar target (15GW→47GW) (DL ¶22). - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): PASS.** "those considerations are of limited significance. Solar farms are inherently land-intensive developments and are commonly located in rural areas. Traffic associated with the operational phase would be minimal" (DL ¶23). - **Openness.** "the courts have found that there is consequently no requirement to assess the impact of the development on the openness of the Green Belt" (DL ¶25). - **Landscape: significant harm.** The panels in upper Fields 1 and 2 "would industrialise a sizeable part of the local countryside … erode the attractive landscape setting of Burnett" (DL ¶38). - **Heritage: minor harm, considerable weight.** Harm to the Grade II Manor House, the Church of St Michael and two tombs through their setting (DL ¶54-55). - **Alternative sites.** A search limited to Green Belt land within 4 km of the grid connection was accepted, because most of the district is Green Belt. The Barton in Fabis BESS appeal (APP/P3040/W/23/3324608) was distinguished (DL ¶69-71). ## Planning balance This was an ordinary material-considerations balance, with no VSC test because the scheme was not inappropriate. On the harm side: significant landscape harm and minor heritage harm, the heritage harm carrying considerable weight. On the benefit side: renewable generation (substantial weight), battery storage and energy security (substantial), BNG (moderate), and jobs and local spending (moderate). "Taken together, these considerations weigh substantially in favour of the proposal and offset the harm" (DL ¶85). ## What made the difference Two things decided this appeal. The first was the plan-area scale of the GB7(1)(g)(i) test. In a district that is about 70% Green Belt, even 28 ha of admitted local encroachment was a "very small fraction", so the purposes were not "fundamentally undermined". The second was that limb (iii) is close to a formality for solar. Once the scheme was not inappropriate, the landscape and heritage harm had to beat substantial renewable-energy weight in a straight balance, not a VSC balance. It could only have gone the other way if the site had strongly served purpose (a), (b) or (d), for example as part of a narrow gap between towns. ## Transferable points - GB7(1)(g)(i) is judged across the whole plan area, so significant local encroachment does not fail it where Green Belt is extensive (DL ¶17-20). - A site forming a "very small proportion" of the gap between two towns does not strongly contribute to purpose (b) (DL ¶13). - A village is not a "historic town" for purpose (d) (DL ¶14). - For solar, the GB7(1)(g)(ii) need can be shown from national targets such as Clean Power 2030 (DL ¶22), and limb (iii) is "of limited significance" (DL ¶23). - Where GB7 is met, there is no need to assess openness (DL ¶25). - An alternative-sites search confined to Green Belt land near the grid connection is not deficient where most of the district is Green Belt (DL ¶70). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** 900 m from Keynsham, contained by ridgeline/Burnett/industrial estate → not strong on (a); very small share of Keynsham–Bath gap → not strong on (b); Keynsham not shown to be historic town and site not in its setting → not strong on (d); Burnett is a village so not (d) (DL 11-15) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** significant local encroachment (purpose c) but 28 ha is a very small fraction of a district c.70% Green Belt → does not fundamentally undermine purposes taken together across plan area (DL 17-20) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** unmet need for solar evidenced by Clean Power 2030 Action Plan target 15GW→47GW (DL 22) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** transport considerations "of limited significance" for a land-intensive solar farm with minimal operational traffic; no highway objection (DL 23) - **GB7(1)(g)(iv): not-engaged.** housing only (DL 24) - **GB6(2): not-engaged.** not inappropriate, so no openness assessment required (DL 25) - **DP3: harm (significant weight).** significant landscape and visual harm from upper Fields 1 and 2 on prominent slope/ridge; setting of Burnett eroded; LCA Band D low capacity (DL 33-39, 77) - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** minor harm to Grade II Manor House, Church of St Michael and two listed monuments via setting, for up to 40 years; outweighed by public benefits (DL 48-55, 76, 85) - **W3: benefit (substantial weight).** up to 22 GWh/yr (c.5,574 homes), c.8,000 tCO2/yr; battery storage also substantial weight for energy security (DL 79-80) - **N2: benefit (moderate weight).** BNG 54.33% habitat, 12.95% hedgerow, 19.88% watercourse units (DL 84) ## Key facts - 28 ha on four arable/pasture fields, Grade 4 land, c.900 m from Keynsham, adjoining Burnett village - About 70% of BANES is Green Belt; grid connection fixed the 4 km search area - Alternative site assessment 43 → 3 sites within 4 km of connection accepted even though it looked only at Green Belt land (DL 69-70) - 40-year operational life; panels up to c.3 m high - Inspector did not invite submissions on the 2026 Framework, finding "no fundamental changes" for these issues (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005916 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7f525776-4d5b-4082-bf8e-f328023b21af --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005916.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 111-115 Grainger Street, Newcastle (first-floor flat by market flue) - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Paul Martinson - **Authority:** Newcastle upon Tyne (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6005950 - **Application reference:** 2025/0080/01/DET - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of first-floor staff room and office (Class E) to one flat (C3), with window, ventilation and storage works, in a Grade I listed building - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3, P4 - **Development plan policies:** Newcastle Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan CS14, Newcastle Development and Allocations Plan DM23, DM24 - **Main issues:** living conditions of future occupiers (noise and odour), agent of change - **Tags:** agent-of-change, living-conditions, noise, flat-conversion, listed-building, heritage-no-harm, transitional-no-consultation, limited-nppf-engagement, tier-2 ## Summary Conversion of a first-floor staff room in the Grade I listed Grainger Market frontage into a flat was dismissed. The bedrooms would face an existing takeaway flue, and the appellant's own assessments showed heavy odour and noise. The proposed mitigation was too vague to show acceptable living conditions or to protect the business from complaints, contrary to P3 and P4. Heritage effects were neutral. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Any reference to the Framework below is therefore a reference to this new version" (DL ¶2). No consultation mentioned. - **Living conditions, P3: FAIL.** The odour assessment "detected significant odour presence associated with the flue and determined that this resulted in substantial impacts particularly in relation to proposed Bedroom 1, where the odour was present 90% of the time" (DL ¶13). "there is a lack of detail or clarity over which mitigation methods would be employed and the precise effect on odour or noise ingress" (DL ¶21). - **Agent of change, P4: FAIL.** "I cannot be certain that the proposal would not place unreasonable restrictions on the operation of the existing hot food business" (DL ¶23). - **Sealed windows.** "it is difficult to predict the exact behaviour of future occupants who may wish to have windows open for longer periods, including overnight" (DL ¶16). - **Heritage: NEUTRAL.** The proposal "would have a neutral effect on the listed building" (DL ¶27) and would preserve the conservation area (DL ¶29). ## Planning balance No S3/S4 balance. The letter concludes on conflict with the local plan and with P3 and P4 (DL ¶24–25) and dismisses (DL ¶33). The one-flat benefit is not weighed. ## What made the difference The appellant's own evidence of odour 90% of the time at a bedroom window, and no specified, tested fix for the flue. A detailed flue mitigation scheme, agreed with the operator and modelled for noise and odour, would have been needed. ## Transferable points - Under P4(2)(b), the agent of change must "demonstrate that suitable mitigation can be provided before first occupation"; a list of "potential options" is not enough (DL ¶4, ¶20–21). - Sealed windows plus MVHR do not answer odour or noise where occupiers can be expected to want windows open (DL ¶16–17). - Current operating hours are not a safe baseline where licensing allows a future operator to trade later (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **P3: fail.** bedroom windows beside a hot-food flue; appellant's odour assessment found odour 90% of the time at Bedroom 1, noise above WHO limits; mitigation (sealed windows, MVHR, flue works) unclear and unevidenced (DL 10-21, 23, 25) - **P4: fail.** agent of change; cannot be certain the flat would not place unreasonable restrictions on the existing hot-food business (DL 4, 22-23, 25) - **HE6: neutral.** Grade I listed Grainger Market east front and Newcastle Central CA preserved; s66(1) and s72(1) satisfied subject to conditions (DL 26-29) ## Key facts - Rear bedrooms face a tall takeaway flue that curves towards the first-floor elevation, in a dip that traps odour (DL 8, 11) - Licensing allows the flue to operate until 2300; a future operator could run later hours than the current one (DL 10, 14) - Mitigation relied on sealed windows with secondary glazing and MVHR, plus undefined flue works by Grampian condition; no condition wording or specification provided (DL 15-21) - Flue operator's letter gave permission in principle for remedial works, subject to drawings (DL 22) - Amended plans and new noise and odour assessments accepted at appeal (DL 5) - Letter notes P3/P4 are similar to 2024 paragraphs 187(e), 198 and 200; comparison only (DL 3) - No S3/S4 balance run; decided on P3/P4 and development plan conflict (DL 23-25, 33) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005950 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005950.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to 82 Smithy Lane, Aughton - **Decision:** allowed, 2 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Unwin - **Authority:** West Lancashire (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6005963 - **Application reference:** 2025/0608/PNC - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class Q prior approval, conversion of agricultural buildings to 5 dwellings - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** open-countryside, green-belt - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3 - **Main issues:** Class Q siting, design - **Tags:** tier-2, class-q, prior-approval, garden-size ## Summary Class Q prior approval for five one-bed dwellings in farm buildings was granted on appeal. Small gardens were not "impractical or undesirable", and the minimal external works kept the agricultural character. The Inspector noted "no substantive changes" in the 2026 Framework relevant to the appeal (DL ¶2). ## What made the difference The Council's garden-size objection failed because the units are single-storey and one-bed with usable rectangular gardens (DL ¶14). Updated bat surveys dealt with the ecology point (DL ¶15). ## Policy findings - **P3: pass.** mapped code (determinative is GPDO Q.2(1)(e), not Framework): 29-70 sq m gardens for 1-bed single-storey units are "sensible and realistic" (DL 12-16) - **DP3: pass.** GPDO Q.2(1)(f): minimal external change keeps agricultural character; gardens screened (DL 17-19) ## Key facts - Council accepted agricultural use before 24 July 2023; objected only on (e) and (f) - Some gardens extend into the Green Belt; Council raised no openness concern (DL 21) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1b825cb6-c969-46dd-b9bb-c6670266e8b7 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005963 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005963.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 3 Roosevelt Road, Gilesgate, Durham - **Decision:** dismissed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Lancaster - **Authority:** County Durham (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6005969 - **Application reference:** DM/25/01397/FPA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use from C3 dwellinghouse to 5-bed C4 student HMO with single-storey rear extension - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, DP3(2)(a), DP3(3) - **Development plan policies:** County Durham Plan Policies 6, 16(3), 29, 31 - **Main issues:** mixed and balanced communities, living conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, student-accommodation, dp3-refuse-trigger, dp3-2-a-mixed-communities, s4-substantially-outweighed, non-determination, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Conversion of a Durham terraced house to a 5-bed student HMO, appealed for non-determination and dismissed. Updated council tax data put student concentration within 100 m at 11.9%, above the plan's 10% "tipping point". This failed mixed and balanced communities and caused moderate noise and disturbance harm. Parties were consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶2). ## What made the difference The inspector turned a local HMO-concentration threshold into a Framework design refusal. Failing to maintain a mixed community is "contrary to ... Policy DP3(2)(a)", and "Policy DP3(3) ... states that development proposals should be refused if they conflict with these principles. Therefore, I attach substantial weight to this harm" (DL ¶24). Weighed against "very modest" benefits, this failed S4 (DL ¶¶23–25). Earlier data showing 9.2%, below the threshold, would have produced a different result, so the most recent data decided the case. ## Policy findings - **DP3(2)(a): fail (substantial weight).** exceeding the plan's 10% student-exempt threshold within 100 m fails mixed and balanced communities; DP3(3) refusal trigger invoked (DL 17, 24) - **DP3(3): fail.** "development proposals should be refused if they conflict with these principles" (DL 24) - **S4: fail.** very modest benefits substantially outweighed (DL 22-25) ## Key facts - Student-exempt properties plus unimplemented HMO permissions within 100 m rose from 9.2% (Dec 2025 data) to 11.9% (Apr 2026 data); latest data given significant weight (DL 13-14) - Article 4 Direction removing C3 to C4 PD since 2016 (DL 6) - Non-determination; inspector sought clarification of the Council's ambiguous position under Reg 8 (DL 3-5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005969 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a2e206d8-f6f3-4142-b3cf-3f6aa08df720 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005969.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south of Litcham Road, Mileham - **Decision:** allowed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Gee - **Authority:** Breckland (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6005970 - **Application reference:** PL/2025/1130/OMIN - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline, all matters reserved, 6 dwellings including 2 affordable - **Homes:** 6 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.82 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S3, S5(1)(j)(i), HO7, TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Breckland Local Plan GEN02, GEN03, GEN05, HOU05, COM01, ENV02, ENV05 - **Main issues:** spatial strategy and accessibility, character and appearance, habitats sites - **Tags:** s5-1-j, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, car-dependence-moderate, sustainable-location-fail, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, habitats-mitigation, inconsistent-weighting, drafting-slip, previous-appeal-superseded ## Summary Outline scheme for six houses (two affordable) on part of a roadside field in Mileham, a village with no settlement boundary, refused by Breckland as contrary to the spatial strategy and harmful to a visually important gap. Allowed on appeal. The inspector found conflict with the local plan and heavy car reliance, but the site passed S5(1)(j)(i) (2.82-year supply, physically well related to Mileham, modest scale), and moderate locational and landscape harm did not substantially outweigh substantial HO7 weight. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "the Council and the appellant were invited to make further comments. My decision reflects the latest version of the Framework, and the responses received on it" (DL ¶4). - **Location / accessibility — local plan: CONFLICT; TR3: moderate harm.** Litcham route "along roads subject to the national speed limit without a continuous footway, is unlit, flanked by embanked verges offering limited pedestrian refuge" (DL ¶10); occupiers "heavily reliant upon private motor vehicles" (DL ¶11); "the site is not well located due to its lack of infrastructure and limited accessibility to wider settlements. Notwithstanding this conclusion, I do not find that the appeal site would be isolated" (DL ¶12). - **S5(1)(j)(i): PASS.** "the site is physically well related to the existing settlement of Mileham, where future occupiers would have access to some services and facilities. The proposal is modest in scale and could be accommodated by the infrastructure and services available locally. In addition, a bus stop is situated close to the appeal site … These factors satisfy the key requirements of Policy S5(1)(j)(i)" (DL ¶31). Car reliance tempered: "the modest scale of the proposal means that it would not result in significant traffic generation" (DL ¶30). - **Character — HOU05 criterion 4 / N2: moderate harm; DP3: acceptable.** Gap-erosion identified as negative in the LSCA (DL ¶15), but "a substantial separation would remain … These factors moderate the extent of the impact … a moderate level of harm at a localised scale" (DL ¶18). Under DP3/N2(1)(a) "the defining characteristics of Mileham as an Interrupted Rural Row village would be retained, albeit to a lesser extent" (DL ¶33). - **Habitats sites.** GIRAMS contribution in UU; after consulting NE, no adverse effect on integrity (DL ¶¶23–25). ## Planning balance S5(1) balance. Against: locational and landscape harms, "moderate weight" (DL ¶50). For: market and affordable housing, "substantial positive weight consistent with NDMP HO7(1)" given no five-year supply (DL ¶50); construction/household expenditure (DL ¶51). "the benefits of granting planning permission would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects … Accordingly, the proposal satisfies the requirements of NDMP5(j)(i)" (DL ¶53). Local plan conflict set aside under s38(6) (DL ¶49). ## What made the difference A deep shortfall (2.82 years) combined with a site fronting an existing village street opposite existing houses and a bus stop. The inspector treated "physically well related" as a matter of physical relationship to the village (frontage opposite and to the east) plus a bus stop across the road, even though Mileham's own services are minimal and the next village is 2.8 miles along unlit roads with no footway. Car dependence was accepted but downgraded to moderate because six houses generate little traffic. A site detached from the village frontage, or a larger scheme where trip generation matters, would likely have failed. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(j)(i) can be passed in a village with only a shop, hall, church and bus stop, where the site is physically related to the village frontage; poor walking routes to the next village did not defeat it (DL ¶¶10, 31). - An inspector can find a site "not well located" for accessibility and conflicting with local plan policy, yet "physically well related" for S5(1)(j)(i) in the same letter; the two tests are treated separately (DL ¶¶12, 31). Worth noting as an internal tension if relied on. - TR3 harm from a small scheme is moderated by its limited trip generation (DL ¶30). - Partial loss of a locally identified visually important gap scored only moderate where a substantial part of the gap remains (DL ¶¶16, 18). - Drafting slip: the conclusion refers to "NDMP5(j)(i)" for S5(1)(j)(i) (DL ¶53); ¶31 opens "For the reasons given above" although the preceding reasons were adverse on accessibility. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j)(i): pass.** 2.82-yr supply; site "physically well related" to Mileham (shop, hall, church, bus stop almost opposite), modest scale accommodated (DL 29, 31) - **TR3: harm (moderate weight).** heavy car reliance for day-to-day needs; 2.8 miles to Litcham on unlit national-speed-limit roads without footway; but modest scale → no significant traffic (DL 10-12, 30, 50) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** HO7(1) substantial weight to homes meeting evidenced unmet need incl. 2 affordable (DL 29, 32, 50) - **DP3: neutral.** open gap to Beeston Road junction retained so "Interrupted Rural Row Village" character survives "albeit to a lesser extent"; details at reserved matters (DL 33-34) - **N2: harm (moderate weight).** N2(1)(a) cited; moderate localised harm from partial loss of visually important gap (DL 18, 33, 50) - **BLP GEN05, HOU05: conflict (moderate weight).** not infilling or rounding off; outside settlement; HOU05 criterion 4 visually important gap (DL 8-9, 13, 18) - **N6: neutral.** habitats sites; GIRAMS contribution secured by UU; appropriate assessment passed after consulting NE (DL 19-25, 52) ## Key facts - Mileham has no settlement boundary; parties agree site is outside a defined settlement (DL 6, 28) - Services in Mileham limited to village shop, village hall, church and bus service; bus stop almost opposite via paved footway, no formal crossing but low traffic observed (DL 10, 31) - Litcham 2.8 miles away along unlit national-speed-limit roads, no continuous footway (DL 10) - Council supply 2.82 years (DL 29) - Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment 2022 describes Mileham as an "Interrupted Rural Row Village" where gaps are a key characteristic (DL 15) - Earlier appeal APP/F2605/W/24/3336631 on the site (outcome not stated) distinguished on changed supply and policy context (DL 3); outline permission previously granted 3PL/2018/1564/O (DL 39) - Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005970 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/777d9cd5-f6f0-4965-9639-ce85726daf63 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005970.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Redlands, Main Road, Woolsington - **Decision:** dismissed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Chris Mayes - **Authority:** Newcastle upon Tyne (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6005976 - **Application reference:** 2025/1277/01/DET - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Extensions to dwelling, three-storey ancillary annex, garage block and landscaping, with garden extended into woodland and paddock (retrospective) - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB7(1)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Gateshead and Newcastle Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan 2015 CS19, CS15, CS18, Newcastle DAP 2020 DM20, DM28, DM29 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, character, ecology, VSC - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, unmet-need-not-evidenced, disproportionate-extension, openness-harm, vsc-not-shown, annex, fallback, retrospective, openness-vs-character-distinct ## Summary Retrospective extensions, a three-storey annex and a garage block at a large house in the Newcastle Green Belt. Dismissed. The site was accepted as grey belt, but GB7(1)(g)(ii) failed because the family's needs were not evidenced to require development of this scale. Under GB7(1)(b) the additions were disproportionate to the 2003 "original" dwelling. The resulting spatial openness harm was substantial even though visual harm was very limited. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Determined under the current Framework without further consultation; the "changes to the Framework do not alter the substance of the main issues … or prejudice either party" (DL ¶2). - **GB7(1)(g)(i): PASS.** "I am satisfied that it comprises grey belt land" (DL ¶12). - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): FAIL.** "While family circumstances can carry weight, the evidence before me does not demonstrate an unmet need requiring development of the scale proposed" (DL ¶13). "As the criteria are cumulative, that conclusion is sufficient" (DL ¶14). - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "the annex alone is of a scale broadly comparable to that of the dwelling originally constructed in 2003 … I consider it appropriate to treat it as an addition to the original dwelling" (DL ¶16). - **Openness.** "the substantial increase in the amount of built form on the site results in a significant reduction in openness in spatial terms" (DL ¶18). Substantial weight (DL ¶19). - **Character: no harm.** "Openness and character are distinct planning concepts" (DL ¶22). - **Ecology: moderate harm.** Compensation was off-site and unsecured (DL ¶27-28). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. For the scheme: moderate weight to family living arrangements and to the planning history (2017 permission), and limited weight to the UU, re-use of a residential site, mobility needs and security (DL ¶34). Against it: substantial weight to Green Belt harm and moderate weight to ecological harm. Not clearly outweighed (DL ¶35). The PSED was considered and dismissal found proportionate (DL ¶37). ## What made the difference Scale and evidence. The grey belt door was open, but limb (ii) requires an evidenced need for the type and scale of development proposed, and private family need was not documented. Under (b), an annex as big as the original house could not be proportionate. ## Transferable points - The grey belt route (GB7(1)(g)) can in principle be tried for non-housing residential additions. Limb (ii) then requires evidence that the need requires development of that scale (DL ¶13-14). - Detached annexes and garages functionally tied to a dwelling are treated as additions for the GB7(1)(b) disproportionality test (DL ¶16). - Heavy screening reduces visual openness harm but does not prevent substantial spatial harm (DL ¶18). - No character harm does not mean no openness harm (DL ¶22). - An occupancy UU does not reduce Green Belt harm that arises from physical scale (DL ¶32). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** long-established residential use with substantial built development; grey belt accepted (DL 12) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): fail.** family, multi-generational, mobility and security needs genuine, but not evidenced to require development of this scale; site already had substantial accommodation (DL 13-14) - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** annex alone roughly the size of the 2003 dwelling (the fn40 "original" baseline); detached annex and garage treated as additions; disproportionate (DL 15-16) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** substantial spatial openness harm though visual harm very limited because of screening (DL 17-19) - **DP3: neutral.** coherent design in a verdant plot; no character harm; openness and character distinct (DL 21-23) - **N2: harm (moderate weight).** woodland SLCI understorey cleared; BNG baseline disputed; off-site compensation not secured (DL 24-28, 35) ## Key facts - Baseline for disproportion is the 2003 replacement dwelling and garage, per fn40 (DL 15) - No volumetric assessment was supplied (DL 16) - 2017 permission for extensions and annex, disputed as commenced; as built materially exceeds it (DL 9, 31) - UU restricting annex to ancillary use given only limited weight because harm arises from physical scale (DL 32) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005976 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8acf6993-6bc5-4c52-a17e-ad3f302fba31 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005976.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 6 Bacon's Lane, Highgate (garden studio at Grade II Manasseh house) - **Decision:** dismissed, 2 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Ann Veevers - **Authority:** Camden (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6005980 - **Application reference:** 2025/4935/P - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of two garden sheds and erection of a pyramid-roofed garden studio incorporating a historic boundary wall, at a Grade II listed 1950s New Brutalist house (Appeal A; linked LBC Appeal B 6005981) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE4(2), HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Camden Local Plan 2017 D1, D2 - **Main issues:** listed building and setting, conservation area, public benefits - **Tags:** listed-building, heritage-harm-decisive, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, alternatives-not-explored ## Summary A garden studio was proposed to replace two sheds beside Leonard Manasseh's Grade II listed 1950s house in Highgate. It was refused under both planning and listed building consent. The inspector used the new heritage policies expressly: HE4(2) (clear and convincing justification), HE6(1) substantial weight "irrespective" of the level of harm, HE6(3) considerable importance and weight, HE6(4) balance, and HE9(2) for the conservation area. The harm was "towards the lower end", but the benefits were limited. ## Issues and findings - **Significance.** The house's significance includes its designed garden, which is "integral to the planned interplay between external and internal spaces" (DL ¶11). - **Effect.** The outbuilding "would be overly large and dominate the gap between No 6 and its boundary wall … compete with the primacy of No 6, disrupting the hierarchy of built form" (DL ¶24). Folding the historic wall into it weakens its authenticity (DL ¶25). - **Conservation area.** "Policy HE9.2 of the Framework recognises that not every element of a conservation area necessarily contributes to its significance", but limited public visibility "does not override my duty" (DL ¶28-29). There was localised harm (DL ¶31). - **Weight.** "Policy HE6.1 … substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation, irrespective of whether any potential effect amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss" (DL ¶32). The harm is "towards the lower end of harm. Nevertheless, any harm is a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶33). - **Benefits.** Removing the sheds is a gain, but "they would be replaced by development that would be more harmful. As such, this factor carries no weight as a benefit of the proposal in its totality" (DL ¶36). ## Planning balance The HE6(4) heritage balance: limited public benefits (economic, housing-stock improvement, ASHP) set against low harm carrying considerable importance and weight under HE6(3). The harm was not outweighed (DL ¶38). The plan-led conclusion under s38(6) relied on Camden D1 and D2, found "consistent with the Framework" (DL ¶40). ## What made the difference The pyramidal, bulky form, at odds with the house's New Brutalist design, set in a designed garden that is part of the listing. A smaller, more discreet studio in the same place could have been acceptable. The inspector accepted that the eastern garden could "potentially accommodate change" (DL ¶19). ## Transferable points - A heritage gain within a scheme (removing clutter) carries no weight if it is part of a more harmful replacement (DL ¶36). - Under HE9(2), low public visibility does not remove harm to a conservation area where the site embodies its spacious character (DL ¶28-31). - Local plan design and heritage policies consistent with the Framework keep full weight after 17 Aug 2026 (DL ¶40). - An unimplemented older permission is not a fallback, and a changed policy context limits its value for consistency (DL ¶41-42). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** bulky, top-heavy outbuilding dominates the gap between house and wall, competing with the primacy of No 6 and eroding its designed garden setting; harm 'towards the lower end' (DL 16-27, 33) - **HE9(2): harm.** not every element of a CA contributes, but the large designed garden supports Bacon's Lane's spacious character; localised harm to Highgate CA (DL 28-31) - **HE4(2): fail.** no clear and convincing justification; residential use not dependent on the scheme (DL 37) - **HE6(4): fail.** ASHP, economic and housing-stock benefits limited weight; removing the sheds is a heritage gain but carries no weight because the replacement is more harmful (DL 34-38) ## Key facts - Grade II house by Leonard Manasseh (late 1950s), listed with its designed walled garden (DL 7-11) - Twentieth Century Society supported the scheme (DL 18, 26) - 2013 permission for a granny flat unimplemented, so not a fallback; decision context since changed (DL 41-42) - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005980 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7db5086d-0859-424c-89d2-c9a2e5f538c8 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005980.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 6 Bacon's Lane, Highgate (listed building consent, garden studio) - **Decision:** dismissed, 2 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Ann Veevers - **Authority:** Camden (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6005981 - **Application reference:** 2025/5133/L - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Listed building consent for demolition of sheds and a pyramid-roofed garden studio incorporating a historic boundary wall, at a Grade II listed 1950s house (Appeal B; planning Appeal A is PINS-6005980) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE4(2), HE6(3), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Camden Local Plan 2017 D1, D2 - **Main issues:** special interest of the listed building, conservation area - **Tags:** tier-2, listed-building-consent, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, linked-appeals ## Summary The listed building consent half of the Bacon's Lane garden-studio appeals (see PINS-6005980 for the full analysis). Dismissed. The same reasoning applies. The harm to the Grade II house was "towards the lower end of harm" (DL ¶33), but it carried considerable importance and weight and was not outweighed by limited public benefits. There was no clear and convincing justification. ## Issues and findings - **Degree of harm.** "I deduce the harmful effects in this case would be towards the lower end of harm. Nevertheless, any harm is a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶33). - **HE4(2).** "clear and convincing justification has not been provided for the identified harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets" (DL ¶37). - **HE6(4).** "in giving considerable importance and weight to the harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets, I find that this would not be outweighed by the limited public benefits that would be generated by the proposal" (DL ¶38). - **Conclusion on Appeal B.** "For the reasons given, I conclude that Appeal B should be dismissed" (DL ¶47). ## What made the difference As for Appeal A: a bulky pyramidal studio in the designed garden that forms part of the listing, and domestic-scale benefits, which included an air source heat pump that was not detailed. ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation "irrespective" of the level of effect; harm "towards the lower end of harm" (DL 32-33) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** any harm "a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL 33, 38) - **HE4(2): fail.** no clear and convincing justification; the residential use does not depend on the scheme (DL 37) - **HE6(4): fail.** ASHP, construction and housing-stock benefits limited weight; shed removal carries no weight as part of a more harmful replacement (DL 34-38) ## Key facts - Same decision letter as PINS-6005980 (Appeal A, s78); this file is the s20 listed building consent appeal (DL 1-3) - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005981 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/479251f7-ebf9-48e9-9cce-05232f32d474 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005981.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Flat 45, Rozel House, 42 Birnbeck Road, Weston-super-Mare - **Decision:** dismissed, 27 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Cooper-Young - **Authority:** North Somerset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6005999 - **Application reference:** 25/P/1464/FUL - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Retrospective pergola/gazebo and decking on 7th-floor roof terrace - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** North Somerset Sites and Policies Plan Part 1 2016 DM3, DM32, North Somerset Core Strategy 2017 CS5, CS12 - **Main issues:** conservation area, host building - **Tags:** tier-2, conservation-area, retrospective, heritage-harm-decisive, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, harm-ungraded ## Summary A rooftop gazebo on a symmetrical modern seafront block was dismissed as harmful to the Great Weston Conservation Area and the host building. The Inspector uses the 2026 wording, "substantial weight should be given to the conservation of Heritage Assets", and does not grade the harm at all: no "less than substantial" and no degree (DL ¶15). ## What made the difference Skyline prominence that broke the symmetry of a building the Inspector valued as a positive modern contribution to the conservation area. There were no public benefits to weigh, only private amenity (DL ¶¶12–16). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** off-centre skyline structure disrupts the symmetrical modern elevation and seafront roofscape; harm to Great Weston CA not graded (DL 12-15) - **HE6(4): fail.** better living space is private; "none [public benefits] have been identified" (DL 16) ## Key facts - Structure visible against the skyline in long views along the seafront - Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e5ae622b-9165-498c-82e0-2c56943fb4be - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005999 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005999.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 28 Carew Road, Eastbourne (two dwellings from garden room and outbuilding) - **Decision:** allowed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Martin Andrews - **Authority:** Eastbourne (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006002 - **Application reference:** 250410 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Part-retrospective change of use of a lower-ground garden room/store and a rear L-shaped outbuilding to two dwellings - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3, P3 - **Development plan policies:** Eastbourne Core Strategy 2006-2027 B2, C11, D10a, Eastbourne Local Plan 2003 UHT1, UHT4, UHT15, HO20 - **Main issues:** character, privacy, self-build status and BNG - **Tags:** tier-2, backland, small-scheme, bng-exemption, costs-application ## Summary Two extra dwellings at a flatted site in Eastbourne (one in a previously approved rear outbuilding) were allowed. Character and privacy objections were not sustained, and the requested self-build restriction was refused as unnecessary (DL 8, 13, 21). ## What made the difference The outbuilding was already approved and hidden by the fall of the land. Occupiers of a flatted site would expect mutual overlooking (DL 5, 10). ## Policy findings - **DP3: accord.** backland unit invisible from Carew Road; varied character; no conflict with Section 14 of the 'National Planning Policy Framework August 2026' (DL 5-8) - **P3: accord.** mutual overlooking typical of a flatted site; mitigated by levels (DL 10-13) ## Key facts - Self-build occupancy condition refused as unnecessary; BNG exemption accepted (site 0.15 ha) (DL 14-16, 21) - Two dwellings in a sustainable location described as 'an incremental but valuable contribution' to supply (DL 20) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006002 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5e00364e-5f78-464b-87b9-0baa439132d7 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006002.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent 837 Manchester Road, Linthwaite - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Armstrong - **Authority:** Kirklees (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6006003 - **Application reference:** 2025/62/91903/W - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Erection of a single dwelling (stated as self-build) on an open, treed gap in the Manchester Road frontage - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.18 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1), DP3(3), S5(5), S5(2), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Kirklees Local Plan 2019 LP24, LP33, LP35, Kirklees Housebuilders Design Guide SPD 2021 - **Main issues:** Green Belt appropriateness, character and appearance, trees, conservation area - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, not-inappropriate, s5-5-balance, sustainable-location-pass, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, heritage-harm-decisive, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, self-build, self-build-unsecured, bng-exemption-not-shown, substantially-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary One dwelling on an open, treed gap in the ribbon of Manchester Road, Linthwaite, in the Green Belt and the Linthwaite Conservation Area. The inspector accepted grey belt and found the scheme not inappropriate under GB7(1)(g). But the loss of the visual break and larger trees caused moderate harm to the conservation area and conflicted with DP3(1) without clear justification. Under S5(5), applying S5(2), the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The main parties "have had the opportunity to make any comments on the implications of that relevant to the appeal" (DL ¶2). - **Grey belt and GB7(1)(g)(i): PASS.** On purpose (c), "any encroachment into the countryside beyond the existing built form, and in relation to the extent of the Green Belt as a whole, would be limited. Consequently, the proposal would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt" (DL ¶9). - **GB7(1)(g)(ii)-(iii): PASS.** No five-year supply; "due to the site’s proximity to local amenities, services, footpath links and public transport, the proposal would be in a sustainable location in the context of policy TR3 of the Framework" (DL ¶10). No route facts are given. - **Not inappropriate.** "I am not required to consider any effects on the openness of the Green Belt, or if very special circumstances exist to justify the development" (DL ¶11). - **Heritage, HE6: HARM, moderate.** "the harm to the significance of the CA would be moderate" (DL ¶20); HE6(1) and considerable importance and weight stated (DL ¶21); "the public benefits would not be sufficient to outweigh the substantial weight that should be given to the conservation of the CA" (DL ¶25). - **DP3(1)/DP3(3) and N2(1)(d): CONFLICT.** "Policy DP3(3) states that proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with policy DP3(1). The application does not provide clear justification in this regard" (DL ¶27). - **Housing.** HO7 substantial weight, but "given that the proposal relates to a single dwelling and the extent of the shortfall, the contribution it would make to housing supply would be limited" (DL ¶23). Self-build: limited weight, unsecured (DL ¶24). ## Planning balance S5(5), applying S5(2), for grey belt development that is not inappropriate (DL ¶32). The DP3(3) failure, with the heritage harm, meant "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework" (DL ¶33). Conclusion also plan-led (DL ¶31, ¶34). ## What made the difference The site is one of the gaps the conservation area appraisal asks to keep, with mature trees and no arboricultural evidence. The Green Belt tests were passed easily; the case was lost on character and heritage. A scheme keeping the larger trees and more of the gap might have changed the result. ## Transferable points - A grey belt pass does not settle the case: S5(5) still applies S5(2), and a DP3(3) failure makes the benefits substantially outweighed (DL ¶32-33). - Purpose (c) is argued under the "fundamentally undermine" limb, not the grey belt definition; modest contained encroachment does not fundamentally undermine the purposes (DL ¶8-9). - HO7 substantial weight can sit with a finding that one dwelling's contribution is "limited" (DL ¶23). - No arboricultural impact assessment means no evidence that the trees cannot be retained (DL ¶19). - Weak on location: (g)(iii) was passed on a one-line proximity statement (DL ¶10), so do not cite it as TR3 authority. ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** undisputed; no strong contribution to (a), (b) or (d) (DL 8) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** disputed on purpose (c); modest, contained encroachment, would not fundamentally undermine the purposes taken together (DL 8-9) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** no five-year supply (4.18 years in the officer report) (DL 10, 23) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** "due to the site’s proximity to local amenities, services, footpath links and public transport"; no route facts given (DL 10) - **GB7(1)(g): pass.** not inappropriate; openness and VSC not considered (DL 11) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** moderate harm to Linthwaite CA from loss of the open visual break and larger trees; no clear and convincing justification (DL 20-21) - **HE6(4): fail.** one dwelling and unsecured self-build do not outweigh; HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation stated (DL 21-25) - **DP3(1): conflict.** loss of open gap and trees harms character (DL 17-20, 27) - **DP3(3): fail.** explicit - "The application does not provide clear justification in this regard" (DL 27, 33) - **N2(1)(d): conflict.** larger established trees lost; no arboricultural impact assessment (DL 18-19, 27) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight under HO7 but contribution of one dwelling "limited" (DL 23, 28) - **HO5: benefit (limited weight).** mapped: self-build benefit limited; no mechanism to secure it (DL 24) - **S5(5): fail.** S5(5) with S5(2) applied; DP3(3) failure means benefits substantially outweighed (DL 32-33) ## Key facts - Council supply 4.18 years (officer report) (DL 23) - 13 trees; larger trees at the rear judged high amenity; no arboricultural impact assessment submitted (DL 18-19) - CA appraisal says undeveloped spaces between buildings give glimpses of the rural setting (DL 13) - Self-build occupancy condition offered but no detailed securing mechanism; BNG self-build exemption therefore also doubtful, not pursued (DL 24, 29) - Other matters (amenity, highways, PROW) acceptable but neutral (DL 30) - Parties had the opportunity to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006003 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d1bf0c14-2224-4939-bffc-9d6a69986a53 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006003.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Grove House, Town Lane, Mobberley (planning appeal) - **Decision:** dismissed, 19 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Sarah Manchester - **Authority:** Cheshire East (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6006023 - **Application reference:** 25/0500/HOUS - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Conversion of curtilage-listed coach house to ancillary habitable accommodation with glazed link extension to the Grade II farmhouse (planning appeal A; LBC appeal B is 6006027) - **Site context:** green-belt, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(3), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 SD2, SE1, SE3, SE7, Cheshire East SADPD 2022 GEN1, HER1, HER4 - **Main issues:** listed building, protected species - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, private-benefit-not-public, alternative-scheme-not-explored, curtilage-listed, householder-gb, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary The planning half of the Grove House, Mobberley appeals (LBC appeal B is PINS-6006027, decided in the same letter). Converting the curtilage-listed coach house into principal living space linked to the Grade II farmhouse would cause a moderate degree of harm to the listed building. The benefits were mainly private and less harmful alternatives had not been explored. The Green Belt and conservation area were not objections. Dismissed after a hearing. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I am satisfied that the interests of neither party would be prejudiced by my taking it into account in my decision." (DL ¶2). - **Green Belt, GB7(1)(b): PASS.** Council's view accepted: "the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. I see no reason to disagree." (DL ¶5). - **Harm (HE5/HE6).** "it would result in a moderate degree of harm to the LB which in this instance is of considerable importance and weight in the planning balance of these appeals" (DL ¶33). Visibility is irrelevant: "listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of whether or not public views of the building or curtilage listed structures are afforded" (DL ¶31). - **HE6(4): FAIL.** The inspector paraphrased the new named benefits, "securing the long-term reuse of an underused listed building and enabling energy efficiency" (DL ¶34), then discounted both. Energy: "there is little evidence that it would be outstanding design which promotes high levels of sustainability or that it would go beyond compliance with the requirements of national and local planning policy" (DL ¶35). Reuse: "Grove House is already in optimum viable use as a residential dwelling." (DL ¶36). Conclusion: "the benefits, while considerable to the appellants, would be primarily private and they are not sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified" (DL ¶40). - **Bats.** "I conclude that the proposal would not harm bats or their roosts." (DL ¶47). ## Planning balance HE6(4) public-benefits balance, then plan conflict (SD2, SE1, SE7, GEN1, HER1, HER4) (DL ¶40). ## What made the difference The internal loss of the coach houses and the paired faux arched openings. The glazed link alone could have been made acceptable by conditions, but no alternative forms for the other elements had been tested. ## Transferable points - HE6(4) energy-efficiency and reuse benefits need evidence that goes beyond policy compliance, and reuse carries little weight where the asset is already in its optimum viable use (DL ¶34-37). - Harm to a listed building can be found with no harm to the conservation area, because public visibility is not a precondition (DL ¶31). - A GB7(1)(b) householder pass does not help where the heritage balance fails (DL ¶5, ¶40). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): pass.** Council accepted no disproportionate increase over the original building; not inappropriate; inspector agrees (DL 5) - **HE9: pass.** alterations not prominent in public views, so Mobberley CA preserved (DL 4, 31) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** moderate degree of harm to the Grade II farmhouse through loss of coach-house fabric and plan form, faux arched openings, glazing and light spill (DL 30, 32-33) - **HE6(4): fail (limited weight).** short-term economic benefit limited; energy efficiency not shown to go beyond compliance; house already in optimum viable use and alternatives not explored; link a private benefit (DL 34-40) - **HE4(3): neutral.** condition before earlier unauthorised works unknown, existing state taken as baseline; past losses do not justify further loss (DL 17) ## Key facts - Joint letter with LBC appeal 6006027 (same reasoning); both dismissed (DL 1) - Coach house is the only surviving outbuilding of the historic farmstead; could be an NDHA in its own right (DL 8, 12) - A fully glazed link with retained cobbles and no internal lighting would have been acceptable, but the arched openings and internal losses were not (DL 24-26, 29-30) - One common pipistrelle day roost; EPS licence likely, mitigation secured by condition; no harm to bats (DL 41-47) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006023 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ea053bb7-6968-4c7d-b383-742c1d24307b --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006023.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Grove House, Town Lane, Mobberley - **Decision:** dismissed, 19 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Sarah Manchester - **Authority:** Cheshire East (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6006027 - **Application reference:** 25/0504/LBC - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Conversion of curtilage-listed coach house to ancillary living accommodation with glazed link to Grade II farmhouse (planning 6006023 and LBC 6006027) - **Site context:** green-belt, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 SD2, SE1, SE3, SE7, Cheshire East SADPD 2022 GEN1, HER1, HER4 - **Main issues:** listed building, protected species - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, private-benefit-not-public, optimum-viable-use, alternative-scheme-not-explored, householder-gb, curtilage-listed, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient ## Summary Converting a curtilage-listed coach house into principal living space linked to a Grade II farmhouse in the Mobberley Conservation Area and Green Belt. After a hearing, the Inspector found "a moderate degree of harm" to the listed building, given considerable importance and weight. The benefits were mainly private, the energy-efficiency claims went no further than compliance, and less harmful alternatives had not been explored. Both appeals dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Harm: HE5/HE6.** "Policy HE6 … advises that … substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation … it would result in a moderate degree of harm to the LB which in this instance is of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶33). - **Public benefits: HE6(4).** The Inspector expressly paraphrased the new HE6(4) examples, "securing the long-term reuse of an underused listed building and enabling energy efficiency" (DL ¶34), and then rejected both. - Energy: "there is little evidence that it would be outstanding design which promotes high levels of sustainability or that it would go beyond compliance" (DL ¶35). This borrows the DP3(5) wording. - Reuse: "Grove House is already in optimum viable use … not dependent on the proposal" (DL ¶36). "there would likely be alternative schemes that would result in similar benefits without the harm … only limited weight" (DL ¶37). - The link "would be a significant private benefit" but "little public benefit" (DL ¶¶38–39). - **Deliberate neglect (HE4(3)).** The earlier unauthorised works had an unknown baseline, so the current state was used, but "the earlier unauthorised alterations and loss of historic features do not justify further loss" (DL ¶17). - **CA vs LB.** "listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of whether or not public views … are afforded" (DL ¶31). ## Planning balance HE6(4). Moderate harm of considerable importance and weight, against limited and mainly private benefits. The development plan was also breached. ## What made the difference The internal loss of the coach-house plan form and the paired faux arched openings. The glazed link could have been fixed by conditions (DL ¶¶24–26), but the other elements could not, and no alternative forms had been tested. ## Transferable points - To count under HE6(4), energy efficiency needs evidence that the scheme goes beyond compliance. The Inspector read HE6(4) together with the DP3(5) "outstanding or innovative design" test (DL ¶35). - "Underused" reuse carries limited weight where the asset is already in optimum viable use and alternatives exist (DL ¶¶36–37). - Harm to a listed building can be found without any harm to the conservation area, because public visibility is not a precondition for listed-building harm (DL ¶31). ## Policy findings - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** "a moderate degree of harm": loss of coach-house plan form and fabric, faux arched glazed openings, light spill, elevation of ancillary building status (DL 13-20, 30-33) - **HE6(4): fail (limited weight).** short-term economic limited; energy efficiency not beyond compliance; not optimum viable use (house already in OVU, alternatives not explored); link a private benefit (DL 34-40) - **HE4(3): neutral.** condition before unauthorised earlier works unknown, so existing state taken as baseline; past losses do not justify further loss (DL 17) - **HE9: pass.** changes not prominent in public views, so CA significance preserved; no inconsistency with LB harm (DL 4, 31) - **GB7: pass.** not disproportionate; not inappropriate (common ground) (DL 5) ## Key facts - Coach house is the only surviving farmstead outbuilding; curtilage listed, could be an NDHA in its own right - An amended fully glazed link with retained cobbles would have been acceptable, but the arched openings and internal losses were not - Bat roost; licence likely, no conflict ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e919e24c-d6b5-4964-bd84-0f91da612961 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006027 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006027.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 308 Stockport Road, Hyde (7-bed HMO) - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Laura Bartle - **Authority:** Tameside (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6006049 - **Application reference:** 25/00913/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of dwelling to 7-bed, 8-person sui generis HMO with rear dormer and new window - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), DP3, P3 - **Development plan policies:** Tameside UDP H10, T1, Places for Everyone JP-P1, JP-C6, JP-C8, Residential Design and Parking SPD RD11 - **Main issues:** future occupier living conditions, neighbour noise, refuse storage, parking - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, living-conditions, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Conversion of a semi-detached house in Hyde to a 7-bed, 8-person HMO. Dismissed. The communal space was inadequate for residents under DP3 and P3, and use of the front garden would harm the neighbours at No 310 through noise. Refuse storage was not shown to fit. Moderate housing and efficiency benefits were "substantially outweighed" under S4. ## What made the difference Meeting bedroom-size standards was not enough. The layout forced residents' social life into the front garden, next to a bedroom window and the neighbour's window (DL ¶¶11-12, 17). In the S4 balance, the benefits of HMO accommodation got only moderate weight (DL ¶32). ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail (significant weight).** communal space too small and poorly configured for social interaction; main outdoor sitting area outside a ground-floor bedroom window (DL 9-15) - **P3: harm (significant weight).** noise and disturbance from the front-garden amenity area and comings and goings affecting No 310 (DL 16-19) - **TR4: pass.** no off-street parking; accessible location, no evidence of parking stress (DL 24-29) ## Key facts - Revised layout drawing refused as an alternative proposal; appeal not to be used to evolve a scheme (DL 3-4) - Refuse storage unproven; a condition cannot resolve a matter that goes to acceptability (DL 20-22) - Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006049 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3c0fe963-ed3f-4ccc-939a-f250f55356b4 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006049.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Cowleas, Spickett's Lane, Cuddington - **Decision:** part-allowed, 25 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: David Kay - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006053 - **Application reference:** 25/01948/APP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Appeal against conditions 5, 12, 13, 14, 15 on a replacement 5-bed dwelling with detached garage - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM6(2)(c) - **Development plan policies:** Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2021 H6c, BE1, BE2, NE4, Cuddington NP 2022 CND05 - **Main issues:** necessity of conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, conditions-appeal, pd-rights-condition-refused, inclusive-access, no-consultation-on-2026-framework, replacement-dwelling ## Summary A s78 appeal against five conditions on a replacement dwelling next to the Cuddington Conservation Area. Two conditions were deleted: - the garage-use restriction (5), because any conversion would need permission anyway; - the removal of permitted development rights (12), which failed DM6(2)(c)'s "clear justification" test given the neutral heritage impact and the limited scope for PD on this site. The M4(2) accessibility condition (13) and the landscaping conditions (14 and 15) were retained. ## What made the difference The Council's own heritage officer had found a neutral effect on the conservation area, which left nothing to justify removing PD rights under DM6(2)(c) and the PPG's "exceptional circumstances" test. The M4(2) condition stood because this is a newly designed dwelling. The viability claim was unsupported. ## Policy findings - **DM6(2)(c): fail.** PD removal (Classes A, B, E) not clearly justified; site outside CA with heritage officer finding neutral impact; condition 12 deleted (DL 13-20) - **VALP H6c: accord.** M4(2) condition 13 retained; new-build can comply at minimal cost, viability claim unsubstantiated (DL 21-27) - **DM6: fail.** garage-use condition 5 unnecessary as conversion needs permission anyway (forward of principal elevation, GPDO E.1(c)) (DL 7-12) ## Key facts - Conditions 5 (garage use) and 12 (PD removal) deleted; 13 (M4(2)), 14 and 15 (landscaping) retained (DL 1) - Inspector found the parties' relied-on Framework policies "unchanged" by the 17 Aug revision and decided without consultation (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006053 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/942229f3-799d-4ad9-9242-17b16d4d29b6 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006053.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 393 Burnley Road, Holme Chapel, Cliviger - **Decision:** dismissed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A M Nilsson (on recommendation of J Reed, Appeal Planning Officer) - **Authority:** Burnley (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6006054 - **Application reference:** FUL/2026/0003 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of a dog-grooming building and replacement with a detached two-storey self-build dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, HE6, HE4(2) - **Development plan policies:** Burnley Local Plan 2018 SP5, NE3, HE1, HE2 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, setting of listed buildings - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, s4-within-settlement, substantially-outweighed, self-build, small-scheme, appeal-planning-officer, transitional-no-consultation, great-weight-old-wording, design-refusal, drafting-slip ## Summary A contemporary two-storey self-build house replacing a low dog-grooming building in a garden next to a group of Grade II listed buildings in Holme Chapel. Dismissed. Moderate harm to the listed buildings' setting (from height, massing and flat-roofed modern design) was not outweighed by the limited benefit of one self-build home, and the S4 within-settlement presumption was displaced. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The 2026 Framework "includes changes with respect to heritage matters with specific regard to the degrees of harm. That said, the actions of finding harm to a designated heritage asset is not materially different" — no consultation (DL ¶3). - **Setting — HE6 / HE4: HARM (moderate).** Significance includes "the relationship of the buildings to each other and the land around them, including the rural and agricultural landscape" (DL ¶7). "the erection of a modern two storey detached dwelling would be harmful to the environment in which the listed buildings are experienced" (DL ¶8). Garden furniture at the pub is "lightweight removable" whereas the dwelling "would be a permanent addition to the setting" (DL ¶10). "I find the harm to be moderate in this instance but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶17). - **Existing building baseline.** The grooming building is not a positive contributor but "is limited in its visibility due to its modest height. The same could not be said for the appeal proposal … it would be a dominant and visually intrusive building" (DL ¶15). - **Character.** Variety of house types does not justify a flat roof and contemporary materials where "key design features are shared such as either hipped or pitched roof forms" (DL ¶12); unevidenced other approvals given no weight (DL ¶13). - **Public benefits.** One self-build dwelling: "because the proposal would provide only one residential unit, I give them only limited weight. As such, given the great weight I must give to the conservation of designated heritage assets, the harm I have identified would not be outweighed" (DL ¶18). Note "great weight" (2024 wording) vs "substantial weight" correctly stated at DL ¶4. ## Planning balance HE6(4) heritage balance (harm not outweighed, DL ¶18–19), then the S4 test, unnamed: "Although the proposed development would be within a settlement, the benefits … would be substantially outweighed by the harm to the character and appearance of the area and the significance of nearby listed buildings" (DL ¶20). Then s38(6) plan-led conclusion (DL ¶21). ## What made the difference A permanent, taller, flat-roofed modern building replacing a low, barely visible structure, sitting in the view from a bridleway towards a coherent group of listed vernacular buildings. With only one dwelling, the benefits could not carry any heritage harm. A single-storey or pitched-roof stone design keeping the existing low profile would likely have fared better. ## Transferable points - For a single dwelling, public benefits (including self-build) attract only "limited weight" and will not outweigh moderate harm to listed buildings' setting (DL ¶18). - Replacing a low, non-contributing building is not a free pass: the test is the new building's greater visibility and dominance (DL ¶15). - Setting includes the rural/agricultural land a listed group backs onto (DL ¶7). - Heritage harm that fails HE6 also displaces the S4 within-settlement presumption ("substantially outweighed") (DL ¶20). - Inspectors treat the 2026 changes to heritage "degrees of harm" as not materially changing the exercise of finding harm (DL ¶3). ## Policy findings - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** moderate harm to setting of Grade II 395-397 Burnley Road and Grade II Ram Inn; "considerable importance and weight"; public benefits (one self-build home) limited weight, do not outweigh (DL 17-18) - **HE4(2): fail.** no clear and convincing justification for the harm (DL 7, 19) - **DP3: fail.** not named; flat-roofed zinc/larch design "wholly inappropriate and incongruous", prominent in long views (DL 11-12, 15) - **S4: fail.** not named, but within settlement; benefits "substantially outweighed" by heritage and character harm (DL 20) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** one self-build dwelling secured by legal agreement, limited weight (DL 18) - **Burnley LP SP5, NE3, HE1, HE2: conflict.** (DL 19) ## Key facts - Existing single-storey dog-grooming building replaced by larger, higher, flat-roofed two-storey house in zinc, larch, stone and grey render - Site on lower ground beside a bridleway; intervisibility with the listed pair and glimpses of the Ram Inn - Listed group backs onto open countryside; rural/agricultural setting part of significance - Self-build secured by legal agreement - Site visit by an Appeal Planning Officer; decision by Inspector - No consultation on the 2026 Framework — heritage changes "not materially different" ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006054 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1d5d52a4-dc8b-4d70-aec3-4251878125f1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006054.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Three Horseshoes, Bannister Green, Felsted (replacement windows, LBC) - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A James - **Authority:** Uttlesford (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6006059 - **Application reference:** UTT/25/3150/LB - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Listed building consent to replace front sashes, rear casements and two front doors of a Grade II 17th-century former pub with slimline double-glazed timber units - **Site context:** listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(4), HE4(2), CC2(2) - **Development plan policies:** Uttlesford Local Plan 2021-2041 (adopted March 2026) Core Policy 62 - **Main issues:** listed building, energy efficiency - **Tags:** listed-building-consent, heritage-harm-decisive, energy-efficiency, evidence-gap, windows, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Listed building consent to replace all the windows and front doors of a Grade II 17th-century former pub with slimline double-glazed timber units was refused. The case matters for how it handles the new CC2(2). The inspector accepts that CC2(2) requires substantial weight to improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings. But "this does not disapply other parts of the Framework". Unquantified savings for one house carry limited weight, and even substantial weight would not have outweighed the low harm. ## Issues and findings - **Harm: LOW.** There was no condition survey and no detailed drawings of profiles, glazing bars, horns or sash mechanism: "such information is fundamental … and I do not find that such details can be left to condition" (DL ¶13). "I am not persuaded that replacement is the only option or the most appropriate conservation-led solution" (DL ¶16). - **Weight to harm.** "a low level of harm does not equate to a low planning objection and the Framework is clear that any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶17). - **CC2(2).** "Policy CC2 of the Framework requires that substantial weight is given to the benefits of improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings. However, this does not disapply other parts of the Framework" (DL ¶18). "any improvements to the building's thermal efficiency and consequent energy savings have not been quantified. Given that the proposal relates to a single property, any environmental benefits which would flow to the public at large are likely to be minimal" (DL ¶19). - **Balance.** "Even if I were to afford substantial weight to the energy efficiency improvements, I do not find that the public benefits would outweigh the considerable weight and importance that I am required to give to the harm" (DL ¶21). ## Planning balance The HE6(4) balance under s16(2). Harm: low, with substantial weight to conservation (HE6(1)) and considerable weight to the harm. Benefits: small economic, and energy efficiency given limited weight (and held insufficient even at substantial weight). The benefits were mostly private (DL ¶20). Refused. ## What made the difference Evidence and alternatives. No survey showed the joinery was beyond repair, there were no detailed replica drawings, and there was no quantification of energy savings. Compare PINS-6006240 (Sheldon): there, roof solar on a non-historic, non-prominent roof caused only limited harm, and CC2(2)'s substantial weight tipped the balance. ## Transferable points - CC2(2)'s substantial weight to energy efficiency "does not disapply other parts of the Framework". It is weighed within HE6(4), not an override (DL ¶18). - Unquantified energy savings from a single dwelling carry limited public-benefit weight (DL ¶19). - Replacing traditional windows needs a condition survey and detailed drawings; these cannot be left to condition (DL ¶13). - A low level of harm "does not equate to a low planning objection" (DL ¶17). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** low-level harm: no condition survey showing all joinery beyond repair; double glazing differs visually and no sash mechanism or glazing-bar details (DL 10-17) - **HE4(2): fail.** no clear and convincing justification for the harm (DL 16) - **CC2(2): benefit (limited weight).** CC2 requires substantial weight to improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings, 'However, this does not disapply other parts of the Framework'; savings unquantified, single property (DL 18-19) - **HE6(4): fail.** public benefits limited; 'Even if I were to afford substantial weight to the energy efficiency improvements' they would not outweigh the harm (DL 18-21) ## Key facts - Revised scheme submitted at appeal not accepted: 'An appeal should not be used as a mechanism to evolve or refine a scheme' (DL 6) - Some windows rotten, others repairable; no detailed condition survey (DL 10-11) - Parties given the opportunity to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006059 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c6273877-ff41-4b44-817b-bf11440a4450 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006059.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south-west of Poachers Pocket, St Columb - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Lewis Condé - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6006078 - **Application reference:** PA25/01031 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Detached agricultural barn and hardstanding for storing arable crops, supplements and nutrients, away from the existing farm group - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(a), DP3(1) - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 Policies 1, 2, 5, 12, 23, Climate Emergency DPD C1.7 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, locational/business need - **Tags:** parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, agricultural-building, landscape-harm, substantially-outweighed, s5-5-balance, need-not-evidenced ## Summary A new agricultural storage barn in an open field in Cornwall, away from the farmer's existing yard. Dismissed. The barn would spread built form into an uncluttered rolling landscape, and no operational need was evidenced. The inspector expressly tested the scheme against the 2026 Framework's outside-settlements test. Agriculture is supported, but only where the benefits are not "substantially outweighed" by adverse effects, and here they were (DL ¶22-23). ## Issues and findings - **Character.** "it would extend built form away from the appellant's existing group of farm buildings ... diminishing the openness of the field" (DL ¶6). "Although public viewpoints would be limited, that does not mean the development would be without harm" (DL ¶7). - **Need.** Local Policy 5 is "broadly consistent with national policy and I afford it significant weight" (DL ¶11). "neither an overriding locational need nor an overriding business need ... has been demonstrated" (DL ¶17). - **Framework test.** "The Framework supports certain forms of development outside settlements ... but that support is subject to the benefits of doing so not being substantially outweighed by adverse effects ... those benefits are modest and are substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects" (DL ¶22-23). ## Planning balance Plan-led (s38(6)), cross-checked against the S5(1) proviso. Benefits of modest weight (food production, fewer vehicle trips, construction) against localised but clearly adverse landscape harm and unproven need. ## What made the difference Siting apart from the existing farm group, together with a thin evidence base on need. The inspector counted "absence of a demonstrated ... need" as an adverse effect in the S5 balance (DL ¶23). That is a notable step, because S5(1)(a) itself does not require need to be shown for agriculture. ## Transferable points - A use listed in S5(1)(a) (agriculture) still fails the S5 proviso where localised landscape harm substantially outweighs modest, unquantified benefits (DL ¶22-23). - A local-plan "overriding need" requirement for rural business buildings was held broadly consistent with the 2026 Framework and given significant weight (DL ¶11). - Limited public visibility does not mean no landscape harm (DL ¶7). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(a): fail.** agriculture is a listed S5(1) use, but the inspector applied the S5(1) proviso: modest benefits "substantially outweighed" by localised but clearly adverse landscape harm and lack of demonstrated need (DL 22-23); limb not named in letter, mapped by harvester - **DP3(1): fail.** extends built form away from the farm group into an open field in character area CCA25; bund would be an artificial landform (DL 4-8); decided via local Policies 12/23; DP3(3) not invoked; code mapped by harvester - **E4: neutral.** Framework positive about rural economy but local Policy 5 (overriding locational/business need) "broadly consistent" and given significant weight; need not evidenced (DL 11-17); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Three existing barns at the farm group; no evidence of storage requirement, crop yields or why existing yard could not be expanded (DL 12-16) - Bridleway conflicts at the existing yard would continue anyway (DL 14) - Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006078 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/02fca913-2350-4b75-aa03-5bfdc6f5629c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006078.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at access to Clockhouse Mews, Huxley Close, Godalming - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Heppell - **Authority:** Waverley (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006117 - **Application reference:** WA/2025/01842 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Erection of a two-storey one-bedroom detached dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, TPO, valued-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.28 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), S4 - **Development plan policies:** Waverley Local Plan Part 1 2018 TD1, RE3, NE1, Waverley Local Plan Part 2 2023 DM1, DM4, DM5, DM11, Residential Extensions SPD 2010 - **Main issues:** character and appearance (AGLV), trees, neighbour living conditions, future occupier living conditions - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, trees-tpo, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, living-conditions, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip ## Summary A one-bedroom house on a wooded plot inside Godalming, within an AGLV and beside TPO trees. Waverley has only 1.28 years' supply and the housing benefit attracted substantial weight. The appeal was dismissed on localised woodland-setting harm, a risk to category A trees and harm to neighbours' outlook, with DP3(3) cited as directing refusal and the benefits found substantially outweighed under S4. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were afforded the opportunity to comment on the implications of the new Framework" (DL ¶2). - **Character (AGLV): HARM.** "the proposal would be an incongruous, urbanising addition to the area which would harm the AGLV's character and appearance" (DL ¶6). Concealment from public views did not help: it "would cause an unacceptable degree of localised harm to the area's woodland setting" (DL ¶7). - **Trees: HARM.** Precautionary approach; "there is insufficient information before me to demonstrate that the roots of the trees would be adequately protected from damage during construction" (DL ¶11). - **Neighbour outlook: HARM** (DL ¶15, ¶17); future occupiers acceptable (DL ¶21). - **HO7: substantial.** "albeit in a modest manner for a single dwelling, substantial weight is given to this benefit" (DL ¶24). - **DP3(3).** "Policy DP3(3) states that proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with these requirements" (DL ¶26). "National decision-making Policy DP3 directs refusal in instances where proposals conflict with the Framework's key principles for well-designed places" (DL ¶27). ## Planning balance S4(1). Benefits (housing, efficient land use, social and economic) "attracts substantial weight"; the harms "would have a significant adverse effect" (DL ¶27). "I conclude that the benefits of approving development would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶27). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶28). The letter says none of the S4(2) situations apply (DL ¶23) but then relies on DP3 directing refusal (DL ¶27), without an explicit clear-justification finding. ## What made the difference The site's role in a wooded AGLV belt and the unresolved root-protection evidence. A 1.28-year supply and substantial weight for one home were not enough against landscape, tree and outlook harm. Completed arboricultural investigations and a siting outside the tree belt would have been needed. ## Transferable points - Localised harm to a local landscape designation counts even where the site is hidden from public views (DL ¶7). - A precautionary approach to high-value TPO trees is justified where the applicant's own report calls for further investigation (DL ¶11). - A single home in an authority with 1.28 years' supply still gets substantial HO7 weight, but can be substantially outweighed by design, tree and amenity harm together (DL ¶24, ¶27). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): fail.** incongruous, urbanising addition harming woodland setting of AGLV (local landscape designation acting as Surrey Hills NL buffer) (DL 5-8, 26) - **N2(1)(d): harm.** encroaches into RPAs of category A wellingtonias and category B trees under woodland TPO; further investigations needed, precautionary approach; future pressure to lop/fell (DL 9-13); cited in the letter via DP3 (DL 26) - **P3: harm.** overbearing sense of enclosure to Clockhouse Mews shared car park; no daylight harm (DL 14-17, 26) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** one home; council supply 1.28 years (DL 24) - **L2: benefit.** efficient use of well contained site; social and economic benefits; overall benefits "attracts substantial weight" (DL 25, 27) - **DP3(3): fail.** quotes DP3(3) "should be refused if, without clear justification" (DL 26); "directs refusal" (DL 27); no separate clear-justification finding; letter says no S4(2) situation applies (DL 23) yet relies on DP3 directing refusal - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 27) ## Key facts - Council supply 1.28 years (DL 24) - Site in an AGLV which LPP1 RE3 treats as buffer to the Surrey Hills NL (DL 5) - Earlier three-storey scheme refused (WA/2023/00518) (DL 4) - Woodland TPO WA125; piled raft foundations proposed subject to further investigation (DL 9-11) - Future occupier living conditions acceptable (DL 18-21) - Parties given the opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006117 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5713cadf-a357-4327-b016-c79022c7e7fc --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006117.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Court Farm, Padbrook Lane, Elmstone - **Decision:** dismissed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Victor Callister - **Authority:** Dover (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006123 - **Application reference:** 25/01256 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion and change of use of light industrial shed (former agricultural barn) to 3 dwellings with gardens and parking - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO11, S5, TR3, E2, DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Dover District Local Plan to 2040 (2024) PM1, SP4, E2 - **Main issues:** suitable and sustainable location, loss of employment land - **Tags:** sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, isolated-home, ho11, rural-business-conversion, marketing-evidence, fallback-rejected, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip, old-balance-wording, s5-limb-not-identified ## Summary Conversion of a lawful light-industrial former barn at Court Farm, Elmstone, to 3 houses with large gardens and parking. Dismissed. The inspector found the scheme would domesticate a rural farmyard setting (DP3), create "isolated" dwellings outside any settlement that meet no HO11 exception, rely on unsafe unlit lanes (TR3), and lose a rural employment site without 12 months' marketing (local plan E2). Housing benefit got substantial weight in principle but did not outweigh the harm. The reasoning under the new S5 is thin, and the letter contains several drafting slips. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I have sought comments from the main parties on the revised Framework … It will therefore not prejudice any party" (DL ¶2). - **Character: DP3 FAIL.** The building conversion "would not greatly affect its appearance". However, "the use of the other majority part of the appeal site as residential curtilage with large garden areas, with parking area for a total of 9 cars, along with the inevitable domestic paraphernalia … would urbanise and domesticate" the building's rural setting (DL ¶8). - **Isolated homes: HO11 FAIL.** "the proposal would result in the appearance of an isolated residential development in the countryside that would not meet the requirements set out in Policy HO11" (DL ¶10). - **Access: TR3 / S5 FAIL.** "very poor and unsafe access to nearby services and public transport, requiring the use of unlit country lanes without footways … contrary to Policy SP4 of the Local Plan and Policy S5 and T3 of the Framework, which collectively seek residential development in urban areas or other defined settlements, or if a change of use of an existing building in the open countryside, to meet the criteria or criterium set out in Policy HO11 or be within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station" (DL ¶11). - **Employment land: E2 CONFLICT, substantial weight.** "No marketing or other information with regard to the likelihood of obtaining a user for the building … has been provided" (DL ¶14). The appellant's retirement plans are "a personal choice" and "not a direct planning matters" (DL ¶15). - **Fallback: REJECTED.** Nearby Class Q approvals were not a fallback because "a prior approval application has not been made or assessed for the appeal site" (DL ¶17). ## Planning balance The balance was informal. Housing: "Collectively small housing developments make a significant contribution to the delivery of new housing, to which I have given substantial weight, although the creation of 3 new houses in isolation would make only a small contribution". This "does not outweigh the harm through the creation of isolated housing in the countryside and the loss of employment land, to both of which I have afforded substantial weight … I do not find that the proposal would result in sustainable development" (DL ¶21). The inspector did not use the S5 "substantially outweighed" formula and did not state a supply position. ## What made the difference Two things decided it: the loss of an employment building in active use with no marketing evidence, and the car-dependent location on unlit lanes. The S5 analysis is weak. The building is lawful, permanent and in light industrial use, so it plainly engages S5(1)(c) (reuse of an existing building) and arguably S5(1)(d) (PDL, "including a material change of use to residential"). Neither limb was considered. The inspector instead treated the dwellings as "isolated" under HO11, even though they sit in a cluster with three existing houses. The outcome would probably survive a correct S5 analysis, because the E2 conflict and TR3 harm would still weigh. But an appellant with 12 months' failed marketing and a stronger S5(1)(c) argument would have a better case. ## Transferable points - Loss of an in-use rural employment building without 12 months' marketing can carry substantial weight against a residential conversion (DL ¶¶14, 19, 21). - Domestic curtilage, parking and paraphernalia around a converted barn can be the source of DP3 harm even where the conversion itself is sympathetic (DL ¶8). - Nearby Class Q permissions are not a fallback unless prior approval has been sought for the appeal building (DL ¶17). - An owner's retirement or plans to close the business get no significant weight (DL ¶15). - Caution on reuse: this letter treats S5 as if it requires a settlement location, an HO11 exception or station proximity (DL ¶11). It does not address S5(1)(c) or (d), cites "T3" for TR3, and uses a simple "does not outweigh" balance. It is weak authority on how S5 applies to conversions. ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail.** conversion itself keeps utilitarian barn look, but large gardens, 9 parking spaces and domestic paraphernalia would urbanise the rural farmyard setting (DL 8-9) - **HO11: fail (substantial weight).** treated as "isolated" homes in countryside (outside any settlement, separated from Preston by fields) meeting none of the HO11 exceptions - despite sitting in a Court Farm cluster with 3 existing homes (DL 5, 10, 21) - **TR3: fail.** letter says "T3"; very poor and unsafe access - unlit lanes without footways, car reliance (DL 11, 19) - **S5: fail.** no S5(1) limb analysed; inspector read S5 as requiring settlement location, HO11 compliance or station proximity; S5(1)(c) reuse and S5(1)(d) PDL change of use to residential not considered despite lawful light-industrial use (DL 11, 20) - **E2: conflict (substantial weight).** loss of rural employment building with no 12-month marketing (LP E2); Framework E2 "market signals" (DL 12-14, 19) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** letter says small sites collectively significant, substantial weight, but 3 homes only a small contribution; "HO7" not named (DL 21) ## Key facts - Large modern ex-agricultural barn with certificate of lawfulness for light industrial use (22/00620); in use for joinery and timber storage by the appellant's sash window business - Part of Court Farm cluster (light industrial, 3 homes, other buildings) in the loose village of Elmstone; site backs onto open fields - Nearest defined settlement Preston, separated by fields - Access by unlit country lanes without footways - No marketing evidence; appellant's retirement plans given no significant weight - Nearby Class Q prior approvals not a fallback - no prior approval sought for this building - Supply position not stated - Revised plan accepted under Wheatcroft, removing refusal reason 3 (outlook) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006123 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/50e9fb8d-9db4-4057-9d7c-8d84f8b671f8 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006123.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Former Ashfield Works, Westgate, Otley - **Decision:** allowed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Sabu - **Authority:** Leeds (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6006128 - **Application reference:** 25/04310/FU - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** 29 retirement apartments with communal facilities, parking and landscaping, plus a detached open-market cottage - **Homes:** 30 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, HO7, HO1, L2(1)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Leeds UDP Review 2006 GP5, BD5, N19, Leeds Core Strategy 2014/2019 P10, P11, Site Allocations Plan, Otley NP 2018-2028 MU2, BE9, Ashfield Works Planning & Development Brief 2012 - **Main issues:** future occupiers' outdoor amenity space, character and appearance, Otley Conservation Area - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, specialist-housing-older, ho7-ho1-older-people, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, town-centre, conservation-area, heritage-enhancement, amenity-conflict-outweighed, s38-6-material-considerations, drafting-slip ## Summary 29 retirement flats and a detached cottage on a vacant part of an allocated former works site in Otley town centre and conservation area. Allowed after a hearing. The inspector found real conflict with local amenity-space standards (communal garden too small and enclosed), but the harm was limited by a nearby park. Under S4, with HO7 substantial weight for evidenced older-persons' need (via HO1), the benefits were not "substantially outweighed", and S4 was treated as a material consideration outweighing the development plan conflict. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "A new National Planning Practice Framework (Framework) was published in August 2026 … I have consulted the main parties and taken their comments into account" (DL ¶3; "Planning Practice Framework" is a slip). - **Outdoor amenity: CONFLICT (limited harm).** Garden space "significantly smaller than that required" by Neighbourhoods for Living (DL ¶12); the guidance is "a useful guide for assessing communal amenity space for retirement living accommodation" despite little justification (DL ¶13). Level differences and a 3-storey block mean it "would have an oppressive outlook" (DL ¶17). But "Manor Garth Park is a realistic option for future occupiers … Accordingly, the harm resulting from the conflict with the identified development plan policies would be limited" (DL ¶22). - **Character / CA — cottage: PASS.** Site "provides a negative contribution to the significance of the CA" (DL ¶27); cottage "would infill the townscape gap appropriately in terms of scale, form and building line" (DL ¶42); "The scheme as a whole would enhance the significance of the CA" (DL ¶46). A front door plus windows is an "active frontage"; residential use is not excluded (DL ¶31–32). - **Parking.** Town-centre location justifies the parking provision (DL ¶49). ## Planning balance S4 run explicitly (DL ¶51). For: L2 better use of vacant land, substantial weight (DL ¶52); HO7 with HO1 older people, SHMA need, "substantial weight to the benefit of providing 29 dwellings for older people" (DL ¶55); s106 contributions moderate (DL ¶56); no larger outdoor space likely on any viable alternative, "minor weight" (DL ¶57). Against: amenity conflict, limited harm (DL ¶58). "the benefits of the proposal would not be substantially outweighed … Framework Policy S4 directs that such proposals in settlements should be approved. This material consideration warrants a decision other than in accordance with the development plan" (DL ¶59). ## What made the difference The only surviving harm was a local amenity-standard shortfall, softened by the town-centre location and a park nearby. Nothing engaged a Framework "should be refused" policy. Set against that was substantial HO7 weight tied to a recent SHMA older-persons' need, so the S4 threshold ("substantially outweighed") was nowhere near met. Had the design harmed the conservation area, HE6 would have been in play and the result could have differed. ## Transferable points - S4 operates as a material consideration capable of outweighing a development plan conflict: "Framework Policy S4 directs that such proposals in settlements should be approved" (DL ¶59). - HO7 substantial weight extends to specialist older-persons' housing through HO1 where a SHMA evidences need (DL ¶¶54–55). - Local amenity-space shortfalls can be real conflicts but carry only limited harm where public open space is a short walk away (DL ¶22). - Filling a townscape gap that currently harms a conservation area can enhance its significance (DL ¶¶43, 46). - "Active frontage" does not require a commercial use; a front door and windows onto the street suffices (DL ¶¶31–32). - Drafting slips: "National Planning Practice Framework" (DL ¶3); DL ¶58 refers to harm to "neighbouring occupiers" where the finding was about future occupiers. ## Policy findings - **S4: pass.** town-centre site; benefits not substantially outweighed; S4 "directs that such proposals in settlements should be approved" — outweighs development plan conflict (DL 51, 59) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** HO7 read with HO1 (older people a listed group); 2025 SHMA shows need for older persons' accommodation 2022-2040 (DL 54-55) - **L2(1)(b): benefit.** not cited by number; substantial weight to making better use of vacant and underutilised land noted (DL 52) - **L3: neutral.** quoted; efficient use weighed with constraints (DL 53, 57) - **HE6: benefit.** not named; cottage fills a negative townscape gap; scheme as a whole enhances the significance of Otley CA (s72) (DL 43-46) - **DP3: pass.** not named; cottage acceptable in scale, form, materials; active frontage per PDB and National Design Guide (DL 30-42) - **UDP GP5, BD5, CS P10, NP: conflict (limited weight).** communal outdoor amenity space too small and enclosed/oppressive; harm limited by nearby Manor Garth Park and town-centre location (DL 16-22, 58) - **HO8: benefit (moderate weight).** not named; off-site affordable housing and green space contributions secured by s106 (DL 6, 56) ## Key facts - Vacant, soil-covered part of an allocated former engineering works site in Otley town centre - Communal garden below neighbouring ground levels and enclosed by 3-storey block; far below Neighbourhoods for Living / Green Space Guidance quantum - Average resident age around 80; passive use of outdoor space expected - Manor Garth Park a short walk away via riverside path - s106 affordable housing and green space contributions resolved two refusal reasons - Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework - Cross costs applications decided separately (not read) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006128 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/af3d23b2-8168-4d8f-9569-0b8ff7b95aac - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1487177f-d3ee-4816-97b4-7dd6be188956 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/97c8f05b-0968-4b50-87a7-4de9bea379d0 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006128.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 40 West Way, Poole - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Plenty - **Authority:** Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6006144 - **Application reference:** P/25/04279/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Sever land and erect a self-build dwelling in rear garden with new vehicular access off West Way - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.55 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, L2(1)(d)(i), L2(1)(d)(ii), N6(1)(a)(i) - **Development plan policies:** Poole Local Plan 2018 PP2, PP27, PP28, PP32, PP34, PP37, PP39 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, neighbour outlook, future occupiers' daylight, Dorset Heathlands SPA, Poole Harbour SPA - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, substantially-outweighed, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, self-build-unsecured, habitats-spa, habitats-refusal, bng-exemption-not-shown, residential-garden-plot, l2-1-d-curtilage, drafting-slip ## Summary A self-build house in the steep rear garden of a suburban corner plot in Poole. Dismissed despite a 2.55-year supply and a sustainable transport corridor. The cramped, triangular plot conflicted with the street scene (L2(1)(d)(i)), the new house would overbear the host dwelling (L2(1)(d)(ii)), and unsecured SPA mitigation triggered N6(1)(a)(i). Together these "substantially outweighed" the benefits under S4. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Letter is dated a week after publication and applies the 2026 Framework (policies S3, S4, HO7, L2, N6) without mentioning any consultation of the parties. - **Character — L2(1)(d)(i): FAIL.** "the new plot would be uncharacteristically small" (DL ¶6). "The LP does not prescribe minimum plot sizes and seeks high densities … However, such objectives would not over-ride the requirement for development to be sympathetic to local character" (DL ¶7). "the proposal would not be consistent with the overall streetscene, in conflict with policy L2(1)(d)(i)" (DL ¶27). Design itself acceptable (DL ¶8–10). - **Neighbour outlook — L2(1)(d)(ii): FAIL.** "The Council has not drawn my attention to any standards that would be breached … but the separation distance … would be insufficient to prevent the proposal being substantially overbearing" (DL ¶12). - **Future occupiers: PASS.** North-facing but adequate daylight/outlook; complies with PP37 (DL ¶14–17). - **Habitats — N6(1)(a)(i): FAIL.** "no such legal mechanism is before me … there is no certainty that the payments could be secured" (DL ¶19); nutrient neutrality also unresolved (DL ¶21). - **Self-build / BNG.** "no legal mechanism is in place to secure the scheme as such. Accordingly, the BNG requirement would need to be met … the benefits of the proposal in providing a self-build dwelling are of limited weight only" (DL ¶22). ## Planning balance Development plan conflict given "significant weight" (DL ¶23). Then S3/S4: HO7 substantial weight "especially pertinent" at 2.55 years (DL ¶24); sustainable location weighs in favour (DL ¶26); against, conflicts with L2(1)(d)(i), L2(1)(d)(ii) and N6(1)(a)(i) (DL ¶27). "the benefits of the proposed development, would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects … As such the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply" (DL ¶28). ## What made the difference The Framework's own garden-infill limb, L2(1)(d), was used as the yardstick against which harm was measured: failing both its street-scene and neighbour-amenity criteria, plus an N6 habitats "should be refused" policy (no s106), gave a clear S4 fail despite a severe supply shortfall. A signed SPA/nutrient s106, a larger or more regular plot, and a greater separation from the host house were each necessary to succeed. ## Transferable points - L2(1)(d) criteria (consistent with street scene; acceptable living standards for neighbours) are treated as the national decision-making tests for garden-plot infill under S4 (DL ¶27). - Local-plan density aims "would not over-ride the requirement for development to be sympathetic to local character" (DL ¶7). - Overbearing impact can be found without a breached numerical standard (DL ¶12). - A missing habitats-mitigation obligation engages N6(1)(a)(i) and weighs heavily in the S4 balance, even with a 2.55-year supply (DL ¶¶19, 27–28). - Self-build status not secured by a legal mechanism reduces the self-build benefit to limited weight and loses the BNG exemption (DL ¶22). - Drafting slip: Framework policies written as "H07", "S03", "S04" (DL ¶¶24–25). ## Policy findings - **L2(1)(d)(i): fail.** triangular, uncharacteristically small plot; not consistent with the overall street scene (DL 6-7, 27) - **L2(1)(d)(ii): fail.** side elevation ~12 m from No 40's rear windows, "substantially overbearing" — unacceptable living standards for neighbours (DL 12-13, 27) - **N6(1)(a)(i): fail.** no s106 securing Dorset Heathlands / Poole Harbour SPA mitigation; no nutrient neutrality statement (DL 19-21, 27) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed; S3 presumption "would not apply" (DL 25, 28) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** cited as "H07"; "especially pertinent" with 2.55-yr supply (DL 24) - **TR3: benefit.** sustainable transport corridor, walking distance of buses to Poole/Bournemouth — weighs in favour (DL 26) - **DP3: pass.** not named; pitched-roof design, scale and materials acceptable (brick colour conditionable) (DL 8-9) - **Poole LP PP27, PP28, PP32, PP39: conflict (significant weight).** conflict given significant weight; plan as a whole conflict (DL 23) ## Key facts - Corner plot near cul-de-sac turning head; spacious suburban estate with generous detached plots - New dwelling in tapering rear part of steeply rising garden; removal of dense landscaped side boundary - ~9 m to flat-roof garage and ~12 m to two-storey side elevation from No 40's rear habitable windows - Supply 2.55 years (at 9 March 2026) - Self-build not secured by legal agreement, so self-build benefit limited and BNG exemption not shown - Previous 2025 appeal on the site dismissed (different design) - No reference to consulting parties on the 2026 Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006144 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/94bd195b-9fc6-488a-8c7e-a79cf1483491 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006144.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Free Range Egg Unit north of Betton, Market Drayton - **Decision:** allowed, 19 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Wilson - **Authority:** Shropshire (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6006151 - **Application reference:** 25/04158/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Siting of an agricultural worker's mobile home for 3 years (retrospective) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO11(1)(a) - **Development plan policies:** Shropshire Core Strategy 2011 CS5, CS6, SAMDev Plan 2015 MD7a, Type and Affordability of Housing SPD 2012 - **Main issues:** essential functional need for rural worker, highway safety - **Tags:** rural-worker-dwelling, retrospective, agricultural-building, transitional-no-consultation, limited-nppf-engagement, isolated-home, temporary-permission ## Summary Temporary (3-year) mobile home for a worker at a new 32,000-hen free-range egg unit, already sited. Allowed. The inspector found an essential and functional need for someone to live on site given 24-hour supervision and short response times, and that off-site accommodation at a moderate distance would not do. The decision rests entirely on local plan policy and the SPD; no Framework policy is named. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "as any policies in the Framework that are material to this decision have not fundamentally changed, I am satisfied that this has not prejudiced any party and I have had regard to the latest version" (DL ¶4). Decided two days after publication, without consultation. - **Essential functional need — local CS5 / MD7a (equivalent to HO11(1)(a)): PASS.** "there are short windows of time to deal with problems before there is panic and distress with the birds and the potential for mortality. As such, there is an essential and functional need for someone to be present on site for the majority of the time" (DL ¶8). "accommodation a moderate distance away from the appeal site would unlikely be suitable for the 24-hour presence that is required" (DL ¶10). - **Alternatives.** Council said alternatives weren't properly explored (MD7a); rejected because the family home is listed and at moderate distance and rentals are unspecified and too far away (DL ¶9, ¶14). - **Highway safety: PASS** via tracking plan and a condition (DL ¶12–13). ## Planning balance No balance run; full compliance with the development plan (DL ¶11, ¶13, ¶16). Temporary and occupancy conditions justified because the home is "in a location where residential development would not normally be permitted" (DL ¶15). ## What made the difference A rural enterprise appraisal quantifying the stock size, automation risk and response times, together with a site visit confirming the unit was now operating. The Council's alternative-accommodation objection failed because the alternatives were at "moderate distance" and response had to be immediate. Had the unit not been operating, or had the appraisal not shown 24-hour needs, the case would have been weaker. ## Transferable points - For intensive livestock, short response windows to bird panic and mortality can establish an essential need for an on-site presence (DL ¶¶8, 10); this aligns with HO11(1)(a). - Accommodation at "moderate distance", including a family home, is not a suitable alternative where problems must be "spotted or heard within a short amount of time" (DL ¶¶10, 14). - Some inspectors apply the 2026 Framework to rural-worker cases without citing any Framework policy, treating the material policies as "not fundamentally changed" (DL ¶4). ## Policy findings - **HO11(1)(a): pass.** not cited; the letter names no Framework policy. Essential and functional need for 24-hour on-site presence at a 32,000-hen automated unit (DL 8-11) - **Shropshire CS5, SAMDev MD7a, SPD: accord.** functional need shown; alternatives (family listed home, rentals) at moderate distance unsuitable for short response times (DL 9-11, 14) - **Shropshire CS6: accord.** HGVs can still turn and park per tracking plan; condition keeps area clear (DL 12-13) ## Key facts - 32,000 hens in two areas, automated systems, two full-time workers - Rural enterprise dwelling appraisal showing 24-hour supervision needed; short windows before panic and mortality - Nearby accommodation and the listed family home at "moderate distance" judged unsuitable - Mobile home already on site; temporary 3-year permission with agricultural occupancy condition - 2026 Framework applied without consultation, material policies said to have "not fundamentally changed" ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006151 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7ca865d8-a8f3-4c94-a330-7de8a5660fe1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006151.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 26 Groveway, Stockwell - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Ann Veevers - **Authority:** Lambeth (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6006162 - **Application reference:** 25/02449/LB - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Listed building consent for five-storey front extension to post-war semi, "reinstating" the lost Victorian half of a pair with Grade II listed No 24 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE4(2), HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Lambeth Local Plan 2021 Q20, Q22 - **Main issues:** listed building setting, conservation area - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, pastiche, energy-efficiency-benefit, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, clear-and-convincing ## Summary A post-war semi in Stockwell Park Conservation Area was to be extended into a five-storey Victorian-style villa to "reinstate" the bombed half of the pair with Grade II listed No 24. The Inspector found the hybrid of pastiche front and retained 1950s rear discordant. It harmed No 24's setting and the conservation area "towards the lower end of harm". The public benefits included airspace use, a heat pump and party-wall insulation for the listed building, but they carried only moderate weight and did not outweigh the harm. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Baseline: HE9(2).** The Inspector cited HE9.2, "not all elements of a conservation area will necessarily contribute". The post-war pair was found neutral, not negative, because it illustrates "how parts of London were affected by bombing during World War II and the post-war reconstruction effort" (DL ¶¶18–19). - **Harm.** "the retention of the existing property would jar with the elegant and generally uncluttered rear elevation of No 24 … the cumulative effect of the proposal would be discordant and unsympathetic" (DL ¶24). "The aim to replicate the long gone former 19th century villa would not compensate the adverse impact" (DL ¶26). - **Grading without "less than substantial".** "Mindful of advice in Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) which directs that the extent of harm within each category of harm should be clearly articulated … I deduce the harmful effects in this case would be towards the lower end of harm. Nevertheless, any harm is a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶32). - **HE4(2) and HE6(1) quoted in full**, including "irrespective of whether any potential effect amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss" (DL ¶31). - **Benefits: HE6(4).** The Inspector acknowledged the Framework objectives "to re-use buildings, to create additional floorspace using airspace, to optimise flexible, energy efficient homes … making effective use of land … These factors would represent benefits to the public at large. However, the proposal would remain as a single dwelling … tempered by the absence of detailed information in relation to the energy efficiency measures … not convinced that the only way of securing the public benefits … would be via the appeal proposal … moderate weight" (DL ¶34). Better insulation to the listed party wall was a moderate heritage benefit. Structural and noise claims were unevidenced and neutral (DL ¶35). - **Clear and convincing.** "clear and convincing justification has not been provided" (DL ¶36). ## Planning balance HE6(3)/(4). Considerable importance and weight to lower-end harm, not outweighed by moderate public benefits (DL ¶37). ## What made the difference The scheme tried to mimic a Victorian villa at the front while keeping the 1950s house behind. The result was incoherent, eroded the spaciousness around No 24, and left No 28 stranded and recessed. ## Transferable points - Harm is being graded on a free scale ("lower end of harm") with the PPG as the anchor, in place of "less than substantial" (DL ¶32). - L2-type benefits (airspace, effective use of land) and HE6(4) energy-efficiency benefits are recognised, but get only moderate weight for a single dwelling without detailed evidence (DL ¶34). - The benefits must be shown to need this particular scheme: "not convinced that the only way of securing the public benefits" (DL ¶34). - A post-war infill can make a neutral, not negative, contribution to a conservation area as evidence of wartime history (DL ¶19). ## Policy findings - **HE9(2): neutral.** post-war pair No 26/28 has a neutral effect (not negative) on CA; shows wartime bomb damage and reconstruction (DL 18-19) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** "towards the lower end of harm" to setting of No 24 and to Stockwell Park CA; pastiche front plus retained 1950s rear discordant; unbalances pair with No 28 (DL 22-30, 32) - **HE4(2): fail.** no "clear and convincing justification"; not shown necessary to secure No 24's use or conservation (DL 31, 36) - **HE6(4): fail (moderate weight).** construction economy, better housing stock, reuse, airspace/effective use of land, heat pump and thermal performance = moderate (single dwelling, energy details thin, not the only way); party-wall insulation to No 24 moderate heritage benefit (DL 33-35) ## Key facts - Floor area more than doubled; five storeys including lower ground and attic - Linked planning application refused and not appealed - Comparable Groveway schemes (Nos 34, 41) distinguished ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/0113bc43-1ba7-48a9-a0ae-f4b8a615188a - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006162 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006162.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Rose-in-the-vale, Kestle Mill, Newquay (stable to annexe) - **Decision:** allowed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Harrington - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6006181 - **Application reference:** PA25/04038 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion and enlargement of a redundant stable block into a 3-bedroom annexe to the existing house - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** Cornwall LP Policy 7, DM10 - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan 2010-2030 Policies 1, 2, 3, 7, 12, 23, Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1 - **Main issues:** location, character - **Tags:** tier-2, annexe, open-countryside, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A 3-bedroom annexe in a converted stable 26 m from a countryside house was allowed. An occupancy condition kept it part of the main dwelling rather than a new house, and the Council's annexe guidance note was not development plan policy (DL 12, 18, 20). ## What made the difference The functional family link, which a condition could secure, meant no new dwelling in the countryside. The utilitarian stable made no strong contribution to rural character (DL 15, 21). ## Policy findings - **Cornwall LP Policy 7: accord.** occupancy condition keeps the annexe part of the main dwelling, so it is not a new dwelling in the countryside (DL 11-20) - **DM10: pass.** letter cites 'Policy DM62(B)': no clear justification to remove PD rights (DL 32) ## Key facts - Multi-generational care need; single-level accommodation said to be a medical necessity (DL 14, 19) - Penhale Dunes SAC objection withdrawn by the Council (DL 4-5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006181 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/81348b30-9c18-4a60-9eb7-ef20817beb7f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006181.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land near Fanshawes, Ware Park, Ware - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Ellis - **Authority:** East Hertfordshire (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6006224 - **Application reference:** 3/25/1052/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 1 to 4 dwellings on undeveloped land in the Green Belt between Hertford and Ware - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, rural-lane, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.4 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** East Herts District Plan 2018 GBR1, DPS2, TRA1, HA1, HA7 - **Main issues:** grey belt, sustainable location, openness, setting of listed buildings, VSC balance - **Tags:** PIP, grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, connectivity-tool, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, heritage-no-harm, plan-policy-consistent-full-weight, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip ## Summary Permission in principle for up to four homes on open land in the Green Belt between Hertford and Ware. Grey belt and unmet need (3.4 to 3.7 years' supply) were accepted, but limb (iii) failed. The site is 0.72 km and 1.15 km from the edges of the two towns, with services further on, reached along a mostly single-track, unlit lane with no pavement. A Connectivity Tool score of 49, in the 90th percentile for its rural class, did not rescue it. As inappropriate development causing openness harm, substantial weight to housing did not clearly outweigh. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The 2026 Framework "is effect from the day of publication. The appellant and the Council have had the opportunity to comment on the new Framework" (DL ¶2). - **Grey belt, (g)(i) and (g)(ii): PASS** (DL ¶9). - **Connectivity Tool.** "The score is a relative measure which shows how places compare to other places rather than whether its connectivity is “good” or “bad” in isolation" (DL ¶11). "whether or not a development proposal would be in a sustainable location is a matter of planning judgement and the Connectivity Tool only forms part of this assessment" (DL ¶11). - **Route.** "these distances are to the edge of these settlements and the distance to key services, facilities and public transport would be significantly further" (DL ¶13). The route "would mostly consist of a single-track road with no street lighting or pavement which would make it unattractive as a walking, wheeling or cycling route, particularly after dark" (DL ¶13). - **Significant movement in context.** "Given the modest number of dwellings in the vicinity of the appeal site, the proposal for up to four new dwellings could generate a significant increase in vehicle movements compared to the existing context" (DL ¶14). - **TR3 / GB7(1)(g)(iii): FAIL.** "notwithstanding the connectivity score, I am not persuaded that the site is well connected to the services, facilities and public transport that are provided within the nearby settlements ... even if electric charging points and cycle storage were provided" (DL ¶17). "As the proposal would not be in a sustainable location, the proposal would fail to accord paragraph 1.g. of Policy GB7 of the Framework" (DL ¶18). - **Plan weight: Annex A ¶2 applied.** "paragraph 2 of Annex A of the Framework states that development plan policies should not be given reduced weight simply because they were adopted prior to the publication of the Framework. I therefore attach great weight to the conflict with EHDP policies in these matters" (DL ¶19). - **Openness: HARM** (DL ¶21). - **Heritage: NO HARM FOUND at PIP stage.** "given the lack of these details at this stage, including the exact number of dwellings to be built, I am unable to conclude that the proposal would harm the setting of the listed buildings" (DL ¶26). - **S5(5).** S5 "does not apply to development proposals in the Green Belt" (DL ¶29). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to inappropriateness and openness harm, plus great weight to the plan conflict. Housing, economic and social benefits and BNG together attract substantial weight, but "would not attract sufficient weight to clearly outweigh the totality of the harm" (DL ¶33). ## What made the difference The route. The site is close to two towns on a straight-line basis, and the Connectivity Tool ranks it well for a rural hamlet, but the walk and cycle ride are along a single-track unlit lane with no pavement, and the distances are to the town edges, not to services. The inspector treated the tool's relative score as one input and the route quality as decisive. A continuous lit footway or a designated cycle route would have been needed to pass limb (iii). ## Transferable points - A Connectivity Tool score that is high *within its rural class* does not show a sustainable location. The score is relative, and TR3 is a planning judgement on the actual route (DL ¶11, ¶17). - Distances measured to a settlement edge understate the trip. What matters is the distance to services, facilities and public transport (DL ¶13). - Four dwellings can be "significant" movement under TR3(1)(a) where there are few homes nearby (DL ¶14). - EV charging points and cycle storage do not make an inaccessible site sustainable (DL ¶17). - Annex A ¶2: older plan policies that are consistent with the Framework keep full weight; here great weight to the location and Green Belt conflict (DL ¶19). - At PIP stage, setting harm to listed buildings may be impossible to establish without siting details, so it is left to technical details consent (DL ¶26). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** accepted by the Council; no contribution to purposes (a), (b) or (d) (DL 9) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt (DL 9) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** no five-year supply, so evidenced unmet need (DL 9) - **TR3: fail.** 0.72 km to the edge of Hertford and 1.15 km to Ware, services further; mostly single-track road with no lighting or pavement; Connectivity Tool 49 (90th percentile for "Rural hamlets and isolated dwellings") outweighed by route quality; EV charging and cycle storage do not cure (DL 10-17) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): fail.** not a sustainable location, so the (g) exception fails and the scheme is inappropriate (DL 18) - **Transitional(2): accord (great weight).** EHDP policies "largely consistent with the Framework"; Annex A paragraph 2 quoted; great weight to conflict with DPS2, TRA1 and GBR1 (DL 19) - **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** inappropriate development plus spatial and visual loss of openness; VSC not shown (DL 21, 33) - **HE6: neutral.** three Grade II buildings at Ware Park, locally listed deer park and Grade II Holy Trinity spire; harm cannot be concluded at PIP stage without siting details (DL 26-27) - **S5(5): not-engaged.** S5 does not apply in the Green Belt; decided under GB6/GB7 (DL 29) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** up to four homes, "modest but meaningful" contribution; with economic, social and BNG benefits, substantial weight collectively (DL 30, 32) ## Key facts - Appellant's supply figure 3.4 to 3.7 years, not disputed by the Council (DL 30) - Connectivity Tool score 49; rural-urban class "Rural hamlets and isolated dwellings", so 90th percentile within class (DL 11) - Route to Hertford and Ware mostly single-track, unlit, no pavement; no designated cycle route nearby (DL 13, 15) - Over Alderley (APP/R0660/W/24/3354674) and Hilltop Country House, Butley Town (6002211) comparators distinguished on route quality (DL 15-16) - Letter refers to "the proposed extensions" in the VSC conclusion (DL 33), a slip for dwellings ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006224 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/11317dab-de40-4a8d-b09f-cc4d33a27943 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006224.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Old Farmhouse (The Old House), Sheldon, Devon (roof solar panels, LBC) - **Decision:** allowed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Kent - **Authority:** East Devon (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6006240 - **Application reference:** 25/2102/LBC - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Listed building consent for 13 solar panels on a 1980s south-east roof slope of a Grade II 16th-century farmhouse - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), CC2(2), HE4(2) - **Development plan policies:** East Devon Local Plan 2016 EN8, EN9, draft East Devon Local Plan 2020-2042 HE01, HE02 - **Main issues:** special interest of listed building, public benefits - **Tags:** listed-building-consent, heritage-harm-outweighed, energy-efficiency, cc2-substantial-weight, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, renewable-energy ## Summary Listed building consent was refused for 13 solar panels on the rear roof of a Grade II 16th-century Devon farmhouse. The appeal was allowed. The inspector found limited harm and gave substantial weight to energy efficiency under the new CC2(2). Together with HE6's recognition that enabling energy efficiency is an important public benefit, that gave the "clear and convincing justification" for the harm. It is the clearest early example of CC2(2) tipping an HE6(4) heritage balance. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "On 17 August 2026 a new National Planning Policy Framework … was published. The Council and the appellants have had the opportunity to make comments" (DL ¶4). - **Heritage: LIMITED HARM.** The panels "would contribute to the gradual erosion of the historic character of the building as a result of the cumulative effect of the alterations" (DL ¶11). However, "The relatively recent construction of the roof and the absence of harm to the historic fabric … coupled with the fact that the roof is not in a prominent location, means that the proposal would result in limited harm" (DL ¶15). HEAN 18 treats a roof slope "of less prominence" as generally acceptable (DL ¶14). - **Energy efficiency: SUBSTANTIAL WEIGHT (CC2(2)).** "enabling energy efficiency and transferring unused electricity to the National Grid would also be a substantial public benefit. This is also recognised by NDMP HE6 which states that enabling energy efficiency can be an important public benefit. The benefit of improving the energy efficiency of the existing building attracts substantial weight in favour of the proposal in accordance with NDMP CC2 paragraph 2" (DL ¶17). - **Balance: PASS.** "The limited harm … is nevertheless a matter of considerable importance and weight and I have given substantial weight to the asset's conservation. However … the public benefits resulting from the proposal provide clear and convincing justification for the limited harm" (DL ¶18). ## Planning balance This was an HE6(4) harm-versus-public-benefit balance under s16(2) of the Listed Buildings Act. On one side: limited harm, with substantial weight to conservation (HE6(1)) and considerable importance and weight to the harm. On the other: substantial weight to energy efficiency (CC2(2)), plus grid export and climate objectives. The benefits outweighed the harm (DL ¶22). ## What made the difference The roof was a 1980s replacement that was not prominent, and the building's significance lay inside. That kept the harm limited. CC2(2) then supplied a substantial-weight public benefit that a householder solar scheme would not reliably have had under the 2024 Framework. Contrast PINS-6011314 and PINS-6007221: there, CC2(2) was held not engaged because an extension does not improve the energy efficiency of the *existing* building. ## Transferable points - CC2(2) gives substantial weight to improving the energy efficiency of an existing listed building, and this counts as a public benefit in the HE6(4) balance (DL ¶17). - Roof-mounted solar on a non-prominent, non-original roof slope causes only limited harm, even where visible from the garden (DL ¶13-15, citing HEAN 18). - Substantial weight to conservation (HE6(1)) does not prevent limited harm being outweighed where CC2(2) benefits are engaged (DL ¶18). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (considerable weight).** limited harm - utilitarian panels add to cumulative erosion of historic character, but roof is a late-1980s replacement, no historic fabric touched, and slope not prominent (DL 11-15, 18) - **CC2(2): benefit (substantial weight).** improving energy efficiency of the existing building attracts substantial weight; export to the grid is a public benefit (DL 16-17) - **HE6(4): pass.** public benefits outweigh limited harm; HE6 itself recognises enabling energy efficiency as an important public benefit (DL 17-18, 22) - **HE4(2): pass.** public benefits give "clear and convincing justification" (DL 18) - **HE5(1): pass.** appellant's heritage statement adequate; local policy EN8 met (DL 19) ## Key facts - Grade II farmhouse, early to mid-16th century; significance mainly in its internal three-room and through-passage plan; exterior much altered (DL 7-9) - Roof covering thought to date from the late 1980s (artificial slates replacing thatch); 13 panels 30 mm deep in two blocks, 8 on the lower subordinate garage roof (DL 8, 10) - Slope faces a landscaped garden and is not prominent from the road; Historic England Advice Note 18 (2026) relied on (DL 13-14) - Ground-mounted alternative discounted because of tree shading and setting effects (DL 20) - Parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006240 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/40a9823f-ec49-4bcf-954a-393933e466cd --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006240.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 159 Rush Green Road, Romford - **Decision:** allowed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Dickson - **Authority:** Havering (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6006244 - **Application reference:** P1295.25 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of semi-detached house to children's home for up to two children (C2) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO9 - **Development plan policies:** Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 Policies 3, 6, 7, 24, 34, London Plan 2021 H12, T6 - **Main issues:** need/location, living conditions, parking - **Tags:** tier-2, childrens-home, transitional-no-consultation, need-evidence ## Summary A two-child children's home in a Romford semi was allowed. The Council's Sufficiency Needs Assessment showed ongoing need, and it carried more weight than the commissioner's unsubstantiated view that the borough already had enough homes. Amenity and parking effects matched a family house. The Framework changes were "not material" (DL ¶2). ## What made the difference Documentary need evidence beat an unsupported officer comment (DL ¶¶6–8). The small scale (two children) kept activity comparable to a family home (DL ¶12). ## Policy findings - **HO9: pass.** Framework not cited on need; Havering Sufficiency Needs Assessment 2025-28 preferred over unevidenced commissioner comment that supply is sufficient (DL 5-9) - **P3: pass.** comings and goings similar to a family home; noise management plan condition (DL 10-14) - **TR4: pass.** two drive spaces, PTAL 3, shift coordination (DL 15-19) ## Key facts - Two secondary-age children, two staff on shifts - Council's commissioner said borough already over-provided, but gave no evidence ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3cb82ab6-2422-4123-add9-7b3bdba20d1e - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006244 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006244.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 2 Ashfield Cottages, Hawkhurst (oak-framed garden room, listed building) - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Terceiro - **Authority:** Tunbridge Wells (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006259 - **Application reference:** 26/00015/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Oak-framed single-storey side garden room to one of a Grade II listed pair of cottages (Appeal A; linked LBC Appeal B 6006260) - **Site context:** listed-building-setting, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE4(2), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Tunbridge Wells Local Plan 2025 EN4, H11 - **Main issues:** listed building - **Tags:** tier-2, listed-building, heritage-harm-decisive, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, national-landscape ## Summary An oak-framed garden room on the side of a Grade II cottage pair was refused. Its scale would disrupt the balance of the pair and its glazing would contrast starkly with the host (DL 10-11). HE6 was applied and the benefits did not outweigh the harm (DL 16). ## What made the difference Harm to the pair's symmetry and legibility counted even though no historic fabric would be lost (DL 12). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): fail.** width and depth unbalance the pair; heavily glazed, solid flat-roofed link; modest benefits insufficient (DL 10-16) - **N4: neutral.** localised harm; High Weald NL natural beauty conserved (DL 18) ## Key facts - Parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 5) - No loss of historic fabric, but significance includes form, proportions and legibility (DL 12) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006259 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c17cf3c3-cb80-439a-9642-f66d35256a13 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006259.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 2 Ashfield Cottages, Hawkhurst (oak-framed garden room, listed building consent) - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Terceiro - **Authority:** Tunbridge Wells (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006260 - **Application reference:** 26/00016/LBC - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Listed building consent for an oak-framed single-storey side garden room to one of a Grade II listed pair of cottages (Appeal B; linked planning Appeal A 6006259) - **Site context:** listed-building-setting, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE4(2), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Tunbridge Wells Local Plan 2025 EN4, H11 - **Main issues:** special interest of listed building - **Tags:** tier-2, listed-building-consent, listed-building, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, national-landscape ## Summary The listed building consent half of the Hawkhurst garden-room appeals (planning Appeal A is PINS-6006259). The oak-framed extension's width and depth would unbalance a Grade II cottage pair, and its glazing and solid link would contrast starkly with the host. HE6 applied; the benefits were private or achievable less harmfully. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were invited to provide comments on the revised Framework" (DL ¶5). - **Harm.** "its scale would fail to be subservient and would overwhelm the proportions and architectural detailing of the host building" (DL ¶10). No fabric loss, but "significance derives from more than surviving fabric alone and includes the building's form, proportions, appearance and legibility" (DL ¶12). - **Weight.** "Any harm to a designated heritage asset is a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶14). - **HE6(4): FAIL.** Long-term use not shown to depend on this scheme: "there is nothing before me to suggest that this could not be achieved in another, less harmful manner" (DL ¶16). ## Planning balance HE6(4) harm against public benefits, with HE4(2) set out. The letter ends "insufficient to outweigh the substantial weight attached to the heritage harm identified" (DL ¶16), which attaches the HE6(1) conservation weight to the harm; incidental. ## What made the difference The pair's symmetry and legibility are part of the listed building's significance, so a large side extension harmed it even with no fabric lost. ## Transferable points - Significance includes form, proportions and legibility, not only fabric (DL ¶12). - A long-term-use benefit fails where it could be achieved less harmfully (DL ¶16). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation; harm to the pair's balance, proportions and legibility, degree not graded (DL 10-14) - **HE4(2): fail.** requirement for clear and convincing justification set out (DL 13); benefits achievable in a less harmful way (DL 16) - **HE6(4): fail.** internal space, long-term use (not shown to need this scheme) and construction benefits insufficient (DL 14, 16) ## Key facts - Joint letter with planning Appeal A 6006259; both dismissed (DL 1-3) - Parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 5) - Extension attached to a modern addition; no loss of historic fabric, but "significance derives from more than surviving fabric alone" (DL 12) - High Weald National Landscape natural beauty conserved; harm localised (DL 18) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006260 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fd7ea972-63d6-4c09-877c-878f50bcf535 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006260.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Stables, Adsdean Park Road, Funtington (listed building consent) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Phillips - **Authority:** South Downs National Park Authority (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006266 - **Application reference:** SDNP/25/03763/LIS - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Listed building consent to convert part of a Grade II stable block and reconfigure the adjoining apartment into one 3-bed dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** national-park, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE4(2) - **Development plan policies:** South Downs Local Plan 2019 SD1, SD5, SD12, SD13, SD25 - **Main issues:** special interest of Grade II listed stables, setting of Grade II Adsdean House - **Tags:** listed-building-consent, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, heritage-harm-decisive, national-park, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary Listed building consent to extend a flat into the rest of a Grade II stable block was refused on appeal. The internal works were harmless, but new windows and a door on two levels of the plain rear elevation would domesticate it, lose original stone, and weaken the stables' contribution to the setting of Adsdean House. The low harm was not outweighed by public benefits, and the appellant had not shown that this scheme was the only way to secure reuse or energy efficiency. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The Council and the appellant have had opportunity to comment on this" (DL ¶5). - **Significance of the rear.** "Although the rear is not included in the list description therefore, this does not indicate a lack of special interest or significance" (DL ¶9). - **Harm to the stables and the house's setting.** "This amount of fenestration would result in the rear elevation having the appearance of a dwelling" (DL ¶18). "I find the harm to both heritage assets to be, individually and cumulatively, at a low level of harm but nevertheless is of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶21). - **HE6(4) public benefits: FAIL.** "it is not demonstrated that this conversion scheme is the only way to secure the long-term reuse of the vacant/underused building nor enable energy efficiency and low carbon heating measures to be employed" (DL ¶23). "in giving considerable importance and weight to the harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset, I find that this would not be outweighed by the public benefits that the proposal would generate" (DL ¶24). - **HE4(2).** "the harm identified to the significance of the designated heritage assets has not been supported by clear and convincing justification" (DL ¶25). - **National Park purpose.** The works "would not conserve nor enhance the cultural heritage of the National Park" (DL ¶28). ## Planning balance HE6(4) (listed building consent, s16(2)). HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation stated correctly (DL ¶24). Harm graded "low" but given considerable importance and weight, against economic and housing-stock benefits. No S4/S5 balance (consent appeal). ## What made the difference The plain rear elevation's functional simplicity was part of the significance, and the scheme opened it up on two levels. The appellant did not show the extra openings were needed for light, ventilation or access. A layout using the existing openings and side path could have avoided the harm. ## Transferable points - Unlisted-in-the-description elevations can still carry significance where their plainness reflects the original function (DL ¶9). - HE6(4)'s named public benefits (reuse of a vacant building, energy efficiency) are filtered by whether the harmful scheme is needed to deliver them (DL ¶23). - Harm at "a low level" still "is of considerable importance and weight" under HE6(3) (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** HE6(1) stated correctly - "substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation"; low harm to the Grade II stables (fabric loss, domesticated rear elevation) and to the setting of Grade II Adsdean House (DL 17-21, 24) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** low harm, individually and cumulatively, "of considerable importance and weight" (DL 21) - **HE6(4): fail.** economic and housing-stock benefits; not shown that rear windows are needed or that this is the only way to secure reuse of the vacant building or energy-efficiency measures (DL 22-24) - **HE4(2): fail.** no clear and convincing justification (DL 25) - **N4: fail.** does not conserve or enhance the cultural heritage of the National Park; LURA 2023 duty (DL 27-28) - **N6: not-engaged.** Singleton and Cocking Tunnels SAC zone of influence; bat mitigation not pursued as appeal fails (DL 29-30) ## Key facts - Grade II former stables of c.1850 (list entry 1026171), in the setting of Grade II Adsdean House (1234531) - Three windows and a doorway into the plain rear elevation, on two levels, cut into original stone (DL 17-18) - Internal works (stud walls, staircase, freestanding mezzanine) and a window in a rendered rear projection found harmless (DL 15-16) - Existing 1-bed unit to become a 3-bed dwelling (DL 14) - Path to the rear around the side "not excessively inconvenient" (DL 23) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006266 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006266.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land to rear of White House Farm (5 Bescar Lane), Bescar, Scarisbrick - **Decision:** dismissed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Unwin - **Authority:** West Lancashire (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6006286 - **Application reference:** 2025/0598/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 4-9 dwellings on a strip of land behind roadside development - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, agricultural-land-BMV - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.86 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(5), F5, GB7(1)(g) - **Development plan policies:** West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 GN1, GN3, EN2 - **Main issues:** flood risk, grey belt, BMV/peaty soils, S5(5) balance - **Tags:** PIP, grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-pass, flood-sequential-test, substantially-outweighed, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, s5-5-green-belt-route, costs-refused ## Summary PIP for 4-9 dwellings on a strip of land behind roadside development at Bescar. The site was agreed grey belt, with unmet need (1.86-year supply) and a sustainable location, so it was not inappropriate under GB7(1)(g). The appeal was dismissed on surface water flood risk: there was no FRA and no sequential test, and that "substantially outweighed" the moderate housing benefit in the S5(5) balance. The appellant's costs claim (costs PDF) was refused. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The 2026 Framework was applied after comments (DL ¶3). - **Grey belt and GB7(1)(g): PASS on all limbs.** "There is no dispute … that the appeal site does not strongly contribute to these aforementioned purposes" (DL ¶19). Footnote 41: "the Council … are unable to demonstrate a deliverable supply … at just 1.86 years … a demonstrable unmet need" (DL ¶20). "it would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt" (DL ¶22). - **Flood risk (F5): FAIL.** "Given part of the appeal site is located within an area at risk of flooding and no site-specific flood risk assessment is before me, the sequential test should be applied … the sequential test has not been carried out" (DL ¶10). "the issue of flood risk is fundamental to establishing whether or not the site is a suitable location" even at the PIP stage (DL ¶13). - **BMV / peaty soils: no conflict.** The strip is narrow, formerly hard-surfaced and hard to farm (DL ¶25-26). ## Planning balance The S5(5) route: "Where development would not be inappropriate in the Green Belt, proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶28). Housing had moderate weight "given the relatively small number of dwellings", and flood risk considerable weight, which "would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶28-29). ## What made the difference This was not a Green Belt loss. Every GB7(1)(g) limb was conceded or found. The failure was the absence of a sequential test or site-specific FRA for a site with surface water risk. With an FRA showing a safe layout, the exception in F4/F5 for surface-water-only sites would have been available (DL ¶9). The scheme would then very probably have been allowed. ## Transferable points - Once GB7 is satisfied, S5(5) gives a presumption to approve unless benefits are "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶27-28). - Flood risk is a principle-of-location matter at the PIP stage, and a sequential test is needed where no site-specific FRA shows safety (DL ¶10-13; costs DL ¶5). - 4-9 dwellings against a 1.86-year supply attracted only moderate weight (DL ¶28). - A formerly hard-surfaced narrow strip of nominal Grade 1 / peaty land did not engage BMV/soils harm (DL ¶25). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** agreed not strongly contributing to (a), (b), (d) (DL 19) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** fn41 — 1.86-year supply is a demonstrable unmet need (DL 20) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** council agreed sustainable location (DL 21) - **GB7(1)(g): pass.** not inappropriate; complies with LP GN1 (DL 22) - **F5: fail (considerable weight).** parts of site at 1-in-30/100/1000 surface water risk, whole site under climate change per council; no FRA and no sequential test; flood risk is a PIP-stage principle matter (DL 7-14, 29) - **S5(5): fail.** not-inappropriate route leads to "substantially outweighed" balance; flood risk substantially outweighs moderate housing benefit (DL 27-29) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** 4-9 homes against 1.86-year supply — "relatively small number" (DL 28) - **Local Plan EN2: accord.** narrow, formerly hard-surfaced strip — no prejudice to Grade 1 / peaty soil supply (DL 23-26) ## Key facts - Grey belt, unmet need and sustainable location all agreed; scheme not inappropriate - Surface water flood risk on parts of the site; no site-specific FRA and no sequential test - Council supply 1.86 years - Costs application by appellant refused (flood risk and soils legitimately PIP-stage principle matters) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006286 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/91222a44-0327-4951-ba29-17494a4b219d - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5a1e3da6-6a4b-48a4-990b-f3d2202dea73 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006286.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land north of Lyndale, Twitty Fee, Danbury - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Szymanski - **Authority:** Chelmsford (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6006289 - **Application reference:** 25/01593/OUT - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline (all matters reserved) - "reinstatement of previous dwelling" - one self-build dwelling on the site of a house largely demolished c.40 years ago after enforcement - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.88 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1), HE7(2), N2(1)(a), DM6 - **Development plan policies:** Chelmsford Local Plan 2020 S7, S11, DM8, DM14, Danbury Neighbourhood Plan 2024 DNP16 - **Main issues:** location and access to services, character and appearance, non-designated heritage asset (protected lane), BNG and self-build - **Tags:** sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, self-build-unsecured, bng-exemption-not-shown, conditions-unenforceable, pdl-blended-into-landscape, substantially-outweighed, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, inspector-raised-own-ground, drafting-slip, protected-lane-ndha ## Summary An outline proposal for one self-build house on the site of a dwelling largely demolished about 40 years ago following enforcement, beside Twitty Fee, a protected lane outside Danbury. Dismissed. The site was accepted as PDL, but the dwelling would be car-dependent, "significantly harmful" to the naturalised plot's rural character, and harmful to the protected lane (an NDHA) because of the visibility splay. There was no metric, so BNG could only be avoided by securing self-build, and no obligation was before the inspector. Together these "substantially outweigh" the limited benefit of one home against a 3.88-year supply. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The inspector gave the parties the opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework and the 2024 and 2025 HDT results (DL ¶4). BNG and self-build were raised by the inspector, who sought comments on them (DL ¶3). - **Location: FAIL (TR3 in substance, CLP S7).** The routes "would not be particularly attractive and convenient, even to those that would be physically able to make the journeys, particularly outside daylight hours, or in inclement weather" (DL ¶9). "it is likely the proposal would result in a significant proportion of car journeys … and so would not be in a sustainable location" (DL ¶10). - **Character: HARM.** "It is inherent in the proposal that there would be a significantly greater mass and scale of built development to what currently exists, with a marked formalisation and domestication of the site" (DL ¶14). "That there might be no increase in the historic footprint … does not mean an absence of harm" (DL ¶15). - **PDL: accepted.** "There is a raised building slab visible … I am not fully convinced the remains of the building can be said to have blended into the landscape. Upon this basis it would fall within the definition of previously developed land" (DL ¶16). - **NDHA (protected lane): HE7(2) HARM.** "the splay would require works to and maintenance of a significant amount of vegetation … it would formalise a significant section adjacent to the highway corridor, eroding its verdant informal nature, which would be inherently harmful to the NDHA's significance" (DL ¶¶22–23). - **BNG / self-build: FAIL.** Without a completed metric "it is necessary for the appeal proposal to be secured as a CSB dwelling" (DL ¶27). A personal occupancy condition "would be unlikely to pass the tests in Policy DM6 of the Framework due to reasonableness and the practicalities of enforcement" (DL ¶28). "a planning obligation is necessary … an obligation is not before me" (DL ¶30). This conflicts with N2(1)(a) (DL ¶31). ## Planning balance This was an S5(1) balance. "As it does not appear to comprise an isolated site, Framework Policy HO11 does not appear relevant, but Policy S5 1) d) and h) state in the cases of redevelopment of PDL, or where a 5 year HLS cannot be demonstrated, proposals should be approved, unless the benefits … would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶33). Benefits: one dwelling, which is "a small benefit to supply" despite the 3.88-year supply (DL ¶34). Personal circumstances got "limited weight at best" (DL ¶34). Small economic, landscaping and renewable benefits (DL ¶35). "The policy conflicts and harms are such that these matters substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶37). ## What made the difference The accumulation of harms against a single dwelling. The PDL status only got the site through the S5 gateway. The lane access, the domestication of a plot that had naturalised over 40 years, and the harm to a protected-lane NDHA from the highway visibility splay each counted. The self-build point was fixable: a signed UU plus a metric would have removed the BNG objection. The location and character harms would probably still have outweighed one house, especially as the Council over-supplies self-build plots, which undercuts the self-build benefit. ## Transferable points - Passing the S5(1)(d) PDL gateway does not make the benefits of one dwelling weighty. Car dependence, character harm and NDHA harm can together "substantially outweigh" them, even with a 3.88-year supply (DL ¶¶33–37). - Remains of a demolished dwelling can still be PDL if an exposed slab shows they have not "blended into the landscape" (DL ¶16). - The same historic footprint does not mean no harm, because domestication and formalisation of a naturalised plot is itself harmful (DL ¶¶14–15). - A highway visibility splay can itself cause heritage harm where the lane is a non-designated heritage asset (HE7(2)) (DL ¶¶21–23). - Self-build BNG exemption: a time-limited personal occupancy condition fails the DM6 tests, so an obligation is needed. A condition requiring an obligation is only for exceptional, complex cases (DL ¶¶28–30). - A Council over-supply of self-build plots reduces the weight given to a self-build benefit (DL ¶33). - Drafting slip: DL ¶33 attributes the 5-year-supply limb to S5(1)(h) (it is S5(1)(j)), and the "Decision date" field is blank. ## Policy findings - **TR3: harm.** nearest Danbury services and bus stop ~850 m via largely unlit, partly single-track lanes without footways; "significant proportion of car journeys"; conflict framed under CLP S7 (DL 7-11) - **DP3: harm.** naturalised plot makes positive contribution; dwelling, access, hardstanding, garden would be "significantly harmful" to intrinsic character and beauty (CLP S11, DM8) (DL 12-17) - **HE7(2): harm.** Twitty Fee protected lane is an NDHA; highway visibility splay across whole frontage would formalise the verdant edge; no significance assessment or mitigation (CLP DM14) (DL 18-24) - **N2(1)(a): fail.** no completed metric / pre-development value, so self-build must be secured to be BNG-exempt; not secured (DL 25-31) - **DM6: fail.** time-limited personal occupancy condition fails reasonableness/enforceability; obligation offered but not before inspector; no exceptional case for a Grampian-style condition requiring an obligation (DL 28-30) - **S5(1)(d): pass.** exposed building slab means remains have not blended into landscape so site is PDL (DL 16, 33) - **HO11: not-engaged.** not isolated - "does not appear to comprise an isolated site" (DL 33) - **S5(1): fail.** harms "substantially outweigh the benefits"; letter mislabels the 5YHLS limb as "h)" (it is (j)) (DL 33, 37) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** one dwelling, 3.88-yr supply, Council oversupplies CSB plots; personal circumstances limited weight at best (DL 33-34) ## Key facts - Council supply 3.88 years; 2024 and 2025 HDT results also published and consulted on - Council can show an over-supply of custom and self-build plots - House on the site largely demolished around 40 years ago following an enforcement notice; slab and waste remain - Nearest bus stop, pub and shop about 850 m away via Twitty Fee / Hopping Jacks Lane / Runsell Lane - unlit, partly single-track, no footways - Highway Authority required a 2 m clear visibility band along the entire frontage of a protected lane - Essex RAMS contribution paid; Council withdrew its habitats objection - Letter's "Decision date" field is blank; date taken from the PINS listing ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006289 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6294b730-bd8a-4a50-9d15-55657a7a5354 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006289.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to Unit 17, Lee Bridge Industrial Estate, Halifax - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Laura Bartle - **Authority:** Calderdale (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6006305 - **Application reference:** 25/01229/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Industrial storage unit for existing joinery business on estate hardstanding - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR4(1)(e), TR6(4), S4 - **Development plan policies:** Calderdale Local Plan BT4, IM5(III) - **Main issues:** parking provision and highway safety - **Tags:** tier-2, parking, tr6-highway-safety, s4-substantially-outweighed, employment, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, reissued-decision ## Summary Storage building for a joinery business on an industrial estate in Halifax, dismissed. It would take up the business's existing parking and yard, and the appellant could not show that the remaining parking, or land outside the red line, would meet the combined demand. This conflicted with TR4(1)(e) and brought in TR6(4). ## What made the difference The evidence was poor. The parking survey did not separate the site from neighbouring units, and there was no proof of control over the off-site manoeuvring areas (DL ¶¶7–9). Moderate economic benefit could not stand against "TR6(4) ... development should be refused if it would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety", to which the inspector gave significant weight. The inspector's own finding was "detrimental" rather than expressly "unacceptable" (DL ¶¶13, 18–19). Good town-centre accessibility did not help an industrial use that needs delivery access (DL ¶10). ## Policy findings - **TR4(1)(e): fail (significant weight).** parking for existing business plus new unit not shown; reliance on land outside red line of uncertain control (DL 6-13) - **TR6(4): fail (significant weight).** overspill onto estate circulation areas harms highway safety and free flow (DL 12, 18) - **S4: fail.** moderate economic benefits substantially outweighed; presumption "does not apply" (DL 16-19) ## Key facts - Only two spaces left on site once the building is erected; survey of five vehicles did not distinguish the site from neighbouring units (DL 6-7) - Environment Agency objection raised during the appeal was not resolved (DL 14-15) - Decision reissued under s56(2) PCPA 2004, superseding the 8 Sep 2026 version ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006305 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b208af19-46f2-4119-bcc0-6ad748c23ab5 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006305.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to 340 Heathway, Dagenham - **Decision:** dismissed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Mark Harrison - **Authority:** Barking and Dagenham (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6006329 - **Application reference:** 25/01514/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Part two/part single-storey side extension forming a new 1-bed attached dwelling on the Becontree Estate - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, near-station - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** HE7(2), TR4(1)(c)(i) - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D4, D6, HC1, T1, T2, T4, T6, T6.1, Barking and Dagenham Local Plan 2024 DMD1, DMD4, SP2, DMT2 - **Main issues:** character/NDHA, parking and highway safety - **Tags:** tier-2, ndha, fallback, highway-safety-fail, small-scheme ## Summary An attached new dwelling on the Becontree Estate, a non-designated heritage asset, was dismissed. It caused significant harm to the uniform terrace and was served by unlawful footway-crossing parking. An extant extension permission counted as a moderate-weight fallback but was less harmful. The Framework is mentioned only in passing and no version is given. The L2(1)(d) "additional units within residential curtilages" test was not engaged. ## What made the difference The single-storey side infill up to the boundary and the second front door made the scheme read as a narrow separate house, which did more harm than the fallback (DL ¶10). ## Policy findings - **HE7(2): harm.** "significant harm" to Becontree Estate NDHA; unsubordinate, narrow frontage unbalances the terrace, garden subdivided (DL 3-12); HE7 not named - **TR4(1)(c)(i): fail.** Framework not cited; cars would cross footway unlawfully (no dropped kerb, CPZ bay) (DL 14-18) ## Key facts - Extant householder permission for similar two-storey side extension, fallback given moderate weight (DL 8-9) - Offer to go car-free not accompanied by plans; not for appeal to evolve schemes (DL 17) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/639b2e8c-8eac-421d-b0e3-ba997e98707f - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006329 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006329.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Elm Cottage, Further Ford End, Clavering (curtilage listed, LBC) - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A James - **Authority:** Uttlesford (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6006330 - **Application reference:** UTT/25/2657/LB - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Listed building consent for internal alterations and two rear projections replacing a conservatory at a curtilage-listed farmstead cottage - **Site context:** open-countryside, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(4), HE5(1) - **Development plan policies:** Uttlesford Local Plan 2021-2041 (March 2026) Core Policies 61, 62 - **Main issues:** listed building - **Tags:** tier-2, listed-building-consent, heritage-harm-decisive, evidence-gap, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A reduced resubmission of rear extensions to a curtilage-listed farmstead cottage still failed. The extensions eroded the plan form that explains its place in the courtyard group, and the heritage assessment could not say what fabric would be lost (DL 14-17). Benefits were largely private (DL 22). ## What made the difference Plan form as evidence of historic function, and the lack of a fabric assessment under HE5. ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): fail.** low harm: extensions nearly as deep as the dwelling erode its simple rectilinear plan; 'a low level of harm does not equate to a low planning objection' (DL 14, 18, 23) - **HE5(1): fail.** no evidence whether fabric to be removed is modern (DL 15-16) ## Key facts - Treated as curtilage listed to Further Ford Farmhouse (DL 2-4) - An earlier, larger scheme was dismissed on appeal (3346333) (DL 17) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006330 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/47f96b3a-bc6f-40c7-9289-e20acda7f00d --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006330.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 55 Bradford Crescent, Gilesgate, Durham - **Decision:** allowed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Lancaster - **Authority:** County Durham (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006352 - **Application reference:** DM/26/00072/FPA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Flexible C3/C4 (small HMO) use of an end-terrace house under an Article 4 area, with single-storey rear extension, cycle and bin storage (non-determination) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6 - **Development plan policies:** County Durham Plan 2020 Policies 6, 16, 21, 29, 31, Parking and Accessibility SPD - **Main issues:** parking and highway safety, neighbour living conditions, fire safety - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tr6-highway-test, parking-stress-unevidenced, non-determination ## Summary Flexible C3/C4 small-HMO use of a Durham terrace house, in an Article 4 area, with a rear extension. Allowed on non-determination. The inspector used TR6 directly: the lack of any off-street parking, against the SPD standard, was not an "unacceptable impact on highway safety" given on-street capacity and no highway authority objection (DL ¶14). Student concentration was below the 10% plan threshold. ## What made the difference TR6's high bar for transport refusals, combined with the highway authority's non-objection, trumped a numerical parking-standard shortfall. ## Policy findings - **TR6: pass.** refuse on transport grounds only for unacceptable highway safety impact or severe network impact; no off-street parking against SPD standard, but ample on-street parking and no highway authority objection (DL 11-15) - **P3: pass.** extension no deeper than the existing outbuilding; bedrooms exceed NDSS; student Class N exemptions at 9.3% within 100m, below the 10% threshold (DL 16-35); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Zero off-street parking against SPD standard; highway authority no objection (DL 11-13) - 9.3% of properties within 100m student-exempt, under the 10% Policy 16(3) cap (DL 29) - Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006352 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/0675ee49-65c3-476f-9192-5f07eb3c4636 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006352.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Hall Farm, Copt Oak Road, Copt Oak - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Craddock - **Authority:** North West Leicestershire (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6006388 - **Application reference:** 25/01015/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Use of former groom's accommodation (stone outbuilding) as an independent dwelling, with surface water drainage works - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5, HO11(1)(c), TR3 - **Development plan policies:** North West Leicestershire Local Plan 2021 S2, S3 - **Main issues:** suitable location for housing, spatial strategy, access to services - **Tags:** sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, small-scheme, transitional-no-consultation, fallback-not-evidenced, isolated-home, ho11, drafting-slip, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary Conversion of a former groom's flat in a farm courtyard to a separate house, in a hamlet classed as countryside. Dismissed. Heavy car reliance (no services, unlit B591 with no footway) conflicted with the local plan's countryside accessibility criterion, and the building was not shown to be redundant or disused, so the Framework's isolated-homes re-use route did not help. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The changes to the Framework do not affect the merits of this case in a material way and I, therefore, have not consulted the parties" (DL ¶3). - **Local plan consistency.** "I find LP Policies S2 and S3 to be consistent with the Framework, which seeks to actively manage patterns of growth" (DL ¶9). - **Sustainable location — TR3: FAIL.** "the B591 did not include footpaths or street lighting. These factors result in both walking and cycling being unattractive options" (DL ¶11); "Future residents would therefore be heavily reliant upon the use of the private car" (DL ¶12). - **PDL.** Lawful use disputed (agricultural or equestrian): "I cannot be certain it meets the definition of PDL as contained within the Framework" (DL ¶13). Even if PDL, accessibility criterion still applies (DL ¶14). - **Re-use of redundant building — HO11(1)(c): FAIL.** Letter cites "Policies S5, HO10 and T3 of the Framework" for isolated homes re-using "redundant or disused buildings" (DL ¶15). "it appeared the building has not ceased to function as an ancillary dwelling as it remains laid out, equipped and available for residential occupation … While it may presently be unoccupied, vacancy does not necessarily equate to disuse" (DL ¶16). - **Fallback.** Class Q fallback "limited weight" given no evidence of PDL/lawful use (DL ¶17). Traffic-equivalence claim unevidenced (DL ¶18). ## Planning balance Plan-led s38(6) balance, not an S5(1) "substantially outweighed" balance. One dwelling, drainage and short-term economic benefits all "limited weight" vs social and environmental conflict: "there are no material considerations that outweigh the conflict with the development plan" (DL ¶19, ¶21). ## What made the difference The building was still a functioning (if vacant) ancillary flat, so it could not be called redundant or disused; and the site had nothing walkable and only an unlit, footway-less B-road. The appellant supplied no evidence on services, lawful use or trip generation. A clearly redundant building, proven lawful PDL status, or a transport statement showing no net increase in trips would have been needed. Notably, the inspector did not consider S5(1)(c) (reuse of an existing lawful building) or HO11(1)(d) (subdivision of an existing residential building), either of which might have been argued. ## Transferable points - "vacancy does not necessarily equate to disuse" — a building still fitted out for residential use is not "redundant or disused" for HO11(1)(c) (DL ¶16). - Unlit rural B-roads without footways make walking and cycling "unattractive options" (DL ¶11). - Class Q / PDL fallbacks carry limited weight where the lawful use of the building is not proven (DL ¶17). - A claim that an independent dwelling generates no more trips than ancillary use needs a traffic survey or transport statement (DL ¶18). - Local countryside policies that "actively manage patterns of growth" found consistent with the 2026 Framework (DL ¶9). - Drafting slip: Framework policies cited as "HO10" and "T3" where HO11 and TR3 were meant (DL ¶15). ## Policy findings - **HO11(1)(c): fail.** letter cites "Policies S5, HO10 and T3" for re-use of redundant/disused buildings — the re-use limb is actually HO11(1)(c); not shown redundant or disused, as still laid out and equipped as ancillary accommodation (DL 15-16) - **TR3: fail.** cited as "T3"; no services nearby, B591 unlit with no footway; heavy reliance on private car (DL 10-12, 15) - **S5(1)(d): not-engaged.** not addressed as an S5 limb; PDL status unproven (lawful use agricultural vs equestrian disputed) in the context of LP S3(e) (DL 13-14) - **S5(1)(c): not-engaged.** reuse-of-existing-building limb not discussed despite the proposal being a conversion - **NWLLP S2, S3: conflict.** hamlet → countryside; S3 criterion (vi) accessibility by range of sustainable transport not met; policies found consistent with the Framework (DL 7-9, 20) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** one additional dwelling given limited weight (HO7 not named) (DL 19) ## Key facts - Stone outbuilding in a farm courtyard; two dwellings at Hall Farm reached by a long private drive off the B591 - B591 has no footpaths or street lighting; no services in the immediate vicinity observed - Building still laid out and equipped as ancillary dwelling ("vacancy does not necessarily equate to disuse") - Class Q fallback given limited weight because PDL/lawful use not demonstrated - No transport statement to support the claim that trips would equal ancillary use - Decided without consulting parties on the 2026 Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006388 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/52fffc64-d522-4638-a1de-fafc8b2b640a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006388.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 1 Blewitts Cottages, New Road, Rainham - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Eggleton - **Authority:** Havering (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6006409 - **Application reference:** P1390.25 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective change of use of rear garage from storage to motorbike repair and sales workshop - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** P3(2)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Havering Local Plan 2021 Policies 7, 34, London Plan 2021 D14 - **Main issues:** character, neighbour noise, amenity space - **Tags:** tier-2, noise, retrospective, evidence-lacking ## Summary A motorbike repair and sales use in a backyard garage next to residential gardens was dismissed. Without a noise assessment, harm to neighbours could not be ruled out, even though no neighbour had objected. There was no harm to character on a commercial-feeling lane. The letter is dated 17 Aug and names no Framework version. ## What made the difference The absence of any acoustic evidence. The Inspector said conditions on hours could not be relied on without it (DL ¶¶10, 18). ## Policy findings - **P3(2)(b): fail.** Framework not cited by code; no noise assessment, garage door beside neighbour's garden; harm not ruled out (DL 7-15) - **L2(1)(b): benefit.** efficient use of existing building and economic activity acknowledged but insufficient (DL 17-18) ## Key facts - Up to ten customer appointments a day; repair plus sales = sui generis - No neighbour objections, but no noise evidence ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/26c15c57-b1e8-446d-8972-0705202a904d - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006409 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006409.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # North Burton Hall, Hunmanby Road, Burton Fleming - **Decision:** allowed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F Cullen - **Authority:** East Riding of Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6006422 - **Application reference:** 25/01754/PLF - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective installation of a biomass boiler and 10 m flue in an outbuilding attached to a Grade II listed farmhouse - **Site context:** settlement-edge, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(a), HE6(4), CC2(2), W3(1)(a), P3, DM7(1), DM3(1)(e) - **Development plan policies:** East Riding Local Plan Update 2020-2039 (April 2025) ENV1, ENV3, ENV6 - **Main issues:** living conditions - emissions, listed building setting, character and appearance - **Tags:** renewable-energy, heritage-harm-outweighed, retrospective, w3-substantial-weight, conditions-overcome-refusal, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, s5-1-a, low-carbon-heating-heritage-benefit, other-regimes-dm7, resident-evidence-insufficient ## Summary A retrospective biomass boiler and 10 m flue in an outbuilding attached to the Grade II listed North Burton Hall, on a working farm at the edge of Burton Fleming. Refused by the Council on emissions and heritage grounds. Allowed on appeal. Residents' smoke photographs and consumer PM2.5 readings were not robust enough, the Council's own Environmental Control Team and the EA raised no objection, and a straw-only fuel condition would deal with any harm. The flue causes "very low" harm to the Hall's significance. That harm is outweighed by the low-carbon heating benefit, which carries substantial weight under CC2(2) and W3(1)(a) and is expressly an "important public benefit" under HE6(4). The S5(1)(a) balance is passed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The updated Framework includes policy changes which are relevant to the main issues … the main parties were given the opportunity to comment" (DL ¶6). - **Emissions: P3 PASS.** The residents' information "is not sufficiently detailed and does not allow for a robust assessment. There is an absence of: verifiable baseline data; details of the environmental conditions … and regular objective monitoring over an appropriate period of time, preferably by an independent professional" (DL ¶13). "technical compliance with environmental permitting or nuisance legislation does not automatically equate to an absence of harm in planning and amenity terms" (DL ¶16), but ECT and EA sign-off "remains material" (DL ¶17). A fuel condition "would adequately mitigate any existing or potential adverse effects" (DL ¶19). - **Heritage: HE5(2), HE6 HARM (very low).** The flue "disrupts the established relationship and hierarchy between the main body of the Hall and the outbuilding" (DL ¶35). The harm comes "with what could reasonably be concluded as clear and convincing justification" because of the EA flue-height requirement (DL ¶37). "I find that the scheme results in a very low level of harm to the significance of the Hall" (DL ¶42). Substantial weight to conservation and "considerable importance and weight to the identified harm" (DL ¶43). No harm to the Grade II* church (DL ¶40). - **HC4: not engaged.** The Council's reliance on it was misplaced (DL ¶45). - **Other regimes: DM7(1).** "No compelling evidence has been presented that any other relevant regulatory regime will not operate effectively" (DL ¶47). ## Planning balance The HE6(4) heritage balance comes first. "Policy HE6(4) of the Framework confirms that enabling energy efficiency and low carbon heating measures to be employed is an 'important public benefit' in heritage terms. In addition, Policy CC2(2) requires substantial weight … Similarly, Policy W3(1a) requires substantial weight" (DL ¶59). The very low harm is outweighed (DL ¶61). The S5 balance follows: the site is outside development limits, the development falls under S5(1)(a) ("agriculture or infrastructure (including energy)"), and the "effects do not substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶¶57, 62). The development plan conflict is outweighed by material considerations (DL ¶63). ## What made the difference The new Framework's explicit weighting of low-carbon heating, as an HE6(4) "important public benefit" and substantial weight under CC2(2) and W3(1)(a), against harm that was only "very low" because the flue sits on a subordinate outbuilding rather than the principal building. On emissions, the Council offered no data of its own, its specialist officers did not object, and residents' evidence was anecdotal. With an independent air-quality study showing exceedances, or with the flue fixed to the principal listed building, the result could have been different. ## Transferable points - Under the 2026 Framework, low-carbon heating in or at a listed building is an "important public benefit" under HE6(4) and gets substantial weight under CC2(2) and W3(1)(a). That is enough to outweigh very low less-than-substantial harm (DL ¶¶59, 61). - HE5(2)(c) requires the degree of harm to be identified. The inspector identified it as "very low" (DL ¶42). - A domestic or farm biomass installation can fall within S5(1)(a) "agriculture or infrastructure (including energy)" (DL ¶57). - Residents' photographs and consumer PM2.5 monitor readings, without baseline, conditions or independent monitoring, will not support a P3 refusal. Specialist officer and EA non-objection is material (DL ¶¶13, 17). - DM7(1): decision-makers assume separate regulatory regimes will work unless there is clear contrary evidence (DL ¶47). - DM3(1)(e): a fuel-type condition can be relied on even where harm is not established (DL ¶19). - HC4 is about community facilities and public-health development and is not a general health policy for refusals (DL ¶45). ## Policy findings - **P3(2)(c): pass.** PM2.5 concerns considered but residents' monitor readings and photos lacked baseline, conditions and independent monitoring; ECT and EA no objection (DL 10-18) - **DM3(1)(e): pass.** even if harm had been shown, a straw-only fuel condition would mitigate it (DL 19) - **DM7(1): pass.** assume separate regulatory regimes (EA permitting, nuisance) operate effectively (DL 17, 47) - **HE5(2): harm.** degree of harm identified as "very low" to Grade II Hall - flue disrupts hierarchy between Hall and outbuilding (DL 29, 34-35, 42) - **HE6(1): harm (considerable weight).** substantial weight to conservation and considerable importance and weight to harm; "clear and convincing justification" (EA flue-height requirement) (DL 37, 43) - **HE6(4): benefit.** low-carbon heating is an "important public benefit" in heritage terms; outweighs very low harm (DL 59, 61) - **HE6 (Grade II* Church of St Cuthbert): neutral.** setting preserved - separation, very limited intervisibility, no evidence of emissions affecting fabric (DL 38-40) - **CC2(2): benefit (substantial weight).** energy efficiency / renewable heat for existing buildings (DL 59) - **W3(1)(a): benefit (substantial weight).** transition to net zero (DL 59) - **S5(1)(a): pass.** outside development limits; "development for agriculture or infrastructure (including energy)"; adverse effects do not substantially outweigh (DL 57, 62) - **HC4: not-engaged.** Council's reliance rejected - policy concerns community facilities and public health developments (DL 45) - **E2(1)(b), E4: not-engaged.** appellant did not show business growth benefit (DL 60) - **ERLP ENV1, ENV3: conflict.** limited harm to character and appearance and heritage harm; conflict with plan outweighed by material considerations (DL 41, 63) ## Key facts - Biomass boiler in outbuilding since 1990; current Glen Farrow system installed 2014; retrospective application - Flue about 10 m, about 4 m above outbuilding ridge and above the Hall roofline; painted matt black - Outbuilding attached to Grade II listed North Burton Hall (curtilage-listed by s1(5)); Grade II* church opposite - Many objections with photos and consumer Temtop PM2.5 readings; Council ECT no objection with fuel condition; EA found compliant March 2025 - Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework - Conditions - flue colour maintained, straw-only fuel - Costs application by appellant decided separately (not read) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006422 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2903e130-53a2-46d3-ad81-37723a42d181 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006422.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land between Copper Lodge and The Cloth Hall, Water Lane, Smarden - **Decision:** dismissed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Bayliss - **Authority:** Ashford (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006475 - **Application reference:** PA/2025/0824 - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** 35 dwellings (14 affordable) with landscaping and infrastructure - **Homes:** 35 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, conservation-area, listed-building-setting, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.16 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), HE4, HE6, HE9, DP3, N2 - **Development plan policies:** Ashford Local Plan 2019 SP6, HOU5, HOU15, ENV3a, ENV5, ENV13, Residential Space and Layout SPD 2011 - **Main issues:** designated heritage assets, landscape character, living conditions - **Tags:** s5-1-j, substantially-outweighed, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, grade-i-setting, landscape-harm, design-refusal, housing-shortfall, local-policy-consistency ## Summary 35 homes (40% affordable) on a field on the western edge of Smarden, beside the Grade II* Cloth Hall and the conservation area. Dismissed after hearing. Despite passing S5(1)(j) (3.16-year supply, agreed well-related), cumulative harm to five designated assets (unjustified under HE4/HE6), serious landscape harm and a suburban design with poor privacy "substantially outweigh" substantial housing and affordable benefits. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The hearing was re-opened for a period of time to provide the main parties an opportunity to make comments" on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶3). - **Heritage — HE4, HE6, HE9: FAIL.** Setting is not only visual: "buildings that are in close proximity but are not visible from each other may have a historic or aesthetic connection" (DL ¶14). The Cloth Hall "would become an historic farmhouse without adjoining farmland" (DL ¶32). "Given that three of the listed buildings are of the highest significance, this amplifies the level of weight" (DL ¶38). "there is no clear and convincing justification for the harm to the significance of those assets" (DL ¶59). - **Landscape — N2 / DP3: FAIL.** "a substantial, adverse effect on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area … an incongruous and visually intrusive encroachment into an open area which forms an important setting to Smarden" (DL ¶44). - **Living conditions — DP3: FAIL.** "a significant design failing on a new development" (DL ¶48). - **Local policy consistency.** Appellant argued HOU5 imposes more onerous tests than the 2026 Framework; rejected: "Policy HOU5 remains consistent with the broad thrust of the Framework" (DL ¶66). - **L3 density.** "this policy is not just about maximising development capacity" (DL ¶67). ## Planning balance HE6 heritage balance first (benefits "insufficient", DL ¶59), then S5(1)(j) balance: benefits overall substantial weight (DL ¶63); harms together "very substantial weight" (DL ¶65). "the harmful effects, in particular those arising from the heritage impacts, substantially outweigh the benefits of the scheme when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework, including Policy S5" (DL ¶68). ## What made the difference The site's historic functional link to a Grade II* farmhouse-turned-cloth-hall and its role as the legible rural approach to the conservation area, plus a Grade I church in view. Historic England objection weighed. Generic suburban layout and privacy failures compounded it. A site without that heritage relationship would likely have passed given the shortfall and agreed accessibility. ## Transferable points - Passing S5(1)(j) plus substantial weight to both market and affordable housing (3.16 yrs) can still be "substantially outweighed" by heritage harm to high-grade assets (DL ¶68). - HE4 "clear and convincing justification" is applied as a separate requirement alongside the HE6 balance (DL ¶59). - Setting harm can arise from loss of historic functional relationship with no intervisibility (DL ¶¶14, 18–20). - Local design/heritage policies are not rendered out of date by S5's "broader and less prescriptive" wording (DL ¶66). - L3 efficient-use arguments do not override historic environment policies (DL ¶67). - Inspectors refuse amended plans that would change the quantum or were not consulted on (DL ¶¶8–9). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): pass.** agreed well-related to Smarden; scale accommodated; 3.16-yr supply (DL 61) - **HE4: fail.** no clear and convincing justification for harm (DL 13, 59) - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** moderate harm to Grade II* Cloth Hall (former farmhouse losing its farmland) and to CA; lesser to Grade I church, Grade II oasthouses, Grade II* Hartnup; weight amplified by asset grade (DL 37-38, 59) - **HE9: fail.** loss of legible rural approach to conservation area (DL 29, 34-35, 59) - **N2: conflict (substantial weight).** substantial adverse effect on landscape character (Beult Valley Farmlands LCA) (DL 44) - **DP3: fail.** suburban estate layout at odds with village grain; overlooking <15 m between pairs — liveability (DL 42, 48-49) - **N3: conflict.** cited with DP3/N2 (DL 44) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 35 homes, 3.16-yr supply (DL 55) - **HO8: benefit (substantial weight).** 14 affordable, separately substantial weight; council not meeting affordable need (DL 55) - **L3: neutral.** efficient use of land must account for other Framework policies (DL 67) ## Key facts - Agreed supply about 3.16 years - Field formerly part of the Grade II* Cloth Hall's farm holding; Historic England objected - Grade I church tower glimpsed across the site on Water Lane approach - Amended plans refused as appeal is not the place to develop a scheme (DL 8) - Hearing re-opened after 17 Aug 2026 for comments on the new Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006475 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c2023c35-b7fd-49d6-ba3f-178f5cb96283 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006475.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Little Brook Farm, Reigate Road, Sidlow - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Bowyer - **Authority:** Reigate and Banstead (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006496 - **Application reference:** 25/00197/F - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Two agricultural buildings (storage of haylage, silage, maize, equipment; winter housing for sheep) - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, ancient-woodland - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(2), N6, TR6 - **Development plan policies:** Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan 2019 NHE2, NHE3, DES1, TAP1 - **Main issues:** ecology, character, highway safety, inappropriate development, BNG - **Tags:** agricultural-building, gb-not-inappropriate-but-refused, s5-2-refusal-trigger, ancient-woodland, highway-visibility, substantially-outweighed, bng-credits ## Summary Two agricultural barns on a farm in the Reigate and Banstead Green Belt. Dismissed. The barns were not inappropriate development: they were "for agriculture" under GB7(1)(a), and the Framework has no "reasonably necessary" test. But unresolved ecology (ancient woodland buffer, skylark) and unproven access visibility on a 50 mph A-road engaged S5(2) through the "should be refused" policies N6 and TR6. The modest benefits were substantially outweighed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties commented on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶2). - **GB7(1)(a): PASS.** "the Framework does not specify any requirement that development for agriculture is 'reasonably necessary' … The scale of the buildings would appear to me to be generous relative to the suggested space requirements, but … [it] would be development for agriculture" (DL ¶32). - **Ecology / N6: FAIL.** A single December survey visit was not robust for breeding birds; Circular 06/2005 applied (DL ¶7-9). The buildings sit partly within a 15 m ancient woodland buffer with no arboricultural evidence (DL ¶11-12). - **Highway safety / TR6: FAIL.** Visibility splays of 2.4 x 160 m were not shown to be achievable; conditions were inappropriate if third-party land is involved (DL ¶22-23, ¶28). - **Character: limited, localised harm** (DL ¶20). PD rights did not help: they were unavailable here, and PD is subject to prior approval in any event (DL ¶19). - **BNG.** Credits were a realistic route; refusing on BNG is generally inappropriate (DL ¶38-40). ## Planning balance S5(1) "substantially outweighed" balance, since agriculture is an S5 category. "part (2) of policy S5 indicates that the circumstances in which the benefits … are likely to be substantially outweighed … include where the proposal would fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused … Policy N6 … In any event, I have identified that the proposal would fail to comply with Framework Policy TR6" (DL ¶44). The modest farm-diversification and food-production benefits were substantially outweighed (DL ¶46-47). ## What made the difference The Green Belt was not the problem, because agriculture is simply not inappropriate. The case turned on thin ecological and highway evidence. Under the 2026 Framework, failing any "should be refused" national policy (N6, TR6) feeds directly into S5(2) and makes approval very unlikely. ## Transferable points - GB7(1)(a) has no "reasonably necessary" test. Generously sized buildings still qualify if the use is agricultural (DL ¶32). - A development can pass GB7 yet still fail through S5(2), where a "should be refused" policy (N6 irreplaceable habitat, TR6 highway safety) is breached (DL ¶44). - A single winter survey visit is not robust evidence on breeding birds. Circular 06/2005 bars deferring surveys to conditions except in exceptional circumstances (DL ¶7-9). - Visibility splays that may need third-party land cannot be left to condition (DL ¶22-23). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(a): pass.** storage of produce, sheep housing, equipment is "for agriculture"; Framework has no "reasonably necessary" test; generous size does not change category (DL 30-33) - **N6: fail.** buildings within 15 m ancient-woodland buffer; no arboricultural evidence; single December survey inadequate for skylark; cannot rule out deterioration (DL 5-14, 44) - **TR6: fail.** 2.4 x 160 m splays on 50 mph A217 not shown achievable within control; intensified use of the access (DL 21-28) - **DP3: harm (limited weight).** buildings set apart in the field with generous hardstanding; localised encroachment (DL 15-20) - **S5(1): fail.** agriculture is an S5 category, but S5(2) is triggered by N6 and TR6 "should be refused" policies; modest rural-economy benefits substantially outweighed (DL 43-47) - **E4: benefit (limited weight).** farm viability and food production benefits modest given scale (DL 46) ## Key facts - Wider site's former farm buildings converted to dwellings, so agricultural PD rights unavailable (DL 19) - Appellant evidence suggests agricultural storage buildings can generate about 25 daily trips (DL 25) - Net loss of 0.7 habitat units; BNG via credits accepted as capable of discharge (DL 35-40) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006496 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/99629cd0-442e-4202-8d10-a1f9f2478098 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006496.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Mount Avenue, Chaldon (Caterham edge) - **Decision:** allowed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Simon Rawle - **Authority:** Tandridge (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006497 - **Application reference:** TA/2025/771 - **Procedure:** inquiry - **Development:** Outline permission (scale, layout and access) for up to 30 dwellings (50% affordable) with access, landscaping, SuDS and woodland open space - **Homes:** 30 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, washed-over-village, ancient-woodland - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.97 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, GB7(1)(g), GB8, S5(5) - **Development plan policies:** Tandridge Core Strategy 2008 CSP1, Tandridge Local Plan Part 2 2014 DP5, DP12, DP13, Caterham Chaldon and Whyteleafe Neighbourhood Plan 2025-2040 CCW1 - **Main issues:** grey belt, Golden Rules, sustainable location, S5(5) balance - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, not-inappropriate, s5-5-balance, sustainable-location-pass, connectivity-tool, golden-rules, large-scheme, affordable-led, housing-shortfall, non-determination, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, stratford-relevant ## Summary Outline scheme for up to 30 homes (half affordable) on a field on the Caterham edge, within Chaldon in the Tandridge Green Belt. Allowed after an inquiry against a non-determination. Grey belt, "fundamentally undermine" (DL ¶27) and unmet need were settled, and the Golden Rules were met. The contested limb was GB7(1)(g)(iii). The inspector found a genuine choice of modes for local trips (schools, cafe, village hall and shop within walking and cycling distance, school buses and a two-hourly bus), even though the hill to Caterham deters walking and commuting by bus would be hard. The Connectivity Tool score of 52 was read comparatively, as the top band in Tandridge. The scheme was therefore not inappropriate, and S5(5) led to approval. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I note that national policies relating to housing and the Green Belt have changed and consequently I have given both main parties the opportunity to provide comments on these changes" (DL ¶5). - **Plan weight (Annex A ¶2).** "as part of Policy DP13 is materially inconsistent with national decision-making policies that deal with developments that would utilise grey belt I afford only very limited weight to that part of Policy DP13" (DL ¶17). Only the exceptions part was cut. - **Grey belt, purpose (a): moderate only.** The site adjoins Caterham, a large built-up area, but ancient woodland, Birchwood Lane and its hedgerows form "adequate physical features in reasonable proximity that would restrict and contain development" (DL ¶23). Conclusion: "it meets the definition of grey belt land" (DL ¶26). - **GB7(1)(g)(i).** "the proposal would not materially affect the ability of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area to serve all five Green Belt purposes in a meaningful way" (DL ¶28). - **GB7(1)(g)(iv) / GB8: PASS**, and "I attach substantial weight to the fact that the proposal would comply with the Golden Rules" (DL ¶30). - **GB7(1)(g)(iii) / TR3: PASS.** - Walking distance: "Land use patterns that are most conducive to walking are where there are a range of facilities within a 10-minute walk or 800m" (DL ¶34). The gradient "would act as a significant deterrent for anyone contemplating walking or cycling to the facilities and services at Caterham, including to the station" (DL ¶34). - Local destinations: "although just over the 800m range at 850m, I am satisfied that future occupants would have a genuine choice of whether to walk or cycle to them" (DL ¶35). - Buses: term-time school services "provide an adequate service for school children" (DL ¶37). The two-hourly 411 "does not provide a convenient service for any future occupants who would want to access employment opportunities further afield" (DL ¶39), but "does provide a genuine sustainable transport mode to reach other facilities and services throughout the day, including for grocery shopping at several supermarkets" (DL ¶40). - Connectivity Tool: the score "is a relative measure not an absolute measure of connectivity and it shows how places compare to other places and should always be interpreted comparatively" (DL ¶42). "The connectivity score for the appeal site is 52" (DL ¶43), comparable to Category 2 settlements (DL ¶44). - Conclusion: "while I accept that some journeys may well be made by private car, the appeal site is in a location that would limit the need to travel including by private car, particularly for certain journeys such as to schools and to reach other more local services and recreational facilities" (DL ¶45). - **Route.** "Policy S5 of the Framework which deals with the principle of development outside settlements indicates that it does not apply to development proposals in the Green Belt which instead should be determined in accordance with Policies GB6, GB7 and GB8" (DL ¶50). Openness was not assessed, because the scheme is not inappropriate (DL ¶49). - **Other matters.** Design, living conditions, highways, flood risk, ecology and BNG were all acceptable (DL ¶55-60). A nearby Chaldon appeal was distinguished (DL ¶64-65). ## Planning balance S5(5). "Policy S5.5 of the Framework is clear in that the proposal should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶69). On the benefit side: substantial weight to Golden Rules compliance and to market and affordable housing (1.97 years' supply, described as "dire" (DL ¶53)), and moderate weight to economic and social benefits and to BNG (DL ¶68). No adverse effects of note were found. No should-be-refused policy was engaged (DL ¶51). ## What made the difference The site sits on the edge of a town in the highest-connectivity band in the district. Primary-age education, a cafe and the village hall are at about 850 m, and a shop is at 1.1 km. The inspector treated TR3 as satisfied by a genuine choice for local and school trips, while accepting that commuting would mostly be by car. The s106 secured traffic calming, a 20 mph TRO and bus stop upgrades, and the highway authority did not object. The council's own witness accepted at the inquiry that a sustainable-location finding was logical (DL ¶45). A remote site on unlit, unsurfaced lanes (the Willey Lane comparator) failed the same limb. ## Transferable points - The Connectivity Tool score is relative. Read it against the local authority's own bands and against settlements where development is accepted: 52 was band A in Tandridge (DL ¶42-44). - 800 m is a guide, not a cap. Facilities at 850 m still gave a genuine choice to walk or cycle (DL ¶34-35). - A steep gradient to the main town, and a bus too infrequent for commuting, did not defeat TR3 where local and school trips could be made without a car (DL ¶34, 39-40, 45). - Term-time school bus services count towards a genuine choice for families with older children (DL ¶37). - Only the grey-belt-blind exceptions part of an old Green Belt policy loses weight under Annex A ¶2 (DL ¶17, 67). - Containment of Caterham's sprawl by ancient woodland and a hedged lane made the site's contribution to purpose (a) moderate, not strong (DL ¶21-25). - Once a Green Belt scheme is not inappropriate, openness is not weighed again, and S5(5) applies with its should-be-refused carve-out (DL ¶49-51, 69). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** not PDL; (b) and (d) not strongly served (common ground); (a) moderate only, because ancient woodland, Birchwood Lane and hedgerows contain sprawl of Caterham, a large built-up area (DL 18-26) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** would not materially affect the ability of the remaining plan-area Green Belt to serve all five purposes "in a meaningful way"; common ground (DL 27-28) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** agreed supply range 1.22-1.97 years (DL 29) - **GB7(1)(g)(iv): pass.** major housing complies with GB8 (DL 30) - **GB8: pass (substantial weight).** 50% affordable, infrastructure improvements and a significant area of publicly accessible woodland open space; compliance itself given substantial weight (DL 30, 68) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** pre-school, primary school, village hall and cafe within about 850 m; shop 1.1 km; term-time school buses 150 m away; two-hourly 411 bus; gradient to Caterham a significant deterrent and commuting by bus challenging, but a genuine choice for local trips (DL 31-47) - **TR3: pass.** Connectivity Tool score 52, highest band within Tandridge and comparable to Category 2 settlements; s106 secures 20 mph TRO, traffic calming, bus stop upgrades and crossings (DL 32, 41-46, 66) - **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** the grey-belt-blind exceptions part of DP13 is materially inconsistent and gets very limited weight; the rest of DP13 is consistent (DL 16-17, 67) - **S5(5): pass.** not inappropriate, no should-be-refused policy engaged, so approve unless benefits substantially outweighed; they were not (DL 50-51, 69) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** market housing; supply "dire" (DL 52-53) - **HO8: benefit (substantial weight).** 15 affordable homes (DL 53) - **N2: benefit (moderate weight).** BNG 13.53% habitat and 123.23% hedgerow units (DL 60) ## Key facts - Non-determination appeal; four-day inquiry 11-18 Aug 2026; the Framework was published during the inquiry and the parties commented on it (DL 5) - Site adjoins the Caterham settlement boundary but is within Chaldon, which is not a defined village in TLP DP12 (DL 12-13) - Pre-school, primary school, village hall and cafe about 850 m; convenience shop 1.1 km; Westway Common 1.2 km (DL 35-36) - Steep gradient on the walking and cycling route to Caterham and the station is a significant deterrent (DL 34) - Bus stops about 150 m away; term-time school buses 611, 657, 658; Metrobus 411 about every two hours, with no early service towards Caterham station or evening return from Merstham or Redhill (DL 37-39) - Connectivity Tool score 52, local authority band A; comparators Woldingham 56, Godstone 55, Nutfield 52, Smallfield 50 (DL 43-44) - Highway authority no objection; executed s106 (1 Sep 2026) secures 20 mph TRO and traffic calming to Caterham on the Hill High Street, bus shelters with real-time information, crossings and affordable housing (DL 56, 66) - Chaldon Willey Lane appeal (6002299, six homes) distinguished as remote, with rural partly unsurfaced roads (DL 64-65) - Costs applications by both parties decided separately (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006497 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/99a1a635-7365-4e60-9706-2d7907d97b03 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006497.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Walden Manor, Waldens Road, Orpington (rear extension, LBC - substantial harm) - **Decision:** dismissed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Sabu - **Authority:** Bromley (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6006506 - **Application reference:** 24/01895/LBC - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Listed building consent for demolition of a conservatory and bay window, a flat-roofed single-storey rear extension with lantern across most of the 17th-century rear elevation, and a basement extension - **Site context:** listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(5) - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 HC1, Bromley Local Plan 2019 Policy 38 - **Main issues:** listed building - **Tags:** listed-building-consent, heritage-harm-decisive, substantial-harm, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Listed building consent was refused for a single-storey, flat-roofed rear extension across most of the 17th-century rear elevation of Walden Manor, a Grade II house in Orpington. Unusually for a single-storey domestic extension, the inspector found **substantial harm**, because it would "seriously affect a key element of the asset's significance". The inspector therefore applied the HE6(5) refusal test and not just an HE6(4) balance. ## Issues and findings - **Effect.** "the height, width and massing of the extension would unacceptably obscure views of large parts of the historic rear elevation … diminish the legibility of the 17th century elevation" (DL ¶11). Full-height glazed doors would "egregiously detract from the legibility and character of the rear elevation" (DL ¶12). Conditions on materials could not overcome that (DL ¶13). - **Degree: SUBSTANTIAL.** "The harm would be substantial as the proposal would seriously affect a key element of the asset's significance. In this case, the proposal would unacceptably erode the legibility and character of the 17th century rear elevation" (DL ¶16). - **HE6(1).** Quoted in full, including the new "irrespective of whether any potential effect amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss" (DL ¶17). - **HE6(5): FAIL.** "The Framework states that in this circumstance, consent should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the harm is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh the harm or loss, or if a number of factors apply. The listed factors are not applicable in this case, and the scheme would not give rise to substantial public benefits" (DL ¶20). ## Planning balance The HE6(5) substantial-harm test: refuse unless substantial public benefits necessitate the harm. None were offered. "Public benefits such as enabling energy efficiency are not before me" (DL ¶19), and continued residential use did not depend on the scheme. ## What made the difference The extension would cover most of the width of the 17th-century rear wing, the part of the building whose legibility carries its significance. Treating that as substantial harm set a much higher bar than the usual low or moderate finding for rear extensions. The finding sits at the stringent end of practice. Note that the "seriously affects a key element" test comes from case law (Bedford), and most inspectors reserve it for far greater interventions. ## Transferable points - A single-storey rear extension can be substantial harm where it obscures the elevation that holds the key significance (DL ¶11, ¶16). Use this with care: it is an outlier finding. - Once substantial harm is found, HE6(5) requires substantial public benefits or all four listed factors; a domestic extension will not meet it (DL ¶20). - Removing later, non-contributing additions (conservatory, bay) causes no harm (DL ¶10). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** extension would obscure large parts of the historic rear elevation; 'The harm would be substantial as the proposal would seriously affect a key element of the asset's significance' (DL 11-12, 16-17) - **HE6(5): fail.** substantial harm: consent refused unless necessary to achieve substantial public benefits or all listed factors apply; none apply and no substantial public benefits (DL 20) - **HE6(4): not-engaged.** energy-efficiency benefits 'not before me'; residential use continues regardless (DL 18-19) ## Key facts - Grade II house, early 17th-century core refronted in the late 17th or early 18th century; significance in the legibility of the two phases and plan form (DL 6-9) - Removing the 19th/20th-century conservatory and bay would not harm significance; basement preserves special interest (DL 10, 14) - Parties consulted on the August 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006506 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a3a81aa8-60ea-401d-8be7-849d035d3b7e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006506.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Site I, The Mill, Catteshall Road, Godalming - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Heppell - **Authority:** Waverley (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006517 - **Application reference:** WA/2023/02694 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Building of 9 flats with parking, in lieu of an extant 2002 permission for an office building - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, flood-zone-2, flood-zone-3, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.28 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, DP3(3), F7(2), HO7 - **Development plan policies:** Waverley LPP1 2018 RE3, TD1, NE1, NE2, CC1, CC4, LRC1, Waverley LPP2 2023 DM1, DM4, DM5, DM7, Godalming & Farncombe NP 2019 GOD5 - **Main issues:** character and appearance of ASVI, flood risk, SNCI, living conditions - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, substantially-outweighed, housing-shortfall, flood-risk, flood-safe-access, fallback-rejected, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, dp3-clear-justification, s4-2-refusal-directions, old-wording-slip ## Summary Nine flats on a partly previously developed riverside site in Godalming, within the settlement but partly in the Area of Strategic Visual Importance (ASVI) and Flood Zones 2/3, in place of an extant office permission from 2002. Dismissed despite a 1.28-year supply. The inspector applied S4 and found the substantial housing benefits "substantially outweighed" because two national policies directing refusal were engaged: DP3(3) (design/context) and F7(2) (increased flood risk elsewhere). Inadequate play space also counted. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were afforded the opportunity to comment on the implications of the new Framework" (DL ¶6). - **Fallback.** Mansell "real prospect" argued; "the two decades or more which have elapsed since the permission was granted strongly suggest that … if there was a real prospect of it being implemented, it would have been happened by now. I therefore ascribe limited weight to the fallback position" (DL ¶13). - **ASVI / character — DP3: FAIL.** The proposal "would significantly urbanise both its setting and that of the river and dominate views of the boat house" (DL ¶17). "The introduction of a large building on a mainly undeveloped site close to the river would harm the setting of the river and the adjacent boat house" (DL ¶23). "Policy DP3(3) states that proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with these requirements" (DL ¶47). - **Flood — F7: FAIL.** Sequential test accepted by default (DL ¶26); exception test limb 1 passed (DL ¶27); safe access accepted on appellant modelling despite EA (DL ¶28); but compensation only for the difference from the office fallback "would not fulfil the PPG requirement to provide on-site level-for-level compensatory storage … and consequently would increase flood risk elsewhere" (DL ¶29). "Policy F7(2) requires that proposals should be refused in these circumstances" (DL ¶48). LLFA non-objection given limited weight vs EA (DL ¶31). - **Heritage.** Council's "moderate degree of less than substantial harm" to the CA, outweighed by housing — "I find no reason to disagree" (DL ¶22); treated as neutral (DL ¶46). 2024 "less than substantial" terminology carried over. - **SNCI / SSSI: PASS** (DL ¶35–37). - **Living conditions — HC3: FAIL** for play space only (no LAP within 100 m) (DL ¶38, ¶49); outdoor space, sunlight, privacy acceptable on amended plans (DL ¶39–42). ## Planning balance S4: "Although none of the situations listed in the policy apply to the proposal, I am nonetheless required to consider whether the benefits … would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶44). HO7 substantial weight at 1.28 years (DL ¶45); L2 effective use, social/economic benefits (DL ¶46). "National decision-making Policy DP3 directs refusal … whilst Policy F7 directs refusal where flood risk would be increased elsewhere. I conclude that the benefits of approving development would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶50). ## What made the difference Two "should be refused" national policies were failed. The flood point turned on an engineering detail: compensatory storage was designed against the office fallback rather than the existing site, and the fallback carried little weight because it had not been built in over 20 years. On design, moving the building closer to the river than the permitted office, within a protected open river corridor, was decisive. Full level-for-level compensation against the existing site, plus a building set back where the office would have been, would probably have tipped the balance given the 1.28-year supply. ## Transferable points - Under S4, failing a national policy that "directs refusal" (DP3(3), F7(2)) is enough to find benefits "substantially outweighed" even with a 1.28-year supply (DL ¶50). - An old extant permission unbuilt for two decades is a weak fallback: "if there was a real prospect … it would have been happened by now" (DL ¶13). - Flood compensation must be level-for-level against existing conditions, not against a fallback scheme (DL ¶29). - LLFA advice is non-statutory and can carry less weight than the EA on fluvial risk (DL ¶31). - Local open-space designations (ASVI) within settlements feed DP3 context failures (DL ¶¶23, 47). - Slip in reasoning: the inspector said none of the S4(2) situations applied (DL ¶44) while relying on "should be refused" policies, which is the S4(2)(c) circumstance. ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail.** dominant building close to the River Wey in an Area of Strategic Visual Importance; DP3(3) directs refusal absent clear justification (DL 23, 47, 50) - **F7(2): fail.** no level-for-level compensatory flood storage (compensation measured against office fallback) and bank reclamation may lose storage — increases flood risk elsewhere; F7(2) directs refusal (DL 29-31, 48, 50) - **F5: pass.** sequential test accepted in absence of Council challenge (applied via PPG) (DL 26) - **F6: fail.** exception test part 1 passed (wider sustainability benefits, 1.28-yr supply); part 2 failed (not safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere); safe access accepted despite EA (DL 27-31) - **HC3: fail.** no on-site Local Area for Play where none within 100 m (DL 38, 49) - **HE6: harm.** Council found "moderate degree of less than substantial harm" to CA outweighed by housing; inspector did not disagree; treated as neutral (DL 22, 46) - **N6: pass.** not named; negligible effect on SNCI; no adverse effect on Wey Valley Meadows SSSI (DL 35-37) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 1.28-yr supply; smaller units meeting identified needs (DL 45) - **L2(1)(b): benefit.** better use of partly PDL, sustainably located site; folded into overall substantial weight (DL 46, 50) - **S4: fail.** no S4(2) circumstance said to apply, yet benefits substantially outweighed given DP3 and F7 refusal directions (DL 43-44, 50) ## Key facts - Site within settlement boundary; rear part within the Godalming ASVI and a former spur of the River Wey - Extant (implemented) 2002 permission for an office building on the site; fallback given limited weight after two decades unbuilt - Site partly Flood Zones 2 and 3; EA objected; LLFA did not (advisory only, limited weight) - Compensatory storage designed only for difference between office fallback and proposal - Agreed supply 1.28 years - Amended plans accepted on appeal applying Holborn Studios tests - Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006517 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4e91c83c-2b8f-41ea-96c9-dcd24ec115c5 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006517.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land to the rear of 21 Roselands Avenue, St Philip's Avenue, Eastbourne - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Lynne Evans - **Authority:** Eastbourne (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006541 - **Application reference:** 250652 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of a store/garage and erection of a two-storey one-bedroom dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.4 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1), DP3(3), S4(2)(c), S4(1), P3 - **Development plan policies:** Eastbourne Core Strategy 2013 D10A, D5, Eastbourne Borough Plan 2003 UHT1, UHT4, HO6 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions of future occupiers, living conditions of neighbours - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, old-balance-wording, old-wording-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A two-storey one-bedroom house replacing a garage on a small plot in a well-spaced suburban street in Eastbourne. The inspector found it cramped and discordant (DP3(1)) and short of usable garden (P3). With a 1.4-year supply, housing got significant weight, but one unit's benefit was modest. Under S4, with DP3(3) and S4(2)(c) set out, the harm outweighed the benefits. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I have therefore written to seek the views of the Appellant and the Council on the revised Framework as pertinent to this appeal" (DL ¶2). - **Design, DP3(1): CONFLICT.** "Given its size in relation to the small dimensions of the plot, the dwelling would appear very cramped and an overdevelopment of the plot" (DL ¶8). - **Future occupiers, P3: CONFLICT.** The rear strip "would be very cramped, offering very limited usable amenity space for future residents" (DL ¶13). - **Plan weight.** Plan policies "are consistent with the Framework’s position of seeking a high quality of design"; "I attach substantial weight to this conflict" (DL ¶25). - **Housing.** "I attach significant weight to the principle of housing delivery ... but the benefits arising from a net addition of one unit would be relatively modest" (DL ¶26). - **DP3(3).** "Policy DP3:3 is clear that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 of this policy" (DL ¶28). ## Planning balance S4(1) with S4(2)(c) set out (DL ¶27-28). The conclusion uses the 2024 formula: the adverse impacts "would substantially and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of permitting the scheme to proceed" (DL ¶29). The slip is incidental: the S4 test and the DP3(3) trigger are correctly set out and both point to refusal. Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶30). ## What made the difference The plot was too small for a house of this form, leaving a garden under 2 m deep. Even an acute 1.4-year supply could not carry one cramped unit. ## Transferable points - A very small infill plot fails DP3(1) and P3 even with an acute supply shortfall (DL ¶8-14, ¶26). - Design policies seeking high quality are consistent with the Framework and keep substantial weight (DL ¶25). - Beware citing ¶29: it concludes in the old "substantially and demonstrably" wording. ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): conflict.** cramped overdevelopment almost filling the plot, discordant with well-spaced semis (DL 8-10) - **DP3(3): fail.** DP3(3) set out with the S4(2)(c) trigger (DL 27-28); clear justification not separately assessed - **P3: conflict.** rear garden no more than 2 m deep, oppressive enclosure; unsatisfactory living environment for future occupiers (DL 12-14) - **S4(1): fail.** adverse impacts "would substantially and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" - 2024 wording in the conclusion after the S4 test was set out (DL 27, 29) - **HO7: benefit (significant weight).** significant weight to the principle of housing delivery with 1.4-year supply, but one unit's benefits "relatively modest" (DL 26) - **F4: not-engaged.** FRA question raised after the new Framework; not pursued given the harm found (DL 23) ## Key facts - Council supply 1.4 years, undisputed (DL 26) - Neighbour living conditions acceptable subject to obscure glazing and rooflight conditions (DL 16-22) - Development plan design policies consistent with the Framework; substantial weight to the conflict (DL 25) - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006541 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/0239bf78-762f-49ba-8c74-fc54acd5005b --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006541.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land west of Hedgehog Lane (Longdene House), Haslemere - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Dring - **Authority:** Waverley (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006581 - **Application reference:** WA/2025/01986 - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Outline (access only) phased development of 14 dwellings - up to 8 affordable (social rent) and 6 self/custom build plots claimed as affordable - with access road, amenity space and landscaping - **Homes:** 14 - **Site context:** national-landscape, valued-landscape, settlement-edge, near-station, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.28 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N4(1), N4(4), S5(1)(h), HO7 - **Development plan policies:** Waverley Local Plan Part 1 2018 RE3, AHN1, AHN3, Waverley Local Plan Part 2 2023 DM1, DM4, DM15, Haslemere Neighbourhood Plan 2021 H1, H5, H11 - **Main issues:** National Landscape, landscape character, affordable housing, self-build as affordable housing, S5 balance - **Tags:** station-route-h, national-landscape, landscape-harm, substantially-outweighed, housing-shortfall, affordable-led, self-build, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, previous-appeal-consistency, l3-station-density-waived, sbcb-not-affordable ## Summary An outline scheme for 14 homes (8 social rent, 6 self/custom build plots) on an enclosed grazing field at the edge of Haslemere. About 70% of the site is in the Surrey Hills National Landscape and the rest is in its setting. Dismissed after a hearing. The site passed S5(1)(h) because it is within reasonable walking distance of Haslemere station and adjoins the town, and the benefits carried substantial weight against a 1.28-year supply. Even so, permanent harm to the National Landscape and its setting "substantially outweigh[s]" the benefits. The appellant's claim that the self-build plots counted as affordable housing, making a 100% affordable rural exception scheme, failed for lack of evidence. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The hearing was held before 17 August. "Both main parties have had the opportunity to comment on the new Framework, and I will take it into consideration" (DL ¶8). - **National Landscape: N4(1), N4(4) CONFLICT.** The scheme is not major development under N4(2) and footnote 59 (DL ¶12), so N4(1) and N4(4) apply (DL ¶13). The 30% of the site outside the NL "forms part of the setting of the NL and therefore sensitive consideration of the whole site is required" (DL ¶14). Visual effects are limited, but "landscape effects extend beyond visual impact alone" (DL ¶23). "the urbanisation proposed would lead to the substantial erosion of the site's rural character, which in turn would result in considerable harm to landscape character" (DL ¶21). "The proposal would neither conserve nor enhance the NL or its setting and harm to it would not be avoided or minimised" (DL ¶27). - **Affordable housing: complies.** Eight social rent units (57%) exceed the AHN1 30% requirement and are properly secured by the UU, with nomination rights and a delivery trigger tied to the SBCB plot sales (DL ¶¶35–40). - **Self-build plots as affordable housing: NOT SHOWN.** The parties agreed that self-build can in principle be affordable housing (DL ¶46), but it must still meet the Annex B definition. "there is no evidence before me on the current open market value of the plots. There is no valuation provided" (DL ¶57). No build costs were given (DL ¶58). An 11-year-old St Edmunds Lane decision claiming self-build is 20–55% cheaper was not accepted as evidence (DL ¶60). There was no workable eligibility or nomination test (DL ¶¶63–66). "it has not been demonstrated that the six proposed SBCB dwellings would provide affordable housing in line with the definition set out in the Framework" (DL ¶67). As a result the scheme "should not be treated as a rural exception site" (DL ¶73). - **S5(1)(h): PASS.** Reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station was agreed (DL ¶78). "Notwithstanding that I have found harm in relation to landscape matters above, the site sits directly adjacent to the settlement, with access into the site already present from the adjacent built up area … physically well-related to the settlement, in proximity and spatial connectivity terms" (DL ¶79). The inspector did not go on to S5(1)(j) (DL ¶80). - **L3(2)(c) density: neutral.** The scheme falls below 35 dph near a station, but "given the location of the site, being within the NL and its setting, applying such a density requirement would be inappropriate in this case" (DL ¶88). - **Previous appeals.** The 2019 decision was given limited weight because that scheme was materially different. The inspector reached "similar conclusions" to the 2023 Inspector on a 16-unit scheme (DL ¶¶28–29). ## Planning balance This was an S5(1) balance under S3. On the benefit side: HO7 housing, affordable and SBCB together "attract substantial weight" (DL ¶84), economic and social benefits moderate (DL ¶85), and landscaping and BNG over 10% limited (DL ¶86). The inspector called these "substantial benefits" overall (DL ¶87). On the harm side: "The permanence and irreversibility of the harm that would result to the NL as a Protected Landscape and to its setting, and the conflict with the Framework in this respect attracts substantial weight of such magnitude that it would substantially outweigh the substantial benefits" (DL ¶90). The decision under s38(6) followed the development plan (DL ¶94). ## What made the difference Most of the site lies inside a National Landscape. N4(1) requires substantial weight to conserving and enhancing natural beauty, and the s85 duty to further NL purposes applies, so the landscape harm was scored at the top of the scale even though it was barely visible from outside the site. That weight was enough to defeat 57% affordable housing, a 1.28-year supply and a passed S5(1)(h) test. The same field outside a Protected Landscape, with harm confined to local character, would very probably have been allowed. The attempt to make the scheme 100% affordable and so a rural exception site failed on evidence: there was no plot valuation, no build costs and no eligibility mechanism. ## Transferable points - A site can be "physically well-related" to a station settlement under S5(1)(h)(ii) because of proximity and access alone, even where it harms landscape character. Landscape harm is dealt with in the balance, not in the (h) gateway (DL ¶79). - Once one S5(1) limb is met, the inspector need not consider the others (DL ¶80). - National Landscape harm under N4(1) can "substantially outweigh" substantial housing benefits even with a supply of about 1.3 years (DL ¶90). - Land outside the NL boundary but part of the same field is within the NL's setting under N4(4) (DL ¶14). - Landscape character harm is separate from visual harm. Limited visibility does not neutralise it (DL ¶¶23, 26). - Self-build plots can be affordable housing only with evidence of plot value, build costs and a workable eligibility test for "those whose needs are not met by the market" (DL ¶¶57–67). Without that evidence a scheme is not 100% affordable and not a rural exception site (DL ¶73). - The L3(2)(c) 35 dph station-area minimum can be set aside as "inappropriate" in a Protected Landscape (DL ¶88). ## Policy findings - **N4(2): not-engaged.** not "major development" in the NL (footnote 59) given limited scale and effect on NL purposes; agreed by parties and 2019 Inspector (DL 12) - **N4(1): conflict (substantial weight).** ~70% of site in Surrey Hills NL; considerable harm; would neither conserve nor enhance; also fails s85 CROW Act duty to further NL purposes (DL 13, 27, 31, 89-90) - **N4(4): conflict (substantial weight).** remaining ~30% (AGLV) is within the setting of the NL; harm not avoided or minimised (DL 14, 27, 89) - **S5(1)(h): pass.** agreed within reasonable walking distance of Haslemere station (well-connected); directly adjoins settlement with access from built-up area so "physically well-related" despite landscape harm; no infrastructure or comprehensive-development objection (DL 78-80) - **S5(1)(j): not-engaged.** not considered because (h) was met (DL 80) - **HO10: fail.** not 100% affordable as SBCB plots not shown to be affordable, so not a rural exception site (DL 73) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 14 homes, 8 social rent (57%), 6 SBCB plots with substantial unmet SBCB need; 1.28-yr persistent shortfall (DL 44, 82-84) - **HO8: benefit (substantial weight).** 57% affordable exceeds AHN1 30%; SBCB plots NOT affordable under Annex B definition (c)/(d) - no plot valuation, build costs or eligibility mechanism (DL 35-40, 57-67, 72) - **L3(2)(c): neutral.** below 35 dph station-area minimum but applying it would be inappropriate in NL and setting; Council did not object (DL 88) - **S5(1): fail.** permanent irreversible NL harm "substantially outweigh" substantial benefits (DL 90) - **WLP RE3, DM1, DM4, DM15, NP H11: conflict.** consistent with Framework NL policy; conflict with plan as a whole (DL 31, 75, 94) ## Key facts - Council housing land supply agreed at 1.28 years, persistent shortfall - About 70% of site in Surrey Hills National Landscape, remainder in AGLV and NP "Green Finger" - Sloping enclosed grazing field; visual effects "localised and limited" but landscape character harm considerable - Third residential appeal on the site; 16 dwellings dismissed 2023, larger scheme dismissed 2019 - Within reasonable walking distance of Haslemere station (agreed), directly adjacent to settlement edge - Around 135 dwellings at adjacent Grasslands Close did not help - little visual relationship with site - UU secured 8 social rent units (57%) and 6 SBCB plots at 20% plot discount; no plot valuation or build-cost evidence - Hearing held 9 June 2026; parties given chance to comment on the 2026 Framework afterwards - Costs application by appellant decided separately (not read) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006581 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b42d505d-3945-44e5-8d4b-89b19821909b --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006581.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Annapurna, Moss Road, Wrockwardine Wood, Telford - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Brennan - **Authority:** Telford and Wrekin (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6006600 - **Application reference:** TWC/2026/0056 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Larger-home prior approval (GPDO Sch2 Pt1 Class A) for a 7.2m-deep single-storey rear extension to a bungalow - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Sch2 Pt1 Class A.1(d), GPDO Sch2 Pt1 Class A.1(k) - **Main issues:** permitted development eligibility - **Tags:** tier-2, no-framework-reference, prior-approval, larger-home-extension, drawing-errors ## Summary Larger-home extension prior approval for a bungalow. Dismissed. Inconsistent drawings meant the eaves limit in A.1(d) could not be shown to be met, and the extension needed a soil-pipe alteration, which Class A excludes (A.1(k)). The Framework is not relevant to PD eligibility and is not cited. ## What made the difference Drawing accuracy. Also, a Class G-permitted soil-pipe change cannot be bundled into a Class A extension (DL ¶18). ## Policy findings - **GPDO Sch2 Pt1 Class A.1(d): fail.** drawings not to scale and inconsistent with annotations and application form; cannot show new eaves would not exceed existing (DL 9-16) - **GPDO Sch2 Pt1 Class A.1(k): fail.** extension requires soil pipe alteration, excluded from Class A even though Class G would permit it separately (DL 17-20) ## Key facts - Existing eaves 2.8m by annotation but 2.24m when scaled (DL 11) - Amenity information held sufficient, but PD eligibility failed (DL 23) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006600 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4fa9ef55-ed9e-4bba-b115-72aebd4553f7 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006600.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Springbank, Beech Avenue, Exeter - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Harrington - **Authority:** Exeter (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6006617 - **Application reference:** 25/0383/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Single storey (self-build) dwelling in the garden of Springbank - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.32 - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** DM6 - **Development plan policies:** Exeter Local Plan First Review 2025 DG1, C1, LS2, Exeter Core Strategy 2012 objective 8 - **Main issues:** biodiversity net gain, conservation area, Exe Estuary SPA - **Tags:** transitional, transitional-no-consultation, old-balance-wording, bng-exemption-not-shown, self-build-unsecured, conditions-unenforceable, conservation-area, habitats-mitigation, small-scheme ## Summary One single-storey dwelling in a garden in the Pennsylvania Conservation Area, Exeter, promoted as self-build. Dismissed on the day the new Framework was published. The inspector raised BNG as a main issue of her own accord. The self-build exemption was not secured because there was no s106 and an occupancy condition would be unenforceable. There was no completed metric, so the statutory BNG condition could not be shown to be dischargeable. The conservation area and SPA issues were resolved in the appellant's favour. The planning balance uses the December 2024 NPPF tilted-balance wording, with no reference to S3, S4 or the new Framework. ## Issues and findings - **Transition: not addressed.** The letter is dated 17 August 2026 and never mentions the revised Framework. The conditions tests are "as outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework)" (DL ¶7), version unstated. The final balance is in 2024 para 11(d)(ii) language (DL ¶35). It is recorded here as transitional (implicitly 2024). - **BNG: FAIL (great weight).** "a condition requiring occupation by the person who built the dwelling for 3 years would not be enforceable and if the owner sells or leaves the property before the timeframe for occupation is complete, the house would no longer have permission to exist" (DL ¶7). "I do not have a completed biodiversity metric calculation tool" (DL ¶9). The new small-site exemption under the Biodiversity Gain (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 "only applies to planning applications received on or after the 6 August 2026" (DL ¶10). The chance that a future application would be exempt got "modest weight" (DL ¶33). - **Conservation area: preserved.** The dwelling "would assimilate well into the area and CA" (DL ¶16). The trees to be lost are C-category and neutral, and the TPO tree's RPA is protected by the AIA method and a condition (DL ¶¶17–19). - **SPA: mitigated.** A UU secures the SMS Habitat Mitigation Contribution, and "the development does not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA" (DL ¶28). ## Planning balance The proposal "would accord with development plan as a whole" (DL ¶36). The benefits were one home in a sustainable location against a 4.32-year supply, which were "modest benefits" (DL ¶32), with no weight for self-build because it was unsecured (DL ¶31). "this important adverse effect would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the modest benefits set out above when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole, even with particular regard to key policies. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply" (DL ¶35). Material considerations indicated refusal despite development plan accord (DL ¶36). ## What made the difference The appellant had no legal mechanism securing self-build and no BNG metric. Either one would probably have won the appeal, since every other issue was resolved in the appellant's favour. The timing was unlucky: the site was under 0.2 ha and would have been exempt under the 2026 Regulations had the application been received after 6 August 2026. The balance language is pre-2026, so the decision says nothing reliable about how S4 would treat an in-settlement single dwelling. ## Transferable points - A self-build BNG exemption needs a s106 or UU. A condition requiring occupation by the self-builder for a period fails the tests for conditions (DL ¶¶6–8). - Without a completed statutory metric, an inspector cannot find that the BNG condition is capable of being discharged, and the appeal can fail on that alone even where the scheme accords with the development plan (DL ¶¶9, 34–36). - The 2026 BNG small-site (≤0.2 ha) exemption applies only to applications received on or after 6 August 2026 (DL ¶10). - Transition slip: a decision issued on 17 August 2026 applied 2024 para 11(d) "significantly and demonstrably outweigh … key policies" wording with no reference to the new Framework (DL ¶35). ## Policy findings - **BNG (Schedule 7A TCPA): fail (great weight).** self-build exemption not secured - no s106, occupancy condition unenforceable; no completed metric so cannot show BNG condition dischargeable; new 0.2 ha exemption (2026 Regs) applies only to applications received on or after 6 Aug 2026 (DL 5-11, 34) - **DM6: fail.** 3-year self-builder occupancy condition fails the tests for conditions ("the Framework" - version not specified) (DL 7) - **HE6: neutral.** Pennsylvania CA preserved - recessive contemporary design, C-category trees only lost, TPO tree RPA protected by condition (DL 12-21) - **Habitats (Exe Estuary SPA): neutral.** appropriate assessment - SMS contribution secured by UU; no adverse effect on integrity (DL 22-29) - **HO7: benefit.** one dwelling in a sustainable location with a 4.32-yr supply - "modest benefits"; no weight to self-build as not secured (DL 30-32) - **S3: fail.** balance run in 2024 NPPF para 11(d)(ii) terms - "significantly and demonstrably outweigh … Framework taken as a whole … key policies"; S4 not mentioned (DL 35) ## Key facts - Decision dated 17 Aug 2026, the day the new Framework was published; letter does not mention the new Framework or any consultation on it - Council supply 4.32 years (appellant's figure, undisputed) - Garden plot within Pennsylvania Conservation Area; three TPO trees on site - Self-build claimed but no s106; condition offered instead - Site under 0.2 ha but new BNG small-site exemption only applies to applications received from 6 Aug 2026 - Proposal accorded with the development plan as a whole but was dismissed on BNG as a material consideration - Costs application by appellant decided separately (not read) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006617 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8195117e-7ef4-40f7-b68b-e2d751634e0c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006617.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land opposite the Full Quart, Bristol Road (A370), Hewish, Puxton - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Laura Cuthbert - **Authority:** North Somerset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6006629 - **Application reference:** 23/P/2593/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use to Gypsy and Traveller site (9 permanent pitches) with associated development - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** open-countryside, flood-zone-3, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** F6, S5(2), S5(1)(g), AnnexF - **Development plan policies:** North Somerset Core Strategy 2017 CS3, emerging North Somerset Local Plan 2026-2041 (limited weight) - **Main issues:** flood risk - **Tags:** travellers, s5-1-g-travellers, traveller-supply-shortfall, flood-risk, s5-2-refusal-policy, substantially-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, annex-f-incompatible, temporary-permission-refused, alternative-sites ## Summary Nine permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches on a 0.3 ha field in Flood Zone 3a near Hewish. Dismissed. The appeal was consistent with S5(1)(g): there is a large unmet need, no five-year pitch supply, and the emerging allocations are themselves in Flood Zone 3a. But permanent caravans are "Highly Vulnerable", which the new Annex F makes incompatible with Flood Zone 3a. F6 therefore says the proposal "should be refused". Under S5(2), that made the benefits "substantially outweighed" whether or not the sequential and exception tests were passed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The 2026 Framework "now contains the Government's national policies relating to Traveller site provision, replacing the previous Planning Policy for Traveller Sites" and "incorporates the flood risk vulnerability classifications and flood zone compatibility tables previously contained within the Planning Practice Guidance". Comments were sought from the parties (DL ¶4). - **F6 / Annex F: FAIL.** "As the appeal site lies wholly within Flood Zone 3a and the proposal comprises Highly Vulnerable development, the proposal gives rise to a clear conflict with national planning policy" (DL ¶8). - **Sequential and exception tests.** "The Framework does not indicate that satisfaction of the Sequential Test would, in itself, render such development compatible with that flood zone" (DL ¶14). "even if the Sequential Test and Exception Test were satisfied, the proposal would nevertheless involve Highly Vulnerable development within Flood Zone 3a" (DL ¶16). - **F7 mitigation.** The measures "represent the management of flood risk rather than its avoidance" (DL ¶13). - **Local policy.** CS3 "does not displace the Framework's requirement that the vulnerability classification of a development must be compatible with the flood zone" (DL ¶17). - **S5(2).** The Inspector accepted F6 conflict "does not automatically preclude the grant of planning permission". But "Policy S5.2 indicates that adverse effects are likely to substantially outweigh the benefits where a proposal fails to comply with a national decision-making policy that states development should be refused" (DL ¶28). - **Precedents.** The SoS's Staples Vegetables decision "does not establish a general principle that flood risk is merely one ordinary material consideration ... any departure from national flood risk policy requires compelling justification grounded in the particular facts" (DL ¶32). ## Planning balance The balance ran under S5(1)(g) and S5(2). For: unmet need, no five-year pitch supply, lack of alternative sites, and the mitigation offered, together significant weight (DL ¶36). Against: F6 / Annex F incompatibility (substantial weight) and moderate landscape harm (DL ¶¶22, 28). "the benefits would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects. Furthermore, the Framework specifically states the proposed development should be refused" (DL ¶36). The public sector equality duty and human rights were considered; interference was proportionate (DL ¶35). ## What made the difference Annex F now brings the flood-zone compatibility matrix into the Framework itself. Together with F6's "should be refused" wording, that turned the old sequential/exception-test debate into a binary incompatibility test. That test cannot be passed by mitigation, lack of alternatives or a temporary permission. Only a site in Flood Zone 1 or 2, or a less vulnerable use, would have avoided it. ## Transferable points - Under the 2026 Framework, Highly Vulnerable development (including permanent residential caravans) in Flood Zone 3a fails F6 on the Annex F matrix whatever the sequential and exception test outcome (DL ¶¶8, 14-16). - Failing F6 engages S5(2): benefits are "likely" to be substantially outweighed. That can override significant weight for unmet traveller need and lack of alternative sites (DL ¶¶28, 36). - Flood warning and evacuation plans and resilient construction are "management of flood risk rather than its avoidance" (DL ¶13). - Pre-2026 permissions for traveller sites in flood zones, and the Staples Vegetables SoS decision, are distinguishable as made in a different policy context and often temporary (DL ¶¶30-33). - A temporary permission does not answer a flood-risk objection that will not reduce over time (DL ¶34). - The 2026 Framework no longer stresses a traveller site's effect on the settled community, though it can still be considered (DL ¶26). ## Policy findings - **F6: fail (substantial weight).** Highly Vulnerable permanent caravans wholly in Flood Zone 3a are incompatible under the Annex F Table 3 matrix; F6 says such proposals should be refused; appellant accepted it could not comply (DL 7-8, 16, 28) - **F7: fail.** mitigation (land raising, floor levels, resilient units, flood warning and evacuation plan) manages rather than avoids risk; defences' standard declines with climate change and funding is uncertain (DL 11-13) - **F5: neutral.** even if the sequential and exception tests were passed, incompatibility remains (DL 14-16) - **S5(1)(g): benefit (significant weight).** evidenced unmet traveller need (131-pitch five-year requirement claimed); no five-year pitch supply; emerging allocations also in FZ3a (DL 23-24, 36) - **S5(2): fail.** failure of a "should be refused" national policy (F6) means benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed (DL 28, 36) - **HO12: neutral.** reasonably related to services; no highway, drainage or neighbour harm (DL 25-26) - **HE6: pass.** negligible effect on setting of Grade II Chestnut Farmhouse; setting preserved (DL 21) ## Key facts - Site 0.3 ha wholly in Flood Zone 3a behind tidal defences whose standard will reduce over the development's lifetime (DL 7, 12) - 2026 Framework absorbs PPTS and the PPG flood compatibility tables (Annex F) (DL 4) - Temporary 5-year permission rejected because flood risk would not diminish (DL 34) - Staples Vegetables SoS decision (APP/Z2505/V/09/2119176) distinguished (DL 31-32) - Parties invited to comment on the revised Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006629 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2cf47778-2e3a-4f33-9a6b-aa934cb90d59 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006629.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 42 Prince Drive, Oadby - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Timothy Parton - **Authority:** Oadby and Wigston (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6006636 - **Application reference:** 25/00301/COU - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use from dwelling (C3) to children's care home for 3 children (C2) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** HO9 - **Development plan policies:** Oadby and Wigston Local Plan 2019 Policies 2, 6, 11, Residential Development SPD 2019 - **Main issues:** need for C2 use, living conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, childrens-home, need-evidence, loss-of-dwelling, framework-not-cited ## Summary A three-child care home was dismissed because Policy 11 was read as requiring a need specific to the Borough. County and national sufficiency evidence was not enough, set against a county email saying no local children were awaiting placement. The loss of a C3 home in an area of significant housing need counted against it. No Framework is cited (letter dated 17 Aug). ## What made the difference The up-to-date, Borough-specific county email (DL ¶12). Compare PINS-6006244 (Havering), where the Council's own Sufficiency Assessment established need, and the fork cases on HO7/HO9 for children's homes (PINS-6010861, PINS-6011401). ## Policy findings - **HO9: fail.** Framework not cited; Policy 11 read as requiring Borough-specific need; county/national evidence insufficient; LCC email: no Oadby and Wigston children awaiting placement (DL 3-13) - **HO7: harm.** loss of a C3 dwelling given significant Borough housing need (DL 14-16) - **P3: pass.** NDSS-compliant rooms, adequate staff space (DL 17-22) ## Key facts - Conflicting earlier appeals on Policy 11 (APP/L2440/W/24/3355109 vs 3336468) - County and DfE sufficiency evidence showed general pressure but not Borough need ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3948e80f-4895-46e5-b783-b984479c9d57 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006636 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006636.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land off Oakdene Crescent, Hatton Station, Warwick - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Smith - **Authority:** Warwick (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6006637 - **Application reference:** W/24/0706 - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** 28 dwellings (100% affordable, 75% social rent / 25% shared ownership) with access, parking, landscaping, POS - **Homes:** 28 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, rural-lane, near-station - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.96 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, GB8(1)(b), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Warwick District Local Plan 2017 DS18, TR1, BE1, NE4, H3 - **Main issues:** grey belt / sustainable location, Golden Rules infrastructure, affordable concentration, character, VSC - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-fail, golden-rules-fail, golden-rules, near-station, station-route-h, not-well-connected-station, rural-lane-no-footway, shared-carriageway-rejected, vsc-not-shown, affordable-led, housing-shortfall, emerging-allocation, stratford-relevant ## Summary 28 affordable homes on a grey belt field next to Hatton Station, a small West Midlands Green Belt settlement, 350 m from a railway station reached along unlit Station Road with no footway. Dismissed after a hearing. The site failed GB7(1)(g)(iii): 28 homes would generate significant movement in this context, the location did not limit the need to travel, and the route to the station was unsafe for pedestrians. It also failed GB8(1)(b), because the necessary local highway improvements were not secured. The station fell short of the "well-connected station" definition, so GB7(1)(h) was not available. Very significant weight to affordable housing (1.96 years' supply) did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The Framework was published three days before the hearing; the parties had sufficient opportunity to address it (DL ¶2). - **(g)(i)/(ii): common ground** (DL ¶10). - **Station and GB7(1)(h).** "the station does not meet the Framework's definition of a 'well-connected station' because fewer than four trains per hour serve it throughout the daytime on a typical weekday and fewer than two trains per hour operate in any one direction" (DL ¶18). - **Walking route.** Station Road is "principally designed to accommodate vehicular movement … Slimline grassed verges … provide limited opportunities to step clear of the carriageway … forward visibility is restricted … the route is also unlit" (DL ¶21). "I also accept that the absence of continuous footways does not automatically render Station Road unsuitable for pedestrian use. Nonetheless … Station Road cannot reasonably be regarded as providing a safe route for all users, particularly pedestrians" (DL ¶24). The absence of recorded collisions "must be treated with caution in light of the clear physical constraints evident on the ground" (DL ¶23). Observed pedestrian use "do[es] not demonstrate that the route is universally perceived as safe", because "some journeys arise out of necessity rather than choice" (DL ¶26). - **"Significant movement" threshold.** Only about 112 vehicle movements a day, but "28 additional households … could reasonably be expected to generate a significant amount of movement when assessed in the context of the host area" (DL ¶29). - **GB7(1)(g)(iii) / TR3: FAIL.** "the site's location does not limit the need to travel" (DL ¶30). "notwithstanding the station's proximity to the site, the connecting route is subject to significant useability and safety constraints … [which] undermine any proposition that future residents would necessarily enjoy a genuine choice of transport modes" (DL ¶32). The mitigation offered (signage, surface colour, road-safety contribution) was "relatively minor", and a 20 mph TRO had "no legally binding mechanism" (DL ¶34-35). "the development would not be located in a sustainable location as required by Policy GB7(1)(g)(iii)" (DL ¶39). Single-dwelling appeal comparators were distinguished (DL ¶38). - **GB8(1)(b): FAIL.** "necessary local highway infrastructure improvements have not been suitably identified, substantiated, or secured. This conclusion aligns with the position of the Highway Authority" (DL ¶44). - **Emerging allocation.** B1/HAT's sustainability depends on uncertain new railway crossings and station access (DL ¶43). - **100% affordable concentration:** no harm (DL ¶49). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Harm: substantial weight to inappropriateness and to a "distinct loss of openness, most especially in a spatial sense" on 1.17 ha (DL ¶55), plus limited character harm. Benefits: very significant weight to 28 affordable homes, considerable weight to economic benefits, moderate to BNG, minor to POS. "The scheme's benefits would, in cumulative terms, be substantial. However, such benefits would not clearly outweighed the substantial harm identified to the Green Belt" (DL ¶60). ## What made the difference The walking route to the station. The site was close to a railway station, but the 350 m route was an unlit, narrow road with no footway and a pinch-point bridge, so the station's proximity did not deliver a genuine choice of modes. Low traffic speeds and volumes, no collision record, and observed pedestrian use did not carry the day. Failure on that one point also knocked out GB8(1)(b), because the pedestrian safety improvements were not secured. The appellant would have needed a deliverable, secured footway or equivalent segregated route to the station (via s278 or a Grampian condition with the Highway Authority's support), plus certainty over any speed limit change. ## Transferable points - Proximity to a station does not make a location sustainable if the walking route to it is unsafe or unattractive (DL ¶32). - A station with fewer than four trains per hour in daytime is not "well-connected", so GB7(1)(h) is unavailable (DL ¶18). - A missing footway is not automatically fatal, but a narrow, unlit, vehicle-dominated lane with restricted visibility cannot be a safe route for all users (DL ¶21-24). - A nil collision record and observed walking counts are of limited weight where people walk out of necessity (DL ¶23, 26). - "Significant amount of movement" under TR3 is judged in the context of the host area; 28 dwellings in a small settlement qualifies even with modest vehicle trips (DL ¶29). - Minor signage and markings, or an unsecured 20 mph TRO, do not make a location sustainable (DL ¶34-35). - GB8(1)(b) "necessary improvements to local infrastructure" can fail where the highway improvements needed for pedestrian safety are not secured (DL ¶41-44). - The prospective sustainability of an emerging allocation is not relied on where its infrastructure is uncertain (DL ¶43). - Very significant weight to 100% affordable housing on a 1.96-year supply still did not clearly outweigh Green Belt harm (DL ¶57, 60). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** common ground (DL 10) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** common ground (DL 10) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** common ground; 1.96 yrs supply, 3,466 shortfall (DL 10, 56) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): fail.** Hatton Station has very few facilities; unlit Station Road without footways, narrow bridge; bus 1.1 km with twice-weekly service; station 350 m but not "well-connected" and only partly step-free; 28 homes are "significant movement" in context (DL 14-39) - **TR3: fail.** location does not limit need to travel; no genuine choice of modes; signage, markings and possible 20 mph TRO too minor or uncertain (DL 27-39) - **GB8(1)(b): fail.** (a) affordable and (c) green space met, but necessary local highway improvements for pedestrian safety not identified, substantiated or secured; Highway Authority considered mitigation inadequate (DL 12-13, 41-44) - **GB7(1)(h): not-engaged.** station fails "well-connected station" definition (fewer than 4 tph daytime; fewer than 2 tph each direction) (DL 18) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriate; distinct spatial loss of openness on an undeveloped 1.17 ha site (DL 55) - **HO8: benefit (very-significant weight).** 28 affordable homes, 1.96 yrs supply, weak affordable delivery; not tied to a specific local need (DL 49, 56-57) - **DP3 / local BE1, NE4: harm (limited weight).** limited urbanising harm to a discreet, enclosed edge site (DL 52) ## Key facts - Site adjoins the Infill Village Boundary of Hatton Station (railway station, yacht club and nursery only) - 350 m walk to the station along unlit, narrow Station Road with slim verges and a railway bridge; no continuous footway; kerb refuge on the bridge - Traffic 653 vehicles a day, 64 two-way in peaks, mean 23-26 mph, 85th percentile ~30 mph; no injury collisions since 2014 - CCTV recorded 70 pedestrians and 13 cyclists over 12 hours, but "some journeys arise out of necessity rather than choice" - Shop and pub at Shrewley 1.7-1.8 km, school 2.3 km (served by minibus), canal towpath unlit and unsurfaced - Hatton station has fewer than 4 trains per hour and fewer than 2 per hour each way, so not a "well-connected station" - Emerging SWLP allocation B1/HAT (new settlement) includes the site but its infrastructure is uncertain - s106 secured affordable housing, POS, education, health, library, PROW and road safety education ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006637 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/701d49de-a57d-40d1-ab37-2ad4d152121c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006637.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 64 Prestwich Avenue, Worcester - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Marley - **Authority:** Worcester (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6006644 - **Application reference:** 25/00541/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Detached three-bedroom "bungalow" with rooms in the roof and a large dormer, in the rear garden of an existing house - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.37 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), S4(2)(c), S4(2)(a)(ii), DP3, TR6, L2(1)(d) - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR 05, SWDPR 06, SWDPR 28, South Worcestershire Design Guide SPD 2018, Streetscapes Design Guide 2022 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions of future occupiers, highway safety, neighbour privacy - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, tr6-highway-safety, l2-1-d-curtilage, backland, garden-infill, nds-space-standards, living-conditions, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, psed, new-local-plan, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A backland "bungalow" (really one and a half storeys with a large dormer) in the rear garden of a semi-suburban house in Worcester, served by a driveway past the host house. The appeal was dismissed. The inspector found harm on character (DP3), highway safety (TR6), future occupiers' internal space (below NDSS) and a neighbour's privacy. The S4 balance was run with three triggers together: S4(2)(c) for DP3 and TR6, and S4(2)(a)(ii) for a substantial adverse L2(1)(d) curtilage impact. Together they substantially outweighed a small contribution to a 2.37-year supply. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** New local plan adopted and new Framework published during the appeal; both parties had the opportunity to comment (DL ¶¶2–3). - **Character — DP3: FAIL.** "By introducing a new dwelling into the rear garden, the proposal would contrast with the well-established rhythm of nearby buildings" (DL ¶8). Nearby outbuildings are "clearly subservient" and not comparable (DL ¶9). A claimed permitted-development dormer fallback got limited weight: no evidence it would fall within the relevant class (DL ¶11). "I see no clear justification for the harm" (DL ¶44). - **Future occupiers — NDSS: FAIL.** A dwelling with two or more bedspaces must have at least one double bedroom, so the minimum is 3b4p; occupancy by two people cannot be secured in perpetuity (DL ¶15). The home was "an unacceptably cramped internal layout … This would not be an efficient use of land" (DL ¶17). Garden space was acceptable (DL ¶¶18–19). - **Highway safety — TR6: FAIL.** The fence meant "vehicles leaving the site would only have limited time to react to pedestrians … regardless of whether vehicles could exit in a forward gear or even if vehicle movements were low" (DL ¶23). A narrow space would push the host house's second car onto the street (DL ¶¶25–26). No severe cumulative impact, but that "do[es] not offset … the need for development proposals to not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety" (DL ¶27). - **Neighbour — privacy: FAIL; outlook/sunlight: no harm** (DL ¶¶31–35). ## Planning balance S4 balance. Benefits: small contribution to a 2.37-year supply, "moderate weight" (DL ¶41); home for elderly relatives, moderate (DL ¶42); limited economic (DL ¶43). Harms: DP3 and TR6 conflicts, "substantial weight" (DL ¶44); L2 "substantial adverse impact" (DL ¶45). "I have found conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies DP3 and TR6 … Policy S4 further states that such circumstances also include where a proposal would result in a substantial adverse impact in relation to the application of Policy L2 to development within residential curtilages … the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶46). ## What made the difference Cumulative, avoidable design failures on a tight plot. The dwelling broke the open rear-garden pattern and had an oversized dormer. It was under NDSS space. A 2 m fence cut pedestrian visibility at the shared access, and it overlooked the neighbour's rear windows. Each failure engaged a "should be refused" policy or the L2(1)(d) trigger in S4(2)(a)(ii). A smaller, genuinely single-storey building with no first-floor window towards No 62, a low boundary at the access and proper parking widths might still have met the character objection, but would have removed most of the S4(2) triggers. ## Transferable points - S4(2)(a)(ii) is used for backland and garden development: failing L2(1)(d)'s privacy and safe-access requirements is a "substantial adverse impact" pointing to refusal (DL ¶¶45–46). - DP3 and TR6 conflicts together engage S4(2)(c) and were given substantial weight (DL ¶¶44, 46). - Here the inspector gave only moderate weight to one dwelling against a 2.37-year supply and did not cite HO7 (DL ¶41). Other inspectors give substantial HO7 weight in the same situation, so this is an inconsistency to flag. - NDSS: a three-bedroom home is at least 3b4p because one bedroom must be a double; claims that the home would have fewer occupants cannot be secured (DL ¶15). Undersized space is also "not an efficient use of land" (DL ¶17). - Visibility to pedestrians at an access is decisive "regardless of whether vehicles could exit in a forward gear or even if vehicle movements were low" (DL ¶23). - Unevidenced permitted-development fallbacks for dormers get limited weight (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail (substantial weight).** backland dwelling breaks consistent linear pattern with open rear gardens; bulky dormer out of character; no clear justification (DL 5-13, 44) - **TR6: fail (substantial weight).** 2 m fence next to access blocks pedestrian visibility; one existing-house space too narrow, so parking would spill onto a narrow street with footway parking (DL 21-28, 44) - **L2(1)(d): fail.** plot intensification does not keep acceptable privacy for No 62 or safe access; "substantial adverse impact" (DL 45) - **S4(2)(a)(ii): fail.** substantial adverse impact on the application of L2 to development within residential curtilages (DL 46) - **S4(2)(c): fail.** DP3 and TR6 refusal policies failed (DL 46) - **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 46) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** small contribution to a 2.37-year supply given only moderate weight; HO7 not named (DL 41) - **HO5: benefit (moderate weight).** home for elderly relatives but no evidence of older people's needs (DL 42); HO5 not named - **SWDPR 05 (NDSS): conflict.** 72 sqm GIA against 84 sqm for a two-storey 3b4p; low ceiling heights; cramped (DL 14-17, 20) - **SWDPR 05/06/28: conflict.** character, living conditions, highway safety, neighbour privacy; conflict with plan as a whole (DL 39) ## Key facts - Council supply 2.37 years per officer report — "a significant shortfall" (DL 41) - Proposed GIA at most 72 sqm; NDSS minimum 84 sqm for a two-storey 3-bed 4-person home; appellant's "3b3p" argument rejected because NDSS needs at least one double bedroom (DL 15-16) - First-floor window would look directly into rear windows of No 62 (DL 31) - 2 m fence almost to the site boundary beside a parking space leaves exiting drivers with very little view of pedestrians (DL 23) - New South Worcestershire Development Plan Review adopted during the appeal; parties had the chance to comment - PSED (age) considered; dismissal proportionate (DL 47) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006644 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8fd0ba33-90f8-4678-8f50-f8211c42ff30 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006644.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # School Road Business Park, Newton Abbot - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Worley - **Authority:** Teignbridge (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6006656 - **Application reference:** 24/00446/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of unit 3a, alterations/extensions to units 3, 6-9, change of unit 3 from tattoo parlour to B2 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N2(1)(f), S4, S3 - **Development plan policies:** Teignbridge Local Plan 2020-2040 (May 2026) EN12, GC10, GP1, H12, EC1, DW2, Newton Abbot NP NANDP3, NANDP9 - **Main issues:** protected species, living conditions, housing allocation - **Tags:** tier-2, protected-species-surveys-missing, e2-substantial-weight, s4-substantially-outweighed, surveys-not-by-condition ## Summary Refurbishment of a town-centre industrial estate, with a change of use of one unit to B2. Dismissed solely because there was no bat or bird survey for significant roof works. Substantial weight was given to the E2 economic benefits. Noise and housing-allocation objections were rejected. But the unassessed impact on protected species conflicted with N2(1)(f), and the inspector held that the benefits were therefore substantially outweighed under S4 (DL ¶25). ## What made the difference The survey gap alone. The inspector used N2(1)(f), a "should minimise" policy rather than a "should be refused" one, as the national policy failure that tipped the S4 balance. Surveys cannot be left to a condition (Circular 06/2005). A preliminary ecological appraisal and bat survey would very likely have produced an approval. ## Policy findings - **N2(1)(f): fail.** no bat/bird survey for roof works; cannot show biodiversity impacts minimised, "a matter of primary importance"; treated as tipping S4 (DL 6-10, 25) - **E2(1)(a): benefit (substantial weight).** economic benefit of modernising business units (DL 21) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed; presumption under S3 not engaged (DL 24-25) ## Key facts - No Preliminary Ecological Appraisal or bat survey despite roof works to older industrial units near mature trees (DL 6-8) - Site part of Hopkins Lane Opportunity Area allocated for about 20 homes (GC10); housing-supply objection rejected (DL 16-20) - Letter does not mention the 17 Aug 2026 Framework revision as a procedural matter; applies 2026 codes directly ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006656 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fcb205a6-3655-400f-b3aa-4dceb9f1a98e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006656.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to Woodstock House, Mole Street, Ockley (barn) - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Bowyer - **Authority:** Mole Valley (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006697 - **Application reference:** MO/2025/1071 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective permission for an agricultural storage barn built not in accordance with a Class A Part 6 prior notification - **Site context:** open-countryside, valued-landscape, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(a), HE4, HE6 - **Development plan policies:** Mole Valley Local Plan 2024 EN2, EC6, EN4, EN6, EN8, INF1, INF2 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, setting of listed buildings, parking - **Tags:** s5-1-a, agricultural-building, agricultural-need-not-shown, retrospective, fallback-not-reliable, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, heritage-harm-decisive, landscape-harm, substantially-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Retrospective permission for a hay and machinery barn built on a small field parcel near two Grade II listed farm buildings at Ockley. It had been built differently from its Class A prior-notification scheme. Dismissed. The appellant never showed that agriculture on the site was a trade or business, or that the barn was reasonably necessary, so the S5(1)(a) agriculture benefits were "unclear" and limited. Low-level harm to the listed buildings' setting and to the rural landscape substantially outweighed them. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties addressed the 2026 Framework in written comments (DL ¶7). - **Character (local plan EN2/EC6): FAIL.** Agricultural need was not shown. As a building, though, the barn "would assimilate suitably with its rural context" if the use had been justified (DL ¶¶13–15, 27–29). - **Fallback: limited weight.** The barn as built is not PD because it departs from the notified details, and "The Council's determination ... that prior approval was not required does not certify ... that development would inevitably accord with all aspects of Class A" (DL ¶17). There was doubt that the PA scheme was still a realistic fallback (DL ¶¶19–20, 49). - **Heritage — HE4/HE6: FAIL.** There is no historic functional link, but the field's openness "would add to the rural quality of the area around the listed buildings, and in doing so, it makes some contribution to their significance" (DL ¶33). Harm "at a low level" still "attracts considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶37). There was no "clear and convincing justification" (DL ¶42). - **Appellant's reliance on the 2026 Framework rejected.** "the proposal would not use previously developed land, reuse an existing building or provide additional residential accommodation" (DL ¶40). ## Planning balance Development plan first (conflict with EN2, EN4, EN6, EN8), then S5 as a cross-check: "while the Framework does not specifically require that development for agriculture is for the purposes of a trade or business or shown to be reasonably necessary ..., the absence of such justification in this case means that I consider the benefits of the development for agriculture to be unclear and the weight that I afford them is limited" (DL ¶51). "the limited benefits ... would be substantially outweighed by the cumulative adverse effects. Policy S5 of the Framework does not therefore indicate that the development should be approved" (DL ¶52). ## What made the difference There was no evidence of a real agricultural business and the building was impractical for its stated use. That left the S5(1)(a) category with little weight, and even low-level harm to Grade II settings was enough to defeat it. With evidence of a trading holding and a barn sized to fit its function, the S5(1)(a) benefit would have carried more, and the character objection largely fell away (DL ¶27). The heritage harm would then have been set against real agricultural benefits. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(a) "agriculture" has no Framework trade/business or reasonable-necessity test. Without such evidence, though, the benefits are "unclear" and get limited weight in the substantially-outweighed balance (DL ¶51). - Open undeveloped land with no historic functional link to a listed farmstead can still add to significance through the rural setting, and low-level setting harm carries "considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶¶33, 37). - A "prior approval not required" determination is not a certificate of lawfulness. A barn built differently from the notified details is not PD, and the fallback weight falls away (DL ¶¶16–20). - Appellants' 2026 Framework submissions will be tested for accuracy (e.g. claimed PDL or reuse) (DL ¶40). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(a): fail.** development for agriculture is a listed category and the Framework does not require trade/business or reasonable necessity, but lacking justification the benefits are unclear and limited; substantially outweighed (DL 51-52) - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** low-level less-than-substantial harm to settings of Grade II Volvens Farm House and barn through loss of open rural setting and screening; limited public benefits (DL 33-43) - **HE4: fail.** no clear and convincing justification for the harm (DL 37, 42) - **N2: harm.** loss of openness and undeveloped character in AGLV/Countryside Beyond the Green Belt; national policies on landscape character and natural beauty cited (DL 25-29, 52) - **E4: benefit (limited weight).** rural-business support unclear without evidence of agricultural trade or business (DL 38) - **TR6: pass.** parking/turning adequate; 20 mph road (DL 44-46) ## Key facts - Small parcel, not even the whole field; claimed 14 ha DEFRA-registered holding not evidenced (DL 13) - Barn has an inaccessible low first floor and small doors, which raises doubt that it is functional for hay and machinery (DL 14) - As built, differs from the Class A Part 6 prior notification (form, eaves, access), so is not PD; fallback given limited weight (DL 16-20, 49) - Site in Countryside Beyond the Green Belt and AGLV (not Green Belt) (DL 9) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006697 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6ba65b1d-ce27-4c09-b98b-aea68612f4e2 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006697.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 10 Pine View Close, Badshot Lea, Farnham - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Ellis - **Authority:** Waverley (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006720 - **Application reference:** WA/2025/02373 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Removal of outbuildings and erection of a single-storey one-bedroom dwelling in the rear garden - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.28 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(2)(c), DP3(1), DP3(3), P3(2)(a), N2(1)(a) - **Development plan policies:** Waverley Local Plan Part 1 2018 TD1, NE1, Waverley Local Plan Part 2 2023 DM1, DM4, DM5, Farnham Neighbourhood Plan 2020 FNP1, FNP15, FNP16 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, neighbour living conditions, future occupier living conditions, biodiversity - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, backland, garden-land, living-conditions, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, bng-not-demonstrated ## Summary A one-bedroom bungalow replacing outbuildings in the rear garden of a semi-detached house in Badshot Lea. Dismissed. The Council had only 1.28 years' supply, and the housing benefit was given substantial weight. But the dwelling was cramped and out of character, which failed DP3(1). That triggered DP3(3)'s "should be refused", and so S4(2)(c). It also harmed neighbours' gardens, gave future occupiers an oppressive outlook contrary to P3, and had no BNG evidence (N2). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** A new Framework was "issued on 17 August 2026 ... The appellant and the Council have had the opportunity to comment" (DL ¶2). - **Character — DP3(1): FAIL.** "the new dwelling would be in very close proximity to its boundaries on three sides and consequently would appear cramped in its plot" (DL ¶6). DP3(1) allows change where density is justified by L2/L3, but "I am therefore not satisfied that the additional unit would constitute an effective use of land or that the increase in density would be justified" (DL ¶¶9-10). - **Neighbours.** The dwelling would cause "a significant loss of outlook and sense of enclosure to the rear garden areas of No 7 and No 10" (DL ¶13). Noise and privacy were acceptable (DL ¶14). - **Future occupiers — P3(2)(a): FAIL.** "the outlook from the bedroom, office and kitchen windows would be so enclosed as to feel oppressive" (DL ¶19). - **Biodiversity — N2(1)(a): FAIL.** "it has not been demonstrated that a biodiversity net gain of at least 10% could be achieved" (DL ¶27). - **Guidance.** Framework Section 1 ¶14 is used to bring in the National Design Guide section H1 as supporting guidance (DL ¶17). ## Planning balance The S4 balance. The single home, economic benefit and accessible location were "attributed substantial weight" given the 1.28-year supply (DL ¶33). Against them: DP3(3) refusal without clear justification, plus P3, N2 and NDG H1 failures. "I am satisfied when having regard to paragraph 2.c. of Policy S4 of the Framework that the benefits of the scheme would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶34). ## What made the difference The DP3(3) trigger feeds S4(2)(c) directly. Once the design was found not to respond to context "without clear justification", the S4 presumption was likely to be displaced, even at 1.28 years' supply. A dwelling that fitted the close's semi-detached rhythm and had rear garden space, or a scheme with a BNG metric and more generous separation, might have succeeded. ## Transferable points - A DP3(1) conflict without clear justification engages DP3(3), which is a "should be refused" policy for S4(2)(c). This can outweigh substantial weight for housing at a severe shortfall (1.28 years) (DL ¶¶31, 34). - The DP3(1) caveat allowing change where density is justified under L2/L3 does not help a cramped backland unit (DL ¶¶9-10). - P3(2)(a) (adequate access to light) is applied to future occupiers' outlook and daylight (DL ¶¶23-24). - Failure to provide a biodiversity metric is a free-standing N2(1)(a) failure (DL ¶¶25-27). - The National Design Guide is treated as Framework-backed guidance via Section 1 ¶14 (DL ¶17). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): fail (considerable weight).** single-storey backland dwelling with its garden to the front, tight to three boundaries; cramped and incongruous in a symmetrical close of two-storey semis; density increase not justified under L2/L3 (DL 6, 9-11) - **DP3(3): fail.** conflict with DP3(1) without clear justification, so a "should be refused" policy engaging S4(2)(c) (DL 34) - **P3(2)(a): fail.** side windows face the boundary fence at close range; oppressive outlook and poor daylight to bedroom, office and kitchen (DL 19, 23-24) - **N2(1)(a): fail.** no metric or landscaping plan, so 10% BNG not demonstrated (DL 25-27) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 1 home against a 1.28-year supply, plus economic benefit and fairly accessible location, together substantial (DL 32-33) - **S4(2)(c): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 31, 34) ## Key facts - Council supply 1.28 years (DL 32) - A previous appeal for a 2-storey extension to form a dwelling (APP/R3650/W/24/3347423) was dismissed in 2025 (DL 5) - The National Design Guide (H1) is used as supporting guidance via Framework Section 1 para 14 (DL 17-18, 23) - Parties had the opportunity to comment on the new Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006720 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8d7d4250-e50f-4db2-af72-b375497d3e97 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006720.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land off Drake Street, Welland - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Fuller - **Authority:** Malvern Hills (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6006722 - **Application reference:** M/26/00154/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for up to one self-build dwelling on a strip of field opposite the Welland settlement boundary - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(4), TR3 - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR 02, SWDPR 03, SWDPR 28, SWDPR 34, Welland Neighbourhood Plan 2024 DB1, HLP - **Main issues:** location, character and appearance - **Tags:** PIP, self-build, self-build-unsecured, sustainable-location-fail, s5-4-exceptional, infill-rejected, five-year-supply-met, small-scheme, national-landscape, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Permission in principle for one self-build house on a field strip across the road from Welland's settlement boundary. The inspector found no character or National Landscape harm, but the site fails TR3: the walk to the village centre means crossing a 30 mph road to an unlit footway, and the bus has only very limited weekday services. No S5(1) category applied (infill rejected), and with a five-year supply the modest benefits did not substantially outweigh the harm under S5(4). Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were provided with an opportunity to comment. I have had regard to the 2026 version of the Framework in my decision" (DL ¶8). - **Location: TR3 FAIL.** "On my site visit I crossed the 30mph carriageway and walked along the unlit footpath (on the opposite side of the street) to the village centre" (DL ¶12). "The site is located close to bus stops in both directions, however with only very limited weekday services" (DL ¶11). "in my judgement future occupiers of the proposal would be heavily reliant upon the private car for many day-to-day needs" (DL ¶13). - **Character: NO HARM.** "I conclude that residential development could be designed so that it would not harm the character and appearance of the area" (DL ¶29). - **Self-build.** A unilateral undertaking "has not been submitted voluntarily with the appeal, so it is not secured that the appeal scheme would contribute towards meeting any current or future needs for a self-build dwelling" (DL ¶31). - **S5(1)(e): FAIL.** "the site is at some distance from built form to one side, and separated by a large paddock from a single house on the other" (DL ¶35). - **S5(4): FAIL.** "These benefits would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects, arising from the unsustainable location of the development" (DL ¶36). ## Planning balance S5(4) exceptional circumstances, then s38(6). Modest housing (five-year supply now shown) and local-spend benefits against the TR3 location harm and conflict with SWDPR 03 and the Welland Neighbourhood Plan (DL ¶33–38). ## What made the difference Being across the road from a Category 1 village was not enough. The walking route needs a crossing of a 30 mph road and runs on an unlit far-side footway, and the bus is near but rarely runs. With a five-year supply, self-build unsecured and no S5(1) category, the S5(4) bar could not be met. ## Transferable points - A site opposite a village settlement boundary can still fail TR3 where the walk involves crossing the road to an unlit far-side footway and the nearby buses are "only very limited weekday services" (DL ¶11–13). - A house separated by a large paddock from its only neighbour on one side, and at a distance from built form on the other, is not "limited infilling within groups of houses" (DL ¶35). - Under S5(4), the adverse effects weighed include the location's effect on sustainable patterns of movement (DL ¶36). - Self-build at PIP stage: without a unilateral undertaking the self-build benefit is unsecured, though one could be required at the technical details stage (DL ¶31). ## Policy findings - **TR3: fail.** opposite a Category 1 village, but reached by crossing a 30 mph road to an unlit footway on the far side; bus stops close by with "only very limited weekday services"; occupiers "heavily reliant upon the private car" (DL 11-13) - **S5(1)(e): fail.** some distance from built form on one side, a large paddock from the single house on the other; not infilling within a group (DL 35) - **S5(4): fail.** no S5(1) category; modest housing and spending benefits do not substantially outweigh the harm from the unsustainable location (DL 35-37) - **DP3: neutral.** mapped: character; a single dwelling could be designed not to harm the landscape character or the Malvern Hills NL (DL 22-29) - **N4: neutral.** s245 LURA duty; NL natural beauty preserved (DL 27-28) ## Key facts - SWDPR adopted 26 March 2026; Council now demonstrates a five-year supply (DL 6, 33) - Self-build register progress report shows adequate supply against Part 1 demand; no unilateral undertaking offered (DL 30-31) - Welland settlement boundary on the opposite side of Drake Street; village has schools, church, village hall, post office (DL 11-12) - Appellant owns the adjacent vineyard; personal wish to live on site not sufficient justification (DL 32) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006722 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7a3c221e-2113-4f38-b4cd-97686649014d --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006722.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 1 King Edward Crescent, Newquay (townhouse with roof-space bedroom) - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Alison Fish - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6006725 - **Application reference:** PA25/08437 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Construction of a townhouse including an additional bedroom within the roof (taller variant of a townhouse allowed on appeal in 2025) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), S4(2)(c), S4 - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 Policies 1, 2, 12, 16, Climate Emergency DPD C1, G1, Cornwall Design Guide 2021, Newquay Neighbourhood Plan 2019-2030 H2 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, transitional-no-consultation, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, fallback, self-build-unsecured, living-conditions, small-scheme, costs-application ## Summary A taller version of a townhouse already allowed on appeal in 2025, adding a roof-space bedroom. The inspector found the gabled roof and mixed windows cluttered and discordant, and the extra height harmed the outlook and light of Atlantic Lodge next door. The design conflict was run through DP3(3) and S4(2)(c), and the modest benefits over the extant permission were substantially outweighed. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The Framework "does not materially affect the assessment of this appeal scheme" (DL ¶5). - **Design.** "Collectively, these features would result in a development with a cluttered and visually discordant character" (DL ¶9). - **DP3(3) / S4(2)(c): FAIL.** "As the proposal fails to comply with these explicit design standards, policy DP3 (3) states that development should be refused. Consequently, the proposal would fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances, as set out in policy S4(2)(c) of the Framework" (DL ¶24). No separate clear-justification finding. - **Living conditions: harm.** The daylight studies assessed other schemes, so "neither assessment can be relied upon in the determination of this appeal" (DL ¶15). - **Fallback.** Realistic, but "the 2025 permission attracts very limited weight in favour of the appeal proposal" (DL ¶21). - **Housing.** "any benefits arising from the additional floorspace in a single family home would be very modest indeed" (DL ¶22). ## Planning balance S4 inside a settlement: "the limited benefits of approving the proposed development would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects" (DL ¶25). Plan-led conclusion under s38(6) (DL ¶27). ## What made the difference The extant permission removed any housing gain, so the only benefit was a bigger house, set against a design conflict routed as a refusal policy and unquantified neighbour harm. ## Transferable points - Local design policies "generally consistent" with DP3 are "explicit design standards" whose breach engages DP3(3) and S4(2)(c) (DL ¶24). - Where a fallback already delivers the dwelling, a variant scheme gets little housing weight (DL ¶22). - Daylight studies for a different scheme cannot be relied on (DL ¶15). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): conflict.** overly complex gabled roof and disjointed fenestration at odds with simple roofs and regular openings (DL 8-10) - **DP3(3): fail.** local design policies generally consistent with DP3; failure to comply with these explicit design standards means DP3(3) says refuse; no separate clear-justification finding (DL 24) - **S4(2)(c): fail.** DP3(3) failure routed through S4(2)(c) (DL 24) - **P3: harm.** mapped - loss of outlook and light to Atlantic Lodge and its courtyard; daylight studies related to other schemes and could not be relied on (DL 14-18) - **S4: fail.** limited benefits substantially outweighed (DL 25) - **HO7: benefit (very-limited weight).** no additional dwelling over the extant 2025 permission; extra floorspace benefit very modest (DL 22) ## Key facts - Extant 2025 appeal permission for a townhouse on the same footprint (APP/D0840/W/25/3361328) is a realistic fallback but the scheme is 1.3 m higher at eaves and 1.7 m at ridge; fallback given very limited weight (DL 19-21) - Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 22) - Self-build claimed but unsecured, limited weight (DL 23) - Switch paragraph - Framework does not materially affect the assessment; parties not consulted (DL 5) - BNG exemption and Penhale Dunes SAC not reached (DL 26) - Costs application by the appellants, the subject of a separate decision (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006725 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d349766d-50df-48b9-8aaf-fa09660d77ca --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006725.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 271 Forest Road, Walthamstow (Hindu temple rear extension) - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F Leung - **Authority:** Waltham Forest (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6006727 - **Application reference:** 252833 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective retention of an enlarged rear extension with altered roof to a place of worship (Hindu temple) on the local heritage list - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** Waltham Forest LP Policy 53, Waltham Forest LP Policy 57 - **Development plan policies:** Waltham Forest Local Plan Part 1 2020-2035 Policies 53, 57 - **Main issues:** character, NDHA, living conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, place-of-worship, retrospective, living-conditions, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A retrospective, enlarged rear extension to a locally listed Hindu temple was dismissed. It harmed the character of the terrace and neighbours' outlook and light, although the non-designated heritage asset's significance, which lies in its frontage, was not harmed (DL 14-15, 21). The community benefit was modest (DL 27-28). ## What made the difference Depth and roof height well beyond any comparable rear addition, next to narrow neighbouring gardens. ## Policy findings - **HE7(2): neutral.** rear extension does not harm the significance of the NDHA, whose value lies in the temple frontage (DL 12-14) - **DP3: conflict.** boxy extension of substantial mass dominates the rear elevation, out of keeping with the terrace (DL 9-11, 15) - **P3: fail.** overbearing to 7 and 8 Rennes Road; shadow study inadequate (DL 16-21) ## Key facts - Framework changes 'do not fundamentally alter the relevant policy position'; no consultation (DL 7) - PSED and Article 9 considered; dismissal proportionate (DL 26-30) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006727 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3648d986-f7b7-42df-b2c5-9f375addf9eb --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006727.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 30 Honeysuckle Gardens, Hatfield - **Decision:** dismissed, 20 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Everitt - **Authority:** Welwyn Hatfield (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6006744 - **Application reference:** 6/2025/2268/FULL - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Close-boarded fence enclosing open amenity land beside an end-terrace house as garden (change of use) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1) - **Development plan policies:** Welwyn Hatfield Local Plan 2016-2036 SP 1, SP 9, SADM 16, District Plan Supplementary Design Guidance 2005 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, transitional-no-consultation, design-refusal, amenity-land-enclosure, householder ## Summary Fencing off part of an open planted verge beside a Hatfield terrace to extend a garden. Dismissed. It would erode a "welcome break in the built form" and put close-boarded fencing unusually near the road (DL ¶5-7). The Framework is invoked only generically. ## What made the difference In a planned estate, open amenity land that forms part of the layout is protected on character grounds even where the area is "pleasant but unremarkable" (DL ¶8). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): fail.** loss of open verdant land in planned layout, fence closer to road than any other: "contrary to ... the relevant provisions of the Framework" — no code cited, no DP3(3) wording; mapped by harvester (DL 5-9) ## Key facts - Only benefit is extra private garden, limited weight (DL 10) - Parties not re-consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006744 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/634d6f9f-78d0-4407-aadb-f4c3b5bc14ed --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006744.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Blunts Farm, Coopersale Lane, Theydon Bois - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Jane Smith - **Authority:** Epping Forest (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6006761 - **Application reference:** EPF/1406/22 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of former agricultural buildings to B8 storage (c. 2,000 sq m, 30 units) and associated development - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4), S5(2), S5(5), GB7(1)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Epping Forest District Local Plan 2023 T1, DM9 - **Main issues:** highway safety, sustainable location, S5(5) balance - **Tags:** gb7-1-b-reuse, not-inappropriate, s5-5-substantially-outweighed, s5-2-refusal-policy, highway-safety-visibility, freight-logistics, rural-lane-no-footway, grampian-condition-unenforceable ## Summary B8 storage conversion of farm buildings in the Epping Forest Green Belt. Not inappropriate under GB7(1)(b). The location conflicted with TR3 and E3 but was on balance acceptable given E2 and E4 support. Dismissed because the required visibility splay could not be secured on land the highway authority accepts as highway. That breach of TR6(4), a "refuse" policy, meant the S5(2) presumption was defeated. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties had the opportunity to comment (DL ¶2). - **GB7(1)(b): PASS.** The Council's 2024 ¶154(h)(iv) finding carried across to GB7: "it continues to allow in principle for re-use of existing buildings … it is not necessary to consider whether the proposed use would have any adverse impact on the openness" (DL ¶7–8). - **Highway safety / TR6(4): FAIL.** "a condition to secure the visibility splay would not be enforceable … contrary to one of the tests for planning conditions … as incorporated into Policy DM6" (DL ¶19). A Grampian condition was not possible because there was "no prospect of the vegetation … being kept cut back" (DL ¶20). - **Location / TR3 / E3: some conflict, acceptable overall.** "Coopersale Lane … lacks dedicated footpaths or street lighting. It is therefore highly unlikely that the site would routinely be accessed on foot, and that in turn greatly reduces any prospects of the public transport options being used" (DL ¶23). TRICS data showing B8 attracts few non-car trips "does not mean that the nature of the development makes travel by those means inherently impractical" (DL ¶26). Mitigated by E2 and E4, so "acceptable, albeit not ideal" (DL ¶29). ## Planning balance S5 via S5(5): "the proposal would not be inappropriate development … That being so, part 2 of Policy S5 is applicable" (DL ¶33). TR6(4) is "amongst the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances", so the benefits were "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶35–36). ## What made the difference Land control of the visibility splay. Uncertain highway ownership of a ditch defeated both conditions and Grampian conditions, and TR6(4) then acts as a trump card through S5(2). ## Transferable points - A 2024 ¶154(h)(iv) re-use finding translates directly to GB7(1)(b), with no openness test (DL ¶7–8). - Through S5(2), a breach of TR6(4) on highway safety is enough to find the benefits substantially outweighed, even with substantial E2 weight in favour (DL ¶33–36). - The TR3 "genuine choice" applies to employees of B8 uses; low TRICS non-car mode shares do not make alternatives "impractical" (DL ¶26). - An unlit hedged lane without a footway undermines nearby bus and tube options (DL ¶23). - The planning baseline is the lawful use (agriculture), not unauthorised current activity (DL ¶6, ¶13). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): pass.** re-use of renovated buildings of permanent and substantial construction; no need to assess openness (DL 7-8) - **TR6(4): fail.** 2.4 x 78 m visibility splay depends on a ditch and verge the highway authority says is private; not securable by condition or Grampian condition (DL 14-21, 35) - **TR3: conflict.** c. 1 km from Theydon Bois along a hedged lane with no footway or lighting; about 170 daily trips; "some conflict" (DL 23-25, 29) - **E3: conflict.** freight and logistics should have access by sustainable modes where possible (DL 26, 29) - **E4: benefit.** rural conversion supported, but no specific occupier or farm diversification (DL 27) - **E2: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight in principle to freight and logistics, tempered by poor location, modest scale and dated demand evidence (DL 28, 34) - **S5(2): fail.** conflict with a refusal-directing policy (TR6(4)), so benefits substantially outweighed (DL 33-36) ## Key facts - Five former agricultural buildings, just under 2,000 sq m, 30 units; about 170 daily trips predicted (Ardent TS 2022) - Visibility splay needs land in a ditch and verge; Essex Highways Records says the highway stops at the roadside brow of the ditch - Officers initially drafted an approval, withdrawn after further highway evidence - Planning baseline is agricultural use, despite alleged existing storage use and a 2024 appeal quashing an enforcement notice ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006761 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4df353cf-5b6f-46f0-bc5e-6b55cb7806fb --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006761.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 60 Marine Road West, Morecambe - **Decision:** allowed, 25 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Elaine Moulton - **Authority:** Lancaster (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6006805 - **Application reference:** 25/00874/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion of upper floors from flat to 8-bed HMO over retained commercial ground floor - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N6, P3 - **Development plan policies:** Lancaster Local Plan Part Two 2025 DM1, DM13, DM29, DM61, Local Plan Part One 2025 EC5, HMO SPD 2020 - **Main issues:** living conditions, housing mix, habitats - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, habitats-mitigation, transitional-no-consultation, conservation-area ## Summary An 8-bed HMO on the Morecambe seafront was allowed. The Council had not quantified HMO concentration within the policy's 100 m radius and had wrongly mapped the site inside a regeneration area. Bedroom sizes were resolved by capping occupancy at eight. A homeowner pack condition dealt with habitats effects and was cited to N6. ## What made the difference The policy test is a local concentration count, and the Council produced no count. Area-wide SHMA figures on self-contained flats did not show HMO over-concentration (DL ¶¶18–19). ## Policy findings - **P3: pass.** bedroom 8 fails couple standard in SPD so occupancy capped at 8 by condition; licensing standards material but less weight than SPD (DL 7-12) - **N6: pass (significant weight).** homeowner information pack condition mitigates recreational pressure on Morecambe Bay SAC/SPA/Ramsar (DL 24-26) - **HO5: pass.** Council did not quantify HMO concentration within 100 m; SHMA wider-area evidence and 2005 masterplan insufficient (DL 13-23) ## Key facts - Council had wrongly placed the site in the West End Regeneration Priority Area - Framework changes "not significantly changed" on these issues, parties not consulted (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7a1bdf10-e04c-4b3b-a4b1-48a76465aad7 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006805 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006805.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 30 Main Street, Lyddington (surface water condition, listed building) - **Decision:** allowed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Fleming - **Authority:** Rutland (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6006806 - **Application reference:** 2025/0779/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Section 73 removal of a surface-water management condition on retrospective works to a Grade II house (Appeal A; linked s19 LBC Appeal B 6006808) - **Site context:** conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM6 - **Development plan policies:** Rutland Core Strategy 2011 CS22, Site Allocations and Policies DPD 2014 SP15, SP20 - **Main issues:** drainage, heritage - **Tags:** tier-2, conditions-appeal, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A drainage condition was removed once evidence showed roof water from a Grade II cottage drains to an existing lawful connection. A retention condition was substituted (DL 17). ## What made the difference New drainage evidence, accepted by the LLFA, resolved the uncertainty behind the refusal. ## Policy findings - **DM6: pass.** evidence now shows runoff drains to an existing lawful connection; condition replaced by a retention condition (DL 15-17, 20) ## Key facts - Council and LLFA withdrew objections during the appeal (DL 7, 15) - Framework 'not materially changed'; no consultation (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006806 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7ffb1af4-97c8-40da-81b0-1ff0c8383e94 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006806.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Hall Croft House, Castleford Road, Normanton - **Decision:** allowed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Laura Bartle - **Authority:** Wakefield (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6006811 - **Application reference:** 25/01975/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective conversion of vacant office to beauty hub (hair, beauty, sunbeds, pilates) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3(2), TR6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Wakefield District Local Plan SP13, LP27, LP34, LP56, LP57, LP67 - **Main issues:** neighbour noise, highway safety - **Tags:** tier-2, parking-stress, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, retrospective ## Summary An office converted to a beauty hub was allowed. Its noise effects were controllable by conditions under P3(2), and the parking overspill amounted to inconvenience, not a TR6(4) safety harm. The letter cites the 2026 codes directly. ## What made the difference The lawful office fallback, plus the principle that "Inconvenience in finding a parking space does not, in itself, amount to harm to highway safety" (DL ¶14). A Car Park Management Plan condition was refused as unnecessary (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **P3(2): pass.** pilates not high-impact; single window limits breakout; hours and no-amplified-sound conditions (DL 6-11) - **TR6(4): pass.** lawful office fallback; "Inconvenience in finding a parking space does not, in itself, amount to harm to highway safety" (DL 12-16) ## Key facts - 6 on-site spaces, shared access with petrol station - Parties consulted on 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/65233a6a-7adb-4a48-93b7-024ce4e5e8ef - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006811 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006811.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Green House, Cromer Road, Thorpe Market (B&B to large holiday let) - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Marriott - **Authority:** North Norfolk (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6006812 - **Application reference:** PF/25/1471 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use from bed-and-breakfast / small hotel (C1) to a single holiday let for up to 20 guests (sui generis) - **Site context:** conservation-area, listed-building-setting, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3, S3, E2, E4 - **Development plan policies:** North Norfolk Local Plan 2024-2040 (2025) ENV6 - **Main issues:** living conditions - noise and disturbance - **Tags:** living-conditions-noise, holiday-let, e2-substantial-weight, substantially-outweighed, s4-or-s5-not-decided, conditions-unenforceable ## Summary Changing a listed village-green B&B into a single whole-house holiday let for up to 20 guests was dismissed on noise and disturbance to neighbours (P3). The inspector gave substantial weight to economic benefits under E2 and E4 and found heritage preserved. But unsupervised large-group occupation could not be reliably controlled by a noise management plan. The inspector did not need to decide whether S4 or S5 applied, since both use the same "substantially outweighed" test. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were invited to comment (DL ¶4). - **Character of the use.** B&B rooms are "occupied independently … with an on-site management presence. By contrast, the proposed single holiday let could accommodate up to 20 guests … as one group, with no permanent on-site management presence" (DL ¶7). - **Noise: HARM (P3).** "unsupervised guests occupying the property on a short-term basis are less likely than permanent residents (or site managers) to have any ongoing relationship with neighbouring occupiers or incentive to behave in a neighbourly manner" (DL ¶12). "portable speakers are commonplace and compliance with such a restriction could not be guaranteed" (DL ¶13). A local contact who reacts to complaints means harm "may already have been" caused, and the arrangement cannot be secured in perpetuity (DL ¶11). - **S4 or S5.** "Whether Policy S4 or S5 is applied, the appeal proposal should be approved, unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶23). - **Benefits.** E2 "states that substantial weight should be given to the economic benefits … These are important benefits to which I attach substantial weight in favour of the proposal, albeit recognising that the actual economic benefits arising would be modest" (DL ¶24). ## Planning balance Substantial weight (E2/E4, heritage re-use) was set against considerable weight for the P3 harm and conflict with the development plan. The benefits were "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶25-26). ## What made the difference The management model. Occupancy by a single group of up to 20, with no one living on site, could not be controlled by enforceable conditions. A smaller occupancy cap, or a resident manager secured by obligation, might have tipped the balance. ## Transferable points - E2's "substantial weight" to economic benefits can be given even where the actual benefits are modest. It is still outweighed by considerable-weight amenity harm (DL ¶24-26). - Where it is unclear whether a site is inside or outside a settlement, the inspector can apply the common "substantially outweighed" test without deciding between S4 and S5 (DL ¶23). - Noise management plans that depend on guest behaviour and reactive off-site management do not reliably overcome P3 harm from large-group holiday lets (DL ¶10-14). ## Policy findings - **P3: fail (considerable weight).** unsupervised single group of up to 20 guests; noise from outdoor socialising and music; noise management plan relies on guest behaviour and a reactive local contact; not enforceable as a whole (DL 7-16, 25) - **E2: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to economic benefits of businesses adapting, "albeit recognising that the actual economic benefits arising would be modest" (DL 24) - **E4: benefit.** supports rural tourism facilities (DL 24) - **HE6: pass.** listed building and two conservation areas preserved; new garden wall more traditional than fence; ongoing use assists conservation (DL 17-18, 24) - **S3: fail.** whether S4 or S5 applied, benefits substantially outweighed (DL 23, 26) ## Key facts - Grade II listed 17th-century flint farmhouse in Gunton Park and Thorpe Market Conservation Areas, adjoining residential gardens - Holiday let already operating since 2020; hot tub removed; 10pm curfew currently observed - Noise Impact Assessment omitted the nearest neighbour (Toad Hall) as a receptor (DL 9) - Appellant cited post-COVID decline of B&B trade but gave no evidence the let is the only viable use (DL 19) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006812 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/949a5fca-45bc-489f-878c-8029c93d1a85 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006812.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land South of The Street, Furneux Pelham - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Simms - **Authority:** East Hertfordshire (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6006819 - **Application reference:** 3/25/1108/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Eco self-build bungalow and double garage with landscaping, new access - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, conservation-area, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), DP3(3), TR6, HE6 - **Development plan policies:** East Herts District Plan 2018 DPS2, VILL2, GBR2, DES2, DES3, DES4, HOU12, NE3, TRA2, ED2 - **Main issues:** suitable location, character and CA setting, highway safety, hedgerows, agricultural land - **Tags:** s5-1-j, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, self-build, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, dp3-refuse-trigger, tr6-highway-safety, less-than-substantial-legacy-wording, infill-rejected, conservation-area-setting, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, substantially-outweighed ## Summary One eco self-build bungalow on part of a field between the development boundary of Barleycroft End (Furneux Pelham) and scattered outlying houses. Dismissed. The Council accepted a 3.4 to 3.7 year supply, so S5(1)(j) was in play. The inspector found: - the site not suitably related to the settlement; - a car-dependent location, since the only walking route was an unlit lane with no footway; - harm to the conservation area's rural setting; - an unproven, substandard access. Design conflicts (DP3) and the highway safety failure (TR6) substantially outweighed the benefits of one self-build zero-carbon home. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I invited the main parties to comment on any implications of these for their cases" (new Framework and HDT results) (DL ¶2). - **Location / access to services: FAIL.** "Whilst the site is within walking distance of a pub, shop, bus stops and village hall along a road with a 30mph speed limit, that road has high hedgerows, which limit forward visibility, no footways and is unlit" (DL ¶5). "it unlikely that residents of the proposal would walk or cycle to these" (DL ¶6). "the proposal would not constitute infill, the site being open on at least three sides" (DL ¶7). - **Character / CA: HARM.** "an incremental loss of open agricultural fields and attendant rural landscape character, eroding the setting of the CA" (DL ¶15). The inspector uses the legacy term "less than substantial harm" and the benefits "could be achieved in less harmful ways and on less sensitive sites" (DL ¶16). - **Highway safety: TR6 FAIL.** "Whilst the residual impacts on the road network would not be severe, the impacts on highway safety of a substandard access would be unacceptable, particularly for pedestrians or cyclists" (DL ¶20). - **Hedgerows.** Loss of hedgerow within the highway, which has amenity value, is not rebutted (DL ¶¶21–23). ## Planning balance The S5(1)(j) framing is at DL ¶28. DP3 gives "substantial weight to relevant development plan policies when assessing design quality", and TR6 says unacceptable safety impacts should be refused (DL ¶29). "These adverse effects assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework substantially outweigh the benefits of the proposal, despite the housing land shortfall. I have also found that the proposal would not be suitably related to an existing settlement and that its need for access to services and facilities could not be accommodated by available infrastructure" (DL ¶31). ## What made the difference The inspector ran the S5(1)(j) balance on a single dwelling with an accepted shortfall, and the scheme failed on several fronts at once: - the site was separated from the development boundary by an open field; - the walking route was an unlit, footway-less lane between high hedges; - the site formed part of the conservation area's agricultural approach; - the appellant offered no technical evidence on the visibility splays. An infill plot within the continuous frontage, with a proven access, would have stood a much better chance. ## Transferable points - Nearby village facilities within walking distance do not make a site accessible where the route is an unlit 30 mph lane with no footway and high hedges (DL ¶¶5–6). - The S5(1)(j) "scale accommodated taking into account infrastructure" limb was read to include access to services and facilities (DL ¶31). - DP3 requires "substantial weight" to local design policies, so character and CA-setting conflicts can outweigh a 3.4 to 3.7 year shortfall (DL ¶¶29–31). - TR6 can be failed on access safety even where network impacts are "not severe" (DL ¶20). - A plot "open on at least three sides" is not infill (DL ¶7). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): fail.** unmet need accepted (3.4-3.7 yrs) but site "not suitably related to an existing settlement" and access to services "could not be accommodated by available infrastructure" (DL 27-28, 31) - **TR3: harm.** pub, shop, bus stops, hall within walking distance but along 30 mph lane with high hedges, no footway, unlit; car dependent (DL 5-6, 11) — assessed under local policy, TR3 not named - **HE6: harm.** "less than substantial harm" (2024 wording) to setting of Furneux Pelham CA via loss of open agricultural approach; not outweighed by self-build/zero-carbon benefits (DL 13-16) - **DP3(3): fail (substantial weight).** substantial weight to design-related local plan conflicts (character, CA, hedgerows) (DL 29-30) - **TR6: fail.** visibility splays not shown achievable without hedge loss in highway; "residual impacts on the road network would not be severe" but safety unacceptable (DL 18-20, 29) - **S5(1)(e): fail.** not infill — site open on at least three sides (made under local policy VILL2/GBR2, S5(1)(e) not named) (DL 7) ## Key facts - Gap site between Barleycroft End (development boundary, Group 2 village) and dispersed outlying houses; field separates it from the boundary (DL 4) - Council accepted 3.4-3.7 years supply (DL 27) - Parties invited to comment on 17 Aug 2026 Framework and new HDT results (DL 2) - No technical evidence to rebut highway authority on visibility splays (DL 18-19) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006819 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b574362f-9640-4646-b116-64afd799e215 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006819.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # New House Lane, Winmarleigh (agricultural barn and polytunnel, Part 6) - **Decision:** dismissed, 1 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Unwin - **Authority:** Wyre (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6006824 - **Application reference:** 25/00882/AGR - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Part 6 Class A prior approval for a hay and machinery barn and a 7 m x 15 m polytunnel on a 5.2 ha holding - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Sch2 Pt6 Class A A.2 - **Main issues:** commencement, agricultural need - **Tags:** tier-2, prior-approval, agricultural-building, costs-application ## Summary An agricultural building and polytunnel were accepted as reasonably necessary on a new holding, but the appeal failed because the polytunnel frame had already been partly put up (DL 24). ## What made the difference Development had begun before the prior-approval process, which takes it outside Part 6 Class A. ## Policy findings - **GPDO Sch2 Pt6 Class A A.2: fail.** polytunnel frame already partly erected, so development had begun before the determination (DL 10-14) - **GPDO Sch2 Pt6 Class A: pass.** agricultural trade or business in its early years; buildings reasonably necessary (DL 15-23) ## Key facts - Frame on skids was still a building given its size and permanence (DL 11-12) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006824 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/caec0377-b5c5-43d1-b0d0-b01697db97b9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006824.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land to rear of Pets Pantry, Guildford Road, Cranleigh - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Ellis - **Authority:** Waverley (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006825 - **Application reference:** WA/2025/01415 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Erection of a detached dwelling on backland behind a street-fronting row - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.28 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), S4(2)(c), S4 - **Development plan policies:** Waverley Local Plan Part 1 2018 TD1, NE1, NE2, CC1, CC2, Waverley Local Plan Part 2 2023 DM1, DM4, DM5, DM11 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions, trees, biodiversity, drainage - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, backland, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, l2-1-d, obligation-unsecured, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A single backland dwelling behind a row of street-fronting buildings in Cranleigh, following a dismissed two-dwelling scheme. The inspector found conflict with DP3(1) with no clear justification, overlooking contrary to L2(1)(d)(ii), and failures on trees (N3), biodiversity net gain (N2) and drainage (F8). Substantial weight to one home on a 1.28-year supply was substantially outweighed through S4(2)(c). Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The appellant and the Council have had the opportunity to comment on the new Framework." (DL ¶2). - **Character, DP3(1): CONFLICT.** The dwelling "would be out-of-keeping with the linear, street-fronting pattern of development, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area" (DL ¶8). "This adverse effect is a matter of considerable importance to be taken into account in the planning balance." (DL ¶13). - **Privacy, L2(1)(d)(ii): FAIL.** "the wide views provided by the four windows would amount to significant overlooking of the rear garden at The Coppers" (DL ¶16). - **Trees, N3: FAIL.** "As it has not been demonstrated that existing trees and hedgerows could be adequately protected and maintained, I am not satisfied that a condition to secure the submission of these documents would make the development acceptable in this matter." (DL ¶26). - **BNG, N2: FAIL.** "The appellant accepts that the proposal would not achieve a biodiversity net gain of 10%." (DL ¶30), with no mechanism to secure off-site gain. - **Drainage, F8: FAIL** (DL ¶37). - **Housing benefit.** One home on a 1.28-year supply: "these benefits, because an additional dwelling would result, should be attributed substantial weight" (DL ¶43). - **DP3(3) and S4(2)(c).** "Paragraph 3 of Policy DP3 of the Framework states that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 of Policy DP3." Here "there is no clear justification for this conflict" (DL ¶44). Hence "I am satisfied when having regard to paragraph 2.c. of Policy S4 of the Framework that the benefits of the scheme would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects." (DL ¶44). ## Planning balance S4 with the S4(2)(c) trigger. The inspector first found that the benefits "would not outweigh the harms" on a level balance, then applied S4(2)(c) (DL ¶44). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶45). ## What made the difference The backland siting against a strong street-fronting pattern, compounded by overlooking and a string of evidence gaps (trees, ecology, BNG, drainage). A late tree survey could not cure the evidence gap because it was fresh evidence the Council had not seen. ## Transferable points - A full DP3(3) sequence: DP3(1) conflict, an express finding of no clear justification, then S4(2)(c) (DL ¶12-14, ¶44). - L2(1)(d)(ii) privacy is a Framework test in its own right, applied to overlooking of a neighbour's garden (DL ¶20-22). - An accepted BNG shortfall with no s106 or other mechanism fails N2; a negatively worded condition requiring an agreement is not appropriate (DL ¶30-31). - Substantial HO7 weight on a 1.28-year supply does not survive a DP3(3) failure (DL ¶42-44). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): conflict.** backland dwelling out of keeping with linear, street-fronting pattern; would not integrate with or enhance surroundings; increased density not justified under L2/L3; adverse effect of considerable importance (DL 8, 11-14) - **DP3(3): fail.** explicit step - no clear justification for the DP3(1) conflict (DL 44) - **L2(1)(d)(ii): fail.** four bedroom windows give wide views over neighbour's garden; significant overlooking; considerable importance (DL 16-22) - **N3(1)(c): fail.** no arboricultural evidence at application stage; late tree reports not accepted; condition not enough (DL 3, 26-27) - **N2: fail.** BNG - appellant accepts 10% not achieved and no s106 or other mechanism; negative condition not appropriate; no ecology survey (DL 30-33) - **F8: fail.** no surface water drainage details despite large new hardstanding (DL 35-37) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** one dwelling on a 1.28-year supply, with economic benefits and a fairly sustainable location, together substantial (DL 42-43) - **S4: fail.** via S4(2)(c); benefits substantially outweighed (DL 40-44) ## Key facts - Previous scheme for two dwellings dismissed on appeal (APP/R3650/W/24/3346675) for character, overlooking and fire access (DL 4) - Tree survey, AIA and tree protection plan submitted only at appeal and excluded as fresh evidence (DL 3) - Surrey Fire and Rescue access concerns raised but not determinative (DL 39) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006825 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a2668920-378e-4474-a7e3-d83eacce5150 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006825.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Marazanvose, St Allen (holiday lodges) - **Decision:** dismissed, 1 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Elizabeth Lawrence - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6006832 - **Application reference:** PA25/02427 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of former A30 roadworks temporary caravan compound to a site for up to 50 holiday lodges - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(b), S5(4), S5(2), DP3, E4, TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan 2016 Policies 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, 21, 23, Cornwall Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1, T1, G1-G3 - **Main issues:** suitable location for tourism accommodation, accessibility, character and appearance - **Tags:** rural-tourism, s5-1-b-necessity, pdl, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, dp3-refuse-trigger, s5-2-refusal-policy, e2-substantial-weight, landscape-harm, hamlet, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip ## Summary Proposal to turn a former A30 roadworks workers' caravan compound beside the hamlet of Marazanvose into a site for up to 50 permanent holiday lodges. Dismissed. The temporary compound was not PDL, no locational need for the tourism use was shown (S5(1)(b)), the site is car-dependent (TR3) and the scheme would urbanise a historic landscape (DP3/N2). Substantial weight to economic benefits under E2 was "substantially outweighed". ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Both the council and the appellant have been provided with the opportunity to comment on the relevance of the new Framework … I confirm that in this decision I have referred to the 2026 Framework" (DL ¶3). - **PDL: FAIL.** "the caravans were not permanent structures and both the use and associated access and infrastructure was for a temporary period only and thus not permanent" (DL ¶8); former equestrian and temporary structures "fall outside the definition of previously developed land" (DL ¶10). - **Housing limbs S5(1)(e)/(j): FAIL.** Lodges argued to be dwellings (DL ¶23). "Marazanvose comprises a low-density straggle of some 6/7 traditionally designed dwellings, with no shops" (DL ¶28); the scheme "would overwhelm and be out of scale and context with the hamlet" (DL ¶30). S5(1)(j): "an unmet need has not been demonstrated. Therefore, I give no weight to this factor" (DL ¶66). - **Rural tourism S5(1)(b) / E4: FAIL.** "A specific locational need for a holiday lodge site in this location has not been demonstrated" (DL ¶34). Nearby infrastructure (bridge, A30, solar, pylons) "is not a good reason to justify a development that does not require a specific location in the countryside" (DL ¶51). - **Accessibility TR3: FAIL.** B3288 to Zelah "would be unattractive for walking or cycling for safety and environmental reasons" (DL ¶36); the bus "would not provide a quick and efficient service for holiday makers wanting to pick up a few groceries" (DL ¶37); "although the proposal makes the most of existing and proposed transport infrastructure, it would not enable good accessibility for different users" (DL ¶40). - **Character DP3/N2: FAIL.** The lodges "would appear totally out of context with the adjoining informal and spacious linear hamlet" (DL ¶46); "insensitive and suburbanising impact on the strong historic agricultural and industrial rural landscape" (DL ¶49). - **Heritage HE6: not engaged** (DL ¶19). ## Planning balance S5 balance, though framed loosely. Benefits: E2 economic/tourism "substantial weight" (DL ¶63); BNG outweighed by disturbance to the green bridge wildlife corridor and bats (DL ¶¶60-61); L2 "little weight" (DL ¶65). Harm: landscape/character "substantial weight" "as required by Policy DP3" (DL ¶67). "Overall, the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the harm" (DL ¶68). DP3(1)/(2)(d) conflict invoked as an S5(2) refusal-policy trigger (DL ¶69). The DCO restoration was treated as a realistic counterfactual that would itself deliver green-link and BNG benefits (DL ¶62). ## What made the difference The site's history as a temporary DCO compound did not help: temporary works that must be removed are not PDL, so the scheme was treated as greenfield countryside development with no locational need. Scale (50 lodges next to 6-7 houses) and the unlit, footway-less B3288 did the rest. A smaller scheme with on-site facilities, a demonstrated tourism need, or a location with walkable services might have passed S5(1)(b). ## Transferable points - Temporary infrastructure lawfully installed under a DCO or time-limited licence, with a restoration obligation, is not PDL (DL ¶¶8-10). - S5(1)(b) rural tourism needs a demonstrated need for *this* location; being "in principle acceptable in the countryside" is not enough (DL ¶¶34, 51). - Adjacent major infrastructure (A30, green bridge, pylons, solar) does not justify further countryside development that does not need that location (DL ¶51). - Holiday lodges argued to be dwellings still fail S5(1)(e)/(j) where the hamlet is a "low density straggle" (DL ¶¶26, 28-31). - A bus service that finishes early evening does not give tourism occupants good accessibility (DL ¶37). - DP3 character conflict used both for substantial weight and as an S5(2) "should be refused" trigger (DL ¶¶67, 69). - Drafting slips: S5 limbs listed as "S5 1. C, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, I & & j" (DL ¶24); "E4a"/"E4b" for E4 limbs (DL ¶¶40, 57); final balance framed as "substantially outweighed" rather than the S5(4) "exceptional circumstances … substantially outweigh" test that applies once no S5(1) category is met (DL ¶68). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:previously-developed-land: fail.** temporary DCO workers' caravan compound (to be restored to grassland under the DCO) and earlier equestrian structures are not PDL (DL 8-10) - **S5(1)(e): fail.** lodges argued to be dwellings; Marazanvose is a 6/7-house low-density straggle, not a settlement; 50 lodges would overwhelm it (DL 26, 28-31) - **S5(1)(j): fail.** no 5YHLS but not well-related / not of accommodable scale, and no unmet need for holiday accommodation shown; no weight (DL 30-31, 66) - **S5(1)(b): fail.** rural tourism — no locational or business need for this site shown (DL 32, 34, 51) - **E4: conflict.** cited as "E4a" and "E4b"; not well served by public transport and not PDL; siting/design not appropriate to surroundings (DL 32, 40, 57) - **TR3: fail.** 2 km to Zelah along busy unlit B3288 with no pavements; bus finishes early evening; guests reliant on cars (DL 36-40) - **DP3: fail (substantial weight).** urbanising, out of scale with hamlet; substantial weight given "as required by Policy DP3"; DP3(1) and (2)(d) conflict treated as S5(2) refusal trigger (DL 41, 67, 69) - **N2: conflict.** harm to historic landscape (CLCS area 19, medieval field pattern) despite hedgerow reinstatement (DL 43-49) - **HE6: not-engaged.** no effect on setting of nearby Grade II assets or Chyverton Park (DL 19) - **E2: benefit (substantial weight).** tourism jobs and economic benefits (DL 63) - **L2: benefit (limited weight).** intense use of site but not an "effective use" given harm; "little weight" (DL 64-65) - **Annex A: neutral (very-limited weight).** very limited weight to plan policies materially inconsistent with the Framework; IPPS says CLP 2a and locational parts of Policy 3 out of date (DL 22) ## Key facts - Site was one of nine temporary compounds under the A30 Chiverton to Carlan Cross DCO 2020; DCO requires restoration to grassland - Up to 50 lodges in uniform rows beside a 6/7-house hamlet on the B3288 - Zelah (very limited facilities) 2 km away along a busy distributor road with no pavements or lights - Bus service finishes early evening, fragmented at weekends - Cornwall cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply (figure not stated) - Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework after 17 Aug ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006832 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fe80e1df-9fe9-4047-be2f-61a4c1cb80c7 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006832.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 1 Kingswood Close, Boldon Colliery - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Chris Mayes - **Authority:** South Tyneside (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006846 - **Application reference:** 250347 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** One detached three-bedroom two-storey house in a side garden with a new vehicular access onto Cotswold Lane (resubmission with revised parking/turning) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.1 - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 53 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), S4(2)(c), TR6(4), TR4(1)(c)(i) - **Development plan policies:** South Tyneside Local Plan 2023-2040 (adopted July 2026) Policies 13, 47 - **Main issues:** highway safety - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, tr6-highway-safety, highway-safety-decisive, s4-substantially-outweighed, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, new-local-plan, garden-infill ## Summary One detached house in the garden of a corner property in Boldon Colliery, with a new direct access onto Cotswold Lane, a 30 mph local distributor road. It was a resubmission that added on-site turning. The appeal was dismissed on highway safety grounds alone. The access would add another conflict point where a junction, a zebra crossing, bus stops and hatched markings were already close together. That failed TR6(4), and because TR6(4) is a refusal policy, S4(2)(c) applied and outweighed substantial HO7 weight for one home in an area with a 4.1-year supply and 53% HDT. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** A new local plan was adopted and the new Framework published during the appeal; parties were invited to comment on both (DL ¶¶2–3). - **Highway safety — TR6(4) / TR4(1)(c)(i): FAIL.** "Although visibility at the proposed access is shown to be acceptable, the suitability of an access in this location is not determined by visibility alone" (DL ¶8). Manual for Streets principles "are context-dependent" and fit streets with active frontages, not a distributor road (DL ¶10). "the absence of recorded accidents in the vicinity does not, in itself, demonstrate that the proposed arrangement would be safe" (DL ¶13). The idea that drivers would slow down near the access was not a benefit: "at best, would leave the overall effect neutral" (DL ¶14). - **Effective use of land.** "that is an ordinary policy objective rather than a benefit of such significance as to attract additional weight … the existing garden is not inherently vacant or under-utilised simply because further development could occur" (DL ¶23). ## Planning balance S4 balance. Benefits: one windfall dwelling, HO7 substantial weight but "modest in scale"; limited economic benefit (DL ¶¶20–23). "Policy TR6(4) of the Framework is one such national decision-making policy … this is a circumstance to which Policy S4(2)(c) applies" (DL ¶25). "I find that the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with Policy S4 of the Framework and the development plan when read as a whole" (DL ¶26). ## What made the difference Where the access was. The highway objection did not depend on visibility, speed or trip numbers. It was that a new private access would add to a short stretch of distributor road where drivers were already dealing with a junction, a zebra crossing, two bus stops and hatching. Once that was found "unacceptable" under TR6(4), S4(2)(c) settled the result regardless of the housing shortfall. The same house served from Kingswood Close, or an access away from that cluster of features, would probably have been allowed. ## Transferable points - A TR6(4) "unacceptable impact on highway safety" finding engages S4(2)(c) and can on its own outweigh substantial HO7 weight inside a settlement, even with a 4.1-year supply and 53% HDT (DL ¶¶22, 25–26). - Acceptable visibility splays do not decide access safety; how many conflict points are already clustered nearby (junction, zebra, bus stops) is relevant (DL ¶¶7–8). - Manual for Streets support for direct frontage access depends on context and does not apply to a distributor road without frontage development (DL ¶10). - No accident record reflects existing conditions and does not show a new access would be safe (DL ¶13). - Drivers slowing because of added hazards is not a safety benefit (DL ¶14). - Effective use of an urban garden plot is not a separate benefit beyond the dwelling itself (DL ¶23). ## Policy findings - **TR6(4): fail.** unacceptable impact on highway safety; new private access on a 30 mph local distributor road beside a junction, zebra crossing, bus stops and hatching (DL 7-16, 25) - **TR4(1)(c)(i): fail.** does not minimise scope for conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles (DL 16) - **S4(2)(c): fail.** TR6(4) is a national refuse-in-specific-circumstances policy, so S4(2)(c) applies (DL 25-26) - **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed; "conflicts with Policy S4" (DL 26) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to the additional dwelling, but benefits "modest in scale" as only one home (DL 22) - **L2: neutral.** accessible urban location supports effective use of land, but that is an ordinary objective with no extra weight; a garden is not "under-utilised" just because it could take more building (DL 23). L2 not named - **STLP 47: conflict.** safe layouts minimising conflict between highway users (DL 16) - **STLP 13: accord.** windfall/backland housing support weighs in favour (DL 20) ## Key facts - SHLAA shows 4.1-year supply; HDT 53%; council says the newly adopted local plan restores a five-year supply (DL 21) - Cotswold Lane is a 30 mph local distributor road with speed humps and no direct residential frontages - Access close to the Cinderford Close junction, a zebra crossing, bus stops on both sides and hatched centre markings - Visibility splays were acceptable; the objection was the number of competing conflict points, not sightlines (DL 8) - No recorded accidents; Manual for Streets arguments rejected (DL 10-13) - Local plan adopted during the appeal and parties consulted on it and on the 2026 Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006846 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c72ecb67-e2bc-4151-af8d-aadea2087256 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006846.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Grange, Church Street, Hartfield - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A James - **Authority:** Wealden (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006868 - **Application reference:** WD/2024/2692/LBR - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective LBC: raising attic ceiling, replacing historic collars with new machine-cut timbers, reinstating lath and plaster at a higher level - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE4(2) - **Development plan policies:** Wealden Core Strategy 2013 SPO2 - **Main issues:** listed building special interest - **Tags:** transitional, old-framework-applied-silently, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, less-than-substantial-legacy-wording, retrospective, private-benefit-discounted, internal-works ## Summary Retrospective listed building consent for raising an attic ceiling in a Grade II former rectory. Historic collars and lath and plaster had already been removed. Dismissed. There was no evidence the historic timbers could not have been repaired, and re-fixing them higher would be inauthentic. The harm was less than substantial "at the lower end", but it still carried great weight against largely private benefits. The letter is dated 17 August 2026 but applies the December 2024 Framework (paras 212 and 215). ## Issues and findings - **Justification.** "There is also no substantive evidence why the historic timbers could not have been repaired or supported ... Accordingly, I find no clear and convincing justification for their removal" (DL ¶8). - **Reversal.** Difficulty in reversing the works "is a consequence of the works having been carried out without listed building consent and does not, in itself, justify their retention" (DL ¶12). - **Harm grading.** "less than substantial' and at the lower end of the scale. However, this should not be equated with a less than substantial planning objection and is of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶13). ## Planning balance Heritage balance under 2024 para 215 (now HE6(4)). The benefits were limited and mainly private, and did not outweigh the great weight given to the harm (DL ¶16). ## What made the difference The unauthorised loss of historic fabric with no repair-versus-replace evidence. A structural survey showing the collars could not be repaired might have changed the justification. ## Transferable points - The same inspector (A James) uses the formula "low harm is not a low objection" under both Frameworks: here with "less than substantial" on 17 August (DL ¶13), and in PINS-6004605 with "a low level of harm" under HE6. - Improved usability of a room in a private house is a private benefit (DL ¶14). - The practical difficulty of undoing unauthorised works does not justify keeping them (DL ¶12). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): harm (great weight).** decided under NPPF 2024 paras 212/215 — "less than substantial and at the lower end of the scale. However, this should not be equated with a less than substantial planning objection and is of considerable importance and weight"; "great weight" to conservation; s16(2), s72(1) cited (DL 13, 16) - **HE6(4): benefit (limited weight).** small economic investment limited; extra headroom "primarily a private benefit"; plasterboard removal already done, very limited; optimum viable use not at risk (DL 14-16) - **HE4(2): fail.** no clear and convincing justification for removing collars or lath and plaster; no evidence timbers could not be repaired; difficulty of reversal is a consequence of unauthorised works (DL 8, 10, 12); mapped from 2024 wording ## Key facts - Grade II former rectory (1028297), 16th-century origins; works already carried out without consent (DL 7, 10) - Modern timbers machine cut, lacking patina and evidential value (DL 7) - Dated 17 August 2026 but cites NPPF 2024 paras 212 and 215 with no reference to the new Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006868 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6e20d1fe-df71-450d-bae9-5170110fa991 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006868.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land east of Bere Hill, Whitchurch - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Nicholls - **Authority:** Basingstoke and Deane (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006893 - **Application reference:** 24/01949/FUL - **Procedure:** inquiry - **Development:** 115 dwellings (40% affordable), public house, employment units, open space, SuDS (non-determination appeal) - **Homes:** 115 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, national-landscape, agricultural-land-BMV - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), S5(2), N4(4), DP3(1), DP3(2), N2(1)(a), N2(1)(d) - **Development plan policies:** Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2016 SS1, SS6, EM1, EM10, Whitchurch NDP 2017 GD1 - **Main issues:** landscape character, National Landscape setting, design quality, S5(1)(j) balance - **Tags:** s5-1-j, substantially-outweighed, national-landscape-setting, design-refusal, uncertain-benefits, landscape-harm, housing-shortfall, large-scheme ## Summary Non-determination appeal for 115 homes (40% affordable), a pub and employment units on the eastern edge of Whitchurch, in the setting of the North Wessex Downs National Landscape. Dismissed after inquiry. The site passed the S5(1)(j) gateway, but serious landscape harm, harm to the NL setting (N4(4)) and poor design (DP3) together "substantially outweighed" the benefits despite a 2.2–3.1-year supply. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Inquiry closed 14 Aug 2026; parties made written comments on the 2026 Framework after it (ID24, ID25), "to avoid any prejudice" (DL ¶10). Decided wholly under the 2026 Framework. - **Landscape character — N2(1)(a),(d): CONFLICT.** "the proposal would cause serious harm to the landscape character and appearance of the area" (DL ¶30); "a significantly urbanising and strident intervention into the countryside" (DL ¶26). - **NL setting — N4(4): FAIL.** "the proposed development would introduce a greatly urbanising scheme that neither avoids nor minimises adverse impacts on the NWDNL though development in its setting" (DL ¶41); the proposal was not "sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the Protected Landscape" (DL ¶41). Railway line boundary found less of a visual separator than the A34, which explained approvals elsewhere in the NL (DL ¶¶34, 40). - **Design — DP3(1),(2): FAIL.** "the combination of the scale, layout, density and appearance of the scheme would not amount to an acceptable quality of design" (DL ¶55). On density: "Whilst the emphasis on the efficient of the use of land is entirely logical and receives greater emphasis in the 2026 Framework, the context of sites should also be a relevant factor" (DL ¶51). - **S5(1)(j): PASS.** "The scheme would help to address an evidenced unmet need for housing under the terms of Policy S5(1)(j) … In physical connectivity, rather than landscape and visual terms, it would be sufficiently well related to the existing settlement" (DL ¶69). - **Uncertain benefits.** Pub under HC4: "there is reason to depart from the substantial weight suggested as the scheme would not necessarily deliver the public house … I attribute this element modest weight" (DL ¶72). Employment units likewise tempered (DL ¶73). ## Planning balance S5(1) "substantially outweighed" balance, informed by S5(2). For: homes substantial; affordable significant; BNG/biodiversity great; location/station access moderate; open space, pub, economic, sustainable design modest. Against: landscape, NL setting and design harms "substantial adverse weight" (DL ¶68). "I have found a number of conflicts with national decision-making policies, including Policies N4 (4), DP3 (1) and (2) and N2 (1)(a) and (d). Taking these conflicts collectively, there would be substantial adverse effects from approving the proposals that outweigh the collective benefits of the scheme" (DL ¶79). Settlement-strategy policies SS1/SS6 given only limited weight (DL ¶67); the dismissal rests on the character/design policies, which kept full weight. ## What made the difference The site sat over the town's ridge on an exposed east-facing slope, visually linked to the National Landscape, with no existing eastern containment; mitigation relied on an engineered embankment that would not hide the roofscape. Design quality was independently poor (repetitive house types, fragmented open space). Passing S5(1)(j) was not enough: the S5 balance was run against N4(4), N2 and DP3 and lost. A contained site, or a lower-density/better designed scheme without an exposed NL-setting view, would likely have succeeded given the shortfall. ## Transferable points - "Physically well-related" in S5(1)(j)(i) is about physical connectivity, not landscape/visual relationship (DL ¶69) — landscape harm is dealt with in the balance, not the gateway. - S5(2) is applied by aggregating conflicts with several national decision-making policies (N4(4), DP3, N2) — they need not each be a "refuse" policy on its own (DL ¶79). - Substantial weight to homes plus significant weight to 40% affordable in a 2.2–3.1-year supply can still be "substantially outweighed" by serious landscape and design harm (DL ¶¶70, 79). - HC4 "substantial weight" to community facilities can be reduced where delivery is uncertain / market-dependent (DL ¶72). - Local-plan settlement-boundary policies carry limited weight for "material inconsistency with the 2026 Framework" where supply is short (DL ¶67). - Greater emphasis on density in the 2026 Framework does not override site context (DL ¶51). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): pass.** evidenced unmet need (2.2-3.1 yrs); "physically well-related" read as physical connectivity, not landscape/visual; scale accommodated by infrastructure (DL 69) - **N4(4): fail (substantial weight).** setting of North Wessex Downs NL; not sensitively located/designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts (DL 33-41) - **N2(1)(a): conflict (substantial weight).** "serious harm" to landscape character and appearance (DL 30-31) - **N2(1)(d): conflict (substantial weight).** landscaping would not integrate development; engineered buffer embankment (DL 26, 31) - **DP3(1): fail (substantial weight).** scale, layout, density, appearance not acceptable quality; repetitive red brick house types, fragmented open space (DL 43-56) - **DP3(2): fail (substantial weight).** does not respond to context / integrate with surroundings (DL 56) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 115 homes in serious and significant shortfall likely to persist (eLP not adopted until c. autumn 2029) (DL 63-64, 70) - **HO8: benefit (significant weight).** 46 affordable homes (DL 70) - **HC4: benefit (limited weight).** HC4 says substantial weight to new community facilities, but pub only "modest" weight because delivery uncertain (market-dependent, S106 marketing only) (DL 72) - **E1: benefit.** employment units — weight "tempered" by uncertainty of delivery (DL 73) - **TR3: benefit (moderate weight).** walking/cycling access to town facilities and Whitchurch station (DL 74) - **N2: benefit (great weight).** BNG over 10% (hedgerow units significantly) plus allotment contribution — "great weight" (DL 77) - **SS1/SS6 (settlement strategy): conflict (limited weight).** limited weight given supply position and "material inconsistency with the 2026 Framework" (DL 67) - **BMV loss: conflict (limited weight).** (DL 67) ## Key facts - Agreed supply range 2.2-3.1 years (base 1 Apr 2025); shortfall c. 2,000-3,000 homes; new Local Plan not expected before c. autumn 2029 - 8.8 ha pasture on exposed east-facing slope beyond the town's ridge; railway embankment marks the North Wessex Downs NL boundary immediately north - About 35% of dwellings 2.5 storeys; 21-23 dph; eastern buffer on c. 4 m engineered embankment with swale - Over half the scheme two plain red-brick house types; photomontages found to underplay year-1 effects - NWD NL covers about a third of the borough; appellant argued site one of few options at Whitchurch ## Sources - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Whitchurch-Bere-Hill-Appeal-6006893.pdf - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/2026/whitchurch-housing-appeal/ --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006893.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Rogers Lane, Findon - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Alice James - **Authority:** South Downs National Park Authority (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006900 - **Application reference:** SDNP/25/04240/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for one chalet-style (self-build) dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** national-park, open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.8 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(4), N4, DP3, TR3 - **Development plan policies:** South Downs Local Plan 2019 SD1, SD4, SD6, SD21, SD25, Findon NDP 2016-2035 HD4 - **Main issues:** National Park landscape, spatial strategy and accessibility - **Tags:** PIP, national-park, s5-1-e-infill, s5-1-j, s5-4-exceptional, sustainable-location-fail, self-build, small-scheme, rural-lane-no-footway ## Summary PIP for one self-build dwelling on an elevated field in the South Downs National Park, reached by an unlit single-track lane. Dismissed. Not infill (only one neighbouring dwelling), not well-related to Findon (so S5(1)(j) failed despite a 4.8-year supply), so S5(4) exceptional-circumstances test applied; National Park harm (N4), design (DP3) and car-dependence (TR3) substantially outweighed one home. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties given opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶2). - **National Park — N4 / DP3: FAIL.** "A dwelling in this location would reduce views towards Cissbury Ring which is a key feature of the SDNP and would erode the sense of openness that the public experience form the public right of way" (DL ¶10); "it is not sensitively located to avoid harm to the statutory purposes and special qualities of the Protected Landscape, does not respond to its context and would not enhance its surroundings" (DL ¶13). - **Accessibility — TR3: FAIL.** "accessing Findon on foot or by bike from the appeal site would involve going along an unlit, unpaved narrow lane before crossing the Findon Bypass (A24)" (DL ¶15); "future residents would likely be highly reliant on private cars for most journeys, irrespective of the precise distance. In this context the proposed development would not be physically well related to the settlement of Findon" (DL ¶17). - **S5 categories: FAIL.** "The proposed dwelling would be next to one existing dwelling, but the other dwellings and buildings are sporadic and some distance away from the appeal site. In this context, the proposal would not constitute limited infilling within groups of houses" (DL ¶26). Not isolated either (DL ¶14). - **Self-build.** "there is no mechanism at permission in principle stage to secure self-build housing" (DL ¶20). ## Planning balance S5(4): outside the S5(1) list, so approval only if benefits "substantially outweigh" harm (DL ¶27). HO7 substantial weight to housing given 4.8-yr supply (DL ¶28), but conflicts with DP3, N4 and TR3 plus N4 "substantial weight" to National Park beauty: "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶29). ## What made the difference The access route (unlit, no footway, national speed limit, then a bypass crossing) meant the site was treated as not "physically well-related" for S5(1)(j) — the inspector read accessibility into that phrase — and there was only one neighbouring house so infill failed. National Park designation then weighed heavily. A plot within a continuous frontage group (cf. Spring Gardens PINS-6009593) or with a footway to the village would have had a route into S5(1). ## Transferable points - "Physically well-related" in S5(1)(j) can be failed on accessibility grounds — an unlit, unpaved lane to the settlement (DL ¶17). (Contrast Whitchurch PINS-6006893 ¶69, which read it as physical connectivity.) - Proximity to a single dwelling is not "limited infilling within groups of houses" (DL ¶26). - A site outside every S5(1) category falls to S5(4), where the burden flips: benefits must *substantially outweigh* harm (DL ¶27). - A 4.8-yr supply still attracts substantial weight to housing under HO7 (DL ¶28). - Self-build status cannot be secured at PIP stage (DL ¶20) — but see Cople PINS-6011253 ¶¶17–18 for the opposite view. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(e): fail.** next to one dwelling only; other buildings sporadic and distant — not limited infilling within a group (DL 26) - **S5(1)(j): fail.** 4.8-yr supply gives unmet need, but not physically well-related to Findon — unlit, unpaved narrow NSL lane then A24 bypass crossing (DL 15-17, 26) - **S5(4): fail.** outside all categories; benefits do not substantially outweigh harm (DL 27-29) - **N4: fail (substantial weight).** elevated site near PRoW, would reduce views to Cissbury Ring; N4 substantial weight to natural beauty of National Park (DL 9-13, 29) - **DP3: fail.** does not respond to context (DL 13) - **TR3: fail.** highly reliant on private car "irrespective of the precise distance" (DL 17-18) - **TR4: neutral.** TR4/TR6 matters for technical details stage (DL 19) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 4.8-yr supply signals general need — substantial weight (DL 28) ## Key facts - Elevated field in South Downs National Park, some distance from Findon, beside one dwelling; PRoW views to Cissbury Ring - Rogers Lane narrow single-track, no footways or lighting, national speed limit; reaching Findon requires crossing A24 Findon Bypass - SDNPA supply 4.8 years - Self-build could not be secured at PIP stage (no mechanism) — contrast Cople PINS-6011253 ## Sources - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Findon-Permission-in-Principle-Appeal-6006900.pdf - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/2026/findon-self-build-pip/ --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006900.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Bastle house north of Whitlees, Elsdon (listed building consent conditions) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Paul Martinson - **Authority:** Northumberland National Park (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006903 - **Application reference:** 25NP0102 (LBC condition variation) - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Variation of approved-plans condition and removal of arrow-slit condition on listed building consent 25NP0020LBC for conversion of a bastle and byre to two holiday lets, to allow wider windows (Appeal A 6006905 is the s73 planning appeal, also dismissed) - **Site context:** national-park, listed-building-setting, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE6(3) - **Development plan policies:** Northumberland National Park Local Plan 2020 ST1, ST2, DM6, DM14 - **Main issues:** special interest of listed building, whether conditions serve a useful purpose - **Tags:** tier-2, listed-building-consent, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-harm-graded, old-heritage-wording, old-wording-slip, s73-conditions, national-park, rural-tourism, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A joint letter on a Grade II bastle house in Northumberland National Park, already consented for holiday-let conversion with arrow-slit openings. Appeal B (this file) sought to vary the listed building consent conditions to allow wider windows; Appeal A (6006905) sought the same through s73. Both dismissed: moderate harm to significance, and the named HE6(4) benefit of reusing a vacant listed building was discounted because the extant consent already secures it. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I have taken into account the national decision-making (DM) policies contained within the new National Planning Policy Framework" (DL ¶4). No consultation paragraph. - **Harm: moderate.** The windows "would introduce window proportions more akin to those of modern domestic windows" (DL ¶15); "I consider the harm to the designated heritage asset to be of a moderate level" (DL ¶21). - **HE6(1) wording slip (incidental).** "the Framework sets out that great weight should be given to the asset's conservation" (DL ¶20). The conclusion rests on the 2026 formula at DL ¶26. - **HE6(4) public benefits: FAIL.** Reuse "would represent a substantial benefit", but "This benefit could be provided through a more sensitive scheme, as evidenced by the existence of the extant approvals" (DL ¶22). "the moderate public benefits I have set out above are not sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight I am required to attach to the moderate level of harm" (DL ¶26). - **Conditions** "continue to serve a useful purpose and are reasonable and necessary" (DL ¶28). ## Planning balance HE6(4) harm v public benefits, with s16(2)/s66(1) duties. Benefits discounted as achievable without the harm (reuse, tourism) or unevidenced (escape, daylight). ## What made the difference The fallback cuts both ways: the extant consent secured the same reuse and tourism benefits, so none of them could be credited to the harmful change. Evidence that only the wider windows could make the conversion work (Building Regulations escape, viability) would have been needed. ## Transferable points - The HE6(4) named benefit of reusing a vacant listed building loses weight where an extant, less harmful consent already achieves it (DL ¶22, ¶25). - Listed buildings are protected for their inherent interest whether or not the elevation is publicly visible (DL ¶18). - Building Regulations flexibility for historic buildings undercuts a justification based on means of escape (DL ¶23). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (great weight).** letter says "great weight should be given to the asset's conservation" (2024 wording, DL 20); moderate harm to Grade II bastle from wider, domestic-proportioned windows and loss of historic fabric (DL 15-17, 21) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** "considerable importance and weight" to the moderate harm (DL 26) - **HE6(4): fail.** long-term reuse of a vacant listed building is a named public benefit ("substantial") but weight limited because extant consent achieves it without the harmful windows; escape and daylight not shown to need them; tourism benefits also available from extant approvals; "moderate public benefits" do not outweigh (DL 21-26) ## Key facts - One application (25NP0102) sought both the s73 variation (Appeal A 6006905) and the LBC condition variation (DL header) - Grade II bastle house (16th/17th C fortified farmhouse), List Entry 1155121; significance in massive walls and high solid-to-void ratio (DL 3, 8-10) - Extant permission and LBC (18 Aug 2025) allow frameless recessed arrow slits; appeal sought a single 600 mm window per pair (DL 12-15) - Inspector doubts a frameless openable escape window is buildable, questioning drawing accuracy (DL 16) - Building Regulations flexibility for historic buildings; window not shown to be the only escape route (DL 23) - 2026 Framework applied; no consultation paragraph (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006903 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a0b987d6-1606-4ddc-af59-bc59ebc347f4 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006903.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Bastle house north of Whitlees, Elsdon (s73 planning appeal) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Paul Martinson - **Authority:** Northumberland National Park (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006905 - **Application reference:** 25NP0102 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73 application to vary the approved-plans condition and arrow-slit condition on permission 25NP0019 (conversion of a bastle and byre to two holiday lets) to allow wider windows (Appeal B 6006903 is the linked listed building consent appeal) - **Site context:** national-park, listed-building-setting, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(3), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Northumberland National Park Local Plan 2020 ST1, ST2, DM6, DM14 - **Main issues:** special interest of listed building, whether conditions serve a useful purpose - **Tags:** tier-2, s73-conditions, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, old-heritage-wording, old-wording-slip, national-park, rural-tourism, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Appeal A of a joint letter (Appeal B, 6006903, is the listed building consent appeal). A consented holiday-let conversion of a Grade II bastle house in Northumberland National Park was approved with narrow arrow slits; this s73 appeal sought wider windows. Moderate harm to significance; the HE6(4) benefit of reusing an underused listed building was discounted because the extant consent already secures it. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I have taken into account the national decision-making (DM) policies contained within the new National Planning Policy Framework" (DL ¶4). No consultation. - **Harm.** "the proposal would lack the authenticity of the approved arrow slits and would introduce window proportions more akin to those of modern domestic windows" (DL ¶15). Public visibility is irrelevant: "listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of whether or not public views of the buildings can be gained" (DL ¶18). "I consider the harm to the designated heritage asset to be of a moderate level" (DL ¶21). - **Weight wording.** "great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation" (DL ¶20) is 2024 wording; the operative balance uses "the considerable importance and weight I am required to attach to the moderate level of harm" (DL ¶26). The slip is incidental. - **HE6(4): FAIL.** "The proposal would secure the long-term reuse of a vacant or underused listed building. This would represent a substantial benefit of the appeal scheme. However, there is little evidence before me that this benefit is entirely dependent upon the provision of the windows" (DL ¶22). "Overall, the moderate public benefits I have set out above are not sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight I am required to attach to the moderate level of harm" (DL ¶26). ## Planning balance HE6(4), harm against public benefits, with s16(2) and s66(1). The conditions continue to serve a useful purpose (DL ¶28). ## What made the difference The fallback of the extant consent. The named HE6(4) benefit (reuse of a vacant listed building) and the tourism benefits would be delivered anyway, so they did not weigh in favour of the harmful change. ## Transferable points - A named HE6(4) public benefit carries little weight where an extant, less harmful consent already delivers it (DL ¶22, ¶25). - Harm to a listed building counts even on elevations the public cannot see (DL ¶18). - Building Regulations flexibility for historic buildings undercuts a claim that a harmful opening is needed for escape (DL ¶23). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (great weight).** letter says "great weight should be given to the asset's conservation" (2024 wording, DL 20); incidental, since the balance at DL 26 uses the 2026 HE6(3) formula - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** moderate harm to the Grade II bastle from wider, domestic-proportioned windows, likely framed casements and greater loss of historic fabric (DL 15-17, 21, 26) - **HE6(4): fail.** reuse of a vacant or underused listed building is a named public benefit ("substantial") but not dependent on the harmful windows, since extant consent secures it; escape and daylight needs not shown; tourism benefits also available under extant approvals; "moderate public benefits" do not outweigh (DL 21-26) ## Key facts - Grade II bastle house, List Entry 1155121; significance from massive walls, few openings and high solid-to-void ratio (DL 3, 10) - Extant permission 25NP0019 and LBC 25NP0020LBC (18 Aug 2025) allow frameless recessed arrow slits (DL 5, 12-13) - Appeal sought a single 600 mm window in place of each pair of arrow slits on the north elevation (DL 14-15) - Conditions 2 and 18 found still to serve a useful purpose (DL 28) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006905 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1722b8ec-eee7-43c5-a8a6-3d4e6fc02f8e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006905.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 4 Highfield Gardens, Golders Green - **Decision:** allowed, 26 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Dickson - **Authority:** Barnet (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6006920 - **Application reference:** 25/5086/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Replacement dwelling with basement, differing from approved scheme only by two front dormers - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 CDH01, London Plan 2021 D3, Barnet Residential Design Guidance SPD 2016 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, dormers, framework-not-cited, pd-rights-condition-refused ## Summary A replacement house was allowed with two front dormers that the extant permission did not include. The street's roofscape is so varied that the dormers "would respect and enhance the prevailing character" (DL ¶8). No Framework is cited in the reasoning. ## What made the difference The varied roofscape at the street entrance and the small, symmetrical dormers. The Council's request to remove permitted development rights was declined as "overly restrictive" (DL ¶16). ## Policy findings - **DP3: pass.** Framework not cited; varied roofscape means small symmetrical front dormers are a sensitive addition (DL 4-9) - **DM6: neutral.** removal of PD rights refused as overly restrictive (DL 16) ## Key facts - Extant permission (24/4304/FUL as varied by 25/4927/S73) for similar dwelling without front dormers ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8af82a76-ec71-4eef-a195-0fbd096adc9e - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006920 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006920.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 52 Mintern Street, Hackney (Class MA, deemed approval) - **Decision:** allowed, 24 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Jones - **Authority:** Hackney (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6006932 - **Application reference:** 2025/1730 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class MA prior approval: commercial building to 4 flats - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Sch2 Pt3 para W - **Main issues:** deemed approval - **Tags:** tier-2, prior-approval, class-ma, deemed-approval, costs-application ## Summary Four flats under Class MA were deemed approved because Hackney issued its refusal two days after the 56-day period ended (DL 18). The light and transport issues were therefore irrelevant. ## What made the difference The Council backdated validity without evidence that the fee was missing, and the timeline was undisputed (DL 14-15). ## Policy findings - **GPDO Sch2 Pt3 para W: pass.** application complete on 29 Jul 2025; decision issued 25 Sep 2025, outside the 56-day period, so prior approval is deemed granted (DL 13-18) ## Key facts - Inspector: Framework relevant to prior approvals 'only insofar as it is relevant to the subject matter'; not determinative here (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006932 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/0157e2f9-d81b-4840-a83c-323219e3763d --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006932.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pavement outside the Odeon, James Street West, Bath (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J J Evans - **Authority:** Bath and North East Somerset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6006948 - **Application reference:** 25/04771/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub with 2 digital 75-inch screens, removal of payphones (Appeal B 6006951 advert consent 25/04772/AR also dismissed) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE8, P5 - **Development plan policies:** BaNES Placemaking Plan 2017 D1, D2, D4, D9, D10, LCR7A, HE1, Local Plan Partial Update 2023 D8, Core Strategy 2014 CP6, B4 - **Main issues:** heritage and character, public safety - **Tags:** transitional, old-framework-applied-silently, telecoms, bt-street-hub, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, less-than-substantial-legacy-wording, conservation-area, world-heritage-site, crime-evidence ## Summary A BT Street Hub with illuminated screens on a straight, open footway in the Bath World Heritage Site and Conservation Area, in views of listed landmarks. Dismissed on heritage grounds and on public safety. The heritage harm was "less than substantial ... at the lower end" and was not outweighed by modest benefits. Site-specific police crime data (230+ incidents within 100m) defeated the ASB management plan. Although dated 17 August 2026, the letter uses the 2024 "great weight" and "less than substantial" framing. ## Issues and findings - **Heritage.** The hub "would draw the eye away from these focal buildings ... This distracting prominence would also erode the character and appearance of the conservation area and that of the WHS" (DL ¶13). - **Harm grading.** "less than substantial harm, albeit at the lower end of the scale, due to the size of the street hub compared to that of the size of the WHS" (DL ¶16). The same harm is later called "considerable" and "significant" (DL ¶17, 19). - **Public safety.** "within 100m of the site over 230 incidents have occurred in a twelve month period ... This is a high level of occurrences" (DL ¶20). "no bespoke assessment of the lighting impact of the scheme upon the cameras has been provided" (DL ¶23). ## Planning balance Heritage balance (2024 para 215, now HE6(4)): modest benefits against harm given great weight. There is no telecoms substantial-weight test, and CO1 is not cited. ## What made the difference Long, open views to listed landmarks with no street clutter, combined with site-specific crime evidence. In other hub appeals (for example PINS-6002960) the crime objections failed because they were generic. ## Transferable points - Specific police data on crime near a site can defeat a generic ASB management plan (DL ¶20-22). - Removing payphones that could be removed anyway carries little weight (DL ¶17). - Harm graded "lower end" because the asset is large (a WHS) can still be decisive (DL ¶16-17). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): harm (great weight).** "less than substantial harm, albeit at the lower end of the scale" to Bath CA, settings of Grade II Green Park Station, 17-21 Charles Street and Old Labour Exchange, and OUV of the WHS; "great weight" (2024 wording); later called "considerable harm"/"significant harm"; s66/s72 cited (DL 12-17, 19) - **CO1: benefit (limited weight).** upgraded infrastructure, environmental monitoring; "modest" — payphone removal could happen anyway; no CO1 substantial-weight wording (DL 15, 17, 19) - **P5: fail.** over 230 incidents within 100m in 12 months, police evidence of drug dealing at nearby payphone; ASB management plan not sufficient; CCTV line-of-sight unassessed (DL 20-24); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Straight road with long views to landmark listed buildings; little other street furniture (DL 8, 12) - Site-specific crime data from the police distinguished this case from Croydon hub appeal (DL 20-21) - Dated 17 August 2026, applies 2024 Framework wording without mentioning the new Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006948 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e8cd2740-e4d4-4e3f-9b2f-fd85161fe2c7 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006948.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land off Middlebridge Road, Gringley-on-the-Hill - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Paul Thompson - **Authority:** Bassetlaw (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6006950 - **Application reference:** 25/00810/FUL - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** One self-build 4-bed dwelling and garage replacing two sheet-clad barns - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.15 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), S5(4), TR3, DP3(3), HO7 - **Development plan policies:** Bassetlaw Local Plan 2020-2038 ST1, ST2, ST28, ST33, ST35, ST53 - **Main issues:** housing in the countryside, self-build need, accessibility, character and appearance - **Tags:** self-build, small-scheme, s5-1-j, s5-4-exceptional, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, dp3-refuse-trigger, fallback-rejected, pdl-blended-into-landscape, l2-substantial-weight-withheld, local-policy-consistency, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, self-build-shortfall, housing-shortfall, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, class-q-fallback ## Summary A single self-build house and garage to replace two small barns on a partly previously-developed plot outside Gringley-on-the-Hill. Dismissed after a hearing. None of S5(1)(c), (d) or (j) was met: not a like-for-like replacement, only part-PDL, and not physically well-related to the village. Car dependence along an unlit 60 mph lane and the house's scale in the rural setting substantially outweighed substantial weight to both general housing (4.15-yr supply) and a large self-build shortfall. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Hearing was held on 4 August 2026, before the new Framework; a "Statement of Common Ground regarding the revised Framework" was received after the hearing (Documents list) and the letter applies the 2026 policies throughout. - **Character — DP3(3): FAIL.** House and garage "would appear visually domineering … The magnitude of the built form would therefore harmfully intrude" (DL ¶13); architectural design itself not harmful (DL ¶14). "the proposal conflicts with several LP policies because of its adverse effects on the character of the site and its rural setting. In the Framework's terms, this amounts to harm to the character of the countryside" (DL ¶48). - **Accessibility — TR3: significant harm.** "these conditions are not convenient or realistic for everyone who might need to reach services and facilities in the village, especially after dark or in bad weather. While the appellant's family accept these conditions, their current circumstances could change in the future" (DL ¶18). "allowing this proposal would cumulatively increase the number of journeys made in the district by private motorised transport" (DL ¶21). - **S5(1)(c): FAIL.** "would not be for the same use and would be disproportionately larger than the buildings that it replaces" (DL ¶29). - **S5(1)(d): FAIL.** Buried structures "have blended into the landscape"; "Framework Policy S5(1)(d) does not relate to the partial redevelopment of PDL, so the proposal would not satisfy it. On the same basis, I cannot give the proposal the substantial weight for re-using PDL referred to in Framework Policy L2" (DL ¶30). - **S5(1)(j): FAIL.** Unmet need and infrastructure met, "it would not be physically well-related to an existing settlement" (DL ¶31). - **Fallback.** Barn conversion "hypothetical" — Class Q unavailable and a conversion would still fail on accessibility; even if converted, the new house "would be so considerably larger than the converted 'original dwelling'" (DL ¶¶22-24). - **Self-build.** CIL exemption forms and description-only/condition-only permissions should not count towards the duty; a self-build condition "would not pass the tests within Framework Policy DM6. A legal agreement is therefore the most appropriate method" (DL ¶¶39-40). Shortfall "much closer to the 121 plots" (DL ¶41); substantial weight under HO7 (DL ¶42). - **Local plan consistency.** ST1/ST2 "fully consistent with the Framework and do not impose a more restrictive approach" because they defer to national policy — substantial weight to conflict (DL ¶55). ST28 "does not allocate plots, as required by the new Framework. This is materially inconsistent" — very limited weight (DL ¶56). ## Planning balance S5(4) exceptional-circumstances balance, cross-checked against S5(1) and S5(2). Benefits: HO7 substantial (housing), HO7 substantial (self-build), L2 moderate, voluntary biodiversity moderate, energy/design moderate, economic moderate (DL ¶¶35-45). Harms: countryside character via DP3(3) and "significant" TR3 harm (DL ¶¶48-49). "Collectively, the adverse effects … would be of such magnitude and importance that they would substantially outweigh those benefits" (DL ¶50). Then s38(6): "meeting the locational needs of SBCH should not come at the expense of these wider aims and objectives of the development plan" (DL ¶58). ## What made the difference Location: a plot some distance from the village along an unlit, footway-less 60 mph lane, so it failed the "physically well-related" test in S5(1)(j) and carried significant TR3 harm. The PDL argument failed because only the barn footprint and access were PDL and the rest became garden; the replacement argument failed because the house was far bigger than the barns. Substantial weight for a large, legally-secured self-build shortfall was not enough. A plot on the village edge, or a like-for-like replacement of a lawful building, would have stood a much better chance. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(d) does not cover partial redevelopment of PDL where the rest of the site becomes garden, and L2 substantial weight is lost for the same reason (DL ¶30). - Buried or historic structures that have "blended into the landscape" are not enough to treat land as PDL (DL ¶30). - S5(1)(j) can fail on "physically well-related" alone, even with a 4.15-yr supply and a large self-build shortfall (DL ¶31). - An unlit, footway-less 60 mph lane into a village gives "significant" TR3 harm for a single house; the applicant's own willingness to walk it does not count because circumstances change (DL ¶¶18, 49). - DP3(3) is engaged by conflict with local character/landscape policies (as "explicit design standards") and that conflict counts as harm to the countryside in the S5 balance (DL ¶48). - Self-build: a condition cannot secure self-build (fails DM6); a legal agreement is needed. CIL exemption forms are not evidence of self-build permissions (DL ¶¶39-40). - A local countryside policy that defers to national policy (ST1/ST2) stays "fully consistent" and its breach carries substantial weight; a self-build policy that does not allocate plots is "materially inconsistent" (DL ¶¶55-56). - Fallback: a conversion scheme that would itself need permission and would fail on accessibility is "hypothetical" and carries no fallback weight (DL ¶¶22-24). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(c): fail.** barns permanent and substantial but not same use and new dwelling disproportionately larger; Class Q unavailable (DL 22, 29) - **S5(1)(d): fail.** only part of site is PDL (building footprint and access); rest becomes garden; S5(1)(d) "does not relate to the partial redevelopment of PDL" (DL 16, 30) - **S5(1)(j): fail.** evidenced unmet need (4.15 yrs, SBCH shortfall) and infrastructure OK but not physically well-related to Gringley-on-the-Hill (DL 31) - **S5(4): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed; no exceptional circumstances (DL 32, 50) - **TR3: harm (significant weight).** 60 mph unlit lane with no footways, uphill into village; bus not realistically usable; regular car trips for most needs (DL 18-21, 49) - **DP3(3): fail.** conflict with explicit local design standards (ST33, ST35) through scale and harm to rural setting = harm to countryside character (DL 13, 48) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** modest contribution at 4.15-yr supply (DL 35) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** self-build — shortfall nearer 121 plots than Council's 37; secured by UU; "meaningful contribution" (DL 41-42) - **L2: benefit (moderate weight).** substantial L2 weight withheld because not full PDL redevelopment (DL 30) - **DM6: neutral.** self-build condition fails DM6 tests; legal agreement needed (DL 40) - **Annex A: neutral.** ST1/ST2 fully consistent (substantial weight to conflict); ST28 materially inconsistent (no SBCH allocations) so very limited weight (DL 53-57) ## Key facts - Housing land supply about 4.15 years (Council did not dispute at hearing) - Self-build shortfall "much closer to" 121 plots than the Council's 37 - Middlebridge Road narrow, unlit, no footways, 60 mph; village has pub with pop-in shop, hall, church, mobile post office - Earlier Class Q prior approval refused because site not last in agricultural use - Hearing 4 Aug 2026; post-hearing Statement of Common Ground on the revised Framework - Costs application by appellant decided separately (not read) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006950 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/146ba3f9-35d5-4ff2-aabd-475585b4927c - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/788686b3-dd71-4d0e-b1da-124fc80c4b4f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006950.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land to rear of 1A St James Road, Torquay - **Decision:** allowed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M Russell (on recommendation of APO E Clifford) - **Authority:** Torbay (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6006957 - **Application reference:** P/2025/0366 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Technical details consent following PiP for demolition of Nissen hut and outbuildings and erection of 1 dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3, P3 - **Development plan policies:** Torbay Local Plan 2015 DE1, DE3, W1, NC1, ER3, Torquay Neighbourhood Plan 2019 TH8 - **Main issues:** character, neighbour living conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, PIP, technical-details-consent, appeal-planning-officer, transitional-no-consultation, small-scheme ## Summary Technical details consent for a single house replacing derelict outbuildings behind a Torquay terrace was allowed. The design fitted the close-knit context, and a daylight report submitted at appeal showed negligible change against the existing structures. The principle was fixed at the PiP stage. ## What made the difference The existing structures set the baseline for overshadowing. An amended drawing removing one window was accepted at appeal because it was on the portal before the Council's statement (DL ¶¶6, 14–16). ## Policy findings - **DP3: pass.** asymmetric pitched roof steps with topography; comparable height to No 1 (DL 8-11) - **P3: pass.** daylight/sunlight report shows negligible change versus existing structures; offending window removed (DL 12-17) ## Key facts - PiP had fixed location, land use and amount; TDC cannot reopen them (DL 3, 18) - Framework "not materially different" on these issues; no consultation (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/afa14dc6-2dad-41f7-84d3-220830cfba0c - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006957 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006957.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Titchmarsh Marina, Coles Lane, Walton-on-the-Naze (replacement workshop, Flood Zone 3) - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S F Barnes - **Authority:** Tendring (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6006959 - **Application reference:** 25/00919/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Replacement marine engineering workshop within a boatyard - **Site context:** flood-zone-3 - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** F4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 Section 2 (2022) PPL1 - **Main issues:** flood risk - **Tags:** flood-risk, replacement-building, evidence-gap, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A like-for-like replacement boatyard workshop at Walton-on-the-Naze was refused solely because there was no site-specific flood risk assessment. After revisions to the Environment Agency maps the site now lay in Flood Zone 3. The letter applies the new F4(1) directly, and it holds that a replacement building does not justify skipping the assessment. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "As the changes are not material to the issues before me and would not alter my conclusions, it has not been necessary to seek further comments from the main parties" (DL ¶2). - **F4: FAIL.** "The site lies within the Environment Agency's ('EA') fluvial and tidal Flood Zone 3. The Framework at F4 sets out that a site specific flood risk assessment should accompany all development proposals in these locations" (DL ¶5). The EA maps prevail over the Local Plan maps (DL ¶6). - **Old site-raising no substitute.** Raised land and proximity to Mean High Water Springs "are not, in themselves, substantive indicators of the site's present flood risk, which must be considered having regard to contemporary flood risk data and taking account of potential effects of climate change" (DL ¶7). - **Safety.** "In the absence of such evidence, I cannot be satisfied that the proposal and its intended users would be safe from flooding" (DL ¶8). - **Replacement.** "The fact that the proposed building would replace an existing one does not automatically justify granting planning permission" (DL ¶9). ## Planning balance Plan-led (PPL1 and the Framework's flood policies). Benefits: energy efficiency (limited weight, unquantified) and convenience (private). Neither outweighed the harm nor gave an "overriding justification" (DL ¶11-12). ## What made the difference The missing flood risk assessment. The nearby approval pre-dated the Flood Zone re-mapping, so it offered no precedent. With a proportionate FRA showing resilience measures, a replacement water-compatible marina building would very likely have been approved. ## Transferable points - F4(1): all development in Flood Zones 2 and 3 needs a site-specific FRA, including replacement buildings (DL ¶5, ¶9). - Current EA flood maps prevail over local plan maps, and earlier approvals on superseded maps carry no weight (DL ¶6). - Historic land-raising is not evidence of current flood risk. An assessment must use contemporary data including climate change (DL ¶7). ## Policy findings - **F4(1): fail.** site in EA Flood Zone 3 (re-designated from FZ1 since a 2025 approval nearby); no site-specific flood risk assessment (DL 5-8, 10) - **F7: fail.** 'I cannot be satisfied that the proposal and its intended users would be safe from flooding' (DL 8) - **CC2(2): benefit (limited weight).** better-insulated replacement, but 'little quantified evidence' of energy-efficiency gain (DL 11) ## Key facts - EA Flood Zone maps revised after a similar workshop was approved nearby in June 2025 (DL 6) - Land raised in the 1970s is no substitute for a current evidence-based assessment (DL 7) - Framework changes 'not material to the issues'; no further comments sought (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006959 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/93bdea30-d3ba-418e-b52f-6d4647e01526 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006959.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 39 Chalkwell Esplanade, Westcliff-on-Sea - **Decision:** dismissed, 1 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Simms - **Authority:** Southend-on-Sea (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6006985 - **Application reference:** 25/00621/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Three-storey flat-roofed building of 3 flats with rear parking on vacant seafront plot (extant permission for 2 flats in a hipped-roof building) - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.9 - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 20 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), S4(2) - **Development plan policies:** Southend-on-Sea Core Strategy 2007 KP2, CP4, Development Management Document 2015 DM1, DM3, DM6, Design and Townscape Guide SPD 2009 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** design-refusal, dp3-refuse-trigger, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, s4-substantially-outweighed, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, fallback, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A flat-roofed, stone-and-metal-clad block of 3 flats on a vacant plot on Southend seafront. There was already permission for a hipped-roof building of 2 flats. Dismissed on character grounds. The conflict with an explicit plan design standard (the Seafront Character Zone policy) engaged DP3's refusal trigger. With substantial weight, it substantially outweighed the benefits even with a 2.9-year supply and about 20% delivery. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were invited to comment on the new Framework and the new HDT results (DL ¶2). - **Character — DP3: FAIL.** "the form and materials would further depart from the pitched and hipped roofs of most of the seafront, none of which nearby use coastal stone, and create greater massing than already permitted" (DL ¶7). Existing horizontal buildings "tend to detract from, rather than maintain, the established seafront architectural style" (DL ¶8). - **Refusal trigger.** "Policy DP3 of the Framework states that proposals should be refused if they fail to respond to their context, conflict with relevant principles for creating well-designed places or conflict with any explicit design standards in the development plan. It requires substantial weight to be given to compliance with such standards" (DL ¶16). ## Planning balance S4(2) route: "the benefits of approving development are likely to be substantially outweighed by adverse effects in situations where the proposal would fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that proposals should be refused" (DL ¶15). "I attach substantial weight to this conflict, which in turn substantially outweighs the benefits of the proposal, despite the housing land shortfall and significant under-delivery" (DL ¶17). The weight given to the housing benefit was not stated. ## What made the difference DP3(3) did the work. Once the design conflicted with an explicit local character-zone standard, the inspector treated that conflict as carrying substantial weight in its own right. A severe supply position (2.9 years, about 20% delivery) and PDL reuse could not overcome it. The extant permission for a hipped-roof scheme showed that a design matching the seafront style was achievable, so the extra flat was only a marginal gain. A pitched and hipped design in matching materials would very likely have passed. ## Transferable points - Conflict with an "explicit design standard" in the development plan engages DP3(3) and attracts substantial weight in its own right (DL ¶¶16–17). - Through S4(2), a DP3 refusal can defeat the presumption even at 2.9 years' supply and about 20% delivery (DL ¶¶14, 17). - Non-conforming newer buildings nearby do not set a precedent where they "detract from, rather than maintain" the established style (DL ¶8). - The inspector did not explicitly weigh HO7 benefits. A drafting gap that later appellants may exploit (DL ¶¶11, 17). ## Policy findings - **DP3(3): fail (substantial weight).** flat roof, coastal stone and metal cladding depart from the hipped-roof seafront form protected by DM6 Seafront Character Zone 4; conflict with explicit plan design standards given substantial weight (DL 7-10, 16-17) - **S4(2): fail.** failure of a refuse-trigger policy means benefits likely substantially outweighed (DL 15, 17) - **HO7: benefit.** 3 dwellings (net +1 over extant scheme), PDL, sustainable location; weight not specified (DL 11, 14) ## Key facts - Council accepted 3.48 years; with 20% buffer its own evidence gives 2.90 years; delivery about 20% of requirement over three years (DL 14) - Extant permission for a 3-storey hipped-roof building of 2 flats; appeal scheme adds 1 flat and more massing (DL 5-7) - Essex Coast RAMS zone of influence; not pursued given the outcome (DL 12-13) - Parties invited to comment on the new Framework and the 17 Aug 2026 HDT results (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006985 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ab2f7250-e3c6-46c8-8c06-8c75f92f935d --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006985.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 26 Bendemeer Road, Putney - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Reeves - **Authority:** Wandsworth (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6006986 - **Application reference:** 2025/0902 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion of a house into two flats with enlarged roof terrace - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** s38(6), P3(2)(a) - **Development plan policies:** Wandsworth Local Plan 2023-2038 LP26, LP27, London Plan 2021 D6 - **Main issues:** family housing, living conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, transitional, old-wording-slip, living-conditions, flat-conversion, nds-shortfall ## Summary A house-to-two-flats conversion in Wandsworth. Dismissed because the only family-sized flat was 23 sq m below NDSS and had a roof terrace instead of the "rear garden" local policy requires. The extra home got only limited weight. Dated 17 August 2026, the letter uses the 2024 "significantly and demonstrably outweighed" language and never mentions the new Framework. ## What made the difference Internal space standards and the literal "rear garden" wording in LP26(B). The appellant's measured survey won on the floorspace threshold (DL ¶6), but that only moved the scheme into Part B, which it then failed. L2(1)(d)'s substantial weight for additional homes within existing plots was not considered. ## Policy findings - **LP26 (Wandsworth LP): conflict (significant weight).** appellant measured survey (131 sq m original) preferred, so Part A passed; Part B failed — 3-bed upper flat has a 15 sq m second-floor terrace, not a "rear garden" (DL 4-9) - **P3(2)(a): fail (significant weight).** upper 3-bed flat 79 sq m against 102 sq m NDSS; LP26/LP27 "consistent with the ... Framework's requirement for a high standard of amenity" (DL 10-16); code mapped by harvester - **L2(1)(d): benefit (limited weight).** efficient use of plot, one extra home in sustainable location: "only limited weight" — no L2 substantial weight applied (DL 15); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - 23 sq m NDSS shortfall for the family unit (DL 11) - Balance phrased "significantly and demonstrably outweighed" (2024 tilted-balance wording) in a letter dated 17 August 2026 with no reference to the new Framework (DL 16) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006986 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c730a23b-fa21-4e19-a353-ebde17852404 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006986.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Netteswell, The Crescent, Watford (two one-bedroom houses) - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Bowden - **Authority:** Watford (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6006990 - **Application reference:** 25/01081/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Pair of two-storey one-bedroom houses with winter gardens, amenity space, refuse and cycle storage on a narrow strip between a car park and the ring road - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE9, S4 - **Development plan policies:** Watford Local Plan SS1.1, CDA2.2, QD6.1, QD6.2, QD6.4, QD9.1, QD9.2, QD9.8, HE7.1, HE7.2, HO3.11, CC8.5, ST11.1, ST11.5 - **Main issues:** conservation area, biodiversity net gain, living conditions, on-street parking - **Tags:** tier-2, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-ungraded, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, tree-loss, small-scheme ## Summary Two small houses on a strip between a car park and Watford's ring road, in the High Street / King Street Conservation Area. The trees that had screened the CA from the ring road were removed without consent after an earlier dismissal. The inspector held that building on the strip would prevent replacement planting and so harm the CA, and the public benefits could not outweigh the substantial weight to its conservation. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The changes to the Framework could affect the merits of this case in a material way and I, therefore, consulted the parties" (DL ¶2). - **Relative significance (HE9(2)).** The trees "were not an integral component of the CA, they would have performed an important function in screening the more significant elements of the CA from the negative impacts of the ring road" (DL ¶12). - **Harm.** The proposal "would remove any opportunity for replacement planting" (DL ¶12), contrary to local policies "and policy HE9 of the Framework insofar as it would cause harm to the significance of a heritage asset" (DL ¶13). - **Heritage balance.** "these important public benefits are of insufficient weight by comparison to the substantial weight which should be given to the heritage asset's conservation" (DL ¶25). No degree of harm, and HE6(3)/(4) are not named. - **BNG, living conditions, parking: acceptable** (DL ¶17, ¶20, ¶22). ## Planning balance S4 within a settlement: "the benefits of granting planning permission would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects" (DL ¶26). ## What made the difference The lost tree screen. The inspector treated the site's value as the chance to restore screening, which development would foreclose. ## Transferable points - Under HE9(2), an element that is not itself significant can still matter for what it screens (DL ¶12). - Development that forecloses replacement of unlawfully removed trees can itself harm a CA (DL ¶10, ¶12). ## Policy findings - **HE9: harm.** HE9(2) relative significance; removed tree belt screened the CA from the ring road; building here would stop replacement planting (DL 10-13) - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** public benefits (two homes, energy efficiency and low-carbon heat) insufficient against the substantial weight to conservation; degree of harm not graded and HE6(3)/(4) not named (DL 7, 24-25) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 23, 26) - **BNG (Sch 7A TCPA): pass.** off-site credits a legitimate route; unauthorised tree clearance to be accounted for by condition (DL 15-17) ## Key facts - Parties consulted on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework because the changes could affect the merits (DL 2) - Trees on the site were removed without conservation area consent after an earlier appeal was dismissed (APP/Y1945/W/22/3310039) (DL 6, 10) - Houses themselves an improvement on the dismissed scheme and "not inharmonious" with the CA (DL 9) - Car-free UU restricting parking permits in the CPZ accepted (DL 21-22) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006990 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d207cc9a-f535-4563-98a9-d023b0a68501 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006990.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Kilnash, Vicarage Lane, North Weald Bassett - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Phillips - **Authority:** Epping Forest (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6007030 - **Application reference:** EPF/2501/25 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of 1960s bungalow and garage; two-storey replacement self-build dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB7(1)(e), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Epping Forest District Local Plan Part 1 2011-2033 SP5, DM4 - **Main issues:** replacement dwelling, fallback, openness, VSC - **Tags:** replacement-dwelling-materially-larger, pdl-e-limb, fallback, openness-harm, vsc-not-shown, self-build ## Summary Replacement of a single-storey 1960s bungalow with a two-storey self-build house that more than doubles floor area and volume. It was dismissed. The new building was "materially larger" under GB7(1)(b). Prior-approval and CLD fallbacks covered the ground-floor extensions, but not the added height. The first-floor bulk would cause substantial local harm to openness, so GB7(1)(e) also failed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The 2026 Framework was applied after comments (DL ¶2). - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "the proposal leads to over 100% increase in both floor area and volume. The proposed replacement dwelling is materially larger than the one it replaces" (DL ¶6). - **Fallback:** the ground-floor extensions had "a greater than theoretical possibility" and got significant weight. The upward extension was "only a theoretical fallback" because structural feasibility was unproven (DL ¶8-10). - **GB7(1)(e) / openness: FAIL.** "the significant increase in height would have a substantial urbanising impact … This in turn would cause local substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt by virtue of blocking views towards trees to the side and rear of the property" (DL ¶14). - **VSC:** "improved accommodation and likely have limited short term economic benefits; these do not amount to a very special circumstance … neutral impact upon the housing stock" (DL ¶18). ## Planning balance GB6(2). Substantial weight to harm, with no VSC. S5 did not apply (DL ¶20). ## What made the difference Height. The footprint was within the permitted-development fallback envelope, but the ridge rose about 3 m with no credible fallback for a first floor. A single-storey replacement within the fallback volume would probably have passed (b) or (e). ## Transferable points - More than 100% increase in floor area and volume is "materially larger" for GB7(1)(b) (DL ¶6). - Prior approvals for an upward extension are only a theoretical fallback unless structural feasibility is shown (DL ¶8). - A replacement dwelling can also be tested as PDL redevelopment under GB7(1)(e). Loss of views through to trees can be substantial harm to openness (DL ¶11-14). - A like-for-like replacement is neutral on housing supply (DL ¶18). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** floor area 141 to 301 sqm, volume 583 to 1237 m3, ridge 5.5 to 8.46 m — over 100% increase so materially larger (DL 4-6) - **GB7(1)(e): fail.** first-floor height with no fallback causes "local substantial harm" to openness by blocking views to trees (DL 11-15) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** improved accommodation and short-term economic benefit not VSC; neutral on housing stock (DL 16-18) - **S5(5): not-engaged.** fails GB6/GB7 so S5 does not apply (DL 20) ## Key facts - Replacement more than doubles floor area and volume; ridge rises about 3 m to match neighbour - Fallback - prior approvals for rear extension and upward extension plus CLD for side extension. Ground-floor extensions given significant weight, but first-floor addition only theoretical (structural feasibility unproven) - PROW along south-west boundary; mature trees behind ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007030 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/87d1e423-cbb9-46d8-a52a-7ecc06f9a2b0 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007030.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 2 Chantry View Road, Guildford - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Heppell - **Authority:** Guildford (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007054 - **Application reference:** 24/P/01774 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Detached two-storey self-build dwelling in the garden of a Grade II listed former farmhouse - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.98 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(3), HE6(4), S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Guildford Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2019 D1, D3, P5, Guildford Local Plan Development Management Policies 2023 D4, D8, D18, D19, D20 - **Main issues:** setting of listed building, setting of conservation areas, character and appearance - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-3-considerable-weight, listed-building, housing-shortfall, self-build, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme, garden-land ## Summary A self-build house in a tapering corner of the garden of a Grade II listed former farmhouse in suburban Guildford, beyond a curtilage-listed outbuilding. Dismissed. The house would dominate the historic outbuilding, causing moderate harm to the listed building's setting. That outweighed the public benefits under HE6 and "substantially outweighed" the benefits under S4, despite a 2.98-year supply and the L2(1)(d) criteria being met. Conservation area settings were preserved. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were afforded the opportunity to comment on the implications of the new Framework" (DL ¶2). - **Listed building setting — HE6: HARM (moderate).** The site "can be said to form only a minor component of its setting" (DL ¶13), but the CGIs show "the dwelling's main section being substantially higher than the outbuilding and its raised patio being level with the outbuilding's eaves and incongruously close to it. These aspects of the proposal would give it a dominant appearance in relation to the outbuilding, which in turn would negatively affect the setting of the LB, despite the site being a relatively minor element of its setting" (DL ¶14). "the degree of harm would be moderate, which is a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶18). - **Garden subdivision, plot shape, views: no harm.** "The relatively small size of the plot and its irregular shape are not therefore harmful aspects of the proposal" (DL ¶16); views from the River Wey "would not be harmful" (DL ¶17). - **Conservation areas: preserved** (DL ¶¶17–18). - **HE6 balance: FAIL.** A dwelling in a sustainable location, the shortfall, quick delivery, economic benefits and self-build (a benefit only "where there is a local waiting list") are "not sufficient to outweigh the harm" (DL ¶19). - **L2(1)(d) / DP3.** The proposal "satisfies these criteria" and "its overall design responds positively to the local context in accordance with … Policy DP3" (DL ¶24). ## Planning balance Two steps. First the HE6(4) weighing: "the public benefits do not outweigh the harm" (DL ¶25). Then S4: none of the S4(2) situations apply, "I am nonetheless required to consider whether the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the harm I have identified to the significance of a heritage asset" (DL ¶22). HO7 substantial weight at 2.98 years (DL ¶23). "The harm I have identified is a matter of considerable importance and weight by reference to Policy HE6(3). In this instance, the benefits of approving development would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶26). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶29). ## What made the difference The height and patio level relative to the curtilage-listed outbuilding, shown by the appellant's own CGIs. The site was only a minor part of the setting and the design was otherwise praised, but dominance over the surviving farmyard building, which is the key surviving evidence of the farmhouse's agrarian origin, was enough for moderate harm. HE6(3)'s "considerable importance and weight" then carried the S4 balance even with a severe supply shortfall. A lower dwelling, stepped down below the outbuilding eaves with the patio set back, would probably have passed. ## Transferable points - Moderate less-than-substantial harm to a Grade II asset's setting can "substantially outweigh" the S4 benefits of one home even at 2.98 years' supply (DL ¶¶23, 26). - S4(2) is not exhaustive: heritage harm outside the listed situations can still carry the S4 balance (DL ¶22). - HE6 public-benefits weighing is run before, and separately from, the S4 "substantially outweighed" test (DL ¶¶25–26). - Harm can arise even where the site is a "minor component" of setting, if the development dominates a key setting element such as a curtilage-listed outbuilding (DL ¶¶13–14). - Self-build is a benefit only where there is a demonstrated local waiting list (DL ¶19). - Meeting the L2(1)(d) criteria and DP3 does not override HE6 (DL ¶¶24–26). - Appellant CGIs can supply the evidence of harm (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): harm (considerable weight).** moderate less-than-substantial harm to Grade II former farmhouse through dominance over curtilage-listed clunch outbuilding; public benefits do not outweigh (DL 14, 18-19, 25) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** harm "a matter of considerable importance and weight by reference to Policy HE6(3)" (DL 26) - **HE9: neutral.** settings of Millmead and Portsmouth Road CA and Wey and Godalming Navigations CA preserved (DL 17-18) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 2.98-yr supply; modest contribution of one dwelling (DL 23) - **L2(1)(d): pass.** criteria met (street scene, access, footprint, 50% garden retained); weight not separately quantified (DL 24) - **DP3: pass.** overall design "responds positively to the local context" (DL 24) — even though dominance over outbuilding was found harmful - **S4(2): not-engaged.** none of the listed situations applies, but S4(2) list is not exhaustive (DL 22) - **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed by the heritage harm (DL 26) ## Key facts - Grade II listed 17th-century former Halfway Farm; curtilage-listed clunch stone outbuilding and yard walls are key components of setting (DL 8-10) - Site is a triangular remnant created by construction of Chantry View Road; only a "minor component" of the setting (DL 13) - Appellant's VuCity CGIs showed main section substantially higher than the outbuilding, with a raised patio level with its eaves (DL 14) - Council supply 2.98 years (1 April 2025 position) (DL 23) - Revised scheme following earlier refusal of a larger dwelling (24/P/00116); Thames Basin Heaths SPA UU accepted (DL 4, 12) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007054 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a04032f8-95a3-4b30-b2a6-c4e8e9b45e43 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007054.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 38, 40 and 42 Prebend Street, Islington - **Decision:** allowed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Unwin - **Authority:** Islington (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6007094 - **Application reference:** P2025/2929/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Loft conversions with shallow pitched front roofs and rear mansards on three locally listed terraced houses - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE9, HE7 - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D4, HC1, Islington Local Plan 2023 PLAN1, DH1, DH2, Arlington Square CA Design Guidelines 2002, Islington Urban Design Guide SPD 2017 - **Main issues:** character and conservation area - **Tags:** tier-2, conservation-area, roof-extension, ndha, simultaneous-development-condition, upward-extension ## Summary Matching roof extensions on three locally listed terraced houses in the Arlington Square Conservation Area were allowed. The shallow front pitch and set-back rear mansard kept the butterfly roof legible and the extensions subservient. The Inspector departed from design guidance that bars any roof extension visible from the street. The new Framework "does not change the planning policy context" (DL ¶2). ## What made the difference The low-profile design and limited public visibility. The Inspector also refused the Council's request for a mechanism tying all three extensions to be built together, because each was acceptable on its own (DL ¶16). This is consistent with the new L2(2) presumption against simultaneous-development conditions for multiple upward extensions, although L2(2) is not cited. ## Policy findings - **HE9: pass.** shallow front pitch and recessed rear mansard keep butterfly roof legible; preserves Arlington Square CA (DL 8-9, 12) - **HE7: neutral.** locally listed terrace; special features (railings, window guards) unaffected (DL 6, 8-9) - **L2(2): neutral.** not cited by code, but simultaneous-construction mechanism sought by Council rejected as unnecessary because each extension is individually acceptable (DL 16) ## Key facts - CA guidance bars roof extensions visible from street; departed from because of low visibility and merit (DL 10) - Earlier refused appeals at Nos 38/40 were different designs ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5e9a5105-080d-40c8-8975-67b14ae5267b - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007094 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007094.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Barn Hey Farm, Allithwaite (s73, up to 40 dwellings, affordable housing removed) - **Decision:** allowed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Elaine Moulton - **Authority:** Westmorland and Furness (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007096 - **Application reference:** 2025/0643/FPA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Section 73 variation of the plans condition on outline permission for up to 40 dwellings, used also to reconsider the affordable-housing S106 - **Homes:** 40 - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM5, DM6 - **Main issues:** s73 scope, planning obligations - **Tags:** tier-2, section-73, viability, affordable-housing-removed, non-determination, costs-application, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A s73 application correcting a plan title on an outline permission for 40 homes was allowed. Because a s73 permission is a new permission, the inspector reassessed the S106 and, on agreed viability evidence, granted it free of all affordable housing obligations (DL 12-15). ## What made the difference The Council accepted that the viability assessment showed the development could not support any affordable housing. With no other obligations in play, retaining the S106 was not necessary (DL 14-15). ## Policy findings - **DM6: pass.** affordable housing obligations fail the CIL reg 122 necessity test given the accepted viability assessment; new s73 permission granted without the S106 (DL 12-16) - **DM5: pass.** Council's independent review accepts the scheme is unviable with any affordable housing (DL 9, 14) ## Key facts - Non-determination; the Council argued s96A and a separate s106A route should have been used (DL 9) - Framework content 'not materially changed' for this case; no consultation (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007096 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8bf35c78-84c7-4e92-ba3a-b7259a3d3483 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007096.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to Cedar Cottage, Furners Lane, Henfield - **Decision:** allowed, 24 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Claire Coles - **Authority:** Horsham (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007104 - **Application reference:** DC/24/0535 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** 5 open-market dwellings (2 pairs of semis and 1 detached) with upgraded access onto Furners Lane - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.7 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), S6, HO3, AnnexA - **Development plan policies:** Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 Policies 2, 3, 4, 15, 26, Henfield Neighbourhood Plan 2021 Policies 1, 2, Shaping Development in Horsham District Planning Advice Note 2025 - **Main issues:** suitability of location having regard to the local development strategy - **Tags:** s5-1-j, s6-neighbourhood-plan, neighbourhood-plan-conflict, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, sustainable-location-pass, old-balance-wording, drafting-slip, no-consultation-on-2026-framework ## Summary Five market houses on two fields just outside Henfield's built-up area boundary, next to a site where 191 homes were allowed on appeal. Allowed. The scheme conflicts with the local plan and the Henfield NP. But Horsham has 1.7 years' supply, and S5(j) supports the development. S6 NP protection did not apply because the NP was made on 23 June 2021, more than five years before the decision, and its housing requirement was no longer credible. The Council's own 2025 advice note, which drops the allocation requirement, also weighed "heavily" in favour. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Not addressed expressly. The letter cites S6 as "formerly paragraph 14 of the 2024 Framework" (DL ¶13). There is no mention of seeking the parties' comments. - **Location — development plan: CONFLICT.** "It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development has an essential need for a countryside location" (DL ¶11). "the proposed development would not be in a suitable location" (DL ¶14). - **Accessibility.** "The site is in an accessible location, close to High Street services, the primary school, and bus stops" (DL ¶10). - **S5(j): PASS.** "The proposal would comply with the national decision-making policies in the Framework and policy S5(j) of the Framework provides support for the proposal" (DL ¶23). - **Annex A.** The conflict with HDPF 2, 4 and 26 "carries only limited weight", given consistency with the Framework and the Council's PAN (DL ¶¶24, 27). - **S6: NOT ENGAGED.** "Since the HNP became part of the development plan more than five years from the date of my decision, the test at Framework policy S6(a) is not met" (DL ¶29). S6(b) was met (DL ¶30). But "I cannot consider the HNP's housing requirement to remain a credible indicator of current housing need" (DL ¶32). ## Planning balance The development plan conflict had diminished weight: limited for the HDPF, and diminished for the HNP. Five dwellings got "significant weight" at a significant shortfall (DL ¶35). Conclusion: the adverse impacts "would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits ... As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development would apply" (DL ¶48). This is the 2024 tilted-balance wording, not S5's "substantially outweighed". ## What made the difference There were three drivers. First, timing: the NP turned five years old on 23 June 2026, so S6 protection had fallen away by 24 August 2026. Second, the adjacent 191-home permission, which changed the site's context and mitigated its encroachment. Third, the Council's own advice note inviting unallocated edge-of-settlement sites. Had the NP been under five years old, S6 would have made the benefits "likely" to be substantially outweighed. ## Transferable points - S6(a) is a hard five-year cut-off from the date the NP was made. Once it passes, S6 protection is lost even if the NP allocates enough to meet its requirement (DL ¶¶29-30). - Even when S6(b) is met, a NP housing requirement derived from an out-of-date local plan figure may not be "a credible indicator of current housing need", which reduces the weight of NP conflict (DL ¶¶31-34). - An LPA's own interim advice note allowing unallocated sites outside settlement boundaries is a material consideration that "weighs heavily" for compliant schemes (DL ¶¶25-26). - Settlement-boundary conflict carries only limited weight where S5(j) applies and a 1.7-year supply persists (DL ¶¶24, 27). - Drafting slips: the 2024 "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" wording is used as the conclusion (DL ¶48), and housing was given "significant" rather than HO7's "substantial" weight (DL ¶35). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): pass.** 1.7-year supply; proposal complies with national decision-making policies; S5(j) "provides support" (DL 20-23) - **S6: not-engaged.** S6(a) fails because the HNP was made 23 June 2021, more than 5 years before the decision; S6(b) met (allocations exceed the 270 requirement); NP requirement no longer a credible indicator of need (DL 28-34) - **HO3: neutral.** plan more than 5 years old so supply is measured against local housing need; 20% buffer after significant HDT under-delivery (DL 20) - **HDPF Policies 2, 4, 26 and HNP Policy 1: conflict (limited weight).** outside BUAB with no essential countryside need; weight limited by S5(j) and the Council's 2025 PAN, which drops the allocation requirement (DL 11-14, 24-27, 34) - **HO7: benefit (significant weight).** 5 dwellings at a significant shortfall, given "significant" weight (DL 35) ## Key facts - Council AMR Dec 2025 shows 1.7 years supply including a 20% buffer (DL 20) - An appeal for up to 191 dwellings directly north (APP/Z3825/W/25/3376143) was allowed, applying S6 and HNP conflict (DL 3, 13) - Henfield NP made 23 June 2021, so just over 5 years old at the decision (DL 29) - Scheme complies with all criteria at para 5.12 of the Council's Shaping Development PAN 2025 (DL 26) - No reference to consulting the parties on the 2026 Framework; the conclusion uses the old "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" wording (DL 48) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007104 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ce906585-c4d5-4530-be67-47763407b5f2 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007104.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Deerleap Bank, Halstead Lane, Knockholt/Halstead - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Claire Coles - **Authority:** Sevenoaks (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007121 - **Application reference:** 25/03516/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 4-6 net dwellings replacing an existing bungalow, garage and outbuilding - **Homes:** 6 - **Site context:** green-belt, PDL - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.96 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** L3, S5(5), GB7(1)(g), GB7(1)(e) - **Development plan policies:** Sevenoaks Core Strategy 2011 LO7, LO8, SP7 - **Main issues:** grey belt, openness, density - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, not-inappropriate, pdl-e-limb, PIP, low-density-refusal, l3-efficient-use, s5-5-balance, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, green-belt-pass-other-policy-fail ## Summary Permission in principle for 4-6 dwellings on a bungalow plot in the Green Belt between Halstead and Knockholt. The Green Belt issues were won: grey belt with all GB7(1)(g) limbs agreed, and also compliant with GB7(1)(e) as PDL without substantial harm to openness. The appeal was dismissed anyway because the "amount" of development (at most 13 dph) failed to make efficient use of land under L3 and local policy SP7. The S5(5) balance went against the scheme. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties' comments on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework were sought (DL ¶4). - **Grey belt / GB7(1)(g): PASS (common ground).** "the proposal would not be considered inappropriate development within the Green Belt and should not be regarded as harmful to the Green Belt or be required to demonstrate very special circumstances" (DL ¶8). - **GB7(1)(e): PASS.** Openness would be reduced by greater bulk, spread and activity (DL ¶12), but "the site would be visually contained and located between existing residential development … the proposal would not amount to substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt" (DL ¶13). - **Density, L3 / SP7: FAIL.** "Development proposals that do not make efficient use of land in accordance with Policy L3 2 of the Framework should be refused" (DL ¶15). "the site would achieve a density of 13dph, which is significantly below the required density" (DL ¶18). "where the Council has a shortage of housing land and a substantial shortfall … the proposed development on the site should make the most efficient use of land" (DL ¶20). ## Planning balance S5(5): approve unless benefits are substantially outweighed. Housing had moderate weight (DL ¶22). "these considerations are not sufficient to outweigh the adverse effects of low-density development on the site. The proposal would therefore not constitute sustainable development … the presumption … would not apply" (DL ¶28). The development plan conflict (SP7) was decisive (DL ¶29). Note that the DL ¶28 wording reads more like an ordinary balance than an express "substantially outweighed" finding. ## What made the difference Under-use of land. With the Green Belt tests passed, the new L3 duty to make "best use of a site's development potential" outside settlements became the ground for refusal. A PIP for a higher number, around 30 dph in line with Warren Court Farm, would probably have succeeded. The irony is that the smaller number was presumably chosen to limit Green Belt impact. ## Transferable points - L3(2) can defeat a scheme that passes every Green Belt test, where the density is well below plan expectations and the applicant has not shown the site's maximum potential (DL ¶15-21, 27-28). - A housing shortfall strengthens the case for efficient land use; it does not excuse low density (DL ¶20). - PDL redevelopment for several dwellings on a contained plot between existing houses can avoid "substantial" openness harm under GB7(1)(e) (DL ¶13). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** common ground (DL 7) - **GB7(1)(g): pass.** common ground that limbs (i)-(iii) met; (iv) not relevant; not inappropriate (DL 7-8) - **GB7(1)(e): pass.** agreed PDL; greater bulk, spread and activity than the bungalow, but visually contained between housing and a small part of a wider parcel → not substantial harm to openness (DL 9-13) - **L3: fail.** 13 dph at most vs SP7 30 dph; no demonstration that the site's maximum potential was used; "Development proposals that do not make efficient use of land … should be refused" (DL 14-21, 27) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** small contribution to 2.96-yr shortfall (DL 22) - **S5(5): fail.** benefits did not outweigh low-density harm; presumption did not apply (DL 26-28) ## Key facts - Existing bungalow plot between Halstead and Knockholt, surrounded by sporadic housing - 4-6 dwellings gives at most 13 dph against the SP7 expectation of 30 dph outside urban areas - Nearby Warren Court Farm permission shows densities near 30 dph fit the local character - Sevenoaks supply 2.96 years ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007121 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b00d924f-af66-4188-ba30-60b4a970f85c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007121.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 58-60 Ocean Street, Plymouth - **Decision:** allowed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Nick Davies - **Authority:** Plymouth (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007122 - **Application reference:** 25/01695/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of 6-person C4 HMO to 9-person sui generis HMO, bike and bin store - **Site context:** inside-settlement, near-station - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014-2034 DEV1, DEV10, DEV29, JLP SPD 2020 - **Main issues:** parking and highway safety, outdoor amenity space - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, parking-stress-unevidenced, plan-led ## Summary Enlarging a Plymouth HMO from 6 to 9 occupants. Allowed. The inspector's own parking observation and the site's accessibility met the flexible SPD parking guide, and nearby parks made up for a small yard. Parties were consulted on the 2026 Framework, but the reasoning is entirely plan and SPD-led. ## What made the difference SPD standards that are expressly flexible, plus site-visit evidence of spare kerbside capacity (DL ¶7) and the council's own precedents (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **DEV29 / DEV10 (JLP): accord.** SPD parking guide (1 per 2 bedspaces) applied flexibly; inspector saw ~10 free kerbside spaces within 100m; bus stops and station within 300m (DL 5-9) - **DEV10 (JLP) outdoor space: accord.** yard ~half the SPD 135 sq m, but parks within 250-300m and council precedents for flexibility (DL 10-13) ## Key facts - No off-street parking; three extra occupants - Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 2); no Framework policy cited in reasons ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007122 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/181334b2-1c9e-4060-a8b7-3d3d2a829b5c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007122.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 17-19 Parkstone Road, Poole - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Plenty - **Authority:** Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007128 - **Application reference:** P/25/05261/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Five-storey block of 20 HMO rooms in rear car park behind consented HMO (counted as 4 dwellings) - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.55 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), L2(1)(d)(i), L2(1)(d)(ii), N6(1)(a)(i) - **Development plan policies:** Poole Local Plan 2018 PP27, PP28, PP32, PP35, PP39 - **Main issues:** character, neighbour outlook, future occupiers, highway, habitats - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, housing-shortfall, hmo, habitats-mitigation, l2-1-d-fail ## Summary A five-storey, 20-room HMO block in an open rear car park in Poole town centre was dismissed. The Inspector ran the S4 test explicitly, with HO7 substantial weight and a 2.55-year supply. The benefits were "substantially outweighed" by conflict with L2(1)(d)(i) (street scene) and L2(1)(d)(ii) (living standards), and by an unsecured habitats contribution under N6(1)(a)(i). ## Issues and findings - **Character.** "due to its scale and prominence the proposal would be out of character with surrounding development and erode the existing sense of spaciousness" (DL ¶8). - **Living conditions.** The block "would appear to loom over the rear elevation" of the HMO 12 m away (DL ¶13). Ground-floor units would suffer "substantial noise and disturbance through users accessing the cycle stands" (DL ¶17). - **Habitats.** A completed financial obligation form is not a legal mechanism: "the financial form alone does not provide the required certainty" (DL ¶29). - **Highway: PASS.** A pinch-point on the shared access gave only negligible risk (DL ¶23). ## Planning balance - HO7: "requires substantial weight to be given to the benefits of providing homes … especially pertinent in a district where the Council is not meeting its required 5-year supply … only 2.55 years" (DL ¶33). - S4 quoted: "should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶34). - "the proposal would not be consistent with the overall streetscene, in conflict with policy L2(1)(d)(i) … poor living standards … L2(1)(d)(ii) … adverse effects on the European sites would conflict with policy N6(1)(a)(i)" (DL ¶36). - "the benefits … would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects … As such the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply" (DL ¶37). ## What made the difference The height and position of the block in an open backland court, and the lack of a legal mechanism for the SAMM payments. Even a heavy HO7 weight with a 2.55-year supply did not survive substantial harm to character and amenity. ## Transferable points - The L2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) criteria are applied as adverse-effect tests within the S4 balance for intensification within settlements, not only as conditions for L2 substantial weight (DL ¶36). - N6(1)(a)(i) failure (no secured habitats mitigation) is fed into the S4 balance as an adverse effect (DL ¶36). - S4 can be failed even with 2.55 years' supply and HO7 substantial weight (DL ¶¶33–37). - For HDT purposes a 20-bed HMO counts as 4 dwellings (DL ¶4). ## Policy findings - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to homes meeting evidenced need; 2.55-year supply (DL 33) - **TR3: benefit.** walkable to Poole town centre and bus routes (DL 35) - **L2(1)(d)(i): fail.** five storeys in open rear courtyard, not consistent with street scene (DL 8-12, 36) - **L2(1)(d)(ii): fail.** looms 12 m from rear of existing HMO; ground-floor rooms overlook cycle stands (DL 13-21, 36) - **N6(1)(a)(i): fail.** SAMM contributions only on a form, no legal mechanism; AA cannot conclude no adverse effect (DL 25-30, 36) - **S4(1): fail.** benefits "substantially outweighed" by adverse effects (DL 34, 37) ## Key facts - Council counts the 20-bed HMO as 4 dwellings under HDT rulebook (DL 4) - Approved two-storey rear building less harmful - Poole Park within walking distance reduced weight to lack of on-site amenity space (DL 20) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c080e695-c64c-4ef9-a289-6692d60bf8b6 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007128 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007128.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south of Old Elstead Road, Milford - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Ellis - **Authority:** Waverley (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007130 - **Application reference:** WA/2025/02158 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline for one custom self-build dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, national-landscape, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.28 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N4(1), DP3(1), DP3(3), S5(5), S5(2) - **Development plan policies:** Waverley Local Plan Part 1 2018 RE3, TD1 - **Main issues:** national landscape, character and appearance, S5(5) balance - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, national-landscape, landscape-harm, substantially-outweighed, s5-5-green-belt-route, small-scheme, self-build, housing-shortfall, sustainable-location-pass ## Summary One self-build house on an open plot in the Surrey Hills National Landscape at the edge of Milford. After the 2026 Framework took effect, Waverley conceded the site was grey belt and not inappropriate under GB7(1)(g). The appeal was still dismissed under the S5(5)/S5(2) route. Conflict with N4 (protected landscape) and DP3 (policies that say "should be refused") meant the substantial housing benefits were "substantially outweighed". ## Issues and findings - **Grey belt: conceded.** "Following the publication of the new Framework, the Council now considers the site to constitute grey belt land and thus would not be inappropriate … the first reason for refusal falls away" (DL ¶4). - **Landscape: HARM.** "the site in this location at the junction of the two roads makes a valuable contribution to the semi-rural character … and thereby to the natural beauty of the NL" (DL ¶10). "a modest yet incongruous domestic encroachment into the NL" (DL ¶11). - **N4 and DP3: conflict** (DL ¶16-17). ## Planning balance The S5(5) route for not-inappropriate Green Belt development, applying S5(2): "the circumstances in which the benefits … are likely to be substantially outweighed … include … situations where the development proposal would fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused" (DL ¶20). Benefits had substantial weight (1.28-year supply, HO7) (DL ¶24). But "Paragraph 3 of Policy DP3 states that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 … also conflict with Policy N4 … the benefits of the scheme would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶25-26). ## What made the difference National Landscape status and the site's role as open separation. Clearing the Green Belt hurdle simply moved the case into the S5(5) balance, where N4 and DP3(3) acted as "should be refused" triggers. ## Transferable points - Not inappropriate under GB7 leads to the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance, applying S5(2) (DL ¶19-20). - A DP3(1) conflict, via DP3(3)'s "should be refused", and an N4 conflict are S5(2) triggers that can outweigh substantial housing benefits (DL ¶25-26). - Councils may concede grey belt when re-assessing under the 2026 Framework (DL ¶4). - Self-build cannot be secured by condition, only by obligation (DL ¶23). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(g): pass.** council conceded grey belt after the 2026 Framework; not fundamentally undermining, very low supply, sustainable location — Green Belt reason fell away (DL 4) - **N4(1): fail (substantial weight).** incongruous domestic encroachment into Surrey Hills National Landscape; loss of visual separation (DL 10-11, 17) - **DP3(1): fail.** fails to respond to context; DP3(3) says refuse without clear justification (DL 15-16, 25) - **S5(2): fail.** conflict with policies saying proposals "should be refused" means benefits substantially outweighed (DL 19-20, 26) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 1.28-year supply; overall benefits substantial weight (DL 21-24) - **TR3: benefit.** a "fairly sustainable location" without reliance on private vehicle (DL 22) ## Key facts - Council withdrew its Green Belt reason after the 2026 Framework took effect, conceding grey belt - Site in Surrey Hills National Landscape and AGLV; open land giving visual separation between housing and a cluster of listed buildings - Council supply 1.28 years - Self-build not secured - no s106; a condition was not enforceable ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007130 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/694c4646-427f-4c58-b574-6218950dbfe6 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007130.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Brock, Garstang Road (A6), Bilsborrow - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L N Hughes - **Authority:** Wyre (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007133 - **Application reference:** 22/00612/OUTMAJ - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Outline (access, layout and scale) for commercial units in Class E(g)(ii)/(iii) and/or B8 on a 2.44 ha field, with A6 access - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1), DP3(3), S5(2), S5(1)(j)(i), E4(2) - **Development plan policies:** Wyre Local Plan 2011-2031 (2022 partial update) SP1, SP2, SP4, EP8, CDMP3, CDMP4 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, suitable location and spatial strategy - **Tags:** s5-1-j, s5-2-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, landscape-harm, e2-substantial-weight, rural-business, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, plan-led, drafting-slip, local-policy-consistency ## Summary Outline permission for up to 9 m commercial and storage units on a 2.44 ha field at Bilsborrow on the A6 was dismissed after a hearing. The inspector accepted, for argument's sake, the appellant's case on unmet employment need and gave the economic benefits substantial E2 weight. But the scheme would close a valued field gap and views to the Forest of Bowland. That DP3(1) conflict had no clear justification because the harm was not necessary to achieve the benefits, so S5(2) applied and S5(1)(j)(i) failed on the "well-related" limb. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Prior to the hearing I sought written comments from the main parties, with the discussions held on this basis" (DL ¶7). - **Character, DP3(1): CONFLICT.** "the field is not a remnant parcel of countryside, but rather a valuable element of the village's historic development" (DL ¶18). "Criterion (3) identifies that proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with criterion (1). I find conflict in this regard" (DL ¶27). - **S5(1)(j)(i): FAIL.** "I take compliance against S5(1)(j)(i) to be not just the site's own spatial relationship to the settlement of Bilsborrow, against which is it physically well-related due to the extent and positioning of the built form around it, but also how the proposal itself would relate to the surrounding character" (DL ¶40). - **S5(1)(j)(ii) freight and logistics: NOT RELIED ON.** The flexible use "means that a development could be delivered on the site from which freight and logistics use … were entirely absent" (DL ¶42; the break is a page footnote). - **E4: CONFLICT.** No specific local business need; conflicts with E4(2)(a) and (b) (DL ¶32). - **Plan weight (Annex A ¶2).** CDMP3 "is up-to-date, including because it is not materially inconsistent with the Framework Policy DP3 as the relevant national decision-making policy" (DL ¶57). - **Benefits.** "even at a reduced level the economic benefits would still be of an extent to which Policy E2 directs that I should give substantial weight" (DL ¶54). Crossings and biodiversity: minor weight (DL ¶51). - **S5(2) and clear justification.** "I find this to be the case, which indicates that the site's location outside of the settlement is unsuitable" (DL ¶58). "I do not find the specific and significant harm to the character and appearance of the countryside to be necessary to achieve the substantial public benefits" (DL ¶59). ## Planning balance Plan-led, with the Framework as a material consideration (DL ¶56). Unmet need tempers the weight of the spatial-strategy conflict (SP1, SP2, SP4) (DL ¶55), but the character conflict with CDMP3 and DP3 is not tempered. The S5(2) trigger and the necessity test decide it: the harm is neither outweighed nor necessary (DL ¶58–60). ## What made the difference The site's role as an open break in ribbon development along the A6, with views to the National Landscape hills, and a dense layout with a continuous row of 9 m units along the frontage. Even with need accepted in full, the harm was not necessary to secure the benefits. A lower, set-back layout that kept the views, or a local-plan allocation in the A6 corridor, would have been needed. ## Transferable points - DP3(3) "clear justification" read as necessity: harm that is not "necessary to achieve the substantial public benefits" lacks clear justification, and S5(2) then applies (DL ¶27, ¶58–59). - S5(1)(j)(i) "well-related" can include how the proposal relates to local character, not only the site's physical position next to a settlement (DL ¶40). - A flexible E(g)/B8 consent cannot claim the S5(1)(j)(ii) freight and logistics route when it could be built with no logistics use (DL ¶42–43). - E4 does not support general employment development in the countryside without a specific rural business need (DL ¶32). - A local design policy not materially inconsistent with DP3 keeps full weight under Annex A ¶2, even where the spatial strategy's weight is tempered by unmet need (DL ¶55, ¶57). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): conflict.** dense, up to 9 m commercial frontage closes a verdant field gap and views to the Forest of Bowland; significant character harm (DL 16-25, 27) - **DP3(3): fail.** DP3(3) cited (DL 27); clear justification not found - harm not "necessary to achieve the substantial public benefits" (necessity reading) (DL 59) - **S5(2): fail.** fails a "should be refused" policy, so benefits likely substantially outweighed; location unsuitable (DL 58) - **S5(1)(b): fail.** not shown to be development for rural businesses (DL 34) - **S5(1)(j)(i): fail.** unmet employment need assumed; site physically well-related to Bilsborrow, but "well-related" read to include how the proposal relates to surrounding character, which fails (DL 38, 40, 43) - **S5(1)(j)(ii): not-engaged.** flexible E(g)/B8 use could be delivered with no freight and logistics, so the scheme does not wholly fall under (j)(ii); E3 compliance left open (DL 39, 41-43); letter says "S5(j)(ii)" - **E4(2): conflict.** no specific local business need; not physically well-related or sited having regard to character, criteria (2)(a) and (b) (DL 32) - **E2: benefit (substantial weight).** E2(1)(a) substantial weight; c.94 net local jobs and 6.6m GVA pa (overstated as it assumed office use); 49 construction jobs pa (DL 52-54) - **E2(2): benefit.** unmet employment need assumed in the appellant's favour (A6 corridor vacancy 1.6%); tempers weight of SP1/SP2/SP4 conflict (DL 35-38, 55) - **N6(2): pass.** veteran oak (TPO) protected by condition; refusal reason withdrawn (DL 10-12) - **TR6: pass.** access, traffic and parking agreed with LHA; two A6 crossings given minor weight as a benefit (DL 48, 51) - **F5: pass.** sequential test passed, no exception test needed (DL 49) - **Transitional(2): accord.** CDMP3 "not materially inconsistent" with DP3, so up to date (DL 57, fn8) - **S3: not-engaged.** S3(1)(c) quoted; no presumption overrides the conflict with CDMP3 and DP3 (DL 56-57) ## Key facts - Bilsborrow is a Main Rural Settlement; LP gives 1.9 ha of employment growth across all ten such settlements; the site alone is 2.44 ha (DL 28) - Site outside the settlement boundary in the Countryside Area, between the A6 and the elevated West Coast main line (DL 9, 29) - LVIA (Pegasus) found moderate landscape effects; inspector found worse visual effects, including major and lasting harm from the PRoW and the southern lane (DL 15, 22-24) - Wyre vacancy 3.7%, A6 corridor 1.6% (appellant); need accepted for argument only ("what if" approach) (DL 37-38, 50) - Office use removed by condition at appeal; access plans Rev E accepted; three of five refusal reasons fell away (DL 2-4) - Hearing held virtually after short-notice postponement (DL 6); signed UU dated 7 Sep 2026 (Annex B) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007133 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007133.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to 9 Windmill Close, Ivinghoe - **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R J Redford - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007136 - **Application reference:** 25/01494/APP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** One 3-bedroom detached house (non-determination appeal) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.73 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), HE6(1), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2021 BE1, Ivinghoe Parish NP 2018 HSG1, ENV2 - **Main issues:** heritage setting, conservation area - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, grade-i-setting, conservation-area, s4-within-settlement, substantially-outweighed, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, drafting-slip ## Summary One house on the last open plot in the historic core of Ivinghoe, between a Grade I church, two Grade II buildings and the conservation area's focal junction. Dismissed. Within a settlement, so S4 applied; harm to the setting of the Grade I church and Grade II Kings Head and to the conservation area, carrying HE6(1) substantial weight, outweighed the substantial weight to one home despite a 3.73-year supply. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties given opportunity to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶3). - **Heritage setting — HE6 / s66, s72: HARM.** "The enclosing of this space would have an urbanising effect on the setting of the Church, further narrowing the important visual and physical relationship between it, the village and surrounding countryside" (DL ¶18); "impact on setting is not limited to intervisibility and does not negate the physical encroachment and reduction of spaciousness" (DL ¶21). - **HE6(4) balance: FAIL.** "As the proposal would cause harm to the significance of 3 designated heritage assets, including a Grade I listed building, it is not found that the public benefits are sufficient to outweigh this harm" (DL ¶27). - **S4 balance.** "Framework Policy HE6:1 places substantial weight on the conservation of heritage assets, irrespective of whether any potential effect amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss of its significance. It also highlights the more important the asset the greater the weight should be" (DL ¶35). ## Planning balance S3(1)(a)/S4(1) "substantially outweighed" balance (DL ¶33). Benefits: HO7 substantial weight (3.73-yr supply), L2(1) substantial weight to better use of underutilised land (DL ¶34). Against: HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation, greater for Grade I. Note: DL ¶35 as written says "the adverse effects would not substantially outweigh the benefits of the proposal" — which reads as a drafting slip given the dismissal and DL ¶36 ("no sufficiently weighted material considerations"). The HE6(4) balance (DL ¶27) is the clear operative reasoning. Treat the S4 formulation in this letter with care. ## What made the difference The site's openness was itself part of the setting of a Grade I church and the conservation area's key views; a single modern house matching adjoining 20th-century infill would further erode that. With a Grade I asset involved, one home's benefits could not tip the HE6(4) balance. A site outside key views or not contributing to Grade I setting would have favoured approval given S4 and the shortfall. ## Transferable points - HE6(1) "substantial weight" to conservation applies whatever the level of harm, and increases with asset importance (DL ¶35). - HE6(4) harm/benefit balance is run on its own before the S4 balance (DL ¶¶24–27). - Two policies now each give "substantial weight" — HO7 (homes) and L2(1) (underused land) — alongside HE6(1) (DL ¶¶34–35). - Screening does not remove setting harm; setting is not just intervisibility (DL ¶21). - A reduced scheme after an earlier dismissal is not acceptable just because it is an improvement (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** harm to setting of Grade I Church of St Mary and Grade II Kings Head by loss of spaciousness; HE6(1) substantial weight, more important asset greater weight (DL 18-20, 35) - **HE9: harm.** fails to preserve Ivinghoe CA — loses glimpsed views from junction to countryside (DL 18, 23) - **HE6(4): fail.** public benefits of one dwelling do not outweigh harm to three designated assets (DL 24-27) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 3.73-yr supply (North and Central Bucks) (DL 25, 34) - **L2(1): benefit (substantial weight).** better use of vacant/underutilised land (DL 34) - **S4(1): fail.** within settlement; S4 balance applied — heritage harm outweighs (DL 33-35) - **Grade II Old Brewery House setting: neutral.** set-back siting preserves significance (DL 17) ## Key facts - Last open part of the former brewery site between Grade I church, Grade II Old Brewery House and village-centre junction - Earlier larger scheme dismissed on appeal (APP/J0405/W/23/3329511); smaller scheme still harmful - Buckinghamshire (North and Central) 3.73-year supply - Screening trees do not negate harm — setting not limited to intervisibility ## Sources - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/APPEAL-DECISION-6007136-Land-Adjacent-to-9-Windmill-Close-Ivinghoe-Leighton-Buzzard-LU7-9EW.pdf - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/2026/ivinghoe-appeal/ --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007136.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 7 Betjeman Close, Harpenden (enlarged replacement dwelling) - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Timothy Parton - **Authority:** St Albans (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6007154 - **Application reference:** 5/2025/1838 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of a 1990s semi-detached house and construction of an enlarged replacement dwelling - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** St Albans LP Policy 69, St Albans LP Policy 70 - **Development plan policies:** St Albans District Local Plan Review 1994 Policies 69, 70, Harpenden Neighbourhood Plan 2018 ESD1 - **Main issues:** character, daylight - **Tags:** tier-2, transitional, design-refusal, replacement-dwelling ## Summary An enlarged replacement house in a 1990s cul-de-sac was refused. Extending forward and sideways removed a staggered layout that kept the frontages open, and the daylight report was unattributed and lacked a methodology (DL 6, 11-12). The letter is dated 17 Aug 2026 and cites the 2024 Framework. ## What made the difference The inadequate daylight evidence and the loss of a layout feature that gave the close its open character. ## Policy findings - **DP3: conflict.** loss of the staggered setback; conflicts with 2024 para 135 (DL 5-8) - **P3: fail.** unattributed daylight report with no methodology cannot show BRE compliance; 2024 para 135 (DL 10-14) ## Key facts - Dated 17 Aug 2026 and cites the NPPF (2024) paragraph 135 ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007154 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/882dd9e1-72c4-4c9f-831e-c339d31e5320 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007154.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Brishing Court Farm, Brishing Lane, Boughton Monchelsea - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Terceiro - **Authority:** Maidstone (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007158 - **Application reference:** 25/505171/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of part of a former traditional orchard to residential and erection of a single-storey self-build dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.5 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), S5(4), S5(1)(j)(i), N2(2) - **Development plan policies:** Maidstone Local Plan Review 2021-2038 (2024) LPRSS1, LPRSP9, LPRSP14, LPRSP15, LPRQD4, LPRENV1, Boughton Monchelsea Neighbourhood Plan 2021 PWP3, PWP4, RH1, RH6, RH8 - **Main issues:** setting of Grade II* listed building, character and appearance, suitability of location, protected species - **Tags:** s5-4-exceptional, s5-1-j, infill-rejected, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-harm-graded, self-build, self-build-unsecured, bng-exemption-not-shown, evidence-gap, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A self-build bungalow in a disused traditional orchard on the historic approach to Grade II* Brishing Court, outside any settlement near Maidstone. The inspector found moderate harm to the listed farmhouse's setting that one dwelling could not outweigh, significant localised landscape harm, a car-dependent location that was not "physically well-related" under S5(1)(j)(i), and no reptile survey. With no S5(1) category met and no exceptional circumstances, S5(4) failed. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were invited to provide comments on the revised Framework" (DL ¶4). - **Heritage, HE6: HARM, moderate.** "the proposal would cause moderate harm to the significance of the Grade II* listed building, through development within its setting. Any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶12). Benefits "attract substantial weight but given that the proposal relates to one dwelling only, the benefits are not sufficient to overcome the considerable importance and weight given to the harm" (DL ¶13). - **Character: HARM.** "significantly harmful effects, albeit localised, on the character and appearance of the area" (DL ¶21). - **Location / movement: FAIL.** "the local road network largely includes narrow and unlit country lanes without formal footpaths, which would likely discourage future residents from walking or cycling, particularly outside daylight hours and in inclement weather" (DL ¶23); buses are infrequent and reached via those lanes (DL ¶23). - **S5(1)(e): FAIL.** "it would adjoin the former orchard on two of its boundaries, so it would not constitute infill development" (DL ¶42). - **S5(1)(j)(i): FAIL.** "Given the site’s countryside location and accessibility constraints in terms of walking, cycling and access to public transport, I find that the proposal would not be physically well-related to an existing settlement" (DL ¶44). - **Protected species, N2(2): FAIL.** No reptile survey; "these are matters that cannot be left to a condition" (DL ¶30). - **BNG.** Self-build exemption needs a planning obligation; none given, so the mandatory condition applies and the metric was incomplete (DL ¶34-36). ## Planning balance S5(4), after S5(1)(e) and (j) were rejected. Heritage, character, location and species harms against housing, self-build and other benefits. "as the proposal would deliver only one dwelling, the benefits associated with it would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects" (DL ¶47). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶48). ## What made the difference Four independent harms, of which the Grade II* setting was the strongest. The accessibility facts also sank S5(1)(j)(i). A site within or adjoining Boughton Monchelsea, with a reptile survey and a signed self-build obligation, would have faced a very different test. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(j)(i) "physically well-related" can be failed on accessibility constraints: walking, cycling and public transport (DL ¶44). - Narrow unlit lanes without footpaths discourage walking and cycling "particularly outside daylight hours and in inclement weather"; a nearby infrequent bus reached via those lanes does not help (DL ¶23). - Compare trips against the lawful, actual baseline: an unmanaged orchard generates negligible trips, and an unlawful past horse use does not count (DL ¶24-26). - A house adjoining open land on two sides is not S5(1)(e) infill even if near a group of houses (DL ¶42). - Protected-species survey gaps cannot be conditioned away (DL ¶29-30); self-build BNG exemption needs a planning obligation (DL ¶34-35). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation stated (DL 11); moderate harm to Grade II* Brishing Court through loss of orchard on its historic approach (DL 7-8, 12) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** "moderate harm ... Any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL 12) - **HE4(2): fail.** HE4(2) stated; cart-shed precedent argument not "convincing justification" (DL 9, 11) - **HE6(4): fail.** housing, self-build, older-person design, orchard restoration, efficiency - "substantial weight" given supply, but one dwelling insufficient (DL 13) - **S5(1)(e): fail.** near a group of houses but adjoins orchard on two sides, not infill (DL 42) - **S5(1)(j)(i): fail.** not physically well-related - read through countryside location and walking, cycling and public transport constraints; scale limb met (DL 44) - **TR3: fail.** mapped: narrow unlit lanes without footpaths; nearby buses infrequent and reached via those lanes; car "safer and more convenient" (DL 23); TR3 not named, S5(4) sustainable-movement limb used (DL 45-46) - **DP3(1): harm.** mapped: "significantly harmful effects, albeit localised" on rural character and dispersed farmstead; orchard loss (DL 19-21); DP3 not named - **N2(2): fail.** no reptile survey despite PEA recommending one; cannot be left to condition (DL 28-31) - **BNG (Sch 7A TCPA): fail.** self-build exemption needs a planning obligation; none submitted; full metric not provided (DL 34-36) - **S5(4): fail.** no exceptional circumstances; benefits of one dwelling do not substantially outweigh (DL 45-47) ## Key facts - Supply 4.5 years, agreed (DL 39) - Former commercial orchard, unmanaged since 2005; claimed 2008-2015 horse use not shown to be lawful or likely to resume; existing trips negligible (DL 24-25) - Cherry Barn appeal (APP/U2235/W/24/3357164, 1-bed dwelling allowed) distinguished - it replaced an existing building (DL 37-38) - BNG self-build exemption appeal relied on - APP/U2235/W/25/3364165 (DL 34) - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007158 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2deea307-2660-42ec-bb1f-50086f18eb1c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007158.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land rear of 20 Crichel Road, Winton, Bournemouth - **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Plenty - **Authority:** Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007161 - **Application reference:** P/26/00262/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** One backland bungalow with driveway and parking for three cars in the rear garden of a detached house - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.55 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), L2(1)(d)(i), L2(1)(d)(ii), DP3(1) - **Development plan policies:** Bournemouth Core Strategy 2012 CS32, CS33, CS34, CS41, District Wide Local Plan 2002 saved 6.8 - **Main issues:** character, neighbour living conditions, habitats sites, BNG - **Tags:** s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-within-settlement, l2-1-d, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, backland, living-conditions, design-refusal, bng-exemption-not-shown ## Summary A backland bungalow in a Bournemouth rear garden, with 2.55 years' housing supply. Dismissed. It would break the open rear-garden core of a perimeter block and harm neighbours' outlook and privacy. The inspector expressly ran the S4 test: HO7 substantial weight to the home was "substantially outweighed" by conflict with L2(1)(d)(i) (street scene), L2(1)(d)(ii) (neighbours' living standards) and DP3(1) (context) (DL ¶27-31). BNG was also not evidenced. ## Issues and findings - **Character.** "due to its position and overall scale, the proposal would fundamentally erode the sense of spaciousness, and contrast with the existing pattern of development" (DL ¶7). The driveway "would present new views of the site from the highway interrupting the existing close-knit pattern" (DL ¶8). - **Neighbours.** The bungalow "would be a sizeable and obtrusive feature ... resulting in a strong sense of enclosure" for No 22 (DL ¶13). - **Framework application.** "the proposal would not be consistent with the overall streetscene and would not respond well to its context, in conflict with policy L2(1)(d)(i) and DP3(1) of the Framework. The scheme would also create poor living standards for existing residents ... as sought by the Framework's policy L2(1)(d)(ii)" (DL ¶30). - **BNG.** "the application is not supported by a completed BNG Metric and habitat plan ... would not comply with the requirements of Schedule 7A" (DL ¶25). ## Planning balance S4(1): HO7 substantial weight to one home, plus accessibility and use of underused land, against L2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) and DP3(1) conflicts. "the benefits ... would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects ... As such the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply" (DL ¶31). The letter treats S4 as the presumption and does not use the S4(2)(c) "should be refused" route. ## What made the difference The L2(1)(d) qualifying criteria. Garden development gets L2 support only if it is consistent with the street scene and keeps acceptable living standards for neighbours. Failing both, together with DP3(1), cleared the "substantially outweighed" bar even against a 2.55-year supply. A smaller dwelling not visible from the street and set away from No 22's narrow garden could plausibly have passed L2(1)(d)(i) through its "not visible from the street frontage" exception. ## Transferable points - L2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) work as refusal tests for garden or backland plots, and their failure can substantially outweigh HO7 substantial weight even with a severe shortfall (DL ¶27-31). - DP3(1) conflict was weighed in the S4 balance, not used as a DP3(3) trump (DL ¶30-31). - A new driveway that opens views into a rear-garden core counts against street-scene consistency (DL ¶8). - Offers of BNG credits do not cure a missing metric and habitat plan (DL ¶24-25). ## Policy findings - **L2(1)(d)(i): fail.** backland bungalow and new driveway would not be "consistent with the overall street scene"; tall, bulky feature in open rear gardens of a perimeter block (DL 5-11, 30) - **L2(1)(d)(ii): fail.** "unacceptable living standards for neighbours": strong sense of enclosure to narrow garden of No 22, cramped retained garden at No 20, overlooking of No 18 (DL 12-16, 30) - **DP3(1): fail.** "would not respond well to its context" — used inside the S4 balance, not as a DP3(3) standalone refusal (DL 30) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to a home, "especially pertinent" with 2.55-year supply; accessible to Winton town centre and buses; underutilised land (DL 27-29) - **S4(1): fail.** "benefits ... would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects ... the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply" (DL 28, 31); S4(2) limbs not cited - **N2: fail.** no BNG metric or habitat plan despite credit offers — non-compliant with Schedule 7A (DL 22-25); code mapped by harvester - **N6: neutral.** SAMM UU submitted; AA not pursued because dismissed on other grounds (DL 17-21) ## Key facts - Council supply 2.55 years (DL 27) - Perimeter-block estate with open rear gardens; neighbour No 22 has a narrow garden and projects further back (DL 6, 13) - Late habitat survey returned as out of time (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007161 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/dade6a32-e756-46f0-85a4-9ef083d66ed2 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007161.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Prince William Inn, Beacon Lane, Dalton - **Decision:** allowed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Unwin - **Authority:** West Lancashire (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007163 - **Application reference:** 2024/0224/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion of former public house to a dwelling, demolition of structures and one new detached dwelling in the former beer garden (volume re-used) - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, PDL - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(e), HE7 - **Development plan policies:** West Lancashire Local Plan 2013 GN1, GN3, Development in the Green Belt SPD 2015 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, character and NDHA - **Tags:** pdl-e-limb, beer-garden-curtilage-pdl, not-inappropriate, grey-belt-not-needed, ndha-benefit, pub-conversion, volume-swap, small-scheme ## Summary Conversion of a derelict Green Belt pub to a house, plus a second new house in its former beer garden built from volume released by demolition. Allowed. The beer garden counted as PDL curtilage because its functional link to the pub was still legible. The volume swap meant no substantial harm to openness, so GB7(1)(e) was met and grey belt was not needed. The design improved the non-designated heritage asset. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties given the opportunity to comment (DL ¶2). - **PDL: PASS.** "Whilst the former beer garden is somewhat overgrown, it is well related to the public house … its functional and visual relationship to the pub remains legible … I see no reason why it should be excluded from the definition of previously developed land" (DL ¶10). - **GB7(1)(e) openness: PASS.** "The volume lost through demolition is effectively replaced by that of the new dwelling, thus mitigating the effect of the proposal on openness" (DL ¶11). "not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt and there is no need to consider whether the site is grey belt" (DL ¶13). - **Character / NDHA: no harm, some benefit** (DL ¶17, ¶21). ## Planning balance Not inappropriate; no harm on the main issues; allowed with conditions. No S5(5) balance was expressly run. ## What made the difference The Council conceded openness, and the curtilage finding put a new house on a former beer garden within PDL. Had the beer garden been physically separated or long abandoned to countryside, the (e) route would have been doubtful. ## Transferable points - An overgrown former pub beer garden or play area with a legible functional link to the building is PDL curtilage (DL ¶10). - A volume-for-volume swap across a PDL site supports "no substantial harm to openness" under GB7(1)(e) (DL ¶11–12). - Where (e) is met, grey belt need not be considered (DL ¶13). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(e): pass.** overgrown beer garden/play area adjoining pub, functional and visual relationship still legible, so PDL curtilage; demolished volume re-used; Council agreed openness at least preserved (DL 9-14) - **AnnexB:grey-belt: not-engaged.** "no need to consider whether the site is grey belt" once (e) met (DL 13) - **HE7: benefit.** removal of detracting extensions better reveals NDHA former pub; new dwelling set back preserving its dominance (DL 16-21) - **DP3: accord.** reduced car park, traditional materials, stepped roof forms (DL 17-21) - **HC6: accord.** pub viability assessment accepted by Council (DL 22) ## Key facts - Dilapidated former pub (non-designated heritage asset) with outbuildings, large car park and overgrown former beer garden/play area - Volume lost through demolition broadly equal to the new dwelling - Council raised no openness objection ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007163 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/78a33edf-1e28-4706-87f1-ffea93409069 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007163.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land opposite Camel Valley Cottages, Dunmere Road, Bodmin - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Harrington - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007179 - **Application reference:** PA22/00580 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Detached dwelling with sewage treatment plant in a dispersed roadside group outside Bodmin - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.9 - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** S3, TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan 2010-2030 Policies 1, 2, 3, 7, 21, 27, Cornwall Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1, T1 - **Main issues:** location / spatial strategy, access to services - **Tags:** transitional, old-wording-slip, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, fallback ## Summary One dwelling in a dispersed roadside group near Bodmin was dismissed. The group was not a settlement for "rounding off" purposes, and walking to bus stops meant using a busy road with no pavement. The letter is dated 17 Aug 2026, the day the new Framework took effect, but applies the 2024 ¶11(d)(ii) tilted balance with a 3.9-year supply and does not mention the new Framework. ## Issues and findings - **Settlement: fail.** "the character of the grouping of buildings is more akin to a low-density straggle of development" (DL ¶4), so the site is "within the countryside for planning purposes" (DL ¶7). - **Access to services: significant harm.** "walking and cycling from the site to bus stops … particularly in the dark, inclement weather or in colder months, would be unattractive … future occupiers … would be heavily reliant on private vehicles" (DL ¶11). - **Balance (2024 wording).** "the proposal needs to be considered against Paragraph 11 d)ii" (DL ¶16). "the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶21). ## Planning balance 2024 tilted balance. Conflict with the spatial strategy got modest weight because the strategy is not delivering enough housing (DL ¶17). Car dependence got significant weight. One dwelling was a modest benefit. ## What made the difference The unsafe walking route to the bus stops (no pavement, a bend, fast traffic). The same facts would probably fail S5 and TR3 under the 2026 Framework. ## Transferable points - A letter dated 17 Aug 2026 still applied 2024 ¶11(d)(ii). This is an example of transitional slippage (DL ¶¶16, 21). - Nearby bus stops and a leisure trail do not help when the only route to them is an unlit road with no pavement (DL ¶¶9–11). - A dispersed roadside group next to a town is not a "settlement" for rounding off (DL ¶¶4–5). ## Policy findings - **S5(1): fail.** letter applies Local Plan Policy 3 rounding-off test; Dunmere a "low-density straggle", not a settlement; no Policy 7 special circumstances (DL 3-7). S5 not cited - **TR3: fail (significant weight).** bus stops and Camel Trail reachable only along busy road with no pavement, unlit trail; heavily reliant on private vehicles (DL 8-11, 18) - **S3: fail.** 2024 ¶11(d)(ii) tilted balance applied; "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" (DL 16, 21) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** one dwelling, modest benefit (DL 19) ## Key facts - 3.9-year supply - Storage building permission a fallback of little weight (different use) - Earlier appeal APP/D0840/W/20/3247124 did not decide whether Dunmere is a settlement ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a18558f6-2882-4ed3-96db-516f2fc0b3d0 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007179 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007179.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Glebe Court, Glebe Way, West Wickham (McCarthy Stone retirement living) - **Decision:** allowed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Stewart Glassar - **Authority:** Bromley (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6007183 - **Application reference:** 24/02895/FULL1 - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Redevelopment of former care home as part 3 / part 4 storey building of 34 one and two bedroom retirement living units with communal facilities, parking and landscaping - **Homes:** 34 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.93 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, HO7, P3 - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, D4, D5, D6, D12, H4, H5, Bromley Local Plan 2019 Policies 2, 4, 37 - **Main issues:** future occupier living conditions, neighbour living conditions, fire safety, affordable housing and viability - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, specialist-housing, housing-shortfall, large-scheme, viability, living-conditions, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, material-considerations-outweigh-plan, drafting-slip ## Summary Thirty-four McCarthy Stone retirement flats replacing a former care home in West Wickham, allowed after a hearing. Three lower-ground units would have poor light and outlook, a development-plan conflict given considerable weight. But in a settlement with 1.93 years' supply, S4 and HO7 meant that harm did not substantially outweigh the benefits, so the Framework indicated a decision other than in accordance with the plan. The inspector preferred the council's viability case (GBP 1.175m payment in lieu) and refused vacant building credit. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I sought the main parties' observations on the revised Framework and have taken their comments into consideration in my decision" (DL ¶2). - **Future occupiers (units 1–3): HARM.** "it is not appropriate for me to rely on the 'buyer beware' principle" (DL ¶9). Conflict with P3, but "I am mindful that this is not a policy which directs permission to be refused if conflict is identified" (DL ¶66). - **Neighbours: no conflict** after screens and obscure glazing (DL ¶24, ¶65). - **Fire safety: PASS.** "there is no substantive evidence to indicate that the proposed development would expose future occupiers to an unacceptable fire safety risk" (DL ¶32). - **Affordable housing.** Council viability preferred; vacant building credit "discretionary rather than mandatory" (DL ¶52) and not applied (DL ¶55); off-site payment in lieu accepted given no registered-provider interest (DL ¶60). ## Planning balance S4(1). Plan conflict (units 1–3) "carries considerable weight" (DL ¶71). "whilst dwellings 1-3 would be a negative aspect of the proposal, I do not find the level of harm to substantially outweigh the benefits of the scheme. Therefore, the Framework indicates that permission should be granted" (DL ¶72). "material considerations, in this case the Framework, indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it" (DL ¶81). ## What made the difference The S4 presumption with substantial HO7 weight and an acute 1.93-year supply. The inspector expressly distinguished P3, a policy that does not direct refusal, from the refusal-directing policies that would have engaged S4(2)(c). The future-occupier harm was treated as a P3 matter, not tested as a DP3(3) design conflict. ## Transferable points - Under S4, a development-plan conflict given considerable weight can still be outweighed where it is not a Framework policy directing refusal (DL ¶66, ¶71–72, ¶81). - "buyer beware" is not an answer to substandard accommodation (DL ¶9). - Vacant building credit is discretionary; it need not be applied where introduced late only to cap an affordable contribution (DL ¶52–55). - Off-site affordable contribution is acceptable where registered providers decline retirement-living units (DL ¶58–60). ## Policy findings - **P3: harm (considerable weight).** lower-ground units 1-3 below BRE light guidance, poor outlook and car-park disturbance; conflict with LP D3-D6 and BLP 4, 37; "not a policy which directs permission to be refused" (DL 8-9, 17, 66, 71) - **P1: pass.** mechanical ventilation a reasonable response to road noise and site constraints (DL 10-13, 65) - **DP3: pass.** no conflict regarding neighbours' living conditions (19 m to boundary, 28 m to No 32; screens and obscure glazing by condition) (DL 20-24, 65) - **DM7: pass.** fire safety matters for Building Regulations; fire evacuation strategy condition; LFB no objection (DL 25-32, 65) - **DM5: pass.** council viability preferred; GBP 1.175m payment in lieu; vacant building credit discretionary and not applied (DL 33-61, 65) - **HO8: pass.** off-site payment in lieu acceptable as 29 registered providers showed no interest (DL 58-60, 65) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 34 older-persons homes; supply 1.93 years; undisputed need for older persons' accommodation (DL 62, 64) - **L2: benefit.** redevelopment of former care home is effective use of land (DL 64) - **S4: pass.** harm to units 1-3 does not substantially outweigh benefits (DL 72) - **DM6: pass.** UU (affordable housing, reviews, carbon offset GBP 36,765, highways GBP 85,000 for Addington Road crossing) meets tests (DL 67-70) ## Key facts - Hearing 4-6 Aug 2026; Framework revised after the hearing and parties' observations sought (DL 2, 63) - Letter header dates the decision "25th September 2025" (clearly 2026) - Agreed supply 1.93 years at October 2025 (DL 62) - Viable affordable contribution GBP 1.175m v appellant's lower figure; VBC cap GBP 1,217,975 would not have bitten; VBC excluded from review mechanism (DL 50, 55-56) - [object Object] ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007183 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3f9b3428-6898-4e7b-9bed-47641f4780f4 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007183.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south of Daws Heath Road, Thundersley - **Decision:** allowed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Gee - **Authority:** Castle Point (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6007184 - **Application reference:** 25/0660/OUT - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Outline, up to 58 dwellings (50% affordable), access, POS, play, attenuation basins, landscaping - **Homes:** 58 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, ancient-woodland - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 0.91 - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 11 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** AnnexB:grey-belt, GB7(1)(g), GB8, S5(5), HO7, HO8 - **Development plan policies:** none relevant to Green Belt — reason for refusal relied on national policy (DL 10, 116) - **Main issues:** grey belt, Golden Rules, loss of riding centre grazing, heritage, landscape, habitats - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, golden-rules, sustainable-location-pass, housing-shortfall, large-scheme, not-inappropriate, s5-5-balance, contained-site, gb-review-parcel-too-coarse, hdt-below-75, affordable-50pc ## Summary Outline scheme for up to 58 homes (50% affordable) on contained former paddocks on the Thundersley edge, previously dismissed on a larger red line in 2024. Allowed after a hearing: the site was grey belt, all four GB7(1)(g) limbs were met including the Golden Rules, so the scheme was not inappropriate. Under S5(5) the benefits (substantial weight to market and affordable housing given 0.91 years' supply and HDT 11%) were not outweighed by limited landscape and NDHA harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework; "My decision reflects the latest version of the Framework" (DL ¶7). - **Grey belt, purpose (a): not strong.** The 2025 GBA's "strong" parcel score was not decisive: "the site is physically contained by strong features. At the Hearing, the Council conceded that development of the appeal site would not create an extended 'finger' of development" (DL ¶18); "the containment of the site significantly limits the extent of that harm" (DL ¶20). The 2018 review was "a strategic, parcel-level assessment rather than a site-specific evaluation" (DL ¶16). - **Purpose (b): not engaged.** "Purpose (b) of the Green Belt only concerns the merging of towns, and expressly states that it does not relate to villages" (DL ¶24). - **GB7(1)(g)(i): PASS.** Some encroachment, but "the site does not perform a significant strategic Green Belt function … it would not fundamentally undermine the remaining purposes" (DL ¶32). - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): PASS.** 0.91 years and HDT 29%/11% → "there is an evidenced unmet need for the type of development" (DL ¶35). - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): PASS (agreed).** Facilities "within walking and cycling distance … accessible via the existing pedestrian / cycle network" plus bus stops (DL ¶38). - **GB8: PASS.** Golden Rules agreed met; "substantial weight is therefore afforded to the proposal's compliance with the Golden Rules" (DL ¶39). - **Consequence:** "it would not, by definition, be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Consequently, there is no need to further consider harm to openness or very special circumstances" (DL ¶40). - **Riding centre (E4/HC6/HC7):** no causal link to closure shown; HC7 and HC6 not engaged (DL ¶43-50). - **Heritage:** no effect on listed cottages (HE6); limited harm to NDHA under HE7 (DL ¶52-55). ## Planning balance S5(5): permission "unless the benefits are substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶81). Benefits: housing (substantial), 50% affordable (substantial), Golden Rules compliance (substantial, GB8(2)), BNG and ancient woodland enhancement (significant each), POS and economic benefits. Harms: limited landscape, limited NDHA. "the overall planning balance falls clearly in favour of the development" (DL ¶102). No development plan conflict because the Council relied only on national policy (DL ¶116). ## What made the difference Physical containment. The site was enclosed by a road, ancient woodland and existing housing, so the inspector found it did not strongly serve purpose (a), even though the Council's 2025 Green Belt Assessment had scored the wider parcel "strong". Purpose (b) fell away because the nearby settlement was a village. Once grey belt was established, an extreme supply position (0.91 years, HDT 11%), agreed sustainable-location credentials, and 50% affordable housing meeting the Golden Rules carried every limb. An open site that allowed sprawl to continue, or one lacking a walkable route, would have failed at (i) or (iii). ## Transferable points - Strategic parcel-level GB review scores are not determinative of site-level grey belt status; the decision-maker assesses the site (DL ¶16, 20-23). - A contained site with enduring boundaries on all sides does not strongly contribute to purpose (a) (DL ¶19, 23). - Purpose (b) is confined to towns; a village gap does not engage it (DL ¶24-25). - The fn41 test for unmet need is met by supply below five years or HDT below 75% (DL ¶33-35). - When GB7(1)(g) is met, there is no separate openness or VSC assessment (DL ¶40). - Golden Rules compliance attracts substantial weight in the S5(5) balance (DL ¶39, 100, 117). - A commercial riding centre is not a "key community facility" under HC6, and private grazing land is not HC7 recreational land (DL ¶49-50). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** purpose (a) not strong — site contained by road, ancient woodland and housing, no "finger" of development; (b) not engaged (Daws Heath is a village); (d) no contribution (DL 18-29) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** some encroachment (purpose c) but contained parcel with no significant strategic function; would not fundamentally undermine remaining GB (DL 31-32) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** 0.91 yrs supply; HDT 2024 29%, 2025 11% → evidenced unmet need via fn41 (DL 33-35) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** agreed — day-to-day facilities walkable/cyclable via existing pedestrian/cycle network, bus stops to Southend, Hadleigh, Rayleigh (DL 37-38) - **GB8: pass (substantial weight).** agreed Golden Rules met — 50% affordable, public green space, local infrastructure improvements; substantial weight under GB8(2) (DL 39, 100) - **HC6: not-engaged.** commercial riding centre is not a "key community facility" (DL 50) - **HC7: not-engaged.** private grazing land is not recreational land/facility (DL 49) - **HE6: neutral.** no effect on Grade II Nos 96-98 Daws Heath Road (DL 52) - **HE7: harm (limited weight).** limited harm to NDHA No 137 Daws Heath Road; outweighed by benefits (DL 55, 101) - **N2: harm (limited weight).** limited, localised landscape harm (DL 62, 118) - **N6: pass.** Essex Coast RAMS contribution; AA — no adverse effect on integrity (DL 63-66) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 58 homes against 0.91-yr supply and HDT 11% (DL 85-87) - **HO8: benefit (substantial weight).** 50% affordable (up to 29) vs historic delivery of ~7 affordable dpa (DL 88-90) - **N6 / BNG: benefit (significant weight).** BNG 29.45% habitat, 21.29% hedgerow (DL 92); ancient woodland enhancement also significant weight (DL 94) ## Key facts - Castle Point supply 0.91 years; HDT 2023 54%, 2024 29%, 2025 11% (second worst in England) - Undeveloped former paddocks between Thundersley housing and Ragwood Riding Centre; Daws Heath Road north, ancient woodland south/east - 2025 Green Belt Assessment scored the combined parcel "strong" on purpose (a); Inspector disagreed on site-specific containment - Previous appeal on larger site dismissed 16 July 2024 (APP/M1520/W/23/3329585) under old Framework - 50% affordable exceeds the 35% SPD requirement; s106 secures RAMS, BNG, education, health, library, ambulance EV charging ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007184 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/87993995-e446-4b54-9826-0528c943932c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007184.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Brook Close, Rodmarton (demolition of AH Powell NDHA, replacement self-build house) - **Decision:** dismissed, 19 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Phillips - **Authority:** Cotswold (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007188 - **Application reference:** 25/02458/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of a much-altered mid-20th-century Arts and Crafts house (non-designated heritage asset) and outbuildings; replacement self-build dwelling, garage and outbuilding - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** national-landscape, settlement-edge, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** HE7(3) - **Development plan policies:** Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 (2018) EN1, EN2, EN8, EN10, EN11, EN12, Cotswold Design Code - **Main issues:** NDHA loss, listed building setting, conservation area setting, design - **Tags:** ndha-total-loss, heritage-harm-decisive, self-build, replacement-dwelling, national-landscape ## Summary Replacing a heavily altered mid-century Cotswold Arts and Crafts house (by AH Powell) with a self-build dwelling was refused, solely for the total loss of a non-designated heritage asset of low significance. Everything else passed: listed setting, conservation area, design, National Landscape and bats. The inspector ran the NDHA balanced judgement (HE7(2) and (3)). Self-build, sustainability and biodiversity each carried small weight. ## Issues and findings - **Significance: LOW.** "given the alterations to the property, the significance of Brook Close as a NDHA is low" (DL ¶9). It still survives in features such as the original door and drip moulds (DL ¶6). - **Harm: TOTAL LOSS.** "the proposal would result in the total loss of the building and therefore its significance within the local context. This would clearly not sustain and enhance the significance of this heritage asset and would instead result in the greatest scale of loss and harm to significance" (DL ¶11). - **Benefits: SMALL.** Sustainability and biodiversity gains, "given the scale of the development, the weight given to this benefit is small" (DL ¶12). Design "in being in keeping … is not demonstrated as being outstanding. There is no benefit" (DL ¶13). Self-build: "there is no information before me to suggest that the Council is failing in its statutory duty … I can only give this matter a small weight" (DL ¶14). - **Other heritage.** The Little Tarlton listed group's setting was preserved (DL ¶24), and the site did not contribute to the conservation area's setting (DL ¶28-29). ## Planning balance The NDHA balanced judgement (HE7(2) and (3), paraphrased at DL ¶10): total loss of low significance against small benefits. "taking a balanced judgement, the benefits set out above do not outweigh the identified harm to the NDHA" (DL ¶41). The scheme conflicts with LP EN1, EN2 and EN12. ## What made the difference Total loss, even of a low-value asset, is "the greatest scale of loss". The appellant's benefits were individually small because it was a one-for-one replacement. Retention and extension, or evidence of an unmet self-build demand, might have changed the balance. ## Transferable points - Under HE7(3), total loss of even a low-significance NDHA can outweigh the small benefits of a replacement dwelling (DL ¶11, ¶41). - Self-build carries small weight where the Council is not shown to be failing its statutory duty (DL ¶14). - A replacement that is merely "in keeping" earns no design benefit. Only outstanding design would count (DL ¶13). ## Policy findings - **HE7(3): fail.** total loss of a NDHA of low significance (AH Powell house, heavily altered) not outweighed by small benefits (DL 4-16, 41) - **HE6: pass.** setting of the Grade II Little Tarlton cottages (Ernest Barnsley) preserved (DL 17-24) - **HE9: pass.** site does not contribute to the significance of Rodmarton CA's setting (DL 25-29) - **DP3: pass.** replacement design in keeping, though 'not demonstrated as being outstanding' (DL 13, 30-34) - **N4: pass.** Cotswolds NL natural beauty conserved (DL 38-40) - **HO5: benefit (limited weight).** self-build secured by legal agreement but small weight: no evidence the Council is failing its self-build duty (DL 14) ## Key facts - Original modest cottage by AH Powell (Cotswold Arts and Crafts); surviving door, rounded quoins, drip moulds and eaves line (DL 5-7) - Appellant did not dispute the NDHA status (DL 9) - Bat roosts (pipistrelle, serotine) could be mitigated by condition (DL 36-37) - The letter paraphrases the NDHA policy without naming the Framework version ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007188 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6ce4888a-62f8-4776-aa22-0705253a164a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007188.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Outside 100 Avenue Road / Swiss Cottage Station, Camden (BT Street Hub 3) - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Claire Coles - **Authority:** Camden (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6007200 - **Application reference:** 2025/5809/P - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Replacement of an InLink unit with a larger BT Street Hub 3 with digital advert panels (Appeal B 6007199 advert consent 2026/0074/A also dismissed) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, near-station - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P5, CO1, HC4 - **Development plan policies:** Camden Local Plan C5, C6, D1, D4, T1, A1, G1 - **Main issues:** community safety, character, pedestrian safety, maintenance - **Tags:** tier-2, telecoms, bt-street-hub, co1-substantial-weight, crime-evidence, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Replacing an existing InLink unit at Swiss Cottage with a larger Street Hub 3. The planning and advert appeals were both dismissed, on community safety alone. Character, pedestrian flow and maintenance were all found acceptable. CO1 and HC4 substantial weight were acknowledged, but the benefits largely duplicated the existing unit. They did not outweigh a site-specific police objection about concealment and phone theft next to a cycle lane (DL ¶38). ## What made the difference Site-specific police evidence tied to the unit's wider solid form and the adjacent cycle lane, and the fact that benefits already provided by the existing unit add little. The same inspector's reasoning contrasts with hub appeals where crime objections were generic (for example PINS-6002960). ## Policy findings - **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight given, with HC4 substantial weight to community facilities, but similar benefits already provided by the existing InLink unit (DL 16, 38) - **P5: fail (significant weight).** Met Police objection "given substantial weight": wider solid unit gives concealment, phone users exposed to theft by cyclists using the adjacent cycle lane; no site-specific measures (DL 11-17, 39); decided under Camden C5; code mapped by harvester - **DP3(1): pass.** replacement in the same position adds no clutter; no character harm (DL 18-25); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Theft from the person and ASB among top crimes in Primrose Hill ward (DL 12) - Maintenance can be secured by condition; no s106 needed (DL 31-34) - Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 6) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007200 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c697f229-2fbb-46a2-a250-8127f3ef8049 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007200.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 2 Park Farm, Park Road, Westoning - **Decision:** allowed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: MG Garrard - **Authority:** Central Bedfordshire (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6007202 - **Application reference:** CB/25/03531/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Hay store for equestrian use (retrospective) - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(f)(iv) - **Development plan policies:** Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2015-2035 SP4 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, purposes - **Tags:** equestrian, outdoor-recreation-facilities, openness-minimised-test, retrospective, intentional-unauthorised-development ## Summary Retrospective hay store on an equestrian site at the edge of Westoning, in the Central Bedfordshire Green Belt. Allowed. The inspector held that the keeping of horses is outdoor recreation, and that GB7(1)(f)(iv) expressly covers buildings. A modest, contained store minimised the impact on openness and did not significantly conflict with the purposes, so it was not inappropriate development. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties commented, and the letter refers only to the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶3). - **GB7(1)(f)(iv): PASS.** "It is unclear why the Council concludes that the proposal falls outside Policy GB7 1.f.iv simply because it takes the form of a building. That policy expressly provides for appropriate facilities, including buildings" (DL ¶6). "minimising impact on openness does not require land to remain entirely free from development" (DL ¶8). It does not conflict with the purposes "to any material degree, and certainly not to a significant extent" (DL ¶12). - **DM8.2 intentional unauthorised development.** "There is no substantive evidence before me that the development was carried out intentionally to avoid planning control. Therefore, I give limited weight to the fact that the development has already taken place" (DL ¶15). ## Planning balance Not inappropriate, so there was no VSC balance. The scheme complied with the development plan (DL ¶17). ## What made the difference Small scale, an enclosed setting against existing built form, and a direct functional link to the established equestrian use. Compare PINS-6008866 (Stourton), where solid close-board frontage fencing failed the same "minimised" test. ## Transferable points - The "minimised" test in GB7(1)(f) does not require zero built form (DL ¶8). - Horse keeping and exercising is outdoor recreation, and buildings can qualify under (f)(iv) (DL ¶6-7). - DM8.2 substantial weight to intentional unauthorised development needs evidence of intent. Without it, the retrospective nature gets limited weight (DL ¶14-15). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(f)(iv): pass.** keeping and exercising horses is outdoor recreation; the policy expressly includes buildings; modest dark-timber store in a contained equestrian site minimises impact on openness; no significant conflict with purposes (DL 5-13) - **DM8: neutral (limited weight).** no evidence that the unauthorised development was intentional, so limited weight to the retrospective nature rather than DM8.2 substantial weight (DL 14-15) ## Key facts - Established equestrian site with stables, paddocks, ménage and hardstanding (DL 6) - Site contained by residential, equestrian and farm development on the settlement edge (DL 8, 11) - Hay store moved to its current spot to stop the paddock becoming muddy (DL 15) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007202 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c23527d3-1e19-4ae0-a7f4-9b76da462593 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007202.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Camden Road (outside No 57), Camden - **Decision:** allowed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: David Troy - **Authority:** Camden (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6007217 - **Application reference:** 2025/5806/P - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub 3 replacing InLink unit, with digital advertisement screens (advert appeal 6007216) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE9, TR4(1)(c) - **Development plan policies:** Camden Local Plan 2017 A1, C5, C6, D1, D2, D4, G1, T1 - **Main issues:** character/CA, highway, crime, maintenance - **Tags:** tier-2, street-hub, telecoms, advertisement, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, conservation-area ## Summary A BT Street Hub replacing an InLink unit in the Camden Broadway Conservation Area, beside the overground bridge, was allowed. It was comparable in scale in a busy, varied streetscape, left 3.3 m of clear footway, and raised no site-specific crime evidence. Maintenance was secured by condition rather than by s106. ## What made the difference The existing InLink baseline and the visually busy setting under the railway bridge. The crime concerns were generic, not site-specific (DL ¶¶10–13, 21). Compare the fork-harvested hub dismissals in quieter or listed settings (PINS-6009772, PINS-6010617, PINS-6010844, PINS-6013695). ## Policy findings - **HE9: pass.** varied, cluttered baseline under railway bridge; comparable to existing InLink; Camden Broadway CA preserved (DL 8-14) - **TR4(1)(c): pass.** 3.3 m clear footway meets TfL high-flow guidance (DL 15-18) - **P5: pass.** crime concerns generic, not site-specific; replacement is broadly neutral (DL 19-22) - **DM6: pass.** maintenance secured by condition requiring compliance with BT maintenance/ASB plans; s106 not required (DL 23-27) ## Key facts - Parties consulted on 2026 Framework (DL 5) - Earlier Camden hub dismissals (APP/X5210/W/22/3297273) distinguished; 10-year advert consent refused ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f0e1ba87-5501-445d-aa58-41019eff3e5b - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007217 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007217.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Breckon Hill, Lowgate, Hexham (agricultural shed) - **Decision:** allowed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Chris Mayes - **Authority:** Northumberland (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007219 - **Application reference:** 25/03689/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective agricultural storage shed next to Breckon Hill House - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(a) - **Development plan policies:** Northumberland Local Plan 2022 STP1, STP8, ECN13, ECN14, QOP1, QOP2, QOP4, ENV1, ENV3, ENV4, Hexham NP 2021 HNP1, HNP2 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, open countryside, character - **Tags:** not-inappropriate, agricultural-building, retrospective, np-defers-to-national-gb-policy, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Retrospective agricultural storage shed for small-scale sheep keeping in the Northumberland Green Belt. Allowed. The shed was a building "for agriculture" under GB7(1)(a), which does not require an established farm business, so it was not inappropriate. Because it complied with the NP's Green Belt policy, it also gained open-countryside support through LP STP1(h). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "the changes to the Framework do not alter the substance of the main issues in this appeal or prejudice either party" (DL ¶2). - **GB7(1)(a): PASS.** "Policy GB7 of the Framework refers to buildings for agriculture. It does not require that such buildings serve an established agricultural business or enterprise" (DL ¶7). The modest scale and sub-optimal siting "do not alter my finding" (DL ¶8). - **Openness.** "Given my findings that the appeal development is not inappropriate development, by definition it does not have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt or the purposes" (DL ¶10). ## Planning balance No VSC balance. The scheme accords with the development plan as a whole and there is no conflict with national decision-making policies (DL ¶21). ## What made the difference Evidence of genuine agricultural use: sheep on the land, and stored equipment and feed. There was no evidence of any other use, and a condition could tie the building to agriculture. ## Transferable points - GB7(1)(a) does not require an established agricultural business (DL ¶7). - Development that is not inappropriate is treated as having, by definition, no adverse impact on openness (DL ¶10). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(a): pass.** building for agriculture; GB7 does not require an established agricultural business or enterprise; agricultural-only use secured by condition (DL 5-9) - **GB6(2): not-engaged.** not inappropriate, so by definition no adverse impact on openness or purposes; VSC not needed (DL 10) - **DP3: neutral.** modest building seen with existing group; no character harm (DL 15-17) - **HE6: neutral.** no harm to setting of listed Breckon Hill Farmhouse (DL 18) ## Key facts - Shed stores a tractor, feed and fencing for small-scale sheep keeping on adjoining land; sheep present at the site visit - Council argued there was no established agricultural enterprise - NP Policy HNP1 defers to national Green Belt policy, which unlocked Local Plan STP1(h) open countryside support ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007219 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/687e162c-75a2-4d51-a16b-e92f39e4a54a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007219.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Mill Farmhouse, 7 Bridlington Street, Hunmanby (rear extension, planning appeal) - **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F Cullen - **Authority:** North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6007220 - **Application reference:** 25/04326/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Single-storey rear extension to a Grade II mid-late 18th-century former farmhouse in Hunmanby Conservation Area (Appeal A, s78, non-determination; linked LBC Appeal B 6007221) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4), DP3(3), S4 - **Development plan policies:** Scarborough Borough Local Plan 2017 DEC1, DEC5 - **Main issues:** special interest of listed building, conservation area, public benefits, S4 balance - **Tags:** tier-2, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, fallback, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, non-determination, costs-application ## Summary The planning-permission half of the Hunmanby appeals. The full distillation, including the heritage sequence, is in PINS-6007221 (the listed building consent appeal, same letter). For Appeal A the S4 test was applied: low harm to the Grade II farmhouse and very low harm to the conservation area, given HE6(1) and HE6(3) weight and routed with DP3(3) into an S4 "substantially outweighed" conclusion (DL ¶51). Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Degree of harm.** "I find that the scheme would result in a low level of harm to the significance of the listed building and a very low level of harm to the significance of the HCA" (DL ¶33). - **HE4(2) / HE6(4).** "clear and convincing justification has not been provided for the identified harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets" (DL ¶40). - **DP3(3).** "development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they do not, amongst other things, respond to their context" (DL ¶50). - **S4: FAIL.** "the benefits of approving the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects" (DL ¶51). ## Planning balance HE6(4) first, then S4 inside a settlement with DP3(3) as the refusal limb; Appeal A dismissed as contrary to the development plan (DL ¶52). ## What made the difference See PINS-6007221. Low harm still carried considerable weight, and the benefits were small or private. ## Transferable points - For a joint planning and LBC letter, only the s78 appeal runs the S4 test; the LBC appeal turns on s16 and HE6 alone (DL ¶52-53). ## Policy findings - **HE5(2): harm.** degree identified - low harm to the listed building, very low harm to the conservation area (DL 33) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation irrespective of the level of effect, plus considerable importance and weight to harm (DL 34) - **HE6(4): fail.** benefits of little weight each, moderate for enabling energy efficiency in the extension; no clear and convincing justification (DL 36-40) - **DP3(3): fail.** does not respond to context in scale, form and detailing; should be refused without clear justification (DL 49-50, fn 8) - **S4: fail.** moderate benefits substantially outweighed (DL 47-51) ## Key facts - Joint letter with LBC Appeal B 6007221; this file records the planning appeal (Appeal A); both against non-determination (DL 1-2, 6) - Parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework as the revisions were relevant to the main issue (DL 5) - Earlier 2022 appeals dismissed (APP/H2733/W/22/3306732); revised scheme narrower with less fabric loss (DL 11, 25) - A 2000 LBC (only demolition carried out) got little weight as precedent and as fallback (DL 43-45) - Costs applications by the appellant, the subject of separate decisions (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007220 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/14121093-6b4b-4027-be38-4490de605246 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007220.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Mill Farmhouse, 7 Bridlington Street, Hunmanby (rear extension, FUL and LBC) - **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F Cullen - **Authority:** North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6007221 - **Application reference:** 25/04324/LB - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Single-storey rear extension to a Grade II mid-late 18th-century former farmhouse in Hunmanby Conservation Area (linked s78 appeal 6007220, 25/04326/FUL; both against non-determination) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4), DP3(3), S4 - **Development plan policies:** Scarborough Borough Local Plan 2017 DEC1, DEC5 - **Main issues:** special interest of listed building, conservation area, public benefits, S4 balance - **Tags:** listed-building-consent, heritage-harm-decisive, cc2-not-engaged, s4-substantially-outweighed, s5-2-refusal-policy, design-refusal, fallback, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, non-determination ## Summary These were linked non-determination appeals for a single-storey rear extension to a Grade II farmhouse in the Hunmanby Conservation Area. Both were dismissed. The letter is a clean template of the new heritage sequence: - HE5(2)(c) degree of harm; - HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation, "irrespective" of the level of effect; - HE6(3) considerable importance and weight; - HE6(4) balance against public benefits; - then the S4 "substantially outweighed" test, with DP3(3) as a refusal limb. Only low harm was found, and it still decided the case. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The revisions include policy changes which are relevant to the main issue of these appeals. In the interest of fairness, the parties were given the opportunity to comment" (DL ¶5). - **Degree of harm (HE5(2)(c)).** "the scheme would result in a low level of harm to the significance of the listed building and a very low level of harm to the significance of the HCA" (DL ¶33). The letter does not use the "less than substantial" label. - **Weight (HE6(1), (3)).** "substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation. This is irrespective of whether any potential effect amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss of its significance. Additionally, Policy HE6(3) states that any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶34). - **Energy efficiency.** "Enabling" efficiency in the new extension is an important public benefit carrying moderate weight (DL ¶37). But "with reference to Policy CC2(2) … there is no substantive evidence presented which demonstrates that, of itself, the proposed development and works would improve the energy efficiency of the 'existing' host building. Consequently, this asserted benefit carries little weight" (DL ¶38). - **Precedent and fallback.** A 2000 consent was given little weight because of "a significant and material change in the national and local policy context … the publication of the Framework in 2012 (last updated 17 August 2026)" (DL ¶44), and because there was little real prospect of it being built (DL ¶45). - **S4: FAIL.** "the benefits of approving the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework" (DL ¶51), citing HE6(1) and (3) and DP3(3) and (1) (DL ¶50 fn 7-8). ## Planning balance First, an HE6(4) balance: low and very low harm, with substantial weight to conservation and considerable weight to the harm, against benefits of little to moderate weight. Then S3(1)/S4 (within a settlement): benefits of moderate weight overall, substantially outweighed. ## What made the difference HE6(1) and (3) make even "low" harm weighty. The inspector held that the bold detailing borrowed from the front façade disrupted the "status differentiation" between front and rear. The appellant's benefits were private or small. Getting the design right, or offering real energy upgrades to the existing house, were the only routes to a different result. ## Transferable points - Under HE6(1), substantial weight applies "irrespective" of the level of effect, and HE6(3) adds considerable importance and weight to any harm. Low harm can therefore defeat moderate benefits (DL ¶34, ¶40). - The 2026 sequence replaces "less than substantial" with an identified degree (HE5(2)(c)): low, very low, moderate (DL ¶24, ¶33). - CC2(2) is about the existing building. A well-insulated extension gets little weight under it (DL ¶38). - Heritage harm plus DP3(3) is an S4 "substantially outweighed" case even inside a settlement (DL ¶47-51). - An old consent given under a pre-2012 policy context carries little weight as precedent (DL ¶44). ## Policy findings - **HE5(2): harm.** HE5(2)(c) degree identified - low harm to listed building, very low harm to the conservation area (DL 24, 33) - **HE6(1): harm (considerable weight).** substantial weight to conservation "irrespective of whether any potential effect amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss"; HE6(3) considerable importance and weight to harm (DL 34) - **HE6(4): fail.** little weight to construction, housing stock, lime repointing and salvage; moderate to "enabling" energy efficiency in the extension (DL 36-40) - **CC2(2): not-engaged (limited weight).** no evidence the works improve the energy efficiency of the existing host building (DL 38) - **DP3(3): conflict.** fails to respond positively to context in scale, form and detailing; "should be refused … without clear justification" (DL 49-50) - **S4: fail.** within settlement; benefits (moderate) substantially outweighed by adverse effects assessed against national decision-making policies (DL 47-51) ## Key facts - Revised scheme after 2022 appeals dismissed (APP/H2733/W/22/3306732 and Y/22/3306733); reduced fabric loss and width, steep pitched roof (DL 11, 25) - Extension spans just under half the rear width, with ridge at first-floor level; decoration borrowed from the formal front façade judged "overly designed" on the rustic rear (DL 26, 28) - A 2000 LBC for a smaller extension (only the demolition carried out) got little weight as precedent and as fallback (DL 9-10, 43-45) - Parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework because the revisions were "relevant to the main issue" (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007221 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/576d7cb2-760e-481f-9add-ebc37dc8c97a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007221.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Chorley Road, Burntwood (agricultural field access) - **Decision:** dismissed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Townend - **Authority:** Lichfield (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6007231 - **Application reference:** 25/01496/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Partly retrospective new vehicular access to serve an approved agricultural building - **Site context:** settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** Lichfield LPS Core Policy 5, Lichfield LPS ST1 - **Development plan policies:** Lichfield Local Plan Strategy 2008-2029 CP2, CP3, CP5, CP13, ST1, NR3, BE1 - **Main issues:** highway safety, biodiversity - **Tags:** tier-2, highway-safety, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A new field access for an approved agricultural building was dismissed on highway safety. The gate position and dropped kerb could not accommodate large agricultural vehicles waiting off the road (DL 10-15). The biodiversity concerns were resolved by replacement hedging. ## What made the difference There was no evidence of vehicle sizes or numbers, and conditions restricting the access's use were unenforceable (DL 8, 14). ## Policy findings - **TR6: fail.** gate set back only 6 m and a dropped kerb rather than radii; large agricultural vehicles would wait or reverse on the highway (DL 10-15) - **N2: pass.** replacement hawthorn hedgerow longer than the section lost (DL 18) ## Key facts - Framework 'significantly different' but pertinent wording not substantially changed; no consultation (DL 5) - Flood-risk reason withdrawn: site in Flood Zone 1 (DL 19) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007231 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/660f8658-3e72-4a32-a94a-f130ce963aa4 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007231.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 23-24 Brunswick Square, Hove - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A James - **Authority:** Brighton and Hove (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007266 - **Application reference:** BH2025/01368 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective LBC for replacement of historic black-and-white tiles, marble nosing and landings on the entrance steps of a Grade I Regency terrace - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4), HE4(2) - **Development plan policies:** Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One 2016 CP15, City Plan Part Two 2022 DM27 - **Main issues:** Grade I listed building, conservation area - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-harm-graded, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, conservation-area, retrospective, alternatives-not-explored, grade-i, loss-of-historic-fabric ## Summary Retrospective listed building consent for re-tiling the entrance steps of a Grade I Regency terrace on Brunswick Square. Dismissed. The appellant had removed all the 200-year-old tiles and marble nosing and replaced them with metric "like-for-like" tiles and a waterproof membrane, without a condition survey. The inspector found harm "at a low level" but, because the building is Grade I, applied HE6(1)'s "the more important the asset, the greater the weight" limb. The limited benefits did not outweigh the harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶4). Footnote: the HE policies apply to LBC through Framework footnote 63 (DL ¶17 fn 2). - **Loss of fabric.** "their worn surfaces and evidence of long-standing use formed part of their historic value, demonstrating their age and authenticity" (DL ¶13). - **Justification — HE4(2).** "there is no clear and convincing justification before me why all the tiles and the marble nosing needed to be replaced or why the tiles and nosing could not have been carefully lifted and reused" (DL ¶12). - **Weight.** "The Framework is clear that the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. The appeal scheme has resulted in harm to a Grade I listed building, which is a building of exceptional interest and importance" (DL ¶17). - **Grading.** "this harm is at a low level. Nevertheless, a low level of harm does not equate to a low planning objection" (DL ¶18). This is the same wording the same inspector used in PINS-6004605. - **Benefits.** "I am not convinced that the appeal scheme represents the least harmful option for achieving these objectives" (DL ¶19). ## Planning balance HE6(4): low harm to a Grade I asset, carrying considerable importance and weight, against limited benefits. Harm prevails (DL ¶20). ## What made the difference No evidence of condition, and wholesale replacement where careful lifting and reuse was possible. With a damp or condition survey showing the tiles could not be saved, the repair and safety benefits might have carried real weight. ## Transferable points - Patina and wear are part of significance, not a reason to replace (DL ¶13). - HE6(1)'s gradation by asset importance is applied expressly for Grade I (DL ¶17). - "Like-for-like" claims fail where modern metric tiles change pattern, grout and finish (DL ¶11, 14). - Repair and safety benefits carry limited weight unless the works are shown to be the least harmful option (DL ¶19). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): harm (considerable weight).** grading "this harm is at a low level. Nevertheless, a low level of harm does not equate to a low planning objection"; HE6(1) substantial weight incl. "the more important the asset, the greater the weight" (Grade I, "exceptional interest"); HE6(3) considerable importance and weight; s16(2) and s72(1) cited; loss of worn historic tiles and marble nosing, metric replacements with different pattern, darker grout, shinier finish (DL 11-14, 17-18) - **HE6(4): benefit (limited weight).** small economic investment; damp/health-and-safety/access repair "not convinced ... least harmful option"; use would not cease without works (DL 19-20) - **HE4(2): fail.** "no clear and convincing justification" for extent of works, full replacement of tiles/nosing or waterproof membrane; no damp or condition survey (DL 10, 12, 15) ## Key facts - Grade I Nos 1-29 Brunswick Square (1187544), mid-1820s, Brunswick Town CA - Works already done after landings collapsed from water ingress; some historic tiles survived the collapse but were removed (DL 10, 12) - Footnote notes the Framework's HE policies apply to heritage consent regimes (fn 63) (DL 17 fn 2) - Earlier consent at No 7 distinguished (tiles there damaged by asphalt) (DL 16) - Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007266 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/faa1ae9b-beb0-414b-af21-9e32e35fbde5 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007266.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 46 North Trade Road, Battle - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Sylvester - **Authority:** Rother (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007272 - **Application reference:** RR/2025/1747/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Part-demolition of No 46 and 5 detached backland dwellings (3 four-bed chalets, 1 three-bed and 1 two-bed bungalow) with access drive - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.04 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO8, HO7, DP3(2)(a), DP3(3), S4 - **Development plan policies:** Rother Core Strategy 2014 OSS4, BA1, EN1, EN3, LHN1, Rother DaSA 2019 DEN1, DEN2, DHG1, Battle Civil Parish NP 2021 HD2, HD3, HD4, HD5, HD6, High Weald Housing Design Guide, High Weald AONB Management Plan 2024-29 - **Main issues:** High Weald National Landscape, affordable housing, efficient use of land, housing mix - **Tags:** affordable-housing-threshold, dp3-2-a-mixed-communities, dp3-refuse-trigger, s4-substantially-outweighed, national-landscape, backland, housing-shortfall, l3-density, small-scheme, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Five backland bungalows and chalets within Battle, in the High Weald National Landscape. Dismissed. The inspector cleared the scheme on landscape, character, density and housing mix. It failed only because it offered no affordable housing. Once parking and visibility splays inside the red line were counted, the site was found "highly likely" to exceed the 0.3 ha threshold. That failure breached HO7/HO8 and the DP3(2)(a) mixed-tenure principle, which DP3(3) says should lead to refusal, and outweighed the benefits under S4 despite a 3.04-year supply. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties commented on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶3). - **National Landscape — N4/DP3: PASS.** The overgrown backland parcel "does not contribute to the core character components of the rural landscape and scenic beauty of the HWNL" (DL ¶14). The cul-de-sac conflicts with HWDG DG2, but backland cul-de-sacs "form part of the established character of the area" (DL ¶15). - **Site area.** Under PPG the red line includes "all land necessary to carry out the proposed development". The appellant left out parking and visibility splays without explanation, so the site is "highly likely on the balance of probabilities to exceed 0.3 hectares" (DL ¶¶28–30). - **Density — L2/L3: PASS.** The L3(2)(c) minimums did not apply: "there is nothing of substance before me to indicate that the appeal site is within a reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station" (DL ¶35). An earlier 27 dph scheme had been dismissed on character, "a strong indicator that achieving the Council's preferred density would be harmful" (DL ¶37). - **Housing mix: PASS.** There was no evidence of an overconcentration of 4-bed homes (DL ¶¶43–49). - **Affordable / mixed communities — HO7, HO8, DP3(2)(a): FAIL.** "The failure to secure affordable housing would conflict with the principle in Policy DP3(2.a.) ... development proposals should support mixed communities by incorporating a range of tenures. Policy DP3(3) is clear that development proposals that conflict with the relevant aspects of the principles in Policy DP3(2) should be refused" (DL ¶62). ## Planning balance S4 balance. Benefits: substantial weight for DP3/N4 design compliance (DL ¶58), substantial weight for L2/L3 efficient use (DL ¶59), HO7 market housing (DL ¶60), modest weight for BNG and trees. Harm: "substantial weight to the conflict with Framework Policies HO7 and HO8" (DL ¶61) plus the DP3(3) refusal trigger. "the benefits ... would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects arising from the failure to secure affordable housing" (DL ¶63). ## What made the difference Measuring the site, 0.297 ha against 0.312 ha, brought in the affordable requirement. The inspector then routed the failure to meet it through DP3(2)(a) tenure mix, which converts a local-plan affordable-housing shortfall into a Framework refusal trigger under DP3(3). Offering the 35% affordable housing (or a viability case under DM5), or a red line kept below 0.3 ha, would probably have won the appeal, because every other issue was resolved in the appellant's favour. ## Transferable points - Failing to secure plan-required affordable housing is a breach of DP3(2)(a) "range of tenures", and DP3(3) then says refuse (DL ¶62). - HO7/HO8 conflict for failing affordable needs can carry substantial weight on the harm side, cancelling the HO7 market-housing benefit (DL ¶61). - The site-area threshold is measured on the full red line, including parking and visibility splays, following PPG (DL ¶¶28–30). - The L3(2)(c) density minimums apply only where the site is within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station. Otherwise density is set by context under DP3 (DL ¶¶34–35). - A backland site inside a National Landscape town, with no public access and no link to open countryside, may not contribute to the N4 special qualities (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **HO8: fail (substantial weight).** site "highly likely" over 0.3 ha once parking and visibility splays in the red line are counted, so 35% affordable required under DaSA DHG1; none offered, no justification (DL 28-32, 61) - **HO7: fail (substantial weight).** HO7 benefit for market homes, but HO7/HO8 conflict for failing affordable needs given substantial weight (DL 60-61) - **DP3(2)(a): fail.** failure to provide a range of tenures conflicts with mixed-communities principle; DP3(3) says refuse (DL 62) - **N4: pass (substantial weight).** backland site contained in built-up Battle; no harm to High Weald National Landscape; DP3 compliance with plan design policies substantial weight (DL 14, 23, 26, 58) - **DP3: pass.** cul-de-sac against HWDG DG2 but consistent with local backland pattern (DL 15-23) - **L3: pass (substantial weight).** 30 dph not required; L3(2)(c) minimum only near well-connected station; earlier 27 dph scheme dismissed on character; L2/L3 benefit substantial (DL 33-40, 59) - **TR3: pass.** sustainable location for housing (DL 59) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed by failure to secure affordable housing (DL 57-63) ## Key facts - Site area disputed at 0.297 ha (appellant) vs 0.312 ha (council); the 0.3 ha threshold triggers 35% affordable (DL 27-30) - Supply 3.04 years; Battle's NP housing target already met through allocations (DL 54) - Extant 2024 permission for 4 backland bungalows on adjoining land; earlier 8-dwelling appeal dismissed (APP/U1430/W/24/3345193) (DL 13, 15, 37) - Obscure-glazed dormers would restrict outlook; not decided (DL 50-53) - Partial costs application made (separate decision) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007272 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/66be3320-3301-42aa-bb4b-66a51f8e972c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007272.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Great Meadow Barn, Copes Farm, Great Kingshill (agricultural store) - **Decision:** dismissed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: SE Hughes - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007287 - **Application reference:** PL/25/3313/FA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Storage building for agricultural/land management equipment with roof-mounted solar panels - **Site context:** green-belt, national-landscape, listed-building-setting, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(a), HE4, HE6, N4, N2 - **Development plan policies:** Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (consolidated 2011) GB2, GC1, LSQ1, Core Strategy for Chiltern District 2011 CS20, CS22, CS24 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, heritage setting, National Landscape, biodiversity - **Tags:** agricultural-building-a-limb, heritage-harm-decisive, national-landscape, protected-species-surveys, old-wording-slip, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A small machinery store on a 2.35 ha meadow in the Chilterns Green Belt and National Landscape, beside a listed farmstead. The appeal was dismissed. The building qualified as "for agriculture" under GB7(1)(a), so it was not inappropriate. It failed on its felt roof, which harmed the setting of the listed farmhouse and barns and the National Landscape, and on inconsistent great crested newt evidence. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The agriculture policy was held "unchanged, except for its relocation under policy GB7", so there was no consultation (DL ¶4). - **GB7(1)(a): PASS.** There were no livestock and no agricultural appraisal. Still, "there is no compelling evidence that casts clear doubt that the land is not in use for agriculture" (DL ¶9). The building "is of a size commensurate with the size of the appellant's agricultural landholding" and an agricultural-use condition would prevent domestic use (DL ¶10-11). The local plan's "reasonably required" qualifier is not in the Framework (DL ¶7). - **Heritage: HARM.** The felt roof "would appear incongruous and out of place … at the lower end of the spectrum of less than substantial harm, nevertheless, even less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset carries great weight" (DL ¶17). This uses 2024 wording; the 2026 HE6(1) is "substantial weight" and drops the "less than substantial" label. The solar array's public benefit was limited because of its small scale (DL ¶21). - **Biodiversity: FAIL.** The PWMS contradicts the eDNA-positive pond evidence (DL ¶22-24). ## Planning balance The HE6 balance: small-scale renewable benefit did not outweigh the heritage harm (DL ¶21). Conflict with the plan was not outweighed (DL ¶26). ## What made the difference The Green Belt was cleared easily. GB7(1)(a) asks only whether the building is for agriculture, and a use condition answered that. The appeal was lost on materials, a felt roof next to a tiled listed farmstead, and on a contradictory newt method statement. A tiled roof and consistent ecology evidence would likely have succeeded. ## Transferable points - GB7(1)(a) has no "reasonably required" test. A building commensurate with a small agricultural holding, tied by condition, qualifies even before the land is actively farmed (DL ¶7-11). - The 2026 Framework's agriculture exception is treated as unchanged in substance (DL ¶4). - Small roof-mounted solar gets limited public-benefit weight in an HE6 balance (DL ¶21). - Some inspectors still use the 2024 heritage wording ("less than substantial", "great weight") after 17 Aug 2026 (DL ¶17). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(a): pass.** 2.35 ha meadow is agriculture (s336); machinery storage building commensurate with holding; no agricultural appraisal needed; agricultural-use condition (DL 6-11) - **GB6(2): not-engaged.** not inappropriate so openness/VSC not assessed (DL 12) - **HE6: harm (great weight).** felt roof incongruous in setting of Grade II Copes Farmhouse and listed cowsheds/stables; "lower end of the spectrum of less than substantial harm" (2024 wording) given "great weight"; small solar array = limited public benefit (DL 16-21) - **HE4: fail.** harm requires "clear and convincing justification" (DL 20) - **N4: harm.** fails to conserve simple rural character of Chilterns National Landscape (DL 21) - **N2: fail.** PWMS inconsistent on great crested newt presence in adjacent pond (eDNA positive) → biodiversity effects not addressed (DL 22-25) ## Key facts - 2.35 ha meadow with no livestock or machinery yet; the appellant intends small-holding farming - A small low building with five double doors, looking like a neighbour's garage; felt roof - The inspector said the agriculture exception was "unchanged" in the 2026 Framework apart from moving into GB7, so no consultation was needed (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007287 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f20abea7-7d93-464b-83dc-78d2465b47d5 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007287.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 151 Northfield Avenue, West Ealing - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Powys Jones - **Authority:** Ealing (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6007305 - **Application reference:** 260351FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Additional storey and room in roof above shop to form two 1-person studio flats - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** P3(2)(a) - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D6, London Plan Guidance Housing Design Standards - **Main issues:** future occupiers, refuse storage - **Tags:** tier-2, space-standards, upward-extension, framework-not-cited, costs-application ## Summary An upward extension above a shop to create two studio flats was dismissed. The loft flat had not been shown to meet London Plan Guidance minimums for living, dining and kitchen space or headroom, and no refuse storage was provided. The external design matched an approved scheme. The Framework is not cited, and L2(1)(d) airspace support was not considered. ## What made the difference The appellant bears the burden of demonstrating compliance with minimum standards, and a condition cannot be used to redesign the layout (DL ¶10). This is a letter where L2(1)(d)'s "substantial weight" for airspace homes could have been argued but was not raised. ## Policy findings - **P3(2)(a): fail.** Framework not cited; loft flat below LPG living/dining/kitchen minimum and sloping-ceiling heights not shown acceptable (DL 6-11) - **DP3: fail.** no dedicated refuse/food-waste storage; internal storage until collection unacceptable (DL 12-17) ## Key facts - Near-identical external design already permitted (250347FUL) - Conditions to amend the layout refused as "lawfully inappropriate" (DL 10) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2ec4dde0-64b9-4b7f-9d6b-27905b9e2294 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007305 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007305.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Kingston Barn, Kingston Russell (farmstead conversion, 7 dwellings, Dorset NL) - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J J Evans - **Authority:** Dorset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007314 - **Application reference:** P/FUL/2022/03559 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Removal of modern farm buildings; conversion of historic barns to 5 dwellings and erection of 2 dwellings, with landscaping and parking - **Homes:** 7 - **Site context:** national-landscape, open-countryside, TPO, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.53 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N4(1), N3, Transitional(2) - **Development plan policies:** West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2015 ENV2, ENV10 - **Main issues:** National Landscape and protected trees, heritage setting, habitat sites, housing supply - **Tags:** national-landscape, trees-tpo, housing-shortfall, conversion, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, heritage-harm-outweighed ## Summary A scheme to convert a derelict historic farmstead beside a Grade II* farmhouse in the Dorset National Landscape into seven homes was dismissed. The harm to heritage setting was outweighed. But the development would damage the protected trees that frame the farmstead, and nutrient mitigation for Poole Harbour was not secured. A 2.53-year supply did not change that. The letter applies N4(1)'s "substantial weight" to natural beauty and the transitional "materially inconsistent" test. ## Issues and findings - **Trees and the NL: FAIL.** "The Framework requires substantial weight to be given to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of NLs. In this case the trees make an important contribution … but their presence has not informed the development of the site" (DL ¶17). Crown lifting of the sycamore row and works under a protected sycamore were unquantified. "It cannot be assumed that conditions would provide certainty that the trees would survive" (DL ¶15). Conclusion: "substantial harm to protected trees and the important contribution they make to the NL" (DL ¶19). - **Heritage: PASS.** "The retention and restoration of the historic farm buildings would be a considerable public benefit to the setting of the farmhouse … These public benefits and the provision of an additional seven dwellings … would outweigh the harms arising to the farmhouse's setting" (DL ¶18). - **Habitat sites: FAIL.** There was no package treatment plant on the drawings and no legal agreement for its maintenance. "The harms to the SPA and Ramsar weighs heavily against the scheme" (DL ¶21). - **Weight to local policy.** "where policies or parts of them are materially inconsistent with the Framework, the Framework requires they should be given very limited weight". ENV10 and ENV2 are consistent, so "the conflict of the scheme with these development plan policies should be given significant weight" (DL ¶26). ## Planning balance A plan-led balance with the housing shortfall as a weighty material consideration. For: seven homes at 2.53 years (important), restoration of the historic buildings (important), and construction (modest). Against: substantial harm to TPO trees and the NL, and unmitigated habitat-site harm. "when read as a whole the Framework does not suggest this should happen at the expense of other considerations … these would be outweighed by the substantial harms" (DL ¶27). The letter does not address S5, because the parties agreed the principle (DL ¶10). ## What made the difference Tree impacts that had not been designed around, and a nutrient mitigation package that was not secured. An arboricultural layout that kept the granary and walls out of the root protection areas, plus a package treatment plant secured by agreement, would have left heritage-led housing benefits in a strong position. ## Transferable points - N4(1)'s substantial weight to natural beauty covers tree groups that define settlement and farmstead character in a National Landscape (DL ¶13, ¶17). - Condition-based tree protection is not enough where extensive crown and root-area works are unquantified (DL ¶15-16). - Local policies that mirror the Framework (tree retention, habitat protection) keep significant weight under the transitional "materially inconsistent" test (DL ¶26). - A severe supply shortfall does not override substantial NL or habitat-site harm (DL ¶27). ## Policy findings - **N4(1): fail.** protected trees are an important contributor to this part of the Dorset NL; the scheme neither conserves nor enhances it (DL 12-13, 17, 19) - **N3: fail.** significant crown lifting of TPO sycamores and a relocated granary under a protected tree; conditions cannot give certainty the trees survive (DL 14-16, 19) - **HE6(4): pass.** erosion of the verdant setting of the Grade II* farmhouse outweighed by restoring the historic farm buildings and walls plus 7 homes (DL 18) - **N6: fail.** Poole Harbour SPA/Ramsar nutrient neutrality not secured (no package treatment plant or legal agreement); 'weighs heavily' (DL 20-21, 25) - **HO7: benefit (significant weight).** seven homes against a 2.53-year supply, an 'important benefit'; affordable housing UU defective (DL 24-25) - **Transitional(2): neutral.** ENV2 and ENV10 consistent with the Framework, so their conflict carries significant weight (DL 26) ## Key facts - Principle of residential development in the countryside not disputed by the parties (DL 10) - TPO confirmed 10 Feb 2026 during the application (DL 5) - Unilateral undertaking had different signatures and dates and did not bind successors (DL 25) - Parties' comments sought on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007314 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2bac51b2-ccb0-43a3-a58e-3e38666f593a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007314.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 1/3 Park Lane, Macclesfield - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Craddock - **Authority:** Cheshire East (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007315 - **Application reference:** 25/4211/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Part-retrospective conversion and extension of outbuildings behind a restaurant into living accommodation for the proprietors - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire East LPS 2017 SD1, SD2, SE1, SADPD 2022 SE12, GEN1, HOU10, HOU12, HOU13, ENV15 - **Main issues:** contaminated land, living conditions of future occupiers, privacy - **Tags:** tier-2, no-framework-reference, living-conditions, retrospective, psed ## Summary Living accommodation for restaurant proprietors in converted outbuildings facing a commercial service yard in Macclesfield. Dismissed on three grounds: no contaminated land evidence, odour and noise from the yard and neighbouring restaurants, and poor privacy. The letter is plan-led and cites no Framework policy (P3 would have been the natural fit). ## What made the difference The service-yard setting. Proprietor-occupation might justify "a more flexible approach", but not where the operating hours of neighbouring businesses are outside the appellant's control (DL ¶19-20). ## Policy findings - **SE12 (Cheshire East SADPD): conflict.** no contaminated land report in an area prioritised for Part 2A inspection (DL 5-6) - **HOU12 / ENV15 (Cheshire East SADPD): conflict.** odour, noise, dust and night-time disturbance from the service yard and neighbouring restaurants; no mitigation (DL 7-12); P3 equivalent, not cited - **HOU13 (Cheshire East SADPD): conflict.** habitable windows face the rear of a restaurant well below separation standards (DL 13-17) ## Key facts - All habitable windows face a cluttered commercial service yard - PSED considered for an elderly relative; dismissal proportionate (DL 21) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007315 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fda30c22-3c00-40dc-9293-1deb39fd79ba --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007315.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Hilsden Farm, Radcliffe - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Mee - **Authority:** Bury (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007316 - **Application reference:** 72260 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for up to 4 dwellings on equestrian land (stables, manège, containers, tracks) - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, PDL - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt rejected) - **Housing land supply (years):** 4 - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), GB7(1)(e), GB7(1)(g)(i), AnnexB:grey-belt - **Development plan policies:** Places for Everyone Joint DPD 2022-2039 JP-H4 - **Main issues:** grey belt, PDL, openness, density, VSC balance - **Tags:** transitional, PIP, grey-belt-rejected, pdl-e-limb, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, equestrian ## Summary PIP for up to four dwellings on equestrian land south of the A667, accessed from the end of a ribbon of houses on the edge of Radcliffe. It was dismissed. Only part of the site was proven PDL, and the scheme would cause substantial harm to openness. The site was also not grey belt, because it strongly contributes to checking sprawl. **Although dated 17 August 2026, the decision applies the December 2024 Framework throughout.** ## Issues and findings - **Framework applied.** The letter cites 2024 paragraphs 11, 130, 143, 153, 154(g) and 155 and never mentions the August 2026 Framework. It is recorded as transitional. - **PDL (2024 ¶154(g) → GB7(1)(e)): FAIL.** "I cannot be satisfied as to the extent of the curtilage associated with the PDL, nor that it encompasses the appeal site in its entirety" (DL ¶11). "Given the uncertainty surrounding the extent of the curtilage … and the conspicuous urbanising effect … the proposal would result in substantial harm to openness" (DL ¶14). - **Grey belt (2024 ¶155(a) → GB7(1)(g)(i)): FAIL.** "the focus of this appeal should similarly be on the role of the site … rather than on the wider role of parcel BU-BA46" (DL ¶20). But "it is surrounded by open fields and lacks nearby physical features capable of restricting and containing further development. Furthermore, it is adjacent or near to a large built-up area … I therefore find that the land makes a strong contribution to preventing urban sprawl" (DL ¶21). - **Unmet need and sustainable location: PASS** (DL ¶22-23). The Golden Rules were not engaged (DL ¶24). - **Density:** 8-10 dph was acceptable, given that 14+ homes would be more harmful in the Green Belt (DL ¶30-31). ## Planning balance VSC under 2024 ¶153 (GB6(2)). Housing (moderate shortfall, about 4 years) had significant weight, with economic and BNG benefits alongside. These "would not clearly outweigh this harm" (DL ¶34). Green Belt was a strong reason for refusal, so the tilted balance was disengaged (DL ¶35). ## What made the difference Grey belt failed on purpose (a). The inspector accepted a site-level rather than parcel-level assessment. Even so, the site was open, uncontained by physical features and next to a large built-up area, so the result was the same. The PDL argument failed because the curtilage was unevidenced. A site with defined boundaries, or containment by built form or strong features, would have been needed. ## Transferable points - Grey belt contribution is assessed for the site, not the wider GBA parcel (DL ¶20), but that does not help an uncontained site next to a large built-up area (DL ¶21). - The appellant must evidence the extent of PDL curtilage. Uncertainty counts against the GB7(1)(e) claim (DL ¶11, 14). - Scattered equestrian structures plus open land do not make a whole site PDL. Replacing them with houses can be "substantial harm" to openness (DL ¶13-14). - A low density can be justified by the Green Belt setting (DL ¶30-31). - A decision issued on 17 August 2026 applied the 2024 Framework without comment. This shows the handover gap. ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(e): fail.** 2024 para 154(g); part of site PDL but curtilage extent unproven; houses, road and domestic paraphernalia would cause substantial harm to openness (DL 10-14) - **AnnexB:grey-belt: fail.** 2024 para 155(a)/143(a); strong contribution to purpose (a) — open fields all round, no containing features, adjacent to a large built-up area; site-level not parcel-level assessment (DL 20-21) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** 2024 para 155(b); no five-year supply (DL 22) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** 2024 para 155(c); sustainable location agreed (DL 23) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** 2024 para 153; inappropriate plus openness harm not clearly outweighed (DL 34) - **HO7: benefit (significant weight).** supply just over 4 years ("moderate shortfall"), 4 homes, quick delivery (DL 32) - **L3: pass.** 8-10 dph below the 35 dph in JP-H4 but justified by the Green Belt setting (DL 27-31) ## Key facts - Decision dated 17 August 2026, the day the new Framework took effect, but reasoned entirely under the December 2024 Framework (paras 11, 143, 153-155); no reference to the 2026 Framework - Greater Manchester GBA 2016 parcel BU-BA46 found strong at inhibiting ribbon development south along the A667; inspector focused on the site rather than the parcel - Site accessed via track at end of a ribbon of dwellings; open fields around; no physical features to contain development - Supply just over 4 years; PIP for up to 4 bungalows at about 8-10 dph ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007316 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/0487e368-e044-42a0-806a-d53ae3e5b5b8 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007316.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 275 Addiscombe Road, Croydon - **Decision:** allowed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Shearing - **Authority:** Croydon (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6007319 - **Application reference:** 25/02716/OUT - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline (layout and scale) for demolition and a 4-storey building with roof accommodation, 19 flats - **Homes:** 19 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S3(2) - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, D6, D13, D14, H5, Croydon Local Plan 2018 DM10, SP2.5 - **Main issues:** future occupier living conditions, neighbour noise, affordable housing and infrastructure contributions - **Tags:** tier-2, plan-led, living-conditions, viability-review, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary Outline permission for 19 flats replacing a derelict Edwardian house on Addiscombe Road. Allowed. The Council's objections were living conditions in the lightwell and ramp-side flats, noise to the neighbouring bungalow, and contributions. All three were found capable of resolution by conditions, reserved matters and the UU. The development accorded with an up-to-date plan, and S3's "approve without delay" limb was applied. ## What made the difference Only layout and scale were before the Inspector, so appearance and landscaping fixes could be left to reserved matters (DL ¶¶11, 13, 16). Viability-tested nil affordable housing with review mechanisms complied with London Plan H5 (DL ¶18). The Framework was engaged only through S3(2) (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **S3: accord.** accords with an up-to-date development plan and Framework decision-making policies, so should be approved without delay (DL 21) - **P3: pass.** lower-ground lightwell flats and flats next to the car-park ramp found acceptable subject to reserved matters and conditions (DL 9-17); Framework code not cited, mapped - **DM5: pass.** nil affordable housing accepted on viability, with early and late review secured in the UU; LP H5 preferred over CLP SP2.5 as the more recent policy (DL 18-20) ## Key facts - Long planning history, including 3 appeals dismissed Oct 2025 and a 9-flat scheme approved Apr 2025 (DL 7) - Parties invited to comment on the new Framework (DL 6) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007319 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/975b422c-11fc-4178-9590-9490732174b4 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007319.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Dale Brow, 59 Macclesfield Road, Prestbury - **Decision:** dismissed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J D Clark - **Authority:** Cheshire East (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007323 - **Application reference:** 24/4506/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Replacement 'manor' style house with basement (pool, gym) and replacement triple garage with accommodation above - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3, N2, S4 - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 SE1, SE3, SE4, SD2, SADPD 2022 GEN1, Cheshire East Borough Design Guide SPD - **Main issues:** character and appearance, bats - **Tags:** tier-2, replacement-dwelling, design-refusal, protected-species-surveys-missing, s4-substantially-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A large replacement house with a basement on an elevated crest in Prestbury. Dismissed. The bulk and flat roof would be intrusive from lower streets, contrary to DP3's requirement to respond to context. The recommended bat emergence survey had not been done, which conflicted with N2. Under S4, a more luxurious replacement dwelling did not overcome these harms. ## What made the difference The site's topography, not the house's size as such. Large houses are characteristic of the road, but this one sits on the crest. The survey gap was an independent reason: where the appellant's own ecologist recommends an emergence survey, reasonable avoidance measures cannot stand in for it. ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail.** scale, bulk and flat roof expanse on an elevated crest does not respond positively to context; visually intrusive from low-rise streets to the east (DL 11-15) - **N2: conflict.** own ecology report recommended a dusk emergence survey; RAMs not enough where whole house demolished (DL 16-18) - **S4: fail.** larger, more luxurious replacement does not overcome adverse effects (DL 19) ## Key facts - Existing house on a crest visible from Willowmead Drive and Highfield; replacement similar height but much wider and deeper (DL 10-11) - Parties consulted on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 2) - Self-build/BNG unilateral undertaking not considered (DL 21) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007323 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/eb953d98-30f9-4e0f-94e8-9f24080e4f31 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007323.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Hillcrest, Chalton, Luton (PIP 1-9 dwellings) - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Szymanski - **Authority:** Central Bedfordshire (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6007334 - **Application reference:** CB/25/03867/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 1 to 9 dwellings on a bungalow plot - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** green-belt, PDL, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.93 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N6(1)(a), GB7(1)(g)(i), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB7(1)(g)(iii), AnnexB:grey-belt, S5 - **Development plan policies:** Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2021 SP4, EE3 - **Main issues:** habitats sites, grey belt, Green Belt - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, PIP, sustainable-location-pass, habitats-mitigation, gb7-pass-still-dismissed, costs-refused, gb-study-parcel-not-determinative, housing-shortfall ## Summary Permission in principle for one to nine dwellings on a bungalow plot near Houghton Regis. The appeal was dismissed. The inspector found the site to be grey belt and met all the GB7(1)(g) limbs, so the scheme was not inappropriate development. But the unilateral undertaking secured Chilterns Beechwoods SAC mitigation below the current tariff. Adverse effects on the SAC's integrity could not be ruled out, and a PIP cannot lawfully be granted for "habitats development". A separate costs decision (local copy PINS-6007334-costs.pdf) refused the appellant's costs application. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties had the chance to comment on the 2026 Framework and on the 2024 and 2025 HDT results (DL ¶5). - **Grey belt: ACCEPTED.** The site-specific assessment overrode the Green Belt study's parcel rating. The roads, M1 and vegetation "strongly contain and enclose the site. The highways, noise and associated infrastructure such as street lighting, fencing, and hardstandings are urbanising influences" (DL ¶22). "the land makes a weak to moderate contribution to purpose a)" (DL ¶23). - **GB7(1)(g)(i)-(iii): PASS.** "There is a lit footway to Chalton a modest distance away where there are a small range of facilities and bus stops to larger settlements … This limits the need to travel, particularly by private car, and offers a genuine choice of transport modes" (DL ¶25). There was no need to assess openness: "which is implicitly taken into account in this exception" (DL ¶27). - **Habitats / N6(1)(a): FAIL.** "it is of fundamental importance the UU legally secures the correct adequate contribution before a PIP is consented" (DL ¶15). "necessary and adequate mitigation to prevent LSEs must be secured at the PIP stage, for it to be approved" (DL ¶12). ## Planning balance S5 (S5(1)(h)/(j) mentioned hypothetically). Benefits got full weight, with HO7 substantial weight to homes and a supply of about 3.93 years (DL ¶29-30). But the breach of the Habitats Regulations and the PIP Order "attract weight of a very high order against the scheme … substantially outweigh the benefits of the proposal for any number of dwellings in the range proposed" (DL ¶32). ## What made the difference A drafting failure. The Green Belt case was won: a contained plot, enclosed by the M1 and roads, with a lit footway to village services. The appeal failed only because the UU's SAMMS and SANGS figures were below the Council's current tariff. A correctly drafted UU would very probably have led to the appeal being allowed. ## Transferable points - A site-specific assessment can override a strategic Green Belt study parcel rating for purpose (a), where roads and motorway infrastructure contain the site (DL ¶20-23). - A plot 250 m from an urban extension, seen as "a modest separate discrete scheme", is not sprawl of a large built-up area (DL ¶21). - A lit footway to a village with a small range of facilities and buses satisfies GB7(1)(g)(iii) for a small scheme (DL ¶25). - Openness is "implicitly taken into account" in the GB7(1)(g) exception (DL ¶27). - For a PIP, Habitats mitigation must be fully secured at the PIP stage. Out-of-date tariffs in the UU are fatal (DL ¶12-16). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** 250 m from Houghton Regis North urban extension; contained by B579, access road, M1, trees and bunding → "weak to moderate" contribution to purpose (a) despite GB study parcel scoring strong; (b), (d) agreed (DL 19-23) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** limited scale, containment, relationship to development, level of need (DL 24) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** no five-year supply (c.3.93 years) = fn41 unmet need (DL 25, 29) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** lit footway to Chalton (small range of facilities, bus stops); reasonable walking distance to part of Houghton Regis; highway access for up to 5 dwellings OK (DL 25-26) - **GB7(1)(g)(iv): not-engaged.** not major (DL 26) - **N6(1)(a): fail.** within 12.6 km ZoI of Chilterns Beechwoods SAC; UU contributions (SAMMS £182.49, SANGS £3,205/£4,273) below current tariff (£202.54, £3,565/£4,750) → LSEs not ruled out; PIP cannot be granted for habitats development (Art 5B PIP Order) (DL 7-17) - **S5: fail.** breach of Habitats Regs / PIP Order "weight of a very high order" → substantially outweighs benefits for any number in range (DL 30-32) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** homes towards evidenced need; full weight to benefits (DL 29-32) ## Key facts - Bungalow plot with garden and outbuildings. Enclosed by trees and bunding, and beyond them by the B579 on two sides, an access road and the M1 - The 2017 Green Belt Study rated the wider parcel HR2 as strong for purpose (a). The inspector found this site weak to moderate - The Habitats mitigation UU used superseded (lower) per-dwelling tariffs, and the appellant accepted the figures were wrong - Mitigation must be secured at the PIP stage, not deferred to technical details consent (DL 12) - Costs application by the appellant refused (separate costs decision) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007334 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ad234b8e-0b0c-4a99-9860-302946c50641 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/12ca4862-426a-4516-bca7-b1f50429ea76 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007334.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Lawn Cottage, Wakering Road, Southend-on-Sea (rebuilt commercial unit) - **Decision:** allowed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S F Barnes - **Authority:** Southend-on-Sea (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6007335 - **Application reference:** 25/00963/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective rebuild of commercial units (light industrial, Class E(g)(iii)) on PDL replacing an open-sided storage structure - **Site context:** green-belt, PDL, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(e) - **Development plan policies:** Southend Core Strategy 2007 KP1 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development in the Green Belt - **Tags:** pdl-e-limb, not-inappropriate, openness-harm, retrospective, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, heritage-no-harm, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip, tier-2 ## Summary A retrospective rebuild of a commercial unit on previously developed Green Belt land near Southend was allowed. The new building is taller and larger than the open-sided structure it replaced and needs formal parking, so it causes moderate harm to openness. But it is well screened, and the harm falls short of the "substantial harm" threshold in GB7(1)(e). The local Green Belt policy, which does not allow for PDL reuse, carried very limited weight. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties have had the opportunity to comment upon the revised Framework" (DL ¶2). - **GB7(1)(e): PASS.** "Although the proposal would have a moderate harmful effect on openness of the Green Belt overall, this would not meet the threshold of substantial harm to openness set out in Framework policy GB7 paragraph 1(e)" (DL ¶8). - **Plan weight.** KP1 "does not however contemplate the re-use of PDL. It is therefore inconsistent with the Framework's national decision making policies as they apply to this appeal" (DL ¶9). The letter cites "Framework Annex A, Paragraph 1" for the weight; the weight rule is Annex A ¶2 (Transitional(2)). - **Listed building setting: preserved** (DL ¶12). - **Accessibility.** "there is no compelling evidence before me to suggest that the development would generate a significant amount of movement relative to its rural fringe context" (DL ¶13). ## Planning balance None expressly. Once the scheme was found not inappropriate (DL ¶10), with no heritage or highways harm, the appeal was allowed. S5(5) is not mentioned. ## What made the difference Screening. Spatial openness harm from a bigger building and parking was real but moderate, and the visual effect was confined by dense boundary vegetation. A more open site, or a building visible from the right of way, could have tipped the harm to substantial. ## Transferable points - Moderate spatial openness harm from a larger replacement building on PDL, with limited visual effect, falls below GB7(1)(e)'s "substantial harm" threshold (DL ¶7–8). - A local Green Belt policy that does not provide for PDL redevelopment is inconsistent with GB7 and its conflict carries very limited weight (DL ¶9). - For a small commercial unit, TR3-type accessibility is judged against whether the use generates significant movement in its context (DL ¶13). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(e): pass.** PDL; building taller, longer ridge and at the boundary, plus formal parking = moderate openness harm, but localised and limited visually; not "substantial harm" (DL 6-8, 10) - **GB6: not-engaged.** not inappropriate (DL 10) - **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** KP1 does not contemplate PDL reuse, so inconsistent with GB7; conflict given very limited weight; letter cites "Annex A, Paragraph 1" (DL 9) - **HE6: neutral.** setting of Grade II Lawn Cottage preserved; building far away and not seen with it (s66(1)) (DL 11-12) - **TR3: pass.** mapped - accessibility questioned; no highways objection and no evidence of "a significant amount of movement relative to its rural fringe context" (TR3(1)(a) wording, TR3 not named) (DL 13) ## Key facts - Building already erected; appeal assessed on the submitted plans (DL 3) - Site at end of a long track, hardstanding, screened by dense vegetation from surrounding fields and PRoW; small roof section visible through one gap (DL 5, 8) - Previous open-sided single-storey storage structure set further into the site (DL 5, 7) - Conditions limit use to E(g)(iii), hours 0700-1900 Mon-Sat, and require 10% on-site renewables, 2 parking spaces (1 EV), cycle and refuse storage, retrofitted within set periods; no cessation sanction (DL 15-17) - No S5(5) balance expressly run after the GB7(1)(e) pass ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007335 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007335.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Sky Farm, New Years Lane, Knockholt (agricultural building) - **Decision:** allowed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Shearing - **Authority:** Bromley (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6007338 - **Application reference:** 25/04473/FPA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retention of an agricultural building for hay and straw storage, farm equipment and lambing (Appeal A; hard surfacing Appeal B is PINS-6007340) - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(a), S3(1)(c) - **Development plan policies:** Bromley Local Plan 2019 Policy 49, London Plan 2021 G2 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development in the Green Belt - **Tags:** tier-2, agricultural-building, not-inappropriate, retrospective, costs-application, linked-appeals, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Retrospective permission for an agricultural building on a sheep farm in the Bromley Green Belt. Allowed. It is a building "for agriculture" (DL ¶9), so it falls within GB7(1)(a) and is not inappropriate. Neither the plan nor the Framework asks whether the building is needed. The linked hard-surfacing appeal (PINS-6007340) was allowed in the same letter. ## Issues and findings - **GB7(1)(a).** "The Framework establishes that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within one of the categories in policy GB7. Similarly to Policy 49, those categories include development which is for agriculture" (DL ¶9). "Based on what I have seen, there is no provision under either the BLP or national policy to consider whether a need for the agricultural building exists" (DL ¶12). - **Consequence.** "Appeal A is not harmful to the Green Belt and is not required to demonstrate very special circumstances" (DL ¶14). - **Presumption.** "Policy S3.1c of the Framework states that in all locations, development proposals that accord with both an up to date development plan and the decision-making policies in the Framework should be approved without delay" (DL ¶20). - **DM8.** "there is not substantive detail before me to establish that the unauthorised development here was intentional" (DL ¶21). ## What made the difference Evidence of a real sheep enterprise, consistent with earlier appeal findings. That outweighed the domestic fittings and a one-off children's event. Once the building is "for agriculture" (DL ¶9), GB7(1)(a) has no need test. ## Transferable points - GB7(1)(a) asks whether the building is for agriculture, not whether it is needed (DL ¶12). - Domestic-looking fittings do not stop a building being agricultural where the permission sought, and the evidence, point to agricultural use (DL ¶11). - Retrospective development is not held against a scheme under DM8 unless intentional unauthorised development is shown (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(a): pass.** building for agriculture (pedigree sheep grazing and breeding); domestic features and a children's event do not displace the agricultural use; no need test under the plan or the Framework (DL 9-13) - **GB6: not-engaged.** not inappropriate, so no VSC and no separate openness assessment (DL 14) - **S3(1)(c): pass.** accords with an up-to-date plan and the Framework, so approve without delay; also says agricultural uses are "supported by the Framework outside settlements" (DL 20) - **DM8: neutral.** intentional unauthorised development not shown (DL 21) ## Key facts - Retrospective; building already erected (DL 6) - Council doubted the agricultural use (laminate floors, downlighters, no ventilation, a children's camp), but the inspector found "compelling evidence of the otherwise agricultural use" (DL 11) - Earlier appeals in 2022 described the same sheep enterprise (DL 10) - Costs applications against the Council on both appeals decided separately (DL 3) - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 7) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007338 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/349bafa8-ce42-4016-9bcf-392d1dac9d7a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007338.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Sky Farm, New Years Lane, Knockholt (Appeal B - hard surfacing) - **Decision:** allowed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Shearing - **Authority:** Bromley (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6007340 - **Application reference:** 25/04474/FPA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retention of hard surface for vehicles and farming equipment, access and disabled access around an existing agricultural barn (Appeal B; Appeal A 6007338 is the barn itself) - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(f)(i), S3(1)(c) - **Development plan policies:** Bromley Local Plan 2019 Policy 49, London Plan 2021 G2 - **Main issues:** whether inappropriate development in the Green Belt - **Tags:** tier-2, not-inappropriate, agricultural-building, s3-1-c, costs-application, retrospective, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Retrospective hard surfacing around a sheep barn at Sky Farm, Knockholt, in the Bromley Green Belt, decided in one letter with the barn itself (Appeal A 6007338). The inspector treated the surfacing as an engineering operation under GB7(1)(f), found that it minimised the impact on openness and did not conflict with the purposes, and allowed it without a VSC case. Both appeals were approved under S3(1)(c). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Both main parties were invited to comment on the implications of that change and those responses have been taken into account" (DL ¶7). - **Engineering operation, GB7(1)(f): PASS.** "the hard surfacing preserves the openness of the Green Belt and together these factors successfully minimise the impact on openness. For similar reasons, I do not find conflict with the Green Belt purposes" (DL ¶18). - **Need.** "it is not necessary to establish whether there is an identified need or operational requirement for the hard surfacing" (DL ¶18). The letter does not discuss the closing words of GB7(1)(f)(i), which ask whether the listed forms are required in a Green Belt location. - **S3(1)(c).** "development proposals that accord with both an up to date development plan and the decision-making policies in the Framework should be approved without delay, which has been found to be the case here" (DL ¶20). - **DM8.** Intentional unauthorised development not shown (DL ¶21). ## Planning balance No balance: not inappropriate, and compliant with the plan, so S3(1)(c) applied (DL ¶19-20, ¶29). ## What made the difference The surfacing is tight to the barn and screened by tree belts, so the openness effect was very limited; vehicles on it were transient. ## Transferable points - Hard surfacing tight around an agricultural building can meet GB7(1)(f) where it reads as the building's base (DL ¶17-18). - A rare express use of S3(1)(c) at appeal (DL ¶20). - Unauthorised development counts against a scheme under DM8 only where intent is shown (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(f)(i): pass.** engineering operation; surfacing wraps tightly round the barn, set back from views; impact on openness minimised and no conflict with purposes; inspector says no need to show need or operational requirement (DL 15-19); the (f)(i) qualifier about engineering operations being required in a Green Belt location is not discussed - **GB7(1)(a): pass.** Appeal A barn found to be for agriculture (sheep breeding), so not inappropriate (DL 9-14) - **S3(1)(c): pass.** accords with an up-to-date plan and the Framework, so approve without delay (DL 20) - **DM8: neutral.** no substantive evidence that the unauthorised development was intentional (DL 21) ## Key facts - Both developments already carried out when visited (DL 6) - Joint letter with Appeal A 6007338 (retention of agricultural barn, 25/04473/FPA); both allowed - Costs applications by the appellant on both appeals are the subject of a separate decision (DL 3), not in the corpus - Surface water drainage condition refused as unnecessary (DL 27) - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 7) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007340 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/79bbfbfd-b6d2-4300-b462-ee6497e8cc7c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007340.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Home Farm, Main Road, Bevercotes - **Decision:** dismissed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Smith - **Authority:** Bassetlaw (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6007348 - **Application reference:** 25/01203/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of agricultural barns and replacement with 3 dwellings with new access - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** open-countryside, conservation-area, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 5.31 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(e), TR3, S3 - **Development plan policies:** Bassetlaw Local Plan 2024 ST1, ST2, ST33, ST35 - **Main issues:** landscape character, appropriate location for housing - **Tags:** s5-1-e-infill, sustainable-location-fail, connectivity-tool, rural-lane-no-footway, five-year-supply-met, old-balance-wording, drafting-slip, conservation-area, small-scheme, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Three houses replacing run-down farm buildings between existing houses in the tiny unlisted hamlet of Bevercotes, in open Nottinghamshire countryside. Dismissed. The inspector accepted the scheme as limited infilling within a group of houses under S5(1)(e), with no harm to landscape or the conservation area. But the site's very poor accessibility (Connectivity Tool score 13/100, unlit roads with no footway, no real services) was given substantial weight under TR3 and decided the balance. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "There have been significant amendments to it. I have therefore sought comment from the parties" (DL ¶4). The Council's officer report had used the 2024 ¶11(d) tilted balance (DL ¶42). - **Landscape / CA: PASS.** "the proposal would reflect an existing characteristic of the settlement" and would be "a general visual improvement over the current situation" (DL ¶¶10–11, 15). - **S5(1)(d): not engaged.** "the Framework's definition of previously developed land specifically excludes land that is, or was last occupied by, agricultural or forestry buildings" (DL ¶50). - **S5(1)(j): FAIL.** 5.31 years accepted: "no substantive or compelling evidence has been provided to demonstrate the extent to which the Council's supply figure should be reduced" (DL ¶47). - **S5(1)(e): PASS.** "Owing to the small number of dwellings proposed, when compared to the number of buildings located within the appeal site, I am of the view that this development would indeed be limited in its scale" (DL ¶53). - **TR3: FAIL, substantial weight.** "In utilising the Government Connectivity Tool, the appeal site would score 13/100, thus providing further illustration of the poor connectivity" (DL ¶39). "I attach substantial weight to the harm arising from the site's reliance on private vehicle travel" (DL ¶54). ## Planning balance The inspector framed the S5 test correctly at DL ¶49 ("substantially outweighed"), but the concluding balance uses a flat test: "the identified benefits do not outweigh the adverse effects arising from the appeal site's inherently poor accessibility ... Whilst I recognise that it would meet the stipulation of Policy S5 (e) ..., the proposal does not attract sufficient weight under this policy when balanced against its conflict with ... TR3" (DL ¶58). The inspector never finds expressly that the benefits were *substantially* outweighed, a drafting slip that may be open to challenge. Benefits: 3 homes, economic benefit, visual enhancement, social interaction (DL ¶¶55–57). ## What made the difference The location's accessibility, measured partly with the Government Connectivity Tool. Bevercotes has essentially no services, and every route out is unlit and fast with no footway. Passing S5(1)(e) did not get the scheme over the line once TR3 harm carried substantial weight, and with a 5-year supply in place there was no S5(1)(j) or unmet-need support. In a settlement with a shop and school within safe walking distance, or with a 5YHLS shortfall adding weight to the housing, the S5(1)(e) pass would probably have carried it. ## Transferable points - Passing an S5(1) category does not guarantee approval: TR3 car-dependence harm can carry substantial weight and defeat an S5(1)(e) infill (DL ¶¶54, 58). Compare PINS-6009593, where TR3 harm for one dwelling was only moderate. - The Government Connectivity Tool (TR3(2)) is being used by inspectors: a score of 13/100 was cited as confirming poor connectivity (DL ¶39). - Land last occupied by agricultural buildings is not PDL for S5(1)(d) (DL ¶50). - S5(1)(e) "limited" can be judged against the number of existing buildings replaced (DL ¶53). - An appellant challenging a published 5YHLS must quantify how far the supply falls (DL ¶47). - Watch for inspectors using a flat "do not outweigh" balance in place of the S5 "substantially outweighed" test (DL ¶58). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(e): pass.** site within the built form of Bevercotes between houses; 3 dwellings replacing a larger group of barns = limited infilling within a group of houses (DL 53) - **S5(1)(d): not-engaged.** agricultural buildings excluded from PDL definition (DL 50) - **S5(1)(j): fail.** 5.31-year supply accepted, so no unmet need (DL 45-47, 52) - **TR3: fail (substantial weight).** no footways or lighting, fast rural roads, no evidence of usable bus service; primary school 3 km; Connectivity Tool score 13/100 (DL 27-31, 38-39, 54) - **L3: not-engaged.** L3 station-density minimum inapplicable as not within walking distance of a well-connected station, which itself shows poor accessibility (DL 51) - **DP3: pass.** red brick agricultural-influenced design; visual improvement; CA preserved; no landscape harm (DL 8-16) ## Key facts - Government Connectivity Tool score 13/100 (DL 39) - Nearest facilities are a fishing-lake tackle shop, services at Markham Moor 2 km (fast food, shop, fuel) and a primary school 3 km along unlit roads with no footway (DL 22-28) - Council's 5.31-year supply statement (published 5 Mar 2026) accepted over appellant's deliverability challenge (DL 45-47) - Earlier Misterton and Manor Cottage appeals distinguished on settlement hierarchy and services (DL 32-36) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007348 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/927a331e-fbfd-4379-9bf5-feba62d67460 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007348.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land east of New Road, Melksham - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Worley - **Authority:** Wiltshire (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007352 - **Application reference:** PL/2025/09917 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline permission for up to 2 self-build dwellings on agricultural land beyond the Melksham settlement boundary - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.8 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j)(i), S5(4), DP3(3) - **Development plan policies:** Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015 CP1, CP2, CP15, CP50, CP51, CP57, CP60, CP61, CP67, Joint Melksham Neighbourhood Plan 2 2025 Policy 6 - **Main issues:** location and accessibility, character and appearance, protected species, drainage - **Tags:** s5-1-j, s5-4-exceptional, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, dp3-refuse-trigger, self-build, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, drafting-slip, inconsistent-weighting ## Summary Up to two self-build homes on a field off New Road, a narrow unlit lane outside Melksham. The unmet need limb of S5(1)(j) was met (2.8-year supply and an unmet self-build register), but the site was not physically well-related to the settlement under S5(1)(j)(i). Under S5(4) the substantial weight to self-build housing did not substantially outweigh the character harm and car dependence. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** No switch paragraph; the 2026 policies are applied throughout. - **Settlement.** "the appeal site does not form part of a settlement and is not physically related to it in terms of character and appearance and is therefore in the open countryside" (DL ¶5). - **Accessibility.** Access is partly via "New Road, a narrow rural unlit lane devoid of dedicated footpaths" (DL ¶9). "The appellant accepts that future occupants of the proposed dwellings would drive to services and facilities." (DL ¶9). A pending 295-home scheme could not be relied on, and the inspector noted that "footnote 28 of the Framework indicates that, where a development proposal is located outside a settlement, and separated from the existing built-up area by virtue of being beyond the outside edge of an allocated site that has yet to be fully developed" (DL ¶10), location must be judged as if the allocation did not proceed. - **Character.** "the proposal would have a significant harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area" (DL ¶16); the balance later calls it "substantial harm" ("the proposal would give rise to substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area", DL ¶24), an internal inconsistency. - **Plan weight (Transitional(2)).** CP1, CP2 and CP15 "are thus materially inconsistent with the national decision-making policies of the Framework, particularly Policy S5, which is broader in scope. For this reason, I afford the conflict with the development strategy only moderate weight." (DL ¶25). Annex A ¶2 prescribes very limited weight for materially inconsistent policies. - **S5(1)(j)(i): FAIL.** "the site is not physically well-related to the settlement both in terms of accessibility to services and character and appearance" (DL ¶27). - **Short car trips rejected; DP3.** The appellant said "the car-based journeys to access day-to-day services in Melksham may be relatively short and limited in frequency by virtue of the scale of the development" (DL ¶29), but "national decision-making policies nonetheless seek to direct development to locations where it can support sustainable patterns of movement, enable good accessibility for different users and make the most of existing and proposed transport infrastructure" (DL ¶29). "Furthermore, the Framework is clear that proposals should be refused if they conflict with these aspects of Policy DP3." (DL ¶29). ## Planning balance S5(4). Substantial weight to two self-build homes and some economic and social benefit (DL ¶30), against character harm, car dependence and conflict with DP3(1) and (2)(d). "the benefits of the proposal, would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework, to amount to exceptional circumstances to justify the proposal" (DL ¶31). ## What made the difference The physical separation from Melksham, by open land and an unlit, footway-less lane, which failed S5(1)(j)(i) on both accessibility and character. The self-build need was accepted but could not carry the S5(4) test. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(j)(i) "physically well-related" read as covering both accessibility to services and character (DL ¶27). - The short-car-trips-for-a-small-scheme argument does not answer TR3-type movement objectives or DP3(2)(d) (DL ¶29). - Footnote 28: a site that would only be connected once an unbuilt allocation or pending scheme is delivered is judged on present circumstances (DL ¶10). - Caution: the letter finds plan policies materially inconsistent with S5 but gives them moderate, not very limited, weight (DL ¶25). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:settlement: fail.** parcel on a rural lane among dispersed development, separated from Melksham by open land; not part of a settlement (DL 5) - **S5(1)(j): pass.** unmet need shown - 2.8-year supply and unmet self-build demand on the register (DL 26-27) - **S5(1)(j)(i): fail.** not physically well-related to the settlement in accessibility or character; narrow unlit lane with no footways; appellant accepts occupiers would drive (DL 9, 27) - **fn28: neutral.** undetermined 295-home application nearby could shorten the unlit route but no permission or pedestrian links; fn28 cited on schemes beyond an unbuilt allocation (DL 10) - **DP3(1): conflict.** encroachment into open agricultural land eroding scattered pattern; letter says significant harm at DL 16 and substantial harm at DL 24 (DL 13-16, 24, 29) - **DP3(2)(d): conflict.** heavily car reliant; short-car-trip argument rejected (DL 29) - **DP3(3): fail.** paraphrased as proposals should be refused if they conflict with these aspects of DP3; no express clear-justification finding (DL 29) - **Transitional(2): neutral (moderate weight).** CP1, CP2, CP15 materially inconsistent with S5 because they restrict development outside settlements, yet given moderate rather than very limited weight (DL 25) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 2 self-build homes, valuable in the district circumstances (DL 30) - **S5(4): fail.** benefits do not substantially outweigh adverse effects; no exceptional circumstances; S3 presumption does not apply (DL 28, 31) ## Key facts - New Road is a narrow rural unlit lane without dedicated footpaths; route to Melksham services in part along it (DL 9) - Appellant accepted future occupiers would drive to services and facilities (DL 9) - Protected species (GCN district licence, reptiles, bats) and drainage (rainwater harvesting, lined permeable paving, discharge to watercourse) found acceptable (DL 17-23) - Same inspector gave CP1/CP2 unqualified weight in Semington PINS-6008970 a week earlier ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007352 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d320ad16-4136-44c1-8366-96e76e05d9d1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007352.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 20 Kennedy Road, Kingsland, Shrewsbury - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Bromley - **Authority:** Shropshire (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6007355 - **Application reference:** 25/03653/FUL - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Wide single-storey side extension with barrel-vaulted first-floor element, rear and basement extensions to Victorian semi (NDHA) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4), DP3(5) - **Development plan policies:** Shropshire Core Strategy 2011 CS6, CS17, Shropshire SAMDev 2015 MD2, MD13 - **Main issues:** conservation area, trees - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, energy-efficiency-benefit, private-benefit-not-public, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, innovative-design ## Summary A large contemporary side extension to a Victorian semi in the Shrewsbury Conservation Area (Kingsland) was dismissed. It filled a characteristic side gap, causing "minor" harm to the conservation area of considerable importance and weight. That harm outweighed heritage gains, a 67% carbon reduction and high-quality design. ## Issues and findings - **Grading harm under the 2026 Framework.** "there would be harm (insofar as it relates to the categories of "harm" listed in the Framework) to the significance of this part of the CA … I have judged the extent of harm to be minor … Nevertheless, still of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶26). This is an explicit acknowledgement that the Framework's categories are now harm / substantial harm / total loss. - **Innovative design: DP3(5).** "even though substantial weight can be given to innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability … a development should also be consistent with the overall form and layout of surroundings" (DL ¶15). - **Energy benefits.** "as an energy efficient extension, the proposal would reduce carbon emissions by 67%, and, in accordance with the Framework, substantial weight can be given. However, due to the nature and domestic scale … the contribution to climate change mitigation would be minor" (DL ¶27). - **Private benefits.** Family and work-from-home space are "private benefits" (DL ¶28). ## Planning balance HE6(1)/(3)/(4). "the public benefits … would generally be localised and minor in scale and would not be sufficient to outweigh the substantial weight that I attach to the conservation of the CA and the irreversible harm" (DL ¶31). ## What made the difference The spacious gaps between large Victorian villas are part of what makes this part of the conservation area significant. The extension's width and the barrel vault showing above the hedge eroded that gap. ## Transferable points - "Minor" harm to a conservation area still carries considerable importance and weight, and can outweigh a 67% carbon reduction at domestic scale (DL ¶¶26–31). - The DP3(5) substantial weight for innovative or sustainable design is conditional on fitting the surrounding form and layout (DL ¶15). - Inspectors now say expressly that harm is graded within the Framework's "harm" category rather than as "less than substantial" (DL ¶26). ## Policy findings - **HE9: harm (considerable weight).** loss of spacious side gap characteristic of Kingsland SCA; harm "(insofar as it relates to the categories of "harm" listed in the Framework)" judged "minor" but of considerable importance and weight (DL 10-13, 25-26) - **DP3(5): fail.** innovative contemporary design, but substantial weight unavailable as not "consistent with the overall form and layout of surroundings" (DL 14-15) - **HE7: pass.** NDHA fabric unharmed; removal of 2-storey rear extension reveals original form (DL 14, 27) - **HE6(4): fail.** 67% carbon reduction — "substantial weight can be given" but contribution minor at domestic scale; heritage gains, economy minor; family space private; benefits "localised and minor" (DL 27-31) ## Key facts - Victorian Society and local support noted but did not change outcome - PD fallback for side outbuildings unsubstantiated, limited weight (DL 21) - Parties consulted on 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d2f1f88e-e6ce-4a6e-8afd-64552da9b23b - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007355 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007355.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Footpath outside 45-46 Chalk Farm Road, Camden (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: David Troy - **Authority:** Camden (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6007360 - **Application reference:** 2025/5854/P - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub replacing a telephone kiosk, with double-sided digital advertisement panels (Appeal A; linked advert Appeal B 6007364) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), CO1 - **Development plan policies:** Camden Local Plan 2017 D1, D2, D4, G1, A1, C5, C6, T1 - **Main issues:** character and heritage, pedestrian safety, community safety - **Tags:** tier-2, telecoms, street-hub, heritage-harm-decisive, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A BT Street Hub on a cluttered Camden Town footway was refused. Lower-level harm to the setting of a conservation area and a Grade II* listed building, clutter and pedestrian obstruction outweighed benefits that were given substantial weight but were modest (DL 13-15, 22). ## What made the difference The already cluttered footway and pedestrian desire line. The hub's bulk made it the most prominent object on the street (DL 8-9, 20). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): fail.** lower-level harm to setting of Regent's Canal CA and Grade II* Stable Yard (DL 11-13) - **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** 'given substantial weight in line with the Framework' but modest in scale (DL 14-15) - **TR4: fail.** undue obstruction on a busy footway desire line (DL 18-22) ## Key facts - Parties consulted on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 4) - Crime and anti-social behaviour concerns not substantiated for this site (DL 25-26) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007360 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b9fe36f4-b689-4a9f-9532-0de71a98016a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007360.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 38 Brook Lane, Corfe Mullen - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D R Kay - **Authority:** Dorset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007369 - **Application reference:** P/HOU/2025/06963 - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Extension to existing annexe (living room) and flue - **Site context:** green-belt - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** East Dorset Local Plan 2002 saved GB3, Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy 2014 KS3, HE2 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, VSC - **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, householder, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, garden-not-pdl, psed-considered, fallback-not-evidenced, drafting-slip ## Summary Small, screened extension to an annexe at a much-extended dwelling. Dismissed. Cumulative additions already exceeded 100% of the original building, so the extension was disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). Garden land is not PDL, so (e) did not apply. There was moderate openness harm. Multi-generational and PSED considerations did not amount to VSC. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The relevant matters were "substantially unchanged", so the appeal was decided under the 2026 Framework without consultation (DL ¶3). One of the earliest 2026 GB decisions (24 Aug 2026). - **GB7(1)(e): FAIL.** "the site is within the garden curtilage of a residential dwelling. As such, it would not meet the definition of PDL in Annex B" (DL ¶9). The letter then refers to "the GB7(1)(g) exception", which appears to be a slip for (e). - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "Cumulatively, the floor area of the original building has therefore already been enlarged by significantly more than 100% … would represent disproportionate additions" (DL ¶13). The saved local policy likewise bars "a succession of 'limited' extensions which cumulatively form a substantial extension" (DL ¶14). - **Openness: moderate harm** in both visual and spatial terms, despite screening (DL ¶16). - **PSED.** The existing annexe already provides independent living, so the benefit is outweighed (DL ¶19-21). ## Planning balance GB6(2): the other considerations were "not sufficient to comprise the very special circumstances" (DL ¶23). ## What made the difference Planning history. The original bungalow had been doubled and the garage more than doubled, so even a small infill addition was disproportionate. ## Transferable points - Residential garden curtilage is not PDL for GB7(1)(e) (DL ¶9). - Screening from public views does not remove openness harm (DL ¶15-16). - An unevidenced permitted development fallback carries little weight (DL ¶22). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** original bungalow doubled by a 1987 upward extension; garage enlarged ~110% in 1993 then converted to an annexe; cumulative increase well over 100%, so any further addition is disproportionate (DL 10-13) - **GB7(1)(e): fail.** residential garden curtilage is not PDL under Annex B (DL 9) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** moderate visual and spatial openness harm even though screened from public views (DL 16) - **Equality Act s149: neutral.** multi-generational and protected-characteristic need considered; existing annexe already meets needs; outweighed (DL 19-21) ## Key facts - Original bungalow and detached double garage; 1987 second storey; 1993 garage to four-car; 2021 conversion to a two-bed annexe - Small extension in the internal corner, substantially screened from the public realm - Permitted development fallback unevidenced, so little weight ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007369 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/527d0d2a-3749-4b31-a8cd-6a9902d232eb --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007369.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Car park between Castle Mews and 7 Castle Road, North Finchley - **Decision:** allowed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Wilson - **Authority:** Barnet (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6007373 - **Application reference:** 25/0632/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Redevelopment of office car park for 20 car-free dwellings with landscaping, access and cycle parking - **Homes:** 20 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, L2(1)(b) - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, T6.1, Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (March 2025) CDH01, TRC03, Residential Design Guidance SPD 2016 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions (outlook), disabled persons parking - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, l2-substantial-weight, brownfield, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, old-balance-wording, inconsistent-weighting, pd-rights-removed, drafting-slip ## Summary Twenty car-free houses and flats on a backland office car park in North Finchley, refused by Barnet on design, outlook and disabled parking. Allowed. The inspector found no harm to character or outlook; the only conflict was the absence of disabled bays (London Plan T6.1), limited in effect because blue badge holders can still obtain on-street permits. Substantial L2 weight for reusing an underutilised car park and the S4 presumption justified a decision contrary to the plan. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were given an opportunity to comment on the new Framework, and I have taken any comments received into account" (DL ¶2). - **Character: NO HARM.** Car-free layout gives "a large pedestrian walkway and open spaces throughout which means that while there are 20 houses proposed, it would not appear as an overdevelopment" (DL ¶6). Framework design policies (DP3) not cited on this issue. - **Outlook: NO HARM.** Barrel-vaulted roof sloping to boundary, deep neighbouring gardens and outbuildings (DL ¶¶9–11). - **Disabled parking — T6.1 / TRC03: CONFLICT, limited harm.** "the obligation would not prevent blue badge holders from applying for a parking permit … there is suitable availability for on-street parking" (DL ¶15); "The magnitude of harm from this conflict would be limited" (DL ¶16). - **L2 and S4.** "Policy L2 … gives substantial weight to making better use of vacant and underutilised land such as the appeal site. Policy S4 … also states that development proposals within settlements should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶21). ## Planning balance S4 balance, with an internal inconsistency: the policy conflict is given "significant weight" (DL ¶20) though the harm is "limited" (DL ¶19). "the limited harm … would be outweighed by the substantial weight attributed to the use of underutilised brownfield land, the site's location within a settlement and the affordable housing secured by a Unilateral Undertaking. Accordingly … Policy S4 of the Framework is a material consideration which indicates that the benefits of the scheme substantially outweigh its adverse effects" (DL ¶22). The inspector states the test the wrong way round (benefits must substantially outweigh) — a stricter test than S4 requires, so the error does not undermine the outcome. ## What made the difference The Council's design and outlook objections did not hold up on site: the low roof profile, deep neighbouring gardens and the open space made possible by the car-free layout. That left only the disabled parking shortfall, and its practical effect was blunted by on-street permits for blue badge holders. With the L2(1)(b) car-park example ("building on … car parks … which are no longer required") giving substantial weight, the S4 balance was easy. ## Transferable points - L2(1)(b) substantial weight applies to redeveloping an underutilised private car park for housing (DL ¶21). - A policy conflict over disabled parking can be outweighed where blue badge holders retain on-street permit access (DL ¶¶15–16, 22). - A car-free layout can be credited with freeing space for landscaping and open space, countering overdevelopment arguments (DL ¶6). - Drafting slip: S4 applied as "benefits … substantially outweigh its adverse effects" (DL ¶22), inverting the S4 wording; also significant weight to a conflict with only limited harm (DL ¶¶19–20). - PD rights removed as "exceptionally necessary" given density and backland location (DL ¶28). ## Policy findings - **S4: pass.** within settlement; limited harm from disabled parking shortfall does not outweigh benefits; inspector phrases test inverted as "benefits … substantially outweigh its adverse effects" (DL 21-22) - **L2(1)(b): benefit (substantial weight).** underutilised brownfield car park; substantial weight (DL 21-22) - **DP3: pass.** not cited; character found acceptable under London Plan D3 / CDH01 (DL 4-8) - **London Plan T6.1, LP TRC03: conflict (significant weight).** no disabled persons parking (3% requirement); magnitude of harm limited because blue badge holders can still get on-street permits (DL 14-16, 19-20) - **HO8: benefit.** affordable housing secured by UU; amount and weight not stated (DL 22) ## Key facts - Site is an office car park, laid to hardstanding, in a dense two-storey terraced residential area - Car-free scheme with permit-free obligation; two disabled bays removed at Council's request for lack of room - Blue badge holders not excluded from permits; on-street parking available nearby - Undisputed that site is underutilised brownfield land and residential use acceptable in principle - Housing land supply figure not stated - Parties given opportunity to comment on 2026 Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007373 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c07c5559-1c84-4a7f-8db9-5c85efb9f33f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007373.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 3 and 5 Montpellier Street, Harrogate - **Decision:** dismissed, 1 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Teasdale - **Authority:** North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6007391 - **Application reference:** 25/01921/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Rebuilding of long-demolished cottages to form 1 retail unit and 1 two-bed apartment, with balcony, external access and gates - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE4, HE6, HE7, HE9, S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Harrogate District Local Plan 2014-2035 HP2, HP3, HP4, Harrogate Conservation Area Character Appraisal, House Extensions and Garages Design Guide 2005 - **Main issues:** conservation area and NDHA setting, neighbour living conditions - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, ndha-harm, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, living-conditions, transitional-no-consultation, drafting-slip, old-wording-slip, small-scheme ## Summary Rebuilding two long-demolished cottages behind Montpellier Parade, Harrogate, as a shop and a two-bed flat. Dismissed. The replacement was bulkier and over-fenestrated compared with the modest originals, and its four dormers would be prominent. The Inspector put the harm to the conservation area at "the higher end of the spectrum", with further harm to the setting of the locally listed parade and neighbours' outlook and privacy. Public benefits got substantial weight in total but did not justify the harm under HE4/HE6. The S4 presumption was displaced. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I have considered its amendments against the December 2024 version ... the changes relevant to this appeal are not substantive or determinative to the outcome of my decision. I have therefore not gone back to the parties" (DL ¶3). - **Heritage — HE5/HE6/HE9: HARM.** The Inspector sets out HE5's three categories of effect and HE6's substantial weight to conservation (DL ¶8). The building "would read as a bulky addition and not be reflective of the rhythm of the built form" (DL ¶18). "Given the scale and prominence of the proposals, the extent of harm would be at the higher end of the spectrum" (DL ¶21). - **Historic precedent argued.** "I appreciate that the scheme seeks to replicate the scale of the cottages, but these have long since been demolished and I must determine the scheme based on its own merits" (DL ¶17). - **Derelict site.** "I am also not persuaded that the derelict state of the site cannot be improved by other means" (DL ¶36). - **Benefits.** The Inspector cites Framework statements that "substantial weight should be given to the benefits of improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings and to proposals that make more effective use of land", and attaches "substantial weight to the public benefits of the proposal" (DL ¶24). - **Living conditions: HARM.** A neighbour's window would be fully obscured by a wall at close range, and a new amenity balcony differs from a fire escape: "a balcony serving a fire escape route is different to a balcony being used for amenity space" (DL ¶¶27, 29). ## Planning balance The HE6/HE7 heritage balance was run first. High-end CA harm (substantial weight) plus NDHA harm outweighed public benefits of substantial weight: "the magnitude of those benefits taking into account the nature and scale of one small retail and residential unit is not sufficient" (DL ¶25). Then S4: "the benefits of the proposed development would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶40). ## What made the difference The site is small but prominent from a busy tourist street, and the design added bulk and dormers the historic cottages never had. The Inspector separated the weight category (substantial) from the magnitude of the benefit, which was small for one flat and one shop. A lower, simpler building with rooflights instead of four dormers, and no amenity balcony facing neighbours' windows, would probably have passed. ## Transferable points - Benefits can be given "substantial weight" and still be small in magnitude. The HE6 balance looks at "the magnitude of those benefits taking into account the nature and scale" (DL ¶25). - Historical evidence that buildings once stood on a site is only a material consideration. The new scheme is judged on its own design (DL ¶17). - "Site will stay derelict" is not a justification for harmful development if other means of tidying exist (DL ¶36). - HE5 is used to classify effects, with the harm then graded ("higher end of the spectrum") (DL ¶¶8, 21). - Drafting slip: the letter refers to 2024-style Framework chapters ("chapters 14 and 20", "Chapter 6") (DL ¶¶23, 26, 34). ## Policy findings - **HE6: harm (substantial weight).** high-end harm to Harrogate CA; bulky, over-fenestrated building with 4 closely spaced dormers, prominent from Montpellier Street (DL 18-21, 25) - **HE4: fail.** harm not justified (DL 22, 25) - **HE7: harm.** harm to setting of NDHA 15-18 Montpellier Parade (building of local interest), adding weight (DL 21, 25) - **HE9: fail.** fails to reflect rhythm and roofscape of rear of the terrace (DL 9, 18) - **P3: harm (substantial weight).** window at No 15 fully obscured, and balcony overlooking No 17-18; future occupiers acceptable (DL 27-34). Framework cited only as "chapter 14" - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** housing at no five-year supply, plus retail unit, energy efficiency, tidying derelict site; public benefits given substantial weight collectively (DL 23-24) - **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 39-40) ## Key facts - The cottages were demolished long ago (1960 photo shows smaller buildings); replication of the historic footprint is a material consideration only (DL 15-17) - Council cannot show a five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 23) - Decided without consulting the parties; the Inspector compared the 2024 and 2026 versions and found the changes "not substantive or determinative" (DL 3) - Letter refers to Framework "chapters 14 and 20" and "Chapter 6", but the 2026 Framework has policy codes, not those chapters (DL 23, 26, 34) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007391 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4383762d-9207-47fe-92f7-c87da38c4f0f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007391.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Emmanuel Ranch, Windmill Road, Towersey - **Decision:** part-allowed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Nicholls - **Authority:** South Oxfordshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007396 - **Application reference:** P25/S3791/DIS - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Approval of details for conditions 6 (site development scheme), 7 (biodiversity compensation) and 8 (contamination) on an enforcement-appeal deemed permission for a mixed equestrian/caravan site (APP/Q2115/C/3346856) - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** DM6 - **Main issues:** discharge of conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, no-framework-reference, discharge-of-conditions, split-decision, biodiversity ## Summary A discharge-of-conditions appeal for a caravan site at Towersey that was permitted through an enforcement appeal. Split decision. The contamination details (condition 8) were approved. The site development scheme and biodiversity compensation details were refused because they did not match what is on the ground. No Framework policy was engaged. ## What made the difference Inconsistency between the submitted plans and the site as built: a hardcore area shown as retained grassland, and drainage percolation values relied on but never supplied (DL ¶6, 9-13). ## Policy findings - **DM6: neutral.** code mapped by harvester — condition 8 details approved; condition 6 refused (hardcore area not returned to grass, no percolation values, excessive/unsuitable surface-water scheme); condition 7 refused (HMMP assumes retained 0.422ha grassland that is partly hard-surfaced, so the 34% area-based loss is understated) (DL 4-15) ## Key facts - HMMP records 34.01% area-based and 22.27% linear habitat net loss, offset by credits - Pole-mounted lighting still present; proposed low-level lighting an improvement ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007396 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/df4ca9fe-fc31-4cfa-8fa6-f579694ff1b5 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007396.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south of Morkery Lane, Castle Bytham - **Decision:** dismissed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Fulford - **Authority:** South Kesteven (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6007403 - **Application reference:** S25/1902 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline, up to 3 dwellings (all matters reserved) - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, conservation-area, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j)(i), S5(4), HE6 - **Development plan policies:** South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036 SP4, EN1, EN6, DE1 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, setting of conservation area - **Tags:** s5-1-j, s5-4-exceptional, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area-setting, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, costs-application, he6-harm-ungraded, settlement-edge ## Summary Outline permission for up to three houses on part of a sloping field immediately outside the settlement and conservation area boundaries of Castle Bytham. Dismissed. The Council had no five-year supply, so S5(1)(j) was relevant. The inspector held the scheme was not "physically well-related" to the settlement because it would spill over the settlement's defined hedged edge, down the slope into countryside, harming the conservation area's rural setting. Having fallen outside every S5 category, the scheme failed the S5(4) exceptional-circumstances test. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Those parts of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have been amended. As a result, parties have been provided with an opportunity to make further submissions" (DL ¶6). - **Character / CA setting: HARM.** "given that the site slopes down away from the village the development would give the impression of built form 'spilling over' the current settlement edge into the wider countryside … an obtrusive extension of the village into the countryside in an unsympathetic manner" (DL ¶13). Landscaping would "merely block views into the Conservation Area" (DL ¶18). - **HE6.** Setting harm (ungraded). "given the proposal is for just three dwellings, the benefits would be modest in extent and would not outweigh the harm identified to the setting of the CA" (DL ¶20). - **S5(1)(j)(i): FAIL.** "criterion (j) is relevant as the Council does not currently have a 5-year housing land supply. However, criterion (j)(i) goes on to state that developments should be physically well-related to an existing settlement. For the reasons set out above, the proposal would detract from the current attractive rural setting of Castle Bytham … The development would thus not be physically well-related to the existing settlement" (DL ¶22). - **S5(4): FAIL.** "These benefits would not substantially outweigh the identified adverse effects to the CA and there are therefore no exceptional circumstances" (DL ¶23). ## Planning balance The S5(4) exceptional-circumstances route: modest housing and economic benefits against harm to the conservation area's setting and to character. The HE6 balance was also run and failed (DL ¶20). ## What made the difference Topography and the defined edge. Although the site physically adjoins the settlement boundary, it lies beyond a hedged ridge line that marks the village edge, and it slopes away into open countryside. The inspector treated "physically well-related" as a matter of how the development relates to the settlement's form, not just adjacency. This is significant: a site touching the boundary can still fail (j)(i). A level site within the existing edge, or one enclosed by development, would have been read differently. ## Transferable points - Adjacency to a settlement boundary is not enough for S5(1)(j)(i). Development that "spills over" a defined settlement edge into sloping countryside can be "not physically well-related" (DL ¶¶13, 22). - Character and heritage harm can be folded into the (j)(i) "well-related" test itself, pushing the scheme into S5(4), where benefits must substantially outweigh harm (DL ¶¶22–23). - Landscape screening that blocks views into a conservation area is not mitigation of setting harm (DL ¶¶14, 18). - An unspecified footpath link in an outline scheme gets no weight (DL ¶15). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j)(i): fail.** no 5YHLS so (j) relevant, but development "spilling over" a defined settlement edge down a slope is "not physically well-related" — character harm used as the test (DL 13, 22) - **S5(4): fail.** modest benefits of 3 homes do not substantially outweigh CA harm; no exceptional circumstances (DL 23) - **HE6: harm.** harm to rural setting of Castle Bytham CA (degree not graded); modest benefits do not outweigh (DL 16, 20) - **HO7: benefit.** three homes where unmet need; "modest" (DL 20, 23) ## Key facts - Site adjoins settlement boundary and CA boundary but slopes away from the village beyond a well-defined hedged edge (DL 8, 12-13) - Morkery Lane unlit, no footway; suggested footpath link unspecified so no weight (DL 8, 15) - Council lacks a 5YHLS (figure not stated) (DL 22) - Framework parts "most relevant to this appeal have been amended"; parties invited to comment (DL 6) - Costs application by appellant decided separately (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007403 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6e39d3d7-fa31-41ab-89c7-829bf1a072b3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007403.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 50 Nutfield Road, Merstham (launderette to Class E) - **Decision:** allowed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Claire Coles - **Authority:** Reigate and Banstead (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007410 - **Application reference:** 25/01684/CU - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of launderette to Use Class E (commercial), replacement shopfront and stepped and ramped access - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HC6(1) - **Development plan policies:** Reigate & Banstead Development Management Plan 2019 INF2, Annex 3 - **Main issues:** loss of community facility - **Tags:** tier-2, community-facility, marketing-evidence, hc6-marketing-12-months, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, local-policy-consistency ## Summary Change of use of a vacant launderette in the Merstham local centre to a general Class E use. Allowed: the marketing evidence met the local plan's six-month test and HC6(1)(a), so there would be no unjustified loss of a community facility. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "This decision was based on the Framework issued on the 17 August 2026. I have sought comments from the main parties" (DL ¶2). - **HC6(1) 12-month marketing.** "the 12-month marketing period only applies to shops (Use Class E) and public houses. A launderette is a sui generis use and therefore does not fall into either category" (DL ¶7). - **Plan weight.** "Policy INF2 of the DMP is not materially inconsistent with the Framework" (DL ¶9). - **Marketing: PASS.** "I am satisfied that the use of POA would not have deterred serious prospective tenants" (DL ¶16); "the proposal would comply with Policy INF2 1.a of the DMP and HC6 of the Framework and would not result in the unjustified loss of the community facility" (DL ¶16). ## Planning balance No balance: compliance with INF2 and HC6(1) settles the case. ## What made the difference Twelve months' unsuccessful marketing overall, including six at a reduced, evidenced rent. Marketing at "Price on Application" was accepted as established practice (DL ¶12–13). ## Transferable points - HC6(1)(a)'s 12-month marketing rule is limited to shops and pubs; other key community facilities (here a sui generis launderette) are judged on viability evidence generally (DL ¶7). - Marketing at "Price on Application" need not deter serious enquiries (DL ¶12–13). - Asking a landlord to fund a tenant's fit-out goes beyond "reasonable steps to market" (DL ¶16). ## Policy findings - **HC6(1): pass.** launderette (sui generis) is a key community facility but the 12-month marketing requirement applies only to shops and pubs; in any case marketed about 12 months overall (6 at reduced rent) without success; no unjustified loss (DL 5-7, 16) - **Transitional(2): neutral.** INF2 "not materially inconsistent with the Framework"; Annex 3 read alongside the Framework (DL 9) ## Key facts - Only remaining commercial unit in the west side of the local centre; others converted to housing under prior approval (DL 4) - Marketing at "Price on Application" found acceptable; rent reduced Feb 2026; council accepted 6 months at reduced rent (DL 12-14) - Landlord fit-out contribution for a launderette beyond reasonable marketing steps (DL 16) - Parties' comments sought on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007410 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/661f9918-7bf5-4442-8f7a-bb2f0d157a64 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007410.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to Red Lane, Rosudgeon - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Alison Fish - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007416 - **Application reference:** PA25/04855 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 1 to 5 dwellings - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.8 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j)(i), HE4, HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan 2016 Policies 1, 3, 23, 24, Perranuthnoe Parish NP 2019-30 CW5, HCA1, Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1 - **Main issues:** suitability of location, land use and amount incl. World Heritage Site - **Tags:** PIP, s5-1-j, substantially-outweighed, heritage-harm-decisive, world-heritage-site, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Permission in principle for up to five houses on a field at the edge of Rosudgeon, inside the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site. Dismissed. The site met S5(1)(j) (3.8–3.9-year supply, physically well related), but it is a surviving historic mineworkers' smallholding contributing to the WHS's Outstanding Universal Value. Even minor harm to an asset "of the highest significance", given substantial weight under HE6, meant the moderate benefits were substantially outweighed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties have had the opportunity to comment on the implications of these changes for the appeal" (DL ¶2). - **Rounding off — CLP Policy 3: FAIL.** The low hedgebank "does not provide a strong sense of enclosure"; "Development on the appeal site would visually extend building into the countryside and therefore the proposal would not constitute rounding off" (DL ¶¶10–11). - **S5(1)(j): PASS.** "The close proximity to existing residential development means that the site is physically well related to the settlement" (DL ¶9); "the 5 year housing land supply position indicates an unmet need for housing and I have determined that the proposal would be physically well-related to the existing settlement. The criteria in Policy S5 (j) have therefore been met" (DL ¶24). - **WHS — HE6: HARM.** Site "was historically a mineworkers' smallholding. As such, the site exhibits one of the seven attributes which … convey and express the OUV" (DL ¶13); "even for a single dwelling would erode the legibility of the site as a historic mineworkers' smallholding. The presence of other surviving smallholdings elsewhere in the WHS, does not … reduce the significance of the appeal site" (DL ¶15); "Whilst the harm is likely to be minor … any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶16). - **PIP scope.** Food-growing space, hedge repair and biodiversity "cannot be secured at permission in principle stage"; good design "is a general expectation … rather than a benefit" — very limited weight (DL ¶19). ## Planning balance Two balances. HE6 heritage balance: housing (moderate) and economic/social benefits (moderate) "do not outweigh the harm to the designated heritage asset of the highest significance" (DL ¶¶17–20). S5(1) balance: "I have given substantial weight to the assets conservation and conclude that in this instance the benefits would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effect to the WHS" (DL ¶28). s38(6) conclusion (DL ¶29). ## What made the difference The site's own historic character: its elongated plot and surviving boundaries as a mineworkers' smallholding, one of the attributes of the WHS's OUV. That made even minor harm decisive, because HE6(1) scales weight to the importance of the asset and a WHS is at the top. Housing benefits of up to five homes were held to only moderate weight despite a 3.8-year supply. The nearby Red Lane appeal went the other way because nine affordable homes attracted significant weight. ## Transferable points - Passing S5(1)(j) does not secure approval: minor harm to a WHS attribute can "substantially outweigh" small housing benefits (DL ¶28). - HE6(1) "the more important the asset, the greater the weight" does real work: minor harm to a WHS outweighed moderate benefits (DL ¶¶16, 20, 28). - Other surviving examples of the same attribute elsewhere in the WHS do not reduce the significance of the one affected (DL ¶15). - Benefits that cannot be secured at PIP stage (biodiversity, planting) get very limited weight; good design is not a benefit (DL ¶19). - Housing benefit of up to five market homes given only moderate weight at a 3.8–3.9-year supply, without citing HO7's substantial-weight direction (DL ¶17) — a possible inconsistency with HO7(1). - HE8 (World Heritage Sites) was not cited; the WHS was treated as a designated asset under HE4/HE6. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j)(i): pass.** 3.8/3.9-yr supply; site physically well related to Rosudgeon (DL 9, 24) - **HE6: harm (substantial weight).** minor harm to OUV of Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape WHS through erosion of legibility of a historic mineworkers' smallholding; HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation, HE6(3) considerable importance and weight; public benefits moderate (DL 13-20, 28) - **HE4: fail.** cited in final balance — conserve in a manner appropriate to significance (DL 28) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** up to five homes; modest but useful contribution; HO7 not named (DL 17) - **CLP Policy 3: conflict.** not rounding off; site not substantially enclosed, visually extends into countryside (DL 7-11) ## Key facts - Council supply 3.8 or 3.9 years (DL 17) - Site is a rectangular field, historically a mineworkers' smallholding with surviving boundaries, within Tregonning and Gwinear area of the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape WHS (DL 12-14) - Harm "likely to be minor" even for one dwelling (DL 15-16) - Low stone-faced hedgebank on east boundary allows views to open countryside; not rounding off (DL 10-11) - Nearby Red Lane appeal APP/D0840/W/25/3367115 (9 affordable homes, significant weight) distinguished (DL 22) - Parties given opportunity to comment on 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007416 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/214bbcaa-b2dd-47fe-be38-30a51f74aa6e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007416.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Brookfields Farm, Longhill Lane, Hankelow - **Decision:** allowed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Ann Veevers - **Authority:** Cheshire East (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007422 - **Application reference:** 25/3355/PRIOR-3Q - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class Q prior approval, agricultural barn to two dwellings (linked appeal 6007456) - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3, P4 - **Main issues:** scope of Class Q works, highways/PROW, location and siting - **Tags:** tier-2, class-q, prior-approval, agent-of-change, bng-habitat-bank ## Summary Class Q conversion of a steel-framed barn to two dwellings was granted. The works were reasonably necessary, and highway, PROW and siting objections failed. P3 applied through GPDO paragraph W(10)(b) and the P4 agent-of-change principle were both considered, but the discrete siting away from farm activity was decisive. There were "no substantive changes" in the 2026 Framework on these matters (DL ¶3). ## What made the difference The retained structure and cladding, and separation from the livestock buildings. "it would be unreasonable to preclude development in every location where street lighting and footways are absent" given that Class Q anticipates rural homes (DL ¶28). ## Policy findings - **P3: pass.** via GPDO W(10)(b); separation from farm buildings and intervening dwellings avoids unacceptable disturbance/odour even if farming intensifies (DL 41-48) - **P4: pass.** agent-of-change tension noted but siting discrete (DL 46-47) - **TR4: pass.** GPDO Q.2(1)(a): unlit track/PROW with no footway not fatal for Class Q; parking outside curtilage acceptable (DL 25-37) ## Key facts - Internal party-wall strip footing (6.5 m) still "reasonably necessary" under Q.1(j) - Surrounding land in a registered BNG habitat bank for 30 years ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1de4f3f1-83dc-4663-8eff-b8ad20e431e9 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007422 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007422.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 11 Quantock Road, Weston-super-Mare - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Harrington - **Authority:** North Somerset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007423 - **Application reference:** 26/P/0180/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Single-storey dwelling in rear garden of flats, with demolition of garage and alterations to existing flats - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, flood-zone-3, garden-land - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** F5, F6, S4 - **Development plan policies:** North Somerset Core Strategy 2017 CS3, CS12, Sites and Policies Plan Part 1 2016 DM1, DM32, DM37, DM38, Residential Design Guide SPD 2013 - **Main issues:** flood risk sequential and exception tests, neighbour living conditions, future occupier living conditions - **Tags:** flood-risk, sequential-test-failed, exception-test-failed, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, s4-substantially-outweighed, drafting-slip, garden-land, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary One bungalow in a rear garden in Weston-super-Mare, in Flood Zone 3a on the SFRA. Dismissed. The sequential test was flawed: it discounted sites for being for sale or larger than needed. The exception test also failed, because a single-storey dwelling had no refuge and no safe access or egress. HO7 was given substantial weight (no 5YHLS), but F5/F6 were treated as refusal policies and outweighed it. Living conditions were acceptable. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties had the opportunity to comment; the 2026 Framework was applied (DL ¶2). - **Flood zone.** "Policy F5.3 of the Framework states that the strategic flood risk assessment ... should provide the evidential basis for applying the sequential test. As such ... I must consider that the appeal site is within flood zone 3a" (DL ¶6). - **Sequential test — F5: FAIL.** "land ownership, or indeed if a site is for sale does not directly indicate that a site does not have a reasonable prospect of being developed ... I see no reason why a larger site could not accommodate the type and quantum of development proposed" (DL ¶11). - **Exception test — F6: FAIL.** "given that the proposal would be single storey with no areas of refuge, and no details of safe access or egress during a flood event, I cannot be sure that the proposal would be safe for its anticipated lifetime" (DL ¶13). - **Living conditions: PASS** (DL ¶¶18, 21). ## Planning balance S4 framed (DL ¶25). For: HO7 substantial weight for one dwelling given no 5YHLS, plus modest economic and social benefits (DL ¶26). Against: "Framework Policy F6 indicates that the proposal would not be appropriate and should be refused, to which I afford significant weight. Consequently, I find that the proposal would not result in sustainable development" (DL ¶27). The letter never states that benefits were *substantially* outweighed, and weighs the flood harm at only "significant" against a "substantial" HO7 benefit. The logic rests on F6 as a refusal trigger (implicitly S4(2)). ## What made the difference A defective sequential test and no evidence of safe refuge or escape. Contrast PINS-6004929 (Catford), where a missing sequential test was outweighed because the scheme reduced risk by removing basement bedrooms and much of the surrounding area floods. Here a new single-storey dwelling increased the number of people exposed, with no refuge. A two-storey design with refuge and a properly reasoned sequential test (not discounting sites on ownership or size) would have given the appellant a much stronger case. ## Transferable points - Under F5(3) the SFRA is the evidential basis for the sequential test; an appellant's own unverified level survey will not displace it (DL ¶6). - Sites are not "unavailable" merely because they are in other ownership, for sale, or larger than needed (DL ¶11, following PPG). - A single-storey home in FZ3a with no refuge and no safe access/egress detail fails the exception test (DL ¶13). - F6 operates as a refusal policy that can defeat HO7 substantial weight in the S4 balance even without a 5YHLS (DL ¶¶26–27). - Drafting: the S4 conclusion was not stated in "substantially outweighed" terms (DL ¶27). ## Policy findings - **F5: fail (significant weight).** SFRA FZ3a governs under F5(3) despite appellant's own levels survey; sequential test wrongly discounted sites on ownership/sale status and larger size (DL 4-12) - **F6: fail (significant weight).** exception test not met; single storey with no refuge, no safe access/egress detail, no wider sustainability benefits; F6 indicates refusal (DL 13, 27) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** no 5YHLS; one dwelling given substantial weight (DL 26) - **S4: fail.** not expressly concluded as substantially outweighed; "would not result in sustainable development" (DL 25-27) - **DP3: pass.** neighbour and future-occupier living conditions acceptable though cramped (DL 15-21) ## Key facts - Environment Agency says FZ2/3; SFRA says FZ3a; appellant's unexplained spot levels claimed FZ1 (DL 4-6) - Sequential test search area limited to Weston settlement boundary accepted as proportionate (DL 9) - Council cannot demonstrate a 5YHLS (figure not stated) (DL 26) - Allowed 190-home appeal with a failed sequential test distinguished on scale of benefits (DL 22) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007423 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e7e70ae6-81f2-4698-92ba-15f3872c4598 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007423.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to Model Farm, Plex Lane, Halsall - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Chris Mayes - **Authority:** West Lancashire (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007428 - **Application reference:** 2025/0998/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 1-3 dwellings - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** green-belt, rural-lane, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 GN3, IF2, RS1 - **Main issues:** grey belt, sustainable location, inappropriate development, openness, VSC balance - **Tags:** PIP, grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, s5-1-e-infill, comparator-distinguished-footway ## Summary A PIP for up to three dwellings on a gap along a rural 60 mph lane in the West Lancashire Green Belt. The site was accepted as grey belt and unmet need was established. However, the lack of any footway between the site and the pedestrian network at Southport Road meant it failed GB7(1)(g)(iii)/TR3, even though the distance was short and some street lighting existed. As inappropriate development with openness harm, it was dismissed on the VSC balance. The S5(5) balance was expressly held not to be engaged. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were given the opportunity to comment on the revised Framework (DL ¶2). - **Grey belt: PASS.** "purpose (c) does not form part of the assessment of whether land is grey belt. Moreover, the relevant question in respect of purpose (a) is whether the site makes a strong contribution to restricting the sprawl of a large built-up area" (DL ¶9). The Inspector refers to "the guidance in Annex E of the Framework" (DL ¶10). - **Sustainable location (iii) / TR3: FAIL.** "the issue is whether future occupants would have realistic and safe opportunities to reach the pedestrian network, public transport and nearby services and facilities without relying principally on the private car" (DL ¶14). "The absence of a footway between the site and the existing pedestrian network is a significant constraint. Pedestrians would be required to walk within the carriageway … The presence of street lighting along parts of Plex Lane does not overcome the absence of dedicated pedestrian provision" (DL ¶15). "Although the distance involved is relatively short, the quality and safety of the route materially limit its usefulness … the proposal would not provide good accessibility for different users or offer a genuine choice of transport modes" (DL ¶16). - **Comparator distinguished.** Holly Farm nearby was approved because "a footway connection to Southport Road was secured" (DL ¶¶13, 17). May Cottages (APP/P2365/W/25/3375999, Feb 2026) was also considered. - **S5(1)(e) infill.** Loose-knit pattern, "In any event, whether the proposal could reasonably be described as infilling does not determine the sustainability of its location" (DL ¶18). - **Openness: localised spatial and visual harm** from consolidating a loose-knit group (DL ¶¶22–24). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to inappropriateness, plus openness harm and car-reliance harm. Moderate weight to 1–3 homes. VSC not shown (DL ¶27). "as the proposal would be inappropriate development under Policy GB7, the further balance applicable to development that is not inappropriate under Policy S5(5) is not engaged" (DL ¶28). ## What made the difference The missing footway link. The Inspector contrasted this site with the neighbouring Holly Farm scheme, which was acceptable because it secured a footway connection. A short distance and partial lighting could not make up for walking in the carriageway of a 60 mph lane with farm traffic. If a continuous footway to Southport Road had been deliverable, limb (iii) would probably have passed. ## Transferable points - Under GB7(1)(g)(iii)/TR3 the test is "realistic and safe opportunities" to reach services "without relying principally on the private car" (DL ¶14). - A short distance does not save a route with no footway on a narrow, fast rural lane; street lighting "does not overcome the absence of dedicated pedestrian provision" (DL ¶¶15–16). - A nearby approval that secured a footway link is distinguishable where the appeal scheme offers none (DL ¶¶13, 17). - Purpose (c) is irrelevant to grey belt status; purpose (a) asks whether the site strongly restricts the sprawl of a *large* built-up area (DL ¶9). - Where GB7 fails, the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance is not engaged (DL ¶28). - The small scale of a scheme is acknowledged, but the extra movement is still "noticeable in the context of this lightly developed rural location" (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** confined parcel well beyond any large built-up area; purpose (c) irrelevant to grey belt; relevant question on (a) is a "strong" contribution to restricting sprawl of a large built-up area; Annex E guidance applied (DL 7-10) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** 1-3 dwellings would not fundamentally undermine purposes across the plan area (DL 20) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** no five-year supply = unmet need (figure not stated) (DL 20) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): fail.** 60 mph narrow hedged lane used by agricultural traffic, no footway between site and pedestrian network; some street lighting does not overcome this (DL 12-16, 19) - **GB7(1)(g)(iv): not-engaged.** not major (DL 20) - **TR3: fail.** no "genuine choice of transport modes"; would not improve walking/wheeling connectivity (DL 16) - **S5(1)(e): fail.** loose-knit pattern, not a continuous frontage; infilling status would not decide sustainability anyway (DL 18) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriate development plus localised spatial and visual openness harm (DL 21-24) - **S5(5): not-engaged.** S5(5) balance applies only to development that is not inappropriate (DL 28) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** 1-3 dwellings, no certainty of 3 (DL 25) ## Key facts - Plex Lane is narrow, hedge-bounded, 60 mph, used by agricultural vehicles; some street lighting; no footway by the site - Nearby Holly Farm scheme was permitted with a secured footway link to Southport Road; this scheme offered none - Distance to the pedestrian network "relatively short", but pedestrians must walk in the carriageway - Appellant also relied on S5(1)(e) infilling ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007428 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f80ed7ae-5e96-4781-b6b9-ea0dafa4bbcc --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007428.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land east of Lower Clicker Close, Clicker, Menheniot - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Nick Davies - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007431 - **Application reference:** PA25/07800 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for one dwelling on part of a grass field next to a hamlet - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.9 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S6(1), S5(1)(j), HO7 - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 Policies 2, 3, 7, 9, 21, Menheniot Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan 2021-2030 Policies 1, 5 - **Main issues:** suitable location, land use, amount - **Tags:** PIP, s5-1-j, neighbourhood-plan, s6-neighbourhood-plan, housing-shortfall, infill-rejected, habitats-mitigation, old-balance-wording, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme ## Summary Permission in principle for one dwelling on part of a field on the edge of Clicker, outside the Neighbourhood Plan development boundary. Dismissed. The scheme passed S5(1)(j) because Cornwall had a 3.9-year supply and the site was well related to the hamlet. But the Menheniot Neighbourhood Plan was made in April 2022, less than five years before the decision, and allocates sites to meet its identified requirement. S6 therefore applied, and the conflict with NP Policy 1 carried substantial weight that outweighed the benefit of one home. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Both parties have had the opportunity to comment on its implications" (DL ¶9). - **Habitats (PiP eligibility).** Mitigation was already paid under a S111 agreement, so the proposal "would not, therefore, be habitats development, so can be considered under the permission in principle application procedure" (DL ¶8). - **Spatial strategy — CLP 3/7, NP 1: CONFLICT.** Not infill (not in a built frontage). Not PDL: "the area covered is a relatively small proportion of the overall site" (DL ¶13). Not rounding off: "the eastern boundary of the site is an arbitrary line across the middle of the field … The lack of any substantial boundary features would also create the potential for further incremental growth" (DL ¶¶14–15). - **S5(1)(j): PASS.** "As the location of the site is well-related to the settlement, and a single dwelling would be appropriate in scale, the Framework's approach … as set out at Policy S5 1.j, is a material consideration of critical importance" (DL ¶18). - **Spatial strategy weight.** The inspector quoted Annex A ¶2 (no reduced weight just for pre-dating the Framework) but then gave "only moderate weight" because the plan "is not delivering a sufficient supply of homes" (DL ¶20). - **S6: FAIL.** "Policy S6 of the Framework advises that the benefits of approving development are likely to be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects where a proposal would conflict with a neighbourhood plan that has been made within the last five years, and which contains allocations to meet its identified housing requirement" (DL ¶21). The allocations have not come forward, "but there is no evidence before me to demonstrate that they cannot be delivered … I therefore give substantial weight to the conflict with Policy 1 of the Neighbourhood Plan" (DL ¶23). The appellant's challenge to the NP's housing figure failed because the plan had been examined (DL ¶22). ## Planning balance S5(1)(j) balance with S6 as the operative harm. Benefits: HO7 substantial; economic modest (DL ¶19). Harms: CLP conflict moderate; NP conflict substantial (DL ¶¶20, 23). Conclusion: "having particular regard to Policy S6, the adverse impacts of the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶24). That is the old tilted-balance wording, not S5's "substantially outweighed", though the result is the same. An earlier Cornwall appeal was distinguished because that scheme was rounding off and complied with the NP (DL ¶25). ## What made the difference The Neighbourhood Plan's date and content. It was made in April 2022, less than five years before the decision, and contained allocations, so S6 gave the NP boundary substantial weight despite a 3.9-year supply and an S5(1)(j) pass. Slow delivery of the allocations did not matter without evidence that they could not be delivered. The appellant's two other routes also failed: rounding off (the site's boundaries were not defined) and PDL (hardstanding on only a small part). The result would likely reverse once the NP passes five years (April 2027), or if the allocations were shown to be undeliverable. ## Transferable points - S6 can defeat an S5(1)(j) pass: a neighbourhood plan made within five years with allocations meeting its identified requirement gives substantial weight to NP boundary conflict, even with a 3.9-year district supply (DL ¶¶18, 21–24). - For S6, allocations that are slow to come forward still count unless there is evidence they cannot be delivered; a partial commercial permission on an allocation is not enough (DL ¶23). - An examined NP's housing requirement cannot be reopened at appeal (DL ¶22). - S6 has an expiry date: once the NP is more than five years old, S6 no longer applies (NP made April 2022, so April 2027). - A small patch of hardstanding does not make a field PDL (DL ¶13). - Annex A ¶2 does not stop an inspector reducing weight to spatial-strategy policies for failing to deliver supply (DL ¶20). - Drafting slip: the conclusion uses the old "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" test rather than S5/S6's "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶24). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): pass.** 3.9-year supply; well related to Clicker and of appropriate scale; "a material consideration of critical importance" (DL 18) - **AnnexB:previously-developed-land: fail.** small area of hardstanding in one corner of a grass field does not make the site PDL (DL 13) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** evidenced unmet need; one dwelling (DL 19, 21) - **Annex A: neutral (moderate weight).** Annex A para 2 quoted (no reduced weight just for pre-dating the Framework), but spatial strategy conflict given only moderate weight because the plan is not delivering enough homes (DL 20) - **S6(1): fail (substantial weight).** NP made April 2022 (within 5 years) with allocations meeting its identified requirement; allocations not yet built but no evidence they cannot be delivered; conflict with NP Policy 1 given substantial weight (DL 21-23) - **CLP 2/3/7/21, NP 1: conflict.** not infill, not rounding off (open southern and eastern boundaries), not PDL; open countryside (DL 13-17) ## Key facts - Council supply 3.9 years — "the shortfall is considerable" (DL 18) - Menheniot NP made April 2022; identified need about 5 market and 19 affordable homes; allocations for about 20 homes plus an elderly care site; a further site for about 275 homes for the Liskeard and Looe CNA - Part of the CNA allocation now has commercial permission; no evidence housing cannot come forward on the rest (DL 23) - Eastern boundary an arbitrary line across the field; southern boundary a post and rail fence; north open to a pub car park - SAC/SPA recreational mitigation already paid under a S111 agreement, so PiP could proceed without being habitats development (DL 7-8) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007431 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a82912b9-28ca-4716-a369-1897ad00cfa1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007431.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 207 Lower Blandford Road, Broadstone (3 flats to the rear) - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Pickernell - **Authority:** Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007434 - **Application reference:** P/25/02928/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Three-storey block of three flats with cycle and bin store and parking, behind a commercial building with flats above - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.55 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, DP3(3), P3, L2(1)(d)(ii) - **Development plan policies:** Poole Local Plan 2018 PP27, PP29, PP33, Broadstone Neighbourhood Plan 2018 BP4 - **Main issues:** living conditions of neighbours, living conditions of future occupiers, biodiversity net gain - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, dp3-refuse-trigger, living-conditions, backland, fallback, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, l2-residential-curtilage, plan-policy-consistent-full-weight, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A three-storey block of three flats behind a commercial building with flats above, in Broadstone. Rear bedroom windows would face the existing flats at about 9 m and 15.8 m, causing mutual overlooking. With supply at about 2.55 years, housing got substantial weight and L3 efficiency significant weight, but the privacy harm was "substantial and long lasting", engaged DP3(3), P3 and L2(1)(d)(ii), and substantially outweighed the benefits under S4. A commenced two-flat permission was a real fallback but less harmful. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The Council and appellant were invited to make further comments" (DL ¶2). - **Neighbours' privacy: HARM.** "At these distances and given the direct nature of the overlooking which would occur, the occupiers of these existing bedrooms would experience a loss of privacy" (DL ¶7). Curtains are no answer: "it is not reasonable to expect existing occupiers to have to adopt such measures" (DL ¶7). - **Future occupiers' privacy: HARM** (DL ¶12, ¶14). - **BNG: no refusal.** "it would generally be inappropriate for decision makers, when determining a planning application for a development subject to BNG, to refuse an application on the grounds that the biodiversity gain objective will not be met" (DL ¶18). - **Fallback: significant weight, but less harmful.** "It therefore represents a realistic fallback position to which I attach significant weight" (DL ¶25). - **Plan weight.** "These policies are consistent with Policy DP3 of the Framework ... I therefore attach significant weight to the conflict with these policies" (DL ¶32). - **DP3(3): FAIL.** "I find conflict with DP3(1) and (2) because the proposal does not respond to its context through the arrangement of buildings or support the liveability of the development and because it would conflict with the design standards set out in the development plan" (DL ¶33). ## Planning balance S4. Substantial weight to three homes (HO7), significant weight to efficient use of PDL (L3), and L2's substantial weight to extra homes in existing plots, against substantial and long-lasting privacy harm. "the benefits of approving the development would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶34). ## What made the difference Window-to-window distances of 9 m and 15.8 m with direct views between bedrooms. The fallback scheme had only two storeys, so the third storey's extra windows and extra flat were the decisive difference. ## Transferable points - Privacy harm to amenity engages DP3(3) through DP3(1) (arrangement of buildings) and DP3(2)(a) (liveability), and L2(1)(d)(ii) (DL ¶32–33). - Amenity policies consistent with DP3, P3 and L2 keep significant weight (DL ¶32). - BNG is not a refusal reason where the minimum Article 7 information is supplied; the gain plan is the mechanism (DL ¶18–19). - A commenced older permission is a real fallback, but it does not help where the appeal scheme is materially more harmful (DL ¶25–26). ## Policy findings - **P3: fail (significant weight).** direct overlooking between six rear bedroom windows and the flats in No 207 at about 9 m and 15.8 m; harm to existing and future occupiers "substantial and long lasting"; outlook acceptable (DL 5-14, 31-32) - **L2(1)(d)(ii): fail (significant weight).** additional development within an existing plot must maintain acceptable living standards in terms of privacy (DL 32) - **DP3(3): fail.** conflict with DP3(1) (arrangement of buildings) and DP3(2) liveability, and with plan design standards; DP3(3) quoted but clear justification not separately assessed (DL 33) - **Transitional(2): accord (significant weight).** PP27 and BP4 consistent with DP3, P3 and L2, so significant weight to the conflict (DL 32) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** three homes, supply about 2.55 years (DL 29) - **L3: benefit (significant weight).** efficient use of PDL, density increase in an accessible location, plus construction benefits (DL 30) - **BNG (Sch 7A TCPA): pass.** minimum Article 7 information supplied; whether the gain objective is met is for the Biodiversity Gain Plan, not a refusal reason (DL 16-20) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 34) ## Key facts - Extant 2017 permission for two flats (commenced, confirmed by 2026 certificate) is a realistic fallback given significant weight, but the appeal scheme adds two bedroom windows and a flat without adequate privacy (DL 24-26) - No completed habitats obligation; appropriate assessment not needed as dismissed (DL 21-23) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007434 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/117eebf4-0c68-4163-a35e-5427fd0a1156 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007434.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Roman Road opposite 19 Shepherds Bush Green (replacement BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** allowed, 21 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C McDonagh - **Authority:** Hammersmith and Fulham (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6007449 - **Application reference:** 2025/00689/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Replacement of an InLink unit with a larger BT Street Hub 3 and digital advert screens (planning Appeal B; linked advert Appeal A 6007445) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE4 - **Development plan policies:** Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan 2018 DC1, DC9, DC10, T1, T3, London Plan 2021 D5, D8, T1, T2 - **Main issues:** character and heritage settings, public safety - **Tags:** tier-2, telecoms, street-hub, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A like-for-like replacement of an InLink kiosk with a larger BT Street Hub on Shepherd's Bush Green was allowed. The south side of the road contributes neutrally to the conservation area and the war memorial's setting, and similar screens already exist on bus stops (DL 11-17). ## What made the difference An existing hub on the same spot and a context of large bus-stop displays and modern buildings. ## Policy findings - **HE4: pass.** modern south side makes a neutral contribution to settings of Shepherd's Bush CA and Grade II war memorial; no harm (DL 8-17) - **TR6: pass.** one-way, low-speed road; screens not materially larger than bus-stop displays (DL 18-21) ## Key facts - Replaces an existing hub; screens 77.5% larger (DL 7) - No consultation on the 2026 Framework because it did not affect the main issues (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007449 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5aaa8e0a-9742-4d7f-8d7a-9042726e7fcc --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007449.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land to the rear of The White House, Munden Road, Dane End - **Decision:** allowed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Felgate - **Authority:** East Hertfordshire (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6007451 - **Application reference:** 3/25/1936/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Self-build/custom-build 1.5-storey dwelling with garage/studio outbuilding on a former tennis court behind a Grade II listed house - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, listed-building-setting, PDL, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(d), S5(1)(j), HE6 - **Development plan policies:** East Hertfordshire District Plan 2018 DPS2, GBR2, VILL2, DES2, DES3, DES4, HA1, HA7, WAT4 - **Main issues:** rural development policy, character and appearance, setting of listed building, trees and hedges - **Tags:** s5-1-d-pdl, s5-1-j, self-build, self-build-unsecured, heritage-no-harm, heritage-setting, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, plan-led, drafting-slip ## Summary A single self-build dwelling on a former tennis court in a field behind the Grade II listed White House at Dane End, just outside the village boundary. Allowed. The tennis court was PDL, so the scheme accorded with local policy GBR2(e) and with S5(1)(d). It also met S5(1)(j), given the district's lack of a five-year supply. The field was found to fall outside the listed building's setting, so the effect on the heritage asset was neutral. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "the appellants and the Council have been given an opportunity to comment on the relevance of the new NPPF policies" (DL ¶3). - **Principle — S5(1)(d) and (j): PASS.** "the requirements of NPPF Policy S5, under both 1d and 1j, are clearly met" (DL ¶10). The small non-PDL driveway incursion was "so small in my view, as to be of no real significance in policy terms ... necessary, to enable the main PDL area to be developed" (DL ¶8). - **Character: NO HARM.** The site is enclosed on two sides by housing, seen from about 60 m against trees. Any impact on the village setting "at most, limited and localised" (DL ¶13). - **Setting — HE6: NEUTRAL.** A functional link existed during the nursery period, but "None of the evidence establishes any link ... during the 1830s or mid-19th century, which is the period to which the building's significance primarily relates" (DL ¶19). "it is these garden areas that now form the limits of the listed building's current setting" (DL ¶21). A limited heritage statement was "proportionate" (DL ¶24). - **Self-build.** "the development is not secured as self- or custom build ... The potential benefit therefore carries only modest weight". An obligation was not needed because the scheme accords with the plan (DL ¶32). ## Planning balance No weighing was needed. The scheme accords with the development plan, "is supported by Policy S5", and "The acknowledged shortfall in the district's housing supply adds further weight". "None of the alleged adverse impacts have been substantiated" (DL ¶¶36-37). ## What made the difference Classing the tennis court as PDL put the scheme within both a local policy exception and S5(1)(d), so no balance was needed. On heritage, the appellant's map evidence showed that the field's link to the house began in the 20th century (the nursery), not in the period that gives the building its significance. The field was also screened by dense planting. The Council's argument about a functional link failed for lack of evidence of an original relationship. ## Transferable points - A hard-surfaced, fenced tennis court outside a village boundary can be PDL, bringing S5(1)(d) into play (DL ¶¶7, 10). - A minor non-PDL element needed to access the PDL (a driveway or turning area) does not defeat the principle (DL ¶8). - The setting argument depends on the relationship in the period that gives the building its significance. A later functional link, such as a 20th-century nursery, does not bring land within the setting (DL ¶¶19-21). - A modest heritage statement is enough if its accuracy is not disputed (DL ¶24). - Unsecured self-build gets only modest weight but is not needed where the scheme is otherwise acceptable (DL ¶32). - Drafting slip: the self-build policy is cited as "NPPF Policy H1-2i", which is not a 2026 code (probably HO5) (DL ¶31). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(d): pass.** tennis court (asphalt on engineered base, chain-link fencing) accepted as PDL; a small incursion into the field for the driveway is "of no real significance" (DL 7-10) - **S5(1)(j): pass.** no five-year supply accepted; site directly adjoins the settlement; single dwelling acceptable in scale (DL 10) - **HE6: neutral.** rear field outside the Grade II White House's current setting, which is limited to historic gardens; no meaningful intervisibility; relationship only via 20th-century nursery use; driveway works negligible (DL 16-25) - **HO5: benefit (moderate weight).** self-build not secured by UU or condition so "modest" weight; cited in the letter as "NPPF Policy H1-2i" (DL 31-32) - **EHDP GBR2(e): accord.** redevelopment of PDL in a sustainable location (Group 2 village with shop/post office and bus service) (DL 6-9) ## Key facts - The Council accepted the tennis court is PDL (DL 7) - Listed house's significance lies in its 1830-40 evidential value; the field was a glasshouse nursery by 1922, and its link to the house is recent (DL 16-19) - Loss of a category B liquidambar (not TPO) accepted as very limited harm (DL 27) - Parties invited to comment on the new Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007451 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b8f4ad02-813c-4f88-97a9-52d16911f8a8 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007451.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Brookfields Farm (Barn A), Longhill Lane, Hankelow - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Ann Veevers - **Authority:** Cheshire East (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007456 - **Application reference:** 25/3358/PRIOR-3Q - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class Q prior approval for change of use of a steel portal-frame agricultural building to 4 dwellings - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Q.2(1)(e), P3(2)(a) - **Main issues:** permitted development, location and siting (Q.2(1)(e)) - **Tags:** tier-2, class-q, prior-approval, living-conditions, agricultural-neighbour, parties-not-consulted-no-change ## Summary A Class Q conversion of a farm building to four homes. The building qualified as permitted development on curtilage and extent of works, but prior approval was refused under Q.2(1)(e). The dwellings would sit next to a large open-sided farm building and yard that could be used intensively in future, and no noise or odour assessment was provided. The inspector brought in P3(2)(a) of the 2026 Framework through GPDO para W(10)(b) (DL ¶40). ## What made the difference Assessment against the potential lawful agricultural use, not the current low-intensity activity. "a snapshot in time ... would not necessarily be representative" (DL ¶46). An acoustic and odour assessment might have allowed mitigation by condition (DL ¶49). ## Policy findings - **GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Q(a) / Q.3 curtilage: pass.** curtilage (east gardens, west access) no larger than the building footprint; parking outside curtilage is not a bar (DL 12-22) - **GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Q(c) / Q.1(j): pass.** frame and envelope retained; internal party-wall footings do not take the works beyond conversion (DL 23-35) - **P3(2)(a): fail.** applied via GPDO W(10)(b) — noise and odour from adjacent large open-sided building/yard on a ~40ha holding that could be used more intensively (BNG habitat bank does not preclude livestock); no noise/odour assessment; location "undesirable" under Q.2(1)(e) (DL 40-52) - **HO7: neutral.** housing shortfall acknowledged but "not a relevant consideration" in prior approval, given no weight (DL 53); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Farm said to be "winding down"; much of the land in a BNG habitat bank under a conservation covenant (DL 41-42) - Plot 1 habitable windows on the north elevation, facing the open-sided building and feed hopper (DL 45) - Separate appeal 6007422 for a second building on the same farm (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007456 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7de2f9be-bdba-41a3-8032-eb47d0ab07c0 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007456.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to 51 Harcourt Road, Bushey - **Decision:** allowed, 20 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Bowden - **Authority:** Hertsmere (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6007465 - **Application reference:** 24/0990/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** New two-storey infill house (non-determination; Council supported) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM6 - **Development plan policies:** Hertsmere Core Strategy 2013, Hertsmere SADM Plan 2016 - **Main issues:** conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, non-determination, transitional-no-consultation, small-scheme ## Summary A non-determination appeal for an infill house that the Council said it would have approved. The Inspector allowed it and the letter mainly concerns conditions. DM6 is cited expressly, and a blanket removal of PD rights and an M4(2) condition were refused. ## What made the difference There was no dispute on the merits. The letter is an example of DM6 being applied to strip unnecessary conditions (DL ¶¶14–15). ## Policy findings - **DM6: neutral.** conditions reviewed under DM6; PD removal and M4(2) conditions declined as unnecessary (DL 6-15) - **HO7: benefit.** additional home in sustainable urban location (DL 5) ## Key facts - Council said it would have approved; appeal on non-determination - Framework changes "do not significantly affect the merits"; no consultation (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/0fa7b8e8-f740-4f4d-a3ed-445477880c13 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007465 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007465.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Penstraze, Chacewater - **Decision:** dismissed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Nick Davies - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007466 - **Application reference:** PA25/09003 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 9 dwellings (min 9, max 9) - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.9 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE4, S5(1)(j), HO7 - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan 2016 Policies 2, 3, 7, 21, 23, 24, Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1, T1, Truro and Kenwyn NDP H1, E1, E4, E6, T2 - **Main issues:** suitability of location, land use and amount, World Heritage Site - **Tags:** PIP, world-heritage-site, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, s5-1-j, housing-shortfall, annex-a-weight-reduction, old-balance-wording, old-wording-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme, cumulative-harm ## Summary Permission in principle for nine homes on two small fields south of the A390, opposite the roadside settlement of Penstraze, within the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site. Dismissed. The location was found "relatively sustainable": there is a level segregated cycleway and a bus stop. The Council's supply is only 3.9 years. But the loss of legible miners' smallholding enclosures was harm to the WHS's Outstanding Universal Value. Given HE6 substantial weight and the site's international importance, that harm outweighed substantial weight to housing. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties commented on the new Framework (DL ¶5). The inspector applied Annex A(2): plan policies are not to lose weight "simply because they were adopted prior to publication" (DL ¶25). - **Spatial strategy.** Across a road from the settlement still counts as adjoining it (*Corbett*), but the site is not infill, rounding off or PDL, so it conflicts with CLP 3 and 7 (DL ¶¶9–13). This conflict gets moderate weight, because the strategy "is not delivering a sufficient supply of homes" (DL ¶25). - **Accessibility: PASS.** "the location of the site is relatively sustainable, given the proximity of the nearest settlements and the ease of accessing them by bicycle and, to a lesser extent, by bus" (DL ¶17). The eastbound stop needs a crossing of the unlit A390 from a refuge that "does not lead to a pavement", which is "a significant deterrent … particularly in the hours of darkness" (DL ¶16). - **WHS: HE4/HE6 FAIL.** "the amount of development proposed would permanently overwrite the historic landscape such that, even with retention of the boundaries, the relic smallholdings … would no longer be legible. Whilst this would only affect a small part of the overall WHS, this argument could be repeatedly made for individual proposals, resulting in further cumulative harm" (DL ¶21). The benefits "are not specific to this site, so could be achieved elsewhere, without harm to the WHS" (DL ¶23). ## Planning balance S5(1)(j) is framed as "a material consideration of critical importance" (DL ¶24). - **Benefits:** housing, substantial weight under HO7 (DL ¶28); economic benefits, modest. - **Harms:** - WHS harm: substantial (DL ¶27); - spatial strategy conflict: moderate; - landscape conflict: limited. The conclusion uses the superseded wording: "the adverse impacts of the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶30). It never states the S5 "substantially outweighed" threshold as the conclusion, although the result would be the same. ## What made the difference The WHS designation. The inspector gave "substantial weight" under HE6 to harm he himself described as minor and at the lower end, and relied on the "international importance of the WHS" and the risk of cumulative erosion. The same site outside the WHS would very probably have been allowed: a 3.9-year supply, a cycle-accessible location and only moderate or limited weight to plan and landscape conflict. ## Transferable points - Lower-end harm to a WHS attribute (historic field pattern) can outweigh substantial weight to housing under S5(1)(j) with a 3.9-year supply (DL ¶30). - "Could be achieved elsewhere" and cumulative-erosion reasoning were used to discount generic housing benefits in the HE6(4) balance (DL ¶¶21, 23). - Annex A(2): a pre-2026 spatial strategy is consistent with the Framework, but its conflict is reduced to moderate weight where it is not delivering enough homes (DL ¶25). - A level segregated cycleway to villages 1.5 km away plus a nearby bus stop can make a roadside site "relatively sustainable" (DL ¶¶15–17). An unlit crossing to a stop with no footway beyond is "a significant deterrent" (DL ¶16). - An intervening main road does not stop land adjoining a settlement (*Corbett v Cornwall* [2022] EWCA Civ 1069) (DL ¶9). - Drafting slip: the final balance used the 2024 "significantly and demonstrably" wording (DL ¶30). ## Policy findings - **HE4: fail.** minor, lower-end harm to Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape WHS (loss of legible mid-19th-century miners' smallholding enclosures) needs clear and convincing justification (DL 18-21) - **HE6(4): fail (substantial weight).** benefits not site-specific "could be achieved elsewhere"; cumulative-erosion argument; substantial weight to WHS harm (DL 21-23, 27) - **S5(1)(j): fail.** framed as the "material consideration of critical importance" given 3.9-yr supply; well-relatedness not expressly concluded; decided on the balance (DL 24, 30) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** evidenced unmet need (DL 28) - **TR3: pass.** "relatively sustainable": segregated level cycleway to settlements 1.5 km each way, westbound bus 100 m; eastbound stop across unlit A390 deters (DL 15-17) - **AnnexA(2): neutral (moderate weight).** spatial strategy consistent with Framework but not delivering, so moderate weight to its conflict; landscape conflict limited weight (DL 25-26) ## Key facts - Site opposite a continuous roadside row accepted as the settlement of Penstraze; A390 between (Corbett v Cornwall [2022] EWCA Civ 1069 — intervening road does not prevent adjacency) (DL 9) - 175 m frontage, two undeveloped fields; not infill, not PDL, not rounding off (DL 10-11) - Supply 3.9 years (DL 24) - Parties had opportunity to comment on 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 5) - Final balance expressed with the old 2024 "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" wording (DL 30) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007466 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9dfdf053-cbc1-4517-8b58-15a2e9e6463d --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007466.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Plots 13 and 5, Leys Lane, Winterton - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Darren Hendley - **Authority:** North Lincolnshire (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6007474 - **Application reference:** PA/2025/1360 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Static home, touring caravan pitch and surfacing on each of two plots for Traveller families (Plot 13, partly implemented; conjoined Appeal 6007477, Plot 5, PA/2025/1463) - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** open-countryside, isolated, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(g), S5(3), S5(4), HO11 - **Development plan policies:** North Lincolnshire Core Strategy 2011 CS2, CS3, CS5, CS6, CS18, CS19, North Lincolnshire Local Plan 2003 saved RD2, DS1, DS14, DS16, LC7, HE9, Housing and Employment Land Allocations DPD - **Main issues:** spatial strategy, character and appearance, surface water flood risk, BNG, archaeology, personal needs - **Tags:** travellers, isolated-home, s5-4-exceptional, bng-exemption-not-shown, evidence-gap, retrospective, flood-risk, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Two conjoined appeals for Traveller family pitches (a static home and a touring caravan each) on sub-divided plots off a rural lane well away from Winterton. Plot 13 was already partly occupied. Both dismissed. With little evidence of unmet Traveller need, the proposals did not fall within S5(1)(g). They were treated as isolated homes under S5(3)/HO11, and no exceptional circumstances were shown under S5(4). Surface water drainage and statutory BNG failures added significant weight. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The Framework was published after the site visit, and parties were invited "to comment solely on this matter" (DL ¶5). - **Isolated homes — S5(3)/HO11: FAIL.** "the proposals would constitute the development of isolated homes because of a lack of proximity to settlements and groups of houses, even with the other caravans and structures on the broader site" (DL ¶10). - **Traveller need — S5(1)(g): FAIL.** "While I do not question there would be some level of broader need, very limited evidence has been provided. As a consequence, I am unable to gauge the level of need, supply and what any shortfall might be" (DL ¶34). - **Surface water: FAIL.** Deferring drainage to a condition "would be to potentially nullify the permissions if it transpires that a satisfactory means of surface water drainage cannot be established" (DL ¶20). - **BNG: FAIL.** "static caravans do not constitute self-build development under the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 because they are not buildings" (DL ¶23). - **Archaeology: PASS.** The desk-based assessments were enough, and conditions for monitoring were proportionate (DL ¶¶27–30). ## Planning balance Weights against: spatial strategy significant, character moderate, flood risk significant, BNG significant (DL ¶36). For: personal circumstances significant, broader need moderate, economic and environmental benefits limited (DL ¶37). "For the proposals to benefit from Policy S5 of the Framework, they must address evidenced unmet need ... The proposals do not therefore fall within one of the categories that should be approved and there are not exceptional circumstances" (DL ¶38). Temporary or personal permissions would not cure the harms (DL ¶39). ## What made the difference The appellants gave no quantified evidence of Traveller need (no GTAA figures, supply or shortfall). Without it S5(1)(g) could not be engaged, and the pitches fell to be judged as isolated homes. The missing drainage strategy and BNG metric were evidence gaps that could have been fixed. With a GTAA showing a shortfall, S5(1)(g) would have applied and the balance would have been the more generous "substantially outweighed" test, although the HO12 criteria and isolation would still have been tested. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(g) needs *evidenced* unmet Traveller need. General assertions of need, without figures, attract only moderate weight and do not engage the category (DL ¶¶34, 37–38). - Traveller pitches remote from settlements can be "isolated homes" under S5(3)/HO11, even on a wider plotted site with other caravans (DL ¶10). - Static caravans cannot use the self-build BNG exemption (DL ¶23). - Surface water drainage cannot be left to a condition where it is unknown whether any scheme is achievable (DL ¶20). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(g): fail.** very limited evidence of broader Traveller need; level of need, supply and shortfall cannot be gauged, so no "evidenced unmet need" (DL 34, 38) - **S5(3): fail.** isolated homes, remote from settlements and groups of houses, even with other caravans on the wider plotted site (DL 10) - **HO11: fail.** none of the HO11 exceptions met (DL 10) - **S5(4): fail.** no exceptional circumstances where benefits substantially outweigh adverse effects (DL 38) - **DP3: fail (moderate weight).** caravans, hardstanding and domestic paraphernalia discordant with peaceful low-lying farmland (DL 12-16, 36) - **F8: fail (significant weight).** no surface water drainage strategy; not deferrable to condition as it could nullify permission (DL 18-22, 36) - **HE5: pass.** desk-based assessments adequate; low impact on potential archaeology, dealt with by monitoring condition (DL 26-30) ## Key facts - Static caravans are not "buildings" so cannot claim the self-build BNG exemption; no statutory metric supplied (DL 23-25) - Personal circumstances of Traveller families including children given significant weight; broader need moderate weight (DL 31-37) - Temporary or personal permissions rejected; PSED and Article 8 considered (DL 39-40) - New Framework published after site visit; parties invited to comment solely on it (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007474 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/164e45f8-3eea-48a9-b1b9-3d6716880a1d --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007474.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 27 Anson Road, Islington (7 flats to one house) - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Unwin - **Authority:** Islington (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6007475 - **Application reference:** P2025/3129/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion of 7 self-contained flats (6 studios, 1 one-bed) into a single 5-bedroom house with rear extension - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** Islington DMP H2 - **Development plan policies:** Islington Local Plan 2023 H1, H2, PLAN1, London Plan 2021 H1 - **Main issues:** loss of housing - **Tags:** tier-2, no-framework-cited, plan-led ## Summary De-conversion of seven substandard flats into one family house was refused under Islington's housing-optimisation policies. The net loss of at least five units outweighed improved living conditions (DL 8-11). The Framework is not referred to. ## What made the difference The plan permits a net loss of at most one unit, and there was no evidence that smaller high-priority units could not be provided. ## Policy findings - **Islington DMP H2: fail.** net loss of at least 5 dwellings, and use of the building not shown to be optimised (DL 3-9) ## Key facts - Existing studios below NDSS; one lacks a bathroom (DL 4) - Letter does not refer to the Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007475 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b754dce5-e7ef-45da-9495-ce9ef341c920 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007475.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Low Flatt Farm, Heads Lane, Bolsterstone - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Elaine Moulton - **Authority:** Peak District National Park (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6007476 - **Application reference:** NP/S/1025/1079 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Appeal against condition 3 of a s73 permission omitting a new ground-floor window in the south gable of a barn being converted to a residential annex - **Site context:** national-park, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE7(2), N4 - **Development plan policies:** Peak District Conversion of Historic Buildings SPD - **Main issues:** NDHA significance, National Park cultural heritage - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, ndha, national-park, disputed-conditions, section-73, transitional-no-consultation, alternatives-not-explored, n4-cultural-heritage ## Summary An appeal to remove a condition that omitted one new ground-floor window from a permitted barn-to-annex conversion in the Peak District. Dismissed. The barn is a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA) of moderate local significance. The domestic-looking opening would cause harm to it that was "limited in extent". Combined with N4's substantial weight to National Park cultural heritage, that harm outweighed the limited benefits. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Policy "has not significantly changed"; no further submissions sought (DL ¶2). - **N4 cultural heritage.** N4 requires "substantial weight ... to conserving and enhancing wildlife and cultural heritage [in] National Parks" (DL ¶6). "Nevertheless, the importance of conserving cultural heritage is given substantial weight in the Framework" despite limited public visibility (DL ¶10). - **NDHA — HE7(2).** "the proposed opening would erode the building's agricultural identity ... harm to the significance of the NDHA, although such harm would be limited in extent" (DL ¶9). HE7(2) balanced judgement (DL ¶13). - **Benefits.** "it has not been demonstrated that the future conservation of the building depends upon the proposed opening. Nor has it been demonstrated that less harmful alternatives have been adequately explored" (DL ¶14). Benefits carried "only limited weight" (DL ¶15). ## Planning balance HE7(2) balanced judgement, with N4's substantial weight to cultural heritage added in. Limited harm to an NDHA of moderate significance outweighed limited benefits. ## What made the difference N4. Inside a National Park, the 2026 Framework gives substantial weight to cultural heritage, which lifts a small NDHA harm above the plain HE7(2) balance. The appellant also had no evidence that the room layout was forced by the building. ## Transferable points - In Protected Landscapes, N4's substantial weight to "cultural heritage" applies to NDHAs as well as to landscape. A small NDHA harm can decide the case (DL ¶6, 10, 15). - Harm to an NDHA does not depend on public visibility (DL ¶10). - Arguments about daylight and amenity need evidence that the harmful layout is required by the building's constraints (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **HE7(2): harm.** barn a NDHA of "moderate local significance"; new domestic-proportioned opening erodes agricultural identity; harm "limited in extent given the small scale"; balanced judgement per HE7(2) (DL 7-9, 13) - **N4: harm (substantial weight).** "substantial weight should be placed on the importance of conserving ... cultural heritage" of National Parks; limited landscape visibility did not remove cultural-heritage harm (DL 6, 10, 15) - **HE4(1)(a): neutral (limited weight).** benefits of securing the new use "only limited weight": no evidence the building is at risk or that the opening is needed for a viable conversion, and less harmful alternatives not explored (DL 11, 14-15); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - 19th-century gritstone barn attached to farmhouse, being converted to annex under a 2025 permission - Without the opening, the lounge relies on two modest windows; layout not shown to be dictated by the building (DL 11) - Parties not re-consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007476 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b7cdf89c-368b-4d31-b7df-a21a02136c27 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007476.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Park House, Park Road, Colton, Leeds - **Decision:** dismissed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Paul Martinson - **Authority:** Leeds (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6007478 - **Application reference:** 25/06104/LI - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Replacement of Yorkshire sliding sashes with double-glazed timber casements in Grade II listed house (LBC 6007478, planning 6007479) - **Site context:** conservation-area, listed-building-setting, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(3), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Leeds Core Strategy 2014 P10, P11, Leeds UDP Review 2006 saved N14, N17, N20 - **Main issues:** listed building, conservation area - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, old-heritage-wording, energy-efficiency-benefit, alternative-scheme-not-explored, windows, listed-building ## Summary A Grade II house in the Colton Conservation Area sought to replace its Yorkshire sliding sashes with double-glazed timber casements. Both appeals were dismissed. The letter states that it applies the 2026 Framework, but then describes the HE6(1) weight as "great weight" and grades harm as "a moderate to high level of 'less than substantial' harm as set out in the Framework". Neither phrase appears in the 2026 text. The HE6(4) energy-efficiency example was engaged but discounted because less harmful alternatives were not excluded. ## Issues and findings - **Significance of non-original windows.** The windows were "not historic" but "have a degree of authenticity … contribute in a positive way to the listed building's architectural merit" (DL ¶12). - **Harm.** Thicker frames and double-glazed units "would be easily identifiable as modern windows" (DL ¶18). - **Misstated Framework.** "the Framework sets out that great weight should be given … irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm … a moderate to high level of 'less than substantial' harm as set out in the Framework" (DL ¶23). This is 2024 ¶212 wording presented as the new Framework. - **Energy: HE6(4).** "Important public benefits can include enabling energy efficiency measures" (DL ¶24). But "it has not been demonstrated that the window style proposed would be the only means of achieving those benefits" (DL ¶25). "secondary glazing or … slimmer double glazed units" were not ruled out (DL ¶26). ## Planning balance HE6(4). Limited public benefits against considerable importance and weight to the harm (DL ¶28). ## What made the difference The loss of a locally distinctive window type with no heritage analysis to justify it, and no evidence that secondary glazing or slim double glazing had been considered. ## Transferable points - HE6(4)'s energy-efficiency example does not unlock double glazing in listed buildings unless the appellant shows less harmful options (secondary glazing, slim units) will not do (DL ¶¶25–26). - Even Inspectors who say they apply the 2026 Framework sometimes restate 2024 ¶212 as if it were current (DL ¶23). Worth watching for challenges. ## Policy findings - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** "a moderate to high level of 'less than substantial' harm as set out in the Framework" (sic): thicker frames, 24-28 mm units, loss of Yorkshire sliding sash type; also harms Colton CA (DL 15-23) - **HE6(4): fail (limited weight).** HE6(4) energy-efficiency example acknowledged, but not shown that this design is the only way; secondary glazing or slim units not ruled out; security limited (DL 24-28) ## Key facts - Existing windows not historic (post-1976) but authentic in type and valued as contributing to architectural merit - No detailed existing drawings or heritage analysis submitted ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4cbb1989-6897-4822-9747-af38573d7d16 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007478 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007478.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Park House, Park Road, Colton, Leeds (replacement windows, listed building) - **Decision:** dismissed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Paul Martinson - **Authority:** Leeds (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6007479 - **Application reference:** 25/06103/FU - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Replacement of Yorkshire sliding sash and vertical sash windows with double-glazed timber units at a Grade II house in Colton CA (planning Appeal B; linked LBC Appeal A 6007478) - **Site context:** conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Leeds Core Strategy 2014 P10, P11, Leeds UDP Review 2006 N14, N17, N20 - **Main issues:** listed building, conservation area - **Tags:** tier-2, windows, heritage-harm-decisive, old-wording-slip, energy-efficiency ## Summary Double-glazed replacements for authentic-looking Yorkshire sliding sashes at a Grade II house were refused. The inspector refers to the new Framework's HE6 but uses the 2024 'great weight' and 'less than substantial' language (DL 23-24). ## What made the difference The loss of the local Yorkshire sash style with thick modern frames. Less harmful energy-efficiency options had not been explored (DL 19, 26). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (great weight).** 'moderate to high level of less than substantial harm'; framed with 'great weight' although it cites the new Framework (DL 23) - **HE6(4): fail.** thermal and security benefits limited; secondary or slimmer glazing not ruled out (DL 24-28) ## Key facts - Existing windows not historic but authentic in proportion and style (DL 12) - No existing-window drawings or position details were supplied (DL 16) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007479 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fa5782e3-4ace-45c6-bb28-378d04735ee9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007479.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Boltons Farm, Blackgate Lane, Tarleton - **Decision:** allowed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Chris Mayes - **Authority:** West Lancashire (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007484 - **Application reference:** 2025/0981/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 6 to 9 dwellings on a farmyard and land outside the Tarleton settlement boundary (Green Belt) - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, agricultural-land-BMV - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.86 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g), GB7(1)(g)(iii), S5(5) - **Development plan policies:** West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 DPD 2013 GN3, EN2(4) - **Main issues:** grey belt and inappropriateness, flood risk, agricultural land, VSC if relevant - **Tags:** PIP, grey-belt-accepted, village-not-large-built-up-area, not-inappropriate, sustainable-location-pass, s5-5-balance, non-determination, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, old-wording-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Permission in principle for 6 to 9 homes at a farm on the edge of Tarleton, in the West Lancashire Green Belt. Grey belt was accepted because a village cannot be a large built-up area, and unmet need was shown by a 1.86-year supply. The sustainable-location limb passed on a brief statement relying on the 2024 idea that sustainable transport opportunities vary between urban and rural areas. The only harm was a possible small loss of best and most versatile land. Allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The parties were given the opportunity to comment on the implications of the revised Framework, and their responses have been taken into account." (DL ¶2). - **Grey belt: PASS.** "The Framework and associated guidance make clear that villages are not large built-up areas for the purposes of this objective." (DL ¶11). Supply: "it can currently demonstrate only a 1.86-year housing land supply" (DL ¶12). - **GB7(1)(g)(iii) / TR3: PASS (thin).** The inspector said "the Framework recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas and that this should be taken into account in decision-making" (DL ¶13). This is 2024 wording; the 2026 TR3(1)(e) instead says that in rural areas opportunities to improve connectivity should be taken where they exist. The site "benefits from footway provision, access to services and facilities, and opportunities to travel by public transport" (DL ¶14), with no distances or service levels given. "Future occupants would be likely to rely upon the private car for a proportion of journeys. However, that is not unusual in a rural context and does not, in itself, render the location unsustainable." (DL ¶14). Conclusion: "recognising the rural context of the site, I am satisfied that it would be in a sustainable location for the purposes of Policy GB7(1)(g), having particular regard to Policy TR3" (DL ¶15). - **Openness/VSC.** "there is no need for me to consider the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt or whether very special circumstances exist" (DL ¶17). - **Flood risk.** Partial surface water flooding capable of being dealt with at the technical details stage (DL ¶20). - **BMV land, N2(1)(b).** "I find that the resulting harm would be modest, and I attach limited weight to it" (DL ¶29). ## Planning balance After GB7(1)(g), an S5-type balance (S5(5) not named): substantial weight to up to 9 homes, "I attach substantial weight to this benefit" (DL ¶30), against limited BMV harm. "the benefits of the proposal would not be substantially outweighed by the adverse effect arising from the potential loss of a limited area of agricultural land" (DL ¶31). ## What made the difference Grey belt followed from Tarleton being a village, and need from the 1.86-year supply. The location limb was passed on assertion rather than tested route evidence. The letter records no walking distances, route conditions, lighting or bus frequencies, and treats rural car reliance as acceptable in its own right. ## Transferable points - A village is not a "large built-up area" for purpose (a), so an edge-of-village field can be grey belt (DL ¶11). - Weak-example caution: GB7(1)(g)(iii) passed without any route facts, using the 2024 urban/rural variation phrase and "not unusual in a rural context" car reliance (DL ¶13-15). Contrast route-tested dismissals such as Hatton Station PINS-6006637 and Halsall PINS-6007428 (also West Lancashire). - Once GB7(1)(g) is met, openness and VSC fall away and the balance is S5-type, "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶17, ¶31). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** purposes (a) and (d) not disputed; Tarleton is a village so cannot be a large built-up area for purpose (a); Annex E cited (DL 10-11) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** grey belt; would not fundamentally undermine remaining Green Belt purposes (undisputed) (DL 11-12) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** 1.86-year supply (DL 12) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** passed on a general statement of footway, services, buses and cycling with no distances, route or frequency facts; 2024 wording that sustainable transport opportunities vary between urban and rural areas; car reliance not unusual in a rural context (DL 13-15) - **TR3: pass.** see GB7(1)(g)(iii); TR3(1)(a) paraphrased but the operative reasoning is the 2024 rural-variation phrase (DL 13-15) - **GB6: not-engaged.** not inappropriate, so openness and VSC not considered (DL 17) - **N2(1)(b): harm (limited weight).** possible loss of a small area of Grade 3 (possibly 3a) land; no ALC survey; modest harm (DL 22-25, 29) - **F4: neutral.** mapped; Flood Zone 1 with partial surface water flooding; FRA and drainage deferred to technical details consent (DL 18-21) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** up to 9 homes against an acute shortfall (DL 30) - **S5(5): pass.** letter says the proposal accords with the approach in Policy S5; benefits not substantially outweighed by the BMV harm (DL 31) ## Key facts - Non-determination; Council would have refused on flood risk, BMV land, location and Green Belt (DL 6) - No walking distances, route description, lighting, speed or bus frequency given in the letter; footway provision asserted (DL 14) - Bat roost in an existing building deferred to TDC stage (DL 27) - Natural England - no likely significant effect on Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA/Ramsar (DL 26) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007484 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b9f2d249-fa4f-47de-8250-45dfdc527e9f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007484.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 47-65 Seven Sisters Road, London N7 - **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Clark - **Authority:** Islington (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6007494 - **Application reference:** P2025/2894/PRA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Prior approval (GPDO Part 20 Class AB) for two-storey upward extension providing 16 flats above commercial/mixed terrace - **Homes:** 16 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR4(1)(d), TR3(1)(c), L2 - **Main issues:** prior approval - transport, trade and business, neighbour light - **Tags:** tier-2, prior-approval, upward-extension, l2-airspace, tr6-highway-safety, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, costs-application, amended-plans-accepted ## Summary A Class AB prior approval appeal for two storeys and 16 flats above a Seven Sisters Road parade. Dismissed on three prior-approval matters: - servicing and highway safety on a Red Route, with no delivery mitigation; - the effect of cycle parking in the rear lane on existing businesses; - daylight to a neighbour's secondary windows, which had not been assessed. The inspector used TR3, TR4 and L2 as the Framework yardsticks for the GPDO matters. The housing benefits were outside the scope of prior approval. ## What made the difference Evidence gaps, reinforced by what the inspector saw on site: a van loading in the bus lane and holding up buses, and an open, cluttered rear lane. No servicing plan or neighbour daylight assessment had been supplied, and a Delivery and Servicing Plan condition could not cure an unevidenced problem. ## Policy findings - **TR4(1)(d): fail.** no delivery/servicing mitigation on a Red Route where vans load in the bus lane; TfL concerns; cycle parking narrows rear service lane (DL 21-38) - **TR6: fail.** not shown cumulative servicing would avoid "an unacceptable impact on highway safety" (DL 24, 29, 32) - **L2: fail.** airspace limb — neighbour daylight to secondary windows of 1 Axminster Road not assessed; future occupiers' living standards and NDSS met (DL 43, 50-53) ## Key facts - Fails GPDO AB.2(1)(a) transport, AB.2(1)(i) impact on trade/business and AB.2(1)(g) neighbour amenity (DL 56) - Housing benefits outside the matters the GPDO allows to be considered (DL 54) - Parties consulted on the Aug 2026 Framework (DL 4); costs application decided separately (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007494 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/0728507a-2572-4286-a75b-1f1f931edff8 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007494.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Laurels, Salisbury Terrace, Mytchett - **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Thomas Courtney - **Authority:** Surrey Heath (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007519 - **Application reference:** 26/0077 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of residential annex to children's day nursery (up to 18 children) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** Surrey Heath Core Strategy and DM Policies 2012 DM9, emerging Surrey Heath Local Plan DH1 - **Main issues:** living conditions, noise and disturbance - **Tags:** tier-2, living-conditions, drafting-slip, old-wording-slip, noise-beyond-decibels, old-framework-applied-silently, transitional ## Summary An 18-child day nursery in an annex on a quiet cul-de-sac. Dismissed on disturbance grounds even though the acoustic assessment and the EHO found no problem with average noise levels. The harm came from the "cumulative disturbance associated with the scale and pattern of activity" (DL ¶14). The preliminary paragraph refers to the Framework "published on 12 December 2024", a template slip, and the letter never engages with the 2026 Framework. ## What made the difference Character and pattern of activity rather than decibels, relying on the PPG. The appellant's own trip forecast (57 to 64 two-way movements a day) drove the finding (DL ¶8-9, 15). ## Policy findings - **DM9 (Surrey Heath CS&DMP): conflict.** acoustic assessment and EHO accepted on average noise levels, but 57-64 daily two-way trips, drop-off activity and intermittent child noise cumulatively erode a quiet cul-de-sac (DL 7-16); P3 equivalent, not cited - **HC4: benefit.** need for childcare places acknowledged but does not outweigh harm; jobs "very limited weight" (DL 17-18); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Cul-de-sac of fewer than 20 homes - Preliminary note says the "revised" Framework was "published on 12 December 2024" in a September 2026 letter (DL 3); the 2026 Framework is not referred to - Emerging plan at main modifications stage given limited weight (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007519 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/dc09f8cd-2fe6-485a-bb17-4bee558d7094 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007519.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Jamia Syeda Fatima Al-Zahra, Bank Lane, Blackburn - **Decision:** allowed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Major - **Authority:** Blackburn with Darwen (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007521 - **Application reference:** 10/24/0884 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Appeal against condition requiring zebra crossing as part of replacement mosque permission - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM6, TR6(4), TR4(1)(c) - **Development plan policies:** Blackburn with Darwen Local Plan 2021-2037 DM29 - **Main issues:** necessity of highway condition - **Tags:** tier-2, conditions, fallback, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, community-facility ## Summary The requirement for a zebra crossing on a replacement-mosque permission was deleted. An extant extension permission without that requirement was a substantial-weight fallback with similar trip generation, and the existing refuge islands were safe and well used. The Inspector found no conflict with TR6, TR4 or DP3. ## What made the difference The fallback comparison of trip-generating floorspace, plus the Inspector's own observation and the appellant's pedestrian survey showing the refuges were used (DL ¶¶8–11, 16–17). ## Policy findings - **DM6: pass.** zebra crossing not reasonable or necessary; footway widening retained (DL 21-22, 24) - **TR6(4): pass.** extant extension permission (no crossing) fallback given substantial weight; limited extra trips (DL 8-12, 23) - **TR4(1)(c): pass.** existing refuge islands well used and safe for disabled people, older people and children (DL 15-20, 23) ## Key facts - Accident record mostly vehicle collisions, not linked to pedestrian crossing need - Parties consulted on 2026 Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/47d58179-e376-4ba1-a083-194077caac21 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007521 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007521.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Mulberry Interiors, 8 Church Hill, Loughton - **Decision:** dismissed, 2 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Owen - **Authority:** Epping Forest (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6007526 - **Application reference:** EPF/2305/25 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Detached dwelling in rear garden behind shop and flat, with shopfront alterations and merger of two commercial units - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting, garden-land - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, L2(1)(d)(ii), DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Epping Forest District Local Plan 2023 DM9 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, future occupier living conditions - **Tags:** l2-1-d, l2-plot-intensification, backland, garden-infill, living-conditions, s4-substantially-outweighed, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A small, partly sunken detached house at the end of a long garden behind a shop parade in Loughton. Dismissed. It would break up the open rear-plot character seen from a public footpath, and its bedrooms would be hemmed in by tall trees. HO7 got substantial weight (no 5YHLS, HDT below 75%). The L2(1)(d)(ii) living-standards failure and the DP3 conflict each carried "considerable weight" and together substantially outweighed it. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I have taken account of that in my decision" (DL ¶3). No consultation on the new Framework is recorded. - **Character — DP3: FAIL.** "Due to the lack of any other detached outbuildings in the nearby plots, the dwelling would represent an incongruous feature detracting from the characteristic openness" (DL ¶6). Harm was judged from a public footpath outside the conservation area (DL ¶9). - **Living conditions: FAIL.** Crown-lifting and reduction would still leave the trees "a significant enclosing feature ... the outlook from the bedrooms would be unacceptably restricted" (DL ¶11). "bedrooms may have a lesser need for natural light than living rooms. But this does not negate the need for bedrooms to have a satisfactory degree of outlook themselves" (DL ¶12). Gardens and access were acceptable (DL ¶¶13–14). - **L2 used both ways.** "The proposed dwelling would represent additional development within an existing plot so, in principle, would be supported by policy L2 ... However, this policy also requires such development to provide acceptable living standards for residents in terms of access to daylight and sunlight. As the proposal would fail to do this, it would conflict with this policy" (DL ¶21). ## Planning balance S4. HO7 substantial (DL ¶20) against L2 and DP3 conflicts, which "attract considerable weight" (DL ¶21). "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does therefor not apply" (DL ¶22). ## What made the difference The site-specific tree enclosure of the bedrooms, combined with public visibility from the footpath across an otherwise open rear-plot area. The inspector read the L2(1)(d) curtilage-intensification support as conditional on its own sub-criteria, so failing (ii) turned an in-principle benefit into a Framework conflict. With more tree clearance, or a building not visible from the footpath (L2(1)(d)(i) "not visible from the street frontage"), the appeal might well have succeeded given the supply shortfall. ## Transferable points - L2(1)(d) support for extra units in existing plots depends on its sub-criteria. Failing (ii) living standards (daylight, sunlight) becomes a Framework conflict carrying considerable weight (DL ¶21). - Bedrooms need adequate outlook as well as living rooms (DL ¶12). - Two "considerable weight" Framework conflicts can substantially outweigh HO7 substantial weight for one dwelling even where HDT is below 75% (DL ¶¶20–22). - Harm to character seen from a public footpath outside the conservation area is enough, even where CA and listed-building effects are neutral (DL ¶¶9, 17–18). ## Policy findings - **L2(1)(d): fail (considerable weight).** additional unit within existing plot supported in principle, but bedrooms enclosed by 7-8 m trees and an overhanging sycamore fail the daylight/sunlight living-standards limb (DL 11-12, 21) - **DP3: fail (considerable weight).** detached building in open rear-plot area seen from public footpath; incongruous with the arrangement of buildings (DL 5-10, 21) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** no 5YHLS and HDT below 75% (DL 20) - **HE6: neutral.** York Hill CA and adjacent Grade II No 6 preserved (DL 16-18) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed; presumption does not apply (DL 19-22) ## Key facts - Council cannot show 5YHLS and HDT is below 75% (figures not stated) (DL 20) - Rear plots along the parade are open and seen from the public footpath from Queens Road; the only other outbuilding (No 38) is not publicly visible (DL 5-8) - Epping Forest SAC obligation was undated and incomplete; not pursued (DL 23) - Framework taken into account without recorded consultation (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007526 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9ce8c2c0-3320-4010-b912-5b477deaf13e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007526.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Whitings Lane, Burn (timber storage shed) - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Teasdale - **Authority:** North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6007535 - **Application reference:** ZG2025/0803/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of a single-storey warehouse and erection of a 32 m x 10 m steel portal-frame timber storage building (B8) for a business based elsewhere - **Site context:** open-countryside, PDL, flood-zone-2, flood-zone-3 - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** F5, S5(1)(d), DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Selby District Local Plan 2005 ENV1, EMP2, Selby Core Strategy 2013 SP2, SP13, SP15, SP18, SP19 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, flood risk, location of employment development - **Tags:** flood-risk, flood-sequential-test, s5-1-d-pdl, s5-substantially-outweighed, rural-business, design-refusal, transitional-no-consultation, drafting-slip, old-wording-slip ## Summary Replacement of a small warehouse in open countryside near Burn with a much larger steel timber-storage shed, for a firm based in the East Riding. Dismissed. The site partly lies in Flood Zones 2 and 3, and the sequential test covered just one alternative site, itself in Flood Zone 3. The building would be industrial and prominent. As a new standalone storage use it did not support the local rural economy. S5(1)(d) PDL support was "substantially outweighed". ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "the changes relevant to this appeal are not substantive or determinative to the outcome of my decision. I have therefore not gone back to the parties" (DL ¶2). - **Flood risk — F4/F5: FAIL.** The FRA "is however very brief and does not provide me with sufficient confidence that the sequential test need not be applied. The requirement of a sequential test applies irrespective of the presence of an existing building" (DL ¶13). The search "does not consider other reasonably available sites across the district ... does not demonstrate other land for sale or any search of commercial land platforms" (DL ¶14). No exception test was needed because the use is less vulnerable (DL ¶12). - **Character: FAIL.** "A building like this is something commonly seen within a modern employment site or more urban area rather than in a location within the open countryside" (DL ¶8). - **Location — S5(1)(d): FAIL.** "While the appeal site may comprise previously developed land which is offered support by Policy S5 (1) (d), the proposals must still be assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework ... the benefits of the scheme would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶23). It is a new use "rather than expand an existing rural business" (DL ¶21). - **Travel.** Accessibility was not held against the scheme: with no staff and two deliveries a week, it would not generate "greater travel demand than the site's existing or previous use" (DL ¶25). ## Planning balance The S5 balance was run briefly inside the location issue (DL ¶23). Flood, character and economic-location harms substantially outweighed very limited direct economic benefits. The final conclusion is plan-led under s38(6) (DL ¶28). ## What made the difference A thin sequential test. The appellant looked at one site, which was itself in Flood Zone 3, and ignored the Council's list of allocations and windfall sites. Add a building much larger than the one it replaced, and a user with no local business link, and the PDL status could not carry it. A district-wide search, a building close in size to the existing one, or an existing local operator expanding on site would have changed the picture. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(d) PDL status does not end the inquiry. The scheme is still tested against the national decision-making policies, and flood and design failures can substantially outweigh it (DL ¶23). - The sequential test applies even where an existing building occupies the site, and must search district-wide, including allocations, windfalls and online commercial listings (DL ¶¶13-14). - A new standalone storage use serving a business based elsewhere is not "rural economy" development (DL ¶¶21-22). - A nearby approval for an established business expanding is distinguishable from a new operator (DL ¶22). - Drafting slip: 2024-style chapter references ("chapter 14", "chapter 18", "chapter 7") appear alongside the 2026 codes (DL ¶¶10, 11, 15, 26). ## Policy findings - **F5: fail.** brief FRA does not show the F5(2)(b) exception applies; sequential test looked at one Flood Zone 3 site only and ignored allocations, windfalls and commercial listings (DL 11-15) - **F4: fail.** site-specific FRA inadequate (DL 11, 13) - **S5(1)(d): fail.** PDL "offered support" but benefits substantially outweighed by adverse effects under the national decision-making policies; use does not need a rural location (DL 23) - **DP3: fail.** substantially larger, industrial-looking building prominent from Burn Lane; cited as Framework "chapter 14" (DL 8-10) - **E4: fail.** new standalone B8 use for an off-site business, not expansion of an existing rural business; cited as Framework "chapter 7" (DL 21-22, 26) ## Key facts - No staff on site; maximum 2 deliveries a week, so no greater travel demand than the previous use (DL 24-25) - Similar building approved at the nearby Websters Timber (an established rural business) distinguished (DL 9, 22) - Decided without consulting the parties on the 2026 Framework; changes "not substantive or determinative" (DL 2) - Letter cites Framework "chapter 14", "chapter 18" and "chapter 7" alongside the 2026 F-codes (DL 10, 11, 15, 26) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007535 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b93f431e-4d6a-4319-b41b-f4de58a47b3e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007535.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 7 Vicarage Mansions, Queenstown Road, Wandsworth (mansard roof) - **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Reeves - **Authority:** Wandsworth (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6007541 - **Application reference:** 2025/3183 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Removal of original roof and erection of a mansard extension to form a further level of accommodation (resulting 5-storey building) in Park Town Estate CA opposite the Grade II Church of St Philip - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** Transitional(2), L2(1)(d)(i), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Wandsworth Local Plan 2023-2038 LP1, LP3, LP4, LP5 - **Main issues:** conservation area, listed building setting, weight to local policy, upward extensions - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, old-wording-slip, upward-extension ## Summary A mansard roof on a Victorian corner block in the Park Town Estate Conservation Area, Wandsworth, was refused. The appellant argued two things. First, that the 2026 Framework made Wandsworth's heritage and tall-building policies "materially inconsistent", so they should get very limited weight. Second, that L2 gives substantial weight to upward extensions and mansards. The inspector rejected both. The policies keep full weight. L2's support applies only where its criteria are met and there is no conflict with designated heritage assets. ## Issues and findings - **Weight to local policy.** "these policies remain broadly consistent with the Framework's requirements to conserve designated heritage assets, to secure high-quality design and to manage building heights through a plan-led spatial strategy. There is no substantive basis to regard them as materially inconsistent with national policy, and they therefore attract full weight" (DL ¶4). - **Height strategy.** The Framework's support for upward extensions and taller corner buildings does "not displace the development plan's locational approach to height" (DL ¶10). - **L2 criteria: FAIL.** "Policy L2(i) supports upward development only where it would not cause substantial harm to the character of a building or its surroundings. Here the increased height would disrupt the disciplined roofscape … and weaken the intended hierarchy between the appeal building and the listed church" (DL ¶11). - **L2 weight: NOT ENGAGED.** "substantial weight applies only where the criteria in Policy L2 of the Framework are met and where no conflict arises with the conservation of designated heritage assets" (DL ¶15). - **Heritage.** The inspector found harm to the CA and to the church's setting, and applied a balance against private benefits. Note the old wording: "the Framework requires great weight to be given to heritage conservation irrespective of the degree of harm" (DL ¶15). ## Planning balance The heritage balance: the benefits (thermal performance, drainage, extra space, mostly private) did not outweigh harm given "great weight" (DL ¶14-16). There was also plan conflict with LP1, LP3, LP4 and LP5 at full weight (DL ¶17-18). ## What made the difference Heritage sensitivity. The appeal building is part of a planned corner composition framing a listed church, so L2's support for mansards and taller corners did not apply. The Annex A argument failed because the local policies track the Framework's own heritage and design aims. ## Transferable points - Local heritage and height policies are not "materially inconsistent" with the 2026 Framework merely because L2 now supports upward extension. They keep full weight (DL ¶4, ¶10). - L2's substantial weight is conditional on its criteria (L2(1)(d)(i)) and on no conflict with designated heritage assets (DL ¶11, ¶15). - It is an early example of an appellant invoking the transitional "very limited weight" provision and failing (DL ¶3-4). ## Policy findings - **Transitional(2): fail.** appellant's Annex A argument rejected: LP1, LP3, LP4 and LP5 'broadly consistent' with the Framework and keep full weight (DL 3-4) - **L2(1)(d)(i): fail.** upward development supported only where it would not cause substantial harm to the character of a building or surroundings; here it disrupts a disciplined roofscape and the church's hierarchy (DL 10-11) - **L2(1): not-engaged.** 'substantial weight applies only where the criteria in Policy L2 … are met and where no conflict arises with the conservation of designated heritage assets' (DL 15) - **HE6(4): fail.** harm to the CA and the setting of the listed church; framed as 'great weight … irrespective of the degree of harm'; benefits largely private (DL 13-16) ## Key facts - Local Plan LP4 restricts mid-rise (5-storey) buildings to designated zones; site outside them (DL 10) - Dormers from a previously refused scheme removed; parapet conceals close views (DL 7-8) - The 2026 Framework was raised by the appellant, not by inspector-led consultation (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007541 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/67ef917f-f80b-47f7-9ead-26cda55836b9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007541.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Dolphin Court, Shelley Road, Worthing - **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Wright - **Authority:** Worthing (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007549 - **Application reference:** AWDM/1103/25 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Mansard-type roof extension providing 4 flats above a 1970s addition to a Victorian villa - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, L2, DP3, P3 - **Development plan policies:** Worthing Local Plan 2020-2036 (2023) DM2, DM5, Guide to Residential Development SPD 2013 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, upward-extension, mansard, l2-airspace, design-refusal, living-conditions, s4-substantially-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A mansard storey adding four flats above a flat-roofed 1970s addition to a Victorian villa in Worthing. Dismissed. L2 gives substantial weight to mansard airspace homes only where the scheme meets its criteria: consistency with the street scene and acceptable daylight for neighbours. It met neither. Harm to character (DP3) and to neighbours' daylight and outlook (P3) substantially outweighed four homes under S4 (DL ¶31). ## What made the difference Height relative to the host building. The mansard would rise almost to the villa's ridge and stand forward of it. It would also cut daylight to already poorly lit windows in the same building. The L2 substantial-weight uplift for mansards was lost because the scheme failed L2's own conditions. ## Policy findings - **L2: fail.** airspace/mansard limb would attract substantial weight but criteria not met — street scene and neighbours' daylight (DL 28, 31) - **DP3: fail.** mansard near ridge of villa, bulky and discordant; awkward stair core; boxy bin store (DL 8-12, 31) - **P3: fail.** VSC to Dolphin Court second-floor window down to 18.5% (<0.7x); loss of outlook; privacy harm curable by condition (DL 18-25, 31) ## Key facts - LP capacity-based provision 3,672 homes vs 14,160 need (DL 30) - Parties invited to comment on 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007549 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e6c0313f-ad72-4eb8-a868-94832f0c6677 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007549.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 172 Royal College Street, Camden - **Decision:** allowed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M Cryan - **Authority:** Camden (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6007562 - **Application reference:** 2026/0055/P - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Opening a front lightwell with external stair, railings and gate for basement access below a shop - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE4, HE6 - **Development plan policies:** Camden Local Plan 2017 D1, D2, A5 - **Main issues:** conservation area character - **Tags:** tier-2, conservation-area, transitional-no-consultation, no-harm-no-balance ## Summary A front lightwell and basement stair below a shop in the Camden Broadway Conservation Area. Allowed. The shallow lightwell with traditional railings preserves the CA's character, and similar lightwells nearby make it a recognised feature of the street. With no harm found, the HE6(4) public-benefits balance was not needed (DL ¶16). ## What made the difference Detail quality (arrowhead railings, the shopfront retained) and local precedent. The inspector noted that many existing lightwells are poor, so precedent alone would not have carried the appeal (DL ¶10-11). ## Policy findings - **HE6: neutral.** no harm to Camden Broadway CA: shallow lightwell, shopfront kept, traditional arrowhead railings, lightwells already part of street character; HE6(4) public-benefit test "not necessary" when there is no harm (DL 9-11, 16); s72 duty paraphrased ## Key facts - Block identified as a positive contributor; other open lightwells nearby at Nos 168, 197-213 (DL 8-9) - Additional before/after drawing accepted under Holborn Studios (DL 3) - Parties not re-consulted; references are to the August 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007562 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/326ebe06-c73d-4d81-84c8-7403264e51b2 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007562.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 20 The Glebe, Watford - **Decision:** allowed, 27 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Bowden - **Authority:** Watford (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6007566 - **Application reference:** 26/00001/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Vehicle access and hardstanding on corner plot within 10 m of a cul-de-sac junction - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR4(1)(c)(i) - **Development plan policies:** Watford Local Plan ST11.6, Hertfordshire Local Transport Plan 2018 - **Main issues:** highway safety - **Tags:** tier-2, transitional-no-consultation, dropped-kerb ## Summary A driveway near a cul-de-sac junction was allowed despite breaching three technical requirements of the Local Transport Plan. It would not create conflict under TR4(1)(c)(i) and would deter parking on the junction. ## What made the difference The very low traffic and a single vehicle. The Inspector judged actual safety effects rather than the technical guidance (DL ¶¶8–11). ## Policy findings - **TR4(1)(c)(i): pass.** single-vehicle access on low-traffic cul-de-sac; displaces junction and footway parking; minor visibility gain (DL 5-12) - **DM6: pass.** undersized space enlarged to 2.7 x 5 m by condition (DL 9, 13-14) ## Key facts - Breaches LTP guidance (angle, within 10 m of junction, undersized) but no real safety harm ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/49caa2c7-fde1-46f0-acf7-c71b43ff6b32 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007566 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007566.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Former Revolution Bar, Maxwell Road, Beaconsfield - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R J Redford - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007582 - **Application reference:** PL/25/1579/FA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of former bar and erection of part 3 / part 5 storey building of 28 flats with flexible Class E ground floor, parking, cycle parking and landscaping - **Homes:** 28 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** F7, DP3(3), S4(2)(c) - **Development plan policies:** South Bucks District Local Plan TC1, S1, EP3, EP5, H9, South Bucks Core Strategy 2011 CP3, CP6, CP9, CP11, CP13, emerging Buckinghamshire Local Plan Reg 19 SMA001 - **Main issues:** surface water flooding, neighbour living conditions, obligations - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, flood-risk, living-conditions, housing-shortfall, affordable-led, habitats-mitigation, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip ## Summary Twenty-eight flats (40% affordable) over flexible commercial space on a former bar site in Beaconsfield New Town. Dismissed because surface-water exceedance flows would be sent into a neighbour's private drainage without evidence of capacity, and because of daylight loss to Elmers Court and privacy loss to The Hollies. The inspector treated F7 and DP3(3) as two "should be refused" policies engaging S4(2)(c), outweighing substantial housing, town-centre and brownfield benefits. ## Issues and findings - **Transition and emerging plan.** Parties given the opportunity to comment; the Reg 19 plan gets limited weight under DM4 (DL ¶4). - **Flooding: FAIL.** "it has not been shown that the proposal would not increase the risk of surface water flooding with particular regard to adjacent residential properties" (DL ¶17). The council's condition was not reasonable because flows "would require potential third-party input and agreement" (DL ¶15). - **Daylight (Elmers Court): HARM.** Mirror-image analysis rejected: "it is not what is existing on site" (DL ¶22). - **Privacy (The Hollies): HARM** on a precautionary basis (DL ¶28). - **Benefits.** HO7, TC2 and L2(1)(b) each substantial (DL ¶42); sustainability and ecology moderate (DL ¶43). - **Triggers.** "Framework Policy F7 requires amongst other things for development proposals to not present a risk from flooding to potential occupiers and should not increase flood risk elsewhere, otherwise they should be refused" (DL ¶46). "With Policy DP3.3 going as far as to state that proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with Policy DP3.1" (DL ¶47). ## Planning balance S4 with S4(2)(c). "although it is found the benefits of the proposal which are substantial, they would not in this instance substantially outweigh the adverse effects of the proposal which would fail to comply with 2 Framework policies that set out specific circumstances for refusal" (DL ¶48). This inverts the S4(1) formula (the test is whether benefits are *substantially outweighed by* adverse effects); the outcome follows anyway from S4(2)(c), so the slip is not decisive. Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶49). ## What made the difference The unevidenced exceedance route. An on-site exceedance solution, or evidence of capacity and agreement for The Hollies' system, would have removed the F7 trigger; the daylight and privacy harm would then have been weighed against substantial benefits. ## Transferable points - A drainage condition is unreasonable where the scheme relies on a third party's private system with no evidence of capacity or agreement (DL ¶14–16). - F7 read as a "should be refused" policy for S4(2)(c) (DL ¶46, ¶48). - A "mirror image" daylight baseline does not reflect what is on site (DL ¶22). - Substantial weight under HO7, TC2 and L2(1)(b) together did not overcome two failed refusal policies (DL ¶42, ¶48). ## Policy findings - **F7: fail.** exceedance flows routed to The Hollies' private drainage with no evidence of capacity or third-party agreement; condition not reasonable; F7 treated as a should-be-refused policy (DL 14-17, 46) - **DM7: neutral.** foundation encroachment into 10 m borehole buffer (chalk dissolution) left to other regimes (DL 11-13) - **P3: harm.** 2 rooms substantial and 5 moderate daylight loss at Elmers Court; mirror-image baseline rejected; privacy harm to The Hollies from balconies under 21 m (DL 19-30, 47) - **DP3(3): fail.** DP3.1 living-conditions conflict; "should be refused if, without clear justification" cited; no separate clear-justification finding (DL 47-48) - **S4(2)(c): fail.** fails 2 Framework should-be-refused policies (F7, DP3(3)); letter inverts the S4 formula ("would not ... substantially outweigh the adverse effects") (DL 48) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** no 5YHLS (figure not stated); includes 11.2 affordable dwellings secured by s106 (DL 34, 42) - **TC2: benefit (substantial weight).** town centre vitality incl. residential diversification (DL 42) - **L2(1)(b): benefit (substantial weight).** better use of vacant/underutilised land (DL 42) - **L3: benefit (limited weight).** emerging allocation proposes more dwellings (DL 44) - **HC6: benefit (limited weight).** pub not commercially viable (DL 44) - **DM4: neutral (limited weight).** Reg 19 emerging plan limited weight (DL 4) - **N6: pass.** Burnham Beeches SAC SAMM contribution secured by s106 (DL 31-33) ## Key facts - Chalk dissolution "high risk"; 10 m CIRIA C574 buffer, one building corner about 8.5 m from borehole (DL 9-11) - Exceedance flows to rely on The Hollies' private drainage system; third-party input needed (DL 14-15) - 40% affordable (8 social rent, 3 shared ownership, commuted sum) secured by s106 (DL 34) - BNG de minimis exemption (DL 37) - Costs applications against the council as LPA and as LLFA decided separately (DL 2) - Parties given opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007582 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6862bd7d-8beb-4968-ab47-3abeebfd4b70 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007582.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 83 Attingham Drive, Dudley - **Decision:** allowed, 21 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Fuller - **Authority:** Dudley (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6007589 - **Application reference:** P25/1167 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of 4-bed house (C3) to children's care home (C2) for one child, with side parking and retrospective fencing - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** development-plan-only - **Development plan policies:** Dudley Borough Development Strategy 2017 S6, L2, Black Country Core Strategy 2011 ENV3, Dudley Residential Design Guide SPD 2023, Dudley Regulation 19 Local Plan 2024 (great weight) - **Main issues:** character and appearance, garden space for occupier - **Tags:** tier-2, childrens-home, specialist-housing, no-framework-reference, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary Change of use of an estate house in Dudley to a single-child care home, with side parking and fencing. Allowed with a one-child occupancy condition. Parking and fencing fitted the estate's character, and the slightly reduced garden was adequate for one child and carers. The "S6" in the slice index is Dudley Development Strategy Policy S6, not Framework S6. ## What made the difference A purely development-plan decision. Low occupancy (one child) meant the garden-size SPD standards for new houses did not bite (DL ¶¶14–15). Neighbours' fear of crime and cohesion concerns were not backed by evidence (DL ¶¶17–18). The letter, dated 21 Aug 2026, does not engage with the new Framework at all, which is a transition gap. ## Policy findings - **Dudley Development Strategy S6 / BCCS ENV3: accord.** side parking and fencing typical of the estate; tree retained (DL 5-10) - **Dudley Development Strategy L2: accord.** garden only marginally reduced; adequate for one child with EBD and up to three carers (DL 11-16) ## Key facts - Condition limits use to a children's care home for one child (DL 1) - Letter makes no substantive reference to the 2026 Framework (only in conditions paragraph); decided 4 days after publication with no transition note - Emerging Reg 19 plan given "great weight" but did not alter the issues (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007589 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f1dbb8dd-41f0-496b-a069-05f276f694a3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007589.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 42 Potter Street, Harlow (annex to part holiday let) - **Decision:** allowed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Pearce - **Authority:** Harlow (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6007590 - **Application reference:** HW/FUL/25/00481 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of a residential annex (a Grade II listed outbuilding) to mixed use as annex for six months and short-term holiday let for the rest of the year - **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** Harlow Local Development Plan 2020 H7, ED4 - **Main issues:** suitability of location having regard to development plan policy - **Tags:** tier-2, heritage-no-harm, listed-building, rural-tourism, annexe, plan-conflict-overridden, limited-nppf-engagement, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A listed outbuilding with permission as an annex was allowed to be used as a holiday let for up to six months a year. This conflicted with the local annex policy, but conditions kept it tied to the house, so the harm was minor. With no physical works there was no heritage harm. The letter decided the appeal on the development plan and the Framework's heritage policies only, without an S4 step. Allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "the parties have been provided with an opportunity to comment on the revised Framework" (DL ¶2). - **Annex policy H7: minor CONFLICT.** "whilst the proposal would not fully accord with Policy H7, the degree of conflict would be limited" (DL ¶7). - **Heritage: NO HARM.** HE4 and HE6 are quoted (DL ¶12). "Given the lack of physical alterations and the retained association of the outbuilding with No 42, the proposal would not harm the significance of either heritage asset" (DL ¶14). Benefit to upkeep "carries limited weight" as unevidenced (DL ¶14). ## Planning balance Plan-led. "the considerations set out above outweigh the minor conflict with Policy H7 for this specific proposal" (DL ¶15). The Framework appears only on heritage; S3 and S4 are not mentioned. ## What made the difference Conditions. Capping the holiday use and tying management to the owners meant the annex could not become a separate dwelling, which was the point of H7. ## Transferable points - A change of use with no physical works to a listed building causes no harm to significance where the functional link with the principal building is kept (DL ¶14). - Maintenance benefits from more regular use of a listed building carry limited weight without evidence of its condition and costs (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **LP H7 (local): conflict.** holiday let lacks functional dependence on the principal dwelling; conflict limited and harm "minor" because conditions stop a self-contained dwelling (DL 6-9) - **HE6(1): neutral (substantial weight).** HE4 and HE6 quoted with s66(1); no physical works, so no harm to the Grade II outbuilding or Grade II house; more regular use and heating may help upkeep, limited weight as unevidenced (DL 11-14) - **s38(6): pass.** underused building brought into use, limited tourism benefit and limited heritage upkeep benefit outweigh minor H7 conflict; no S3/S4 step run (DL 10, 14-15) ## Key facts - Outbuilding is Grade II listed (List Entry 1111661); the principal dwelling is also Grade II (1111660) (DL 11) - Conditions cap holiday use at six months a year, two adults or one household, 14 days per stay, run by the owners with a guest register (Schedule 3-6) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007590 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5013386c-450f-4179-8b2d-92f1c1b24064 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007590.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Footpath outside 9-17 Highgate Road, Camden (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: David Troy - **Authority:** Camden (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6007598 - **Application reference:** 2025/5852/P - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub replacing a telephone kiosk, with double-sided digital advertisement panels (Appeal A; linked advert Appeal B 6007600) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), CO1 - **Development plan policies:** Camden Local Plan 2017 D1, D2, D4, G1, A1, C5, C6, T1 - **Main issues:** character and heritage, pedestrian safety, community safety - **Tags:** tier-2, telecoms, street-hub, heritage-harm-decisive, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A companion decision to PINS-6007360 by the same inspector. A BT Street Hub outside the listed Forum theatre in Kentish Town was dismissed for harm to the open footway, the theatre's setting and pedestrian movement (DL 9-22). ## What made the difference Here the harm arose from introducing clutter into an open, well-spaced footway (DL 8-9). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): fail.** lower-level harm to setting of Grade II Forum theatre; church setting preserved (DL 11-13) - **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight but modest benefits (DL 14-15) - **TR4: fail.** obstruction on the pedestrian desire line outside the theatre (DL 18-22) ## Key facts - Uncluttered, open footway, unlike the Chalk Farm Road site (DL 8-9) - Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007598 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2253ef64-c590-4cc2-9cce-c3c882518761 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007598.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Upper Sent Cottages, The Barn, Okewood Hill - **Decision:** dismissed, 20 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Housden - **Authority:** Mole Valley (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007601 - **Application reference:** MO/2025/02511 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of land for temporary siting of a static caravan as a rural worker's dwelling for an equestrian enterprise (retrospective) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, isolated, rural-lane, valued-landscape, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO11(1)(a), S5(3) - **Development plan policies:** Mole Valley Local Plan 2024 S1, INF1, EN4, EN8 - **Main issues:** essential need for a rural worker, accessibility, character and appearance - **Tags:** rural-worker-dwelling, isolated-home, s5-3-isolated, equestrian, retrospective, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, evidence-gap, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A temporary static caravan for a worker at a growing equestrian enterprise near Okewood Hill, already on site. Dismissed. The appellant gave no evidence of how often emergencies happen, how many mares are bred, whether alternative security would work, or how the business is doing. So essential need under HO11(1)(a) was not shown and S5(3) barred the isolated home. The site was also car-dependent, with an unlit, footway-less road, and the caravan caused considerable harm to the Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Having reviewed the changes, I am satisfied that it does not affect the substantive matters of the appeal and that proceeding without further consultation ... would not be prejudicial" (DL ¶3). - **Essential need — HO11(1)(a): FAIL.** "I have no substantive evidence before me detailing how frequently these events have occurred or would likely occur in the future, instead it is merely stated that it could happen" (DL ¶10). "the full-time labour requirement is not the same as an essential need for a worker to live at the enterprise" (DL ¶13). The appellant's own formula was accepted as a helpful test: "the need must be essential, not merely convenient, and absence must seriously undermine the enterprise" (DL ¶8). - **Accessibility: FAIL.** "the road outside of the site is unlit with no public footpaths meaning occupiers are required to walk on the carriage which given the rural nature of the road is not comfortable, convenient and perceived as a safe alternative" (DL ¶17). - **Character: FAIL.** "whilst the proposal is temporary, it still results in considerable harm to the character and appearance of the area" (DL ¶22). - **S5(3).** "Policy S5 paragraph 3 of the Framework sets out isolated homes should not be approved other than in accordance with Policy HO11 ... Therefore, the appeal does not benefit from the presumption" (DL ¶27). ## Planning balance This was not a weighted S5 balance: S5(3) and HO11 act as a gateway. The enterprise's socio-economic benefits carried "only ... very limited positive" weight once essential need was not shown. They did not outweigh the character harm and "introduction of a car-dependent rural dwelling" (DL ¶28). ## What made the difference Lack of evidence. The appellant listed possible equine emergencies without a record of how often they happen, gave no mare or foaling numbers and no business plan or accounts, and did not address CCTV or fencing as an alternative for security. A functional-need appraisal with incident logs, stock numbers and a costed growth plan could have supported a temporary trial dwelling under the PPG. ## Transferable points - HO11(1)(a) essential need needs evidence of how often and how likely out-of-hours events are, not a list of what could happen (DL ¶10). - Labour requirement (full-time equivalents) is not the same as a need to live on site (DL ¶13). - Security needs are answered by CCTV or fencing unless shown to be ineffective (DL ¶12). - A temporary trial dwelling still needs business evidence and essential need (DL ¶14). - S5(3) makes HO11 the only route for isolated homes. Failing it removes the S3 presumption (DL ¶27). - A rural road with no footway or lighting makes walking "not comfortable, convenient and perceived as a safe alternative", so occupiers are car-dependent (DL ¶17). ## Policy findings - **HO11(1)(a): fail.** no evidence of frequency of equine emergencies, foaling numbers, alternative security, or business finances; 3.21 FTE labour is not essential need to live on site (DL 6-16) - **S5(3): fail.** isolated homes only in accordance with HO11, so no presumption under S3 (DL 27) - **TR3: fail.** unlit rural road without footways, very limited facilities in Okewoodhill, highly car dependent; cited against LP INF1/S1 (DL 17-18) - **HE6: pass.** setting of Grade II Okewood Manor and the adjacent conservation area preserved (DL 25-26) ## Key facts - Caravan already in situ; the Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) suffers "considerable harm" even though temporary (DL 2, 22) - Embleton PC v Northumberland CC [2013] EWHC 3631 applied to the essential need test (no viability test) (DL 7) - PPG temporary-dwelling trial route rejected for lack of business evidence (DL 14) - Decided without consulting the parties on the new Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007601 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a547ca3f-0c24-4928-858d-1251a7a28b5d --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007601.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Eden Grove, 17-51 London Road, Staines-upon-Thames (s73 parking reduction) - **Decision:** allowed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Heppell - **Authority:** Spelthorne (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007619 - **Application reference:** 25/01245/RVC - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73 variation of parking conditions 3 and 20 on a 467-home scheme, cutting residential parking (ratio 0.7 to 0.51 across the wider site) and reallocating 35 basement spaces to commercial use (Appeal A; linked Appeal B 6007620 for the 173-home phase) - **Homes:** 467 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, near-station - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR2(2), TR6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Spelthorne Local Plan 2024-2039/40 (March 2026) ID2, Surrey County Council Vehicular, Electric Vehicle and Cycle Parking Guidance for New Developments (moderate weight) - **Main issues:** highway safety and parking - **Tags:** tier-2, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, s73-variation, parking, connectivity-tool, large-scheme, new-local-plan ## Summary Berkeley Homes sought to cut residential parking at Eden Grove, a nearly complete scheme on the edge of Staines town centre, because take-up had been low, and to give some spaces to empty commercial units. The inspector applied the county's maximum-standards guidance, which accords with TR2(2), and found the site highly accessible (Connectivity Tool 79-82). With the highway authority content, there was no unacceptable highway safety impact under TR6(4). Allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were afforded the opportunity to comment on the implications of the new Framework" (DL ¶7). - **Standards.** The county guidance "accords with Policy TR2(2) of the Framework, which encourages the setting of maximum car parking standards where they will support efforts to encourage the use of sustainable transport modes and shared transport" (DL ¶19). - **Accessibility.** The Connectivity Tool score "derives from its very high public transport connectivity and high walking and cycling connectivity, giving it a score well above the median score of 50 and thus denoting good accessibility" (DL ¶21). - **Highway safety.** "congestion and nuisance, whilst potentially disruptive to adjacent residents, do not in themselves mean that highway safety has been comprised" (DL ¶34). - **TR6(4): PASS.** "The evidence before me does not indicate that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, and therefore a refusal is not justified" (DL ¶39). ## Planning balance No wider balance: the conditions could be varied without harm to highway safety (DL ¶44). ## What made the difference Hard evidence of low take-up among private buyers, a strong Connectivity Tool score, a car club and travel plan, and a highway authority that raised no safety objection. ## Transferable points - TR2(2) supports maximum parking standards; parking below the maximum is justified where sustainable travel is working (DL ¶19, ¶38). - A Connectivity Tool score is given meaning by comparing it with the median of 50 (DL ¶21). - Congestion and nuisance parking are not, in themselves, TR6(4) highway safety harm (DL ¶34). ## Policy findings - **TR2(2): accord.** county maximum-standards guidance accords with TR2(2); development has incorporated sustainable and active travel, justifying reduced parking below the maximum (DL 19, 38) - **TR6(4): pass.** no unacceptable impact on highway safety; highway authority agreed; congestion and nuisance parking are not in themselves a safety impact (DL 34-35, 39) ## Key facts - Parties afforded the opportunity to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 7) - 489 homes across both permissions; residential spaces cut from 341 to 247, commercial spaces up to 40, car club spaces kept at 5 (DL 14-15) - Take-up 0.47 spaces per privately sold flat, 0.13 for the rental operator, 0.63 for affordable units (DL 26) - DfT Connectivity Tool score 79-82 against a median of 50; edge of Staines centre, walking distance to rail station with services to London Waterloo and to buses (DL 20-21) - 2021 Census - 38.4% of flats in central Staines had no car (DL 28) - Joint letter with Appeal B 6007620 (15-51 London Road), also allowed (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007619 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2d16357e-0547-4430-8a3a-1064e3573db9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007619.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Eden Grove, 15-51 London Road, Staines-upon-Thames (parking conditions, Appeal B) - **Decision:** allowed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Heppell - **Authority:** Spelthorne (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007620 - **Application reference:** 25/01244/RVC - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Section 73 variation of parking conditions 3 and 21 on a 173-home extension to the Eden Grove scheme, reducing residential parking and reallocating spaces to commercial use - **Homes:** 173 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, near-station - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4), TR2(2) - **Development plan policies:** Spelthorne Local Plan 2024-2039/40 (March 2026) ID2 - **Main issues:** highway safety and parking - **Tags:** s73-variation, parking, connectivity-tool, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, large-scheme, tier-2 ## Summary Berkeley Homes sought to cut residential parking at the Eden Grove development in Staines, near the town centre and station, and give some spaces to vacant commercial units. Take-up of spaces had been low. The inspector found the site highly accessible (Connectivity Tool 79–82), the reduction within Surrey's maximum standards and consistent with TR2(2), and no unacceptable highway safety impact under TR6(4). Both linked appeals were allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were afforded the opportunity to comment on the implications of the new Framework for the proposals" (DL ¶7). - **Accessibility.** The Connectivity Tool score of 79–82 derives "from its very high public transport connectivity and high walking and cycling connectivity, giving it a score well above the median score of 50 and thus denoting good accessibility" (DL ¶21). - **Parking standards, TR2(2).** The PGND "accords with Policy TR2(2) of the Framework, which encourages the setting of maximum car parking standards" (DL ¶19). "A reduction in residential parking provision to the level sought by the appellant, below the maximum provision required by the PGND, is therefore justified" (DL ¶38). - **Highway safety, TR6(4): PASS.** "congestion and nuisance, whilst potentially disruptive to adjacent residents, do not in themselves mean that highway safety has been comprised" (DL ¶34). "The evidence before me does not indicate that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, and therefore a refusal is not justified" (DL ¶39). ## Planning balance No formal balance. The only issue was highway safety; with TR6(4) passed and ID2 complied with, the conditions were varied (DL ¶40, ¶44). ## What made the difference Evidence of actual demand (sales take-up) at a highly accessible edge-of-centre site, a highway authority that agreed, and nearby parking controls that deter overspill. A site with poor public transport or no on-street controls would need more. ## Transferable points - Measured parking take-up at a near-complete scheme is good evidence for reducing provision (DL ¶26–27). - A Connectivity Tool score well above the median of 50 supports reduced parking (DL ¶21). - Congestion and nuisance parking are not, in themselves, unacceptable highway safety impacts under TR6(4) (DL ¶34, ¶39). ## Policy findings - **TR2(2): accord.** Surrey maximum-standards guidance (PGND, moderate weight) accords with TR2(2); reduction below the maximum justified by low take-up (DL 19, 38) - **TR6(4): pass.** no unacceptable highway safety impact; highway authority agreed; congestion and nuisance parking are not in themselves safety harm (DL 34-35, 39) - **TR3: pass.** mapped - walking distance of Staines centre, rail station (regular Waterloo service) and buses; Connectivity Tool 79-82 vs median 50; car club and travel plan (DL 20-21, 28-29) - **E2: benefit.** mapped - reallocating 35 spaces to vacant commercial units could create jobs; no weight word (DL 36) ## Key facts - Joint letter with Appeal A 6007619 (467 homes); 489 homes across both sites now nearly complete (DL 3, 14) - Residential parking falls from 341 to 247 spaces (0.7 to 0.51 per unit); commercial spaces rise to 40; 27 multi-storey spaces kept for affordable units (DL 15, 27) - Take-up of spaces 0.47 per privately sold flat, 0.13 build-to-rent, 0.63 affordable; over 90% of flats sold (DL 26) - 2021 Census - 38.4% of central Staines flats have no car (DL 28) - Parking SPD envisaged by ID2 not yet adopted; old 2001/2011 SPG no longer in force (DL 18, 22) - s73 route accepted (Finney) as the description does not fix parking numbers (DL 5) - Adjoining streets have parking restrictions reviewed in 2024; earlier parking-management contributions remain unspent (DL 32, 35) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007620 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007620.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 16 Hobart Street, Leicester (7-person HMO) - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Elaine Moulton - **Authority:** Leicester (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6007630 - **Application reference:** 20260070 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use from house (C3) to a 7-person house in multiple occupation (sui generis), retrospective - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4 - **Development plan policies:** Leicester Local Plan 2020-2036 Ho11 - **Main issues:** housing mix and character, living conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, concentration-policy, living-conditions, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, retrospective, transitional-no-consultation, new-local-plan ## Summary A 7-person HMO in a Leicester terrace where HMOs already make up 15-20% of the stock. Dismissed. The inspector found a significant concentration in conflict with Local Plan Ho11, and cumulative noise and disturbance. Under S4 the modest benefits were substantially outweighed. ## Issues and findings - **Concentration.** "between 15 to 20% of the total housing stock are HMOs. In my judgement, this amounts to a significant concentration of HMOs and indicates the community in which the appeal site is located has become unbalanced" (DL ¶10). - **Living conditions.** Reducing occupancy from 10 to 7 did not overcome "the broader concerns arising from the significant concentration of HMOs in the area" (DL ¶12). - **S4.** "when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework, the benefits of approving the development would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶19). ## What made the difference The ward-level HMO share taken from the Council's Article 4 review. Without a policy threshold, the inspector used that evidence to judge a "significant concentration" (DL ¶8-10). ## Transferable points - Where the plan sets no HMO threshold, a 15-20% local share can be a significant concentration on the Council's evidence (DL ¶8-10). - Good access to public transport and services, and the more effective use of land, did not outweigh harm to housing mix in the S4 balance (DL ¶17-19). ## Policy findings - **S4: fail.** benefits (effective use of land, accessibility, local spending) substantially outweighed by harm to housing mix and living conditions (DL 16-19) - **P3: harm.** mapped: letter cites a Framework "objective" that development is appropriate for its location; cumulative noise and disturbance with other HMOs (DL 11-13, 18) - **HE9: neutral.** no external change; preserves South Highfields Conservation Area (DL 14-15) ## Key facts - HMOs are 15-20% of the housing stock in this part of Stoneygate ward, which the inspector held a "significant concentration" (DL 10) - Article 4 Direction area; occupancy reduced from 10 to 7 (DL 9, 12) - New Local Plan adopted after the Council's decision; Ho10 renumbered Ho11 (DL 3) - [object Object] ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007630 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a4e41f68-409e-455b-879b-55b035155ffc --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007630.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Bland Hill Farm, Broad Dubb Road, Norwood (FUL 6007606 and LBC 6007642) - **Decision:** dismissed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M J Francis - **Authority:** North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6007642 - **Application reference:** 26/00048/LB - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Detached garage, rear extensions and front porch to Grade II farmhouse (linked s78 appeal 6007606, 26/00047/FUL) - **Site context:** open-countryside, national-landscape, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, HE4, N4, S5(2) - **Main issues:** special interest of listed building, national landscape - **Tags:** tier-2, listed-building-consent, householder, heritage-harm-decisive, national-landscape, framework-only-decision, private-benefit-not-public, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, linked-appeals ## Summary A front porch, first-floor and infill rear extensions, and a large replacement garage at a Grade II 18th-century farmhouse in the Nidderdale National Landscape. Both linked appeals were dismissed. The inspector found medium harm to the listed building and low harm to its setting from the 6 m garage, with only private benefits. The garage also harmed the NL (N4). The inspector ran S5 for a householder scheme outside a settlement: S5(1)(c) (extensions) was considered, but under S5(2) the benefits were substantially outweighed (DL ¶¶35–37). ## What made the difference The house is already in active residential use, so "optimum viable use" arguments failed. There was no evidence of how the new openings and roof would meet the historic fabric. The garage's height on rising ground made it conspicuous in the NL. The Council cited no local plan policies, so the decision rests on the Framework and the Act alone. ## Policy findings - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** medium harm from extensions and porch, low harm from 6 m garage to setting; private benefits not public (DL 24, 29-33) - **N4: harm.** large agricultural-style garage on rising ground in Nidderdale NL fails to conserve natural beauty; LURA s245 duty (DL 25-27) - **S5(1)(c): fail.** extension limb considered; listed-building harm and S5(2) route mean benefits substantially outweighed (DL 34-37) ## Key facts - Council cited no Local Plan policies in decision notices, so decided on the Framework and the Act (DL 4) - Parties consulted on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 3) - Joint letter covers Appeal A 6007606 (planning) and Appeal B 6007642 (LBC); both dismissed ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007642 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7fa81046-20b8-4307-b2ea-fc06ff0423be --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007642.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south of Harbury Lane and east of Vickers Way, Heathcote, Warwick - **Decision:** allowed, 2 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Bhupinder Thandi - **Authority:** Warwick (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6007651 - **Application reference:** W24/1099 - **Procedure:** inquiry - **Development:** Retirement living apartments (McCarthy and Stone) with access, parking, landscaping and ancillary facilities, with no affordable housing or infrastructure contributions on viability grounds - **Site context:** inside-settlement, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6), DM5 - **Development plan policies:** Warwick District Local Plan 2017 DM1, DM2, BE3, NZC3 - **Main issues:** viability and infrastructure contributions, noise for future occupiers - **Tags:** viability, specialist-housing, older-persons-housing, council-withdrew-objection, living-conditions, transitional-no-consultation, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary McCarthy and Stone retirement apartments in the Heathcote urban extension, Warwick, with no affordable housing or infrastructure contributions. Allowed after an inquiry. Both the appellant's viability assessment and the council's independent review showed a deficit, so nil contributions were justified under local policy DM2. Updated facade noise monitoring and mitigation (acoustic barrier, glazing, MVHR) gave acceptable living conditions. The council withdrew both reasons for refusal before the inquiry. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Following conclusion of the Inquiry a new National Planning Policy Framework ... was published. My decision is made in the context of this revised Framework" (DL ¶4). - **Viability.** "both the assessment and the independent review conclude that the scheme is not viable. On the available evidence, I can only reach the same conclusion" (DL ¶12). - **Noise.** Upper-floor residents facing Harbury Lane "may experience higher noise levels at certain times of the day if windows are open. However, that would not be particularly unusual for developments located close to busy roads ... Occupiers would also be able to choose whether to use the MVHR system or open windows" (DL ¶20). - **Need.** "there is an evidenced need for housing for older people which is likely to become more acute" (DL ¶23). ## Planning balance Plan-led. Accordance with DM1, DM2 and BE3. Benefits were listed (older persons' need, jobs, net zero, BNG) but no weights were assigned. No Framework policy is cited by code. ## What made the difference Viability agreed between the experts, and noise evidence refreshed at the facade. An 18-month "shelf life" for noise surveys was mentioned at the inquiry (DL ¶17). Once the council withdrew its objections the outcome followed. This is a nearby authority (Warwick) accepting nil contributions for specialist older persons' housing on viability evidence. ## Transferable points - Where the council's own independent review agrees a deficit, nil affordable housing and infrastructure contributions can be justified at appeal (DL ¶11-13). - Noise surveys have a practical shelf life (about 18 months was quoted), and facade monitoring is the "gold standard" (DL ¶17). - MVHR gives occupiers a choice between ventilation and noise that weighs in favour of accepting upper-floor road noise (DL ¶20). - A lapsed need for a specific-end-user office permission removes any employment-land objection (DL ¶26). ## Policy findings - **DM2 (Warwick DLP): accord.** appellant FVA shows RLV ~£0.168m against BLV ~£0.435m (deficit ~£0.267m); council's independent review agrees no surplus; nil contributions justified (DL 7-14); DM5 (Framework viability) mapped by harvester — letter does not cite it - **BE3 (Warwick DLP): accord.** updated facade noise monitoring; acoustic barrier, acoustic glazing and MVHR bring ground floor and amenity areas within limits; upper floors "adverse" not "significant adverse" (DL 16-22); P3(2)(a) equivalent, not cited - **HO5: benefit.** evidenced local need and shortfall for older persons' housing (Coventry and Warwickshire SHMA 2013, HEDNA 2022) (DL 23-24); no weight stated; code mapped by harvester - **E2: neutral.** extant office permission was for a specific end-user who has moved; no certainty of employment use (DL 26); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Council withdrew both reasons for refusal after the updated FVA and noise memo (DL 3) - Inquiry closed before 17 August; decision made under the 2026 Framework without further consultation (DL 4) - Net-zero-in-operation design; net biodiversity gain (DL 27) - Part of the Heathcote urban extension beside a local centre (DL 15) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007651 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/034cb618-6843-4f45-9d36-2ce54f38e9ca --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007651.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Little Land, Lower Smaws, Wetherby Road, Tadcaster - **Decision:** allowed, 25 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Hobbs - **Authority:** North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6007657 - **Application reference:** ZG2026/0034/ATD - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class Q prior approval, log/tool store building to 1 dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** DM6 - **Main issues:** established agricultural unit - **Tags:** tier-2, class-q, prior-approval, framework-not-cited ## Summary Class Q conversion of a log store was granted. The holding is primarily horticultural, and the building's forestry use is ancillary to that, so it is part of an established agricultural unit. The Framework is not cited. ## What made the difference The Inspector's site observation that most of the land was used for tree and hedge nursery and seed growing, with only modest log storage (DL ¶10). ## Policy findings - **DM6: neutral.** highway access-upgrade and parking conditions refused as unnecessary (DL 15-17) ## Key facts - 10.5-acre holding primarily horticultural (tree and hedge nursery, seed growing); forestry use of building ancillary, so established agricultural unit before 20 March 2013 ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/99f60d9f-c8d7-4dda-9be7-06c19617566f - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007657 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007657.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Hazley, Holme Road, Ramsey St Mary's (barn extension workshop) - **Decision:** dismissed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Fulford - **Authority:** Huntingdonshire (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6007662 - **Application reference:** 25/01320/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Large extension to an existing barn forming a hobby workshop and storage beside a countryside dwelling - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 LP10(b), LP11, LP12 - **Main issues:** character - **Tags:** tier-2, design-refusal, open-countryside, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A barn extension larger than the dwelling it served, for hobby use, was refused as overdominant in the open countryside (DL 7-8, 13). Statutory BNG was given little weight as a benefit (DL 16). ## What made the difference Scale relative to both the barn and the house. A smaller extension would give the same sustainability benefit (DL 11). ## Policy findings - **DP3: conflict (significant weight).** extension larger than the dwelling's footprint and nearly eaves height; incongruous; Framework requires proposals to respond to context (DL 7-9, 17) - **N2: neutral.** statutory 10% BNG does not weigh significantly in favour (DL 16) ## Key facts - Framework parts relevant 'not significantly amended'; no submissions sought (DL 3) - Balance expressed as adverse impacts that 'significantly outweigh the benefits' (DL 18) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007662 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/50fb78d8-e379-4c34-9756-63b11e9fe0bb --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007662.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Upper Farm, Shut Lane Head, Newcastle-under-Lyme - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Stephens - **Authority:** Newcastle-under-Lyme (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6007668 - **Application reference:** 26/00082/OUT - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline for one serviced self-build plot (all matters reserved except access and scale) in an open field beyond the end of Shut Lane Head - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Newcastle-under-Lyme Local Plan 2020-2040 (adopted July 2026) PSD1, PSD2, PSD3, PSD4, PSD5, PSD7, HOU6, SE10, SE12, Chapel and Hill Chorlton, Maer and Aston, and Whitmore NDP DC2 - **Main issues:** suitability of location, Green Belt, character and appearance, living conditions, VSC - **Tags:** sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, self-build, self-build-unsecured, small-scheme, non-determination, isolated-home, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary One self-build plot in an open Green Belt field beyond the end of a rural lane near Newcastle-under-Lyme. The inspector tested the route in detail: the quiet no-through lane itself was walkable, but it ends at the A53 with no footway, and the only bus runs six times a day with no evenings or Sundays. That failed TR3 and GB7(1)(g)(iii), so the dwelling was inappropriate. With openness and character harm and modest benefits, VSC did not exist. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties have had the opportunity to comment on the relevance of any new Framework policies on the appeal scheme" (DL ¶5). - **The lane.** "being a no-through road, traffic would most likely be light ... As such walking or cycling along the lane would not be unduly difficult or unsafe" (DL ¶14). - **The main road.** "having walked some 800 metres and on reaching the A53 there is no footpath and nowhere to walk, cycle or wheel to" (DL ¶14). - **Bus.** Six services a day Monday to Saturday; "there is no service on a Sunday or bank holidays. Anyone working shifts or wanting to access other services, such as leisure, in the evenings, on Sundays or bank holidays would not be able to do so" (DL ¶15). - **TR3: FAIL.** "the presence of a bus stop at the bottom of the lane does not, of itself, make the location suitable or sustainable" (DL ¶19). The highway authority reached a similar conclusion but raised no objection; the inspector still found "the appeal site is in an unsustainable location which would not support sustainable patterns of movement or enable good accessibility for different users" (DL ¶19). - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): FAIL, so inappropriate.** "the proposal would not meet all of the criteria of Framework policy GB:7.g and hence would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt" (DL ¶26). S5 "does not apply" (DL ¶31). - **Openness.** "there would be a significant degradation and reduction in the visual and spatial openness of the Green Belt" (DL ¶28). - **Character: HARM.** Full-height glazing would be "somewhat like a beacon of light, at odds with the general darkness of an agricultural rural landscape" (DL ¶37). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC: substantial weight to Green Belt harm plus location and character harm, against modest economic and housing benefits with the self-build status unsecured. "the ‘other considerations’, alone or in combination, do not clearly outweigh the totality of the harm to the Green Belt and the other harms I have identified" (DL ¶48). Plan-led conclusion under a newly adopted plan (DL ¶49). ## What made the difference The walk to the bus ends on an A-road with no footway, and the bus has no evening or Sunday service. The inspector separated a quiet lane (acceptable) from the main road (not). A site in or next to a Rural Centre with services, or a secured footway link, would have been needed. ## Transferable points - A quiet no-through lane without footway or lighting can be acceptable to walk, but the route must lead somewhere safe: a main road with no footway breaks it (DL ¶14). - A bus stop about 800 m away with six weekday buses, none in the evening or on Sundays, does not make a location sustainable, and "does not, of itself, make the location suitable" (DL ¶15, ¶19). - A highway authority's lack of objection does not settle TR3 (DL ¶19). - A bus accepted elsewhere as one of several village services does not transfer to a site where the bus is the only facility (DL ¶17). - (g)(iii) failure alone makes a Green Belt dwelling inappropriate, without deciding (i) or (ii) (DL ¶26). ## Policy findings - **TR3: fail.** no services on the lane; nearest centre Clayton 2.6 km; bus stop about 860 m on the A53, which has no footway; No 64 bus 6 a day Mon-Sat, 2-hourly, last from Newcastle 1746, none Sundays/bank holidays; timetable submitted; no improvements proposed; highway authority reached similar view but did not object (DL 13-19) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): fail.** not in a sustainable location, so (g) fails whatever the position on (i) and (ii) (DL 24, 26) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): not-engaged.** self-build shortfall evidence incomplete and no evidence of a five-year supply shortfall; not decided because (iii) fails (DL 25-26) - **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** inappropriate; footprint about three times the ruined brick building; significant loss of spatial and visual openness; encroachment (DL 28-30, 45-48) - **S5(5): not-engaged.** S5 does not apply to inappropriate Green Belt development (DL 31) - **DP3(1): harm.** mapped: stand-alone glazed dwelling urbanises an open field; light spill "like a beacon of light"; DP3 not named; conflict with local PSD4, PSD7, SE10 and NDP DC2 (DL 33-39) - **P3: pass.** mapped: no unacceptable agricultural noise or odour (DL 40-43) - **HO7: benefit.** benefits of one dwelling modest; self-build unsecured - UU undated, unsigned and referring to two dwellings (DL 44, 47) ## Key facts - Non-determination appeal; council's putative reasons form the main issues (DL 2) - New Local Plan adopted July 2026 during the appeal; parties consulted on both it and the new Framework (DL 5-6) - Shut Lane Head single-width, no pavements or lighting, but a no-through road with light traffic, so walking or cycling on it "would not be unduly difficult or unsafe"; the failure is at the A53 (DL 14) - Baldwins Gate appeal (APP/P3420/W/23/3314808, No 64 bus accepted) distinguished - there the bus was one of several village services (DL 17) - Local Green Belt policy PSD5 "broadly consistent with the Framework" (DL 23); NDP DC2 "not out of date" (DL 39) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007668 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8c789e19-0ae7-451c-946e-026ee8e43c73 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007668.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land opposite Nash Cottage, Ashford Road, Brenzett - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Housden - **Authority:** Folkestone and Hythe (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007677 - **Application reference:** 25/2053/FH - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of a commercial storage site to residential, demolition of garage/store and a self-build 3-bed chalet bungalow in open countryside - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane, PDL, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), S5(2), DP3(1), DP3(2)(d) - **Development plan policies:** Folkestone and Hythe Places and Policies Local Plan 2020 HB1, NE3, Core Strategy Review 2022 SS1, SS2, SS3, CSD3 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, location outside settlement boundary, accessibility to services - **Tags:** s5-1-d-pdl, s5-2-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, self-build, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, annex-a-weight-reduction, heritage-no-harm, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A self-build chalet bungalow replacing a dilapidated concrete store in a field on the Romney Marsh, outside Brenzett. The site qualified under S5(1)(d) as previously developed land, but the house would harm the rural character and be car-dependent, conflicting with DP3(1) and DP3(2)(d). With no clear justification, the S5(2) trigger meant the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I sought the views of the parties on the implications of the new Framework on the appeal" (DL ¶3). - **Character.** "the proposal would nevertheless result in considerable harm to the character and appearance of the area" (DL ¶8). - **Access to services.** "Ashford Road is a rural unlit countryside road which I observed featured fast moving vehicles and narrow banks to the side of the carriageway." (DL ¶11). Walking or cycling "would not be comfortable, convenient or perceived as safe or realistic for future occupiers to walk or cycle to Brenzett to meet their daily needs" (DL ¶11). "The previous commercial use would therefore not mitigate or justify the introduction of a car-dependent residential dwelling." (DL ¶12). - **Plan weight (Transitional(2)).** "Therefore, Policies SS1, SS2 and CSD3, insofar as they relate to restricting development is materially inconsistent with the Framework and the conflict with them therefore carries very limited weight." (DL ¶20). The inconsistency is reasoned from the lack of a five-year supply and HO7, not from S5's categories. SS3 is consistent with DP3(2)(d): "Given a car-dependent development would be introduced the conflict with this CS policy carries considerable weight against the proposal." (DL ¶21). - **S5(1)(d): PASS** (DL ¶25). - **DP3(3) / S5(2): FAIL.** The proposal "would also conflict with paragraph 2(d) of Policy DP3 as walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport is not prioritised through the introduction of a car dependent development." (DL ¶27). "There is no clear justification for the conflict with these paragraphs. In these circumstances, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Policy S5, the benefits of the proposal are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects." (DL ¶27). - **Heritage.** No additional harm to the setting of Grade II Nash Cottage (DL ¶16). ## Planning balance S5(1)(d) route, with the S5(2) trigger via DP3(3). Benefits: substantial weight to one home on brownfield land (DL ¶23); limited weight to biodiversity, economic benefits and removing the dilapidated building (DL ¶24). ## What made the difference Car dependence was routed through DP3(2)(d) as a "should be refused" design principle, alongside the DP3(1) character conflict. Being brownfield under S5(1)(d) did not help once a DP3(3) failure engaged S5(2). ## Transferable points - Car dependence can engage DP3(3) through DP3(2)(d) (walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport not prioritised) and hence the S5(2) trigger, even where an S5(1) category is met (DL ¶21, ¶27). - An unlit rural road with fast traffic and no refuge makes walking and cycling to the nearest village unrealistic (DL ¶11). - A dormant lawful commercial use does not justify a car-dependent dwelling; its trip pattern is not comparable (DL ¶12). - The explicit clear-justification step is stated in one sentence and then fed into S5(2) (DL ¶27). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(d): pass.** parties agree redevelopment of previously developed land; inspector agrees (DL 25) - **DP3(1): conflict.** larger bulky dwelling angled to the road on the field side, domestic curtilage in open field; considerable harm (DL 8) / significant harm (DL 27) (DL 6-8, 27) - **DP3(2)(d): conflict.** car-dependent dwelling does not prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling or public transport (DL 21, 27) - **DP3(3): fail.** explicit - no clear justification for the conflict with DP3(1) and (2)(d) (DL 27) - **S5(2): fail.** DP3(3) failure routed through S5(2); benefits substantially outweighed (DL 26-27) - **Transitional(2): neutral (very-limited weight).** SS1, SS2, CSD3 materially inconsistent insofar as restrictive, reasoned from the lack of a five-year supply and HO7; HB1/NE3 consistent with DP3 and N2 (significant weight); SS3 consistent with DP3(2)(d) (considerable weight) (DL 18-21) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** one dwelling on brownfield land towards a deficient supply (figure not given) (DL 20, 23) - **HE6: neutral.** setting of Grade II Nash Cottage; existing building detracts; no additional harm, significance preserved (s66) (DL 14-16) ## Key facts - Ashford Road is a rural, unlit countryside road with fast-moving traffic and narrow banks; pedestrians and cyclists would use the carriageway (DL 11) - Brenzett village has a shop and a bus service to Ashford and New Romney (DL 10) - Lawful commercial use but site dilapidated and apparently unused; former use not comparable to residential trip-making (DL 12) - Council accepts no five-year supply; figure not stated (DL 20) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007677 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/76ac2b88-5816-4c70-8280-6a6f98549eb5 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007677.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # West Barn, Cobhay Farm, Bathealton - **Decision:** allowed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: James Hills - **Authority:** Somerset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007678 - **Application reference:** 03/24/0003/CQ - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class Q prior approval for conversion of agricultural building to a dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Sch2 Pt3 para W(11) - **Main issues:** deemed prior approval - **Tags:** tier-2, no-framework-reference, class-q, prior-approval, deemed-approval, procedural ## Summary A Class Q barn conversion in Somerset. Allowed on procedure alone: the council missed the 56-day period by more than a year, so prior approval was deemed granted. The inspector stressed that nothing in the decision confirms the proposal is permitted development (DL ¶7). No Framework content. ## What made the difference The council's missed deadline. The merits were never reached. ## Policy findings - **GPDO Sch2 Pt3 para W(11) 56-day period: pass.** council decided 13 months after receipt; prior approval deemed granted; no finding on whether Class Q is otherwise met (2020 GPDO version under transitional arrangements) (DL 4-7) ## Key facts - Application received 6 Nov 2024, decision 9 Dec 2025 (DL 5) - Separate LDC appeal pending on the same proposal (DL 7) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007678 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/020edc01-b7c5-4650-bc5b-735fccf93027 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007678.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 32 Bell End, Rowley Regis - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Standfield - **Authority:** Sandwell (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6007680 - **Application reference:** DC/25/71260 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Two-storey side/rear extension, 10-child day nursery on ground floor with flat above - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3, P3(2)(b), TR6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Black Country Core Strategy 2011 ENV3, Sandwell SADDPD 2012 SAD EOS9, Sandwell Revised Residential Design Guide SPD 2014 - **Main issues:** character, neighbour noise, highway safety - **Tags:** tier-2, nursery, noise, highway-safety-fail, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A 10-child home nursery with a side extension was dismissed on three grounds: design (a terracing effect), noise to close neighbours, and drop-off parking on a busy road. The new Framework was "broadly consistent", so the parties were not consulted (DL ¶4). It is cited generically, without codes. ## What made the difference Close neighbours and a main-road site with tight drop-off space. Management conditions (staggered drop-off, staff living on site, play hours) were rejected as unenforceable or unreasonable (DL ¶¶14, 17, 19). ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail.** side extension to boundary creates terracing effect, off-centre gable, not subservient (DL 6-10) - **P3(2)(b): fail.** regular intense noise from 10 children in rear garden next to close neighbours; play-hours condition unreasonable (DL 13-16) - **TR6(4): fail.** parking under-provision and tight drop-off leading to indiscriminate on-street parking near a bend (DL 17-22) - **HC1: benefit (moderate weight).** local childcare "weigh modestly" (DL 24) ## Key facts - Staff-residency condition to cut parking need rejected as unenforceable - Neighbours did not object ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/28fb9741-54ed-42d8-ba42-47e388cd0d47 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007680 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007680.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Forge Garage, Church Road, Churchill - **Decision:** allowed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Jonathan Edwards - **Authority:** West Oxfordshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007705 - **Application reference:** 25/01974/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Erection of 2 dwellings following demolition of vehicle repair garage buildings - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting, national-landscape, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.38 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, S4(2)(a)(i), HO7 - **Development plan policies:** West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2018 OS2, OS4, E1, West Oxfordshire Design Guide 2016 - **Main issues:** character and appearance and conservation area, heritage settings, living conditions, loss of employment site - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, heritage-no-harm, conservation-area, ndha, national-landscape, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, material-considerations-outweigh-plan, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, energy-efficiency-benefit ## Summary Two stone houses replacing a working village garage in the Churchill Conservation Area, in the Cotswolds National Landscape. The loss of the employment site conflicted with local plan policy E1, and the plan as a whole. But the scheme enhanced the CA and a non-designated heritage asset. With substantial weight to housing (4.38 years' supply), L2 and solar panels, S4 justified allowing the appeal contrary to the plan. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I have considered the main parties comments on the Framework in my assessment" (DL ¶3). - **CA and heritage: positive / no harm.** "the proposal would have a positive effect on the character and appearance of the CA" (DL ¶9); the scheme "would avoid harm to the setting and the significance of any heritage asset" (DL ¶20). - **Employment: CONFLICT with LP E1.** "the proposal would lead to the unacceptable loss of an existing employment site" (DL ¶34). - **HC6.** "part 2 of this policy is clear in stating that key community facilities do not include car garages. I am taken to no part of the Framework that resists the loss of employment premises" (DL ¶48). - **Benefits.** HO7 substantial (DL ¶44); L2 substantial (DL ¶45); CC2(2) solar substantial (DL ¶46); overall "very substantial weight" (DL ¶47). ## Planning balance S4 with S4(2)(a) safeguarding considered: "The harm that would be caused through the loss of employment and removing the villagers' access to a local car services garage is significant but it is not of substantial weight. The benefits of the proposal when taken together are of very considerable weight and they are not substantially outweighed by the adverse effects of the proposal" (DL ¶49). "This support provides sufficient justification to allow the appeal and to grant planning permission contrary to the development plan" (DL ¶50). ## What made the difference The Framework offers no protection to employment premises as such, and HC6 excludes car garages. So the local E1 conflict stood alone against a heritage enhancement and several substantial-weight benefits. Compare PINS-6010035 (five-year supply met, so HO7 not substantial). ## Transferable points - HC6(2) excludes car garages from key community facilities, and the Framework does not itself resist the loss of employment premises (DL ¶48). - Loss of a safeguarded employment site can be "significant but ... not of substantial weight", short of the S4(2)(a) threshold (DL ¶49). - Enhancement of a CA attracts HE6(2) support and can be weighed as a benefit (DL ¶43). - Superseded Fields in Trust play-area buffers are not determinative (DL ¶22). ## Policy findings - **HE6(2): benefit (significant weight).** positive effect on the Churchill CA; with enhancement of The Forge NDHA, "significant weight" (DL 9, 11, 43) - **HE6: neutral.** settings of Grade II* Church of All Saints and Grade II Well End, The Chequers, Langston Memorial Fountain preserved (DL 12-17, 20) - **HE7: benefit.** modest enhancement to setting and significance of The Forge (NDHA) (DL 18-20) - **N4: pass.** within built-up village in Cotswolds NL; no harm; s245 LURA duty met (DL 35) - **LP E1 (local): conflict (significant weight).** loss of occupied employment site without viability evidence or marketing; valued local garage (DL 29-34, 49) - **HC6(2): not-engaged.** key community facilities expressly exclude car garages; no Framework policy resists loss of employment premises (DL 48) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 2 homes, 4.38 years' supply (DL 44) - **L2(1)(d): benefit (substantial weight).** letter cites "part 1(d) of policy L2" for sensitive redevelopment of commercial premises in a settlement (DL 45) - **CC2(2): benefit (substantial weight).** solar panels (DL 46) - **S4(2)(a)(i): pass.** loss of safeguarded employment site "significant but it is not of substantial weight", so not a substantial adverse impact on safeguarding (DL 49) - **S4: pass.** benefits "of very considerable weight" not substantially outweighed; justifies decision contrary to the plan (DL 49-50) ## Key facts - Churchill is a defined village; site within the settlement "as it contains buildings and it is adjacent to other properties" (DL 42) - Garage occupied, lease to 2028; no marketing or viability evidence (DL 30-31) - Council supply about 4.38 years (DL 44) - Fields in Trust 5 m play-area buffer superseded by 2024 FiT guidance (DL 22) - Parties' comments on the 2026 Framework considered (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007705 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/cf550d24-979e-400d-b345-b57e5a2a68c8 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007705.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pavement outside Waitrose, 21 Liverpool Road, Islington (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Teasdale - **Authority:** Islington (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6007715 - **Application reference:** P2025/3517/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Replacement of two phone kiosks with BT Street Hub 3 with two 75-inch digital adverts (Appeal A planning; Appeal B 6007714 advert consent P2025/3518/ADV) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE4, HE6, S4 - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, D4, HC1, T2, T4, Islington Local Plan SDMP 2023 PLAN1, DH1, DH2, DH6, ST3, T1, T2, T4, Islington Urban Design Guide SPD 2017 - **Main issues:** character and appearance and CA setting, pedestrian flow, advert amenity and public safety - **Tags:** tier-2, street-hub, telecoms, digital-advertising, co1-substantial-weight, conservation-area, he6-harm-graded, heritage-harm-decisive, s4-substantially-outweighed, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary BT Street Hub with digital screens replacing two kiosks on cluttered Liverpool Road, Angel, just outside a conservation area. Both appeals were dismissed. The monolithic, illuminated unit would add clutter and stand out in views to and from the CA. The inspector graded the setting harm "at the higher end of the spectrum" and found it outweighed CO1 benefits even at substantial weight. Pedestrian flow was fine. ## What made the difference The heritage balance under HE4/HE6 was decisive. "The proposed development would result in a high level of harm to the significance of the CA. In accordance with the Framework, this harm is afforded substantial weight. Whilst the benefits ... also attract substantial weight, the magnitude of those benefits ... is not sufficient to outweigh the identified heritage harm" (DL ¶25). The immediate area had very few illuminated freestanding displays, so the townscape "lacks the capacity to absorb" one (DL ¶19). The inspector used "higher end of the spectrum" grading and HE5 degree-of-harm language, not the old "less than substantial" label (DL ¶¶8, 21). ## Policy findings - **HE6: harm (substantial weight).** harm to setting of Chapel Market/Penton Street CA "at the higher end of the spectrum"; CO1 benefits (substantial) insufficient (DL 17, 21-25) - **HE4: fail.** harm not justified (DL 22, 25) - **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** connectivity, emergency button, small-cell capability (DL 23-24) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 35) ## Key facts - Pedestrian flow acceptable; 2 m clear footway retained per TfL Streetscape Guidance (DL 30-32) - Hub opposite Angel Centre previously dismissed on other grounds; context distinguished (DL 18) - Framework not put to parties as "changes relevant to this appeal are not substantive or determinative" (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007715 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e34d3916-70da-4820-a979-ff611fc7ed4e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007715.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Duckmoor Barn, Wooddale Lane, Billingshurst (Class Q) - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Everitt - **Authority:** Horsham (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007717 - **Application reference:** DC/25/1949 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class Q prior approval for conversion of part of a largely open-sided agricultural building to one dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Q.1(j) - **Main issues:** conversion or rebuild - **Tags:** tier-2, prior-approval, class-q, hibbitt-rebuild, no-framework-cited ## Summary Class Q for a dwelling within an open-sided barn failed. With only the frame retained and every external wall new, it was a rebuild, not a conversion (DL 11-12). ## What made the difference The open-sided building meant all the enclosing fabric would be new, unlike the cited comparators that retained walls (DL 14-15). ## Policy findings - **GPDO Q.1(j): fail.** only the steel frame retained, with new roof and all new external walls; tantamount to starting afresh (Hibbitt) (DL 10-17) ## Key facts - Structurally sound frame accepted, but that alone does not satisfy Class Q (DL 9-10) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007717 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ea0b0a74-ae0b-4616-9833-f917f7636b3e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007717.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 7 Church Street, Stamford - **Decision:** dismissed, 20 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L N Hughes - **Authority:** South Kesteven (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6007762 - **Application reference:** S25/2181 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Two-storey rear extension with dual-gable roof, solar panels, rooflights, side window and ASHP to a 1903 end-terrace house (non-determination) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(4), HE7(2), HE9(1) - **Development plan policies:** South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036 EN6, DE1, Stamford Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2036 Policies 8, 10, Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven SPD - **Main issues:** conservation area, non-designated heritage assets - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, less-than-substantial-legacy-wording, conservation-area, ndha, householder, transitional-no-consultation, inspector-departs-from-conservation-officer, positive-building-as-ndha ## Summary A two-storey rear extension, with solar and an ASHP, to a 1903 terraced house in the Stamford Conservation Area. Dismissed after non-determination. The inspector went further than the council's conservation officer, who had found no harm to the CA. The near full-height, dual-gabled extension, visible through a gap in the street frontage and across a public car park, caused less than substantial harm "at the lowest end" to the CA and harm to the house and terrace as NDHAs. Energy and economic benefits got "very minor weight". ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Changes "have not been determinative"; no re-consultation (DL ¶3). - **Positive buildings are NDHAs.** "The appeal property along with most of those along Church Street are identified as positive buildings within the CA. As such, they form non-designated heritage assets, whereby the Framework Policy HE7(2) further identifies ..." (DL ¶7). - **Harm.** "It would not be sufficiently subordinate to the original dwelling, being nearly its full height and width, and with the dual gable as a new architectural form which would overwhelm the host" (DL ¶16). - **Grading.** "less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA ... albeit this would be at the lowest end of that spectrum of harm to which the Framework Policy HE6(1) requires that I give substantial weight" (DL ¶18). - **Benefits.** "I give very minor weight to the proposed improved energy efficiency measures ... improvement of the latter two elements could be achieved in other ways, and provision of additional living space would only be a private benefit" (DL ¶19). ## Planning balance HE6(4): harm at the lowest end, carrying substantial weight under HE6(1), plus NDHA harm under HE7(2), against very minor benefits. There is also an alternative, stand-alone DE1 character finding (moderate harm) (DL ¶21). ## What made the difference Massing relative to the host, and visibility through a gap in the street and from the car park. Materials were set aside as conditionable. A smaller, subordinate extension would probably have passed. Energy-efficiency benefits carried almost nothing because they could be achieved without the extension. ## Transferable points - Inspectors can find CA harm where the council's own conservation officer found none (DL ¶18). - Buildings identified as "positive" in a CA appraisal can be treated as NDHAs in their own right under HE7(2) (DL ¶7). - HE6(1) "substantial weight" is being applied directly to even the lowest-end harm, and "less than substantial" persists as a label (DL ¶18). - Energy measures that could be installed without the harmful part of a scheme get very little weight (DL ¶19). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): harm (substantial weight).** grading "less than substantial harm ... at the lowest end of that spectrum of harm to which the Framework Policy HE6(1) requires that I give substantial weight" — legacy LTS vocabulary plus HE6(1) weight applied to the harm; HE6(3) wording not used; s66 and s72 cited; inspector finds CA harm although council's own conservation officer found none (DL 16-18) - **HE6(4): benefit (very-limited weight).** "very minor weight" to energy-efficiency measures (solar, ASHP) and construction spend; insulation and bathroom could be improved other ways; extra space a private benefit (DL 19-20) - **HE7(2): harm.** house and Church Street terrace are positive buildings in the CA and so treated as NDHAs; near full-height, full-width dual-gable extension overwhelms host (DL 7, 16-17, 20) - **HE9(1): fail.** positive-contributor buildings to be conserved (DL 7) - **DE1 (South Kesteven LP): conflict.** alternative finding — even without CA harm there would be "moderate harm" to character, so conflict with DE1 and NP Policy 10 (DL 21) - **HE6: neutral.** no effect on Grade I St Martin's Church or Grade II* George Hotel (DL 15) ## Key facts - Extension visible through a gap in the Church Street frontage and across the George Hotel car park (DL 17) - Red brick and blue slate would contrast with limestone and Collyweston; treated as conditionable (DL 13) - Parties not re-consulted; old paragraph references "no longer relevant" (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007762 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f26861f2-837e-495c-bd00-a8a653b9aaeb --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007762.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Church View, Wilsthorpe Road, Braceborough - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L N Hughes - **Authority:** South Kesteven (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6007771 - **Application reference:** S26/0117 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Detached bungalow in side garden at village edge within conservation area - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.07 - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** S3, DP3(3) - **Development plan policies:** South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036 SP2, SP3, DE1, EN6, Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven SPD - **Main issues:** character and conservation area - **Tags:** transitional, old-heritage-wording, old-wording-slip, design-refusal, conservation-area, housing-shortfall, small-scheme ## Summary A garden bungalow at the entrance to Braceborough village and conservation area was dismissed. It was cramped, sat forward of the building line, and caused "less than substantial harm … at the lowest end". The letter is dated 17 Aug 2026 but is written entirely under the 2024 Framework: ¶11(d) with a 4.07-year supply, ¶212 "great weight", ¶215, and the ¶139 "not well designed should be refused" rule. ## Issues and findings - **Heritage (2024).** "less than substantial harm … at the lowest end of that spectrum of harm to which the Framework paragraph 212 requires that I give great weight" (DL ¶12). This was not a strong reason for refusal under ¶11(d)(i) (DL ¶18). - **Design (2024 ¶139).** "Paragraph 139 identifies that development that is not well designed should be refused" (DL ¶21). This is the forerunner of DP3(3). - **Balance.** "the adverse impacts … would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶22). - **BNG.** Habitats in private gardens are recorded only as urban garden. Only the statutory 10% was credited, with minor weight (DL ¶¶15–16). ## Planning balance 2024 tilted balance. A moderate-weight home and minor benefits were outweighed by design harm. ## What made the difference The dwelling's forward position at the village gateway changed the open transition to countryside. Under 2026 this would fall to S4(2)(c) via DP3(3). The outcome would likely be the same, but the "substantially outweighed" test is stricter wording. ## Transferable points - This is an example of a design "should be refused" rule used as the decisive factor in the balance. It uses the 2024 ¶139 wording, which DP3(3) carries forward (DL ¶21). - A letter issued on the day the new Framework took effect applied the 2024 version without comment, a transitional anomaly. - Private-garden BNG habitats cannot be credited beyond the statutory minimum (DL ¶15). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): harm (great weight).** 2024 wording: "less than substantial harm … at the lowest end of that spectrum" to Braceborough CA gateway; not a strong reason for refusal under 2024 ¶11(d)(i) (DL 8-12, 17-18) - **DP3(3): fail.** cited as 2024 ¶¶131, 135, 139 — "development that is not well designed should be refused"; cramped plot, forward of building line, dominant at village entrance (DL 5-6, 21) - **S3: fail.** 2024 ¶11(d)(ii) — "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" (DL 17-22) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** one windfall home, 4.07-year supply (DL 20) ## Key facts - Letter dated 17 Aug 2026 applies 2024 Framework throughout with no mention of the new one - BNG in private garden cannot count beyond statutory 10% (Small Sites Metric guide) (DL 15-16) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b0a75497-bb2a-4acd-8aa1-07501807c934 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007771 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007771.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Lamb Inn, Lambs Green, Rusper (coach house, two units) - **Decision:** allowed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Lawrence - **Authority:** Horsham (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007772 - **Application reference:** DC/25/0657 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Detached coach house containing two residential units on part of the car park of a former public house (itself being converted to six flats) - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** open-countryside, PDL, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.7 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(d), HO7, S5 - **Development plan policies:** Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 Policies 3, 4, 25, 26, 32, 33, 38, Horsham Shaping Development Planning Advice Note 2025 - **Main issues:** spatial strategy and access to services, character and appearance, drainage - **Tags:** s5-1-d-pdl, substantially-outweighed, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, rural-lane-no-footway, car-dependence-moderate, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip, plan-conflict-overridden ## Summary Two homes in a coach-house building on the car park of the former Lamb Inn at Lambs Green, a hamlet outside Horsham's settlement hierarchy. The site is car-dependent, on lanes with no footways or lighting. The inspector found the scheme fell within S5(1)(d) (previously developed land), gave substantial weight to housing against a 1.7-year supply, and reduced the weight of the local countryside restrictions. The "limited adverse effects" (DL ¶38) did not substantially outweigh the benefits. Allowed against the development plan. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Comments have been sought from the parties on any implications for this case" (DL ¶2). - **Accessibility.** "The local highway environment lacks footways and street lighting, and the public right of way alongside the site is narrow, uneven in places and unlit. Future occupiers would therefore be likely to rely heavily on private cars for everyday needs" (DL ¶12). TR3 is not cited; the finding only "reinforces the conflict with the locational strategy of the development plan" (DL ¶12). - **S5(1)(d): PASS.** "it falls within Policy S5(d) of the Framework, which identifies the redevelopment of previously developed land as a form of development that should be approved outside settlements" (DL ¶35). The letter says "S5(d)" (DL ¶35); the limb is S5(1)(d). - **Plan weight.** The locational policies "were prepared in a different policy context and, insofar as they restrict housing development outside settlement boundaries, I find that they attract reduced weight" (DL ¶36). Annex A(2) is not named. - **Character: no harm.** "the building would visually read as a logical infilling of the space between existing buildings within the developed site" (DL ¶15). ## Planning balance S5 with the S5(1)(d) category met: housing (substantial) and PDL redevelopment (significant) against the location conflict. "the limited adverse effects arising from the proposal do not substantially outweigh its benefits" (DL ¶38), so material considerations outweigh the development plan conflict. ## What made the difference The site was previously developed land, which S5(1)(d) supports outside settlements, and Horsham's supply was only 1.7 years. The car dependence was acknowledged but weighed only as local-plan conflict. For the next reviewer: TR3 was not applied, so this letter is weak authority on location. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(d) PDL support attached to part of a former pub car park (DL ¶11, ¶35). - Local boundary restrictions lose weight "insofar as they restrict housing development outside settlement boundaries" where S5(1)(d) supports the scheme (DL ¶36). - Not good TR3 authority: heavy car reliance was found (DL ¶12) but not tested against TR3. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(d): pass (significant weight).** letter says S5(d); redevelopment of PDL hardstanding outside a settlement, modest and not isolated (DL 11, 13, 35) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** two homes against a 1.7-year supply (DL 33-34) - **LP HDPF 3, 4, 26 (local): conflict.** outside any built-up area boundary and Lambs Green not in the hierarchy; given reduced weight insofar as they restrict housing outside boundaries, given the Framework's approach to PDL; Annex A(2) not named (DL 7, 36) - **TR3: harm.** mapped - TR3 not cited; limited accessibility, no footways or lighting, narrow unlit right of way, heavy car reliance; counted only as reinforcing the local-plan conflict (DL 12-13, 36) - **DP3(1): pass.** mapped - reads as logical infilling between existing buildings; no wider countryside harm (DL 14-17) - **F8: pass.** mapped - drainage strategy (FZ1, 2.8 l/s against 17.7 l/s existing) acceptable (DL 20-23) ## Key facts - Horsham supply about 1.7 years with a 20% buffer (DL 33) - Railway station about 2 miles away; Lambs Green has few if any day-to-day services; no footways or street lighting (DL 12) - Previous Royal Oak, Rusper appeal (3361573) dismissed on location under the 2024 Framework distinguished because of footnote 7 heritage harm and the new PDL policy (DL 24-25) - Parties' comments sought on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007772 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/256f5b30-5cf3-4967-b0e5-410d1e79cd39 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007772.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Wrights Upholstery, Claremont Street, Burnley (student studios) - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Fawcett - **Authority:** Burnley (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007776 - **Application reference:** FUL/2025/0464 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of vacant commercial building to sui generis student accommodation of 24 studios, with a raised rear roof - **Homes:** 24 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), HO9, P3 - **Development plan policies:** Burnley Local Plan 2018 SP5, IC3 - **Main issues:** future occupier living conditions, neighbour noise, parking - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, student-accommodation, living-conditions, noise, l2-substantial-weight, plan-making-policies-not-for-decisions, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Conversion of a vacant upholstery works in a terraced street in Burnley to 24 student studios. Dismissed. The scheme had no communal lounge or study space, and the side yard was cramped, so it failed on student living conditions (HO9). Late-night comings and goings of 24 residents would harm neighbours (P3). L2 gave substantial weight to re-using the vacant building, but S4 was still "substantially outweighed". Parking was acceptable. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were provided with an opportunity to comment" (DL ¶4). - **Future occupiers — HO9: FAIL.** "Given that the accommodation is intended for students, many of whom may be living away from home and in an unfamiliar environment, communal facilities can play an important role in fostering social interaction ... The lack of such facilities ... could contribute to feelings of isolation" (DL ¶7). The yard and nearby park would not be "a realistic substitute for dedicated internal communal facilities" (DL ¶8). - **Neighbours — P3: HARM.** "the pattern of comings and goings and the potential for outdoor congregation would likely give rise to an unacceptable level of noise" and "could not be satisfactorily mitigated through the use of planning conditions" (DL ¶16). - **Parking: PASS.** Students are "a group that typically exhibits lower levels of car ownership", and the site is accessible (DL ¶19). - **Plan-making policies.** "Whilst the appellant has made reference to Policies HO1 and HO5, these are plan-making policies which the Framework indicates should not be used when making decisions on development proposals" (DL ¶26). ## Planning balance S4. For: re-use of a vacant building (L2 substantial weight), a general addition to housing supply (no evidenced student need), and small economic benefits (DL ¶¶25-27). Against: HO9 and P3 conflicts. "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶28). ## What made the difference The complete absence of internal communal space, together with the tight side yard next to bedroom windows and the neighbours. Meeting NDSS for each studio did not help, because the use is sui generis student accommodation. A shared lounge or study room, even at the cost of some studios, and evidence of local student need would have strengthened the case considerably. ## Transferable points - HO9 is applied to the quality of student accommodation. Communal internal space matters for student wellbeing, and NDSS compliance of the individual units does not settle it (DL ¶¶6-10). - Noise from comings and goings and outdoor congregation can be decisive under P3 even where Environmental Health does not object (DL ¶16). - L2's substantial weight for re-using vacant buildings can be substantially outweighed under S4 (DL ¶¶25, 28). - Plan-making policies (HO1, HO5) cannot be relied on in decision-taking (DL ¶26). - HO7's substantial weight requires "evidenced accommodation needs". Without evidence of student need, supply gets general rather than substantial weight (DL ¶26). ## Policy findings - **HO9: fail.** no internal communal space; narrow side yard with bins next to ground-floor windows; risk of isolation for students (DL 6-10, 28) - **P3: harm.** comings and goings of 24 independent occupiers at unsociable hours, plus yard congregation, in a quiet terraced street; cannot be conditioned away; EHO no objection not decisive (DL 11-17, 28) - **L2: benefit (substantial weight).** better use of a vacant building (DL 25) - **HO7: benefit.** no evidence of student need, but adds generally to housing supply (DL 26) - **TR2: pass.** 5 spaces including 1 accessible; students have low car ownership; accessible location (DL 18-22); mapped from LP IC3 ## Key facts - Scheme reduced from 48 to 24 studios during the application (DL 2) - Each studio meets NDSS, but that does not answer the communal-space issue for sui generis student housing (DL 7) - Inspector holds that HO1 and HO5 are plan-making policies "which the Framework indicates should not be used when making decisions" (DL 26) - Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007776 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7c6c517d-26f1-43b8-a092-9542e604616a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007776.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 31A The Avenue, Poole (replacement house with 8 flats) - **Decision:** dismissed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L J O'Brien - **Authority:** Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007779 - **Application reference:** P/25/01216/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of a 1990s house and erection of a 3-storey plus basement building of 8 apartments (net 7) in a verdant plot beside The Avenue Conservation Area - **Homes:** 8 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.55 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, L2(1)(d)(i), HE6(4), N3 - **Development plan policies:** Poole Local Plan 2018 PP27, PP28, PP30, PP33, PP35, PP38, Shoreline Character Area SPG 2004, Parking Standards SPD 2021 - **Main issues:** character and CA setting, protected trees, biodiversity, housing supply - **Tags:** housing-shortfall, heritage-harm-decisive, trees-tpo, evidence-gap, fallback, old-wording-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary An 8-flat block replacing a house in a sylvan plot next to Poole's The Avenue Conservation Area was refused, despite a 2.55-year supply and substantial weight to seven net homes. The inspector used the new L2 support for "additional units within residential curtilages" but held it to its "sensitive redevelopment … consistent with the overall street scene" qualifier. Harm to the conservation area's setting, uncertain effects on protected trees and an expired bat survey "would substantially outweigh" the benefits (the S4 test). ## Issues and findings - **L2.** "I have taken note of the aims of the Framework 2026 and its advice that substantial weight should be given to the benefits of additional housing, including the introduction of additional units within residential curtilage … However, the Framework is also clear that such additional housing must be through sensitive redevelopment which is consistent with the overall street scene" (DL ¶21). - **Character and CA setting: HARM.** The block would "erode the verdant character of the site" (DL ¶18). The harm is "at the lower end of less than substantial. Notwithstanding this, the identified harm is of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶22). That is the 2024 label, used under the 2026 Framework. - **Trees: FAIL.** "it would not be appropriate to require such details through the use of planning conditions where doubt exists as to whether those conditions would feasible practically" (DL ¶35). - **Biodiversity: FAIL.** The bat survey had expired and related to the earlier scheme (DL ¶42-43). - **Housing.** Seven homes attract "substantial weight" given 2.55 years (DL ¶69-70), "moderated by the small scale of the proposal" in the heritage balance (DL ¶27). ## Planning balance First, the HE6(4) heritage balance, which failed (DL ¶27). Then an overall balance in S4 terms (within a settlement): "the substantial weight to be attributed to the harm to the designated heritage asset, combined with the scale of the other key harms I have identified, is such that … the adverse impacts would substantially outweigh the benefits of the scheme" (DL ¶74). The extant replacement-dwelling permission was a real fallback but less harmful (DL ¶61-64). ## What made the difference Form and trees, not the principle of flats. An apartment-block massing forward of the building line broke the green frontage, and a constrained, TPO-ringed site had no construction plan. A design closer to the approved single house in massing, with a full arboricultural method statement and a fresh bat survey, would have had a strong L2 and supply case. ## Transferable points - L2's substantial weight for extra units in residential curtilages depends on sensitive redevelopment consistent with the street scene (DL ¶21). - Even at 2.55 years' supply, harm to a conservation area's setting plus unresolved tree and ecology issues can "substantially outweigh" 7 homes under S4 (DL ¶74). - Where it is doubtful that tree protection is feasible on a constrained site, it cannot be left to conditions (DL ¶35). Expired bat surveys cannot be relied on (DL ¶43). - A fallback permission helps only if the appeal scheme is no more harmful (DL ¶61-64). ## Policy findings - **L2(1)(d)(i): fail.** additional units within a residential curtilage must be sensitive redevelopment consistent with the street scene; block-like building breaks the verdant frontage (DL 13-21) - **HE6(4): fail.** harm to setting of The Avenue CA at 'the lower end of less than substantial' but considerable importance and weight; benefits insufficient (DL 22-27) - **N3: fail.** TPO trees: construction logistics and methodology unresolved on a constrained site; conditions inappropriate where feasibility doubtful (DL 30-38) - **N2: fail.** bat survey expired and related to an earlier scheme; Circular 06/2005 para 99 (DL 42-45) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 7 net homes at a 2.55-year supply, 'moderated by the small scale' in the heritage balance (DL 25-27, 69-70) - **S4: fail.** adverse impacts 'would substantially outweigh the benefits of the scheme' (DL 74) ## Key facts - Extant 2024 permission for a replacement single dwelling was a real fallback but materially less harmful (DL 8, 61-64) - Revised parking and bin plans and a BEP accepted at appeal (DL 2-4) - Dorset Heathlands and Poole Harbour mitigation offered by UU; appropriate assessment not needed as dismissed (DL 65-68, 75) - Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007779 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f4bf2b2e-9939-4854-a302-4b481348a3ca --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007779.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pavement outside Hillyard House, Brixton Road - **Decision:** dismissed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Major - **Authority:** Lambeth (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6007793 - **Application reference:** 25/03883/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub replacing payphone kiosks, with two 75-inch digital advert screens (planning appeal A; advert appeal B 6007795) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, HE9, S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 T9, Q5, Q6, Q17, Q20, Q22, London Plan 2021 T4, D3, D8 - **Main issues:** conservation area and listed building setting, highway and pedestrian safety - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, telecoms, bt-street-hub, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A BT Street Hub with digital screens in the Brixton Road Conservation Area was refused both planning permission and advertisement consent. The CA harm got considerable weight under HE6. CO1's substantial weight for telecoms benefits did not outweigh it, because there was "limited evidence ... that these telecommunication benefits could not be provided at a less sensitive location, or through a more sensitively designed proposal that does not include digital advertisements" (DL ¶28). Under S4, the benefits were "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶45). Pedestrian and highway safety were acceptable. ## What made the difference The digital advertising in a residential, verdant part of the CA. The inspector read CO1's "do not question need" instruction as leaving room to ask whether a less harmful design or site was available. Advertisement-free hub designs may fare better. ## Policy findings - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** alien, obtrusive digital hub in the verdant residential part of Brixton Road CA; CO1 telecoms benefits do not outweigh; no evidence a less sensitive site or design was unavailable (DL 13-18, 24-29) - **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to network benefits (5G small cell, wifi), but no evidence they could not be provided less harmfully (DL 27-28) - **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed by HE6, HE9 and DP3 conflict (DL 44-45) ## Key facts - 5.5m clear footway retained; no highway, pedestrian or TR6 harm (DL 33-43) - Removal of a distant kiosk at St Matthews Road given little weight as visually unrelated (DL 15) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007793 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/069151d0-76d4-4364-8126-f885dc8843f1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007793.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Old Street opposite No 142, Islington (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** allowed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M Cryan - **Authority:** Islington (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6007796 - **Application reference:** P2025/3510/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Replacement of BT kiosk with Street Hub 3 unit with two 75-inch digital advert screens (Appeal B 6007794 advert consent P2025/3511/ADV, also allowed, 5 years) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** Islington Local Plan SDMP 2023 PLAN1, DH6, ST3, T4, London Plan 2021 D3, D4, T2 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, visual amenity - **Tags:** tier-2, telecoms, bt-street-hub, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary A BT Street Hub with digital advert screens replacing a kiosk on Old Street, Islington. Both the planning and advert consent appeals were allowed. The wide footway, trees and commercial main-road setting absorb the unit and its screens. Earlier refusals of new kiosks on the open opposite footway were distinguished. The Framework is mentioned only in relation to conditions. ## What made the difference Context: a wide, cluttered, commercial footway versus the low-scale green local centre in PINS-6002960. Removing a "sacrificial" kiosk elsewhere does not count locally (DL ¶13). ## Policy findings - **DH6 / PLAN1 (Islington SDMP): accord.** slim dark unit on a very wide footway broken up by trees and street furniture; busy commercial main road, no harmful concentration of digital adverts (DL 8-11); CO1 not cited - **DM6: neutral.** luminance limited to 600 cd/m2 dusk to dawn, 10-second minimum display; 10-year advert consent refused as unjustified (DL 14-17); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Replaces an existing kiosk on the same spot; two earlier new-kiosk appeals opposite were dismissed (2019) on a more open footway (DL 10) - "Sacrificial" second kiosk several hundred metres away gives no local decluttering benefit (DL 13) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007796 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3e6422dd-45aa-4a81-ba36-de9d32791b49 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007796.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Zoar Cottage, 15 Passage Hill, Mylor Bridge - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Alison Fish - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007807 - **Application reference:** PA25/03672 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Technical details consent for 2 dwellings with garages, parking and gardens following permission in principle - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, national-landscape, PDL, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.9 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(d), N4 - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2016 Policies 1, 2, 3, 12, 23, Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1, Mylor Parish NDP 2022 L1, W2 - **Main issues:** character and appearance including Cornwall National Landscape - **Tags:** PIP, technical-details-consent, s5-1-d-pdl, trees, national-landscape, pdl-e-limb, landscape-harm, tree-loss, self-build-unsecured, housing-shortfall, substantially-outweighed, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Technical details consent for two houses on a PDL residential curtilage at the edge of Mylor Bridge, in the Cornwall National Landscape, after permission in principle had been granted. Dismissed. The visibility splays needed for two plots would remove or damage most of the roadside trees that form a characteristic tree tunnel along the lane. Under N4 (substantial weight to natural beauty) this substantially outweighed the moderate benefits, even with a 3.9-year supply and the site qualifying under S5(1)(d). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties had the opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶2). - **Scope of TDC.** The PiP settled location, land use and amount, and the TDC "cannot reopen what has been agreed at the Permission in Principle stage" (DL ¶3). - **Landscape / NL — N4: FAIL.** "Constructing the required visibility splays would inevitably result in the loss of further trees within the splay itself or require works within the root protection area" (DL ¶9). Replanting "would take years to mature" (DL ¶11). "the trees make an important contribution to the character and appearance of the NL, but their presence has not informed the development of the site" (DL ¶22). - **Benefits.** Housing given moderate weight at 3.9 years (DL ¶15). Economic moderate, eco features modest. Self-build limited weight "in the absence of a legally binding Planning Obligation" (DL ¶17). ## Planning balance S5 via the PDL limb: "The site lies outside the settlement boundary and therefore Policy S5 of the Framework is relevant. This allows for the redevelopment of previously developed land ... should be approved unless the benefits ... would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶21). With N4 substantial weight, "the moderate benefits would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects to the character and appearance of the area including the NL" (DL ¶23). ## What made the difference Highway visibility splays, not the houses themselves. The dwellings' form and materials were acceptable (DL ¶7), but two plots across the frontage needed splays that would destroy the tree tunnel. The arboricultural evidence also missed the splays entirely. A layout designed around the trees (one access, tighter splays, or retained frontage) would have removed the main harm. Other appeal decisions cited were not in a National Landscape, or found no NL harm, so they did not help (DL ¶19). ## Transferable points - In a National Landscape, N4 substantial weight can make even moderate landscape harm enough to "substantially outweigh" housing benefits at 3.9 years' supply (DL ¶¶15, 22–23). - Tree surveys must assess visibility splays and access works, not just building footprints (DL ¶¶9–10). - A TDC appeal can fail on detailed landscape impact even though PiP settled the principle (DL ¶3). - Self-build claims need a legal obligation to carry weight (DL ¶17). - Weight given to housing was only moderate at 3.9 years for two homes, rather than HO7 "substantial" (DL ¶15). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(d): fail.** site outside settlement boundary but PDL (lawful residential curtilage, earlier appeal); category engaged but moderate benefits substantially outweighed (DL 8, 21-23) - **N4: harm (substantial weight).** visibility splays would remove or damage most roadside trees forming a tree tunnel that is a defining feature of the character area; tree presence "has not informed the development" (DL 6, 9-12, 22) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** 3.9-year supply; two homes a very modest but useful contribution (DL 15) ## Key facts - PiP had settled location, use and amount; TDC could not reopen principle (DL 3) - Tree survey ignored the effect of visibility splays on roadside trees (DL 9-10) - Self-build claimed but no obligation, so limited weight (DL 17) - Supply 3.9 years (DL 15) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007807 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/42b649d4-354e-453e-85ea-e992f643eefb --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007807.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 65A Richmond Wood Road, Bournemouth (8-person HMO) - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Sharp - **Authority:** Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007836 - **Application reference:** P/25/03589/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of a three-bedroom semi-detached house (C3) to an eight-person HMO (sui generis) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3, S4 - **Development plan policies:** Bournemouth Core Strategy 2012 CS16, CS18, CS24, CS41, Bournemouth District Wide Local Plan 2002 6.17, BCP Parking Standards SPD 2021 - **Main issues:** living conditions of future occupiers, living conditions of neighbours, character, parking, cycle storage - **Tags:** hmo, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, living-conditions, living-conditions-outlook, habitats-mitigation, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary Conversion of a Bournemouth semi to an eight-person HMO was dismissed. Two ground-floor bedrooms would look out at a fence and a neighbouring gable less than 1.5 m away, and the extra comings and goings along corridors against the party wall would disturb the attached neighbour. Character, parking and cycle storage were acceptable. Under S4 the P3 living-conditions harm substantially outweighed the modest benefits; the unsigned heathland mitigation agreement was a further problem. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were provided with an opportunity to comment" (DL ¶5). - **Future occupiers' outlook: HARM.** "The proximity, height and width of the fence and No 65 itself would result in them appearing oppressive from the two bedrooms" (DL ¶8). "it cannot be assumed that the occupiers would just be asleep when in the bedrooms" (DL ¶9). - **Neighbour noise: HARM.** "the intensification of the use resulting from the proposed development would result in a material increase in noise and disturbance experienced by occupiers of No 65B" (DL ¶16). - **Character, parking, cycles: ACCEPTABLE** (DL ¶20, ¶24, ¶27). - **Habitats.** "In the absence of a completed and signed agreement I cannot be certain that the proposed development would not have significant effects on the SAC and SPA" (DL ¶29). ## Planning balance S4(1), with P3 as the Framework policy breached (DL ¶36–37). "the harm to the living conditions of future occupiers of the appeal property and occupiers of No 65B would substantially outweigh these benefits" (DL ¶38). Conclusion plan-led (DL ¶39). ## What made the difference The layout: two bedrooms with windows facing a fence and gable at close range, and no evidence that party-wall insulation would work. Fewer bedrooms, or rooms with a better outlook, and a signed SAC/SPA agreement would have been needed. ## Transferable points - In an HMO, bedroom outlook matters because rooms are used for living and home-working, not only sleeping (DL ¶9). - The argument that occupiers can choose other rooms fails in an area of high demand (DL ¶10). - Proposed sound insulation needs evidence that it works and fits (DL ¶15). ## Policy findings - **P3: fail.** two ground-floor bedrooms face a fence under 1.5 m away and the gable of No 65 - oppressive outlook; intensified noise through the party wall to No 65B, insulation unevidenced (DL 8-16, 37) - **DP3: accord.** mapped - only one building, HMOs a minority; quiet suburban character unchanged (DL 17-20) - **TR4: accord.** mapped - no on-site parking accords with the 2021 SPD (one space required); accessible location; no highways objection (DL 21-24) - **N6: fail.** Dorset Heaths SAC / Dorset Heathlands SPA mitigation agreement unsigned and incomplete (DL 29) - **S4: fail.** inside settlement; construction jobs, reuse of vacant house and spend substantially outweighed by living-conditions harm (DL 36-38) ## Key facts - HMO needs an extension to work; whether operational development is part of the scheme left unresolved (DL 28) - Access to rear cycle store under 1.5 m wide, below SPD standard, but no harm found (DL 26-27) - 2002 HMO policy criterion requiring detached buildings with 7+ habitable rooms not relied on (DL 30) - Costs application made; separate decision (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007836 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007836.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south of Caves Lane, Walkeringham - **Decision:** allowed, 1 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M Brooker - **Authority:** Bassetlaw (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6007837 - **Application reference:** 24/01297/COU - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Change of use to one-family Gypsy/Traveller site (two caravans, dayroom, improved access) - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Bassetlaw Local Plan ST30, ST53, Walkeringham Neighbourhood Plan Policy 1 - **Main issues:** highway safety - **Tags:** tier-2, travellers, transitional, rural-lane-no-footway ## Summary A single-family traveller site off a narrow unlit lane was allowed after a hearing. The poor B1403 junction would be avoided in favour of a better route through the village, so the highway impact was not unacceptable. The letter, dated 1 Sep 2026, quotes the 2024 ¶116 highways test and does not mention the new Framework. ## What made the difference The availability of a much better alternative junction, and no accident record (DL ¶¶15–17). The pedestrian route was accepted as poor but not determinative for a traveller site. ## Policy findings - **TR6(4): pass.** quotes 2024 ¶116; poor-visibility Caves Lane/B1403 junction harmful but not unacceptable given better route through village (DL 12-17) - **TR3: harm.** single-track unlit lane with no footway, unattractive for walking to village 400 m away, "not determinative" (DL 7-9, 17) ## Key facts - Council has a 5-year traveller-site supply but identified no alternative available site - Mains electricity required by condition to avoid generator noise ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7a6822cb-7372-4cfd-9371-dec12c058ef7 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007837 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007837.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 106-110 Belgrave Road, Pimlico (courtyard condensers) - **Decision:** allowed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Storey - **Authority:** Westminster (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6007846 - **Application reference:** 25/04302/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Three wall-mounted condensers with acoustic wall and one enclosed ground-level condenser in basement courtyards of a Grade II terrace - **Site context:** conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** Westminster City Plan Policy 33 - **Development plan policies:** Westminster City Plan 2019-2040 Policies 7, 33, Environment SPD 2026 - **Main issues:** noise - **Tags:** tier-2, noise, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Air-conditioning condensers were allowed after the inspector held that an ambient level equal to the WHO guideline does not 'exceed' it. So the less stringent day-time limit applied, and the noise assessment's predictions met the SPD limits (DL 11-16). ## What made the difference The ordinary-meaning reading of 'exceeds' in the Council's own SPD, and an unchallenged noise methodology. ## Policy findings - **P3: accord.** daytime ambient 55 dB is equal to, not above, the WHO 55 dB value, so the less onerous ESPD plant criterion applies by day; limits met (DL 11-16) ## Key facts - Listed building consent already granted for the works (DL 21) - Framework revisions raise no new issues; no consultation (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007846 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/74436948-d55e-454b-872d-44a37009b89a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007846.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Garages rear of 13 Morven Drive, Bill Quay, Gateshead - **Decision:** dismissed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A M Nilsson (on recommendation of J Reed, appeal planning officer) - **Authority:** Gateshead (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007856 - **Application reference:** DC/25/01337/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Raised roof to central garage in a row of flat-roofed garages to house a motorhome (retrospective) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), DP3(1) - **Development plan policies:** Gateshead and Newcastle Core Strategy 2015 CS15, Making Spaces for Growing Places 2021 MSGP17, MSGP24, Householder SPD - **Main issues:** character and appearance, neighbour outlook - **Tags:** tier-2, retrospective, design-refusal, living-conditions, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, upward-extension, appeal-planning-officer, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A retrospective raised roof on the middle garage of a flat-roofed block, built to take a motorhome. Dismissed. The dark, boxy roof harms the character of the garage row and dominates the outlook of two neighbouring houses. The S4 benefits (storage, security) were limited and "substantially outweighed". The Framework's support for upward extensions did not apply given the harm to character (DL ¶25). ## What made the difference The site is a uniform row of flat-roofed garages right next to neighbours' rear gardens. The appellant gave no evidence of crime or of a lack of alternative storage (DL ¶¶23, 26). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): fail.** large, boxy, dark raised roof out of keeping with a uniform row of flat-roofed garages; overbearing to Nos 13 and 15 (DL 8-19, 24) - **L2: fail.** support for upward extensions does not apply where there is substantial harm to the character of the building and its surroundings (DL 25) - **S4(1): fail.** limited benefits (motorhome storage, security) substantially outweighed (DL 24) ## Key facts - Works complete at the time of the site visit; appellant relied on an unsourced AI response about garage sizes, given limited weight (DL 4, 21) - Decided without consulting the parties on the 2026 Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007856 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/824bdeda-3453-4ee9-b5bf-6957a9b69856 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007856.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Park Tavern, 56 Elder Road, West Norwood - **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Clark - **Authority:** Lambeth (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6007861 - **Application reference:** 25/03139/VOC - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73 variation of plans condition (retrospective) for pub-to-5-flats conversion - fenestration details and taller rear extension - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), HE6 - **Development plan policies:** Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 Q5, Q7, Q11, Q22, Q23 - **Main issues:** planning obligation, heritage - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, obligation-unsecured, conservation-area, non-designated-heritage-asset, retrospective, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary This was a retrospective s73 variation for a pub-to-flats conversion in a conservation area. The appellant won on heritage: the trickle vents, applied glazing bars and taller rear extension were neutral, so S4 was complied with (DL ¶28, 30). The appeal still failed, because the replacement car-free UU was an unsigned, undated draft with no plans (DL ¶15). ## What made the difference The incomplete obligation. Under the updated Procedural Guide, the inspector would not wait for a revised UU (DL ¶33). Without a completed UU, the car-free and car-club obligations secured on the original permission fell away, which "would likely lead to unmitigated harm through the exacerbation of parking stress" (DL ¶31). ## Policy findings - **HE6: neutral.** applied glazing bars, trickle vents and taller rear extension neutral to the NDHA and Elderwood CA - no public-benefit balance needed (DL 20-28) - **S4(1): pass.** council argued S4 equates to old 11(d); with no heritage harm, S4 complied with (DL 30) ## Key facts - Draft UU (car-free permits, car club, cycle hire) undated, unsigned and without plans - no weight; dismissed on that ground alone (DL 14-16, 31-34) - Procedural Guide (16 July 2026) requires an executed obligation at appeal submission in WR cases (DL 33) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007861 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8131f366-9bc8-447b-a2c8-d982f97cc6cf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007861.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Wild Flowers, Wrens Hill, Oxshott - **Decision:** allowed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Miles - **Authority:** Elmbridge (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007869 - **Application reference:** 2025/3383 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** One detached chalet bungalow and a pair of semi-detached houses in the garden of Wild Flowers, with access and landscaping - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 0.9 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** L2(1)(d)(ii) - **Development plan policies:** Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015 DM2, DM10, Elmbridge Design Code 2024 - **Main issues:** living conditions of future occupiers (daylight/sunlight) - **Tags:** tier-2, living-conditions, transitional-no-consultation, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, garden-land, costs-application ## Summary Three dwellings in a large Oxshott garden, refused on the daylight and sunlight that future occupiers would get under tall trees. Allowed. Site-specific BRE modelling, including a transparency allowance for deciduous canopy, showed the living room would just pass (50.6%) and the gardens would get adequate sun (DL ¶8-10, 12). The letter applied the 2026 Framework without re-consulting the parties (DL ¶3). ## What made the difference Technical daylight evidence that modelled the trees, which the earlier failed scheme (6002519) had lacked. The inspector preferred site-specific BRE results over the Design Code's 45-degree rule of thumb (DL ¶7). A marginal pass was enough. ## Policy findings - **L2(1)(d)(ii): pass.** code mapped by harvester — letter cites "the Framework's requirements for acceptable living standards for residents in terms of access to daylight, sunlight, and external amenity space" (DL 12); BRE daylight 50.6% of room at 30% tree transparency (DL 8); 70% of garden gets 2h sun on 21 March (DL 10) - **DM2 / DM10 (Elmbridge DMP): accord.** adequate daylight/sunlight and outdoor space for future occupiers (DL 12) - **HO7: benefit.** 0.9-year supply (appellant figure); "pressing need for housing of all sizes" (DL 22); weight not stated ## Key facts - Plot 1 living room passes BRE 150 lux over 50% only marginally (50.6%) once 30% transparency applied to deciduous T1/T2 (DL 8) - Previous appeal on the site (6002519) dismissed for a different scheme; this one's evidence modelled the deciduous trees (DL 11) - Parties not re-consulted; "policy emphasis has not changed" on living conditions (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007869 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/20898a08-42b1-42d1-a914-f2e2123d42ce --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007869.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to 47 Langridge Circle, Watlington - **Decision:** allowed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: David Reed - **Authority:** King's Lynn and West Norfolk (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6007871 - **Application reference:** 26/00180/O - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline (all matters reserved) for a self-build single-storey bungalow on a narrow left-over strip in a housing estate - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, L2(1)(b), DP3 - **Development plan policies:** King's Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan 2025 LP02, LP18, LP21, Watlington NP 2023 Policies 2, 3 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, neighbour living conditions, habitats - **Tags:** s4-approve, s4-within-settlement, l2-1-b, small-scheme, self-build-unsecured, habitats-mitigation, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Outline permission for one narrow bungalow on an overgrown strip left open over a drainage culvert in a Watlington housing estate. Allowed. A narrow bungalow among two-storey houses would look "slightly unusual", but the estate has varied house types and the strip is an eyesore. Under S4 the minor DP3 harm did not substantially outweigh the benefit of a dwelling and better use of underused land under L2(1)(b). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Footnote 1: the parties were given the opportunity to comment after 17 Aug 2026. - **Character — DP3: minor harm.** "the Council offer no suggestions as to how the site could be put to an alternative positive use. The existing strip of poorly maintained vegetation is an unattractive and untidy feature ... only likely to deteriorate" (DL ¶6). - **S4 applied directly to the character issue.** "Whilst there would be some adverse effects in terms of Policy DP3 ..., this would not substantially outweigh the benefits of an additional dwelling and tidied up site in accordance with Policy L2(1b) which seeks to make better use of vacant and underutilised land" (DL ¶9). - **Living conditions: PASS** if single-storey, with no first-floor windows, high-level rooflights, and main windows front and rear (DL ¶¶10–13). ## Planning balance S4 (DL ¶9), plus overall compliance with the development plan (DL ¶18). The housing supply position was not mentioned, and HO7 was not cited. ## What made the difference The lack of any better use for a neglected, left-over strip. The inspector treated tidying an eyesore as a benefit under L2(1)(b), and accepted "slightly unusual" as well short of "substantially outweighed". Reducing the scheme from a chalet bungalow to single storey resolved overlooking. ## Transferable points - L2(1)(b) "better use of vacant and underutilised land" can support infill of neglected left-over estate land; the absence of an alternative positive use counts (DL ¶¶6, 9). - Minor DP3 integration harm ("slightly unusual") does not reach the S4 "substantially outweighed" threshold (DL ¶9). - The S4 balance can be run without any HO7 or supply analysis where harm is slight (DL ¶¶9, 18). ## Policy findings - **DP3: harm.** narrow-frontage bungalow "slightly unusual" among two-storey houses; some adverse effect on integration (DL 6-7, 9) - **L2(1)(b): benefit.** better use of vacant, underused, unkempt strip over a culvert; weight not stated (DL 6, 9) - **S4: pass.** DP3 adverse effects would not substantially outweigh benefits of a dwelling and tidied site (DL 9) ## Key facts - Strip 5-8 m wide over underground drainage culvert; piled slab needed; levels condition imposed (DL 5, 12) - GIRAMS recreational mitigation paid (receipt 12 Aug 2026) (DL 14) - Self-build description but no obligation securing it; not weighed - Parties given opportunity to comment on the new Framework (DL fn1) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007871 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5fe06bd4-d6e0-4fa6-8ab9-fb9f5bdd08bb --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007871.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 217 Colney Hatch Lane, Barnet - **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Ramsden - **Authority:** Barnet (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6007883 - **Application reference:** 25/5055/RCU - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective change of use from 3-bed dwellinghouse (C3) to 4-person HMO (C4) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Barnet Local Plan 2025 HOU02, HOU04, TRC03, London Plan 2021 H9, D3, T4, T6.1 - **Main issues:** housing mix, highway safety and parking - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, loss-of-family-housing, s4-substantially-outweighed, transitional-no-consultation, retrospective ## Summary Retrospective C3→C4 HMO conversion of a three-bed house on a PTAL 2 main road was dismissed for conflict with Barnet's HMO-need and family-housing policies and unevidenced parking stress. The Inspector did not consult on the new Framework, saying the changes did "not affect the merits of this case in a material way" (DL ¶4). ## What made the difference No evidence of HMO need and no Lambeth-method parking survey. The letter ends by running the S4 test in its own words, without naming the code: "any benefits are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the revised Framework and the development does not benefit from the presumption" (DL ¶25). This is an example of the within-settlement presumption being lost on plan-policy conflict plus a parking-safety concern. ## Policy findings - **Barnet LP HOU04: conflict.** no evidence of identified need for HMOs; PTAL 2 so not easily accessible (DL 9-13) - **TR4: fail.** parking stress/pavement parking; no Lambeth-methodology survey (DL 16-23); decided under London Plan T4/T6.1 and LP TRC03 - **S4(1): fail.** "any benefits are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the revised Framework" (DL 25) ## Key facts - Loss of a 3-bed family house; Article 4 removes C3→C4 PD rights borough-wide - PTAL 2; on dualled B550 near North Circular junction; no on-site parking - Parking evidence 3 snapshots, not the Lambeth methodology ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b374a6fe-d5ba-48d9-a014-f3c1bfb24d9e - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007883 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007883.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 9 Vinery Grove, Richmond Hill, Leeds (C3 to 3-bed HMO) - **Decision:** allowed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Buxton - **Authority:** Leeds (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6007907 - **Application reference:** 26/00140/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use from dwellinghouse (C3) to 3-bed HMO (C4) with new basement window - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM6 - **Development plan policies:** Leeds UDP Review GP5, BD5, Leeds Core Strategy H6A(iv), P10, T2 - **Main issues:** living conditions of future occupiers, cycle storage - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, living-conditions, transitional-no-consultation, amended-plans-accepted ## Summary Leeds refused a three-bedroom HMO in a back-to-back terrace, objecting to the basement bedroom's light, outlook, privacy and noise, and to the lack of cycle storage. The appeal was allowed on minor amended plans that enlarged the basement glazing and added cycle storage. The letter decides the case on local plan policies. The new Framework was said not to have "fundamentally changed" anything material (DL ¶2). ## What made the difference Amended plans, accepted as not prejudicing anyone (DL ¶5), cured the basement light and outlook concerns. The council's own report accepted HMO concentration and community balance (DL ¶6, ¶19). ## Policy findings - **P3: pass.** basement bedroom light, outlook, privacy and noise acceptable on amended plans (DL 10-15); decided on local plan policies - **DM6: accord.** conditions tested against the Framework (DL 20) ## Key facts - Back-to-back terrace; basement bedroom about 19 sqm with enlarged glazing on amended plans (DL 10-11) - Minor amended plans accepted at appeal under the Procedural Guide (DL 5) - Framework change noted but "any considerations that are material to this decision have not fundamentally changed" (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007907 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/63455c3e-9f03-4787-acdf-0fbcfeaa6624 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007907.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Beehive Cottage, Portway, Old Sarum, Salisbury - **Decision:** allowed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Phillips - **Authority:** Wiltshire (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6007924 - **Application reference:** PL/2025/03776 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline permission (all matters reserved) for up to two dwellings beside a Grade II listed former toll house - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge, listed-building-setting, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j)(i), Transitional(2) - **Development plan policies:** Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015 CP1, CP2, CP50, CP57, CP58 - **Main issues:** location and development strategy, setting of listed building, living conditions, trees, ecology and SAC - **Tags:** s5-1-j, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, habitats-mitigation, heritage-no-harm, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Up to two homes on a scrubby plot beside a listed toll house, on the edge of Old Sarum, Salisbury. Allowed. The site is outside the Core Strategy boundaries, but S5(1)(j) applied because there is no five-year supply. The inspector found the site physically well related through the adjacent park and ride and a pavement link. CP1 and CP2 were given very limited weight as inconsistent with S5, no other harm was found, and the S5 balance favoured approval. ## Issues and findings - **S5(1)(j)(i).** "whilst neighboured by open fields on two sides, as set out below, the original isolated rural surroundings of the site have been diminished and has evolved" (DL ¶11). "There is also a pavement linking the appeal site to the settlement" (DL ¶11). "As such, I find that the site is physically well related to an existing settlement" (DL ¶12). - **Plan weight (Annex A ¶2).** "whilst I have found that the proposal would not meet the spatial policy goals of CS Policies CP1 and CP2, given the identified inconsistency with the Framework, these development plan polices should be given very limited weight" (DL ¶44). - **Heritage: no harm.** "the setting of the property does not contribute positively to its significance, other than the discernible relationship to historical routes" (DL ¶18). - **SAC.** A package treatment plant replacing the cottage's septic tank gives a phosphorus load from three dwellings "significantly below the current situation from one dwelling" (DL ¶36). ## Planning balance S5(1). "I have found no other harm and no conflict with any other Framework policy. There are consequently no adverse effects to substantially outweigh the benefits of the proposal, which include the substantial weight afforded to housing" (DL ¶46). ## What made the difference The site's relationship with Old Sarum's expanding development, through the park and ride, a pavement and an adjacent bus stop, and an extant residential permission on the same land. The inspector did not run TR3 as a separate test; accessibility was folded into "physically well related" (DL ¶12). ## Transferable points - A roadside plot next to a park and ride serving a growing settlement, with a pavement link, was "physically well related" under S5(1)(j)(i) (DL ¶11-12). - Settlement-boundary restrictions in CP1 and CP2 get very limited weight where S5(1)(j) supports the scheme (DL ¶43-44). - A package treatment plant replacing an existing septic tank can make new homes nutrient-positive for an SAC (DL ¶35-37). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): pass.** no five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 10) - **S5(1)(j)(i): pass.** physically well related to Old Sarum via the adjacent park and ride, with a pavement link to the settlement; an earlier inspector found the site part of the consolidated Old Sarum development (DL 11-12) - **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** CP1/CP2 open-countryside restriction inconsistent with S5(1)(j), so very limited weight (DL 43-44) - **HE6: neutral.** setting of the Grade II toll house preserved; dilapidated plot adds nothing to significance (DL 15-21) - **N6: pass.** mapped: River Avon SAC phosphorus; package treatment plant replacing a septic tank reduces load; secured by condition; Natural England satisfied (DL 33-37) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** "the substantial weight afforded to housing" (DL 46) - **S5(1): pass.** no other harm and no Framework conflict, so nothing substantially outweighs the benefits (DL 45-46) ## Key facts - Site beside a roundabout on the A345, next to the Old Sarum park and ride; pavement link to Old Sarum; adjacent bus stop and nearby cycle routes (DL 11, 22) - Extant earlier residential permission on the site (DL 26) - TPO yew retained; noise mitigation by glazing and MVHR (DL 24-29) - Old Sarum scheduled monument and two conservation areas unharmed (DL 38-42) - TR3 not cited; accessibility is treated as part of "physically well related" (DL 11-12) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007924 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a9ef555d-ed34-4ddf-a150-84905fa01bcf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007924.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Former EON Energy Site, Caxton Road, Bedford - **Decision:** dismissed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Allen - **Authority:** Bedford (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6007932 - **Application reference:** 25/02529/M73 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73 variation of conditions 1, 8, 12 and 13 of 25/00763/MAF (B2/B8 units) to add a new unit and enlarge another (+c.917 sqm), removing most of a TPO tree belt - **Site context:** inside-settlement, TPO, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1), N3, S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 policies 28S, 29, 30, 38, 39, 40 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, protected trees, landscaping - **Tags:** transitional-no-consultation, design-refusal, tree-loss, s4-substantially-outweighed, s73-variation, fallback-extant-permission ## Summary A s73 application to enlarge an approved B2/B8 scheme on an industrial-estate edge by about 917 sqm. The extra floorspace would remove most of a TPO tree belt along Goldington Road. Dismissed for harm to character and appearance. The inspector closed the letter with the S4 "substantially outweighed" formula even though the site sits inside the settlement and no heritage or specific refusal policy was engaged. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The Framework was not put back to the parties: "the relevant policy approach has not fundamentally changed" (DL ¶2). - **Character and trees (DP3(1) / N3): FAIL.** The tree group "makes an important contribution to the character and appearance of the area, by providing a substantial verdant break in the otherwise continuous row of development along Goldington Road" (DL ¶7). The proposal "would harmfully diminish the contribution that the band of trees makes to the area" (DL ¶10), and the future growth of replacement planting "cannot be relied upon" (DL ¶11). It conflicts "with the Framework where it requires that development is well-designed, responds to its context, so that it integrates with and enhances its surroundings" (DL ¶13). - **Benefits.** Energy efficiency, reuse of a vacant site, business growth and BNG all count, "However, the previously approved scheme would provide the same benefits, albeit to a slightly lesser degree" (DL ¶15). ## Planning balance "when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework, the benefits of the proposal are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶19). Conflict with the development plan as a whole. ## What made the difference The extant permission. Because it already delivered most of the benefits, only the extra increment counted, and that could not offset the loss of a visible TPO belt. Category C trees and a limited remaining lifespan did not remove their townscape value. ## Transferable points - Low-category (C) TPO trees with a 20-40 year life can still be an "important contribution" to character. Replacement planting projected to outgrow them "cannot be relied upon" (DL ¶7, 11). - Where an extant permission already secures the benefits, only the incremental benefit of a variation weighs in the balance (DL ¶15). - The S4 "substantially outweighed" test can be run for employment development inside a settlement on character grounds alone (DL ¶19). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): fail.** unlabelled — conflict "with the Framework where it requires that development is well-designed, responds to its context, so that it integrates with and enhances its surroundings" (DL 13); DP3(3) "should be refused" wording not used - **N3: fail.** code mapped by harvester — conserves and enhances existing natural features of visual value (DL 13); loss of most of TPO Category C group giving "substantial verdant break" on Goldington Road (DL 7, 10) - **S4(1): fail.** code mapped by harvester — "when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework, the benefits of the proposal are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL 19) - **E2: benefit.** code mapped by harvester — extra industrial/logistics floorspace for identified need, better use of vacant site; but the approved scheme delivers the same benefits "albeit to a slightly lesser degree" (DL 15) ## Key facts - TPO tree group mostly Category C, agreed 20-40 year retention span (DL 7) - Only a small part of the tree band would be retained; replacement planting would never match depth and canopy (DL 8, 11) - Parties not re-consulted on the 2026 Framework; "relevant policy approach has not fundamentally changed" (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007932 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/08773e7b-08ae-42b7-99f9-bd9ab0470e47 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007932.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land between 75 and 99 Star Road, Caversham, Reading - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Nicholls - **Authority:** Reading (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007941 - **Application reference:** PL/25/1020 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Terrace of four 3-bed 2.5-storey houses with parking - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, flood-zone-3 - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.55 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** F6(1)(b), S4(1), DP3(2) - **Development plan policies:** Reading Borough Local Plan 2019 EN12, EN14, EN18, CC7, H3, H10, TR3, Affordable Housing SPD 2021 - **Main issues:** flood risk, design, access, affordable housing, biodiversity - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, flood-exception-test, flood-voids, housing-shortfall, design-refusal, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme ## Summary Four terraced houses on an infill plot in Caversham, in Flood Zone 3a, were dismissed. The sequential test passed on a ward-level search. The exception test failed: there was no evidence of safe escape, and underfloor voids are no longer accepted as floodplain compensation. The design was ungainly, with small gardens. Access visibility was not shown, and there was no affordable housing mechanism. The housing benefit got great weight against a 3.55-year supply. The inspector still found it "substantially outweighed" under S4 (DL ¶40). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties had the opportunity to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶2). - **Sequential test: PASS.** For non-major housing the ward-level search area was acceptable. The council held no ranked register and identified no alternative (DL ¶6-9). - **Exception test: FAIL.** "limited information is provided on flood depths or durations ... I am not satisfied that the development would be safe for its intended occupiers over its lifetime" (DL ¶13). "the use of voids is no longer an acceptable means of providing compensatory flood storage ... the development would increase flood risks elsewhere" (DL ¶16). The Environment Agency's earlier acceptance of voids pre-dated the August 2022 PPG change (DL ¶15). - **Design: FAIL.** "the collective bulk and massing of the terrace would be ungainly ... exacting replicas of one another" (DL ¶20-21). - **BNG.** Off-site units were an acceptable use of the hierarchy on a small infill site (DL ¶33). ## Planning balance This was the S4 balance. The harms engaged "Policy F6(1) (b) (ii) ... and (iii) and Policy DP3(2)" (DL ¶38). The benefits of a sustainable location, efficient land use and housing against a 3.55-year shortfall "collectively attract great weight" (DL ¶39). But "the benefits of approving the development would be substantially outweighed by the totality of the adverse effects" (DL ¶40). ## What made the difference The flood exception test. Passing the sequential test on a narrow search area did not help once the FRA lacked depth and duration data for escape routes and relied on voids. Several independent failures, on design, access and affordable housing, added to it. ## Transferable points - For non-major housing, a ward-level sequential search area is acceptable, and the absence of a council register helps the appellant (DL ¶6-9). - Underfloor voids should not be relied on as floodplain compensation (PPG para 049, August 2022). The inspector treated this as settled, not negotiable (DL ¶15-16). - The FRA must show depth and duration along the escape route to prove safety for the lifetime of the development (DL ¶13). - F6 exception-test failures feed into the S4 "substantially outweighed" balance, even against "great weight" housing benefits (DL ¶38-40). ## Policy findings - **F6(1)(b): fail.** sequential test passed (Caversham ward search); exception test failed - not safe for lifetime (no depth or duration data for the 5-minute escape route) and underfloor voids not acceptable floodplain compensation (PPG Aug 2022), so increases flood risk elsewhere (DL 6-17, 38) - **DP3(2): fail.** ungainly bulk, repetitive terrace, blank flank wall, mean gardens (DL 18-24) - **S4(1): fail.** great weight to housing and efficient land use against a 3.55-year supply, substantially outweighed by totality of harms (DL 37-40) - **HO7: benefit (great weight).** modest but valuable contribution with acknowledged shortfall (DL 35, 39) ## Key facts - Supply 3.55 years, undisputed (DL 35) - Displaces 253.8 cubic metres of floodplain storage; voids proposed as compensation; EA objected (DL 14-16) - Visibility splays not demonstrated; no affordable housing contribution or UU despite viability negotiation (DL 26-30) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007941 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/bace66bc-ed36-498f-9e58-ecd73e27886b --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007941.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Gladwyns Farmhouse, Richmonds Green, Thaxted - **Decision:** allowed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Fleming - **Authority:** Uttlesford (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6007971 - **Application reference:** UTT/25/2853/LB - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Single-storey flat-roof rear extension and alterations to modern kitchen wing of grade II listed farmhouse (linked planning appeal 6007968 and LBC appeal 6007971) - **Site context:** listed-building-setting, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE5(2)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Uttlesford Local Plan 2021-2041 (2026) CP62 - **Main issues:** listed building - **Tags:** tier-2, listed-building, heritage-no-harm, transitional-no-consultation, costs-application ## Summary Linked planning and listed building consent appeals (6007968 / 6007971) for a contemporary glazed infill and rear extension to the modern wing of a grade II farmhouse. Both were allowed. The Inspector found no harm: the works "would preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the grade II listed building" (DL ¶11). The new Framework was treated as "not materially changed" and the parties were not consulted (DL ¶5). ## What made the difference The works were confined to a modern extension and involved "no loss of historic fabric" (DL ¶10). Because there was no harm, no HE6 balance was needed. A separate costs decision was issued. ## Policy findings - **HE5(2)(b): pass.** works confined to modern extension; no loss of historic fabric; "would preserve the special architectural and historic interest" (DL 11); HE6 not cited by code - **Uttlesford LP CP62: accord.** conserves designated heritage asset (DL 12) ## Key facts - C16 timber-framed grade II farmhouse with large modern traditional-style side extension - Works affect the modern extension; angular glazed infill modest and subservient - New Uttlesford Local Plan 2021-2041 adopted 2026 applied ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/55f8b9df-deda-423c-9f11-121b2256f691 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007971 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007971.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land north of Longwood Road, Kenley, Croydon (forestry private way, Part 6 Class E) - **Decision:** dismissed, 2 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Allen - **Authority:** Croydon (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6008014 - **Application reference:** 25/02896/GPDO - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Prior approval for formation of a private way for forestry use (GPDO Sch 2 Part 6 Class E) - **Site context:** TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Sch2 Pt2 Class B (Article 4), TCPA s336(1) - **Main issues:** scope of permitted development, means of access - **Tags:** tier-2, prior-approval, article-4, framework-not-cited ## Summary This was a prior approval appeal for a forestry private way through woodland at Kenley. It was dismissed because reopening a blocked verge access would be the "formation and laying out of a new means of access" (DL ¶12). An Article 4 Direction had removed those permitted development rights, so the proposal fell outside the GPDO (DL ¶13). The NPPF is not cited. ## What made the difference The works needed to break out cemented blocks and a bund, and possibly to surface the verge (DL ¶11). As a matter of fact and degree that made them an engineering operation, which the Article 4 Direction caught. ## Policy findings - **GPDO Sch2 Pt6 Class E: not-engaged.** works to reopen blocked verge access = formation of a new means of access; Article 4 Direction (2003) removed Part 2 Class B rights, so planning permission required (DL 10-13) ## Key facts - Access blocked by cemented concrete blocks under an earth bund after a 2016 enforcement appeal (DL 7-8) - Appellant conceded at hearing that a new access under the Article 4 Direction takes the scheme outside the GPDO (DL 13) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008014 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d08d7530-cbb5-4516-b932-07f12e21a1ac --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008014.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 11 Kingswood Avenue, Hitchin - **Decision:** allowed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: MG Garrard - **Authority:** North Hertfordshire (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008022 - **Application reference:** 26/00109/FP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Replacement of semi-detached house with a detached self-build house - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S3(1)(c), DP3 - **Development plan policies:** North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031 D1, D2, SP9 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, BNG self-build exemption - **Tags:** tier-2, s3-1-c-accord, self-build, bng-self-build-exemption, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A detached replacement for a semi-detached house in Hitchin was allowed. The street had lost its uniformity through alterations, and the plot sat next to a gap by a substation. The inspector asked for a mechanism to secure the claimed BNG self-build exemption, and an executed UU was then supplied. The scheme accorded with the plan and DP3, so S3(1)(c) required approval "without delay" (DL ¶19). ## What made the difference The inspector asked the appellant for the self-build UU during the appeal. Without it, the BNG exemption would have failed for lack of certainty (DL ¶12-13). This case uses the S3(1)(c) plan-compliance route rather than S4. ## Policy findings - **DP3: pass.** follows building line and roofline; varied street scene near substation gap (DL 6-10) - **S3(1)(c): pass.** accords with up-to-date plan and Framework so approved without delay (DL 19) ## Key facts - Executed UU (19 Aug 2026) securing self-build, so the BNG self-build exemption applied (DL 3, 13) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008022 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b14af7b7-57a4-496e-a9b9-a0c1f424b38b --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008022.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 3 Kimberley Street, Wigan (house to 5-bed HMO) - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Duff - **Authority:** Wigan (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008026 - **Application reference:** A/25/099971/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of a two-bedroom terraced house (C3) to a five-person small HMO (C4), retrospective - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3, S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Wigan Core Strategy CP7, CP10, CP17, Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan JP-P1, JP-C8, JP-H3, Wigan HMO SPD - **Main issues:** living conditions of neighbours and parking, living conditions of future occupiers - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, hmo, retrospective, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A retrospective conversion of a two-bedroom terraced house in Wigan to a five-bedroom HMO, needed after an Article 4 Direction removed the permitted development right. Neighbour amenity and parking were acceptable. But the ground-floor bedroom shares a thin wall with the communal kitchen-lounge, and noise mitigation was unevidenced. That P3 conflict meant the benefits were substantially outweighed under S4. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "My decision reflects the latest version of the Framework, and the responses received on it" (DL ¶4). - **Neighbours and parking: acceptable.** "whilst there may be some increased competition for car parking spaces ... I do not consider that it would be of a level of significance to adversely affect the living conditions of neighbouring residents" (DL ¶17). - **Future occupiers, P3: FAIL.** "the transfer of noise through the wall from the communal area from socialising, use of the kitchen and appliances would likely cause unacceptable noise to the occupier of bedroom 2" (DL ¶22). - **Benefits.** No evidence of need for this type of accommodation, so "this benefit attracts only modest weight" (DL ¶30). ## Planning balance S4(1). The P3 conflict meant "these adverse effects of the scheme would be such that harm and related local and national policy conflicts would substantially outweigh the benefits of the proposal" (DL ¶34). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶35). ## What made the difference One room's layout. Acoustic evidence showing effective insulation, or a different layout, would probably have allowed the appeal. ## Transferable points - P3 living-conditions failure for a single room can decide an S4 case where benefits are small (DL ¶22, ¶34). - Mitigation claims need evidence of what is required and how effective it would be (DL ¶23). - HMO accommodation choice gets modest weight without evidence of need (DL ¶30). ## Policy findings - **P3: fail.** ground-floor bedroom 2 shares a thin wall with the communal kitchen/lounge; mitigation unevidenced (DL 20-23, 28, 34) - **P3: pass.** neighbours - modest increase in comings and goings and parking; HMO concentration thresholds met; on-street parking available (DL 10-18) - **HO5: benefit.** mapped: HMO adds choice and affordability, but no evidence of need; "modest weight" (DL 30) - **TR3: benefit.** mapped: convenient access to services and public transport, cycle storage, weighs in favour (DL 16, 31) - **S4(1): fail.** P3 conflict means harm would substantially outweigh the benefits (DL 33-34) ## Key facts - Borough-wide Article 4 Direction for C3 to C4 took effect 31 Aug 2025; an earlier LDC for the same HMO (Feb 2025) therefore no longer usable (DL 2, 7) - Appellant's small parking survey showed at least 3 free spaces; LHA no objection (DL 14, 16) - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008026 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a4f46559-b14b-4886-a430-1a5613542cac --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008026.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 9 Selway House, 272 South Lambeth Road, Lambeth - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Clark - **Authority:** Lambeth (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6008038 - **Application reference:** 25/03420/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of a ground/first-floor duplex from HMO (C4) to short-term let (C1) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TC3 - **Development plan policies:** Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 ED10, ED14, H3, Q2, Q12, Q13, London Plan 2021 E10, T5 - **Main issues:** location of visitor accommodation, loss of housing, living conditions, refuse and cycle storage - **Tags:** tier-2, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, old-wording-slip, short-term-let, sequential-test, living-conditions, loss-of-housing ## Summary A change of use from HMO to a C1 short-term let was dismissed. There was no sequential test for an out-of-centre main town centre use, and TC3 was aligned with local policy ED14 (DL ¶9-11). The scheme also meant the loss of a potential family home, noise from short-let groups, and no adequate refuse arrangements. ## What made the difference Treating short-stay lets as C1 visitor accommodation brought in the TC3 sequential test, and the appellant supplied none. Because an HMO can switch back to C3 under PD, it still counts as housing stock (DL ¶18). Drafting slip: the letter says the 2026 Framework was applied but cites the old paragraphs 85 and 91 (DL ¶10, 13). ## Policy findings - **TC3: fail.** C1 short-stay visitor accommodation is a main town centre use; out of centre, no sequential test submitted; ED14/E10 "aligns with Policy TC3" (DL 9-11) - **H3 (Lambeth LP): conflict (significant weight).** loss of a home suitable for families; C4 can revert to C3 under PD so still housing (DL 16-20) - **P3: harm (significant weight).** code mapped by harvester — short-let groups, loitering and garden use at unsociable hours; management plan not before the inspector (DL 23-27); refuse and living-conditions harm "collectively attract significant weight" (DL 42) - **TR6: not-engaged.** code mapped by harvester — highway "unacceptable/severe" test noted but refuse reason "not based on highway safety" (DL 29) ## Key facts - PTAL 6a, but outside a town centre (DL 11) - Communal bins overflowing at the site visit; no private refuse contract offered for the commercial use (DL 28, 32) - Parties were given the chance to comment on the 2026 Framework, yet the letter still cites old paras 85 and 91 (DL 4, 10, 13) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008038 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/bf96cd14-f101-43b4-8479-709669676dff --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008038.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 99 Allington Road, Newick - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Alice James - **Authority:** Lewes (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008050 - **Application reference:** LW/25/0503 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Erection of a detached dwelling in the side garden gap between 99 and 101 Allington Road - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** Lewes LP CP11, Lewes LPP2 DM25 - **Development plan policies:** Lewes Local Plan Part 1 2016 CP11, Lewes Local Plan Part 2 2020 DM1, DM25, DM30, Newick Neighbourhood Plan EN1 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, garden-infill, no-framework-cited, small-scheme, plan-led ## Summary A single dwelling in a side-garden gap on the rural-fringe edge of Newick was dismissed as cramped and harmful to the verdant, open transition to the countryside. The decision was issued on the Framework's publication day and does not mention the Framework at all. It is a plain s38(6) decision. ## What made the difference The gap "allows for views towards the countryside … and contributes to the rural fringe character" (DL ¶7), and the benefits of one dwelling were "limited" (DL ¶14). This is a useful reminder that some decisions of 17 August 2026 contain no Framework engagement whatever, and that no L2(1)(d) garden-infill argument was raised. ## Policy findings - **Lewes LPP2 DM25: conflict.** cramped two-storey dwelling closes a gap giving views to countryside at the rural fringe (DL 7-9, 13) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** one windfall dwelling in a sustainable location; benefits limited (DL 14) — Framework not cited ## Key facts - Gap between 99 and 101 gives views to open countryside on the rural-fringe south side of the road - Lapsed permission LW/22/0300 retained a larger gap and was not comparable ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/554635bb-ba7e-439c-ace7-92dac2381c84 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008050 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008050.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pavement outside 30 New Bailey Street, Salford (telephone hub and digital advert) - **Decision:** dismissed, 26 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew McGlone - **Authority:** Salford (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008051 - **Application reference:** PA/2026/0124 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Freestanding telephone apparatus with defibrillator (Appeal A) and internally illuminated six-sheet digital advert (Appeal B, 6008052, PA/2026/0171) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, HE4(2), CO1 - **Development plan policies:** Salford Local Plan DM AP1, DG1, D1, D2, D3, D4, HE1, HE2, Places for Everyone JP-C1, JP-C2, JP-P1, Salford Central Planning Guidance SC4 - **Main issues:** setting of listed buildings, amenity (advert) - **Tags:** telecoms, street-hub, heritage-harm-decisive, co1-substantial-weight, advert-heritage ## Summary An In Focus telephone and defibrillator hub with a digital advert, on the pavement by Albert Bridge in Salford, was refused planning permission and advert consent. Both appeals were dismissed. Low-level harm to the settings of a Grade II bridge and a Grade II* railway viaduct outweighed CO1's substantial-weight benefits, because the hub was not sited to minimise its visual impact. ## Issues and findings - **Heritage setting: HARM.** "The proposal would cause harm to the significance of both listed buildings, by way of impact upon setting at the lower end of the spectrum in each case. That said, I give substantial weight to each asset's conservation, and any harm … should have a clear and convincing justification according to Policy HE4" (DL ¶14). - **CO1: substantial weight, but siting failed.** "Framework Policy CO1 says that such benefits carry substantial weight, but equally this policy says that the proposed hub would not be sited or designed to minimise its visual impact, especially given that it would be a new structure. I conclude that they do not outweigh the collective or individual harm … having regard to Framework Policy HE6" (DL ¶15). - **Council's own approval opposite: distinguished.** That site has a different character: the view there faces away from the viaduct, with trees in between (DL ¶11). - **Advert: amenity harm.** It would bring visual activity that competes with the listed buildings' settings. Conditions would not overcome it (DL ¶19-21). ## Planning balance An HE6 heritage balance: low harm to two assets, with substantial weight to conservation, against substantial CO1 benefits. The harm prevailed, and the scheme conflicted with the development plan (DL ¶23). ## What made the difference The site's open, curving approach to both listed structures. The inspector read CO1's own requirement to minimise visual impact as limiting the weight of its benefits. ## Transferable points - CO1 substantial weight is conditional in practice. A hub not "sited or designed to minimise its visual impact" loses to even low-level setting harm (DL ¶15). - Low harm to setting still attracts substantial weight to conservation and needs HE4(2) "clear and convincing justification" (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **HE6: harm (substantial weight).** harm at lower end of spectrum to settings of Grade II Albert Bridge and Grade II* Southern Railway Viaduct and Colonnade; substantial weight to each asset's conservation (DL 10-14) - **HE4(2): fail.** no clear and convincing justification (DL 14-15) - **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** Wi-Fi, free calls, defibrillator etc. carry substantial weight, but the hub was not sited or designed to minimise visual impact (DL 15) ## Key facts - 8 m wide footway at the curve of New Bailey Street by Albert Bridge; open character; existing kiosk on the opposite side to be removed (DL 3, 11-12) - The council had approved an identical hub and advert on the other side of the road, distinguished because the view there is away from the viaduct and screened by trees (DL 11) - Advert conditions on brightness and dwell time would reduce but not overcome the harm (DL 20) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008051 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/87e74df4-81c9-40d5-a1e2-6304ea3a90e7 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008051.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land north of Helm Lane, Mill Bank, Sowerby Bridge (rural worker dwelling) - **Decision:** dismissed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Chris Mayes - **Authority:** Calderdale (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6008062 - **Application reference:** 25/00736/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Temporary rural worker's dwelling on a smallholding - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, isolated, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(1), GB6(2), HO11(1)(a), TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Calderdale Local Plan 2023 GB1, HS1, IM4, IM5, BT4, CC3 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, suitable location, rural worker need, highway safety, drainage, VSC - **Tags:** rural-worker-dwelling, ho11, isolated-home, openness-harm, vsc-not-shown, sustainable-location-fail ## Summary A temporary rural worker's dwelling on a smallholding in the Calderdale Green Belt. The appeal was dismissed. The dwelling fell within no GB7 exception. No essential need under HO11(1)(a) was shown. The site was isolated and car-dependent, and the access and drainage were unsatisfactory. Limited-weight benefits did not clearly outweigh the harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The appeal was decided under the 2026 Framework. The parties had already addressed rural worker, outside-settlement and Green Belt matters, so there was no prejudice (DL ¶2). - **GB6: INAPPROPRIATE.** "While I accept that the proposal would support the operation of the existing smallholding, it would nevertheless provide residential accommodation" (DL ¶5). It would "not fall within any of those exceptions" (DL ¶6). - **Openness: harm.** "openness is not solely a matter of visibility … the proposal would add built form where none currently exists" (DL ¶7). - **HO11(1)(a): FAIL.** Lambing and farrowing are "intermittent and seasonal in nature" (DL ¶13). On expansion: "the issue before me is not whether further expansion may be desirable or achievable, but whether the evidence demonstrates an essential need" (DL ¶15). - **Location / TR3.** "Future occupants would be heavily reliant on the private car … a residential use would also generate its own travel demands" (DL ¶11). - **Highways and drainage.** Both conflicted with the plan (DL ¶20, ¶22). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Limited weight went to the rural enterprise, livestock welfare, temporary status and security (DL ¶25). On the other side were substantial Green Belt harm, plus location, highway and drainage harm. The considerations "do not clearly outweigh the harm" (DL ¶29). ## What made the difference There is no GB7 category for agricultural or rural-worker dwellings, since GB7(1)(a) covers buildings for agriculture, not homes. A rural worker dwelling in the Green Belt therefore needs VSC, and without HO11 essential-need evidence the justification collapses. Robust functional-need evidence (frequency of out-of-hours intervention, why existing arrangements fail) would have been needed to build VSC. ## Transferable points - A rural worker's dwelling is residential accommodation, not an agricultural building, and is inappropriate in the Green Belt (DL ¶5-6). - A temporary dwelling still harms spatial openness: "openness is not solely a matter of visibility" (DL ¶7). - HO11(1)(a) essential need must be shown on the current enterprise, not on expansion plans (DL ¶15). - Saving management trips does not offset the new travel demand a dwelling creates (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **GB6(1): fail (substantial weight).** temporary rural worker dwelling falls within none of the GB7 exceptions → inappropriate (DL 5-6) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** new building where none exists reduces spatial openness, and to lesser degree visual openness, despite screening (DL 7) - **HO11(1)(a): fail.** no essential need for rural worker to live permanently at or near holding; lambing/farrowing intermittent and seasonal; theft isolated; expansion aspirations not current need (DL 12-16) - **TR3: harm.** isolated location, heavily reliant on private car; residential use generates its own trips despite fewer management journeys (DL 11) - **LP BT4: conflict.** constrained access with restricted visibility on narrow Helm Lane (DL 18-20) - **LP CC3: conflict.** foul drainage and potable water supply not demonstrated (DL 21-22) ## Key facts - Isolated smallholding outside any settlement, next to an existing agricultural building - Evidence of livestock losses and theft, but no objective data on how often intervention is needed - Dwelling would be temporary; that attracted only limited weight ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008062 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8f9e5c19-d8cd-4ee9-a750-b9c90a1de16d --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008062.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 50 Arthur Road, Islington - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Unwin - **Authority:** Islington (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6008065 - **Application reference:** P2025/2793/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** First-floor rear and mansard extensions and change of use from small HMO (C4) to large HMO (sui generis), 3 extra rooms - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6), Islington DMP H2 - **Development plan policies:** Islington Local Plan Strategic and DM Policies 2023 H2, H10 - **Main issues:** supply of family housing - **Tags:** tier-2, transitional-no-consultation, loss-of-housing, hmo, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary A small HMO was to be enlarged and changed into a large sui generis HMO. Dismissed as a loss of family housing under local policy H2. The loss arises because a C4 HMO can revert to a C3 house under PD rights, but a large HMO cannot (DL ¶6-10). The 2026 Framework was noted, but only the development plan was applied. ## What made the difference The PD fallback runs one way. Keeping the property within C3/C4 preserves its potential as a family home. The appellant's intentions were irrelevant because "future owners may wish to" revert it (DL ¶9). The L2 substantial weight to more homes or floorspace was not argued or considered. ## Policy findings - **H2 (Islington DMP): conflict.** C4 can revert to C3 family house under PD, sui generis large HMO cannot, so it is a loss of self-contained family housing without equivalent replacement (DL 6-10) ## Key facts - Terraced three-storey house suitable as larger family housing (DL 5) - Appellant's claim that the large HMO could later be reconverted via planning permission given limited weight (DL 9) - 2026 Framework "does not change the planning policy context"; no Framework policy is cited in the reasoning (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008065 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/093ae4f7-38aa-4126-b42a-8e6bfbbed787 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008065.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Former Newsham Park pub, 108 Boaler Street, Liverpool - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Elaine Moulton - **Authority:** Liverpool (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008083 - **Application reference:** 25F/0345 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of ground floor of former public house (sui generis) to convenience store (Class E) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HC6(1)(a), TC3(3) - **Development plan policies:** Liverpool Local Plan 2013-2033 (2022) SP5, SP6 - **Main issues:** loss of community facility, sequential test - **Tags:** pub-loss, hc6-marketing-12-months, sequential-test, flexibility-format-scale, community-facility, no-consultation-on-2026-framework ## Summary Conversion of a long-closed pub in a Liverpool residential area to a convenience store. The appeal was dismissed on two grounds. First, the loss of the community facility was not justified: the inspector used HC6's 12-month marketing benchmark to interpret local policy SP5, and three months of informal marketing fell well short. Second, the sequential test failed because a local-centre unit only 6 m² smaller was dismissed without evidence, contrary to the flexibility TC3(3) requires. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The Framework is "a relevant material planning consideration of 'critical importance' … In respect of the main issues in this appeal, the Framework has not materially changed the assessment, and it has therefore not been necessary for me to consult the main parties upon it" (DL ¶2). - **Community facility: FAIL (SP5, read with HC6).** "Whilst neither Policy SP5 nor its supporting text prescribes a specific marketing approach, Policy HC6 of the Framework provides relevant national policy guidance … reasonable steps have been taken to market the property for its existing use, without success, for a period of at least 12 months" (DL ¶7). "it was undertaken for only three months, which falls significantly short of the 12-month period referred to in the Framework" (DL ¶8). This was so even though "the loss of the appeal property's use as a public house would not leave the local community without such a facility" (DL ¶6). Local SP5 also requires that no alternative community use is needed. - **Sequential test: FAIL (TC3(3)).** "I cannot conclude that the appellant has applied the degree of flexibility in the consideration of issues such as format and scale that is required by Policy TC3.3 of the Framework" (DL ¶16). - **Benefits.** Jobs, bringing an under-used building back into use, and investment "weigh in favour … Nevertheless, they are not sufficient" (DL ¶18). ## Planning balance A section 38(6) plan-led conclusion: conflict with the plan as a whole, and no material considerations outweighing it (DL ¶20). No S4 balance was run expressly, even though the site is within a settlement. ## What made the difference The marketing evidence. HC6's 12-month benchmark gave the inspector an objective yardstick that the local policy lacked. The existence of other pubs nearby (an HC6(1)(c)-type argument) did not help, because the local policy protects against loss of any community use, not just pubs. With 12 months of documented marketing, and evidence of why a 66 m² unit could not work, the appeal could have been allowed. Compare St Neots (PINS-6009938): 15 months of specialist marketing, allowed. ## Transferable points - Where a local community-facility policy is silent on marketing, HC6(1)(a)'s "at least 12 months" is the national benchmark (DL ¶7-8). - Nearby alternative pubs do not rescue a proposal where the local policy also requires no need for any alternative community use (DL ¶6, 11). - Under TC3(3), rejecting a town-centre unit that is marginally smaller, without operational evidence, is a failure of flexibility (DL ¶14-16). - Inspectors may apply the 2026 Framework without consulting the parties where it "has not materially changed the assessment" (DL ¶2). ## Policy findings - **HC6(1)(a): fail.** HC6's 12-month marketing benchmark used to read local policy SP5; three months of unverified circulation to agents "falls significantly short" (DL 7-9) - **SP5 (Liverpool LP): conflict.** pub closed for years, not an ACV, no objections, other pubs nearby, but not shown surplus for any community use; building usable as-is (DL 6-12) - **TC3(3): fail.** sequential test discounted a 66 m2 local-centre unit only 6 m2 smaller than needed, with no operational evidence; insufficient flexibility on format and scale (DL 13-17) - **TC3: conflict.** local SP6 sequential approach held consistent with TC3 (DL 13, 17) - **E2: benefit.** jobs, reuse of an under-used building, investment weigh in favour but are "not sufficient" (DL 18) ## Key facts - Pub closed for several years, in a Primarily Residential Area, not an Asset of Community Value, no local objection - Another pub on Boaler Street and others within easy walking distance - Marketing was circulation to local agents for 3 months only, with no agent confirmation of outcome - Sequential test covered Kensington Local Centre; one available unit of 66 m2 rejected as 6 m2 too small - Parties not re-consulted; the Framework "has not materially changed the assessment" (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008083 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/963c479b-f691-46eb-a376-1c1752bdc8a7 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008083.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Nine Oaks, Stocks Lane, Over Peover - **Decision:** dismissed, 26 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J D Clark - **Authority:** Cheshire East (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008087 - **Application reference:** 25/2665/HOUS - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Demolition of existing (partly unlawful) extensions and construction of new extensions - **Site context:** green-belt, washed-over-village - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 PG3, SE3, SADPD 2022 RUR11, ENV2 - **Main issues:** disproportionate extension, openness, bats, VSC - **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, vsc-not-shown, householder, washed-over-village, enforcement-baseline, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Proposal to regularise and reconfigure a heavily extended former dormer bungalow (subject to an enforcement notice) in a Green Belt infill village. It was dismissed. The result would be 71-100% larger than the original and "bear little resemblance" to it. That was disproportionate under GB7(1)(b), and the comparison with the enforcement-notice baseline was neutral, not VSC. ## Issues and findings - **Transition:** the relevant policies "remain similar"; no consultation (DL ¶3). - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "Whichever calculations are taken into account, the 30% threshold is substantially exceeded … the proposed dwelling bears little resemblance to the original dormer bungalow … Green Belt assessment is based on the original dwelling" (DL ¶10). - **Openness:** "It cannot therefore have anything other than a greater impact on openness" (DL ¶11). - **VSC:** the differences from the enforcement-compliant house "would have a neutral effect which does not go far enough to amount to the very special circumstances" (DL ¶25). Council approvals elsewhere of 62-85% increases got limited weight (DL ¶24). ## Planning balance GB6(2). Substantial harm from inappropriateness and openness, with no weighty considerations (DL ¶25). ## What made the difference Proportionality is measured against the original building, not the extended or enforcement-baseline house. ## Transferable points - Proportionality under GB7(1)(b) is judged against the original building, however long ago it was subsumed (DL ¶10). - Infill-village latitude on local percentage thresholds does not stretch to near-doubling (DL ¶9-10). - An improvement over an enforcement-notice baseline is neutral, not VSC (DL ¶23-25). - Council approvals of large percentage increases elsewhere carry limited weight without details (DL ¶24). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** 71-100% over original dormer bungalow depending on method; well above 30% RUR11 guide even allowing infill-village latitude; bears little resemblance to original (DL 6-12) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriate plus greater openness impact; enforcement-notice baseline comparison neutral, not VSC (DL 12, 20-25) - **N6: neutral.** bat roost mitigation by condition; Morge; licence likely (DL 13-19) ## Key facts - Outstanding enforcement notice (APP/R0660/C/24/3346262) requires removal of unlawful extensions; previous inspector found 142% increase - Proposal 71-100% larger than the original dormer bungalow depending on method - Site in an infill village in the Green Belt - local policy allows latitude above 30%, but not this much - New Framework applied without consultation (relevant policies "remain similar") ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008087 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/11ffb9fd-4e9a-4daf-8248-e89ea0fcef48 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008087.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Dane Cottage, Hogg Lane, Petham (porch, LBC) - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A James - **Authority:** Canterbury (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008107 - **Application reference:** CA/25/02066 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Listed building consent for a larger replacement front porch with WC at a Grade II 18th-century cottage (appeal B; planning appeal A is 6008105) - **Site context:** listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(3), HE6(4), HE4(2) - **Development plan policies:** Canterbury District Local Plan 2017 DBE3, DBE6, HE1, HE4, HE5 - **Main issues:** special interest of Grade II listed building - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, private-benefit-not-public, listed-building-consent, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary Listed building consent for a larger front porch with a WC at Dane Cottage, a Grade II 18th-century house in Petham. The porch would not be subservient and would break the eaves line, causing a low level of harm. The accessibility benefits were mainly private and the least harmful option was not shown. Dismissed, with the planning appeal (6008105). ## Issues and findings - **Effect.** Overall "the proposed porch would fail to be subservient to the listed building" (DL ¶11). - **Degree and weight.** "I find that the proposal would cause harm to the special interest of the listed building, albeit the harm would be at a low level. Nonetheless, a low level of harm does not equate to a low planning objection and the Framework is clear that any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight." (DL ¶15). - **Public benefits.** An easier downstairs WC helps older and less mobile occupants: "However, this is primarily a private benefit. Nonetheless, there is no clear and convincing justification before me that the proposal represents the least harmful way of achieving these benefits." (DL ¶16). "Overall, I give the public benefits limited weight in my decision." (DL ¶18). ## Planning balance HE6(4): limited public benefits do not outweigh low but considerable-weight harm; conflict with HE4 and HE6 (DL ¶18-19). ## What made the difference The porch's size and catslide roof relative to a modest cottage. The benefits were domestic and could not show that a less harmful design was unavailable. ## Transferable points - "a low level of harm does not equate to a low planning objection": low-graded harm still carries considerable importance and weight (DL ¶15). - Accessibility improvements for a private dwelling are primarily private benefits, and HE4(2) asks whether the scheme is the least harmful way to achieve them (DL ¶16-17). ## Policy findings - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** low level of harm - porch not subservient, catslide roof interrupts eaves line, obscures part of timber frame; no historic fabric lost (DL 9-11, 15) - **HE6(4): fail (limited weight).** small economic benefit; accessibility and downstairs WC primarily private; dwelling use not shown to depend on it (DL 16-18) - **HE4(2): fail.** no clear and convincing justification that this is the least harmful way to achieve the benefits (DL 16, 19) ## Key facts - Joint letter with planning appeal A (6008105, not written up); both dismissed - Existing porch is early 21st century and modest; a larger historic structure once existed but its form is unknown (DL 8, 12) - Earlier larger scheme dismissed on appeal; not a fallback (DL 13) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008107 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/dfcf45be-63bf-4289-bc93-3d01e2732b92 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008107.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Barn (opposite Lansdowne House), Fordingbridge - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: AJ Sutton - **Authority:** New Forest (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008115 - **Application reference:** 25/10858 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of agricultural barn to dwelling, part demolition of stables and demolition of pole barn - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, isolated, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.53 - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 48 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(3), HO11(1)(c), DP3(1), DP3(2)(d) - **Development plan policies:** New Forest Local Plan Part 1 2020 STR1, STR3, ENV3, ENV4, Local Plan Part 2 DM20 - **Main issues:** suitable location, character of the area - **Tags:** s5-1-c-reuse, isolated-home, ho11-1-c, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, housing-shortfall, dp3-2-d-transport, lp-policy-very-limited-weight, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary The appeal sought to convert a barn in open countryside near Fordingbridge to a house. It was dismissed. New Forest's supply was only 1.53 years and its HDT 48%, so the local countryside policy DM20 got very limited weight. The barn qualified under S5(1)(c). But as an isolated home it also had to satisfy HO11, and it failed. The barn was still in use, and the domestic conversion would not "enhance its immediate setting". The car-dependent location was treated as a DP3(2)(d) failure, and DP3 conflicts "should be refused". ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶2). - **Local plan weight.** DM20 is "somewhat more restrictive" than S5, and with supply "chronically low at just 1.53 years" and an HDT of "a woeful 48%", the local spatial strategy was failing, so DM20 got "very limited weight" (DL ¶21). ENV3, ENV4 and STR1 remained consistent with the Framework (DL ¶22). - **S5(1)(c): PASS.** "the existing building is a brick clad structure with a solid roof; it appeared permanent and substantial" (DL ¶24). The footprint increase was modest (DL ¶25). - **S5(3)/HO11: FAIL.** Dwellings only across the lane did not make a group (DL ¶27). The inspector applied pre-2026 case law on "isolated" as "physically separated or remote from a settlement": the site "may not be remote from buildings, but it is from any meaningful settlement" (DL ¶27). For HO11(1)(c), the building "was being used for storage; it was neither redundant nor disused", and the domestic conversion "would fail to enhance its immediate setting" (DL ¶28-29). - **Transport as design, DP3(2)(d).** "a lane without pavements or streetlights along most its length is unappealing to pedestrians ... contrary with the national decision-making policy DP3(2) d which priorities walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport" (DL ¶31). ## Planning balance One dwelling in a district with "dire" supply got considerable weight, reduced because the same home could come from a more sensitive design (DL ¶33). L2 substantial weight did not apply because the site was not underused (DL ¶34). Against: conflict with S5(3)/HO11, and with DP3(1) and (2)(d), which "should be refused" (DL ¶32, 35). "the limited benefits identified would be substantially outweighed by the stated adverse effects (including character of the countryside and location)" (DL ¶35). ## What made the difference Isolation. Qualifying under S5(1)(c) was not enough, because S5(3) sent the scheme to HO11. HO11(1)(c) requires the building to be redundant or disused and the conversion to enhance its setting, and this scheme failed both. A restrained, agricultural-looking conversion of a genuinely disused barn could have passed despite car dependence, given the 1.53-year supply. ## Transferable points - Local countryside policies stricter than S5 can drop to "very limited weight" where supply is very low and HDT has failed (DL ¶21). - S5(1)(c) is necessary but not sufficient for an isolated home. HO11(1)(c) also applies: the building must be redundant or disused and the conversion must enhance its immediate setting (DL ¶26-29). - Houses only on the opposite side of a lane do not make a "group of houses" (DL ¶27). - Car dependence can be framed as a DP3(2)(d) design failure, which carries the DP3 "should be refused" consequence (DL ¶31-32). - L2 substantial weight needs land that is actually underused (DL ¶34). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(c): pass.** permanent, substantial brick barn; modest footprint increase not disproportionate (DL 24-26) - **S5(3): fail.** not in a settlement or group of houses (dwellings only across the lane); isolated from any meaningful settlement (DL 26-27) - **HO11(1)(c): fail.** building in storage use, not redundant or disused; and overtly domestic conversion would not enhance its immediate setting (DL 28-29) - **DP3(2)(d): fail.** unlit lane without pavements, limited public transport, car dependent - conflicts with priority to walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport (DL 31-32) - **DP3(1): fail.** floor-to-ceiling windows, patio doors and suburban curtilage incongruous with the rural yard (DL 15-17, 30) - **HO7: benefit (considerable weight).** one dwelling in a district with a 1.53-year supply; limited because a more sensitive scheme could deliver it (DL 33) ## Key facts - Supply 1.53 years; HDT 2025 48% (DL 21) - LP DM20 more restrictive than S5, so given very limited weight given the failing spatial strategy (DL 20-21) - Building in active storage use at the site visit (DL 28, 34) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008115 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5d7f8064-a013-43c4-b098-56386a6f35b9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008115.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pavement outside 608 Holloway Road, Islington - **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Teasdale - **Authority:** Islington (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6008154 - **Application reference:** P2025/3485/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub 3 replacing a phone kiosk (planning; advert consent decided separately) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, HE4, S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, D4, HC1, T2, Islington Local Plan 2023 PLAN1, DH1, DH2, T4, ST3 - **Main issues:** conservation area setting, public safety - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, telecoms, bt-street-hub, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A BT Street Hub replacing a kiosk on Holloway Road, opposite a conservation area, was dismissed. The inspector gave substantial weight to CO1's connectivity benefits. The harm to the CA's setting was nonetheless "at the higher end of the spectrum" (DL ¶17), and the benefits' "magnitude ... is not sufficient to outweigh" it (DL ¶21). Under S4 the benefits were "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶29). There was no public safety harm. ## What made the difference A larger, darker, monolithic unit on an already cluttered footway, read against a Victorian CA frontage. The inspector distinguished the weight of a benefit (substantial under CO1) from its size: a single hub is a small benefit (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **HE6: harm (substantial weight).** harm to setting of Mercers Road/Tavistock Terrace CA "at the higher end of the spectrum" (of less than substantial) from a taller, monolithic hub adding clutter (DL 13-17, 21) - **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to connectivity benefits but magnitude insufficient (DL 20-21) - **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 29) ## Key facts - Hub about 2.9m by 1.2m, taller and wider than the kiosk it replaces; the CA is across the road (DL 6-7) - No re-consultation on the Framework - changes "not substantive or determinative" (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008154 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/0e7538e8-c47c-484a-a735-41edffdd82d4 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008154.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land between 191 and 243 Nottingham Road, Selston - **Decision:** dismissed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Paul Thompson - **Authority:** Ashfield (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6008160 - **Application reference:** V/2025/0464 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline for 42 dwellings (access, layout and scale fixed) - **Homes:** 42 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.39 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), DP3(1), DP3(2), N6(1), N2, TR6(4), F7, F8, HE7(2) - **Development plan policies:** Ashfield Local Plan Review 2002 ST1, HG5, EV6 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, protected species and LWS, access, flood risk and SuDS, archaeology, NDHAs - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, large-scheme, local-wildlife-site, design-refusal, sustainable-drainage, archaeology-dba-missing, obligation-unsecured, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary An outline scheme for 42 homes, with layout fixed, on an infill wedge in Selston that includes part of a Local Wildlife Site. It was dismissed on almost every issue: cramped, parking-dominated layout, LWS loss with ecology evidence written for an 18-home scheme, unproven access visibility, no SuDS strategy, and no archaeological assessment. The site was within the settlement, so S4 applied. The inspector found that design, highway and biodiversity failures each meant "the proposal should be refused" (DL ¶49). Supply was 4.39 years, a shortfall the inspector called "not considerable". ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties had the opportunity to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶4). - **Design, DP3(1)/(2) and TR4.** "as greater emphasis is given to accommodating vehicle parking rather than placemaking, this results in a consistent and significant weakness in the design" (DL ¶9). The layout failed DP3(1) and DP3(2), and TR4 because transport was "not integral to its design" (DL ¶12). - **LWS, N6(1).** N6(1) says LWS proposals "should only be supported if the benefits of development in the location proposed clearly outweigh the likely impact ... the absence of evidence ... means such a conclusion cannot be reached" (DL ¶20). - **Access, TR6.** Splays were not based on 85th-percentile speeds, there were no turning heads, and a crossroads of drives was unassessed. Conditions could not fix a fixed layout (DL ¶22-27). - **Flood, F7/F8.** There was no drainage-hierarchy strategy, and SuDS "need to be considered at the start of the design process" (DL ¶29-31). - **Archaeology, HE5(5)/HE7(2).** A desk-based assessment "is therefore the minimum expected". A written scheme of investigation was prepared but not carried out, and the inspector took a precautionary approach (DL ¶32-34, 48). ## Planning balance The inspector ran the HE7 balance first, then S4. The benefits were: 42 homes with significant weight (4.39 years); sustainability and location, moderate; and the unsigned s106, very limited (DL ¶42-45). L2 and L3 were not benefits, because the LWS land was not underused and the layout was poor (DL ¶46). "The adverse effects ... on the character and appearance of the area, highway safety, and protected species and habitats (biodiversity), are all of such magnitude that, in accordance with Framework Policy S4, failure to comply with the relevant national decision-making policies means that the proposal should be refused ... Collectively, the adverse effects ... would substantially outweigh those benefits" (DL ¶49). ## What made the difference Evidence quality. The appellant fixed the layout at outline stage but supplied evidence that did not match it: ecology for 18 homes, no speed survey, no SuDS strategy and no archaeological assessment. With layout fixed, conditions could not cure the gaps. ## Transferable points - Under S4, several failures of "should be refused" decision-making policies (design, highway safety, biodiversity) are enough to refuse within a settlement (DL ¶49). - N6(1) for Local Wildlife Sites requires the benefits to "clearly outweigh" the impact. Missing survey evidence means the test cannot be met (DL ¶20). - Fixing layout at outline stage means SuDS, visibility splays and parking must be demonstrated at that stage (DL ¶26, 29). - HE5(5): a desk-based assessment is the minimum where archaeological potential exists (DL ¶32). - L2 and L3 are not benefits where the land is ecologically valuable or the layout is poor (DL ¶46). - A 4.39-year supply was described as "not considerable", yet housing still had significant weight (DL ¶42). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): fail.** cramped northern plots and dominant frontage parking; fails to respond to context (DL 8-12) - **N6(1): fail.** loss of most of Selston Common Grassland Local Wildlife Site; PEA and BNG based on an 18-home scheme; otter, water vole and bat surveys outstanding (DL 14-20) - **TR6(4): fail.** visibility splays not based on speed survey; no turning heads on private drives; unassessed crossroads (DL 21-27) - **F7: fail.** no drainage-hierarchy SuDS strategy despite a fixed layout (DL 28-31) - **HE7(2): fail.** no desk-based assessment or survey despite watercourse potential; precautionary balance against potential NDHA (DL 32-34, 48) - **L2: not-engaged.** LWS land not vacant or underused; L3 density not achieved with poor layout (DL 46) - **HO7: benefit (significant weight).** 42 homes, supply 4.39 years (shortfall "not considerable") (DL 42) - **S4(1): fail.** failures of design, highway and biodiversity policies mean the proposal should be refused; the wide-ranging harms substantially outweigh the benefits (DL 49) ## Key facts - Supply 4.39 years (DL 42) - Draft s106 (8 affordable homes, bus, NHS and education contributions) unsigned - very limited weight (DL 45) - Appellant declined to have late BNG and PEA updates considered (DL 3) - Costs application decided separately (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008160 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e6768c56-6038-405f-a87a-04b505f04266 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008160.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land to the rear of Dovedale, Ware - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Ellis - **Authority:** East Hertfordshire (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008167 - **Application reference:** 3/25/1159/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Four houses (three already approved and largely built) - in dispute is one additional detached house on the open parking/landscape area - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.55 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1), DP3(3), S4(2)(c) - **Development plan policies:** East Herts District Plan 2018 DES4 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, design-refusal, dp3-3-refusal, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary The proposal would add one detached house to an approved backland terrace in Ware, on the open parking and landscape area meant as a wildflower meadow. It was dismissed. The inspector gave the extra home substantial weight, given a 3.4-3.7-year supply. But the house was awkward, cramped and unlike anything in Dovedale. "without clear justification" it conflicted with DP3(1), so DP3(3) required refusal, and S4(2)(c) meant the benefits were "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶21). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties had the opportunity to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶2). - **Character: FAIL.** The house "would appear an awkward and incongruous presence in its plot to the detriment of the spacious feel of the appeal site" (DL ¶6), "in isolation from other detached dwellings" (DL ¶8). - **LP weight.** DES4 "largely aligns with the national decision-making policies in section 14", so it got great weight (DL ¶11). - **S4(2)(c) route.** "Paragraph 3 of Policy DP3 states that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 ... there is no clear justification for the conflict ... having regard to paragraph 2.c. of Policy S4 ... the benefits of the scheme would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶21). ## Planning balance The benefits of one home, economic activity, a sustainable location and BNG were "attributed substantial weight" given the 3.4-3.7-year supply (DL ¶18). DP3(1) conflict was "a matter of considerable importance" (DL ¶20). Because DP3(3) required refusal absent clear justification, S4(2)(c) resolved the balance against the scheme (DL ¶21). ## What made the difference DP3(3)'s "without clear justification" wording. The inspector treated a housing shortfall as not being a "clear justification" for a design conflict. So even substantial HO7 weight was defeated by the refusal trigger. ## Transferable points - The S4(2)(c) mechanism works like this. A DP3(1) conflict with no clear justification triggers DP3(3), which "should be refused". That is enough to find benefits substantially outweighed (DL ¶21). - A housing shortfall and HO7 substantial weight are not "clear justification" for a DP3(1) conflict (DL ¶18-21). - L2 cannot rescue a scheme that fails DP3: density is not "justified" (DL ¶19-20). - An older local design policy aligned with Framework DP3 keeps great weight (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): fail.** cramped detached house tight to both boundaries erodes open space intended as wildflower meadow; no detached houses in Dovedale (DL 5-9, 19-20) - **DP3(3): fail.** no clear justification for the DP3(1) conflict, so refusal required (DL 21) - **S4(2)(c): fail.** failure of DP3 refusal policy means benefits substantially outweighed despite substantial weight (DL 16, 21) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** one extra home with 3.4-3.7-year supply, sustainable location, BNG - collectively substantial weight (DL 17-18) - **L2: neutral.** not an effective use of land, even if underused, given the DP3 failure (DL 20) ## Key facts - Council supply 3.4-3.7 years, undisputed (recorded as midpoint 3.55) (DL 17) - Local plan DES4 aligns with the Framework design policies, so given great weight despite its age (DL 11) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008167 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3e5ae165-7f68-4a53-86ca-203da6e104b2 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008167.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Burnham Grammar School, Hogfair Lane, Burnham - **Decision:** allowed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Reeves - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008170 - **Application reference:** PL/25/4954/FA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Appeal against condition 3 (bat and bird boxes) on permission for a freestanding canopy and hardstanding at a school - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N2(3), N2(1)(f), DM6(1) - **Development plan policies:** South Bucks Core Strategy 2011 CP9 - **Main issues:** necessity of biodiversity-enhancement condition - **Tags:** condition-appeal, bng-beyond-statutory, n2-3, swift-bricks, costs-application ## Summary The appeal was against a condition requiring bat and bird boxes on a school canopy. The condition was deleted. The Inspector applied new Policy N2: a general development plan policy cannot require biodiversity gains beyond statutory BNG (N2(3)). The integrated-features expectation in N2(1)(f) was also displaced by "compelling technical reasons" (DL ¶¶7–11). The condition therefore failed the DM6 tests. ## Issues and findings - **N2(3), beyond-BNG gains: PASS (for the appellant).** "Core Policy 9 is a general natural environment policy rather than a site-specific allocation, and when read alongside Policy N2 it cannot be relied upon to require biodiversity enhancements beyond statutory net gain" (DL ¶8). - **N2(1)(f), species features.** The canopy's "lightweight polycarbonate roof, steel posts, limited height and the level of disturbance and artificial lighting … represent compelling technical reasons why bat or bird boxes would be unsuitable" (DL ¶9). N2 "does not support off-site installation where the development has no material ecological impact" (DL ¶10). - **DM6: FAIL.** The condition "is not necessary, as no ecological impact has been identified, and it is not reasonable" (DL ¶12). ## Planning balance No balance was needed. This was a straight test of the condition's necessity under DM6. ## What made the difference The new N2(3) wording removes local-plan leverage for enhancements above statutory BNG unless an allocation policy requires them. Combined with an accepted BNG metric and a structure that physically could not host boxes, the condition had no footing. ## Transferable points - General (non-allocation) natural-environment policies cannot justify biodiversity requirements beyond statutory BNG after August 2026 (DL ¶8, N2(3)). - N2(1)(f)'s integrated-features expectation yields to compelling technical reasons, and it does not justify boxes elsewhere on a wider landholding (DL ¶¶9–10). ## Policy findings - **N2(3): pass.** gains beyond statutory BNG only required via up-to-date allocation-specific policies; general CP9 "cannot be relied upon to require biodiversity enhancements beyond statutory net gain" (DL 7-8) - **N2(1)(f): pass.** lightweight polycarbonate canopy is a "compelling technical reason" why integrated boxes would be ineffective; N2 does not support off-site boxes elsewhere in grounds (DL 9-10) - **DM6(1): fail.** condition neither necessary nor reasonable — no ecological impact (DL 12) ## Key facts - Open-sided lightweight canopy, no interaction with buildings or vegetation; Ecology Officer no objection - BNG metric showed net gain via five trees, accepted by Council - Condition reason cited 2024 NPPF paras on bat/bird features ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f7410970-7ea2-436c-9379-13c3654a54e4 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008170 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008170.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to Parkend Club, Castlemain, Parkend (s73A variation, 3 dwellings) - **Decision:** allowed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Toby Gethin - **Authority:** Forest of Dean (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008171 - **Application reference:** P0048/23/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73A variation of conditions 2 (plans) and 6 (biodiversity mitigation) on built 3-dwelling scheme; off-site reptile mitigation land secured by unilateral undertaking - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N2, DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Forest of Dean Core Strategy CSP1, Allocations Plan AP4, AP7, Forest Edge South NP 2022-2041 Policies 2, 5, 7 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, biodiversity - **Tags:** tier-2, retrospective, off-site-biodiversity, unilateral-undertaking ## Summary Three houses at Parkend were built with gardens covering an approved on-site reptile buffer, and with a close-boarded fence. A retrospective s73A application to vary the plans and biodiversity conditions was refused, and the appeal was allowed. The inspector accepted larger off-site reptile mitigation land, secured by a unilateral undertaking, as giving a better overall outcome than the approved on-site buffer (DL ¶16-18). ## What made the difference The appeal was judged "under the current context and approach to biodiversity mitigation", which accepts off-site provision (DL ¶16). The UU was enforceable even though the off-site landowners were not party to it (DL ¶19-21). ## Policy findings - **N2: pass.** loss of approved on-site reptile buffer offset by larger off-site mitigation land under a LEMP, secured by UU; net gain over the approved scheme (DL 14-22) - **DP3: pass.** close-boarded boundary fence with new hedge not incongruous on settlement edge (DL 11-13); consistent with Framework chapter 14 ## Key facts - As built, gardens took over a 380 sqm reptile buffer shown on the approved plans (DL 14-15) - Landowners of the off-site land were not party to the UU; an option agreement and a purchase-notice obligation were held enforceable (DL 19-21) - Appeal "determined under the current context" allowing off-site biodiversity measures (DL 16) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008171 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/05955ffe-924c-4cfc-bcac-5671348a0a51 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008171.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Sycamore Farm, Well Bank Lane, Over Peover - **Decision:** allowed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Evans - **Authority:** Cheshire East (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008176 - **Application reference:** 25/2744/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of vacant dwelling and outbuildings and erection of a replacement (self-build) house with landscape scheme - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, PDL - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(e), Transitional(2) - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 PG3, SD1, SD2, Cheshire East SADPD 2022 RUR13 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development in Green Belt, replacement building policy, other considerations - **Tags:** not-inappropriate, pdl-e-limb, replacement-dwelling-materially-larger, fallback, self-build, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, local-plan-gb-policy-out-of-date, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, previous-appeal-superseded ## Summary A much larger replacement house on a Green Belt farmstead of derelict buildings. Allowed: as redevelopment of PDL causing only moderate (not substantial) harm to openness, it met GB7(1)(e) and was not inappropriate. The local replacement policy conflict (not "materially larger") got very limited weight because the policy does not reflect GB7(1)(e). An agreed permitted-development fallback would harm visual openness more. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Both parties have had an opportunity to comment on the revised Framework" (DL ¶3). - **GB7(1)(e): PASS.** "the proposal would result in a moderate loss of visual openness. On this basis, I have found that the proposed development would result in moderate harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal therefore meets the exception in Policy GB 7 (1) (e) of the Framework" (DL ¶11). - **RUR13 conflict: very limited weight.** "The development plan policy also does not reflect the revised wording of Policy GB 7 (1) (e) of the Framework ... I have attached only very limited weight to the policy conflict" (DL ¶17). - **Fallback.** Agreed realistic. "The fallback scheme would, therefore, have a greater impact on visual openness than the proposed development ... This attracts moderate weight" (DL ¶21). - **Self-build: moderate** (DL ¶23). ## Planning balance Not inappropriate, so no VSC. "There is a degree of conflict with SADPD Policy RUR13, however, it is inconsistent with the Framework and therefore, this conflict attracts very limited weight. The benefits of approving this proposal substantially outweigh any adverse effects" (DL ¶35). S5(5) is not named; the conclusion is framed as benefits substantially outweighing harm, which is more than S5(5) requires. ## What made the difference Treating the whole farmstead as PDL under (e) rather than testing the house alone under (b). On (e), openness harm is judged against all existing buildings, and removing the barn and outbuildings offset the bigger house. The PD fallback showed the alternative would be worse for openness. ## Transferable points - A replacement dwelling far larger than the existing one can still pass GB7(1)(e) where the whole site is PDL and the harm to openness is only moderate (DL ¶8–11). - A local replacement-building policy that does not reflect GB7(1)(e) carries very limited weight (Transitional(2)) (DL ¶17, ¶35). - A certified PD fallback that would spread more built form over the site can weigh in favour of a consolidated replacement (DL ¶20–21). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(e): pass.** agreed PDL; ridge 7.77 m v 5.86 m, footprint 441 v 118 sq m; moderate loss of visual openness, spatial openness improved by removing outbuildings; not substantial harm, so not inappropriate (DL 6-12) - **Transitional(2): neutral (very-limited weight).** RUR13 "materially larger" replacement test does not reflect GB7(1)(e); conflict (199% floorspace, 274% footprint increase) given very limited weight (DL 14-17, 35) - **HO5: benefit (moderate weight).** self-build secured by UU (no demand evidence) moderate weight; UU also secures BNG self-build exemption (DL 23); code mapped by harvester - **DP3: pass.** no conflict with CELPS SD1/SD2; no character harm alleged (DL 13, 16-17) ## Key facts - Previous replacement-dwelling appeal dismissed (APP/R0660/W/24/3348007); scheme reduced since (DL 7, 22) - Lawful development certificate fallback for PD extensions, garage and annex agreed as realistic; appeal scheme 24% less volume, 11% less floor area, 34% less footprint than fallback plus retained structures (DL 18-21) - Fallback's greater visual openness impact given moderate weight (DL 21) - Demolition of all buildings and PD removal by condition (DL 31, 33) - Both parties had an opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008176 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/eef421e9-b27b-4b9d-b923-0ed7446029d0 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008176.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 27 Mill Way, Mill Hill, Barnet - **Decision:** allowed, 19 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B J Sims - **Authority:** Barnet (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6008189 - **Application reference:** 26/0507/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Roof extension with dormers and conversion of new roof space to one short-term let unit (C1), bin and bike storage - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** s38(6), Barnet LP HOU05 - **Development plan policies:** Barnet Local Plan HOU05, CDHOU01, CDH01, London Plan D3, D6 - **Main issues:** principle (loss of latent housing capacity), amenity and parking, standard of accommodation - **Tags:** tier-2, no-framework-reference, short-term-let, living-conditions ## Summary A loft conversion to form a single short-term let (C1) unit in Mill Hill was allowed. The council's objection was that it lost latent capacity for C3 homes. The inspector found no policy basis for protecting unused loft space. The C1 unit was judged on its own merits, and the amenity effects could be controlled by condition. ## What made the difference There was no existing home to lose. Policy HOU05 protects existing homes, not potential ones (DL ¶6-8). The letter does not mention the 2026 Framework or the transition at all. Contrast PINS-6008038 (Lambeth), where a C1 short-let failed the TC3 sequential test; the point was not raised here. ## Policy findings - **HOU05 (Barnet LP): accord.** "no basis in national or local planning policy for protecting presently vacant and unused loft space for future conversion to permanent residential accommodation" (DL 6) - **P3: pass.** code mapped by harvester — noise from guest changeovers acceptable in an urban location, with sound insulation and C1-only occupancy conditions (DL 10-14) - **CDH01 / London Plan D6: accord.** C3 space standards not directly applicable to C1; unit comparable to a small hotel room (DL 16-19) ## Key facts - Council treated unconverted loft as "latent residential capacity" for 2-3 bed C3 need (DL 5) - PTAL 4, no highway objection (DL 13) - No reference to the 2026 Framework or the transition; only "All the policies referenced above are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework" (DL 23) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008189 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e36dde36-b2b7-4fc7-8410-d657a8a2a5a0 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008189.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Barn at Low Farm, Post Office Lane, Norley - **Decision:** allowed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Unwin - **Authority:** Cheshire West and Chester (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008197 - **Application reference:** 24/03166/S73 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Appeal against condition 4 (blanket removal of PD rights) on s73 permission for barn conversion to two dwellings - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM6(2)(c), DM6(1)(c) - **Main issues:** PD-rights condition - **Tags:** tier-2, condition-appeal, pd-rights-removal ## Summary A blanket PD-rights removal condition on a barn conversion was replaced with a class-specific one. The original condition was imprecise and lacked the "clear justification" that DM6(2)(c) requires for most roof alterations. Extensions and curtilage buildings could still harm the barn's isolated agricultural form, so removing those classes was justified (DL ¶¶9–12). ## What made the difference The Inspector tested each GPDO class against the character reason. Classes C and G (limited roof alterations, flues) "would be relatively limited in scale and preserve the character", so removing them was unnecessary (DL ¶12). The Framework was said not to change the policy context on this issue (DL ¶2). ## Policy findings - **DM6(2)(c): pass.** brief "agricultural character" reason not clear justification for a broad PD removal; classes A, AA, B, D, E and Part 2 A justified, C and G not (DL 10-12) - **DM6(1)(c): fail.** original condition imprecise — did not name GPDO classes, contrary to PPG (DL 9) ## Key facts - Traditional barn partly visible from public realm, isolated agricultural character - Condition replaced with class-specific PD removal (Part 1 A, AA, B, D, E; Part 2 A) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8b4966b7-5958-41ab-82d6-83d81f0cfe06 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008197 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008197.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Landfall Annexe, Chilworth Road, Chilworth (annexe to separate dwelling) - **Decision:** dismissed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Phillips - **Authority:** Test Valley (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008234 - **Application reference:** 25/02952/FULLS - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Existing annexe to become a separate dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6), DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Test Valley Revised Local Plan 2016 E1, E4, T2, Residential Areas of Special Character SPD 2019 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, parking and access - **Tags:** tier-2, plan-led, character-harm, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme ## Summary An appeal to make an annexe into a separate dwelling in a Chilworth Residential Area of Special Character was dismissed. A separate dwelling so close to the main house would erode the area's spacious character (DL ¶8). The case was decided plan-led: "I give substantial weight to this conflict" (DL ¶20). The single extra home got limited weight (DL ¶18). ## What made the difference The site's spacious local designation. Although the site is inside a settlement, the inspector did not run an S4 "substantially outweighed" balance: the letter is a straight s38(6) decision. ## Policy findings - **DP3: harm (substantial weight).** independent dwelling tight beside the main house at odds with the spacious RASC character; substantial weight to the development-plan conflict (DL 5-10, 20) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** one extra home, limited weight (DL 18) ## Key facts - Annexe very close to the side of the main house in a Residential Area of Special Character with 0.54 ha average plots (DL 6-8) - Parties consulted on the Aug 2026 Framework (DL 3); decided s38(6) plan-led, with no S4 presumption balance run - SPA recreational mitigation and nitrate credits unsecured; not pursued because the appeal failed on other grounds (DL 17) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008234 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7bf9a03f-8f8c-441c-b1dd-76c053b8f07e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008234.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land North of A507, West of A10, Buntingford - **Decision:** allowed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Hartley - **Authority:** East Hertfordshire (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008238 - **Application reference:** 3/24/0966/OUT - **Procedure:** inquiry - **Development:** Outline, access only, for up to 600 dwellings (40% affordable, 1% self-build), 60 elderly units, mixed-use local centre, first school, about 25 ha open space and country park, access from the A507 and bridges over the A10 - **Homes:** 660 - **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge, agricultural-land-BMV, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.88 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), S5(1)(j)(i), TR3, Transitional(2), HO7 - **Development plan policies:** East Herts District Plan 2018 DPS2, GBR2, DES2, TRA1, TRA2, ED2, Buntingford Community Area Neighbourhood Plan 2017 HD1, HD2, ES1 - **Main issues:** highway safety of A10 crossing, sustainable location, landscape character, infrastructure, S5 balance - **Tags:** large-scheme, s5-1-j, sustainable-location-pass, connectivity-tool, housing-shortfall, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, annex-a-weight-reduction, inconsistent-weighting, landscape-harm, old-heritage-wording, old-wording-slip, heritage-harm-outweighed, affordable-led, self-build, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary An inquiry into up to 600 homes plus 60 elderly units, a local centre and a country park on 50 ha of arable land west of the A10 at Buntingford, East Hertfordshire. The site is outside the settlement but was found "physically well related" under S5(1)(j)(i), because the A10 runs largely in cutting and the scheme adds bridges and a toucan crossing. Supply is 2.21 to 2.88 years. A package of lit paths, bridges, a shared route and in-site bus services passed TR3. Limited landscape, PROW, BMV and low-level Grade II* setting harm did not substantially outweigh the "very substantial" benefits. Allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The Framework is "a material consideration of ‘critical importance’"; parties gave written and oral comments (DL ¶3). - **Settlement.** "I have applied the definition of a settlement in Annex B of the Framework and taken the settlement of Buntingford to be that which is shown by way of a settlement boundary" in the local plan (DL ¶14). - **S5(1)(j)(i): PASS.** The A10 "constitutes a soft connection bridging the settlement of Buntingford with the proposed development rather than being perceived as being a hard boundary, or a prominent landscape break" (DL ¶22). - **Plan weight.** Quoting Annex A ¶2 ("should be given very limited weight"), the inspector says: "I afford the above development plan policies limited adverse weight in decision making terms because they materially conflict with national decision-making policy S5" (DL ¶29). He also relies on the fact that the plan's housing requirement "is materially different to the one that is in place now" (DL ¶28). The weight word ("limited") is higher than Annex A prescribes, and the out-of-date-requirement reasoning is 2024-style. - **Highway safety: PASS.** "I find that a shared toucan crossing within a 40mph zone is acceptable in principle on this part of the A10" (DL ¶37). - **TR3: PASS.** "With the proposals in place, the location of the development would limit the need to travel by private car, and it would offer a genuine choice of sustainable, quality and safe transport modes for residents and users" (DL ¶92). On perfection: "an absolutists approach to the application of LTN 1/20 is not warranted when the guidance is considered as a whole" (DL ¶94). On the 800 m figure: it "is in the context of considering proposals against specific proposals around well-connected railways stations. This appeal does not relate to such a proposal" (DL ¶74). - **Landscape: limited localised HARM.** "Even by year 15, it is my judgement that limited localised adverse harm would be caused by the proposal to the overall character and appearance of the countryside" (DL ¶113). - **DP3(1) scope.** "national decision-making policy DP3(1) relates to matters such as on-site scale, layout, landscaping and appearance rather than to the effect of a proposal on the landscape character and visual attributes of the countryside" (DL ¶124). In the alternative, even with a DP3(1) conflict "the very substantial benefits of approving the development would not have been substantially outweighed" (DL ¶169). The letter calls DP3(1) "a refusal type policy" (DL ¶168); the refusal limb is DP3(3), and no clear-justification question is asked. - **Heritage: HE6(4) PASS, with 2024 wording.** "The Framework states that great weight should be given to a heritage asset’s conservation" (DL ¶132). The harm is "at the lower end of the spectrum of less than substantial harm" and the public benefits "would collectively present a clear and convincing justification to outweigh the harm" (DL ¶135). In the overall balance "it is afforded limited adverse weight" (DL ¶164), where HE6(3) requires considerable importance and weight. - **HO7: substantial weight to each housing type.** "I find that the appellant has correctly disaggregated these benefits rather than considering them as one single benefit" (DL ¶139). ## Planning balance S5(1): approve unless the benefits are substantially outweighed. Benefits: "very substantial" collectively (DL ¶163), with substantial weight to each housing element, moderate weight to BNG, sports, open space, transport contributions and economic benefits, and limited weight to community facilities and PROW 36. No weight to the first school, which is not needed. Harms: limited landscape and PROW harm, limited BMV loss, limited weight to the heritage harm and limited weight to the plan conflict. "the benefits associated with the proposed development would not be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects" (DL ¶167). s38(6): material considerations outweigh the plan conflict (DL ¶171). ## What made the difference Two things. First, an acute supply shortfall (under 3 years against a much higher new requirement, with no new plan before 2029) and a plan whose countryside policies conflict with S5. Second, an unusually complete active-travel and bus package, tested line by line at inquiry (crossing design, lighting, surveillance, island widths, cycle dismount points). A weaker transport package, or a finding that the A10 was a hard edge, would have failed S5(1)(j)(i) or TR3. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(j)(i): a trunk road need not break the physical relationship with a settlement where it runs in cutting and is bridged by new active-travel links (DL ¶21–24). - TR3 does not demand perfection against LTN 1/20. A route package that gives alternatives for users who avoid a particular path at night can amount to a "genuine choice" (DL ¶61, ¶77, ¶92–94). - The 800 m "reasonable walking distance" belongs to the station limbs (GB7(1)(h), S5(1)(h)), not general housing sites. For those, the Manual for Streets 2 km figure is a guide (DL ¶74–75). - DP3(1) read as an on-site design policy that leaves landscape character to N2 (DL ¶123–124). This is contestable, because the DP3(1) text itself defines context as including the site's setting. - HO7 substantial weight may be given separately to market, affordable, elderly and self-build housing (DL ¶139). - Caution: plan-weight (DL ¶29) and heritage-weight (DL ¶132, ¶164) wording departs from the 2026 text; do not cite this letter for Annex A ¶2 or HE6(3) weights. - CIL Reg 122: a school site and a PROW status contribution not needed to make the scheme acceptable are disregarded, and a school not needed carries no benefit weight (DL ¶149, ¶174–178). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:settlement: not-engaged.** settlement taken as the LP settlement boundary, mostly the eastern edge of the A10; site outside it (DL 14) - **HO11: not-engaged.** common ground that the scheme is not isolated homes (DL 15) - **S5(1)(j): pass.** supply 2.21 to 2.88 years, so evidenced unmet need; scale accommodated with the s106 infrastructure (DL 17-19) - **S5(1)(j)(i): pass.** physically well related despite the A10, which is largely in cutting and read as "a soft connection"; bridges, toucan crossing, intervisibility with Neale Drive, adjacent business park and allocation (DL 20-24) - **Transitional(2): conflict (limited weight).** DPS2, GBR2 (Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt) and NP HD1 "materially inconsistent" with S5; Annex A paragraph 2 quoted ("very limited weight") but "limited adverse weight" given; reasoning also cites the out-of-date housing requirement and lack of supply (DL 25-29, 165) - **S6: not-engaged.** neighbourhood plan made in 2017, more than five years old (DL 27) - **TR6: pass.** staggered shared toucan crossing on the A10 (option 2) with new 40 mph limit accepted despite guidance against shared staggered islands; 85th percentile about 30 mph; guard rails; no severe cumulative impact (DL 33-58) - **TR3: pass.** services within 2 km; Connectivity Tool 45, district band B; lit and widened PROW 35/36, new stepped footbridge and active-travel bridge, shared route on Baldock Road, bus services 331 (30-minute), 18 and 37 into the site, travel plan; "genuine choice" found (DL 59-94) - **TR8: harm (limited weight).** limited localised harm to users' experience of PROW 40 and 41 (DL 121, 164) - **N2(1)(a): harm (limited weight).** limited localised landscape harm at year 15 to LCA 141 (medium value), built form kept off the plateau and ridge (DL 113-122, 126) - **DP3(1): not-engaged.** held to govern on-site scale, layout, landscaping and appearance, not effects on landscape character (N2 covers that); in the alternative a DP3(1) conflict would still be outweighed under S5(2) (DL 123-125, 168-169) - **N2(1)(b): harm (limited weight).** loss of BMV land, common ground (DL 130-131) - **HE6(4): pass.** Grade II* Holy Trinity Church about 1 km west; harm at the lower end of the spectrum (DL 135); letter uses 2024 "great weight" wording (DL 132) and gives the harm "limited adverse weight" (DL 164), not HE6(3) considerable importance and weight; public benefits "clear and convincing justification to outweigh the harm" (DL 132-135) - **TC3: pass.** sequential test passed for the local centre (DL 136) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to each of market homes, affordable homes, elderly homes and self-build, disaggregated with reference to HO1 (DL 30, 138-139) - **HC4(1): benefit (limited weight).** local centre, sports facilities and country park given limited weight despite HC4(1) "substantial" wording (DL 147) - **DM7(2): neutral.** no off-site foul and water supply conditions, as water companies have statutory duties; not duplicating other regimes (DL 151-154) - **S5(1): pass.** very substantial collective benefits not substantially outweighed; Framework given very significant weight; s38(6) departure (DL 163-171) ## Key facts - Supply 2.21 years (appellant) to 2.88 years (Council); requirement 1,237 homes a year against 839 in the 2018 plan; new plan not before April 2029 (DL 18, 137) - Connectivity Tool 45 excluding driving, district band B (A to J) (DL 60) - Staggered toucan crossing on the A10 with 3.0 m island against a 4.0 m county guidance minimum; departure justified (DL 79-81) - PROW 36 cycle upgrade not permitted by the highway authority; the s106 PROW contribution and the first-school obligations fail CIL Reg 122 (DL 72, 174-178) - BNG 11.22% (DL 13; 11.25% at DL 140); hedgerow gain 49.78% (DL 140) - Separate employment appeal on land to the south pending (DL 4) - Emerging plan likely to need sites outside settlement boundaries, per the Council's witness (DL 138) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008238 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fc346315-2334-4c6d-aeff-31ec7399f09e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008238.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 5 Bank Chambers, Penn Hill Avenue, Poole - **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L J O'Brien - **Authority:** Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008242 - **Application reference:** P/25/02136/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective kitchen extraction flue to rear of restaurant with flats above - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3 - **Development plan policies:** Poole Local Plan 2018 PP23, PP27 - **Main issues:** living conditions (noise, odour, outlook) - **Tags:** tier-2, living-conditions, retrospective, transitional-no-consultation, limited-nppf-engagement, costs-application ## Summary A retrospective restaurant extraction flue with flats above was dismissed for odour and harm to outlook for neighbours. Noise was found acceptable. The 2026 Framework is acknowledged in a single line (DL ¶4), and the decision turns on Poole local policies. ## What made the difference Because the flue was already installed, residents' repeated first-hand experience of odour, backed by the EHO and the inspector's own visit, displaced a desk-based odour assessment that conceded a "very high" risk (DL ¶14, 17). ## Policy findings - **P3: harm.** code mapped by harvester — odour: KOA itself rates the risk "very high"; flue discharges at c.4.7m close to upper-floor flats; resident evidence and site observation outweigh modelled KOA (DL 13-17); outlook: bulky, overbearing flue (DL 7-9); noise acceptable per NIA (DL 11-12) - **E1: benefit.** code mapped by harvester — Framework support for businesses to "invest, expand and adapt" noted but does not overcome plan conflict (DL 20) ## Key facts - Kitchen Odour Assessment modelled intended rather than actual performance; EHO doubted its robustness (DL 13) - Retrospective, so real-world resident evidence of odour was available (DL 14) - Licensing/abatement powers not a substitute for proper planning control (DL 21) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008242 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5aa82fe6-afb0-4cea-b679-0ed3744af4fe --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008242.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land East of College Road South, Aston Clinton - **Decision:** allowed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Zoe Raygen - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008253 - **Application reference:** 25/02250/AOP - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Outline (access only) for up to 66 dwellings with open space, SuDS and landscaping on three fields at the northern edge of Aston Clinton - **Homes:** 66 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(4), HO7, DP3(3), HO13 - **Development plan policies:** Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2013-2033 (2021) S1, S2, S3, S8, D3, NE4, BE2, Aston Clinton Neighbourhood Plan 2018 H1, emerging Buckinghamshire Local Plan (Reg 19) AST01 - **Main issues:** character and appearance including settlement pattern, setting and coalescence, location outside the settlement boundary - **Tags:** s5-4-exceptional, s5-1-j, housing-shortfall, large-scheme, dp3-refuse-trigger, landscape-harm, emerging-allocation, annex-a-weight-reduction, heritage-no-harm, habitats-mitigation, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Outline permission for up to 66 homes on three fields at the northern edge of Aston Clinton was granted after a hearing. The inspector found moderate harm to character and limited harm to the village's setting, but no coalescence with Aylesbury. That harm meant the site was not "physically well related" under S5(1)(j)(i), so the scheme fell to S5(4). With a substantial supply shortfall, 25% affordable housing and an emerging strategic allocation covering the site, the benefits substantially outweighed the harm, and the same benefits gave clear justification for the DP3 conflict. This is a rare S5(4) pass. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I asked the parties to submit supplemental statements regarding the changes relevant to the appeal" (DL ¶3). - **Character, DP3(1): CONFLICT (moderate).** "Overall, I conclude that the proposal would result in a moderate adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area" (DL ¶23). The harm arises "principally from the change in land use and the presence of development in this location rather than from any identified deficiency in the proposed design approach itself" (DL ¶28). No coalescence (DL ¶25). - **Plan weight.** S1 is "out of date due to the lack of five year housing land supply, it is in broad accordance with the Framework, and I give any conflict in terms of landscape harm full weight" (DL ¶36). The spatial-strategy policies: "given that the housing land supply shortfall is substantial, I give conflict with the relevant policies limited weight" (DL ¶39). No Annex A ¶2 test is run. - **S5(1)(j)(i): FAIL.** "the proposal is very close to the settlement. In addition it can be accessed from an existing road within the settlement and is well located in terms of facilities and services. However … it is not physically well related to the settlement and therefore does not comply with criterion j of Policy S5" (DL ¶80). - **Emerging allocation, HO13: PASS.** "I am satisfied that the proposal would not be inconsistent with NDMP HO13" (DL ¶77). The allocation "indicates that the Council itself now envisages substantial development in this broad location" (DL ¶78). - **Benefits.** Housing and affordable housing "substantial weight as per Policy HO7 of the Framework" (DL ¶82); economic and environmental benefits moderate; transport improvements limited (DL ¶83–84). - **S5(4): PASS.** "taken together the substantial benefits of the proposal would substantially outweigh the moderate weight I have applied to the adverse effects to the character of the countryside" (DL ¶85). - **DP3(3): clear justification found.** "I consider that the substantial benefits are sufficient to provide clear justification for the conflict with Policy DP3 of the Framework, which would only cause limited harm" (DL ¶86). - **Heritage, SAC, National Landscape, highways: no objection** (DL ¶45, ¶47, ¶59–60, ¶49). ## Planning balance S5(4) exceptional-circumstances balance, run with the benefits needing to substantially outweigh the harm. Then DP3(3), with clear justification read as the benefits outweighing the harm. Plan-led conclusion: conflict with the plan as a whole outweighed by material considerations, "including the Framework which is a material consideration of critical importance" (DL ¶87). ## What made the difference Three things together: a substantial and worsening supply shortfall (the plan turned five years old during the appeal), the Council's own emerging allocation of the wider area for 1,660 homes, and a site enclosed on two sides by the village with no coalescence effect. Without the allocation the moderate character harm might have weighed more heavily, and the location was accepted as accessible without a route test. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(j)(i) "physically well related" can fail on character and setting harm even for a site very close to and accessed from the settlement (DL ¶80). - S5(4) can be passed at appeal: substantial housing and affordable benefits substantially outweighing moderate countryside harm (DL ¶82, ¶85). - DP3(3) clear justification read as the benefits outweighing a limited design conflict, after the S5 balance (DL ¶86). - HO13: a scheme within an emerging strategic allocation is not "inconsistent" with it unless the Council shows it would prejudice infrastructure, access, masterplanning or phasing (DL ¶76–77). - Weight given to spatial-strategy policies cut for supply shortfall without an Annex A ¶2 test is 2024-style reasoning; treat DL ¶36–39 with care. ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): conflict (moderate weight).** moderate character harm and limited harm to settlement pattern and setting of Aston Clinton; no coalescence with Aylesbury; harm from the change of use, not design (DL 23, 25, 28-31, 78) - **DP3(3): pass.** explicit - "the substantial benefits are sufficient to provide clear justification for the conflict with Policy DP3" (benefits reading) (DL 86) - **S5(1)(j): pass.** evidenced unmet need agreed; infrastructure capacity met via s106 (DL 79) - **S5(1)(j)(i): fail.** very close to the settlement, accessed from it and near services, but "not physically well related" because of character and setting harm (DL 80) - **S5(4): pass.** exceptional circumstances; substantial benefits substantially outweigh moderate countryside harm (DL 81, 85) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 66 homes against a substantial supply shortfall (DL 82) - **HO8: benefit (substantial weight).** policy-compliant 25% affordable secured by s106 (DL 41, 82) - **HO13: pass.** site lies within emerging Reg 19 strategic allocation AST01 (1,660 homes); no evidence the scheme would prejudice the allocation's scale, location, phasing or masterplanning (DL 73-77) - **DM4: neutral (limited weight).** emerging allocation limited weight but reinforces that character harm is only moderate (DL 74, 78) - **HE6: neutral.** no harm to Grade II Sunnybrook Farm (setting already engulfed) or 1-6 Ballards Row (DL 43-47) - **N4: pass.** Chilterns National Landscape conserved; read as a small extension to the village (DL 60) - **N6: pass.** Chilterns Beechwoods SAC - appropriate assessment; SANG and SAMM secured; no adverse effect on integrity (DL 54-59) - **TR6: pass.** LHA-agreed TA; no severe capacity or unacceptable safety impact; Green End Street footway to be considered by condition (DL 48-50) - **TR3: pass.** mapped - "agreed accessible location"; "well located in terms of facilities and services"; TR3 not cited; bus contribution and off-site highway works secured (DL 41-42, 57, 80) - **LP S1 (local): conflict (substantial weight).** said to be "out of date due to the lack of five year housing land supply" but in broad accordance with the Framework, so landscape conflict given full weight (DL 36) - **LP S2/S3/D3/NP H1 (local): conflict (limited weight).** spatial-strategy conflict given limited weight because the supply shortfall is substantial (2024-style out-of-date reasoning, no Annex A(2) test) (DL 38-39) ## Key facts - Council cannot show a five-year supply; figure disputed but shortfall "substantial" on either figure; plan more than 5 years old from 15 Sep 2026, so the standard method applies (DL 38) - Aston Clinton a "larger village" in the Local Plan with no allocation; 43% dwelling growth since 2011 per Parish Council (DL 32, 53) - Previous appeal on a site west of College Road South dismissed nine years earlier (APP/J0405/W/16/3147513) on coalescence and highways; distinguished (DL 24-25, 48-49) - Visual effects substantial from some PRoWs at year 1, moderated over 15 years (DL 16-23) - s106 signed after the hearing - 25% affordable, education, health, bus service, skylark mitigation, SANG/SAMM, off-site highway works (DL 41) - Reserved matters within 18 months to meet D3 timely-delivery requirement (DL 62) - Approx 365 extra vehicle trips within 4.65 km of the SAC (DL 57) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008253 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008253.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land west of The Cottage, Snakes Lane, Ugley Green - **Decision:** allowed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Reid - **Authority:** Uttlesford (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008264 - **Application reference:** UTT/25/3066/OP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline for up to five dwellings (extant PIP+TDC for three) - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(e), HO11, TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Uttlesford Local Plan 2021-2041 (adopted March 2026) Core Policies 3, 26, 27, 28, 52, Development Policy 1 - **Main issues:** suitable location for housing, character and appearance, fallback - **Tags:** fallback, s5-1-e-infill, sustainable-location-fail, small-scheme, new-local-plan, housing-shortfall ## Summary Outline for up to five dwellings on a countryside field with an extant permission (PIP + TDC) for three. Allowed. The inspector found the site an unsuitable location (car reliant, not S5(1)(e) infill, conflict with S5 and a new March 2026 Local Plan), but the fallback of three large houses with similar harm weighed heavily, plus a small housing and economic benefit given no five-year supply. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties commented on the new Framework and the 2024/2025 HDT results (DL ¶4). - **S5(1)(e): FAIL.** "these dwellings are yet to be built. I must assess the proposal having regard to the appeal site's existing physical characteristics" (DL ¶9); "The proposal would therefore be next to built development on only one side. It would extend housing beyond the existing group, rather than being within it" (DL ¶10). - **HO11 consistency.** Local countryside policy "is consistent with Policy HO11 of the Framework and is therefore given full weight" (DL ¶7). - **Accessibility — TR3 / local CP26-28: FAIL.** The 441 bus "operates only twice a day during term-time weekdays" (DL ¶15); "Future occupants would therefore be reliant on the car for a significant proportion of their travel needs" (DL ¶16). Earlier appeal decisions under the old plan given limited weight (DL ¶¶11–12, 17–19). - **Character: PASS.** Contained by hedgerows; "would be perceived as a distinct group of housing, rather than as an enlargement of the existing group" (DL ¶25). - **Fallback.** "I find that the appeal proposal would give rise to a similar level of harm to that associated with the extant permission and attach significant weight to the extant permission as a fallback scheme" (DL ¶37). ## Planning balance s38(6) plan-led balance rather than an express S5 balance: conflict with the development plan as a whole (DL ¶38), outweighed by fallback ("weighs heavily", DL ¶39) plus limited housing and economic benefit from two extra dwellings in the absence of a five-year supply (DL ¶40). ## What made the difference The extant three-dwelling permission. Without it the appeal would have failed on location: the inspector gave full weight to a newly adopted Local Plan whose spatial and transport policies were consistent with HO11/TR3, and rejected the infill argument. Useful as a warning that S5(1)(e) is judged on existing buildings only, and that a recently adopted plan reduces the weight of older appeal decisions. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(e) "within groups of houses" is judged on existing built form, not consented-but-unbuilt dwellings (DL ¶9); a plot flanked by development on one side only is not infill (DL ¶10). - A local countryside-housing policy consistent with HO11 attracts full weight (DL ¶7). - Adoption of a new Local Plan is a material change reducing the weight of earlier appeal decisions on accessibility (DL ¶¶11–12). - Term-time twice-daily bus is not a realistic alternative to the car (DL ¶15); cycling not suitable for all users and bike-and-bus needs secure storage (DL ¶14). - A fallback of equal harm can outweigh locational conflict (DL ¶¶35–39). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(e): fail.** open field adjoining one curtilage on one side only — extends beyond the group rather than within it; unbuilt consented houses disregarded (DL 9-10) - **HO11: accord.** local Development Policy 1 found consistent with HO11 and given full weight (DL 7) - **S5: conflict.** "only certain forms of development should be approved outside settlements" (DL 21) - **TR3: fail.** car reliance; cycle to Elsenham possible but not for all; 441 bus twice a day term-time; 301 stops unattractive walk (DL 13-16) - **DP3: pass.** contained by hedgerows, would read as a distinct small group consistent with dispersed pattern (DL 23-26) - **HE6: neutral.** setting of Grade II Harewood Cottage and The Hermitage preserved (DL 29-30) - **fallback: benefit (significant weight).** extant PIP/TDC for three large dwellings; appeal adds at most two; similar harm (DL 35-37, 39) ## Key facts - Extant PIP (appeal March 2025, APP/C1570/W/24/3350263) and TDC (Sept 2025) for three dwellings on the site - New Uttlesford Local Plan adopted March 2026 with stricter sustainable-transport policies; council still cannot show a five-year supply (figure not stated) - Snakes Lane single track; 441 bus twice daily term-time only ## Sources - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Appeal-Decision-6008264-The-Cottage-Snakes-Lane-Ugley-Green-CM22-6HW.pdf - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/2026/ugley-fallback/ --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008264.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Telephone box outside 71 Upper Street, Islington (discharge of conditions) - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M Cryan - **Authority:** Islington (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6008275 - **Application reference:** P2025/2073/AOD - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Approval of details (site management and servicing plans) under conditions 4 and 5 of a 2020 permission to convert a K6 kiosk to a retail unit - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TCPA s91 (lapse of permission) - **Main issues:** whether the permission is extant - **Tags:** tier-2, conditions-discharge, lapsed-permission, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary The appellant sought to discharge conditions on a 2020 permission to turn a red telephone kiosk into a shop. The appeal was dismissed because it had not been shown that the permission was implemented before it expired in March 2023 (DL ¶13). The merits of the plans were not considered. ## What made the difference A tenancy agreement and an electricity supply notice do not show a material operation or a change of use (DL ¶11). Seeking to discharge a pre-commencement condition two years late pointed to lapse (DL ¶12). ## Policy findings - **DM6: not-engaged.** permission not shown to have been implemented by 19 Mar 2023, so details could not be approved (DL 10-13) ## Key facts - Only evidence of implementation was a tenancy email and an electricity "deemed contract" notice (DL 10-11) - Revised Framework's relevant provisions "were not altered significantly"; no submissions sought (DL 7) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008275 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/147ddbe0-d2fc-449b-bff3-3fad519a388a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008275.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 73 Henton Road, Leicester - **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F Harrison (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer E Nutman) - **Authority:** Leicester (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6008277 - **Application reference:** 20260064 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion of rear workshop to a self-contained flat with single-storey side extension - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** L2(1)(d)(ii) - **Development plan policies:** Leicester Local Plan 2020-2036 (2026) DQP06, Residential SPD 2008 App G - **Main issues:** living conditions of future occupiers (outlook, privacy) - **Tags:** tier-2, living-conditions, appeal-planning-officer, transitional-no-consultation, small-scheme, l2-benefit-limited-weight ## Summary Converting a rear workshop into a flat was dismissed for poor outlook and privacy for future occupiers. The letter expressly relies on L2's "acceptable living standards" limb (DL ¶9). The benefit of reusing an existing building for one home got only limited weight because of its scale (DL ¶11). ## What made the difference Outlook onto a close fence and overlooking from the host house. The letter shows the L2(1)(d)(ii) living-standards qualification being used as a stand-alone reason for refusal. It also shows the L2(1) "substantial weight" to reuse not being applied to a one-unit scheme. ## Policy findings - **L2(1)(d)(ii): fail.** "contrary to Framework Policy L2 that requires development to provide acceptable living standards for residents in terms of privacy" (DL 9); poor outlook to 1.8m fence and outrigger (DL 5-6) - **L2(1)(b): benefit (limited weight).** code mapped by harvester — reuse of existing building in accessible location and +1 home "attract limited weight owing to the scale of the proposal" (DL 11); L2 substantial weight not applied ## Key facts - Living-room windows face a 1.8m fence at close range and a two-storey outrigger (DL 5) - Direct overlooking from No 73's first-floor rear window into the living room (DL 8) - Newly adopted Leicester Local Plan 2026 applied (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008277 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/cda67793-888f-414a-96c1-e6438d94a1a4 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008277.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 203 Almners Road, Lyne - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer F Bradford) - **Authority:** Runnymede (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008286 - **Application reference:** RU.25/1830 - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Two-storey side extension, single-storey rear extension incorporating garage, front porch - **Site context:** green-belt - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Runnymede 2030 Local Plan 2020 EE14 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, VSC - **Tags:** transitional, disproportionate-extension, openness-harm, vsc-not-shown, fallback, householder, appeal-planning-officer-recommendation ## Summary Householder extensions to a 1960s semi in the Runnymede Green Belt, amounting to about a 70% floor-area increase. Dismissed as disproportionate, with harm to openness. The decision is dated 17 August 2026, the day the 2026 Framework took effect, but it applies the December 2024 Framework (para 154(c)) without mentioning the new one. Recorded as transitional. ## Issues and findings - **Framework applied.** The letter cites "Paragraph 154 c) of the Framework" (DL ¶3), i.e. the 2024 version. There is no reference to the 17 Aug 2026 Framework. - **Disproportionate: YES.** "close to three quarters of the original building again. This would not be limited or marginal. It would in actual fact be quite substantial" (DL ¶7). Proportionality is "as much a matter of planning judgement in the qualitative sense as it is a mathematical calculation" (DL ¶4). - **Openness: harm** from the visible two-storey side element and porch (DL ¶¶11–12). - **Fallback: very limited weight.** The prior approval is "considerably smaller in land take and volume … approved under secondary legislation that is not subject to the same Green Belt assessments" (DL ¶13). ## Planning balance Substantial weight to GB harm and limited weight to other considerations. VSC not shown (DL ¶15). ## What made the difference A roughly 70% uplift on a modest dwelling. The 2026 GB7(1)(b) wording ("disproportionate increase in size compared to the original building") would give the same result. ## Transferable points - A cumulative increase of about 70% on a modest semi is "quite substantial" and disproportionate (DL ¶7). - A smaller prior-approval rear extension is a weak fallback against a larger scheme (DL ¶13). - Transition: at least one decision issued on 17 Aug 2026 still applied the 2024 Framework. ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** decided under 2024 NPPF para 154(c) (= GB7(1)(b)); c.70% floor-area increase on modest 1960s semi → disproportionate (DL 3-9) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** 2024 paras 152-153; visible two-storey side bulk and porch reduce spatial and visual openness (DL 10-12, 15) - **fallback: benefit (very-limited weight).** extant prior approval for 6 m single-storey rear extension; much smaller, so very limited weight (DL 13) ## Key facts - Late-1960s two-storey semi; early-1970s rear extension added c.17 sqm (13%) - Appellant's own figures show just over 70% cumulative floor-area increase - Decision issued on 17 Aug 2026, the day the new Framework was published, but it cites 2024 para 154(c) - Site visit by an Appeal Planning Officer; decision by the Inspector on the recommendation ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008286 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/284a268a-4ba7-41d9-b01f-7dcf5fd3c1c6 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008286.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 19 Loughborough Road, Burton on the Wolds - **Decision:** allowed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Dr Rachael A Bust - **Authority:** Charnwood (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6008290 - **Application reference:** P/25/2103/2 - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Listed building consent to replace four first-floor timber windows with timber units using vacuum ("LandVac") heritage glazing - **Site context:** listed-building-setting, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** HE5(2)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Charnwood Local Plan 2021-2037 Core Strategy EV8, DS4 - **Main issues:** listed building - **Tags:** tier-2, listed-building, heritage-no-harm, windows-glazing, old-wording-slip, energy-efficiency-heritage ## Summary Listed building consent was granted for replacement first-floor windows in a grade II cottage, using vacuum heritage glazing with bonded glazing bars and timber beads. The changes "would only be discernible at close quarters" and would have "a neutral effect" (DL ¶¶13–14), so special interest was preserved. ## What made the difference The existing windows were agreed to be beyond repair, and the modern detailing closely replicated the originals on small, set-back first-floor windows. The letter was issued on the day of publication. It refers to the Framework's "chapter 16 on conserving and enhancing the historic environment" (DL ¶16), which is the 2024 chapter numbering, and it does not engage with HE6(4)'s new express reference to energy efficiency as a public benefit. ## Policy findings - **HE5(2)(b): pass.** bonded glazing bars and flat timber bead only discernible at close quarters; "neutral effect" (DL 12-14) ## Key facts - Late C16/early C17 grade II timber-framed cottage; existing windows decayed and beyond repair (agreed) - Dispute only on bonded glazing bars and timber beads vs run-through bars and putty - Vacuum glazing accepted as replicating single glazing while improving thermal performance ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/275e1db7-342b-4b20-8c89-2e3ab71cada7 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008290 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008290.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land off Eastbourne Road, Polegate (Aldi foodstore and care home) - **Decision:** allowed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Bowyer - **Authority:** Wealden (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008314 - **Application reference:** WD/2025/0904/MAJ - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Hybrid - full permission for Aldi foodstore (Class E(a)) with access, parking, servicing and landscaping; outline permission (access only) for a care home (C2) - **Site context:** settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 89 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** AnnexB:settlement, S4, S3, DP3(3), HO7, E1 - **Development plan policies:** Wealden Core Strategy 2013 WCS12, Wealden Local Plan 1998 saved EN12, EN27, TR3, CS2 - **Main issues:** highway access, character and trees, protected species, BNG, drainage, S4 balance - **Tags:** settlement-definition, outside-development-boundary, s4-approve, foodstore, care-home, tree-loss, no-5yhls, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A hybrid scheme at Polegate: an Aldi foodstore in full and a care home in outline. Wealden refused it on five grounds. After a hearing the appeal was allowed. The key finding was that a site outside the local-plan development boundary was still within a "settlement" as defined in the 2026 Framework glossary, because it is enclosed by the built-up area, including a consented estate. So S4, not S5, applied. Moderate harm from losing the roadside tree belt came nowhere near substantially outweighing substantial housing-need weight for the care home and significant economic weight. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The Framework was published "very shortly before the Hearing opened. Both main parties confirmed that they were able to address any implications" (DL ¶10). - **Settlement definition: S4 applies.** "it is clear from the use of 'includes' that being within an area defined as settlement in the development plan is not a pre-requisite for being a settlement in the terms of the Framework" (DL ¶102). "the appeal site is outside of the Polegate/Willingdon development boundary … However, it adjoins development which is within the boundary to three sides and to the fourth side is recent development following implementation of planning permission at Hindslands … the appeal site would therefore sit within a predominantly built-up area and I find that it would be within a settlement for the purposes of the Framework" (DL ¶103). - **DP3: harm, justified.** "there would be clear justification for the conflict with Framework Policy DP3 … On that basis, Policy DP3 (3.) of the Framework does not indicate that development should necessarily be refused" (DL ¶43). - **Care home as housing.** "In accordance with Policy H07 of the Framework, I afford substantial weight to the benefit of providing homes which will contribute towards meeting evidenced accommodation needs" (DL ¶106). - **Economic benefit.** About 40 FTE jobs: "I afford significant weight to the economic benefits" (DL ¶108). - **S4 balance.** "these benefits of the proposal would not in my judgement be close to being substantially outweighed by the adverse effects … Policy S4 of the Framework therefore indicates that development should be approved" (DL ¶110). This outweighed the conflict with the development plan (DL ¶111). ## Planning balance S3/S4 against the development plan. Harm: moderate, localised character harm from tree loss, in conflict with EN12 and EN27, which keep full weight as consistent with the Framework. Benefits: the care home against evidenced need (substantial); jobs and economy (significant); consumer choice (moderate); accessibility improvements (moderate); ecological enhancements (moderate). ## What made the difference Whether the site counted as inside a settlement. By reading Annex B's "includes" as non-exhaustive and counting the consented Hindslands estate as future built-up area, the inspector moved a site outside the development boundary from S5 to S4. S4 is presumptively permissive, with only national decision-making policies (not the local boundary) counting against. Had the site been treated as outside a settlement, S5 would have required it to fit a listed category. ## Transferable points - The Annex B "settlement" definition is not tied to development-plan boundaries. Land surrounded on three sides by built-up area, with an implemented permission on the fourth, is "within a settlement" (DL ¶102-103). - Under S4, the development-plan boundary conflict is not itself a national-policy adverse effect. The balance is benefits against harms assessed under national decision-making policies (DL ¶101-111). - DP3(3) harm with "clear justification" (for example, trees removed to provide safe access) does not require refusal (DL ¶43). - A C2 care home meeting evidenced older-persons need attracts HO7 "substantial weight" (DL ¶106). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:settlement: pass.** site outside the LP development boundary but enclosed by built-up area on three sides and Hindslands permission on the fourth; "includes" in the definition means a development-plan boundary is not a pre-requisite (DL 102-103) - **S4: pass.** benefits "not … close to being substantially outweighed" (DL 110) - **DP3(3): harm (moderate weight).** loss of frontage tree belt for access; clear justification exists, so DP3 does not indicate refusal (DL 43, 104) - **N2: neutral.** no unacceptable conflict given replacement landscaping (DL 44) - **N3: pass.** tree-lined street and long-term maintenance provision (DL 44) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** care home meets evidenced need for older people's accommodation; no 5YHLS; HDT 89% (DL 105-106) - **TC3: not-engaged.** retail capacity study shows capacity to 2030; increased consumer choice moderate weight (DL 107) - **E1: benefit (significant weight).** about 40 FTE jobs at the store plus care-home jobs (DL 108) - **EN12, EN27 (Wealden LP): conflict.** localised harm to verdant character from tree loss; policies consistent with the Framework, so full weight (DL 41, 100) ## Key facts - Outside the development boundary but surrounded by built development, including the new Hindslands estate - Access needs removal of one Category A tree and many Category B trees along Eastbourne Road - Council cannot show a 5-year supply; HDT 2025 is 89% - Wealden Town Centres Study 2026 shows significant retail capacity to 2030 - About 40 FTE store jobs; widened cycle lanes and footway along the frontage - Emerging local plan would allocate the site for about 60 dwellings (limited weight) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008314 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c0829b9a-737c-4a61-9919-b5a19393a0c8 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008314.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Mollen Farm, Edgarley Road, Glastonbury (Class E commercial units) - **Decision:** allowed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Smith - **Authority:** Somerset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008318 - **Application reference:** 2024/2311/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Two Dutch-barn-style buildings with six Class E units (light industrial, offices, food and drink, fitness/recreation) in a field outside development limits - **Site context:** open-countryside, listed-building-setting, valued-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6), HE6 - **Development plan policies:** Mendip Local Plan Part 1 2014 CP1, CP3, CP4, DP1, DP4, DP7 - **Main issues:** suitability of location, character and appearance and heritage setting - **Tags:** tier-2, rural-economy, plan-led, heritage-neutral, s5-not-applied ## Summary Six small Class E units in the countryside near Glastonbury were allowed. The scheme complied with the local plan's rural-economy policies (CP3/CP4), and the inspector found a neutral effect on the settings of Glastonbury Tor and the Grade I church tower (DL ¶11, ¶23). The revised Framework is noted (DL ¶3), but the letter never tests the scheme against S5's outside-settlement list or E4. ## What made the difference The site is low-lying and screened, and the Dutch-barn form sits against the school campus backdrop in long views from the Tor (DL ¶17-21). It is a plan-led approval. Contrast the strict S5(1)(b) treatment of rural business in other appeals. ## Policy findings - **E4: pass.** local plan CP3/CP4 rural-economy support met; the letter does not run S5 or E4 by code (DL 6-11) - **HE6: neutral.** neutral effect on settings of Grade I St Michael's Church Tower and Glastonbury Tor scheduled monument; long views against the school campus backdrop (DL 12-24) ## Key facts - Low-lying field corner next to Mollen Farm and the Millfield Junior School campus; mature hedges screen it (DL 5, 18-19) - Within the Glastonbury Tor special landscape feature (DP4) (DL 12) - [object Object] ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008318 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/950a887c-605c-49c3-81df-9b29e1fbb9bc --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008318.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 4 Whurley Way, Maidenhead - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Brennan - **Authority:** Windsor and Maidenhead (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008337 - **Application reference:** 26/00052 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Part single, part two-storey side/rear extension forming a separate two-bedroom (claimed self-build) dwelling on a corner plot, with drop kerbs and parking - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.04 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), L2(1)(d)(i), L2(1)(d)(ii), CC3(1)(d), DP3(2)(b) - **Development plan policies:** RBWM Borough Local Plan 2013-2033 QP3, SP2, EP1, Borough Wide Design Guide SPD 2020, Sustainability SPD 2024 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions of future occupiers, climate change measures - **Tags:** s4-substantially-outweighed, l2-1-d, living-conditions, design-refusal, housing-shortfall, self-build-unsecured, fallback, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip, small-scheme ## Summary A proposal to form a separate dwelling as a side extension to a corner semi in Maidenhead was dismissed. The council had a 4.04-year supply and had failed the HDT, and HO7 substantial weight was given to the new home. The S4 presumption was nevertheless disapplied. The adverse effects "substantially outweighed" the benefits: conflict with L2(1)(d)(i) street scene, L2(1)(d)(ii) living standards, and CC3/DP3(2)(b) overheating. ## Issues and findings - **Character — L2(1)(d)(i): FAIL.** The blank elevations and recessed first floor give "an incongruous and visually discordant development", compounded by the "highly visible and prominent corner position" (DL ¶9). "the proposal would not be consistent with the overall street scene … in conflict with policy L2(1)(d)(i) of the Framework" (DL ¶30). - **Living standards — L2(1)(d)(ii): FAIL.** The only private garden is 52.5 sqm at the front and side next to the highway. "soft landscaping is not a reliable or permanent means of providing screening" (DL ¶12). - **Climate — CC3(1)(d), DP3(2)(b): FAIL.** "The proposal also fails to address overheating" (DL ¶31). There is no s106 to secure the carbon-offset review (DL ¶18-19). - **Benefits.** HO7 substantial weight, "especially pertinent" given 4.04 years and HDT failure (DL ¶27). Accessible location (DL ¶29). ## Planning balance S4(1): "the benefits of the proposed development, would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects … As such the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply" (DL ¶32). The development-plan conflict (QP3, SP2, EP1) carried significant weight (DL ¶26). ## What made the difference Three separate policy failures, all expressed as national policy conflicts (L2(1)(d)(i), L2(1)(d)(ii) and CC3/DP3(2)(b)), together cleared the "substantially outweighed" bar despite HO7 substantial weight and a shortfall. A conventional terrace-end dwelling with a rear garden, as in the appellant's comparators, would likely have passed. ## Transferable points - L2(1)(d)'s qualifying criteria (street scene; daylight, privacy and amenity space) work as free-standing national decision-making tests that count against S4, not only as conditions on the L2 substantial weight (DL ¶30). - An energy statement that does not address overheating conflicts with CC3(1)(d)/DP3(2)(b) (DL ¶31). - A fallback only gets significant weight if it is a real possibility *and* equally or more harmful (DL ¶20-21). - Drafting slip: codes written as "H07", "S03", "S04" (DL ¶27-28). ## Policy findings - **L2(1)(d)(i): fail.** "the proposal would not be consistent with the overall street scene … in conflict with policy L2(1)(d)(i)" — blank rear/side elevations, awkward stepped roof on prominent corner (DL 8-10, 30) - **L2(1)(d)(ii): fail.** 52.5 sqm garden (SPD 55 sqm) wholly to front/side beside highway, overlooked; hedge screening not reliable (DL 11-14, 30) - **CC3(1)(d): fail.** energy assessment omits overheating/cooling hierarchy; no s106 for carbon offset review (DL 17-19, 31) - **DP3(2)(b): fail.** overheating not addressed (DL 31); DP3(3) "should be refused" not invoked — fed into S4 balance - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** cited as "H07"; 4.04-year supply (10 March 2026) and HDT failed (DL 27) - **TR3: benefit.** code mapped by harvester — walking distance of buses and Maidenhead station (DL 29) - **S4(1): fail.** cited as "S04"; "benefits … would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects … the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply" (DL 28, 32) - **fallback: neutral (limited weight).** approved two-storey side extension a real possibility but less harmful, so limited weight (DL 20-21) - **self-build: neutral (limited weight).** no register evidence or legal mechanism; BNG self-build exemption lost but de minimis exemption applied (DL 23-25) ## Key facts - Council supply 4.04 years at 10 March 2026 and HDT not met (DL 27) - Proposed garden 52.48 sqm against SPD 55 sqm, located beside highway (DL 11-12) - Parties were consulted on the revised Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008337 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/684ccf60-603b-4ce5-bac2-35eb5fadb68b --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008337.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 9 Green Lane, Formby - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Gravett - **Authority:** Sefton (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008359 - **Application reference:** DC/2025/00544 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective solid powder-coated steel doors and shopfront signage on unit in the Art Deco Embassy Building - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, HE7, DP3, S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** A Local Plan for Sefton 2017 NH12, NH15, EQ2, Formby and Little Altcar Neighbourhood Plan WS6, ESD2 - **Main issues:** host building, conservation area - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, non-designated-heritage-asset, retrospective, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Retrospective solid steel doors and a flat shopfront on the Art Deco "Embassy Building" in the Green Lane Conservation Area, Formby, were dismissed. The inspector identified the building as an NDHA and found harm to it and to the CA. TC2 gave substantial weight to local-centre vitality. That benefit was "substantially outweighed" by DP3, HE6 and HE7 conflict under S4 (DL ¶25-26). ## What made the difference Loss of the glazed, articulated ground floor that had characterised the parade since the 1930s. There was no evidence of the security problems said to justify steel doors (DL ¶17). The council also raised DM8, the new policy on intentional unauthorised development. It was set aside because intent was not shown (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **HE6: harm (substantial weight).** solid unarticulated shopfront harms Green Lane CA; security benefits unevidenced (DL 11-18) - **HE7: harm.** harm to Embassy Building identified as an NDHA in decision-making (DL 5-7, 15, 18) - **S4(1): fail.** TC2 substantial weight to local-centre vitality substantially outweighed by DP3, HE6 and HE7 conflict (DL 24-26) ## Key facts - NDHA status identified during decision-making under PPG (DL 5-7) - DM8 (intentional unauthorised development) given no bearing, as intent not shown (DL 21) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008359 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5c6baf91-0f93-4a83-af42-90e715b57933 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008359.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 9 The Spinney, Enfield N21 - **Decision:** allowed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A J Boughton - **Authority:** Enfield (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6008361 - **Application reference:** 25/02531/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Enlargement of existing 5-person HMO to 7-person sui generis HMO including a letting room with kitchenette - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** Enfield DMD5 - **Development plan policies:** Enfield Development Management Document 2014 DMD5 - **Main issues:** character and residential amenity, occupier living conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, plan-led, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary An existing five-person HMO was allowed to become a seven-person sui generis HMO. There was no clustering, no evidence of disturbance or parking harm, and the accommodation was generous. The Inspector noted the new Framework (DL ¶2) but decided the appeal on local policy DMD5. ## What made the difference The change was one additional room, so occupancy stayed below the eight persons in the previously dismissed appeal (APP/Q5300/W/25/3360248), and objectors had no "technical evidence" on parking (DL ¶¶11, 17). The Council's reliance on dwelling space standards for a single letting room was given "little weight" (DL ¶13). ## Policy findings - **Enfield DMD5: accord.** no clustering, no robust evidence of noise/disturbance or parking harm; whole house exceeds 132 sq m NDSS for 6b8p (DL 9-16) - **P3: pass.** living conditions of occupiers acceptable; NDSS for dwellings not applicable to a letting room (DL 8, 13-14) — decided under DMD5 ## Key facts - Existing lawful 5-person HMO (23/00259/FUL); +1 letting room, up to 7 persons - Earlier appeal APP/Q5300/W/25/3360248 for 8 persons dismissed on disturbance - Moderate PTAL; transport officers no objection; cycle parking condition ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/34d078c0-8357-4908-8d80-8927696d1441 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008361 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008361.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 16 Dalton Avenue, Moss Side, Manchester (C3 to C4 HMO) - **Decision:** dismissed, 27 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Buxton - **Authority:** Manchester (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008362 - **Application reference:** 145209/FO/2026 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use from dwellinghouse (C3) to 4-person HMO (C4) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** Manchester Core Strategy SP1, H5, H11, DM1 - **Main issues:** housing mix and family housing, character and living conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, plan-led, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A four-person HMO in Moss Side was dismissed on the Core Strategy's protection of family housing in a regeneration area (Policy H11). The inspector found no amenity harm and no excessive HMO concentration (DL ¶10, ¶15). The case was decided plan-led, and the Framework was said to leave the policy context unchanged (DL ¶2). ## What made the difference The Maine Road regeneration objective of retaining family housing engaged the second limb of H11, which was given significant weight (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **HO5: not-engaged.** decided on MCS H11 family-housing protection in the Maine Road regeneration area; significant weight to the conflict (DL 11-12); Framework said not to change the context (DL 2) - **P3: pass.** modest intensification; no harm to neighbours (DL 13-15) ## Key facts - No high HMO concentration shown, but H11 protects family housing where regeneration sought to increase it (DL 10-11) - Revised Framework "does not change the planning policy context in respect of the main issues" (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008362 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ab7e2782-aa5b-4597-b106-7479644b9fec --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008362.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pinfield House, Brown Heath Lane, Martin Hussingtree - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: MG Garrard - **Authority:** Wychavon (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6008404 - **Application reference:** W/25/00931/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings, replacement with one larger Passivhaus dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, PDL - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Housing land supply (years):** 5.48 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB7(1)(e), S5(2), N2, AnnexB:previously-developed-land - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2021-2041 (2026) SWDPR 03, 4, 23, 29, 30 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, replacement dwelling size, protected species, BNG - **Tags:** replacement-dwelling-materially-larger, pdl-e-limb, gb7-pass-still-dismissed, protected-species-surveys, s5-2-refusal-policy, fallback, new-local-plan, bng-self-build-exemption ## Summary A replacement dwelling in the Worcestershire Green Belt, more than double the size of the existing house. The appeal was dismissed. The house failed GB7(1)(b) (materially larger). It was still not inappropriate development, because the rural dwelling plot is previously developed land and the harm to openness from redevelopment fell "well short of substantial" under GB7(1)(e). The appeal was lost instead on the local plan's 30% replacement-dwelling cap and on missing bat and great crested newt surveys. The N2 failure engaged S5(2). ## Issues and findings - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** The replacement is "more than double the width … higher and slightly deeper … the footprint would almost triple" (DL ¶10). The unbuilt CLOPUD outbuilding "does not form part of the existing development against which the proposal is to be assessed for the purposes of this exception" (DL ¶11). - **GB7(1)(e): PASS.** "The appeal site has been lawfully developed and is occupied by permanent structures. It therefore falls within the definition of previously developed land in Annex B" (DL ¶12). "the effect on openness is not determined solely by a quantitative comparison of built form … it would be contained within the existing residential curtilage, and would remove the majority of the outbuildings" (DL ¶18). The harm "would fall well short of substantial harm" (DL ¶19). - **Local plan: CONFLICT.** The scheme breaches SWDPR 23's 30% GIA cap and so the spatial strategy (DL ¶26-27). - **Protected species / N2: FAIL.** "I cannot be satisfied that demolition of the brick-built garage would not harm legally protected bat species" (DL ¶32). The ponds were dry "during a period of exceptionally dry weather" but that "does not demonstrate that they are permanently incapable of supporting GCN" (DL ¶35). - **BNG.** The self-build UU secured the exemption (DL ¶42). ## Planning balance S5 for a non-inappropriate Green Belt scheme outside settlements. The question was whether benefits would be "substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶49). Under S5(2), failing a policy requiring refusal (N2) is likely to be decisive. The benefits were moderate weight each for the fallback and for Passivhaus and design, with limited weight for housing supply. Together with the SWDPR 03/23 conflict, the adverse effects substantially outweighed them (DL ¶50). ## What made the difference The Green Belt was not the problem. GB7(1)(e) gives a route around a failed (b) test for replacement dwellings on rural plots, because the whole curtilage is PDL and openness harm is judged qualitatively. The appeal failed on a stricter local replacement-dwelling policy and on incomplete ecology surveys. Complete bat and GCN surveys and a scheme within 30% would probably have succeeded. ## Transferable points - A replacement dwelling that fails GB7(1)(b) as "materially larger" can still be not inappropriate under GB7(1)(e) if the harm to openness is not substantial (DL ¶12-19). - A lawfully developed rural dwelling plot is PDL under Annex B (DL ¶12). - The GB7(1)(b) comparison is with buildings that exist. Unbuilt CLOPUD/PD buildings are not part of the baseline, though they may be a fallback (DL ¶11, ¶43). - Openness under (e) is qualitative: containment within the curtilage, consolidation of outbuildings and no increase in activity all count (DL ¶17-19). - Missing protected-species surveys engage S5(2) through N2 and can be decisive on their own (DL ¶50). - A Green Belt pass does not override a stricter local replacement-dwelling size cap (DL ¶26). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** replacement more than double width, higher, GIA approximately doubled (143→345 m²), footprint almost tripled → materially larger; unbuilt CLOPUD outbuilding not part of the "existing building" baseline (DL 10-11) - **GB7(1)(e): pass.** lawfully developed dwelling plot with permanent structures is PDL; demolition and rebuild = redevelopment; harm to openness "well short of substantial" — contained in curtilage, consolidates outbuildings, screened, no more activity (DL 12-19) - **GB6(2): not-engaged.** not inappropriate; local SWDPR 04 read with Framework → no conflict (DL 20) - **SWDPR 23 / SWDPR 03: conflict.** local replacement-dwelling policy caps GIA uplift at 30%; scheme c.141% larger → disproportionate; outside spatial strategy (DL 21-27) - **N2: fail.** no bat survey of brick garage to be demolished; no great crested newt surveys despite suitable ponds within 500 m; Circular 06/2005 — not deferrable to condition (DL 28-38) - **S5(2): fail.** failure of N2 (a policy requiring refusal) plus plan conflict → adverse effects substantially outweigh benefits (DL 49-50) - **HO7: neutral (limited weight).** 5.48-year supply; replacement adds no net housing (DL 45) ## Key facts - Existing house GIA 143.2 m², footprint 112 m²; proposal GIA 345 m² - A lawful development certificate (W/26/00474/CLPU) for a 113 m² outbuilding was accepted as a realistic fallback (moderate weight), but not as part of the GB7(1)(b) baseline - Self-build secured by a unilateral undertaking, so exempt from BNG (DL 41-42) - New local plan adopted mid-appeal restored a five-year supply (5.48 yrs, 20% buffer) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008404 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b4f2301e-c47c-4952-ac7d-ac1d0d24b400 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008404.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Myrtle Mount, 14 Elm Grove, Hartlepool - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Williams - **Authority:** Hartlepool (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008410 - **Application reference:** H/2025/0256 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of 7-bed house (C3) to supported living for up to 5 children with learning difficulties and complex needs (C2), with extension, garage conversion and 8 parking spaces - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1), DP3(3), S4(1), HC4 - **Development plan policies:** Hartlepool Local Plan 2018 RC21, QP4 - **Main issues:** residential character, living conditions, need for children's care - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, childrens-home, specialist-housing, hc4-social-care-infrastructure, ho1-plan-making-only, dp3-3-refusal, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary The appeal sought a home for up to five disabled children in a large Hartlepool house. It was dismissed on neighbour amenity. The inspector accepted two points in the appellant's favour. The use was compatible with residential character. And it was "social care infrastructure" under the Framework glossary, attracting substantial weight under HC4. HO1(2)(f) was rejected as plan-making only. Recurring shift-change traffic along a driveway right beside No 12 was treated as a DP3(1) liveability failure, triggering DP3(3). With no operational management plan, the adverse impacts "substantially outweigh" the benefits (DL ¶44). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were given an opportunity to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶2). - **Character: PASS.** The use "would remain fundamentally residential in character" (DL ¶14-15). - **Living conditions: FAIL.** "Arrivals, departures and staff shift changeovers would therefore be experienced at close quarters ... The principal periods of activity would occur during the morning and evening" (DL ¶20). The absence of SOAEL evidence was not an answer: "national policy requires decision-makers not only to avoid noise giving rise to a SOAEL, but also to mitigate and reduce potential adverse impacts to a minimum" (DL ¶22). - **HO1(2)(f): not applicable.** "this is a plan-making rather than a decision-making policy, and Framework Paragraph 8 states that plan-making policies should not be used in the determination of individual development proposals" (DL ¶27). - **HC4: substantial weight.** The home "would provide social care infrastructure, which the Framework glossary expressly identifies as a form of public service infrastructure ... I therefore agree that the proposal attracts substantial weight under Framework Policy HC4" (DL ¶28). - **DP3(3).** "Policy DP3(3) indicates that permission should be refused where a proposal conflicts with DP3(1) or relevant aspects of DP3(2) ... the proposed access arrangements would not operate comfortably alongside the neighbouring residential property" (DL ¶29). ## Planning balance HC4 and S4 support, together with the best interests of children (UNCRC), got substantial weight (DL ¶41). That was tempered because there was no operational plan and no evidence that the access arrangement was the only option (DL ¶42). The harm to No 12 and the DP3 conflict got "very substantial weight" (DL ¶43). Having regard to the PSED, Article 8, the UNCRC and the UNCRPD, "the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶44). ## What made the difference The shared driveway relationship with one neighbour, and the lack of an operational management plan showing how shift changes and parking would be managed (DL ¶34-35). With a staggered-shift management plan or a different parking layout within the large curtilage, the substantial HC4 weight could well have prevailed. ## Transferable points - Children's care homes can attract *substantial* weight under HC4 as "social care infrastructure" (glossary: public service infrastructure) (DL ¶28). - HO1(2)(f) looked-after-children need is a plan-making policy and cannot be relied on in decisions (Framework ¶8) (DL ¶27). The same point is made in PINS-6011521. - Neighbour disturbance from traffic and activity can be framed as a DP3(1) liveability failure, carrying DP3(3)'s refusal consequence (DL ¶29, 43). - The absence of noise above SOAEL is not decisive. The policy also requires mitigating and reducing adverse effects (DL ¶22). - Operational controls fundamental to acceptability cannot be deferred to conditions (DL ¶34). ## Policy findings - **HC4: benefit (substantial weight).** children's home is social care infrastructure, a form of public service infrastructure in the glossary; tempered for lack of an operational plan and alternatives (DL 28, 41-42) - **HO1(2)(f): not-engaged.** plan-making policy; Framework paragraph 8 says plan-making policies should not be used to determine proposals (DL 27) - **DP3(1): fail (substantial weight).** shift-change vehicle movements funnelled along the driveway beside No 12 - liveability and movement principles failed; DP3(3) refusal (DL 16-25, 29, 43) - **S4(1): fail.** adverse impacts substantially outweigh the benefits (DL 44) ## Key facts - Up to 12 staff at weekday peaks and shift changes (08:45/21:00); 50% public-transport claim unsupported by a travel plan (DL 10-11) - Wider residential character not harmed; harm confined to the adjoining house with a side-by-side driveway (DL 15, 18-21) - No SOAEL evidence needed - policy also requires mitigating and reducing adverse impacts (DL 22) - No Operational Management Plan; harm could not be deferred to conditions (DL 34) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008410 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/cbd6b10b-0f63-4e06-b41b-3e126bbd8668 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008410.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land opposite Trewithin Terrace, Ashton, Helston (PIP, World Heritage Site) - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Alison Fish - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008414 - **Application reference:** PA26/00144 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for an affordable-led scheme of two dwellings on a field across the road from a linear terrace - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge, valued-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.9 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE5(1), HE6(4), S5(1)(j)(i), HO10 - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2016 Policies 1, 2, 3, 9, 12, 21, 23, 24 - **Main issues:** suitability of location, land use and amount - **Tags:** PIP, world-heritage-site, evidence-gap, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, affordable-led, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, pdl-blended-into-landscape, s5-1-j, landscape-harm, plan-led, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Permission in principle for two affordable-led homes on a field opposite a mining-era terrace near Helston, inside a World Heritage Site and an Area of Great Landscape Value. Dismissed. The road and hedge separate the site from the linear settlement, so it was not physically well related (S5(1)(j)(i), HO10). No assessment of the site's contribution to the WHS had been made, so harm could not be ruled out. Minor potential harm, given considerable importance and weight, outweighed moderate benefits. ## Issues and findings - **Relationship to the settlement.** The site "is visually and physically separated from the established linear built form of the settlement by the intervening public highway and established roadside hedge" (DL ¶10). "Policies S5 and HO10 of the Framework provide support for housing, including rural exception sites. However, as I have set out above, the site does not adjoin nor is it physically well-related to a settlement" (DL ¶25). - **HE5 evidence gap.** "no substantive attempt has been made to understand whether the appeal site or its open and undeveloped character ... are characteristics that contribute to the significance of the WHS, as required by Policy HE5 of the Framework" (DL ¶18). "I cannot rule out the possibility that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the integrity, authenticity and therefore significance of the WHS" (DL ¶18). - **HE6.** "Whilst any harm is likely to be minor given the scale of the proposed development and the extent of the WHS as a whole, the Framework states that any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶19). "the moderate weight I have given, collectively, to the public benefits of the proposal are not sufficient to outweigh the potential harm to the designated heritage asset" (DL ¶26). - **Design benefits.** "Securing a high standard of design at technical details consent stage is a general expectation for development rather than a benefit of this proposal" (DL ¶22). ## Planning balance Plan-led (s38(6)) with the HE6(4) balance. Housing, including affordable homes, got moderate weight; economic and social benefits modest; landscape, biodiversity and design very limited (DL ¶20-22). Neither S5(1)(j) nor HO10 supported the scheme, and the heritage balance failed (DL ¶25-27, 30). S5(4) was not expressly run. ## What made the difference The road and roadside hedge, which put the field on the countryside side of a strong linear settlement edge, and the missing WHS assessment. A heritage statement showing that the field makes no contribution to the mining landscape would have removed one reason for refusal, but not the relationship-to-settlement failure. ## Transferable points - A road and roadside hedge can separate a site from a linear settlement, so it is neither adjacent nor physically well related (S5(1)(j)(i), HO10) (DL ¶10, 25). - An unassessed effect on a WHS counts against the scheme. The inspector weighed "potential harm" in the HE6(4) balance (DL ¶18, 26). - Good design at the TDC stage is an expectation, not a benefit (DL ¶22). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j)(i): fail.** across the road and hedge from the terrace; visually and physically separate; "does not adjoin nor is it physically well-related to a settlement" (DL 10-12, 25) - **HO10: fail.** rural exception site support fails for the same reason; affordable-led but unsecured (DL 5, 25) - **HE5(1): fail.** no substantive attempt to assess whether the site contributes to the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape WHS; harm cannot be ruled out (DL 18, 26) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** potential harm "likely to be minor" but of considerable importance and weight (DL 19) - **HE6(4): fail.** benefits (moderate collectively) do not outweigh the potential harm (DL 20-22, 26) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** two homes including affordable; 3.9-year supply; modest contribution (DL 20) - **N2(1)(a): harm.** mapped: encroachment into the AGLV setting of Godolphin and Tregonning Hills, "an incongruous intrusion into the countryside" (DL 13-14) - **AnnexB:PDL: fail.** earlier development has blended into the landscape (DL 24) ## Key facts - Site within the Tregonning and Gwinear section of the Mining Landscape WHS and the Godolphin and Tregonning Hill AGLV (DL 13, 15) - No physical mining remains on site, but a chimney stack nearby and a terrace said to be miners' housing (DL 17) - Cornwall supply 3.9 years (DL 20) - Praa Sands appeal (6-8 affordable homes, development on two sides) distinguished (DL 11, 23) - Habitats development question under PIP Order Art 5B(1) not reached (DL 29) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008414 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/76ba587c-95ea-4546-913a-df0533ac0548 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008414.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Brakenhill Mews, Upper Seagry - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Standfield - **Authority:** Wiltshire (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008434 - **Application reference:** PL/2025/09810 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 4-9 dwellings on equestrian site (stables, arena, Nissen hut) - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** open-countryside, PDL, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.42 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(d), TR3, DP3(2)(d), N2, S3 - **Development plan policies:** Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015 CP1, CP2, CP10, CP51, CP60, CP61, North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011 saved H4, Seagry Parish NP 2019-2036 SNP6, North Wiltshire Landscape Character Assessment 2004 - **Main issues:** land use and spatial strategy, accessibility, amount of development and landscape - **Tags:** PIP, pdl-e-limb, s5-1-j, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, equestrian, housing-shortfall, landscape-harm, substantially-outweighed, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Permission in principle for 4-9 homes on a small equestrian yard next to a roadside cluster outside Upper Seagry, Wiltshire. Dismissed. The inspector accepted the site was PDL, which engaged S5(1)(d), and gave substantial weight to housing at a 2.42-year supply. But car dependence (TR3/DP3(2)(d)/CC2) and loss of rural character (N2/DP3) were given "very substantial weight" together and substantially outweighed the benefits. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Both parties had the opportunity to comment on the updated NPPF (DL ¶4). - **PDL.** The Council argued that only a small part was lawfully PDL. The inspector took the whole current layout as PDL (DL ¶5). - **S5(1)(j): FAIL.** "the site is not physically well related to an existing settlement with no justification for the proposed development to be located separately" (DL ¶31). - **S5(1)(d): engaged.** "Policy S5 1d does provide for the redevelopment of previously developed land (including a material change of use to residential)" (DL ¶31). - **Accessibility — TR3: FAIL.** Routes to the village "would both necessitate sharing the carriageway with vehicles at speed". The bus service "would not be safely accessible on foot" (DL ¶¶16–17). "the upper parameter of development in particular could generate an amount of movement that would be significant within the locational context" (DL ¶33). - **Character — N2/DP3: FAIL.** "Whilst the site is deemed to comprise previously developed land by definition, the site clearly relates most closely to its countryside surroundings" (DL ¶24). Untidiness "could be addressed by the appellant without the need for planning permission" (DL ¶26). ## Planning balance S5 balance. For: "In line with NPPF Policies HO7 and L2 ... I therefore attribute substantial weight to these benefits" (DL ¶32). Against: TR3, CC2, DP3(2)(d), N2 and DP3 conflicts, plus "NPPF Chapter 1, paragraph 17" objectives. "In combination, I afford these adverse effects very substantial weight" (DL ¶35). "the adverse effects ... would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶36). ## What made the difference Location and scale. The site is a detached rural yard reached only along unlit, national-speed lanes, and 9 dwellings would double to triple the small cluster. PDL status opened the S5(1)(d) door but gave no protection against TR3 and character harm. A single dwelling, or a site reached by footway within the village envelope, would have had a much better chance given the 2.42-year supply. ## Transferable points - Low-key rural PDL (equestrian) engages S5(1)(d), but a site that "relates most closely to its countryside surroundings" can still fail on character (DL ¶¶24, 31). - Under S5, TR3 car-dependence harm plus landscape harm can reach "very substantial weight" and substantially outweigh HO7/L2 substantial weight even at 2.42 years (DL ¶¶32–36). - Scale matters within S5(1)(d): the upper parameter generates "significant" movement in the local context (DL ¶33). - A bus service does not help if the stop cannot be reached safely on foot (DL ¶17). - Drafting slips: cites "NPPF Chapter 1, paragraph 17" (the 2026 Framework is policy-coded) and the "Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2024" (fn 4; should be 2004). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(d): fail.** equestrian site accepted as PDL so (d) engaged (incl. material change of use to residential), but benefits substantially outweighed (DL 5, 31, 36) - **S5(1)(j): fail.** not physically well-related to Upper Seagry; separated by farmland, 300 m of 60 mph lane with no footway (DL 10, 31) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** with L2, substantial weight at 2.42-year supply (DL 32) - **TR3: fail.** unlit national-speed lanes with no footways; 8 buses a weekday not safely reachable; upper parameter generates significant movement (DL 16-17, 33) - **DP3(2)(d): fail.** cited with TR3 and CC2 for car dependence (DL 33) - **N2: harm.** loss of rural character; would double to triple the adjacent cluster (DL 23-28, 33) ## Key facts - Supply 2.42 years (June 2025) (DL 32) - Nearest house 85 m away; not an infill gap; 9 dwellings not "a few" under CP2 (DL 11-12) - Council disputed the lawful PDL extent; inspector proceeded on PDL basis given 12+ years of current form (DL 5) - Combined adverse effects given "very substantial weight" (DL 35) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008434 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/25d02af0-e6b9-4db0-80ee-d2354716eb83 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008434.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pavement outside 167 Stroud Green Road, London N4 (BT Street Hub 3) - **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Teasdale - **Authority:** Islington (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6008436 - **Application reference:** P2025/3559/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Removal of telephone kiosk and installation of a BT Street Hub 3 unit with two 75-inch digital advert screens (Appeal A); linked Appeal B 6008435 advertisement consent (P2025/3560/ADV), also dismissed - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE4, HE6, HE9, S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, D4, HC1, T2, Islington Local Plan 2023 PLAN1, DH1, DH2, DH6, T4, Stroud Green CA Design Guidelines 2007 - **Main issues:** conservation area character, advertisement amenity - **Tags:** tier-2, telecoms, street-hub, co1-substantial-weight, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, s4-substantially-outweighed, transitional-no-consultation, old-wording-slip ## Summary A BT Street Hub 3 with two large digital screens, replacing a phone kiosk in the Stroud Green Conservation Area. Dismissed, together with the linked advertisement consent appeal (6008435). The Inspector found harm to the conservation area at "the higher end of the spectrum" and held that a second digital hub would cause clutter. CO1 benefits carried substantial weight but were small in magnitude, because a nearby hub already offers the same services. The harm therefore failed HE4/HE6 and was "substantially outweighed" under S4. ## What made the difference Another hub already stood nearby. That both added to the clutter and cut the practical benefit of a second one (DL ¶¶17, 27). The street had few illuminated features, so it could not absorb the screens (DL ¶18). As in PINS-6007391, the same Inspector separated the weight given to a benefit from its magnitude. ## Policy findings - **HE6: harm (substantial weight).** high-end harm to Stroud Green CA: taller, monolithic unit with digital screens on a street with few illuminated features; clutter with an existing hub nearby (DL 16-19, 23, 27) - **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight, but small in magnitude given an existing hub nearby already provides Wi-Fi and phones (DL 26-27) - **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 32) ## Key facts - An existing communications hub with a digital display is already close by (DL 17, 27) - No harm to the Grade II listed Elkins Brothers building (limited intervisibility) (DL 22) - Decided without consulting the parties on the 2026 Framework (DL 4); the Inspector also refers to Framework "Chapter 9" (DL 26) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008436 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fef6057b-0dd9-4804-94cd-61d38f02e76a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008436.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Chy Trygh, Towan Cross, Mount Hawke - **Decision:** allowed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Butcher - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008437 - **Application reference:** PA25/02049 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73 removal of condition 3 (occupancy tied to The Victory Inn) on dwelling permission PA20/03304 - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** AnnexB:settlement, DM6 - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan 2010-2030 policies 1, 2, 3, 7, Climate Emergency DPD C1, St Agnes NDP policy 5, CPOAN Infilling and Rounding Off 2017 - **Main issues:** necessity of occupancy condition, spatial strategy - **Tags:** tier-2, s73-variation, occupancy-condition, settlement-definition, hamlet, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary An occupancy condition tying a dwelling to the neighbouring pub was removed on appeal. The site was found to be an infill plot within the village of Towan Cross, so the countryside justification for the tie fell away. The inspector also tested the site against the Annex B definition of "settlement": the cluster around the pub might look like a hamlet on its own, but it is part of a larger village made up of several clusters (DL ¶13). ## What made the difference Treating the dispersed, multi-cluster village as one settlement. For Annex B, a cluster is read in the context of the wider settlement it belongs to, not on its own. The letter does not mention the transition to the 2026 Framework. ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:settlement: pass.** cluster round the pub "could be considered to be a hamlet when considered in isolation" but forms part of a larger multi-cluster village, "more akin to a small village than a hamlet" — so no Framework conflict (DL 13) - **Cornwall LP Policy 3: accord.** infill within Towan Cross though set back and not in a continuous frontage; LP7 countryside policy not engaged (DL 6-9) - **DM6: pass.** code mapped by harvester — occupancy tie no longer necessary; replaced with principal-residence condition per NDP policy 5 (DL 9, 14) - **HE6: not-engaged.** Mingoose CA and St Agnes Mining District WHS nearby; condition removal has no external effect (DL 11) ## Key facts - Earlier appeal APP/D0840/W/16/3145276 had imposed the pub tie under the previous plan (DL 8) - Bus stop outside the pub with relatively frequent services to St Agnes and Truro (DL 10) - Towan Cross is made up of several clusters with gaps, entry and exit signs (DL 6) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008437 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/03278b51-8ebb-430f-a8b9-24c4bc4381a3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008437.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 214-216 St James's Road, Croydon - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L J Evans - **Authority:** Croydon (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6008438 - **Application reference:** 25/03436/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of rear part of ground-floor Class E unit to a 1-bed flat (non-determination) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3(2)(a), S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D6, T6.1, Croydon Local Plan 2018 DM10, DM13, SP8, DM29, DM30 - **Main issues:** living conditions of future occupiers, refuse, parking mitigation - **Tags:** tier-2, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, non-determination, drafting-slip, old-wording-slip, small-scheme ## Summary A non-determination appeal for a one-bed flat in the rear of a Croydon shop unit was dismissed. The sole bedroom relied on a tiny lightwell, the access ran under a derelict undercroft that is chained at night, and no s106 secured permit-free status or transport contributions. The parties were consulted on the new Framework but made no representations (DL ¶4). ## What made the difference The poor light, outlook and access for the only bedroom decided the appeal (DL ¶¶8–10). The balance combines the old and new tests. The adverse impacts "would substantially and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶21), which mixes S4's "substantially outweighed" with the 2024 "significantly and demonstrably" wording. ## Policy findings - **P3(2)(a): fail.** sole bedroom lit only from a tiny lightwell, no daylight assessment; circuitous access under derelict undercroft, chained overnight (DL 8-10) — decided under London Plan D6 / DM10 - **DM6: fail.** no s106 for permit-free and sustainable transport contributions, though Council did not evidence the tests (DL 15-20) - **S4(1): fail.** adverse impacts "would substantially and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" — hybrid of old and new wording (DL 21) ## Key facts - Croydon Opportunity Area; good PTAL; car-free - Bedroom windows face a very small lightwell onto the rear of the commercial unit - Refuse storage capable of conditioning ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4ccb326b-53ea-4365-9964-7b9985d124e6 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008438 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008438.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 274 Portobello Road (ground floor), London W10 - **Decision:** dismissed, 1 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Dryden - **Authority:** Kensington and Chelsea (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6008439 - **Application reference:** PP/25/03918 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective-in-part single-storey steel and glazed side extension enclosing restaurant seating on Acklam Road - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, DP3 - **Development plan policies:** RBKC New Local Plan Review 2024 CD1, CD2, CD3, CD4, CD10, CD13, CD15, CD16 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, conservation area setting, public access, fire safety - **Tags:** tier-2, conservation-area-setting, heritage-harm-decisive, e2-substantial-weight, design-refusal, retrospective, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, no-s4-s5-analysis ## Summary A full-length steel and glass side enclosure for restaurant seating on a Portobello Road corner, facing the Acklam Road market space. Dismissed. It was bulky, not subordinate, and discordant (DP3). It caused moderate harm to the setting of the Oxford Gardens Conservation Area. E2 gives substantial weight to business expansion, but the unquantified benefits were "comfortably outweighed" in the HE6 balance. ## What made the difference Prominence on an open corner seen from within the conservation area, and the inspector's point that the benefits could be achieved "in a less harmful way". The decision was made on heritage and design grounds alone. It contains no S4 analysis. ## Policy findings - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** moderate harm to setting of Oxford Gardens CA; unquantified benefits "comfortably outweighed" (DL 17-19) - **E2: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to business expansion acknowledged but outweighed (DL 18) - **DP3: fail.** full-length, non-subordinate black steel extension on prominent corner (DL 7-12) ## Key facts - Built structure differs from submitted plans; appeal decided on the plans (DL 3) - Ownership and public access over the market hardstanding unresolved; no finding (DL 21-23) - Parties invited to comment on 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 2); S4 not mentioned ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008439 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4c705dbe-3ed0-46e6-8c26-a755ee9f86c6 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008439.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 44A Sauncey Avenue, Harpenden (replacement dwelling) - **Decision:** allowed, 1 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Chris Couper - **Authority:** St Albans (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008441 - **Application reference:** 5/2025/1696 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of 3-bed house and construction of 4-bed replacement dwelling with garden outbuilding (non-determination) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3, DM6 - **Development plan policies:** St Albans Local Plan Review 1994 Policies 69, 70, Harpenden NP 2018-2033 H2, ESD1, ESD2, emerging Local Plan SP12, DES1, DES5 - **Main issues:** living conditions of neighbours - **Tags:** tier-2, living-conditions, non-determination, self-build, bng-exemption, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A replacement four-bed house in Harpenden was allowed after the council failed to decide it within the statutory period. The inspector found no harm to the outlook of the neighbouring house because of the proposal's setback and low-eaves side profile (DL ¶9-10). The decision cites Framework P3 on noise and light (DL ¶16), and DM6 on conditions (DL ¶18). ## What made the difference The deepest projection is single-storey and the roof slopes away from No 46, whose main outlook is down its own garden (DL ¶9-10). The self-build BNG exemption survived because the application was made before 6 Aug 2026 (DL ¶22). ## Policy findings - **P3: pass.** no harmful overbearing, privacy or light-pollution effect on No 46 (DL 8-16) - **DM6: accord.** pre-commencement conditions avoided unless clearly justified; construction management plan justified; PD-removal condition refused per PPG (DL 18-26) ## Key facts - Adjacent to Harpenden Conservation Area; no harm to its setting (DL 4) - Framework: "no material differences" from the superseded version on this issue (DL 5) - BNG self-build exemption still applied because the application predated 6 Aug 2026; self-build condition imposed (DL 22) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008441 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ac65ee29-f53a-4709-bc96-09b5d8733546 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008441.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Moorhouse Lane, Oxenhope - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Chris Mayes - **Authority:** Bradford (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6008465 - **Application reference:** 25/03766/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for up to 9 dwellings - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N6 - **Development plan policies:** Bradford Core Strategy 2017 SC8, South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework SPD 2022 - **Main issues:** habitats (SPA/SAC supporting habitat), Green Belt - **Tags:** tier-2, PIP, habitats-regs, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, costs-application ## Summary A PiP for up to nine dwellings near the South Pennine Moors was dismissed. Likely significant effects on SPA supporting habitat could not be excluded, which makes it "habitats development" for which PiP cannot be granted (DL ¶19, 22). The Green Belt issue was left undecided (DL ¶20). ## What made the difference The PEA itself recorded rushy pasture, which the SPD lists as a supporting-habitat indicator. A PEA conclusion of "unsuitable habitat" was not enough to meet the beyond-reasonable-scientific-doubt standard. Because PiP has no appropriate-assessment stage, this bar is absolute for PiP near European sites. ## Policy findings - **N6: fail.** code mapped by harvester — within Zones B and C of South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC; PEA found rushy pasture on and next to site; likely significant effects not excluded "beyond reasonable scientific doubt", so it is habitats development under PiP Order Art 5B and PiP "must not be granted" (DL 14-19, 22) - **GB6: neutral.** Green Belt issue (inappropriateness, sustainable location) left undecided (DL 20) ## Key facts - Parts of site beyond 25m of settlement boundary and main road, so not screened out under SPD (DL 14) - PEA identifies pasture and rushy pasture, SPD indicators of supporting habitat (DL 16) - Parties consulted on 2026 Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008465 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c2f3af97-354d-433c-853c-a2046985b73c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008465.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 4 Prospect Street, Reading - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Sharp - **Authority:** Reading (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008475 - **Application reference:** PL/25/1803 - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Retrospective replacement of natural slate roof with fibre-cement tiles in a conservation area - **Site context:** conservation-area, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Reading Borough Local Plan 2019 EN3, EN6 - **Main issues:** conservation area - **Tags:** conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-ungraded, retrospective, roof-materials, public-benefits-unevidenced ## Summary A retrospective replacement of a natural slate roof with fibre-cement tiles in a Reading conservation area on the Heritage at Risk register was dismissed. The Inspector ran the new HE6 sequence explicitly: substantial weight to conservation under HE6(1), then a finding of "harm" with no grade, then an HE6(4) weighing against the public benefits, which were unevidenced. ## Issues and findings - **Effect on the CA: harm.** The tiles are "visually jarring against the adjoining, retained natural slate" (DL ¶8), and "the removal of the natural slate results in the loss in the legibility of the building's history … part of a wider incremental diminishing" (DL ¶9). - **HE6(1).** "substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation. This is irrespective of whether any effect … amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss" (DL ¶11). - **Harm, ungraded.** "In this instance the development results in harm. This is because of the overall identified risk to the CA, how incremental loss affects its significance, and how important natural slates are" (DL ¶12). The letter does not use "less than substantial" and gives no scale position. - **HE6(4): FAIL.** The claimed benefits of embodied carbon, avoided waste, reduced loading and durability had "little evidence"; there was "no evidence of a net benefit to fire safety"; "such public benefits do not outweigh the harm" (DL ¶13). - The local plan policies EN3 and EN6 were found consistent with HE4–HE6 (DL ¶10). ## Planning balance An HE6(4) heritage balance within a s38(6) plan-led decision. Substantial weight went to conservation, against unevidenced private or modest public benefits. ## What made the difference Heritage-at-Risk status meant incremental loss carried extra significance, and the adjoining slate roofs made the contrast obvious. Environmental claims such as embodied carbon need evidence before they count as public benefits. ## Transferable points - Under HE6 an Inspector can find simply "harm" without grading it, and then weigh it directly against public benefits (DL ¶¶12–13). - The HE6(1) "irrespective of" limb is quoted as the basis for substantial weight even where the harm is modest (DL ¶11). - Asserted low-carbon or material-efficiency benefits carry little weight without evidence (DL ¶13). - Heritage-at-Risk status of a CA supports weight on the cumulative effect of incremental loss (DL ¶¶9, 12). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation "irrespective of whether any effect … amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss" (DL 11); harm left ungraded — simply "the development results in harm" (DL 12) - **HE6(4): fail.** claimed benefits (affordability, embodied carbon, weight, durability) unevidenced; do not outweigh harm (DL 13) - **HE5: harm.** loss of natural slate erodes legibility; incremental loss in a Heritage-at-Risk CA (DL 8-9, 12) - **Reading LP EN3, EN6: conflict.** found consistent with HE4-HE6 (DL 10) ## Key facts - Russell Street/Castle Hill CA is on Historic England Heritage at Risk register - Roofs in the character area remain almost entirely natural slate; adjoining roofs still slate - Grade II terrace 199-203 Oxford Road setting preserved (distance) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7b364670-ec1b-4f5c-bb64-248401890ef0 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008475 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008475.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Flat 2, 349 Hackney Road, Tower Hamlets - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Praine - **Authority:** Tower Hamlets (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6008490 - **Application reference:** PA/25/01373 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Replacement of four timber sash windows with double-glazed timber units in first-floor flat of Grade II listed terrace (retrospective) - **Site context:** listed-building-setting, conservation-area, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4), HE4(2) - **Development plan policies:** Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2020 S.DH1, S.DH3, London Plan 2021 HC1 - **Main issues:** Grade II listed building, conservation area, public benefits - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-harm-graded, conservation-area, retrospective, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, energy-efficiency-vs-heritage, windows ## Summary Retrospective double-glazed replacement sashes in one flat of a Grade II listed Hackney Road terrace. Both the planning and listed building consent appeals were dismissed. The harm was "at the lower end of the scale" but still "of considerable importance and weight". The energy-efficiency benefit got only limited weight: it was unevidenced, and less harmful alternatives had not been shown to have been discounted. ## Issues and findings - **Significance.** The windows "form a key component of that significance and are referred to in the list description" (DL ¶14). - **Harm: HE6.** The wider, bulkier frames "would diminish the delicacy and refinement of the existing sash window design" (DL ¶13). "The proposal would result in harm, albeit at the lower end of the scale given the modest nature of the works. Nevertheless, this is of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶16). - **Energy efficiency — CC2(2) vs HE6(4).** The inspector accepted that "enabling energy efficiency would be an important public benefit and substantial weight should be given to the benefits of improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings". However, "evidence showing energy efficiency gains from the proposed works has not been submitted. Even if it had, I have not been provided with clear and convincing evidence that other, less harmful, energy-efficiency measures have been considered and discounted … I therefore ascribe it limited positive weight" (DL ¶17). ## Planning balance HE6(4): "The public benefits either alone or in combination would be insufficient to outweigh the substantial weight attached to the heritage harm identified" (DL ¶19). ## What made the difference Evidence. Neither the repair case nor the energy-efficiency case was documented. The new Framework's express support for energy efficiency (HE6(4), CC2(2)) was acknowledged but reduced to limited weight because the appellant had not quantified gains or tested less harmful alternatives, such as the slimline and vacuum glazing approved next door. ## Transferable points - HE6(4) and CC2(2) make energy efficiency an "important public benefit" that attracts substantial weight in principle. That weight is lost without evidence of the gains and of less harmful options having been considered (DL ¶17). - Harm is still graded on a scale ("lower end of the scale"), not labelled "less than substantial" (DL ¶16). - The letter elides the weights, speaking of "the substantial weight attached to the heritage harm" (DL ¶19) where HE6(3) speaks of harm as a matter of considerable importance and weight. ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): harm (considerable weight).** grading "harm, albeit at the lower end of the scale given the modest nature of the works. Nevertheless, this is of considerable importance and weight" (DL 16) — HE6(3) wording; HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation stated; HE4(2) clear and convincing justification stated; ss16/66/72 cited (DL 3); wider, bulkier stiles/rails, horns, deeper glazing (DL 12-15) - **HE9: harm.** same harm to Hackney Road CA; Appraisal lists window loss as a threat (DL 15) - **CC2(2): benefit (limited weight).** code mapped by harvester — "enabling energy efficiency would be an important public benefit and substantial weight should be given to the benefits of improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings", but no evidence of gains or that less harmful options were discounted, so "limited positive weight" (DL 17) - **E1: benefit (limited weight).** economic benefit limited given scale (DL 18); noise reduction and operation/safety gains also limited (DL 23-24) ## Key facts - Appeal A 6008486 (planning, PA/25/01372) and Appeal B 6008490 (LBC) decided together; works complete (DL 2, 5) - No evidence on condition of original windows, so repair not shown to have been explored (DL 11) - Comparators at Nos 345 (vacuum glazing, 0.1mm gap) and 365 (slimline, white spacers) distinguished (DL 21-22) - Parties consulted on 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008490 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8dd29058-e49b-4e44-8deb-2cf5ff5313c3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008490.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Flat 1, 9 Chestnut Avenue, Bournemouth - **Decision:** allowed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Sharp - **Authority:** Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008491 - **Application reference:** P/26/00457/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Side roof-level terrace with obscure-glazed screens to a flat - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3, DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Bournemouth Core Strategy 2012 CS41 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, roof-terrace, conservation-area-setting ## Summary A small side roof terrace to a Bournemouth flat was allowed. It was a lightweight addition in an area that already has visible roof terraces, and with obscure screening the overlooking affected only non-habitable rooms. The Inspector checked local policy CS41 for consistency against L2, DP3 and P3, and applied HE4(2) to the adjoining conservation area (DL ¶¶19–20). ## What made the difference The neighbour's facing windows served non-habitable spaces, and the terrace was too small for parties (DL ¶¶11–12, 15). The letter shows the pattern of testing local-plan consistency with the new codes (L2/DP3/P3) instead of applying them directly. ## Policy findings - **DP3: pass.** lightweight minor addition; roof terraces already visible locally; CS41 consistent with L2 and DP3 (DL 6-8, 19) - **P3: pass.** overlooking only of non-habitable rooms and a small part of garden; noise not harmful given small terrace and existing larger terrace (DL 12, 15, 19) - **HE4(2): pass.** adjoining Southbourne Grove CA — no harm to significance (DL 20) ## Key facts - 1.2 m obscure-glazed screen facing No 11; condition securing Privacy Level 3 glazing - No 11's side glazing serves non-habitable spaces ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f70d19fa-5c55-4e8f-b51f-4c9397aa2e1a - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008491 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008491.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 28 Main Street, Lyddington (planning appeal) - **Decision:** allowed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Fleming - **Authority:** Rutland (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6008494 - **Application reference:** 2025/1699/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Replacement of modern rear windows, patio doors and side door at a Grade II listed house (planning appeal A; LBC appeal B is 6008495) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6 - **Development plan policies:** Rutland Core Strategy 2011 CS22, Site Allocations and Policies DPD 2014 SP20, Rutland Window and Door Design Guidance SPD 2025 - **Main issues:** Grade II listed building, Lyddington Conservation Area - **Tags:** tier-2, windows, heritage-no-harm, conservation-area, transitional-no-consultation, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary Planning half of the Lyddington window appeals (LBC appeal B is PINS-6008495). The windows and doors being replaced were modern and degraded, and the replacements would be an improvement with limited visibility. No harm to the listed building or the conservation area. Allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "insofar as they are relevant to these appeals, the policies have not materially changed" (DL ¶4). - **Heritage: NO HARM.** "They are clearly not historic fabric and not historic windows as referred to in the SPD." (DL ¶9). "The proposals would therefore preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building." (DL ¶10). "For the same reasons, there would be no conflict with the heritage preservation aims of the Framework." (DL ¶11). ## What made the difference The fabric being replaced was modern, so the SPD's historic-window guidance did not apply. ## Transferable points - Replacing modern, non-historic joinery in a listed building can preserve its special interest; with no harm, no public-benefits balance is needed (DL ¶9-11). ## Policy findings - **HE6: pass.** modern degraded units replaced, not historic fabric; special interest and CA preserved; no conflict with the heritage preservation aims of the Framework; no specific HE code cited (DL 9-11) ## Key facts - Joint letter with LBC appeal 6008495; both allowed (DL 1-3) - Parties not re-consulted on the 2026 Framework; policies said not to have materially changed (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008494 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7b2a3424-415b-41b5-8aeb-fdae9a890fb6 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008494.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 28 Main Street, Lyddington - **Decision:** allowed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Fleming - **Authority:** Rutland (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6008495 - **Application reference:** 2025/1700/LBA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Replacement of modern rear bedroom and kitchen windows, patio doors and side door at Grade II listed house - **Site context:** listed-building-setting, conservation-area, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6 - **Development plan policies:** Rutland Core Strategy 2011 CS22, Site Allocations and Policies DPD 2014 SP20, Rutland Window and Door Design Guidance SPD 2025 - **Main issues:** Grade II listed building, Lyddington Conservation Area - **Tags:** tier-2, conservation-area, windows, transitional-no-consultation, heritage-no-harm ## Summary Replacing modern rear windows and doors at a Grade II listed ironstone house in Lyddington Conservation Area was allowed (planning and LBC). The existing units were modern and degraded, and the replacements with astragal bars would be an improvement with limited visibility. There was no harm, so no public-benefits balance was run (DL ¶9-11). ## What made the difference The fabric being replaced was not historic. The SPD's preference for integral glazing bars applies to historic windows, and the inspector read it that way (DL ¶8-9). Contrast PINS-6008490, where original sashes were lost. ## Policy findings - **HE6: pass.** modern degraded units replaced, not historic fabric; astragal bars "would not appear excessive"; "improved appearance"; special interest preserved and CA preserved; "no conflict with the heritage preservation aims of the Framework" — no specific HE code cited (DL 9-11) ## Key facts - Appeal A 6008494 (planning, 2025/1699/FUL) and Appeal B 6008495 (LBC) decided together (DL 3) - Windows being replaced are C20 and "clearly not historic fabric" so the SPD's historic-window guidance does not bite (DL 9) - Parties not re-consulted; policies "have not materially changed" (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008495 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2dd5da5d-b003-4428-bec6-3ff0ccc32198 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008495.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Bromsgrove House, Honeysome Road, Chatteris - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Gee - **Authority:** Fenland (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008500 - **Application reference:** F/YR25/0750/F - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Appeal against 3-year temporary condition on permission for change of use of field to residential and siting of mobile home annexe; permission refused outright on redetermination - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, flood-zone-3 - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** F5, F5(2)(c), S5(1), S5(2), S5(4), DM6 - **Development plan policies:** Fenland Local Plan LP1, LP3, LP12, LP14, LP16, Cambridgeshire Flood and Water SPD 2016 - **Main issues:** flood risk, location, character and appearance - **Tags:** conditions-appeal, annexe, flood-risk, sequential-test-failed, s5-2-refusal-policy, s5-4-exceptional, permission-lost-on-appeal, overturned-officer-rec, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary The appellant sought removal of a 3-year time limit on a members' permission (granted against officer advice) for a mobile home "annexe" on a field in Flood Zone 3a outside Chatteris. The inspector redetermined the whole application under s78 and dismissed it, so the permission itself is lost. No sequential test had been done. The change of use to a permanent mobile home is not exempt under F5(2)(c), and the F5 failure triggered S5(2). The annexe was self-contained and so treated as a dwelling outside any S5(1) category. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶3). - **Scope.** "I am not confined to considering only the disputed condition and may reach a different conclusion from the Council ... including whether planning permission should be granted at all. I raised this, and my concerns, during the course of the appeal" (DL ¶6). - **Flood — F5: FAIL.** "The revised Framework adopts a strengthened sequential approach to flood risk as set out in Policy F5" (DL ¶11). "as a mobile home intended for permanent residential use Annex F of the Framework classifies the development as highly vulnerable ... I am not persuaded that the proposal falls within the scope of Policy F5(2)(c)" (DL ¶12). A flood warning service "would not adequality resolve the risk in the event of a flood which could occur at night" (DL ¶14). - **Location: FAIL.** The annexe "would not function in an ancillary manner to the main dwelling" (DL ¶20). The site was not isolated, but that did not overcome the conflict with the spatial strategy (DL ¶21). - **Character: FAIL.** "inherent domestication of an undeveloped field" (DL ¶27). ## Planning balance S5. Not an S5(1) category (DL ¶37). Under S5(4) and S5(2): "the circumstances in which benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed ... include ... situations where a proposal would fail to comply with a national decision-making policy which states that development proposals should be refused" (DL ¶38). Flood conflict substantial weight, benefits limited (DL ¶¶39–40). "the failure to meet the Framework criteria in respect of flood risk means that the development should be refused" (DL ¶41). ## What made the difference Flood Zone 3a with no sequential test, together with the fact that a permanent mobile home is "highly vulnerable" and cannot use the change-of-use exemption in F5(2)(c)(iii). Appealing the condition put the whole permission back in issue. The appellant would have kept a 3-year permission by not appealing. ## Transferable points - The F5(2)(c)(iii) change-of-use exemption from the sequential test does not cover changes of use to site a mobile home. Permanent residential mobile homes are "highly vulnerable" (DL ¶12). - An Environment Agency non-objection "predicated upon the development meeting the Sequential Test" does not help without the test (DL ¶13). - Failing F5 engages S5(2), making it likely that benefits are substantially outweighed. S5(4) exceptional circumstances were not met on personal benefits alone (DL ¶¶38–41). - A self-contained mobile home "annexe" on separate land is judged as a dwelling (DL ¶20). - Appeals against conditions reopen the whole permission. Inspectors will refuse outright after warning the parties (DL ¶¶6, 43). ## Policy findings - **F5(2)(c): not-engaged.** exemption for householder/changes of use does not apply; change of use of land to site a permanent mobile home is highly vulnerable (Annex F) (DL 11-12) - **F5: fail (substantial weight).** no sequential test in FZ3a; EA non-objection was conditional on ST; brick skirt under raised unit hinders flow; flood warning insufficient for night flooding (DL 11-16, 39) - **S5(1): fail.** not a listed category; annexe functions as an independent dwelling (DL 20-22, 37) - **S5(2): fail.** F5 failure is a refuse-trigger that makes it likely benefits are substantially outweighed (DL 38, 41) - **S5(4): fail.** no exceptional circumstances; personal benefits limited (DL 38, 40-41) - **S5(3): not-engaged.** proximate to existing built form, not isolated (DL 21) - **DM6: neutral.** tests for conditions frame the appeal; s78 appeal against condition reopens whole permission (DL 6-7) - **DM5: neutral.** claimed financial burden of condition unsupported by any viability evidence (DL 32) ## Key facts - Members granted permission against officer advice with a 3-year limit; the appellant appealed the condition and lost the permission (DL 4-6, 43) - Inspector warned during the appeal that the whole permission was at risk (DL 6) - Mobile home raised 0.6 m but with a brick skirt (DL 14) - Lapsed 2021 permission for similar annexe given very limited weight (DL 2, 34) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008500 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a7401fcf-5c51-4dcf-87fc-a7b1617c32b6 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008500.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Henhurst Lodge, Beare Green - **Decision:** dismissed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Lawrence - **Authority:** Mole Valley (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008528 - **Application reference:** MO/2025/02135 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retention of the pre-existing dwelling following erection of the replacement dwelling permitted in 2017 (MO/2016/2052), with new driveway - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, rural-lane, ancient-woodland - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, N6 - **Development plan policies:** Mole Valley Local Plan 2024 EN1, EN4, EN9 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, grey belt, sustainable location, openness, character, ancient woodland, VSC - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, connectivity-tool, hdt-unmet-need, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, ancient-woodland, small-scheme, s5-not-displacing-gb ## Summary The appellant sought to keep an original house, which was due to be demolished under a 2017 replacement-dwelling permission, as an extra dwelling in the Mole Valley Green Belt. Dismissed. Grey belt and unmet need were accepted: the Council has a five-year supply, but its HDT is below 75%. Limb (iii) sustainable location failed on an unlit lane with no footways, remote from the village and station, with a Connectivity Tool score of 25/100. A new driveway through ancient woodland separately failed N6. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties commented on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL ¶2). - **Replacement exception lost.** "its demolition was a key justification for the erection of a replacement dwelling. That replacement dwelling would constitute new development, and the exception in policy GB7 relating to the replacement of existing buildings, would no longer apply" (DL ¶7). - **S5 does not displace GB7.** "policy S5 is a general policy relating to development outside settlements and does not displace the specific Green Belt provisions of policy GB7" (DL ¶8). - **GB7(1)(g)(i): PASS.** It "could constitute grey belt land … the site does not make a strong contribution to the purposes" (DL ¶9). - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): PASS via HDT.** "Whilst it can now demonstrate a five-year supply … the most recent Housing Delivery Test result remains below 75%. Consequently, having regard to policy GB7(g)(ii) and footnote 41 … there is an evidenced unmet need for housing" (DL ¶10). - **GB7(1)(g)(iii) / TR3: FAIL.** "Beare Green Road does not benefit from pavements or street lighting and, as such, does little to encourage journeys on foot" (DL ¶11). "the Connectivity Tool, which assigns the site a score of 25/100 … should be considered alongside local evidence and professional judgement. However, that wider evidence does not support the appellant's case" (DL ¶12). "future occupiers would be largely reliant upon the private car … This would not provide the genuine choice of travel modes sought by the Framework" (DL ¶13). - **Openness: considerable weight** to spatial and visual harm (DL ¶19). - **N6 ancient woodland: FAIL.** "the absence of excavation does not automatically mean that harm would be avoided" (DL ¶25). "the convenience of providing a separate access does not amount to a wholly exceptional reason" (DL ¶29). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. On one side, substantial weight to Green Belt harm plus harm to ancient woodland and modest character harm. On the other, limited weight each to avoided demolition (CC2/CC3), local historic interest, and bat roost retention, all discounted because those consequences had already been accepted in the 2017 permission (DL ¶32-37). These fell "well short" (DL ¶38). ## What made the difference Location. Every other grey belt limb passed, including unmet need through the HDT route despite a five-year supply. But a lane with no footways or lighting and remoteness from services failed limb (iii), and the low Connectivity Tool score corroborated this. The ancient woodland driveway was a free-standing second reason. ## Transferable points - Footnote 41 is satisfied by an HDT result below 75% even where the LPA has a five-year supply (DL ¶10). - The Connectivity Tool (TR3(2)) is used alongside local evidence. A low score (25/100) supported by route-quality facts (no footways or lighting) defeats GB7(1)(g)(iii) (DL ¶12-13). - An inspector has held that S5 does not displace GB7 on a Green Belt site (DL ¶8). - Keeping a dwelling whose demolition justified a replacement permission cannot rely on GB7(1)(b) (DL ¶7). - Benefits that amount to avoiding consequences already accepted under an earlier permission get limited weight (DL ¶33, ¶36-37). - No-dig construction does not by itself avoid N6 deterioration of ancient woodland, and alternatives must be assessed (DL ¶25, ¶28-29). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** demolition of the old house was the justification for the replacement; keeping both makes the replacement new development, so the replacement exception no longer applies (DL 7) - **S5: not-engaged.** S5 is a general outside-settlements policy and does not displace the specific GB7 provisions (DL 8) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** established residential curtilage outside any built-up area could be PDL; site does not strongly contribute to purposes (DL 9) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** Council now has a 5YHLS but HDT is below 75%, so footnote 41 unmet need is established (DL 10) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): fail.** no footways or lighting on Beare Green Road; bus not shown to stop nearby; well separated from village and Holmwood station; Connectivity Tool score 25/100 (DL 11-13) - **TR3: fail.** Connectivity Tool considered alongside local evidence; occupiers largely reliant on the private car; no genuine choice of modes (DL 12-13) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriate development; openness harm given considerable weight; some encroachment (DL 17-19, 31) - **N6: fail.** new no-dig driveway through ancient woodland; no wholly exceptional reasons and no compensation strategy; alternatives not assessed (DL 23-30) - **DP3: harm.** modest harm to character; LP EN4 conflict (DL 20-22) - **CC2: benefit (limited weight).** avoided demolition waste and embodied carbon; limited because demolition was accepted in the 2017 permission (DL 35-36) - **HE7: benefit (limited weight).** some local historic interest as former estate lodge; not designated or locally listed (DL 34) ## Key facts - Replacement dwelling approved 2017 on condition of demolition of the original; appellant sought to keep both - Council can now show 5YHLS but most recent HDT result below 75% - Connectivity Tool score 25/100 relied on by the Council (DL 12) - Beare Green Road has no pavements or street lighting; A29 constrains routes to Beare Green and Holmwood station (DL 11-12) - Proposed separate driveway would cut through ancient woodland (DL 23) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008528 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6397b7c8-fed5-4add-9de2-a0f8c1f58446 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008528.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Chequers PH, Matching Green - **Decision:** allowed, 26 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Reid - **Authority:** Epping Forest (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008532 - **Application reference:** EPF/1973/25 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of rear compound/covered seating and replacement single-storey extensions to a locally listed pub - **Site context:** green-belt, washed-over-village, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE7(1), HE9 - **Development plan policies:** Epping Forest District Local Plan 2011-2033 Part One DM7, DM9 - **Main issues:** NDHA, conservation area, listed building setting, neighbour amenity - **Tags:** tier-2, conservation-area, ndha, heritage-no-harm, community-facility, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Replacement single-storey extensions to the locally listed Chequers pub in the Matching Green conservation area and Green Belt were allowed. They stayed within existing building lines, added no floor area or covers, and removed an unsympathetic lean-to. The Inspector found no harm to the NDHA, a "neutral effect" on the conservation area, and preserved listed-building settings (DL ¶¶14, 19, 23). ## What made the difference The footprint was like-for-like, with no increase in capacity; that distinguished the earlier dismissed scheme (DL ¶29). The heritage findings were made under local policy DM7/DM9 and the statutory duties. The new HE codes were not cited, and the Inspector did not consult on the Framework because policies "have not fundamentally changed" (DL ¶2). ## Policy findings - **HE7: pass.** locally listed pub (NDHA incl. communal value); extensions within existing building lines, no harm (DL 8-14) — decided under LP DM7 - **HE9: neutral.** removal of lean-to bar reveals form; "neutral effect on the significance of the CA" (DL 19-20) - **HE6: not-engaged.** setting of grade II Little Elm Cottage, The Lilacs, Chestnut Cottage preserved (DL 22-23) - **GB7: pass.** agreed not inappropriate (DL 5) ## Key facts - No increase in floor area or covers; extensions replace existing compound and covered seating - Earlier extension scheme EPF/2654/17 dismissed on appeal — larger and increased seating - Epping Forest SAC — no net traffic increase, no likely significant effect ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/44fc25f1-80b6-44eb-a293-a4c8d4e7f9f1 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008532 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008532.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 356 Prescot Road, Old Swan, Liverpool (car showroom plus 9 flats) - **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Chris Mayes - **Authority:** Liverpool (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008534 - **Application reference:** 25F/1573 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of car showroom and erection of four-storey building with ground-floor showroom and 9 apartments - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, L2, DP3, P3 - **Development plan policies:** Liverpool Local Plan 2013-2033 UD1, UD2, UD5, H7, H13, R1 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions of neighbours - **Tags:** design-refusal, s4-substantially-outweighed, l2-building-upwards, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A four-storey showroom-and-flats redevelopment on a prominent Old Swan corner was dismissed. The inspector found it incongruous in form and roofscape, and overbearing to two terraced rear yards. The letter tests the new L2 support for homes above commercial premises and corner buildings, and finds that support qualified. The S4 balance was then "substantially outweighed". ## Issues and findings - **L2: qualified support.** "I acknowledge that Policy L2 of the Framework supports the creation of homes above commercial premises and recognises that larger buildings may, in some circumstances, be appropriate at street corners. However, that support is not unqualified. The policy also requires such development to be consistent with the overall street scene and, where building upwards is proposed, to avoid substantial harm to the character of a building and its surroundings" (DL ¶13). - **Character: HARM.** The building "would compress four storeys into a broadly comparable overall height. This would produce a noticeably different rhythm of openings, floor levels and proportions" (DL ¶10). The flat-roofed top floor "would maintain substantial built volume at roof level" (DL ¶11). - **Living conditions: HARM to outlook.** It would be "dominant and imposing when experienced from the rear yards" (DL ¶18). Overlooking of yards is normal in dense urban areas (DL ¶20). - **S4: FAIL.** "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework" (DL ¶29). ## Planning balance An S4 within-settlement balance. Nine homes on PDL above commercial space: moderate weight (HO7, L2). Business support and street trees: limited. Character and outlook harms, conflicting with the plan and the Framework: significant weight (DL ¶26-29). ## What made the difference The compressed four-storey form and flat roof were at odds with a two-storey-proportioned pitched-roof townscape, on a corner made more visible by open land opposite. A pitched-roof three-storey form with commercial floor-to-floor proportions might have fitted L2's "consistent with the overall street scene" test. ## Transferable points - L2's support for homes above shops and for corner buildings is "not unqualified". Consistency with the street scene is part of the policy (DL ¶13). - Subservience is not about height alone. Floor rhythm, massing and roofscape matter (DL ¶9-11). - Nine homes on PDL got moderate weight and were "substantially outweighed" by significant design and amenity harm under S4 (DL ¶26-29). ## Policy findings - **L2: fail (moderate weight).** support for homes above commercial premises and larger corner buildings is "not unqualified"; must be consistent with street scene and avoid substantial harm to character (DL 13, 26) - **DP3: harm (significant weight).** four storeys compressed into a two-storey-proportioned envelope with a flat-roofed recessed top floor; incongruous on a prominent open corner (DL 9-16, 28) - **P3: harm (significant weight).** overbearing loss of outlook to rear yards of 1 Barrymore Road and 2 Aviemore Road; overlooking and noise acceptable (DL 17-23) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** 9 homes on PDL in a sustainable location (DL 26) - **S4: fail.** benefits "substantially outweighed" by adverse effects (DL 29) ## Key facts - Prominent corner; open forecourts opposite widen public views (DL 7, 12) - Roofline just below the adjoining former church hall, but height alone does not make a building subservient (DL 9) - Street-tree contribution secured by obligation; not decided because the appeal failed (DL 24) - Parties consulted on the revised Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008534 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a34b9219-97b8-4fe8-8313-158e0797ac3a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008534.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to Fulwood, School Road, Bagnall - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer Kim Vo) - **Authority:** Staffordshire Moorlands (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6008539 - **Application reference:** SMD/2025/0197 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline for one self-build bungalow with garage at the village edge - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan 2020 SS9, SS10, H1, DC1, DC2, DC3 - **Main issues:** conservation area setting, character and appearance - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, small-scheme, self-build, transitional-no-consultation, appeal-planning-officer ## Summary One bungalow on a vacant plot at the southern edge of Bagnall village, next to the Conservation Area. The council accepted the site was grey belt and not inappropriate. The appeal was nonetheless dismissed because building on the plot would erode the rural gateway and views that form part of the CA's setting. One dwelling's benefits did not outweigh that heritage harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition handled without consultation.** "Policy GB7 1.g. reflects the relevant stance on inappropriate development, making not fundamental changes in regard to what grey belt land is … I therefore see no reason to either disagree with or cause the Council to revisit their assessment on Green Belt matters" (DL ¶3). On heritage, "the actions of finding harm to a designated heritage asset is not materially different … The stance and thus mechanisms of paragraph 11 of the previous Framework are no longer relevant" (DL ¶4). - **Green Belt:** "Whilst the proposal would not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt due to the appeal site comprising grey belt land, that finding does not in itself justify the grant of planning permission, nor does it override the identified harm" (DL ¶15). - **Heritage (HE6): HARM.** The site and adjacent green "contributes to an attractive and distinctly rural gateway to the village … reinforces the pastoral character that is integral to the significance and setting of the CA" (DL ¶7). The scheme "would result in further encroachment into the rural landscape" (DL ¶8). "Substantial weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets irrespective of the degree of harm" (DL ¶10). - **Benefits:** one home had moderate weight, self-build (private, retirement) limited, BNG limited (DL ¶11-13). ## Planning balance An HE6 harm-versus-public-benefits balance: "the proposal would not provide sufficient public benefits that would outweigh the harm" (DL ¶13). The letter does not expressly run the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" test, even though it found the scheme not inappropriate. ## What made the difference Heritage setting. The plot is part of an identified green gateway to a Conservation Area. Grey belt status gave no protection against a heritage-based refusal. ## Transferable points - Grey belt / not-inappropriate status "does not in itself justify the grant of planning permission" (DL ¶15). - An inspector may decide under the 2026 Framework without re-consultation where the relevant tests (GB7(1)(g), heritage harm) are not materially changed (DL ¶3-4). - An old exploratory Green Belt study identifying a site as potentially suitable carries limited weight (DL ¶15). - Self-build for the appellant's own needs is a private benefit (DL ¶12). - Note: the letter did not run the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance for a not-inappropriate scheme. Compare PINS-6007130 and PINS-6006286, which did. ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(g): pass.** council's grey belt / not-inappropriate assessment accepted; 2026 GB7(1)(g) makes "not fundamental changes" from 2024 so no re-consultation (DL 3, 15) - **S5(5): not-engaged.** noted S5 does not apply in Green Belt (DL 3) - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** harm to setting of Bagnall Conservation Area — rural gateway, green open space, views out; public benefits insufficient (DL 6-13) - **DP3: conflict.** harm to character of village edge/ribbon extension (DL 8-9, 14) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** one dwelling in shortfall context (DL 11) ## Key facts - Decided on 18 Aug 2026 (day after new Framework) without re-consulting parties; inspector reasoned that grey belt and heritage-harm tests not materially changed - Grey belt/not-inappropriate status accepted - "not inappropriate … does not in itself justify the grant of planning permission" - Site faces "important green open space" identified in Conservation Area Appraisal; gateway to village - Old (10+ year) Green Belt Study identifying site as potentially suitable given limited weight - Self-build for appellant's retirement treated as private benefit, limited weight ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008539 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/96952798-8a47-4ffb-b029-f8b7cd81a0d1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008539.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Tzigane, Freeston Avenue, St Georges, Telford - **Decision:** allowed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Bromley - **Authority:** Telford and Wrekin (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6008540 - **Application reference:** TWC/2026/0126 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73 variation of condition 4 (staff numbers/parking per DAS) on permission for four bungalows changed to C2 children's care homes, replacing it with an Operational Management Plan - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** DM6 - **Development plan policies:** Telford and Wrekin Local Plan 2018 C3, C5, BE1, emerging Local Plan 2020-2040 - **Main issues:** highway safety (parking), living conditions (noise and disturbance) - **Tags:** tier-2, s73-variation, old-wording-slip, childrens-care-home, costs-application, decided-on-publication-day ## Summary A cap on staff numbers at a four-bungalow children's care home was replaced by an enforceable Operational Management Plan. Allowed. Staggered changeovers and a travel plan dealt with the parking shortfall, and staff activity was in line with residential norms. ## What made the difference A robust, monitorable OMP enforceable by condition. The letter is dated 17 August 2026 but applies the old Framework's paragraph 56 (for conditions only) and does not mention the new Framework at all, so `nppf_applied` is recorded as 2024-12 (transitional). ## Policy findings - **DM6: pass.** cited as old "Paragraph 56" — OMP (staggered 15-minute changeovers, travel plan, annual review) enforceable by condition (DL 15-18) - **TR4: pass.** code mapped by harvester — 4-space shortfall at changeover versus standards; waiting vehicles could obstruct but OMP manages it (DL 13-19) - **P3: pass.** code mapped by harvester — staff comings and goings proportionate to residential context (DL 21-24) ## Key facts - 4 children (one per bungalow), 10 staff per shift, up to 13 at changeover, 10 on-site spaces (DL 8-13) - Emerging LP examined but not adopted; adopted plan applied (DL 3) - Decided on 17 Aug 2026 (the day the new Framework took effect) but cites old para 56 and says nothing about the transition ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008540 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c45f9388-9315-40a0-869d-d92b511429eb --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008540.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 22 Woodside View, Thundersley - **Decision:** allowed, 24 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Terrence Kemmann-Lane - **Authority:** Castle Point (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008542 - **Application reference:** 26/0028/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of 3-bed house (C3) to children's care home (C2) for up to 2 children - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** Castle Point LP H2 - **Development plan policies:** Castle Point Local Plan H2 - **Main issues:** loss of family dwelling vs need for children's placements - **Tags:** tier-2, childrens-home, no-framework-cited, specialist-housing-need ## Summary Conversion of a three-bed house to a two-child care home was allowed. Following *North Devon DC v FSS* [2003], the use is "functionally indistinguishable from a use Class C3 dwelling", so family housing was not lost, and the County confirmed a sufficiency need (DL ¶¶5, 8–9). The letter, dated a week after publication, never mentions the Framework. ## What made the difference The small scale (two children), the use's similarity to a family household, and the County's letter supporting in-district need. ## Policy findings - **Castle Point LP H2: accord.** small children's home functionally indistinguishable from C3 (North Devon DC v FSS [2003] EWHC 157 (Admin)); no loss of residential use (DL 5, 9) - **HO9: benefit.** ECC letter says scheme "aligns with our current sufficiency needs"; zero Castle Point children placed in-district (DL 7-8) — Framework not cited ## Key facts - Up to 2 children, 1:1 to 3:1 staffing, max 5 people on site - ECC needs assessment 15 placements needed to 2029; 33 places approved 2022-24 ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/0b04f8e1-a514-49ce-a929-63955fc7c122 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008542 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008542.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Polden View, Maunsel Road, North Newton - **Decision:** allowed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M Aqbal - **Authority:** Somerset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008548 - **Application reference:** 37/26/00005 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline (access) for 2 market dwellings on a site with extant outline permission for 2 self-build dwellings - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.17 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), HO7 - **Development plan policies:** Sedgemoor Local Plan S2, CO1, T4, D9 - **Main issues:** appropriateness of residential development in the countryside - **Tags:** s5-1-j, sustainable-location-pass, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, self-build, fallback, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, plan-led ## Summary Outline permission for two open-market houses on a site next to North Newton's boundary, which already had permission for two self-build houses under the local plan's self-build exception (D9). Allowed. Removing the self-build tie conflicted with the plan's spatial strategy, and the Inspector gave that conflict significant weight. But with a 4.17-year supply, the site passed S5(1)(j). Together with HO7's substantial weight and the extant permission, the benefits outweighed the plan conflict under s38(6). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were afforded an opportunity to comment on any implications" (DL ¶4). - **Development plan: CONFLICT.** D9 was given "significant weight ... resisting its replacement with conventional market housing" (DL ¶10). - **S5(1)(j): PASS.** "The site immediately adjoins the built form and settlement boundary of North Newton. I therefore find that it is physically well-related to the settlement" (DL ¶15). "Whilst future occupiers would be likely to rely on private car travel for certain journeys ... that is not unusual in rural areas and does not alter my finding" (DL ¶15). - **HO7.** The scheme adds no homes, but "it may increase the likelihood that two dwellings are delivered ... In accordance with Policy HO7, I attach substantial weight to that benefit" (DL ¶19). - **Extant permission.** "The principal distinction ... relates to occupancy and tenure rather than any material difference in the physical effects" (DL ¶20). ## Planning balance The s38(6) plan-led balance. Plan conflict (significant weight) against S5(1)(j) support, HO7 substantial weight and the extant permission (significant weight). The latter "outweigh the identified conflict with the development plan" (DL ¶28). ## What made the difference The extant self-build permission meant there was no physical difference: only tenure changed. Once S5(1)(j) was engaged by the shortfall, the self-build policy's protective purpose could not hold. Had the Council had a five-year supply, D9 conflict would probably have been decisive. So would evidence of strong demand on the self-build register, which the appellant's thin marketing evidence did not rebut. ## Transferable points - Where supply is below five years, S5(1)(j) can release a self-build tie on an edge-of-settlement site with extant self-build permission (DL ¶¶14-17, 28). - HO7 substantial weight was given even though the quantum was unchanged, because improved deliverability counts (DL ¶19). - Some car reliance for trips to larger centres is "not unusual in rural areas" and does not defeat "physically well-related" (DL ¶15). - Unevidenced claims that self-build plots have had little interest get limited weight. Register data and marketing evidence are needed (DL ¶18). - The same Inspector (M Aqbal) ran S5(1)(j) as a material consideration inside s38(6) in PINS-6001260 as well. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): pass.** 4.17-year supply engages the policy; site adjoins the North Newton boundary; Tier 4 village with school, pub, hall; some car reliance "not unusual in rural areas"; no infrastructure constraint (DL 13-17) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** no increase in quantum, but removing the self-build tie may improve the likelihood of delivery (DL 19) - **Sedgemoor LP D9, S2, CO1, T4: conflict (significant weight).** market housing outside the boundary, removing the self-build basis of the extant consent; D9 given significant weight with no Annex A reduction (DL 9-11, 25) ## Key facts - Extant April 2024 outline permission for 2 self-build dwellings on the same site, given significant weight (DL 6, 20, 27) - Self-build plots marketed since Feb 2025 with little interest, but no detailed evidence, so limited weight (DL 18) - Council supply about 4.17 years (DL 14) - Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008548 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/28f77b46-3a98-463c-9753-431d3fc29286 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008548.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 36 Albany Crescent, Claygate - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Megan Thomas KC - **Authority:** Elmbridge (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008555 - **Application reference:** 2025/3209 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** First-floor side extension on columns (void below) with roof-space accommodation to an upper-floor maisonette - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), L2(1)(d) - **Development plan policies:** Elmbridge Core Strategy 2011 CS17, Elmbridge DMP 2015 DM2, Elmbridge Design Code SPD - **Main issues:** character and appearance, outlook of neighbours - **Tags:** tier-2, householder, design-refusal, living-conditions-outlook, l2-1-d, s4-substantially-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A first and roof-level side extension on columns to a first-floor maisonette in a semi-detached pair. Dismissed. It would unbalance the pair and look "awkward and contrived", and it would overbear neighbours' side entrances. The L2(1)(d) substantial weight was not available because the scheme was inconsistent with the street scene, and under S4(1) the benefits were substantially outweighed. ## What made the difference The symmetry of the semi-detached pairs along the Crescent, and the neighbours' front doors facing the flank. A void at ground level did not remove the sense of enclosure from the storeys above. ## Policy findings - **L2(1)(d): fail.** substantial-weight limb for extra floorspace not met as inconsistent with the street scene (DL 15) - **S4(1): fail.** unbalances semi-pair, less than 1 m to boundary; overbearing to neighbours' side doors and landing window 2.4 m away (DL 7-16) ## Key facts - Extension on three columns at the common boundary; neighbours' front doors on side flanks (DL 6, 11) - Parties asked to comment on 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008555 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/cde91b06-a948-4e9d-b1ff-27511e0aab29 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008555.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Manor Court, North Side, Steeple Aston (two-storey rear extension) - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Jonathan Edwards - **Authority:** Cherwell (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008562 - **Application reference:** 26/00019/F - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Two-storey rear extension replacing single-storey projection, internal refurbishment and window replacement (non-determination) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE9, HE6(1), HE6(4), HE4(2) - **Development plan policies:** Cherwell Local Plan 2015 ESD15, Cherwell Local Plan 1996 C28 - **Main issues:** conservation area, setting of listed buildings - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, energy-efficiency, private-view-heritage, non-determination, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A two-storey rear extension to a vernacular stone house in the Steeple Aston Conservation Area, beside a Grade II former manor house and opposite a Grade II* church, was dismissed after the council failed to decide it. Harm to the conservation area and the settings of both listed buildings outweighed public benefits. The benefits were solar panels; insulation was discounted because it could be done anyway. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "There is no need to seek the main parties' views on the new version of the Framework as its provisions on conserving and enhancing the historic environment are similar to the previous version" (DL ¶4). - **Conservation area (HE9): HARM.** The two-storey roof "would protrude well above the eaves level … it would visually overwhelm the rear of the appeal property so that the linear form of the main part of the house would not be so readily appreciated" (DL ¶11). This is contrary to "policy HE9 of the Framework" (DL ¶14). - **Setting: HARM.** There would be moderate harm to the former manor house through obscuring and overbearing its rear elevation (DL ¶16, ¶27). For the church: "the loss of a view of the tower would be harmful to its significance, even if the view is from private land" (DL ¶18). - **Public benefits.** "Policy HE6 of the Framework identifies enabling energy efficiency and low carbon heating measures as an important public benefit. However, whilst the solar panels attract some weight as public benefits the internal insulation could take place in the absence of this proposal" (DL ¶25). The extra space is a private benefit carrying limited weight (DL ¶26). - **Conclusion.** "Part 1 of policy HE6 … substantial weight should be given to the conservation of a designated heritage asset … no clear or convincing justification … contrary to policy HE4 of the Framework" (DL ¶28). ## Planning balance An HE6(4) balance: moderate harm to a listed building, limited harm to the church and modest harm to the conservation area, all with substantial weight, against some weight for solar and limited weight for private space. The harm outweighed the benefits, so the development-plan conflict stood (DL ¶24-28). ## What made the difference The extension broke above the eaves and dominated a simple linear vernacular form visible from the road and churchyard. The energy benefits were thin: insulation did not depend on the extension. ## Transferable points - Energy-efficiency benefits only count as public benefits of a proposal if the proposal is needed to deliver them (DL ¶25). - The loss of a view of a listed building from private land can still harm its significance (DL ¶18). - Inspectors treat 2026 HE9 as the Framework's conservation-area test (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **HE9: fail.** extension overwhelms the linear vernacular form of a positive building visible from road and churchyard; modest effect on CA significance (DL 9-14, 27) - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** moderate harm to setting of Grade II Manor Court Cottage Rectory Farmhouse; limited harm to Grade II* church (loss of private view of tower and erosion of intervisibility) (DL 15-20, 27-28) - **HE6(4): fail.** solar panels some weight; internal insulation could happen anyway; extra space a private benefit (limited) (DL 25-26, 28) - **HE4(2): fail.** no clear or convincing justification (DL 28) ## Key facts - The house was a former farmworkers' dwelling, altered over time; not treated as curtilage-listed or a non-designated heritage asset, but "evidently of heritage significance" (DL 3, 7) - The extension would block a view of the church tower from the private patio; harm held to count "even if the view is from private land" (DL 18) - No re-consultation on the Aug 2026 Framework because its heritage provisions are "similar to the previous version" (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008562 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c6123e3b-a258-434f-826d-fc747a0c704e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008562.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 529 Roman Road, Tower Hamlets - **Decision:** dismissed, 27 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Gardner - **Authority:** Tower Hamlets (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6008563 - **Application reference:** PA/25/01901 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Rear balcony to second-floor flat - **Site context:** conservation-area, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** s38(6), Tower Hamlets LP D.DH8 - **Development plan policies:** Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2020 D.DH8, London Plan 2021 - **Main issues:** living conditions of flat below - **Tags:** tier-2, living-conditions, no-framework-reference, householder, conservation-area ## Summary A second-floor rear balcony was dismissed because it would overshadow and overlook the roof terrace and the only window to a habitable room of the flat below. The decision is purely plan-led (D.DH8) and does not mention the Framework. ## What made the difference The balcony sat directly over the neighbour's only light source and amenity space. People linger on a balcony in a way they do not at a window, which made the overlooking worse (DL ¶8). The index flagged E3 for this letter, but E3 is not engaged: the letter cites no Framework policy. ## Policy findings - **D.DH8 (Tower Hamlets LP): conflict.** balcony overshadows first-floor roof terrace and the only window/door to a habitable room below; overlooking of terrace (DL 5-10) - **HE9: neutral.** s72 cited; Roman Road Market CA preserved; lack of harm neutral (DL 13-14) ## Key facts - Balcony projects over neighbour's terrace directly above its sole light source (DL 5) - The letter makes no reference to the National Planning Policy Framework in any version ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008563 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6fdd6509-cbe4-4008-a4ec-ae17230dc5b5 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008563.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land on the south side of Glenfall Way, Cheltenham - **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Jonathan Edwards - **Authority:** Cheltenham (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008569 - **Application reference:** 25/00650/OUT - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline for 4 self/custom-build dwellings (access only) on a field at the edge of Cheltenham in the Cotswold National Landscape - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.69 - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 56 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j)(i), N4, N2 - **Development plan policies:** Gloucester Cheltenham and Tewkesbury JCS 2017 SD4, SD6, SD7, SD10, INF6, Cheltenham Plan 2020 L1, D1 - **Main issues:** suitability of location, character and appearance and National Landscape - **Tags:** s5-1-j, sustainable-location-pass, national-landscape, landscape-harm, substantially-outweighed, housing-shortfall, self-build, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, drafting-slip, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Four self/custom-build plots on an open field at the edge of Cheltenham, inside the Cotswold National Landscape. Dismissed. The site passed S5(1)(j)(i): 2.69 years' supply, HDT 56%, and well related to the town. The JCS countryside policy was given very little weight as materially inconsistent with S5. But the loss of open views towards the Cotswold Escarpment was harm to the NL's scenic beauty. With N4 "very considerable weight", that substantially outweighed benefits that together carried considerable weight. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were invited to comment on the 2026 Framework and the Aug 2026 HDT results (DL ¶6). - **Location — S5(1)(j)(i): PASS.** "The development would be physically well-related to Cheltenham as it would adjoin a residential cul de sac on one side and it would be opposite housing ... Future residents ... would be able to easily walk to the nearby primary school" (DL ¶11). - **Local plan weight.** "The identified conflict with JCS policy SD10 is afforded very little weight as the policy is materially inconsistent with the provisions on housing outside of settlements as set out in part 1 of policy SD5 [sic] of the Framework" (DL ¶28). - **NL — N4/N2: FAIL.** The field's "open and rural qualities contribute to the scenic attractiveness of the NL, particularly when looking out from Glenfall Way towards the Cotswold Escarpment" (DL ¶16). "The provisions under part 2 of policy N4 ... do not apply as the proposal would not be major development ... However, even if it is treated as being limited development, the proposal would not accord with part 1 of policy N4 ... Therefore, I attach very considerable weight to the harm" (DL ¶27). - **Self-build.** Weight reduced to moderate because the UU's cascade allows open-market sale if marketing fails (DL ¶23). ## Planning balance S5(1) balance. Benefits: HO7 substantial, self-build moderate, POS and footpath moderate, BNG modest, "considerable weight" overall (DL ¶¶22–26). Harm: NL very considerable weight, plus the section 245 LURA duty (DL ¶27). "The harm caused in these regards substantially outweighs the benefits of the development. As such, the proposal would not accord with policy S5 of the Framework when read as a whole" (DL ¶28). ## What made the difference The National Landscape designation and a specific, publicly valued view (from the road and the right of way to the Escarpment) that any layout would interrupt. Passing S5(1)(j), a weak local plan and severe under-delivery were not enough once N4 applied. The same field outside a Protected Landscape would very probably have been allowed. An earlier nearby dismissal on landscape grounds (APP/B1605/W/25/3361502) pointed the same way (DL ¶18). ## Transferable points - A site can pass S5(1)(j)(i) and the local countryside policy can be given very little weight as inconsistent with S5, yet N4 harm alone can "substantially outweigh" (DL ¶¶11, 27–28). - N4(1) applies to non-major development in a National Landscape. Harm to scenic views from roads and rights of way is enough (DL ¶¶16, 27). - Local-plan policies restricting housing outside settlements can be "materially inconsistent" with S5(1) and carry very little weight (DL ¶28). - A self-build obligation with an open-market fallback gives only moderate weight (DL ¶23). - Drafting slips: "SD5" for S5 and "H07" for HO7. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j)(i): pass.** 2.69-yr supply and HDT 56% = evidenced unmet need; adjoins cul-de-sac, opposite housing, walkable primary school and buses = physically well-related (DL 9-11) - **N4: harm (very-substantial weight).** "very considerable weight"; not major development so N4(2) not engaged, but N4(1) not met: fails to avoid harm to statutory purposes and special qualities; interrupts views to Cotswold Escarpment (DL 12-17, 27) - **N2: conflict.** harm to landscape character and natural beauty of countryside (DL 27) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** modest numbers but important given undersupply and HDT (DL 22) - **JCS SD10: conflict (very-limited weight).** materially inconsistent with Framework S5(1), so very little weight (DL 28) ## Key facts - Supply 2.69 years; HDT 56% for three years to 2025 (DL 10) - Self-build shortfall of 114 plots undisputed, but UU allows open-market fallback if marketing fails, so only moderate weight (DL 23) - UU secures SAC contribution, BNG, public open space and a new footpath link (DL 5, 24-25) - Overall benefits "considerable weight" (DL 26) - Letter repeatedly writes "policy SD5" for Framework S5 and "H07" for HO7 (DL 11, 22, 28) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008569 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3fc06b1a-a8e4-4074-ad44-6a7130a51a50 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008569.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Granary, Old Carlton Farm, Stockton on the Forest - **Decision:** dismissed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C McDonagh (on recommendation of appeal planning officer T Morris) - **Authority:** York (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6008579 - **Application reference:** 25/02300/FUL - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Retrospective single-storey and first-floor side extensions to a converted agricultural building - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), GB7(1)(b), GB7(1)(e), DP3 - **Development plan policies:** City of York Local Plan 2025 GB1, D11, House Extensions SPD 2012 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, character, VSC - **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, pdl-e-limb, extension-not-redevelopment, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, fallback, retrospective ## Summary Retrospective extensions to a converted granary in the York Green Belt. Dismissed. The extensions were disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). The appellant's reliance on the PDL redevelopment exception GB7(1)(e) failed, because extending a building that remains in place is not "redevelopment" of land. The permitted development fallback was unsupported by an LDC and got limited weight. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "the relevant exception put forth by the appellant was not materially altered. As such, it was not necessary to consult the main parties" (DL ¶4). - **GB7(1)(e): FAIL.** Adopting the earlier inspector: "the redevelopment of land almost always involves the construction of new buildings, typically after demolition of previous ones" (DL ¶10-11). "Even if the previous extensions were fully demolished to make way for the extensions subject of this appeal, the original building remains in situ. Consequently, the works do not constitute the redevelopment of previously developed land" (DL ¶12). - **Openness.** "Although it would not amount to substantial harm to openness specifically, it is still harm. This should be given substantial weight" (DL ¶15). - **Character: harm (DP3).** "just because a development may not be readily visible does not mean it would not be harmful to the character of a building" (DL ¶20). - **Fallback.** "the correct approach is for them to make an application for a lawful development certificate" (DL ¶23). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to Green Belt harm and to character harm, against limited weight to the PD fallback and to energy efficiency and family needs (DL ¶28-29). ## What made the difference The attempt to recast householder extensions as PDL "redevelopment" to reach the more permissive (e) test (no *substantial* harm to openness) was rejected. The original building survived, so the proposal was extension, governed by (b). ## Transferable points - GB7(1)(e) PDL redevelopment does not cover extending a retained building. Householder additions stay under GB7(1)(b) (DL ¶10-12). - Openness harm short of "substantial" still attracts substantial weight once development is inappropriate (DL ¶15). - A PD fallback without an LDC carries limited weight, and outbuilding-based fallbacks are less likely to be pursued (DL ¶23-25). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** disproportionate; appellant offered no reason to disagree (DL 8) - **GB7(1)(e): fail.** site is PDL but extending a building that remains in situ is not "redevelopment" of PDL (following APP/C2741/D/25/3370861) (DL 9-12) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** considerable added bulk; spatial harm; visual harm limited by screening (DL 14-15) - **DP3: harm (substantial weight).** extensions dominate a modest former agricultural building; flat roof jars (DL 16-21, 28) ## Key facts - Previous appeal on the site dismissed Dec 2025 (APP/C2741/D/25/3370861) on the same PDL point (DL 10) - PD fallback advanced without an LDC; limited weight; much of it would be outbuildings (DL 22-25) - Not referred back to parties because the relevant exception "was not materially altered" (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008579 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b966ae00-2403-43f4-b9a4-440af2c10921 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008579.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # New Life Church, St James Street, Ashton-under-Lyne - **Decision:** allowed, 21 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Buxton - **Authority:** Tameside (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008594 - **Application reference:** 25/00921/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Two linked modular buildings replacing a garage for church community outreach - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** Tameside UDP C1 - **Development plan policies:** Tameside UDP C1, Places for Everyone JP-P1 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, community-facility, modular-building, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Modular outreach buildings behind a church in Ashton-under-Lyne were allowed. They were subordinate, largely screened and sat lower than the adjacent car park, so there was no harm to character. The new Framework "does not change the planning policy context" (DL ¶2). ## What made the difference The rear siting and screening by the church mattered. Standardised prefab design was acceptable because local policy "does not require ancillary development to mirror existing buildings" (DL ¶9). The Council's suggestion that the church was an NDHA was unevidenced (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **Tameside UDP C1: accord.** rear siting, screened by church, lower than car park; subordinate (DL 7-12) - **HE7: not-engaged.** suggested NDHA status unevidenced; no material harm to appreciation of the church (DL 11) - **HC4: benefit.** community, mobility-access and economic benefits weigh in favour (DL 13) ## Key facts - Same footprint and foundation as the existing garage - Standard-colour Portakabin accepted without a colour condition ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/38080934-a225-4ddc-a9da-5546b48844b8 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008594 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008594.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Hazelhurst Farm, Stockton, Worcestershire (live/work to residential) - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Standfield - **Authority:** Malvern Hills (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6008601 - **Application reference:** M/25/01503/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of the work element of a live/work unit to additional living accommodation - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(c), E2, E4, L2 - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR15 - **Main issues:** loss of rural employment opportunity - **Tags:** rural-employment-loss, live-work, s5-1-c-reuse, e2-substantial-weight, l2-effective-use, marketing-evidence-absent ## Summary An appeal to absorb the unused workspace of a rural live/work unit into the dwelling was dismissed. The inspector gave substantial weight under L2 to effective use of the building, but found the loss of a modern rural employment unit, with no marketing evidence, to be "a very substantial adverse effect" given E2 and E4. The E2 "substantial weight to business growth" policy was used in reverse, as a reason to protect existing employment space. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties had the opportunity to comment (DL ¶2). - **The existing condition.** "Policy DM6 of the NPPF re-iterates previously established requirements for the use of conditions and there is therefore no change in this respect" (DL ¶7). - **Loss of rural employment: HARM.** No marketing exercise, and no analysis of "whether the site remains a viable proposition, the extent of demand … the availability of alternative units" (DL ¶10). Conflict with SWDPR15 (DL ¶11). - **S5 route.** S5(1)(h)/(j) do not apply "as there is no net addition of dwellings" (DL ¶15). "Policy S5 1c allows for the reuse of existing buildings … The benefit in this instance relates to making effective use of the site, which is afforded substantial weight in line with Policy L2" (DL ¶15). - **E2/E4 as a harm.** "Policy E2 requires substantial weight in favour of business growth and Policy E4 specifically supports the sustainable growth of businesses in rural areas. The loss of a modern, purpose-built employment unit that could support the rural economy in this location would be a very substantial adverse effect" (DL ¶16). ## Planning balance Under S5(1)(c), the L2 benefit (substantial) was set against the loss of rural employment (very substantial) and conflict with the plan. The adverse effect "would substantially outweigh the benefit" (DL ¶17). ## What made the difference Missing marketing evidence. SWDPR15 Part D requires a marketing exercise, and without it the inspector could not find the employment space surplus. A robust marketing campaign showing no demand would probably have reversed the balance, given the L2 substantial weight. ## Transferable points - The E2/E4 support for business growth can be turned into a "very substantial" adverse effect where a proposal would lose purpose-built rural employment space (DL ¶16). - L2 "effective use" attracts substantial weight even for small internal reorganisations (DL ¶15). - S5(1)(h) and (j) are not engaged where there is no net new dwelling (DL ¶15). - DM6 makes no change to the conditions tests. Existing occupancy-tie conditions remain enforceable (DL ¶7). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(c): fail.** reuse of existing building is a listed category, but benefits substantially outweighed by loss of rural employment space (DL 15-17) - **L2: benefit (substantial weight).** making effective use of the site given substantial weight "in line with Policy L2" (DL 15) - **E2: harm (substantial weight).** loss of a modern purpose-built rural employment unit is "a very substantial adverse effect" given E2/E4 support for business growth (DL 16) - **E4: harm.** E4 supports sustainable growth of rural businesses; loss conflicts (DL 16) - **DM6: neutral.** DM6 reiterates established conditions tests; the existing live/work tie condition remains valid and enforceable (DL 7) - **S5(1)(j): not-engaged.** no net additional dwelling, so S5(1)(h)/(j), HO8 and HO11 do not apply (DL 15) ## Key facts - One of two live/work units from a 2011 barn conversion; workspace unused, dwelling occupied as 3-bed house - No marketing evidence as required by SWDPR15 Part D for loss of rural employment buildings (DL 9-11) - Newly adopted South Worcestershire Plan Review (2026) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008601 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/bf932932-3a3b-490c-9068-6ea45f490651 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008601.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # St Vincents Farm Cottages, The Ridgeway, Mill Hill (s73A variation of conditions, 7 dwellings) - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Samuel Watson - **Authority:** Barnet (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6008624 - **Application reference:** 25/4961/S73 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73A variation/removal of conditions 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14 to regularise as-built changes (internal layouts, staircases, 24 rooflights) to a 7-dwelling scheme - **Homes:** 7 - **Site context:** conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** TCPA s55(2)(a), TCPA s73A - **Main issues:** scope of s73A, adequacy of plans - **Tags:** tier-2, retrospective, s73, inadequate-plans, framework-not-cited, conservation-area ## Summary An s73A appeal sought to regularise as-built departures, including internal layouts, new first floors and 24 rooflights, on a seven-dwelling scheme in Mill Hill. It was dismissed because the plans were incomplete and contradictory, and so could not be assessed or enforced (DL ¶17). The Framework is not cited. ## What made the difference Internal works to a building still under construction are development and so were within scope (DL ¶9), but no first-floor plans were supplied (DL ¶11, ¶13). ## Policy findings - **DM6: fail.** conflicting and incomplete plans (no first-floor plans) mean the varied conditions could not be understood or enforced (DL 11-17) ## Key facts - Internal alterations to an uncompleted building are "development"; the s55(2)(a) exception applies only to completed buildings (DL 8-10) - Framework not cited ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008624 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/51512b36-fc2f-49ff-8997-ccfa1cd1cb2e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008624.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Barn House, Warren Road, Fairlight - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Housden - **Authority:** Rother (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008634 - **Application reference:** RR/2025/1552/P - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of holiday let to permanent dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, isolated, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.63 - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 35 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(3), HO11(1)(c), S5(4), E2, E4 - **Development plan policies:** Rother Core Strategy 2014 EC6, Development and Site Allocations Local Plan 2019 DEC3, DCO1 - **Main issues:** loss of holiday accommodation, isolated home - **Tags:** isolated-home, s5-4-exceptional, s5-1-c-reuse, holiday-let-loss, housing-shortfall, national-landscape, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary This was a change of use from a holiday let to a permanent dwelling at an accepted isolated site in the High Weald National Landscape. It was dismissed. The appellant relied on S5(1)(c) reuse. The inspector held that S5(3) sends isolated homes to HO11 instead. The HO11(1)(c) test failed: the let was not shown to be redundant, and a bare change of use would not enhance the setting. Under S5(4), the housing benefit, despite 2.63-2.79 years' supply and an HDT of 35%, did not substantially outweigh the unjustified loss of tourism accommodation. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties' views were sought on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶2). - **Loss of tourism use: CONFLICT.** There was no marketing. "one year of low occupation does not definitively demonstrate the site can no longer function as a holiday let" (DL ¶6). - **HO11(1)(c): FAIL.** "the evidence before me does not sufficiently establish the holiday let is disused or redundant ... the proposal is for a change of use only ... I have no evidence ... that a future landscaping scheme ... would result in any tangible enhancements to the immediate setting" (DL ¶10). - **S5(1)(c) displaced by S5(3).** "paragraph 3 of Policy S5 is clear that in the case of development proposals comprising isolated homes, these should not be approved other than in accordance with Policy HO11" (DL ¶11). - **Plan weight.** The LP tourism policies are consistent with E2/E4, so conflict with them carries significant weight (DL ¶14-15). ## Planning balance S5(4) (DL ¶16). "Whilst the provision of a dwelling would be an important benefit given the Council's deficits in both the delivery and supply of housing, it would not substantially outweigh the conflict with the evidence based and plan led approach to tourism and economic development, a matter of significant weight against the proposal. As such, exceptional circumstances ... do not exist" (DL ¶18). ## What made the difference The absence of marketing and viability evidence. That defeated both the local tourism-retention policy and the "redundant or disused" limb of HO11(1)(c). A comparable allowed appeal (APP/U1430/W/25/3361201) had that evidence (DL ¶12). ## Transferable points - For isolated homes, S5(3) takes precedence over the S5(1)(c) reuse category. HO11 must be met (DL ¶11). - HO11(1)(c) needs both redundancy or disuse and an actual enhancement of the immediate setting. A change of use alone does not enhance (DL ¶10). - One poor trading year does not prove a holiday let is unviable (DL ¶6). - Even at 2.6 years' supply and an HDT of 35%, S5(4) was not met against a significant-weight economic policy conflict (DL ¶17-18). ## Policy findings - **S5(3): fail.** appellant accepts isolated location; S5(3) overrides the S5(1)(c) reuse category argued by the appellant (DL 9, 11) - **HO11(1)(c): fail.** holiday let not shown redundant or disused; change of use only, no evidence of enhancement to immediate setting (DL 10) - **S5(4): fail.** HO7 benefit (2.63-2.79 years, HDT 35%) does not substantially outweigh significant-weight tourism-loss conflict (DL 16-18) - **E4: conflict (significant weight).** loss of tourism accommodation without marketing or viability evidence; LP EC6/DCO1 consistent with Framework E2/E4 (DL 4-7, 15) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** important given supply and delivery deficits (DL 18) ## Key facts - Supply 2.63-2.79 years (unchallenged range); HDT 35% (DL 17) - No marketing; occupancy graph showed good 2024 occupancy and near 0% in 2025 without explanation (DL 5-6) - High Weald National Landscape conserved - change of use only (DL 8) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008634 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e1ff3d49-f1df-4ba5-ae83-5c2c960ec353 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008634.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 5 Road Running Through Nuneham Courtenay - **Decision:** allowed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Jonathan Edwards - **Authority:** South Oxfordshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008639 - **Application reference:** P25/S3898/LB - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Dropped kerb with grass-reinforced ribbon tracks across verge, side gravel drive, fence and gates at Grade II listed semi in planned Georgian village - **Site context:** listed-building-setting, conservation-area, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, HE9 - **Development plan policies:** South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2020 DES1, DES2, ENV6, ENV7, ENV8 - **Main issues:** conservation area, setting of listed building - **Tags:** tier-2, conservation-area, heritage-no-harm, transitional-no-consultation, householder ## Summary A dropped kerb, ribbon tracks, gravel drive, fence and gates at a Grade II listed cottage in the planned Georgian village of Nuneham Courtenay. Both appeals were allowed. There was no harm to the conservation area or to the listed building's setting, because similar crossovers and laybys already break up the verge (DL ¶14-15). ## What made the difference The existing context. Neighbouring crossovers, a bus layby opposite, and the attached house's matching gravel drive made the change unexceptional. The gravel replaced paving slabs rather than greenery. With no harm found, no HE6 balance was needed. ## Policy findings - **HE6: pass.** no harm to setting or significance of Grade II LB (C17 pair in planned village); ss16(2), 66(1), 72(1) given "considerable importance" (DL 4, 19-24); no Framework code cited - **HE9: pass.** ribbon tracks keep verge open; existing crossovers and laybys already fragment verge; negligible effect; CA preserved (DL 14-18) ## Key facts - Appeal A 6008639 (LBC, P25/S3898/LB) and Appeal B 6009013 (householder, P25/S3897/HH) decided together (DL 3) - Nuneham Courtenay one of only two surviving completely planned Georgian villages in England (DL 11) - Estate legal agreement restricting hardstanding/fences noted but not determinative (DL 17) - 2026 heritage provisions "similar to those in the previous version"; parties not re-consulted (DL 9) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008639 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/38510ca1-b34d-4f91-b32f-750a3391dd51 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008639.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 19 Southbourne Grove, Southend-on-Sea - **Decision:** allowed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Simms - **Authority:** Southend-on-Sea (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008643 - **Application reference:** 26/00245/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of dwellinghouse to 7-bed sui generis HMO with cycle and refuse stores (part retrospective) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), TR6(4), HO1, HO7 - **Development plan policies:** Southend Core Strategy 2007 KP2, CP4, CP8, Development Management Document 2015 DM1, DM3, DM8, DM15 - **Main issues:** character, family housing, parking, access and refuse - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, hmo, fallback, non-determination, retrospective, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A 7-bed HMO in Southend, where a 6-person HMO was already certified lawful, was allowed on a non-determination appeal. The inspector found a conflict with the local parking policy (DM15), because on-street demand already exceeds supply. But this was a living-conditions harm, not a TR6(4) safety or "severe" network impact. It did not substantially outweigh the extra housing capacity under S4. The family-housing objection failed for want of evidence, even though HO1 lists families with children. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework and HDT (DL ¶4). - **Character.** The 6-person C4 fallback makes one more occupant "marginal" (DL ¶9). - **Family homes.** "Policy HO1 of the Framework includes families with children ... I have no evidence of a shortage of family homes in this city, that they are needed more than HMOs or that a less balanced or sustainable community results. Consequently, I find no harm" (DL ¶13-14). - **Parking: plan CONFLICT.** "the development adds parking pressure in a location where demand exceeds supply and so is likely to affect nearby living conditions" (DL ¶17, 19). ## Planning balance "Policy S4 ... requires development within settlements to be approved unless the benefits are substantially outweighed by adverse effects, such as a failure to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused ... the adverse effects of inadequate parking on living conditions, rather than on safety, would not have the severe adverse impact on the transport network necessary to warrant refusal under Policy TR6 ... and do not substantially outweigh the benefits of greater housing capacity" (DL ¶24-25). Material considerations, in particular the Framework, outweighed the plan conflict (DL ¶29). ## What made the difference The lawful 6-bed fallback, and the classification of the parking harm as amenity-only. Once TR6(4)'s refusal threshold was not reached, nothing in the Framework "should be refused" list was engaged. S4 then overrode the DM15 conflict. ## Transferable points - Within settlements, parking stress that affects amenity but not safety does not engage TR6(4), and S4 can override a local parking-standard conflict (DL ¶25, 29). - An HO1 family-housing argument needs evidence of local shortage. Its mere listing in HO1 is not harm (DL ¶14). Compare PINS-6011088 and PINS-6010946, where evidence existed. - A certified smaller-HMO fallback makes incremental intensification marginal (DL ¶9). ## Policy findings - **S4(1): pass.** parking harm to living conditions does not substantially outweigh greater housing capacity; approved despite DM15 plan conflict (DL 24-25, 29) - **TR6(4): pass.** inadequate parking affects living conditions rather than safety and is not a severe network impact (DL 15-17, 25) - **HO1: neutral.** families with children listed in HO1, but no evidence of a local shortage of family homes or that they are needed more than HMOs (DL 13-14) ## Key facts - Lawful fallback of a 6-person C4 HMO (certificate March 2026); appeal adds one occupant (DL 3, 9) - Non-determination; council would have approved (DL 2) - Street heavily parked; bus stops about 120m away (DL 15-16) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008643 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/51140b23-066c-48c9-8939-92c2ce444f37 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008643.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 52 Hugh Road, Coventry - **Decision:** dismissed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Standfield - **Authority:** Coventry (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6008646 - **Application reference:** PL/2025/0001873/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of dwelling (C3) to small HMO (C4) for supported housing - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), P3, TR6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Coventry HMO DPD 2025 HMO2, Coventry Local Plan 2017 AC3, H11 - **Main issues:** balance of housing provision, parking - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, hmo, supported-housing, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A C3-to-C4 supported-housing HMO in a Coventry terrace was dismissed. The appellant had not shown the HMO would avoid a harmful concentration, or that parking and visitor demand could be absorbed on a full street. Under S4, the P3 and TR6(4) conflicts were described as "very substantial harm". That outweighed a supported-housing benefit whose need was not evidenced (DL ¶20-22). ## What made the difference Evidence gaps on both sides. The appellant, a social housing provider, gave "minimal evidence" on HMO concentration, need, management and parking (DL ¶8-9, 14, 20). The inspector resolved the uncertainty against the appellant. The finding of "very substantial harm" from a single 4-bed HMO is strong language given the evidence base. ## Policy findings - **S4(1): fail.** supported-housing benefit reduced for lack of need evidence; P3 and TR6(4) conflicts called very substantial harm (DL 19-22) - **TR6(4): fail.** on-street parking already at capacity; no parking survey or care-visitor management evidence (DL 12-15, 21) - **HO7: benefit.** reduced weight - no robust evidence of express need for supported accommodation (DL 20) ## Key facts - HMO concentration within 100m disputed (council 19% against 10% threshold); neither party gave detailed evidence (DL 6-8) - Article 4 Direction (2023) covers C3 to C4 (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008646 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/68997fca-5623-426e-a629-e75f42a7de25 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008646.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land north of Willies Well, Crawcrook, Ryton (shepherd's hut) - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Paul Martinson - **Authority:** Gateshead (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008659 - **Application reference:** DC/25/00113/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective change of use of land to mixed agricultural and holiday let (sui generis) with a shepherd's hut - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), HE6 - **Development plan policies:** Newcastle and Gateshead Core Strategy 2015 CS15, CS19, Gateshead Local Plan 2021 MSGP24, MSGP25 - **Main issues:** openness, heritage, VSC - **Tags:** vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, tourism-accommodation, retrospective, heritage-harm, great-weight-old-wording ## Summary Retrospective holiday-let shepherd's hut in an open field in the Green Belt, inside Bradley Park Conservation Area and beside a Grade II Registered Park and Garden. Dismissed. The parties agreed it was inappropriate development. It caused moderate openness harm and low-to-moderate heritage harm, against limited tourism benefits, so there were no VSC. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The GB7 exceptions are "broadly consistent with those contained within the previous iteration of the Framework insofar as is relevant to this appeal" (DL ¶5). - **Openness: moderate harm.** "the walls and roof of the shepherds hut are easily visible from the gate as an isolated manmade structure within this overtly pastoral setting" (DL ¶9); harm in "both spatial and visual terms" (DL ¶10). - **Heritage (HE6): low to moderate harm** to the RPG setting and the CA, carrying "considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶20). DL ¶21 repeats the 2024 wording ("great weight should be given to the asset's conservation") rather than the 2026 HE6(1) "substantial weight". This is a drafting slip that did not affect the outcome. ## Planning balance GB6(2): "given the substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm, relative to the modest benefits of the scheme … the harm that has arisen is not clearly outweighed" (DL ¶28). ## What made the difference A small structure isolated in an open, undeveloped field with heritage sensitivity, set against the negligible benefits of a single let unit. No GB7 exception was argued, so there was no grey belt route to test. ## Transferable points - Even a small isolated structure in an open pastoral field can cause moderate spatial and visual openness harm (DL ¶9-10). - Tourism benefits from one small let unit carry only limited weight (DL ¶23). ## Policy findings - **GB7: fail.** agreed no GB7 exception applies; GB7 list "broadly consistent" with the previous Framework (DL 5-6) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** moderate spatial and visual openness harm from an isolated hut in an open pastoral field (DL 10-11, 27-28) - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** low to moderate harm to setting of Bradley Park Grade II RPG and Bradley Park CA; limited public benefits (DL 17-24) - **E4: benefit (limited weight).** tourism spend from one unit (~2 guests) (DL 23, 28) ## Key facts - Single shepherd's hut in a hollow in an open, rolling field next to Bradley Park RPG woodland, visible from the field gate and Bradley Hall access road - Development already carried out; appeal was retrospective - Parties agreed the development was inappropriate; grey belt not argued ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008659 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/54e12b9a-d285-4398-9b5c-819376852b88 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008659.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 18 Beech Hill, Hadley Wood, Enfield - **Decision:** dismissed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A J Boughton - **Authority:** Enfield (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6008667 - **Application reference:** 26/00547/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of a house and erection of two detached houses to the frontage plus a rear block of five flats over semi-basement parking - **Homes:** 7 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** L2(1)(d)(iii), DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Enfield DMD 2014 DMD5, DMD6, DMD8, DMD47, DMD81, DMD83, Enfield Core Strategy CP30, London Plan D3, Hadley Wood Neighbourhood Plan 2022-2039 HW11, HW12 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, pedestrian access, waste - **Tags:** l2-1-d-curtilage, l2-substantial-weight-withheld, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, neighbourhood-plan, backland, suburban-intensification ## Summary The scheme replaced a large suburban house with two frontage houses and a five-flat rear block, and was dismissed. The appellant relied on new L2(1)(d) (substantial weight for additional homes within existing plots). The Inspector held that the proposal failed the curtilage limb, L2(1)(d)(iii), because it more than doubled the footprint and harmed character. Substantial weight was therefore "not available", and the neighbourhood plan's cap on flat conversions was decisive. ## Issues and findings - **L2(1)(d) substantial weight: withheld.** The Inspector quoted (iii): development in residential curtilages should "not occupy more than twice the footprint of all existing buildings on the site … unless additional development can be accommodated without harm to the overall character of the area". "The proposal would more than double the existing footprint and would not be the 'sensitive redevelopment' stipulated in the Framework because there would be significant harm to the residential character of the area … the 'substantial weight' indicated by these provisions is not available" (DL ¶13). - **Character: FAIL.** The rear block "would unacceptably dominate the surrounding area behind the frontage buildings" next to the Green Belt (DL ¶10). HWNP HW11's 20%-per-200m cap would be breached, at 28.5%: "a significant in-principle conflict … to which significant weight should be attached" (DL ¶11). - **Access and waste: FAIL.** There was no defined pedestrian route, and residents would carry bins at least 50 m uphill (DL ¶¶16–17). ## Planning balance s38(6). The proposal conflicted with the development plan as a whole. L2's substantial weight was not engaged, so nothing on the other side outweighed the conflict (DL ¶¶14, 18). ## What made the difference The footprint-doubling and character-harm limbs of L2(1)(d)(iii) worked as a gateway. Failing them removed the "substantial weight" the appellant had relied on. A made neighbourhood plan with numeric clustering limits carried significant weight, and a neighbouring scheme permitted before the plan was made set no precedent. ## Transferable points - L2(1)(d)(iii) is read as a condition for L2's substantial weight: exceeding twice the existing footprint with harm to character means the weight is "not available" (DL ¶13). - "Sensitive redevelopment" in L2(1)(d) is not met where there is significant character harm (DL ¶13). - Neighbourhood-plan numeric limits on flat conversions retain significant weight after August 2026 (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **L2(1)(d)(iii): fail.** "The proposal would more than double the existing footprint and would not be the 'sensitive redevelopment' stipulated" — substantial weight "not available" (DL 13) - **L2(1)(d): fail.** significant harm to residential character means the scheme is not "sensitive redevelopment" (DL 13) - **Hadley Wood NP HW11: conflict (significant weight).** flats replacing family homes would exceed 20% of properties in any 200 m (2/7 = 28.5%) (DL 11) - **Enfield DMD83: conflict.** taller rear block dominates area next to Green Belt golf course (DL 10) - **TR4: fail.** no defined pedestrian route to rear block; bins carried 50 m+ uphill — decided under DMD47, DMD8 (DL 16-17) ## Key facts - Large suburban plot backing onto Hadley Wood Golf Course (Metropolitan Green Belt) - Neighbouring No 22 flats permitted 2018 before NP made; No 26 appeal APP/Q5300/W/24/3345524 dismissed - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework; appellant relied on L2 - Possible bat roost; ecology survey absence noted but not decided (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b51a3280-39bf-404e-8bb5-972421ad1ad3 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008667 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008667.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Stables west of Green Street, Shenley - **Decision:** allowed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Phillips - **Authority:** Hertsmere (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008668 - **Application reference:** 25/1719/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of stables and erection of a two-bedroom bungalow with widened grasscrete access - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, PDL, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(e), S3 - **Development plan policies:** Hertsmere Core Strategy 2013 CS13, SP1, CS22, SADM 2016 SADM11, SADM26, SADM30, Shenley Plan 2021 SH1 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness and purposes, character and appearance - **Tags:** transitional, transitional-no-consultation, pdl-e-limb, equestrian, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, stables-as-pdl ## Summary Replacement of a stable block with a bungalow in the Hertsmere Green Belt. Allowed. The decision is dated 17 August 2026, the day the new Framework took effect, but it was reasoned entirely under the December 2024 Framework. It is included as a transitional marker. The stables and access were treated as previously developed land (2024 ¶154(g), now GB7(1)(e)) with no substantial harm to openness, so the scheme was not inappropriate, and the ¶11(d) tilted balance favoured one dwelling. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The letter does not mention the 2026 Framework. The main issues refer to "the National Planning Policy Framework 2024" (DL ¶6). - **PDL, 2024 ¶154(g) → GB7(1)(e): PASS.** "the field that the site crosses … is more likely to have been used for the keeping of horses for recreational purposes than it has for agriculture … The hard landscaping of a new driveway is ancillary development to the creation of a new dwelling" (DL ¶11). "Given that the proposal would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt … there is no requirement to assess the proposal under paragraph 155 of the Framework that includes if the site is in a sustainable location" (DL ¶15). - **Character: limited harm** (DL ¶14, ¶17-18). - **Tilted balance (2024 ¶11(d)).** "Given the limited harm to the rural appearance of the area and that there is a significant lack in the five year supply of housing land, the benefits clearly outweigh the harm" (DL ¶25). ## Planning balance Plan-led s38(6) with the ¶11(d) tilted balance as a material consideration. Limited character harm against one dwelling, a lack of five-year supply, and limited economic and rural-vitality benefits (DL ¶22-25). ## What made the difference Stables for recreational horses counted as PDL, so the redevelopment exception applied and the grey belt sustainable-location limb was never reached. Under the 2026 Framework the same route is GB7(1)(e), which includes "a material change of use to residential", and it has no sustainable-location limb either. The outcome would probably be the same, but the balance would now be S5/S3 "substantially outweighed" rather than ¶11(d). ## Transferable points - The PDL route in GB7(1)(e) (2024 ¶154(g)) avoids the grey belt sustainable-location test altogether (DL ¶15, ¶19). - Access tracks across horse paddocks can be treated as part of the PDL, or as ancillary to it (DL ¶11). - A decision dated 17 Aug 2026 may still apply the 2024 Framework without consultation. Check the date the letter was written against the date of publication. ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(e): pass.** decided under 2024 para 154(g) (now GB7(1)(e)); stables are PDL; access across horse-grazing field treated as PDL/ancillary; no substantial harm to openness (DL 9-15) - **GB7(1)(g): not-engaged.** 2024 para 155 (incl. sustainable location) not assessed because 154(g) met (DL 15, 19) - **GB6(2): not-engaged.** not inappropriate, so no VSC balance - **DP3: harm (limited weight).** grasscrete access has some urbanising effect; limited harm to rural character; LP and NP conflict (DL 14, 17-18) - **S3: pass.** 2024 para 11(d) tilted balance applied (no 5YHLS); benefits of one dwelling "clearly outweigh" limited harm (DL 22-25) ## Key facts - Decision issued on the Framework's publication day (17 Aug 2026) but reasoned wholly under the December 2024 Framework (paras 142, 154(g), 155, 11(d)) - Stables approved 2000 (TP/2000/0451); Council accepted the stables were PDL - Council cannot show 5YHLS (figure not stated) - Sustainable location raised but not a reason for refusal and not assessed; site already visited regularly to tend horses (DL 19) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008668 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9410d9ae-c19e-4b83-9b99-e820a6e2978a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008668.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Crown House, 1 Stafford Place, Weston-super-Mare (24 uPVC replacement windows) - **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Standfield - **Authority:** North Somerset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008669 - **Application reference:** 26/P/0327/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Replacement of 24 timber sash windows with uPVC double-glazed sashes on a prominent Victorian corner building - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(4), HE4(2) - **Development plan policies:** North Somerset Core Strategy 2017 CS5, CS12, Sites and Policies Plan Part 1 2016 DM3, DM4, DM32, Great Weston CA Appraisal and Management Plan - **Main issues:** conservation area and setting of listed building - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, energy-efficiency, upvc-windows, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Replacing 24 original timber sashes with woodgrain-effect uPVC on a prominent Victorian corner in the Great Weston Conservation Area, opposite a Grade II library, was dismissed. The thermal-efficiency benefit is recognised as important under HE6(4). It did not outweigh the harm, because double-glazed timber would give similar gains without the loss of authenticity. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Insofar as the contents are relevant to this appeal, the NPPF remains broadly consistent" (DL ¶2). - **Conservation area: HARM.** "the overall appearance would be of modern uPVC double glazing. Further, the loss of authentic building materials would undermine the heritage value of this visually prominent building and the wider GWCA" (DL ¶10). - **Setting: HARM.** The Annex B definition of setting was applied (DL ¶13). The library's setting would suffer "an erosion of its physical setting, albeit to a limited degree" (DL ¶14). - **Balance.** "Policy H6 1 [sic] … substantial weight … H6 4 … clear and convincing justification" (DL ¶15). The thermal efficiency gain is "an important public benefit" (DL ¶16). However, "I have not been presented with substantive evidence to suggest that the proposed uPVC windows would significantly outperform well installed and maintained double glazed timber windows" (DL ¶17). ## Planning balance An HE6(4) balance. Harm to the conservation area, and limited harm to the listed building's setting, both with substantial weight, against temporary economic benefit and real thermal and wellbeing gains. The harm prevailed (DL ¶18). ## What made the difference A less harmful alternative existed: double-glazed timber would achieve the efficiency benefit, and the appraisal specifically targets uPVC in the Boulevard. Energy benefits only count to the extent that the harmful option is needed to secure them. ## Transferable points - Energy-efficiency benefits under HE6(4) are discounted where a less harmful material or method would deliver comparable gains (DL ¶17; compare PINS-6008562 ¶25). - A conservation area appraisal that names a specific threat, such as uPVC, weighs heavily (DL ¶7, ¶12). ## Policy findings - **HE9: harm.** loss of authentic timber sashes on a positive building in the Boulevard character area, where the appraisal flags uPVC as a key threat (DL 7-10) - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** limited erosion of setting of Grade II former library; Annex B setting definition applied (DL 13-15) - **HE6(4): fail.** thermal efficiency is an important public benefit, but no evidence uPVC would outperform well-installed double-glazed timber (DL 16-18) ## Key facts - Corner building opposite the Grade II Hans Price library; original sashes with horns (DL 8) - Nearby uPVC replacements and a 2023 appeal allowed at 24 Clarence Road South distinguished (DL 11-12) - Framework "broadly consistent"; no re-consultation (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008669 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2f0733ed-07e3-4871-be2d-8d90ffaf6d43 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008669.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to Farm View Cottage (Frith Manor), Lingfield Road, East Grinstead - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Lawrence - **Authority:** Tandridge (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008688 - **Application reference:** TA/2024/1226 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Erection of a two-storey detached self-build dwelling (Passivhaus-style, M4(3)) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.92 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, GB6(2), Habitats Regulations - **Development plan policies:** Tandridge Core Strategy 2008 CSP1, Tandridge Local Plan Part 2 2014 DP10, DP13, DP19 - **Main issues:** grey belt, sustainable location, openness, Ashdown Forest SPA, VSC balance - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-fail, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, small-scheme, self-build, housing-shortfall, footway-quality, connectivity-tool-absent, costs-award, habitats-spa ## Summary A single self-build house on grassed land beside Frith Manor, outside any settlement and about 2 km from East Grinstead. The Inspector accepted the land as grey belt and found unmet need established by the 1.92-year supply. However, the site failed GB7(1)(g)(iii)/TR3 even though a lit, continuous footway and bus stops were close by. The route and the service quality were not "genuinely attractive". Inappropriate development, significant openness harm and an unmitigated SPA effect were not clearly outweighed. The costs decision (separate PDF, `PINS-6008688-costs.pdf`) partly allowed costs against the Council for keeping a highway reason after the Highway Authority withdrew its objection. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were invited to comment on the revised Framework (DL ¶3). - **PDL / GB7(1)(e): not PDL.** "the evidence before me does not clearly demonstrate that it forms part of the residential curtilage of that property" (DL ¶9). - **Grey belt: PASS.** "Although it would involve some limited encroachment into the countryside, that does not preclude the site from being grey belt" (DL ¶10). - **Unmet need (ii): PASS.** "there is undisputed evidence of a significant unmet housing need within the district" (DL ¶11). - **Sustainable location (iii) / TR3: FAIL, "finely balanced".** On the walking route: "Whilst Lingfield Road benefits from street lighting and a continuous footway, the footway is relatively narrow and runs immediately adjacent to a busy road. Consequently, although walking is possible, the route is not one that would be particularly attractive or convenient for many users" (DL ¶14). On buses: "One service operates only on weekdays, neither service operates on Sundays, and frequencies are modest" (DL ¶15). Conclusion: "Whilst Policy TR3(a) does not require private car use to be eliminated, particularly in rural areas, I am not persuaded that future occupiers would have a genuinely attractive choice of transport modes such that reliance on the private car would be significantly reduced" (DL ¶17). - **Connectivity Tool.** "No Connectivity Tool assessment has been provided by either party … there is no objective connectivity score available to assist in resolving the dispute" (DL ¶18). - **Openness: significant harm.** Vegetation screening is "liable to change over time and seasonally"; a managed, garden-like appearance does not stop undeveloped land contributing to openness (DL ¶¶21–24). - **SPA: FAIL.** "a reasonable prospect falls short of the certainty required when considering the integrity of a European site" (DL ¶32). - **Oddity.** DL ¶12 says the PDL failure "would itself render the proposal inappropriate", which seems to conflate (e) and (g). DL ¶19 confirms that (g)(iii) fails in any event. ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to harm from inappropriateness and significant openness harm, plus SPA harm. On the other side: housing benefit (moderate), self-build (limited) and design/energy/accessibility features (limited, unsecured). "the other considerations … do not clearly outweigh the harm" (DL ¶38). ## What made the difference Route quality, not distance. The site had lighting, a continuous footway, nearby bus stops and a station 2 km away. Even so, the Inspector found the narrow footway beside a busy road and the thin bus timetable made the alternatives unattractive. The distinction from Beacon Platt (3339699), where all grey-belt limbs were met, was expressly the sustainability finding (DL ¶¶22, 45). A wider footway, a better bus service or a Connectivity Tool score could have tipped this "finely balanced" limb. ## Transferable points - A continuous, lit footway does not by itself make TR3 pass; its width and proximity to traffic count against attractiveness (DL ¶14). - TR3 asks whether alternatives are "genuinely attractive" enough that car reliance "would be significantly reduced", not merely whether they exist (DL ¶17). - Bus services with no Sunday running and modest frequencies are "unlikely to represent a particularly attractive option for many day-to-day journeys" (DL ¶15). - The absence of a Connectivity Tool assessment is noted as leaving "no objective connectivity score" (DL ¶18). - Unmet need already counted under GB7(1)(g)(ii) is not double-counted; one dwelling gets moderate weight against a 1.92-year supply (DL ¶34). - Vegetation screening is given little weight in openness terms because it is seasonal and changeable (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** does not strongly contribute to (a), (b) or (d); limited encroachment does not preclude grey belt (DL 10) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** one dwelling would not fundamentally undermine purposes of remaining GB across plan area (DL 10) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** 1.92-year supply = undisputed significant unmet need; no need to resolve self-build-specific need (DL 11) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): fail.** 2 km to East Grinstead centre and station; lit continuous but narrow footway beside busy road; two infrequent bus routes, none on Sundays; "finely balanced" (DL 14-17) - **TR3: fail.** no "genuinely attractive choice of transport modes"; no Connectivity Tool assessment by either party noted (DL 17-18) - **GB7(1)(e): fail.** grassed land not shown to be residential curtilage, so not PDL (DL 9) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriate development plus "significant" harm to spatial and visual openness (DL 19-26) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** one dwelling against 1.92-year supply (DL 34) - **self-build: benefit (limited weight).** UU secures self-build, but one plot is a very limited contribution (DL 35) - **DP3: benefit (limited weight).** energy efficiency, M4(3), BNG and design quality unsecured or not exceptional (DL 36) - **Habitats Regulations (Ashdown Forest SPA): fail.** SAMM secured but SANG route uncertain (no receiving site, no Imberhorne Lane capacity purchased) (DL 27-32) - **HE6: neutral.** setting of Grade II Frith Manor preserved (DL 40) ## Key facts - Tandridge supply c.1.92 years - East Grinstead town centre and railway station c.2 km; Baldwins Hill facilities closer - Lingfield Road lit, with a continuous but narrow footway immediately beside a busy road - Two bus routes nearby; one weekday-only, neither on Sundays, modest frequencies - No Connectivity Tool output from either party - Earlier appeal on same site (3332537, May 2024) found reduced openness - Partial costs awarded against the Council for keeping a highway reason after the Highway Authority withdrew its objection ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008688 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/35803164-ca54-45cb-8ab7-346894116dd1 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b7597c4a-1195-481e-9d2d-d3db6a14d9d3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008688.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Primrose Farm, Bradcutts Lane, Cookham Dean - **Decision:** allowed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Brennan - **Authority:** Windsor and Maidenhead (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008689 - **Application reference:** 26/00116/OUT - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Appeal against personal-occupancy, cessation and restoration conditions (4-6) on outline permission for a dwelling replacing part of a landscape contractor's workshop - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, PDL - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** DM6 - **Development plan policies:** RBWM Borough Local Plan 2013-2033 QP3, EP1 - **Main issues:** necessity/reasonableness of occupancy, cessation and restoration conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, no-framework-reference, occupancy-condition, conditions-appeal, costs-application ## Summary A personal occupancy condition, and conditions requiring the dwelling to be demolished and the land restored when the appellant leaves, were replaced by a single condition tying occupation to employment in the on-site landscaping business. The replacement condition is enough to protect future occupiers from yard noise (DL ¶12-17). ## What made the difference The planning concern was the relationship between the house and the business, not the person occupying it. The Framework is not cited at all. The conditions tests were applied without any policy reference. ## Policy findings - **DM6: pass.** code mapped by harvester — personal condition replaced by business-tied occupancy condition; demolition/restoration conditions "overzealous and unreasonable" and unnecessary (DL 12-17) - **P3: neutral.** code mapped by harvester — yard noise 13-18dB above background; low effect if occupier linked to business (DL 10-12) ## Key facts - Dwelling had been accepted as not inappropriate in the Green Belt at application stage (DL 16) - Tie limited to the existing landscape contractor use so that a different operation would need a fresh noise assessment (DL 13) - The letter does not refer to the Framework in any version ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008689 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8ac4421e-f33a-425b-ae2c-b00d5542981a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008689.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Pigs, Leesthorpe Road, Pickwell - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Fuller - **Authority:** Melton (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6008693 - **Application reference:** 25/01286/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for up to two self-build dwellings on a paddock outside the Pickwell Limits of Development - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 7.6 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j)(i), S5(4), TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Melton Local Plan 2018 SS2, SS3, Somerby Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2021 HR2, HR4, ENV3 - **Main issues:** suitability of location - **Tags:** PIP, self-build, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, s5-1-j, s5-4-exceptional, five-year-supply-met, small-scheme, drafting-slip, s6-neighbourhood-plan, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Permission in principle for two self-build homes on a paddock next to, but outside, Pickwell's Limits of Development. The self-build shortfall was accepted as an unmet need, but the site failed S5(1)(j)(i) and TR3. The indicative access is at the far end of a narrow, busy road with no footpath, the village has very few facilities, and the bus is bookable only. With a 7.6-year supply, the benefits were modest and there were no exceptional circumstances under S5(4). Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were provided with an opportunity to comment. I have had regard to the 2026 version of the Framework" (DL ¶5). - **Route.** "On my site visit I found this section of highway to be busy and, as a pedestrian, I was forced to stand in the hedge to allow vehicles passing one another to enter and exit the village" (DL ¶10). "From here there is only a restricted, bookable service" (DL ¶11). - **TR3: FAIL.** "Whilst not a significant development, the future occupants of the proposal would nonetheless still remain heavily reliant on the car. Whilst I acknowledge that in rural areas greater dependency on the private car is a reality, this site is not well connected to the immediate village or services and facilities in the wider area" (DL ¶12). - **Self-build weight.** "substantial weight should be given to the fact that up to two self-build dwellings would contribute towards meeting the significant demand for SBCH in the borough" (DL ¶15). - **S5(1)(j)(i): FAIL.** "the indicative access from the site would be at the furthest point away from the village and along a section of the road that is narrow and in the absence of a footpath. The development would thus not be physically well-related to the existing settlement" (DL ¶21). - **S5(4): FAIL.** "These benefits would not substantially outweigh the identified adverse effects of the location and there are therefore no exceptional circumstances in this case" (DL ¶22). - **S6 slip.** The letter says S6 "weighs in favour of the benefits of housing proposals over any conflict with that plan" (DL ¶23). S6 in fact makes a conflict with a recent neighbourhood plan with allocations likely to outweigh the benefits. The slip is immaterial because the plan is over five years old. ## Planning balance S5(4), then s38(6). Modest housing and economic benefits (7.6-year supply) against the location harm and conflict with SS3 and the neighbourhood plan's HR2, HR4 and ENV3. ## What made the difference The access point. Although the site adjoins the village edge, the indicative access sits where the road is narrow and has no footpath, so the inspector read the site as not physically well related and not well connected. A five-year supply left only S5(1)(j) on self-build need, and that limb failed on (i). ## Transferable points - S5(1)(j)(i) "physically well-related" read partly through access and walking conditions, not just adjacency to the boundary (DL ¶21). This is one of the competing readings of the limb. - TR3 applies to small schemes too: "not a significant development" but still "heavily reliant on the car" (DL ¶12). - A restricted, bookable bus service is not a genuine alternative (DL ¶11–12). - The HO7 weight word can drop from substantial to "modest" in the S5(4) balance where the supply exceeds five years (DL ¶15, ¶22). The letter does not explain the shift. ## Policy findings - **TR3: fail.** access at the far end of a narrow, busy road with no footpath (inspector had to stand in the hedge); only a restricted bookable bus; unlit footpath to Somerby a considerable distance; occupants "heavily reliant on the car" (DL 10-12) - **S5(1)(j): fail.** self-build shortfall accepted as unmet need, but (j)(i) fails (DL 21) - **S5(1)(j)(i): fail.** not "physically well-related" because the access is at the point furthest from the village along a narrow road with no footpath; an accessibility reading of the limb (DL 21) - **S5(4): fail.** benefits "modest" with a 7.6-year supply; no exceptional circumstances (DL 22) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** letter says "H07" (DL 13); substantial weight to self-build contribution at DL 15, but benefits called "modest" in the S5(4) balance at DL 22 - **S6: not-engaged.** neighbourhood plan made more than five years ago; the letter describes S6 as weighing "in favour of the benefits of housing proposals over any conflict", which inverts S6 (DL 23) - **DM4: neutral (very-limited weight).** Local Plan Partial Update (submitted March 2026) very limited weight (DL 6) ## Key facts - Council supply 7.6 years (DL 22) - Self-build shortfall acknowledged by the Council; supply figure uncertain because many permissions unsecured (DL 15) - Site is a neighbourhood plan "important open space" (ENV3), the "Old quarry site", with no public access; loss conflicts with ENV3 (DL 16-18) - No character or landscape harm; neutral (DL 19) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008693 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f2d0a11c-1189-45e8-bf0a-c160890bc190 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008693.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # St John Street outside No 407, Angel, Islington - **Decision:** allowed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M Cryan - **Authority:** Islington (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6008701 - **Application reference:** P2025/3607/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Replacement of BT kiosk with Street Hub 3 unit (A, 6008701) and two 75-inch digital advertisement screens (B, 6008697) - **Site context:** conservation-area, listed-building-setting, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE9, TR4 - **Development plan policies:** Islington Local Plan 2023 SDMP PLAN1, SP4, DH1, DH2, DH6, T4, ST3, London Plan 2021 D3, D4, HC1, T2 - **Main issues:** conservation area and listed building setting, pedestrian safety - **Tags:** tier-2, street-hub, telecoms, advertisement, conservation-area, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A BT Street Hub with digital adverts replacing a kiosk in the New River conservation area at Angel was allowed. The hub and screens would be read against the modern Angel Building, and the footway constraint was no worse than existing pinch points nearby. The Inspector did not consult on the Framework, as the relevant provisions were "not altered significantly" (DL ¶7). ## What made the difference The modern commercial backdrop justified setting aside the conservation area guidance against internally illuminated signs "in this instance" (DL ¶15). The footway already narrowed either side at the bus shelter and cabinets, and those were "the more significant 'limiting factor'" (DL ¶23). ## Policy findings - **HE9: pass.** New River CA preserved; slim dark hub a "modest improvement"; illuminated ads acceptable against modern Angel Building despite design guidelines (DL 13-15, 19) - **HE6: not-engaged.** setting of grade II Old Red Lion preserved (DL 18-19) - **TR4: pass.** public footway below TfL 4.2 m ideal without private forecourt but above 2 m; adjacent constraints are the limiting factor (DL 20-23) ## Key facts - Existing kiosk tired; hub 3.0 m x 1.2 m x 0.4 m - First digital advertising in that part of the CA; seen against modern five-storey Angel Building - 5-year advert consent (10 years sought, refused) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f4c38bec-71e6-4025-97c3-4d55a23324fe - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008701 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008701.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 1 Gould Road, Feltham - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Lancaster - **Authority:** Hounslow (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6008707 - **Application reference:** P/2026/0295 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of family house to 8-person HMO (sui generis) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), DP3(2)(a), DP3(3), TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 SC10, HMO SPD 2017 - **Main issues:** accessibility of HMO location - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, hmo, sustainable-location-fail, dp3-2-a-connectivity, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary This was an 8-person HMO in a detached Feltham house with PTAL 1b, about 1.4 km from the nearest designated town centre. The appeal was dismissed on location alone. The inspector used DP3(2)(a), a design principle about good connections and prioritising walking and public transport. Through DP3(3), which says refuse, poor accessibility became a substantial-weight harm alongside TR3. Together they substantially outweighed the limited housing-choice benefit under S4. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Further comments were invited on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶2). - **Accessibility: FAIL.** "given the site has been given a PTAL Rating of 1b, I find that it has not been demonstrated that the appeal site would have access to good public transport links" (DL ¶7). The site is "approximately 1.4km from the nearest designated Metropolitan or District Town Centre" (DL ¶8). - **DP3 used for location.** "This is contrary to the Framework's principles for the creation of well-designed places by providing good connections to the wider settlement ... and prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport, as set out in Policy DP3(2)(a) ... Policy DP3(3) ... states that development proposals should be refused if they conflict with these principles. Therefore, I attach substantial weight to this harm" (DL ¶15). - **TR3: substantial weight** (DL ¶16). ## Planning balance This was the S4 balance. The benefits got limited weight because "no additional dwelling would be created" (DL ¶14). DP3(3) and TR3 each got substantial weight. The result was "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶17). ## What made the difference The low PTAL and the absence of bus-route and frequency evidence. The novel move is treating a transport-accessibility shortcoming as a DP3(2)(a) design-principle conflict. That brings in DP3(3)'s "should be refused" wording, and so S4(2)(c)-type force, for a location objection inside a settlement. ## Transferable points - DP3(2)(a) (good connections, priority to walking and public transport) plus DP3(3) can make poor accessibility a refusal-type design conflict within settlements (DL ¶15). - The appellant must evidence bus frequency and routes to overcome a low PTAL (DL ¶7). - An HMO that creates no additional dwelling gets limited housing weight (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **DP3(3): fail (substantial weight).** poor accessibility conflicts with DP3(2)(a) good connections and priority to walking and public transport, so DP3(3) says refuse (DL 15) - **TR3: fail (substantial weight).** PTAL 1b; about 1.4km to nearest designated town centre; bus routes and frequencies not evidenced (DL 7-9, 16) - **S4(1): fail.** limited benefit (no additional dwelling, modest housing choice) substantially outweighed (DL 13-17) ## Key facts - PTAL 1b; SPD asks for PTAL 4 and within 400m of a Metropolitan or District centre; site about 1.4km away (DL 6-8) - No overconcentration and no amenity or parking objection (DL 12) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008707 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8b97f532-d73e-48a5-a3f5-269aca5e129f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008707.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Eastlands, Bull Moor Lane, Flaxton (replacement rear extension) - **Decision:** allowed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Martin Seaton (on the recommendation of appeal planning officer Andrew Morrison) - **Authority:** North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6008713 - **Application reference:** ZE25/01413/House - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of a single-storey rear extension and a larger contemporary oak-framed replacement to a Victorian house in Flaxton Conservation Area (non-determination) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1) - **Development plan policies:** Ryedale Local Plan Strategy SP12, SP16 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, conservation area - **Tags:** tier-2, householder, appeal-planning-officer, transitional-no-consultation, conservation-area, heritage-no-harm, non-determination, old-heritage-wording, old-wording-slip ## Summary A contemporary oak-framed replacement rear extension to a Victorian house in Flaxton Conservation Area, appealed for non-determination. On an appeal planning officer's recommendation, the inspector found it subordinate and contextually responsive, preserving the CA. Allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The changes "do not have a material bearing on the substance of the main issue" (DL ¶5). - **Design.** Features not on the host house are acceptable: "this is not an explicit requirement of the development plan and each development should be assessed on its own design merits" (DL ¶14). - **Heritage: no harm.** The Framework "requires great weight to be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets" (DL ¶17). This is 2024 wording (HE6(1) says substantial weight); incidental, as no harm was found. ## What made the difference The extension's single-storey scale kept it subordinate, and the rear elevation contributes less to the CA than the principal elevation. ## Transferable points - Absent an explicit plan requirement, a contemporary extension need not replicate the host's traditional detailing (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): neutral.** subordinate contemporary extension preserves the CA; letter says the Framework requires great weight to conservation (DL 16-17) ## Key facts - Appeal against non-determination; the Council would have refused on character and CA grounds (DL 3-4) - Switch paragraph - changes, including minor alterations to heritage matters, have no material bearing; no consultation (DL 5) - Development plan does not require extensions to be strictly in keeping with the host's traditional character (DL 14) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008713 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/bef11016-42f1-40c9-a16e-aab06faff978 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008713.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 34 Banwell Road, Odd Down, Bath (C3/C4 dual use, 4-bed HMO) - **Decision:** allowed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Dickson - **Authority:** Bath and North East Somerset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008719 - **Application reference:** 25/04545/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of 3-bed dwelling to dual C3/C4 use as a 4-bed dwelling or HMO - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** BANES Local Plan Partial Update 2023 H2, BANES Placemaking Plan D6, HMO SPD 2023 - **Main issues:** living conditions of neighbours (noise) - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, plan-led, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A four-bed C3/C4 dual-use HMO in Odd Down, Bath was allowed. Noise would be little different from a family home, and although the neighbour would technically be "sandwiched" between two HMOs, the site layout avoided harm (DL ¶9-11). The case was decided on the local plan. ## What made the difference Open space, a footpath and a perpendicular orientation separated the neighbour from the other HMO, so breaching the SPD sandwich test caused no actual harm (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **P3: pass.** noise from a 4-person HMO little different from a family home; SPD sandwich test breach not harmful given open space and perpendicular orientation (DL 8-12) ## Key facts - Neighbour No 36 would be sandwiched between two HMOs, contrary to the SPD test, but separated by open space and a footpath (DL 10-11) - Revised Framework changes "not material"; no comments sought (DL 3) - EPC rating C or better required by condition (DL 15) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008719 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b111ce29-c0fc-462c-9a65-09fd4db4a96e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008719.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land to the rear of Abbey Gardens, Southport Road, Lydiate - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Lancaster - **Authority:** Sefton (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008723 - **Application reference:** DC/2025/02052 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for up to 4 bungalows on former pig and poultry farm land behind a scheme under construction - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt rejected) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** AnnexB:grey-belt, GB7(1)(g), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Sefton Local Plan 2017 MN7 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development in the Green Belt, openness, very special circumstances - **Tags:** PIP, grey-belt-rejected, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, pdl-blended-into-landscape, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip, tier-2 ## Summary Permission in principle for up to four bungalows on open former farmland at the edge of Lydiate was refused on appeal. The key finding was that Lydiate and Maghull form a single large built-up area, so the site strongly contributes to Green Belt purpose (a) and is not grey belt. The scheme was inappropriate development, harmed openness, and its moderate benefits did not clearly outweigh the harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "the Council and the appellant were invited to make further comments. My decision reflects the latest version of the Framework" (DL ¶2). - **Village or large built-up area?** "Whilst Lydiate may have originated as a distinct village, the evidence before me indicates that development has resulted in a continuous urban form with Maghull. Having regard to the way in which the Local Plan identifies and treats the settlements, I find that Lydiate forms part of the same large built-up area as Maghull" (DL ¶14). - **Grey belt: FAIL on purpose (a).** "If developed, the proposal would project the settlement edge further into the Green Belt, creating an extended finger of development beyond the established and emerging built form" (DL ¶18). "because I have found that the appeal site makes a strong contribution to Green Belt purpose (a), it does not meet the Framework's definition of Grey Belt land" (DL ¶20). - **Not PDL.** Former farm buildings removed and remnants "have mostly blended into the landscape" (DL ¶6); former use given very limited weight (DL ¶27). - **Openness: HARM** (DL ¶24). - **Benefits: MODERATE.** Four homes without a five-year supply, small site, "good accessibility to services, facilities and public transport, including bus services operating along Southport Road" (DL ¶26). - **S5(5).** "as I have found that the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, Policy S5(5) provides that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply" (DL ¶33). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to inappropriateness and openness harm; moderate weight to the housing and related benefits. "the other considerations would not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and other harm" (DL ¶31). ## What made the difference Whether Lydiate is a village. Because the Local Plan treats Maghull and Lydiate as one large town and the built form is continuous, the rule that "villages should not be regarded as large built-up areas" (DL ¶11) did not apply, and an uncontained site at the edge became a strong purpose (a) contributor. Had Lydiate been found a separate village, the site would probably have been grey belt, and its good bus access would have helped on (g)(iii). ## Transferable points - A historically separate village that has merged physically with a town, and is treated with it as one settlement in the Local Plan, can be part of a "large built-up area" for purpose (a), despite its own parish council and neighbourhood plan (DL ¶12–14). - Annex E(3) "extended finger" reasoning: an open, uncontained site that projects beyond the settlement edge strongly contributes to purpose (a) (DL ¶15–18). - Adjoining development under construction does not make the next field acceptable (DL ¶28). - Former agricultural buildings that have gone, leaving remnants that have blended into the landscape, do not make a site PDL (DL ¶7, ¶27). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: fail.** strong contribution to purpose (a) - Lydiate forms one large built-up area with Maghull (Local Plan treats them as one large town; continuous urban form); site open, uncontained, would be an "extended finger" per Annex E(3) (DL 11-20) - **GB2: not-engaged.** purposes (b) and (d) - no strong contribution (DL 19) - **GB7(1)(g): fail.** not grey belt, so (g) unavailable; (ii)-(iii) not reached (DL 20) - **AnnexB:PDL: fail.** former farm (agricultural) and remnants blended into the landscape; not PDL; former use very limited weight (DL 6-7, 27) - **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** inappropriate; visual and spatial openness harm; VSC not shown (DL 21-25, 30-31) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** up to 4 homes, no 5YHLS, small site, good access to services and buses on Southport Road - moderate weight together (DL 26, 31) - **S5(5): not-engaged.** inappropriate GB development, so no presumption (DL 32-33) ## Key facts - Lydiate has its own Parish Council and Neighbourhood Plan, but the Local Plan treats Maghull and Lydiate as a single large town (DL 12) - Eccleston appeal (APP/D2320/W/25/3376087, a Rural Service Centre found a village) distinguished; very limited weight (DL 13) - Adjoining 5-bungalow scheme under construction (DC/2023/00249); acceptance of it does not justify further development (DL 6, 28) - Council cannot show a 5-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 26) - Letter refers to the "Local Plan for Sefton, adopted 2027" at DL 21 (typo for 2017) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008723 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008723.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # K2 Bazar, 538-540 Stratford Road, Sparkhill, Birmingham - **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Billings - **Authority:** Birmingham (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6008724 - **Application reference:** 2025/06808/PA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Front and side canopies and large single-storey rear extension to former Victorian bank in retail use (part retrospective) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE7(2) - **Development plan policies:** Birmingham Development Plan 2017 PG3, TP12, DM in Birmingham DPD 2021 DM2, DM6, DM14, DM15, Parking SPD 2021 - **Main issues:** character and appearance / NDHA, highway safety, living conditions - **Tags:** ndha-harm, heritage-harm-decisive, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, retrospective, design-refusal, compliance-not-a-benefit ## Summary Canopies and a large metal-clad rear extension to a former Victorian bank, which is a non-designated heritage asset, on Stratford Road, Sparkhill. Dismissed. The HE7(2) balance found "moderate to higher scale" harm to significance, and the benefits of bringing the building back into use got only limited weight because reuse did not depend on the extensions. Highways and living conditions were acceptable. ## Issues and findings - **NDHA harm — HE7(2).** The canopies "would obscure features that contribute to the significance of this non-designated heritage asset" (DL ¶13). "the harm caused to the significance of this non-designated heritage asset would be at the moderate to higher scale of harm … affecting three elevations of the host building" (DL ¶14). - **Benefits.** "it has not been demonstrated why the host building could not be utilised in a profitable and sustainable way without the proposed extensions. Therefore, I give limited weight to these social and economic benefits" (DL ¶33). - **Compliance is not a benefit.** Acceptable highways and amenity "are not benefits of the appeal scheme, rather they are matters that the proposal is required to meet" (DL ¶34). ## Planning balance HE7(2): "the moderate to higher scale harm … would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposed scheme" (DL ¶35). The inspector uses the HE6-style "public benefits" wording, although HE7 refers only to "benefits". ## What made the difference The benefits were not tied to the harmful works. Reuse of the vacant bank could be had without the extension and canopies, so it barely counted. The NDHA harm was graded on a scale ("moderate to higher") rather than as substantial or less than substantial. ## Transferable points - In an HE7(2) balance, benefits that could be achieved without the harmful element get limited weight (DL ¶33). - NDHA harm is graded on a spectrum ("moderate to higher scale") and weighed against benefits (DL ¶14, 32). - Acceptability on other issues is neutral, not a benefit (DL ¶34). ## Policy findings - **HE7(2): harm.** "harm to the significance would be at the moderate to higher scale" — metal-clad rear extension nearly doubling ground floor, canopies obscuring ornate stone cladding and windows on three elevations (DL 10-14, 32); not outweighed (DL 35) - **E1: benefit (limited weight).** code mapped by harvester — reuse of vacant building, small businesses, vibrancy; limited because building "could have been reused without the extensions and canopies" (DL 31, 33) - **DP3(1): fail.** code mapped by harvester — conflict with BDP PG3 on character; DP3 not cited by the inspector (DL 15) - **TR6: pass.** code mapped by harvester — 8 spaces against 19 standard; sustainable centre location, no highway safety harm (DL 24-29) - **P3: pass.** code mapped by harvester — no outdoor amenity loss (never implemented) and no noise harm (DL 16-23) ## Key facts - Former bank is a council-identified non-designated heritage asset outside any conservation area (DL 8) - Built canopies differ from submitted plans; appeal decided on the plans (DL 3) - Parties consulted on 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008724 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/25480404-a837-414e-8cd2-a5b9d4ecb5a9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008724.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 79 Main Street, Seamer (listed building consent, curtilage outbuildings) - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F Cullen - **Authority:** North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6008732 - **Application reference:** SCAZF25/01311/LB - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Listed building consent to demolish two early 19th-century curtilage outbuildings, build a double garage with roof office, and tarmac the rear yard (Appeal B; planning Appeal A is PINS-6009092) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE4(2), HE6(3) - **Development plan policies:** Scarborough Borough Local Plan 2017 DEC1, DEC5 - **Main issues:** special interest of the listed building and its setting, conservation area - **Tags:** tier-2, listed-building-consent, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, private-benefit-not-public, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, linked-appeals ## Summary Listed building consent to replace two old curtilage outbuildings of a Grade II former school at Seamer with a large double garage, and to tarmac the yard. Dismissed. The outbuildings were treated as part of the listed building. Their loss, the garage's dominance and the stark tarmac caused a low level of harm to the listed building and a very low level to the conservation area. Little weight went to the unproven safety and salvage benefits, and there was no clear and convincing justification. The planning appeal (PINS-6009092) was dismissed in the same letter. ## Issues and findings - **Curtilage listing.** "I am satisfied that the outbuildings should be ‘treated as part of the [listed] building’ for the purposes of the Act" (DL ¶6). - **Condition evidence.** The condition report "has not been undertaken by a suitably qualified professional, such as a structural engineer. This limits the weight I can attach to its conclusions" (DL ¶20). - **HE4(3), deliberate neglect.** "the evidence before me is insufficient to establish that the neglect in this case was deliberate. I have therefore taken the present condition of the outbuildings into account" (DL ¶21). - **Degree of harm (HE5(2)(c)).** "I find that the proposal would result in a low level of harm to the significance of the listed building, and a very low level of harm to the significance of the SCA" (DL ¶29). - **HE6(1) and HE6(3).** "Policy HE6(3) states that any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶30). - **Public benefits.** "I attach little weight to these public benefits, both individually and collectively" (DL ¶33). Benefits to the occupier "would be private in nature" (DL ¶34). - **Conclusion.** "clear and convincing justification has not been provided for the identified harm ... the public benefits resulting from the proposal would not outweigh the harm to the assets’ significance" (DL ¶35). ## What made the difference The outbuildings' historic link to the former school, and a replacement garage far larger than any nearby outbuilding. A professionally prepared structural survey showing that the buildings could not be repaired, and a smaller, subordinate replacement, would have been needed. ## Transferable points - HE4(3) (deliberate neglect) needs evidence that the neglect was deliberate. Without it, the asset's actual condition is taken into account (DL ¶21). - A demolition case resting on structural condition needs a suitably qualified professional's report (DL ¶20, 33). - Harm to parts of a listed building not visible from public routes still counts: listed buildings are protected "irrespective of whether they, or any parts of them, are readily visible from public spaces" (DL ¶26). ## Policy findings - **HE5(1): pass.** Council said the heritage statement fell short, but the inspector could determine significance and effects (DL 11) - **HE5(2)(c): harm.** loss of curtilage-listed outbuildings plus a dominant garage and stark tarmac; "a low level of harm" to the listed building and "a very low level of harm" to the conservation area (DL 19-29) - **HE4(3): not-engaged.** deliberate neglect not established, so the outbuildings' present condition was taken into account (DL 21) - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation, irrespective of the level of effect (DL 30) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** any harm "a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL 30) - **HE6(4): fail.** time-limited economic benefits, unproven safety benefit and unproven salvage reuse given little weight; benefits to the occupier private (DL 31-35) - **HE4(2): fail.** no clear and convincing justification (DL 35) ## Key facts - Grade II 78, 79 and 80 Main Street, a former school and school house; outbuildings shown on the 1854 OS map and treated as part of the listed building (DL 4-6, 13) - Condition report recommending demolition was prepared by a joiner, not a structural engineer, so given limited weight (DL 20) - Garage about 7.5 m x 6 m x 4.6 m to ridge, markedly larger than nearby outbuildings (DL 22) - Same decision letter as PINS-6009092 (Appeal A, s78), where DP3(1)/DP3(3) and S4 were also applied (DL 40-43) - Parties consulted on the August 2026 Framework (DL 8) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008732 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6f81b914-0e41-4e53-854d-a1988f0cad55 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008732.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Parsonage House, 90 High Street, Watchfield - **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Alexander O'Doherty - **Authority:** Vale of White Horse (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008736 - **Application reference:** P26/V0142/HH - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Rear part single/part two-storey extension, glazed garden link and conversion of outbuilding (non-determination) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** Vale LP CP46 - **Development plan policies:** Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1 CP46 - **Main issues:** protected species - **Tags:** tier-2, protected-species, bats, badgers, non-determination, surveys-not-by-condition ## Summary A householder non-determination appeal was dismissed because no bat or badger surveys had been provided. The Council's ecologist identified a reasonable likelihood of both species, and the appellant's lay observations could not rebut this (DL ¶¶15–30). The Inspector said the new Framework "does not raise any new matters which are determinative" (DL ¶11). ## What made the difference The appellant had no qualified ecologist to answer the Council's expert assessment. Circular 06/2005 says surveys should be left to conditions only "in exceptional circumstances", and none were shown (DL ¶31). ## Policy findings - **Vale LP CP46: conflict (significant weight).** reasonable likelihood of bats (lifted slates, wall holes) and badgers; no surveys; Circular 06/2005 — surveys only left to condition in exceptional circumstances (DL 22-32) - **N2(2): fail.** Framework said to raise no new determinative matters (DL 11); decided under Circular 06/2005 and CP46 ## Key facts - Early Georgian house; Council Senior Ecology Officer assessed photographs; appellant had no ecologist - Badger setts may extend 30 m laterally; vegetation cleared since 2024 - Benefits "mainly private in nature" (DL 35) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f4958ca3-19d9-45c6-b199-67406935d1bb - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008736 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008736.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 274/274A Chartridge Lane, Chesham (s73 variation, Plot 6 house) - **Decision:** allowed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Reeves - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008738 - **Application reference:** PL/26/00122/VRC - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73 variation of plans condition 13 to allow a taller Plot 6 dwelling in a 6-dwelling redevelopment - **Homes:** 6 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 GC3, H3, H13, H14 - **Main issues:** living conditions of neighbours (outlook) - **Tags:** tier-2, s73, living-conditions, framework-not-cited ## Summary An s73 appeal to substitute plans for a taller Plot 6 house in a six-dwelling Chesham scheme was allowed. The only harm found in an earlier dismissed appeal had come from the neighbour's flank kitchen window, which has since been removed. The neighbour's deep garden keeps the outlook acceptable (DL ¶8-12). The Framework is not cited. ## What made the difference The neighbour had removed the flank window, so "the only aspect of the earlier scheme that was judged harmful … has therefore fallen away" (DL ¶8). ## Policy findings - **P3: pass.** taller eaves at Plot 6 not overbearing to 54 The Warren, given its deep garden and the removal of the flank kitchen window that caused harm in the 2017 appeal (DL 7-12) ## Key facts - Fifth permission in a chain of s73 variations since the 2019 appeal consent (DL 3-4) - Harm found in a 2017 appeal related only to a flank window that no longer exists (DL 8, 11) - Framework not cited ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008738 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a5b1a683-4731-4a55-8ffa-f5a0cb508291 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008738.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Orchard View, Gallows Green Road, Great Easton - **Decision:** dismissed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Reid - **Authority:** Uttlesford (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008739 - **Application reference:** UTT/25/3095/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Self-build dwelling in the side curtilage of Orchard View at the end of a hamlet - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.77 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(e), S5(1)(j), S5(4), DP3(3), TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Uttlesford Local Plan 2021-2041 (March 2026) Core Policies 3, 26, 27, 28, 52, Development Policy 1 - **Main issues:** suitable location, character and appearance - **Tags:** s5-1-e-infill, s5-1-j, s5-4-exceptional, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, housing-shortfall, self-build-unsecured, design-refusal, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A self-build house on the grassed side curtilage at the end of a small hamlet near Great Easton was dismissed. It was not "limited infilling within groups of houses", because it adjoined built form on one side only and extended the hamlet. With a 4.77-year supply, S5(1)(j) was engaged, but the site was not physically well-related to a settlement. So S5(4) applied. Poor access to services (significant harm) and an urbanising DP3(3) conflict (moderate harm) outweighed a single unsecured self-build home. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties commented on the Framework and the 2024 and 2025 HDT (DL ¶3). - **S5(1)(e): FAIL.** "the proposed dwelling would adjoin built development on only one side ... the proposal would extend built form beyond the existing edge of the hamlet rather than being within it ... cannot reasonably be described as infill development within a group of houses, even though it would be limited" (DL ¶9). A house across the road "does not adjoin it" (DL ¶8). - **Not isolated.** The site was close to Orchard View (DL ¶8). - **Access: FAIL.** A farm shop is 1 mile away. "The nearest bus stops are over a 30-minute walk from the site, and it has not been demonstrated that these routes benefit from footways or street lighting" (DL ¶12). Harm to the plan-led strategy is "incrementally small, it would be ongoing and therefore significant" (DL ¶14). - **S5(1)(j): FAIL.** "With a supply of 4.77 years, paragraph j. ... is engaged. Whilst the proposal would meet an evidenced unmet need, the appeal site is not physically well-related to an existing settlement as it is located at the end of a hamlet, and it is separated from the more built-up areas by open countryside" (DL ¶28). - **Character, DP3(3): FAIL.** The design was acceptable, but "the principal issue lies not with the architectural merits of the dwelling but with the loss of this parcel of land" (DL ¶20). The harm was moderate (DL ¶21). "the proposal should be refused on this basis" (DL ¶38). - **TR3 reading.** "the proposal would not generate a significant amount of movement. As such, paragraph 1.a of Policy TR3 ... is not relevant" (DL ¶37). The inspector nevertheless weighed car reliance "heavily" as contrary to plan-led sustainable development. ## Planning balance S5(4) (DL ¶36). The benefits were limited: one dwelling, an unsecured self-build, L2 limited by the character harm, and small economic benefits (DL ¶29-32). Against them, location harm weighed heavily (DL ¶37) and so did the DP3(3) conflict (DL ¶38). The benefits "would not, either individually or collectively, substantially outweigh the adverse effects" (DL ¶39). ## What made the difference The end-of-row position. It failed infill (one neighbour only) and failed "well-related" (a hamlet, not a settlement, and separated by countryside). That forced the case into S5(4). A 4.77-year supply is only marginally short, and a single dwelling carries little weight against that. The Eastfield Stables comparator shows that a continuous footway and nearby bus stop can change the outcome (DL ¶33). ## Transferable points - S5(1)(e) fails for a plot at the end of a hamlet adjoining development on one side only; a house across the road does not count (DL ¶8-9). - A hamlet is not an "existing settlement" for S5(1)(j), and an end-of-hamlet plot separated by countryside is not physically well-related (DL ¶28). - One inspector read TR3(1)(a) as not applying to schemes that do not generate significant movement, but still weighed car dependence heavily (DL ¶37). - DP3(3) can require refusal for the loss of an open transitional plot even where the building design is acceptable (DL ¶20, 38). - Council approvals made under the superseded local plan carry limited weight (DL ¶26). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(e): fail.** plot at terminal end of hamlet row, built form on one side only; extends the hamlet rather than infilling within it (DL 8-10) - **S5(1)(j): fail.** 4.77-year supply engages (j) and need is met, but end-of-hamlet site separated from built-up areas by countryside is not physically well-related (DL 28) - **S5(4): fail.** limited benefits do not substantially outweigh significant location harm and moderate character harm (DL 36-39) - **TR3: fail.** TR3(1)(a) not relevant for one dwelling, but reliance on car contrary to plan-led sustainable development; farm shop 1 mile; bus stops over 30 min walk with no evidenced footway or lighting (DL 11-12, 37) - **DP3(3): fail.** urbanising loss of open transitional plot conflicts with DP3(1) and LP design standards, so should be refused (DL 16-21, 38) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** single dwelling; self-build not secured and no self-build demand evidence (DL 29-30) ## Key facts - Supply 4.77 years under the newly adopted Uttlesford Local Plan (March 2026) (DL 2, 28) - Nearest bus stops over 30 minutes' walk; farm shop 1 mile; no evidenced footway or lighting (DL 11-12) - Allowed comparator Eastfield Stables (APP/C1570/W/25/3375597) distinguished by its continuous footway and nearby bus stop (DL 33) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008739 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/dedbf8f5-5b5a-43da-ab08-caa571f29412 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008739.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent Everglade Farm, Mount Pleasant Lane, Lymington - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Cahalane - **Authority:** New Forest National Park Authority (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008742 - **Application reference:** 25/00974FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Two residential caravans on concrete hardstands, aggregate, sewage tank and access alterations - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** open-countryside, national-park, TPO, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1), S5(3), HO11, S5(2), DP3(3), N4 - **Development plan policies:** New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016-2036 SP1, SP4, SP6, SP7, SP15, SP17, SP19, SP28, DP2, DP18 - **Main issues:** location, National Park landscape, protected species, highway safety - **Tags:** isolated-home, s5-2-refusal-policy, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, national-park, dp3-2-a-connectivity, caravans, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary The appeal was for two residential caravans (not a traveller site) on a wooded plot in the New Forest National Park. It was dismissed. The site was isolated, "not located within groups of houses", fell outside every S5(1) category and met no HO11 circumstance. The inspector used S5(2): DP3(3) "should be refused" plus N4 substantial weight meant the benefits were "substantially outweighed". There was no survey for great crested newts, and the access was unevidenced. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Further comments were invited on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶4). - **Location and TR3: FAIL.** "Routes from the site to these settlements are largely along narrow and unlit roads with no segregated footways ... Future residents would thus likely be heavily dependent on the use of private vehicles" (DL ¶13). - **Landscape and tranquillity, N4: HARM.** "movement and light generation from residential use of the site throughout the year would inevitably erode tranquillity" (DL ¶18). Loss of TPO woodland shrubbery would "harm the intrinsic natural beauty of the NFNP" (DL ¶23). - **Protected species.** Without a GCN survey, conditions were "not ... reasonable" (Circular 06/2005 ¶99) (DL ¶28-29). - **Isolation.** "Even if the appeal site could be described as part of an established rural landholding and existing pattern of development, it is not located within groups of houses" (DL ¶46). - **DP3 as the S5(2) trigger.** "In applying NDMP S5, the circumstances in which the benefits ... are likely to be substantially outweighed ... include ... fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused ... NDMP DP3 sets out a list of key principles ... Proposals should also prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport ... the appeal scheme would not achieve these key principles" (DL ¶48-49). ## Planning balance HO7 got moderate weight: there was "no evidence ... to indicate a current shortfall in housing supply within the NFNP", and no HO1 group need was shown (DL ¶44-45). On the other side were location, National Park landscape (N4 substantial weight), protected species and precautionary highway harm (DL ¶40-42, 50). "the benefits of approving the appeal development proposal are in this case substantially outweighed by adverse effects" (DL ¶51). ## What made the difference National Park landscape and tranquillity harm plus isolation. There was also a complete absence of supporting technical evidence (ecology, visibility, trees). Structurally, the letter applies the S5(1)/S5(2) "substantially outweighed" framing after finding the scheme outside all S5(1) categories and contrary to S5(3). Strictly, S5(4)'s reversed test or S5(3)'s bar should govern. The outcome is the same either way. ## Transferable points - Isolated homes are those not "within groups of houses". Being part of an established rural landholding does not help (DL ¶46). - DP3(2)'s principle of prioritising walking, cycling and public transport can be a DP3(3) refusal trigger for car-dependent rural sites (DL ¶48-49). - In a National Park, N4 substantial weight plus tranquillity erosion from year-round residential use and lighting defeats small-scale housing (DL ¶18, 50-51). - Where no supply shortfall is shown and no HO1 group need is evidenced, HO7 weight falls to moderate (DL ¶44-45). - Newt surveys cannot be left to condition where habitat is suitable and presence unknown (DL ¶29). ## Policy findings - **S5(1): fail.** not within any S5(1) category (DL 46) - **S5(3): fail.** isolated - even if part of an established rural landholding, not within groups of houses; no HO11 circumstance (DL 46-47) - **DP3(3): fail.** fails to integrate with context and to prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport; used as the S5(2) refusal-type trigger (DL 48-49) - **N4: harm (substantial weight).** loss of TPO woodland shrubbery and erosion of tranquillity; does not conserve or enhance National Park natural beauty (DL 16-24, 50) - **TR3: fail.** narrow unlit roads without segregated footways to Sway and Lymington; heavy car dependence (DL 13) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** no evidence of NFNP supply shortfall or of HO1 group needs (DL 43-45) ## Key facts - Outside the NFNP Defined Villages; between Sway and Lymington along unlit roads without footways (DL 6, 12-13) - No great crested newt survey despite wet woodland on site (DL 26-30) - No visibility splay or swept-path evidence for the access, so harm found on a precautionary basis (DL 33-37) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008742 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/48d47c5b-6e9f-4a4e-84ed-28d71c26e017 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008742.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land rear of 1 Nelson Road, North Walsham - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Somers - **Authority:** North Norfolk (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008744 - **Application reference:** PF/25/2503 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Replacement of 8 garages/storage sheds with 5 shipping containers for domestic storage - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** s38(6), North Norfolk LP ENV8, North Norfolk LP ENV7 - **Development plan policies:** North Norfolk Local Plan ENV7, ENV8 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, no-framework-reference, design-refusal, living-conditions ## Summary Five shipping containers for domestic storage on a backland garage court were dismissed. Their industrial appearance and the harm to neighbours' outlook conflicted with local design and amenity policies. Noise and CCTV privacy were acceptable. The decision is purely plan-led and does not mention the Framework. ## What made the difference The container typology itself was the problem: "a very defensive and harsh appearance" in a domestic setting (DL ¶9). Character harm was not confined to what can be seen from the public realm (DL ¶10). ## Policy findings - **ENV8 (North Norfolk LP): conflict.** containers give "industrial aesthetic"; green paint and planting cannot overcome it; harm not limited to public views (DL 9-11) - **ENV7 (North Norfolk LP): conflict.** outlook harm to neighbours; noise and CCTV privacy acceptable (DL 13-16) ## Key facts - Backland garage court behind terraces and retirement housing (DL 6) - Lawful use (residential garages v B8) disputed; s191/192 route suggested (DL 4) - The letter does not mention the Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008744 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5691a14c-1f3d-4fea-90f7-a61bffcdeebf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008744.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Old Bean Cottage, Shellbank Lane, Bean - **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L McKay (on recommendation of J Kirkaldy, appeal planning officer) - **Authority:** Dartford (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008745 - **Application reference:** DA/26/00160/FUL - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Part single / part two-storey side extensions to a dwelling - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Dartford Local Plan 2024 M12 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, VSC balance - **Tags:** householder, disproportionate-extension, grey-belt-householder-route, unmet-need-evidence-fail, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, neutral-no-harm, no-consultation-new-framework, appeal-planning-officer ## Summary Side extensions to an already much-extended cottage in the Dartford Green Belt. They failed GB7(1)(b), taking the cumulative increase to over double the original volume. The attempted GB7(1)(g) grey belt route for a householder extension also failed: wanting a bigger house is not an "evidenced unmet need". Limited openness harm, no VSC. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "the comparison required by policy is with the original building, not the existing" (DL ¶10). Cumulative +93.5% plus +13% gives "more than double the volume of the original dwelling" (DL ¶9). - **GB7(1)(g) grey belt route for a householder extension: FAIL at (ii).** "Whilst I recognise that a larger dwelling may be desirable to the appellant, this does not, in itself, amount to evidence of a demonstrable unmet need. Therefore, criterion ii. of Policy GB7 g is not met" (DL ¶14). (iii) was met (DL ¶15). - **Grey belt status alone gives no weight.** It "does not weigh in favour of the proposal given that the other criteria required for grey belt are not met" (DL ¶18). - **L2 not engaged** (DL ¶21). Absence of other harm is neutral (DL ¶22). ## Planning balance GB6(2). Substantial weight to inappropriateness plus limited openness harm; "no other considerations to clearly outweigh" (DL ¶23). ## What made the difference The cumulative volume. The (g) fallback could not work because footnote 41 unmet need is about housing supply, not a household's private wish for more space. ## Transferable points - Householder extensions can in principle be run through GB7(1)(g), but limb (ii) requires evidence of unmet need for the type of development. Private preference is not enough (DL ¶14). - GB7(1)(b) compares the proposal with the original building and cumulative additions, not the existing house (DL ¶8–10). - Screening by vegetation cannot be relied on to reduce openness harm (DL ¶19). - L2's substantial weight does not attach to a householder extension that falls in none of its categories (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** existing extensions +93.5% over the original volume, proposal +13% more, so more than double; comparison is with the original building, not the existing one (DL 9-11) - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** single dwelling on village edge "may meet" grey belt, treated as satisfying (i) arguendo (DL 14, 18) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): fail.** a desire for a larger house is not evidence of "demonstrable unmet need" (DL 14) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** extension "sustainably located in relation to the existing dwelling" (DL 15) - **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** limited openness harm; no VSC (DL 19-23) - **L2: not-engaged.** no evidence that the extension falls within any L2 category, so no substantial weight (DL 21) ## Key facts - Council calculated existing extensions at c. 93.5% volume over the original; proposal adds c. 13%; figures unchallenged - 2026 Framework applied without consultation, as not materially different on the main issues (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008745 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6aa37b57-4b01-440b-8356-c880a5d1cd9a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008745.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land north west of Holly Tree Cottage, Howlett End, Wimbish - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Reid - **Authority:** Uttlesford (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008762 - **Application reference:** UTT/25/3094/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Erection of two dwellings and vehicular access on a wooded gap in the hamlet of Howlett End - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 5.35 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1), DP3(3), S5(2), P3, S5(1)(e) - **Development plan policies:** Uttlesford Local Plan 2021-2041 (adopted March 2026) Core Policy 3, Core Policy 42, Policy 40 - **Main issues:** suitable location - spatial strategy and character, noise for future occupiers, BNG - **Tags:** s5-1-e-infill, s5-2-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, five-year-supply-met, small-scheme, substantially-outweighed, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Two dwellings on a wooded gap in the hamlet of Howlett End, Uttlesford. The inspector accepted that the scheme was limited infilling within a group of houses under S5(1)(e), but found moderate harm to the hamlet's loose character in conflict with DP3(1), and unproven noise mitigation against the kennels next door. DP3(3) meant the scheme "should be refused", and under S5(2) the moderate housing benefit was substantially outweighed. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Both main parties were invited to make representations on these changes, and I have considered the comments received" (DL ¶4). - **Settlement.** "Howlett End is experienced as a separate hamlet rather than a part of Wimbish village" (DL ¶8). - **S5(1)(e): PASS on principle.** "Given that the appeal site lies within a group of houses and only two dwellings are proposed, the proposal would amount to limited infilling within a group of houses" (DL ¶11). - **Character, DP3(1): CONFLICT.** "Despite lying between two dwellings, its woodland character means that it does not read as part of a continuous built-up frontage, but instead as a break in development" (DL ¶14); "moderate harm caused to the character of the area" (DL ¶17). - **Noise, P3: FAIL.** "The issue is therefore fundamental to the acceptability of the proposal and cannot reasonably be deferred by planning condition" (DL ¶26). - **Local BNG standard.** The 20% requirement "is given limited weight because paragraph 2 of Policy N1 of the Framework states that development plans should only set local standards for biodiversity net gain which are in excess of the statutory net gain requirement where this is for specific site allocations" (DL ¶31). ## Planning balance S5(1)(e) with S5(2) (DL ¶36). Housing moderate weight; social, economic and environmental benefits limited (DL ¶37-38). DP3(3): "the proposal should be refused on this basis. This weighs heavily against the proposal" (DL ¶39). Noise harm significant (DL ¶40). "the moderate housing benefit and the limited social, economic and environmental benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶41). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶43). ## What made the difference An infill pass under S5(1)(e) is only the principle. The site's woodland was the gap that gave the hamlet its character, so DP3(1) failed, and the kennel noise evidence was unreliable. Without the kennel neighbour, the DP3(3) character point alone would still have weighed heavily. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(e) infill can be met yet the scheme still fail: the infill finding "relates only to the principle of development", and character harm is judged separately (DL ¶15). - A wooded gap between two dwellings can be a "break in development", not part of a frontage (DL ¶14). - DP3(3) failure routed through S5(2) outweighs moderate housing weight for two homes (DL ¶39-41). - Local BNG standards above 10% get limited weight outside allocations, citing N1(2) (DL ¶31). - Noise mitigation that depends on uncertain modelling cannot be left to condition where more mitigation could change the scheme (DL ¶26). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:settlement: not-engaged.** Howlett End read as a separate hamlet, physically and visually separate from Wimbish village; open countryside for plan purposes (DL 8-9) - **S5(1)(e): pass.** "the proposal would amount to limited infilling within a group of houses" (DL 11, 15); but the balance then fails, and the letter says the proposal "would therefore not satisfy paragraph 1.(e)" (DL 41) - **DP3(1): conflict.** wooded gap is a break in built form at a transition to dispersed development; moderate localised harm to character; design itself acceptable (DL 12-17) - **DP3(3): fail.** "As I have found that the proposal would conflict with paragraph 1. of Policy DP3, the proposal should be refused on this basis. This weighs heavily against the proposal" - clear justification quoted but not separately assessed (DL 39) - **P3: fail (significant weight).** adjoining dog kennels; noise modelling of acoustic fence and 5 m garage uncertain; EHO counter-modelling 63.5 dB; draft ProPG kennel guidance given limited weight; cannot be conditioned (DL 18-28, 40) - **S5(2): fail.** S5(2) set out; moderate housing and limited other benefits substantially outweighed (DL 36, 41) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** two dwellings, quick build-out (DL 37) - **N1(2): neutral.** local 20% BNG requirement (Policy 40) given limited weight because N1(2) confines above-statutory local BNG standards to allocations (DL 31, 35) ## Key facts - Council supply 5.35 years after the 2024/2025 HDT results; new Local Plan adopted March 2026 (DL 3-4) - Kennel licence for 10 boarded and 7 owned dogs next door; appellant's model assumed barking 0.5 m from the fence (DL 18-21) - BNG baseline accepted on appeal evidence (DL 29-30) - Hawkesmead appeal (APP/C1570/W/24/3356349) given limited weight - decided under the replaced plan (DL 33) - Costs application by the appellant (DL 2); decision not in the corpus - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework and HDT results (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008762 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5fc1572b-7aa9-49ec-ab70-58c45909239b --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008762.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjoining The Ridings, Singleborough - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Harris-Watkins - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008773 - **Application reference:** PL/25/4181/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for one detached dwelling on an undeveloped gap in a small conservation-area hamlet - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), S5(2), TR3, DP3(2)(d) - **Development plan policies:** Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2021 S1, S2, S3, D51, T1, BE1 - **Main issues:** location, land use and amount - spatial strategy, conservation area and settings of listed buildings - **Tags:** PIP, s5-1-e-infill, s5-2-refusal-policy, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, dp3-refuse-trigger, conservation-area, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Permission in principle for one house on an open gap in Singleborough, a hamlet with a bus only twice a month and no footway. The site counted as limited infilling under S5(1)(e), and the restrictive spatial strategy got very limited weight. But developing the gap would harm the conservation area and the settings of two listed buildings, and occupiers would be almost wholly car-reliant. Through the S5(2) trigger and TR3, the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties invited to comment (DL ¶4). - **Isolation.** "I do not find the site can be considered ‘isolated’ as has been established in the context of the Framework" (DL ¶7). - **Access.** "Singleborough Lane also does not benefit from a footway, such that a pedestrian would have to walk along the highway and share it with vehicles." (DL ¶8). - **Heritage.** "the harm would be at the lower end of the spectrum, but nonetheless of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶18). "Even taken together these public benefits would not outweigh the substantial weight to be attached to the conservation of the designated heritage asset. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with policy HE6 of the Framework." (DL ¶20). - **S5(1)(e).** "This includes limited infilling within groups of housing, which the appeal proposal comprises of." (DL ¶26). - **Plan weight.** S1, S2 and S3 "are materially inconsistent with policy S5 of the Framework, which provides more broad support for limiting infilling outside of settlements. As a result, this conflict is given very limited weight in accordance with the Annexe A of the Framework." (DL ¶27). - **DP3.** "Proposals that fail to do this without clear justification must be refused." (DL ¶29), applied through the heritage conflict. - **TR3 for one dwelling.** Although only one dwelling, TR3 "also includes more general principles about sustainable patterns of movement" (DL ¶30). "the appeal site is poorly connected to services and facilities and would rely almost entirely on the private car to meet its day-to-day needs" (DL ¶32). ## Planning balance S5(1)(e), with S5(2) applied. HE6(4) run first (fail); then "Overall, I find the benefits of approving the development proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects." (DL ¶33). ## What made the difference The site's positive contribution as an open gap in the conservation area, on a public footpath approach, together with a hamlet with virtually no bus and no footway. Meeting the S5(1)(e) infill category did not prevent refusal once HE6 and DP3 conflicts engaged S5(2). ## Transferable points - TR3 is not only about significant movement: its general sustainable-movement principles, and DP3(2)(d), can weigh against even a single dwelling (DL ¶30-32). - A bus on two Thursdays a month, and no footway, is no genuine alternative to the car (DL ¶8, ¶32). - Spatial-strategy policies that bar infill S5(1)(e) allows are materially inconsistent and get very limited weight under Annex A ¶2 (DL ¶27). - s66 and s72 duties apply at the PIP stage, so heritage can defeat permission in principle (DL ¶3, ¶21). ## Policy findings - **S5(3): pass.** not isolated given relationship with surroundings (DL 7) - **S5(1)(e): pass.** limited infilling within a group of housing (DL 26) - **Transitional(2): neutral (very-limited weight).** LP S1, S2, S3 materially inconsistent with S5 (broader support for limited infilling); conflict very limited weight (DL 27) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** loss of an open, verdant gap in Singleborough CA (on a PRoW) and harm to settings of Grade II Park Lodge and Old Vine Cottage; lower end of the spectrum (DL 15-18) - **HE6(4): fail (limited weight).** housing, economic and social benefits limited for one dwelling; PRoW widening not securable at PIP stage (DL 19-20) - **DP3(3): fail.** DP3(1) and the refusal direction paraphrased, then applied through the heritage conflict; no express clear-justification finding (DL 29) - **TR3: conflict.** TR3 read as a whole for one dwelling - significant-movement limb not engaged but general sustainable-movement principles are; almost total car reliance (DL 30, 32) - **DP3(2)(d): conflict.** poor connections; no prioritisation of walking, wheeling, cycling, public transport (DL 31-32) - **S5(2): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed by the adverse effects; presumption does not apply (DL 28, 33) ## Key facts - Singleborough has no services other than a bus stop served only on two Thursdays a month (DL 8) - Singleborough Lane has no footway; pedestrians share the carriageway (DL 8) - Settlement not in the LP settlement hierarchy (Table 2); Gibraltar appeal distinguished (pub, frequent bus, footpath to larger village) (DL 9-10, 23) - Consistent with a previous Singleborough appeal (APP/J0405/W/25/3375223) on accessibility (DL 23) - s66 and s72 duties applied at PIP stage (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008773 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/eb249c06-3494-4b6c-8a23-edddfb9806bb --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008773.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 202A High Street, Harwich - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S F Barnes - **Authority:** Tendring (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008784 - **Application reference:** 26/00239/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Second-floor roof terrace cut into pitched rear-addition roof, external staircase and reconfiguration of flats above restaurant - **Site context:** conservation-area, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4), S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 SP7, SPL3, PPL8 - **Main issues:** conservation area, privacy - **Tags:** conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-low-degree-harm, he6-3-considerable-weight, s4-substantially-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, roof-terrace, public-benefits-private, costs-application ## Summary A roof terrace cut into the traditional pitched roof of a rear addition in the Lower Dovercourt conservation area at Harwich was dismissed. The harm to the CA was "a low degree of harm", but under HE6(3) it carried "considerable importance and weight". It was not outweighed by a set of mainly private or unevidenced benefits. The Inspector then ran the S4 "substantially outweighed" test and dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Heritage harm: "low degree".** The terrace would "detract from the legibility of the rear addition's traditional roof form … This would result in harm to the positive contribution made by the building to the CA" (DL ¶10). "Having regard to the localised effect on the significance of the CA, the proposal would result in a low degree of harm" (DL ¶12). This is a new-style grading in place of "less than substantial". - **HE6(4) balance: FAIL.** Private outdoor space was "largely as a private benefit … only limited weight" (DL ¶13). The fire-safety or Building Regulations need had "no compelling evidence" (DL ¶14). The insulation gain had "little quantified evidence" (DL ¶15). Construction benefits were limited (DL ¶16). "Overall, the benefits identified would not outweigh the considerable importance and weight that I attach to the harm to the CA" (DL ¶17). - **L2(1)(d): not engaged.** There were no new units or floorspace, and "that policy does not preclude me from finding harm" (DL ¶20). - **Privacy: PASS**, subject to a screening condition (DL ¶¶18–19). ## Planning balance Two stages. The HE6(4) weighing against HE6(3)'s "considerable importance and weight", then the S4 overall test: "Having regard to national decision-making policies in the Framework, the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects through harm to the CA" (DL ¶23). ## What made the difference The building was identified as positive in a recent CA appraisal, and the unified rear roofscape was visible from a public lane. Every claimed benefit was either private or unevidenced. Energy-efficiency benefits, now named in HE6(4), still need quantification. ## Transferable points - HE6 harm is graded on a free scale ("low degree of harm") and then given HE6(3) "considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶¶12, 17). - A low degree of harm to a CA can on its own "substantially outweigh" limited benefits under S4 (DL ¶23). - Private amenity gains are private benefits and carry limited weight in the HE6(4) balance (DL ¶13). - HE6(4)'s energy-efficiency benefit needs quantified evidence (DL ¶15). - L2(1)(d) is not engaged where no additional homes or floorspace are created (DL ¶20). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** "the proposal would result in a low degree of harm" to the Lower Dovercourt CA (DL 12) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** "the considerable importance and weight that I attach to the harm to the CA" (DL 17) - **HE6(4): fail.** private amenity space, fire-safety rationalisation, insulation, bin/cycle storage, construction jobs — each limited weight (DL 13-16) - **L2(1)(d): not-engaged.** no additional units or floorspace; L2 "does not preclude me from finding harm" (DL 20) - **HC1: not-engaged.** terrace not a public/community facility (DL 20) - **P3: pass.** overlooking of 206-208 High Street could be screened by condition (DL 18-19) - **S4(1): fail.** "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects through harm to the CA" (DL 23) ## Key facts - Appeal building identified as a positive building in the 2023 CA appraisal - Traditional rear-addition roof forms unify the terrace; visible from public rear lane - Parties given opportunity to comment on the new Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a1bc3161-3994-420e-9fce-42e1f9422c1d - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008784 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008784.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent Hanley House, Hook-a-Gate, Shrewsbury - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Barton - **Authority:** Shropshire (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6008785 - **Application reference:** 26/00065/OUT - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline for two dwellings (access only) on the corner of a field at the village edge - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.61 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), S5(2), DP3(3), DP3(1) - **Development plan policies:** Shropshire Core Strategy 2011 CS1, CS4, CS5, CS6, CS17, SAMDev Plan 2015 MD2, MD3, MD7a, MD12, MD13, S16.2(xi) - **Main issues:** character and appearance, location and accessibility, living conditions, BNG - **Tags:** s5-1-j, s5-2-refusal-policy, substantially-outweighed, design-refusal, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, housing-shortfall, settlement-edge, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary An outline scheme for two houses on the corner of a valley field just across the lane from Hook-a-Gate, a Community Cluster Settlement without a boundary. It was dismissed. Unusually, the inspector accepted that S5(1)(j) applied: there was no 5YHLS, and the site was physically well-related to the village with capacity to accommodate it. But the lane marks a clear edge between village and countryside. Crossing it was a DP3(1) conflict, and DP3(3) says such conflicts should be refused. Through S5(2) that meant the benefits were "substantially outweighed". Poor walking, cycling and bus access added to the harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties commented on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶3). - **Settlement edge.** "the lane marks a clear boundary of the built-up part of Hook-a-Gate and the open countryside" (DL ¶9). The site is "immediately adjacent to, but not within, the settlement and not constituting infill development or the rounding off" (DL ¶18). - **Character: FAIL.** The houses would "lessen the clear distinction between the built-up part of Hook-a-Gate and the open countryside" (DL ¶11). - **Access: FAIL.** "Longden Road, beyond Hook-a-Gate, has no footpath or streetlighting, and the route to Bayston Hill is via an uneven and unmade track between fields, incorporating a relatively steep gradient" (DL ¶20). The Connect by Demand bus runs Mon-Sat 7am-6:30pm, but frequency is unclear (DL ¶21). - **S5(1)(j): engaged and met.** "the proposed development falls to be considered under policy S5(1)(j) ... as it would address an evidenced unmet need, be physically well-related to an existing settlement and be of a scale which can be accommodated" (DL ¶37). - **Annex A ¶2.** Plan policies keep weight despite pre-dating the Framework. The spatial strategy is consistent with it but moderated to moderate weight by the supply shortfall (DL ¶38). ## Planning balance S5(1)/S5(2). The benefits were substantial HO7 weight for two Passivhaus homes, plus economic and social benefits and BNG (DL ¶41). Against them: spatial-strategy conflict (moderate weight) and character conflict (substantial weight). "National decision-making policy DP3(3) advises that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with DP3(1), as is the case here" (DL ¶39). "the benefits would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects ... the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in policy S5 ... does not apply" (DL ¶42). ## What made the difference The lane as a legible village edge. It made the site "physically well-related" enough for (j), yet its crossing was a design and character harm that engaged DP3(3). The case shows that passing the (j) gateway is not enough. A DP3(3) conflict still defeats the scheme through S5(2). Accessibility was poor, but that did not stop (j) being met, because the inspector treated (j)(i) as physical relationship plus infrastructure capacity. ## Transferable points - A site can be "physically well-related" for S5(1)(j) even though TR3 accessibility is poor (DL 20-22, 37). Contrast South Cambridgeshire's reading in PINS-6011872 and PINS-6009303. - Passing the S5(1)(j) gateway leads to the "substantially outweighed" test. DP3(3) conflict then operates through S5(2) as the refusal-type trigger (DL ¶39, 42). - A lane that marks a clear built edge can make development across it a DP3(1) character harm, even adjoining a settlement (DL ¶9-11). - Under Annex A ¶2, spatial strategies keep weight, reduced to moderate where there is no 5YHLS (DL ¶38). - A demand-responsive bus without frequency evidence is not a reasonable public transport option (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): pass.** gateway met - no 5YHLS (4.61 council, 3.81 appellant), physically well-related to Hook-a-Gate, scale accommodated (DL 37) - **S5(2): fail.** DP3(3) refusal trigger means benefits substantially outweighed; presumption in S5 does not apply (DL 39, 42) - **DP3(3): fail (substantial weight).** encroachment across the lane that marks the clear edge between village and open valley field conflicts with DP3(1) without clear justification (DL 8-11, 39) - **TR3: fail.** Longden Road beyond village unlit, no footway; route to Bayston Hill an uneven track with steep gradient; demand-responsive bus Mon-Sat 7am-6:30pm with unclear frequency (DL 20-22) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** two Passivhaus dwellings (DL 41) - **HE7: neutral.** no harm to Hanley House non-designated heritage asset - gap retained (DL 12-14) ## Key facts - Council supply 4.61 years; appellant cites 3.81 years from appeal APP/L3245/W/25/3362414 (DL 37) - Hook-a-Gate is a Community Cluster Settlement without a boundary; site immediately adjacent but not within it (DL 18) - Spatial-strategy conflict given only moderate weight for want of 5YHLS; design conflict substantial (DL 38-39) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008785 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7ea0622f-0c29-4e3e-83fa-381001143fa0 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008785.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 229 High Street, Orpington (Class AA two-storey upward extension, 6 flats) - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Burch - **Authority:** Bromley (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6008787 - **Application reference:** 26/00098/NOT - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Prior approval under GPDO Part 20 Class AA for two additional storeys (mansard) creating 6 flats on a three-storey corner building - **Homes:** 6 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Sch2 Pt20 Class AA.2(1)(e) - **Development plan policies:** Bromley Local Plan Policies 4, 37, London Plan D3 - **Main issues:** external appearance of the building and area - **Tags:** tier-2, prior-approval, upward-extension, design-refusal, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Class AA prior approval for two extra storeys, making six flats, on an Orpington corner building was refused, and the appeal was dismissed on external appearance. The building would read as five storeys in a three-storey street (DL ¶12). The Framework's support for upward extensions, and the council's five-year supply shortfall, were irrelevant: "the principle of the development is already accepted through the GPDO" (DL ¶22). ## What made the difference A shallow mansard, little set-back and large dormers on a prominent corner. The Framework counts in prior approval only "in so far as … relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval" (DL ¶22). ## Policy findings - **DP3: harm.** building would read as five storeys in a three-storey High Street; shallow mansard and limited set-back fail to create a subordinate top storey (DL 8-18) - **L2: not-engaged.** Framework support for upward extensions and the council's supply shortfall irrelevant because the principle is granted by the GPDO; Framework applies only to the prior approval matter (DL 21-22) ## Key facts - Second attempt after dismissed appeal 6002321 (DL 11) - Neighbouring Class AB approval at 221-227 distinguished (mid-terrace, set back) (DL 13-14) - Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008787 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ee91d5b9-6947-43b3-b7cd-e36369a315cb --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008787.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land west of Old Hall, Watton Road, Colney - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Edward Dade - **Authority:** South Norfolk (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008791 - **Application reference:** 2026/0257 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Erection of one self-build dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N6(1), S5(1)(j) - **Development plan policies:** Greater Norwich Local Plan 2024 Policies 2, 3, 7.5, South Norfolk DM Policies Document 2015 DM1.3, DM3.10, DM4.4 - **Main issues:** habitats sites nutrient neutrality, suitable location - **Tags:** s5-1-j, s5-2-refusal-policy, habitats-mitigation-unsecured, self-build, self-build-unsecured, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip ## Summary A single self-build house just outside Colney's development boundary near Norwich Research Park. Dismissed because nutrient-neutral mitigation (upgrading a septic tank to a package treatment plant) was not secured for the development's lifetime, so harm to The Broads SAC could not be ruled out. Under N6(1) the proposal "should be refused", which settled the S5(1)(j) balance despite substantial weight to one home. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "During the appeal, the parties were invited to comment on the implications of the new Framework for the proposal" (DL ¶2). - **Habitats: FAIL.** "in the absence of an enforceable mechanism to secure the long-term maintenance and management of the proposed PTP, I cannot be certain that the development would be nutrient neutral over its lifetime" (DL ¶22). A self-build home "would not amount to an overriding public interest" (DL ¶23). - **Location (local plan).** Good footways, lighting and frequent buses, but "other day-to-day facilities, such as food shops and primary education, are located beyond a convenient walking distance from the site" (DL ¶33). Only "a small positive contribution" to sustainable transport objectives (DL ¶37). - **Self-build unsecured.** "specifying this development type in the development description and a supporting statement does not provide adequate certainty the dwelling would be constructed and maintained as a self-build dwelling" (DL ¶30). ## Planning balance S5(1)(j) cited with no five-year supply. "Therefore, Policy N6(1) indicates the proposal should be refused. Consequently, the scheme's benefits would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework" (DL ¶44). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶45). ## What made the difference The paperwork gate: no management agreement or enforceable mechanism for the treatment plant. With that secured, the case would have turned on S5(1)(j)(i) and the location evidence, where two earlier dismissals weighed against it. ## Transferable points - Nutrient mitigation by a package treatment plant must be secured for the lifetime of the development, including de-sludging and inspection; an unexplained condition is not enough (DL ¶12–14, ¶22). - N6(1) failure makes the S5(1) benefits "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶44). - Good footways, lighting and buses do not make a location sustainable if everyday shops and schools are beyond walking distance (DL ¶32–33). - A self-build claim needs a planning obligation (DL ¶30). ## Policy findings - **N6(1): fail.** Broads SAC/Ramsar nutrient neutrality; package treatment plant mitigation acceptable in principle but lifetime management not secured (no agreements, no draft condition); no IROPI; no EDP in force; N6(1) "indicates the proposal should be refused" (DL 11-14, 22-23, 44) - **Habitats Regs (GIRAMS): pass.** recreational disturbance mitigated by draft UU contribution (DL 15-21) - **S5(1)(j): fail.** no 5YHLS (figure not stated); (j) cited; benefits substantially outweighed because N6(1) directs refusal (DL 43-44); (j)(i) well-related limb not separately tested - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** one dwelling (DL 41) - **LP GNLP 7.5 / DM1.3 (local): conflict.** self-build not secured by any obligation; limited non-car access; no overriding benefits (DL 29-30, 37) - **HE6: neutral.** setting of Grade II The Old Hall and The Old Rectory preserved (DL 38-40) ## Key facts - Letter header dates the decision "29th December 2026" (queue date 29 Sep 2026) - Site outside Colney development boundary, across Watton Road from it (DL 27) - Watton Road B1108 40 mph with footways, street lighting, frequent buses and signal crossing to Norwich Research Park; but food shops and primary school beyond convenient walking distance (DL 32-33) - Two previous appeals on the site dismissed (APP/L2630/W/20/3258218, APP/L2630/W/23/3318141) (DL 34-35) - Self-build intention in description and statement only, no UU for self-build (DL 30) - Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework; appellant did not respond (DL 2, 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008791 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4308df4b-a127-4888-8f1e-04eea4c89194 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008791.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 18 Beech Hill, Hadley Wood, Enfield - **Decision:** dismissed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A J Boughton - **Authority:** Enfield (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6008803 - **Application reference:** 26/0548/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of a large vacant house and erection of 4 detached houses with double garages on a c.0.4ha plot backing onto Green Belt golf course - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N2, Habitats Regs 2017 (EPS), L2(1)(d)(iii) - **Development plan policies:** Enfield DMD 2014 DMD5, DMD7, DMD8, DMD45, DMD81, DMD83, Enfield Core Strategy 2010 CP30, London Plan D3, Hadley Wood Neighbourhood Plan 2022-2039 HW12 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, pedestrian access, protected species - **Tags:** l2-1-d, substantial-weight-l2, garden-land, annex-a-weight-reduction, protected-species-no-survey, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme ## Summary Four detached houses replacing one large house on an acre plot in Hadley Wood. The inspector applied the new L2(1)(d) curtilage policy positively. Although the scheme more than doubles the existing footprint, it met the "without harm to the overall character" exception in L2(1)(d)(iii). The local garden-land policy DMD7 got little weight as inconsistent with the Framework. The appeal was dismissed anyway because there was no ecological survey of a long-neglected plot and a vacant house that might host bats. The inspector raised this issue of their own motion. ## Issues and findings - **L2 — substantial weight.** The Framework "is directed at easing approval for housing within settlements including development of residential curtilages" and requires "substantial weight … to the benefits" (DL ¶9). - **Local garden-land policy.** "Policy DMD7 … appears to be inconsistent with the positively framed approach now taken in the Framework and therefore attracts little weight" (DL ¶9). - **L2(1)(d)(iii) twice-footprint.** "The proposal would more than double the existing footprint but the existing plot is very large and the proposed buildings and their spacing would not be substantially different to that found nearby" (DL ¶10). The development achieves "the fine balance … between allowing additional development … and the protection of established character. This aligns with the current Framework guidance" (DL ¶11). - **Protected species: FAIL.** With no PEA or bat survey, "A grant of permission subject to a condition requiring such assessment and surveys … would therefore be unsafe" (DL ¶14). ## Planning balance None run. The scheme accorded with the plan on character and access, but the ecology evidence gap "directs that the appeal cannot succeed" (DL ¶15). ## What made the difference Ecology. On the planning merits the new L2(1)(d) policy carried the scheme past the council's garden-subdivision objection. A preliminary ecological appraisal and bat survey would very likely have won the appeal. ## Transferable points - Local garden-land policies can be given little weight where they are inconsistent with L2(1)(d)'s "positively framed approach" (DL ¶9). - Exceeding the L2(1)(d)(iii) twice-footprint / 50% curtilage thresholds is not fatal if the "without harm to the overall character" exception is met (DL ¶10). - Protected-species surveys cannot be left to condition where there is a reasonable likelihood of European protected species, even if the council agrees they can (DL ¶3, 14). - **Companion decision, same site, same inspector, same day: PINS-6008667** (2 houses plus a rear block of 5 flats). That one *failed* L2(1)(d)(iii): it more than doubled the footprint and was "not the 'sensitive redevelopment' stipulated", so the substantial weight was withheld. Together the pair show that the twice-footprint exception depends on the form. Four detached houses in character passed; a taller flatted rear block did not. ## Policy findings - **L2(1)(d): benefit (substantial weight).** "Paragraph L2 (1) requires substantial weight to be given to the benefits of a development proposal which … creat(es) additional homes … within existing plots" (DL 9) - **L2(1)(d)(iii): pass.** more than doubles existing footprint, but "unless … without harm to the overall character" limb met — plot very large, spacing similar to neighbours, rear pair does not dominate Green Belt (DL 10-11) - **DMD7 (Enfield garden land): conflict (limited weight).** "appears to be inconsistent with the positively framed approach now taken in the Framework and therefore attracts little weight" (DL 9) - **TR4: pass.** code mapped by harvester — shared-surface drive for rear houses acceptable with layout conditions (DL 12) - **N2: fail.** code mapped by harvester — no PEA or bat surveys for neglected, "nature-invaded" plot and vacant house; conditioning surveys "unsafe" given Habitats Regs 2017 duties; inspector raised it as a main issue of their own motion (DL 3, 13-15) ## Key facts - Plot close to one acre (4,000 sqm); house vacant since March 2024 (DL 3 fn) - Nearby flatted redevelopment at No.22 (pre-HWNP) and dismissed appeal for flats at No.26 (DL 6) - Council itself suggested ecology by condition; the inspector disagreed (DL 3, 14) - Parties consulted on 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008803 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/123429a4-1149-40bc-93bc-e8f683b46f1c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008803.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Overs Farm, Haughton, Tasley, Bridgnorth (wigwam cabins) - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Barton - **Authority:** Shropshire (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6008804 - **Application reference:** 25/04206/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Siting of five wigwam holiday cabins, re-use of existing timber cabin as reception, parking and treatment plant - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(b), S5(4), TR3, E4(2), Transitional(2) - **Development plan policies:** Shropshire Core Strategy 2011 CS1, CS5, CS6, CS13, CS16, SAMDev Plan 2015 MD11 - **Main issues:** location and accessibility, spatial strategy - **Tags:** sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, rural-tourism, s5-1-b-necessity, s5-4-exceptional, both-s5-routes-run, pre-2026-plan-full-weight, small-scheme ## Summary Five wigwam holiday cabins on a former pig farm outside Bridgnorth were refused, and the appeal was dismissed. The inspector found the site car-dependent and gave "very substantial weight" to the conflict with TR3 and the local spatial strategy. Economic benefits got substantial weight under E2(1). The inspector ran both S5 routes: S5(1)(b) (assuming necessity) and S5(4). The scheme failed both. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were invited to comment on the new Framework (DL ¶2). - **Location and accessibility: FAIL.** Access to Bridgnorth "is via a narrow country lane with no footpaths or street lighting … visitors … would be heavily reliant on private cars. Although rural areas are unlikely to have the same level of public transport as urban areas, this does not give reason to locate development within locations that are inherently inaccessible by means other than private car" (DL ¶7). - **Older plan keeps full weight (Annex A ¶2).** The CS spatial strategy "is consistent with the Framework's aim in locating development where it can support sustainable patterns of development, particularly policy TR3 … due to a lack of genuinely sustainable travel choices, I afford very substantial weight to this conflict" (DL ¶15). - **E4.** E4(1)(b) and (c) support diversification and rural tourism, "However, as there is no cogent case as to why the proposal needs to be located where it is not well served by public transport, policy E4(2) offers minimal support, even though the proposal would utilise an existing structure" (DL ¶17). - **S5, both routes.** "accepting that S5(1)(b) applies, and a location outside a settlement is necessary … the benefits would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶18). "For completeness and applying S5(4), the benefits would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects, and exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated" (DL ¶19). ## Planning balance Against: conflict with the plan as a whole, and TR3/spatial-strategy harm at very substantial weight. For: economic benefits (substantial weight, E2(1)), and woodland legacy and access. Character and highway effects were neutral. The balance failed under S5(1)(b) ("substantially outweighed") and under S5(4). ## What made the difference Accessibility alone decided it, and it outweighed benefits that were themselves given substantial weight. The decision shows that the E2(1) "substantial weight" to economic growth does not carry a small rural tourism scheme where there is no genuine choice of transport modes. A tourism site close to a settlement, or an existing viable tourism enterprise, would have changed the result. ## Transferable points - Even where E2(1) economic benefits get substantial weight, a car-dependent rural tourism site can fail S5(1)(b)'s "substantially outweighed" balance (DL ¶17-18). - E4(2) offers "minimal support" where there is no cogent case for a location poorly served by public transport (DL ¶17). - Pre-2026 local spatial strategies directing tourism to settlements are consistent with TR3 and keep full weight under Annex A ¶2 (DL ¶15). - An inspector can run S5(1)(b) and S5(4) in the alternative and dismiss under both (DL ¶18-20). ## Policy findings - **TR3: fail (substantial weight).** narrow lane, no footpaths or lighting, Bridgnorth "a noticeable distance"; visitors heavily reliant on cars; "very substantial weight" to the conflict (DL 6-7, 15) - **Transitional(2): neutral.** CS1/CS5/CS16 spatial strategy consistent with TR3; not given reduced weight for pre-dating the Framework (DL 15) - **E2(1): benefit (substantial weight).** construction and visitor-spend economic benefits given substantial weight "in line with Policy E2(1)" (DL 17) - **E4(1)(b): benefit.** supports diversification of land-based businesses and rural tourism (DL 17) - **E4(2): fail (very-limited weight).** no cogent case why the proposal must be where it is not served by public transport, so E4(2) "offers minimal support" despite re-using an existing structure (DL 17) - **S5(1)(b): fail.** even assuming a countryside location is necessary, benefits substantially outweighed by adverse effects (DL 18) - **S5(4): fail.** no exceptional circumstances; benefits do not substantially outweigh harm (DL 19) ## Key facts - Five cabins on an enclosed orchard parcel beside a farmhouse; site a pig farm until 2000, no existing tourism enterprise - Nearest service centre Bridgnorth via narrow lane with no footways or street lighting; very limited evidence on buses - Franchise operating model did not show an "established and viable tourism enterprise" (local plan CS16 test) (DL 8-9) - No harm found to character or highway; those were neutral (DL 16) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008804 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/99e1ba45-4e09-4ecf-89de-8df919292994 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008804.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 17 Willow Court, Pool in Wharfedale (rear dormer with solar panels) - **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C McDonagh (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer T Morris) - **Authority:** Leeds (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6008813 - **Application reference:** 26/01083/FU - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Loft conversion with large flat-roofed rear dormer and roof-mounted solar panels - **Site context:** conservation-area, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(3), HE6(4), W3 - **Development plan policies:** Leeds Core Strategy 2014 P10, P11, Leeds UDP Review 2006 GP5, N19, BD6, Householder Design Guide SPD 2012 - **Main issues:** character and appearance of CA - **Tags:** householder, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, w3-small-scale-renewables, private-benefit-not-public, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A large rear dormer with solar panels in the Pool in Wharfedale Conservation Area was dismissed. It is the first householder case recorded where W3's "substantial weight" to small-scale renewables was set directly against conservation-area harm under HE6(3)/(4). Even minor, localised harm, carrying considerable weight, was not outweighed by substantial-weight renewable benefit. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "As the changes do not affect the main issue in this appeal, it was not necessary to seek the views of the main parties" (DL ¶3). - **Character and CA: HARM.** The dormer "would dominate the rear roof slope … appear top heavy" (DL ¶9). "the solar panels would be slightly visible above the roof ridge, which would introduce a further incongruous feature" (DL ¶10). - **HE6(4) balance.** The harm is "relatively localised and minor in scale" (DL ¶15). "it is the appellant's desire to provide additional family accommodation. However, this would be of private rather than public benefit … As per policy W3 of the Framework, substantial weight should be given to the contribution that small-scale projects can make to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, this must still be balanced against the harm to the CA to which I must give considerable weight to in this case as per policy HE6(3)" (DL ¶16). ## Planning balance The HE6(4) harm-versus-public-benefits balance: W3 renewables (substantial weight) against minor CA harm (considerable importance and weight). The public benefits did not outweigh. ## What made the difference The dormer's bulk was the main harm. The solar panels added only marginally to it and brought the W3 benefit. A smaller, set-in dormer with panels kept below the ridge would likely have passed. ## Transferable points - W3's "substantial weight" to small-scale renewable projects applies to householder solar, but can be outweighed by even minor heritage harm, which carries "considerable weight" under HE6(3) (DL ¶15-16). - Extra family accommodation is a private, not public, benefit in the HE6(4) balance (DL ¶16). ## Policy findings - **HE9: harm.** dominant flat-roofed dormer and solar panels above ridge harm the discreet roofscape of CA Character Area 4 (DL 5-14) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** localised, minor harm to CA significance; "considerable weight" per HE6(3) (DL 15-16) - **W3: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to contribution of small-scale renewable projects (DL 16) - **HE6(4): fail.** extra family space is a private benefit; public benefits (renewables) do not outweigh CA harm (DL 15-16) ## Key facts - 20th-century detached house in a CA character area valued for discreet, unaltered pitched roofs - Dormer set barely back from ridge, eaves and sides; solar panels slightly above ridge - No consultation on the new Framework; decided on an Appeal Planning Officer's recommendation (DL 2-3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008813 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/98bf35e4-561c-4cdf-8b3b-bf92b07e8e24 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008813.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 10 Goodminns Estate, Sedgeford - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Dring - **Authority:** King's Lynn and West Norfolk (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008840 - **Application reference:** 26/00265/F - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Self-build bungalow on part of the side garden of 10 Goodminns Estate after demolition of a detached garage - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, national-landscape, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, S4(2)(a)(ii), L2(1)(d)(ii), DP3(3) - **Development plan policies:** King's Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan 2021-2040 LP02, LP18, LP21, Sedgeford Neighbourhood Plan 2019 H3 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, future occupiers' noise, neighbours' outlook, privacy and noise - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, dp3-refuse-trigger, l2-1-d-curtilage, garden-infill, living-conditions, self-build, self-build-unsecured, national-landscape, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A self-build bungalow in the side garden of a corner house in Sedgeford, in the Norfolk Coast National Landscape. The dwelling would sit higher than, and alongside, the neighbour's rear garden, overbearing and overlooking it, and the shared turning area would bring vehicle noise next to bedrooms. The self-build status was unsecured. The inspector ran S4, citing S4(2)(a)(ii) (L2(1)(d)) and S4(2)(c) (DP3(3)), and found the limited benefits substantially outweighed. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Both parties have had the opportunity to comment on the new Framework" (DL ¶2). - **Character: HARM.** "the proposal would be at odds with the character and appearance of the area" (DL ¶9). - **Neighbour: significant HARM.** "the effects on outlook, privacy and noise disturbance would result in a significant harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of No 8" (DL ¶19). - **Triggers named.** "Policy S4:2 criterion a. ii. regarding development within residential curtilages is relevant along with Policy S4:2 c relating to decision-making policies which state that proposals should be refused in certain circumstances" (DL ¶25). - **Self-build: negligible weight.** "it has not been demonstrated that this would meet the tests set out at Framework Policy DM6. I therefore attribute negligible weight to the asserted self-build nature of the development" (DL ¶27). - **DP3(3).** "Policy DP3:3 states that proposals should be refused, if without clear justification, they conflict with DP3:1 ... there would be some harm in this respect which would be contrary to the Framework. I attribute moderate weight to this conflict" (DL ¶30). - **L2(1)(d)(ii): FAIL.** "The proposal would therefore be contrary to this part of the Framework and as a result it would not make effective use of the land. I attribute significant weight to this conflict" (DL ¶31). ## Planning balance S4 plus s38(6). Limited benefits of one dwelling against moderate DP3 conflict and significant L2(1)(d)(ii) conflict: "in combination, the adverse effects of the proposal would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶32). ## What made the difference The level difference and the plot shape. A bungalow set higher than No 8 and running along its garden, with windows and a turning area at the boundary, breached L2(1)(d)(ii) on privacy and amenity. That, not the design detail, carried the significant weight. ## Transferable points - L2(1)(d)(ii) (acceptable living standards for neighbours) is the Framework hook for garden-infill amenity harm, and failing it engages S4(2)(a)(ii) (DL ¶25, ¶31). - A self-build condition that does not meet the DM6 tests gives the self-build claim negligible weight (DL ¶27). - DP3(3) was quoted but the conflict was weighed, not treated as a freestanding refusal; clear justification not expressly found (DL ¶30). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): conflict (moderate weight).** siting close to the southern boundary loses spaciousness; constrained shared turning and tandem parking at odds with character; tempered by corner position (DL 5-9, 30) - **DP3(3): fail.** DP3(3) quoted ("should be refused, if without clear justification"); conflict given moderate weight in the S4 balance; clear justification not separately assessed (DL 30) - **L2(1)(d)(ii): fail (significant weight).** significant harm to No 8 (overbearing, overlooking of garden, vehicle noise along the boundary); letter treats S4(2)(a)(ii) as relevant (DL 13-21, 25, 31) - **P3: fail.** mapped: future occupiers exposed to vehicle noise from the shared turning area next to bedroom windows (DL 10-12) - **DM6: fail.** self-build condition not shown to meet the tests; negligible weight to self-build (DL 27) - **N4: neutral.** Norfolk Coast NL; limited scale within the settlement, sensitively located (DL 28) - **HE6(1): neutral (substantial weight).** adjacent Sedgeford CA preserved; neutral (DL 29) - **S4: fail.** limited benefits of one dwelling substantially outweighed (DL 24-32) ## Key facts - Site slopes down to No 8, so a single-storey dwelling sits higher than No 8 and runs along its garden boundary (DL 13-14) - Appropriate assessment not needed as dismissed (DL 22) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008840 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3cd3c46b-33b1-4f19-ab38-ab76b9715b42 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008840.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Beech Grove, Brock Road, Great Eccleston (barn to live/work) - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Elaine Moulton - **Authority:** Wyre (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008848 - **Application reference:** 25/00762/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion of agricultural building to a live/work unit - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4), S5(1)(c), S5(2), Transitional(2) - **Development plan policies:** Wyre Local Plan 2023 SP1, SP2, SP4, EP8, CDMP6 - **Main issues:** highway safety - access visibility, suitable location - **Tags:** highway-safety-fail, s5-1-c-reuse, s5-2-refusal-policy, local-policy-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, live-work, sustainable-location-pass, small-scheme ## Summary A barn-to-live/work conversion in rural Lancashire won on the principle and lost on access visibility. The inspector made an important finding under Annex A ¶2. The local plan's sequential hierarchy of uses for rural conversions (employment first, residential last) is more restrictive than S5(1)(c), which supports re-use "irrespective of their intended use", so conflict with it carries very limited weight. TR3(1)(a) was held not principally aimed at small-scale proposals. But TR6(4) non-compliance triggered S5(2), and the appeal failed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were consulted (DL ¶2). - **Visibility: FAIL (TR6(4)).** "In the absence of a mechanism to secure these measures, there is no certainty that the required visibility splays would be secured and maintained" (DL ¶9). "Although the proposed development would not give rise to severe residual cumulative impacts … it would … have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Accordingly, it would conflict with Framework Policy TR6.4" (DL ¶10). - **Local hierarchy inconsistent with S5(1)(c).** "Framework Policy S5.1c supports the re-use of existing buildings outside settlements in certain circumstances irrespective of their intended use. Although Policy SP4 is consistent with the Framework in many respects, its hierarchy of uses … imposes greater restrictions … and is therefore inconsistent with national policy" (DL ¶14). "paragraph 2 of Annex A of the Framework indicates that only very limited weight should be afforded to any conflict with that requirement" (DL ¶16). - **TR3 and small schemes.** "Given the limited scale … it would not generate a significant amount of movement … Consequently, the proposed development is not a type to which Framework Policy TR3.1a is principally directed" (DL ¶19). TR1 is plan-making (DL ¶20). - **S5(2).** "The proposal would, however, fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies, namely Policy TR6.4. This policy indicates that proposed development should be refused where it would have an unacceptable effect on highway safety" (DL ¶27). ## Planning balance The scheme fell within S5(1)(c). Benefits: re-use of a building with some heritage value and a small rural business (moderate), and reduced commuting (limited). TR6(4) non-compliance engaged S5(2), and the plan conflict on access (CDMP6) decided it. ## What made the difference A missing third-party visibility agreement. With a completed s106 or easement over the neighbour's frontage, the appeal would very probably have been allowed. The principle, location and TR3 all went the appellant's way. ## Transferable points - Local plan sequential "priority of uses" tests for rural conversions are more restrictive than S5(1)(c) and get very limited weight under Annex A ¶2 (DL ¶14, 16, 21). - S5(1)(c) supports re-use for live/work without requiring a separate or substantial work element (DL ¶16). - TR3(1)(a) is "principally directed" at development generating significant movement, not single small units (DL ¶19). - TR6(4) is one of the "refuse in specific circumstances" policies that trigger S5(2) (DL ¶25-27). - TR1 is a plan-making policy of limited relevance to decisions (DL ¶20). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(c): pass.** lawful, permanent and substantial building, no extension; supports re-use "irrespective of their intended use" (DL 14-16) - **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** SP4 priority hierarchy of uses for conversions (live/work third, residential fifth) is more restrictive than S5(1)(c) and so inconsistent; conflict carries very limited weight (DL 14, 16, 21) - **TR3(1)(a): pass.** limited scale means little movement, so not the type of development TR3(1)(a) is "principally directed" at (DL 19) - **TR1: not-engaged.** plan-making policy, limited relevance (DL 20) - **TR8: not-engaged.** no PROW affected or opportunity arising (DL 20) - **TR6(4): fail.** 2.4 x 58 m splay to the NE not achievable in appellant's control; no legal agreement over third-party land (DL 7-11) - **S5(2): fail.** failure to comply with TR6(4) is a "refusal in specific circumstances" policy, so benefits substantially outweighed (DL 25-28) ## Key facts - 60 mph road but surveyed speeds substantially lower; splays based on actual speeds (DL 5) - Neighbouring boundary and overgrown vegetation block NE visibility; third-party agreement promised but not produced (DL 8-9) - Benefits (re-use of building with some heritage value, small rural business) moderate; reduced commuting limited (DL 26) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008848 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/79111806-f3d8-44ff-a69a-f2c42174a732 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008848.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 7A Shorefield Cottage, Shorefield Road, Westcliff-on-Sea (replacement dwelling) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Sylvester - **Authority:** Southend-on-Sea (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008855 - **Application reference:** 25/01646/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of a bungalow and erection of a replacement dwelling with four floors of accommodation above undercroft parking - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1), DP3(3), P3, S4 - **Development plan policies:** Southend-on-Sea Core Strategy 2007 CP3, CP4, KP2, Development Management Document 2015 DM1, DM3, DM6, DM15, Design and Townscape Guide 2009 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions, pedestrian safety, S4 balance - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, living-conditions, replacement-dwelling, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, local-policy-consistency ## Summary A cliff-top bungalow in Westcliff-on-Sea was to be replaced by a house that would read as five storeys, sited forward of the building line. The inspector found it dominant and intrusive in a low-rise street and overbearing to neighbouring flats. Both conflicts were tied to Framework policies (DP3(1) and P3), and the benefits were expressly found not to be a clear justification under DP3(3). S4 benefits substantially outweighed. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties' comments on the revised Framework taken into account (DL ¶2). - **Character.** "the proposed dwelling would appear as a dominant and jarringly intrusive building within the street scene" (DL ¶21). The local policies "are consistent with Policy DP3 of the Framework" (DL ¶24), and "the proposal would not comply with paragraph 1 of Policy DP3 of the Framework" (DL ¶24). - **Living conditions (P3).** "The proposed development would be contrary to Policy P3 of the Framework" (DL ¶37). - **L2 / L3.** "the proposal would not increase the supply or density of housing in the area. Accordingly, I do not find Policy L3 of the Framework to have a bearing on the outcome of the appeal" (DL ¶42). - **DP3(3): FAIL.** "In this instance the benefits of the proposed development would not amount to the clear justification for its harmful effects on the character and appearance of the area, and the living conditions of the occupants of nearby properties" (DL ¶45). ## Planning balance S4 inside a settlement. The DP3 and P3 conflicts "constitutes the circumstances in which the benefits of the scheme are substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶46). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶47-48). ## What made the difference Scale and siting in a street of two- and three-storey buildings, plus no daylight evidence for the neighbours. The explicit clear-justification step made DP3(3) decisive regardless of the weight given to the benefits (DL ¶44). ## Transferable points - An explicit DP3(3) clear-justification step: benefits, even given substantial weight, "would not amount to the clear justification" (DL ¶44-45). - A replacement dwelling adds no housing, so L3 density support does not bite (DL ¶42). - L2 support for additional floorspace depends on sensitivity to context (DL ¶43). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): conflict.** five-storey appearance, forward siting and bulk dominant and jarringly intrusive against a low-rise street; local policies consistent with DP3 (DL 11-24) - **DP3(3): fail.** explicit step - benefits would not amount to the clear justification for the harm (DL 44-45) - **P3: fail.** overbearing and loss of daylight to St James Court and Cliff House; privacy either lost or future bedrooms and office given poor outlook; local amenity policies consistent with P3 (DL 25-37) - **TR6(4): pass.** narrower crossover could have been secured (DL 38) - **L3: not-engaged.** replacement dwelling adds no housing; would conflict anyway (DL 42) - **L2: not-engaged.** extra floorspace not sensitive to context; none of the listed L2 types (DL 43) - **HO7: benefit.** even substantial weight including self-build would not change the outcome (DL 44) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 46) ## Key facts - Parties' comments on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework taken into account (DL 2) - Seafront Character Zone 4 (DM6) seeks low-rise height, vernacular form and fine urban grain (DL 7) - No daylight or sunlight assessment submitted (DL 27, 30) - Existing bungalow, even if used as holiday accommodation, is a dwellinghouse, so no net gain (DL 42) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008855 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e6c66f03-c286-4815-be7d-0f667bb6ba6e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008855.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south of The Elms, Chatteris (152 homes, A142 access) - **Decision:** allowed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Fern - **Authority:** Fenland (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008859 - **Application reference:** F/YR23/0697/FDL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** 152 two-storey dwellings with new accesses off the A142, LEAP, open space and landscaping, on part of the East Chatteris Strategic Allocation - **Homes:** 152 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4), HE6(4), S4 - **Development plan policies:** Fenland Local Plan 2014 LP2, LP10, LP15, LP17, LP18 - **Main issues:** highway safety and capacity, heritage (listed buildings, NDHA parkland) - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, large-scheme, tr6-highway-safety, heritage-harm-outweighed, ndha, costs-application, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary 152 homes on part of the East Chatteris Strategic Allocation were allowed with direct access onto the 60 mph A142. Updated traffic surveys showed ample capacity and the collision record was light, so there was no unacceptable safety or severe capacity impact under TR6. Loss of part of a historic parkland caused moderate harm to the setting of the Grade II Manor House group and to the parkland as a non-designated asset, but the public benefits of delivering an allocated site outweighed it. ## Issues and findings - **Highways, TR6(4): PASS.** The updated surveys "clearly demonstrate that the A142 would operate at approximately 0.27 ratio of flow to capacity (RFC) post-development, which is substantially within the tolerance level of 0.85 RFC" (DL ¶10). "access would be achieved without severe adverse impacts on the transport network nor unacceptable impact on highway safety" (DL ¶12). Speed cameras point to "a driver speed compliance problem" rather than a safety issue (DL ¶9). - **Concept plan.** "It is not for the planning system to identify the best or optimal highway access solution but instead to consider the planning merits of the proposal submitted" (DL ¶7). - **Heritage: moderate harm, outweighed.** The effect on the parkland NDHA and the setting of the Manor House group "would be to a moderate level of harm" (DL ¶18). "Collectively, these public benefits outweigh the moderate harm found to the significance of both the designated and non-designated heritage assets identified above" (DL ¶19). "the public benefits are substantial and outweigh the harm to the heritage assets" (DL ¶24). - **Alternatives.** Alternative brownfield sites were for the plan examination, "not therefore a matter for this appeal" (DL ¶25). ## Planning balance Heritage harm against public benefits (HE6 not named; designated and non-designated assets weighed together), then S4 in one sentence: "The benefits of the scheme are not substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶43). Accordance with the development plan (DL ¶44). ## What made the difference Up-to-date traffic evidence showing the A142 far below capacity, and the site's status as an adopted strategic allocation counted in supply. Collision fears were anecdotal. Retaining most of the parkland, its veteran trees and a buffer to the Manor House kept the heritage harm moderate. ## Transferable points - Public perception of danger and speed enforcement signs do not show an unacceptable highway safety impact without substantiated collision evidence (DL ¶8–9). - An allocation's concept plan showing one access route does not preclude another if the alternative is safe (DL ¶7). - Delivery of an allocated site relied on in the supply is a substantial public benefit against moderate setting harm (DL ¶19, ¶24). ## Policy findings - **TR6(4): pass.** 60 mph A142 access; updated surveys show 0.27 RFC post-development against 0.85 tolerance; few, mainly slight injury collisions since 2017; ghost island, tapered junction and crossings; no severe or unacceptable impact (DL 6-13) - **HE6(3): harm.** moderate harm to the setting of Grade II Manor House, barn, stable and cow house, "of considerable importance" (DL 18, 24) - **HE7(2): harm.** moderate harm to mid-19th-century parkland NDHA; weighed jointly with the listed-building harm (DL 18-19) - **HE6(4): pass.** HE6 not named; housing on a strategic allocation relied on for supply, public open space and A142 crossings outweigh the moderate harm (DL 19, 24) - **HE6: neutral.** no effect on Grade II icehouse and wall, Grade I church or Chatteris CA (DL 20-23) - **BNG (Sch 7A TCPA): benefit (significant weight).** application predates mandatory BNG; 10% gain offered, "of significant benefit"; off-site splay clearance to be made up on site (DL 29) - **S4: pass.** allocated site "within the settlement of Chatteris"; benefits not substantially outweighed (DL 43) ## Key facts - Site is part of the East Chatteris Strategic Allocation (LP10); Broad Concept Plan envisaged access from Wenny Road, but does not preclude the A142 (DL 7) - Site in the Council's five-year supply; supply figure not stated (DL 19) - UU dated 30 Jul 2026 - affordable housing, open space, education, NHS ICS, library, Wenny Road bus stops, Footpath 14 works; Town Council's GBP2,000/plot and ambulance requests not justified (DL 34-37) - Over 22% on-site public open space; veteran and TPO trees kept (DL 27) - Medium-high surface water flood risk managed by SuDS condition (DL 30) - Costs application made; separate decision (DL 2) - Framework switch not discussed; 2026 TR6 cited (DL 6) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008859 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008859.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to 33A Chelford Road, Somerford (PIP, Jodrell Bank WHS) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Smith - **Authority:** Cheshire East (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008864 - **Application reference:** 25/3451/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for up to five dwellings on an open field next to the Congleton settlement boundary, within the Jodrell Bank consultation zone - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE8, HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 PG6, SD1, SD2, SE1, SE14, SADPD 2022 HER9 - **Main issues:** suitable location, Jodrell Bank World Heritage Site - **Tags:** PIP, world-heritage-site, evidence-gap, heritage-harm-decisive, s5-1-j, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, self-build-unsecured, drafting-slip, car-dependence-moderate, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Permission in principle for up to five homes on a field at Somerford, next to Congleton. Dismissed. The site met S5(1)(j), and the location conflict with local accessibility policies was limited. But the site is in the Jodrell Bank consultation zone, and no heritage statement assessed radio-frequency interference with the World Heritage Site. The inspector held that omission determinative under HE8, and the heritage balance failed. ## Issues and findings - **Location.** Occupiers "would be likely to rely on private vehicles rather than on the nearby the bus services, or the presence of a National Cycle Network route" (DL ¶12). But "the journey to Congleton is relatively short in time and distance, when undertaken by private vehicle. Consequently, the development would retain a reasonable and overall sustainable relationship with the services and facilities" (DL ¶13). - **S5(1)(j).** "the proposed development would be well related to an existing settlement and, given its modest scale, could be accommodated without placing undue pressure on existing or planned infrastructure" (DL ¶29). - **HE8, evidence gap.** "No Heritage Statement has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development would not adversely affect the operational efficiency of the telescopes through radio frequency interference" (DL ¶22). "This omission is a determinative factor in the outcome of this appeal" (DL ¶22). - **Conditions at PIP stage.** "the PPG indicates that it is not possible to impose conditions as the terms of any permission in principle must only include the site location, type of development and amount" (DL ¶24). - **HE6.** "I attach very high substantial weight to the conservation of the Jodrell Bank World Heritage Site, given its international importance" (DL ¶30). "I therefore conclude that the public benefits would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects that would result from this harm" (DL ¶32). ## Planning balance The HE6(4) balance, which decided the appeal. The letter frames it in S5's "substantially outweighed" words, not as a plain weighing of public benefits against harm of considerable importance and weight. The degree of harm is not graded. The plan-led conclusion follows (DL ¶32). ## What made the difference The missing technical and heritage assessment of radio-frequency interference in the Jodrell Bank zone. Location was not a reason for refusal: the S5(1)(j) pass and the limited location harm show the scheme would otherwise have been approvable. ## Transferable points - In the Jodrell Bank consultation zone, a PIP needs a heritage statement on radio-frequency interference at the first stage. The gap cannot be left to conditions or the technical details stage (DL ¶22-25). - A WHS's operational function can be part of its Outstanding Universal Value, so effects on that function are heritage harm (DL ¶18, 25). - Caution: DL ¶13 treats short car journeys as a "sustainable relationship" (DL ¶13), and DL ¶32 imports the S5 formula into HE6(4). Neither is a sound statement of the 2026 tests. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j)(i): pass.** edge of Somerford next to the Congleton boundary; "strong functional and spatial relationship" with Congleton, services "within a very short journey"; modest scale (DL 28-29) - **TR3: harm (limited weight).** mapped: TR3 not cited; bus, rail and services beyond local-plan distances; car reliance likely, but "relatively short in time and distance, when undertaken by private vehicle", so limited harm (DL 10-15) - **HE8: fail.** no heritage statement assessing radio-frequency interference or other effects on the WHS's OUV; "This omission is a determinative factor" (DL 21-25) - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** letter attaches "very high substantial weight" to conservation of the WHS; degree of harm not graded (DL 30) - **HE6(4): fail.** letter concludes "the public benefits would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects", importing the S5 formula into the HE6(4) balance; no HE6(3) statement (DL 31-32) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** up to five homes; no five-year supply (figure not stated); moderate weight "Given the magnitude of development" (DL 29) ## Key facts - Site within the Jodrell Bank Radio Telescope Consultation Zone; the University of Manchester objects in principle across much of the zone because of cumulative radio-frequency interference (DL 19) - Bus stops and railway station beyond the SD2 guide distances (500 m bus, 2 km rail); services beyond 1 km (DL 11) - Self-build claimed but no securing mechanism at PIP stage (DL 31) - Parties consulted on the August 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008864 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/10cc5a9a-84b1-4866-90b5-905d1031aee5 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008864.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Paddocks, Bridgnorth Road, Stourton - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Marley - **Authority:** South Staffordshire (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6008866 - **Application reference:** 25/00721/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Erection of stables for the keeping of horses, with hardstanding, tarmac access, close-board fencing and gates (part retrospective) - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), GB7(1)(f)(iv), DP3 - **Development plan policies:** South Staffordshire Core Strategy 2012 GB1, EV7, EQ4 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, character and appearance, highway safety, VSC - **Tags:** equestrian, openness-harm, vsc-not-shown, outdoor-recreation-facilities, openness-minimised-test, local-plan-gb-policy-out-of-date ## Summary Part-retrospective stables, hardstanding, access and front close-board fencing on an equestrian site in the South Staffordshire Green Belt. Dismissed. The stable building was acceptable, but the close-board fencing meant the scheme did not "minimise" the impact on openness, so it fell outside the GB7(1)(f)(iv) outdoor recreation exception. Horse welfare benefits (moderate weight) did not clearly outweigh the harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were given the chance to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL ¶5). - **GB7(1)(f)(iv) outdoor recreation facilities: FAIL.** Equestrian use is outdoor recreation, and enclosure, parking and turning "may in principle be appropriate facilities" (DL ¶11). But "the use of closeboard fencing would result in a sudden insertion of built form of a solid appearance on a largely undeveloped section of road … the proposal does not minimise the impact on the openness of the Green Belt" (DL ¶12). "even were I to conclude there would not be a significant conflict with the Green Belt purposes, the proposal would not fall within the identified exception" (DL ¶14). - **Permitted development claim.** "It is open to the appellant to investigate whether elements of the proposal benefit from permitted development rights … it is not within my remit to determine whether parts of a development are lawful" (DL ¶15). - **Local plan consistency.** "the requirement to preserve the openness of the Green Belt in Policy GB1 of the Core Strategy does not reflect the revised wording in the Framework" (DL ¶18), so very limited weight to that conflict. This did not reduce the substantial weight to Green Belt harm (DL ¶36). - **Character (DP3): moderate harm** (DL ¶25). - **Highways (TR6): no harm** (DL ¶32). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. On one side, substantial weight to Green Belt harm and moderate weight to character harm. On the other, moderate weight to horse welfare, security and access, and limited weight to the scarcity of non-GB land, because "I see no reason why a proposal could not come forward which would both facilitate the objectives of the appellant and not result in harm" (DL ¶35). The benefits did not clearly outweigh the harm (DL ¶38). ## What made the difference The fence. The stable and the hard surfacing passed, but a solid close-board frontage on a verdant road was enough to fail the "minimised" test in GB7(1)(f), which is a stricter formulation than the old "preserve openness". Post-and-rail fencing, or hedging alone, would probably have brought the scheme within (f)(iv). ## Transferable points - GB7(1)(f) "impact on openness is minimised" is a distinct test. Failing it takes the scheme out of the exception even if there is no significant conflict with purposes (DL ¶14). - Ancillary works (fencing, gates) are assessed as part of the application. An unresolved permitted development argument gets limited weight at s78 (DL ¶15). - Local plan policies worded "preserve openness" are treated as not reflecting the 2026 Framework, so conflict with them gets very limited weight. This does not dilute GB6(2) substantial weight (DL ¶18, ¶36). - The availability of a less harmful alternative scheme undercuts need-based VSC arguments (DL ¶35). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(f)(iv): fail.** equestrian facilities are outdoor recreation in connection with existing use, but close-board front fencing does not "minimise" impact on openness, so exception fails regardless of purposes (DL 9-14) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriate development plus visual openness harm; VSC not shown (DL 33-38) - **DP3: harm (moderate weight).** close-board fencing out of context on verdant, largely undeveloped road frontage (DL 21-25, 37) - **TR6: neutral.** good visibility; previous agricultural access; no highway harm (DL 27-32) - **Core Strategy GB1: conflict (very-limited weight).** the "preserve openness" wording does not reflect the 2026 Framework "minimised" test, so very limited weight to the conflict (DL 18, 36) ## Key facts - Stable block itself similar in size to a previous building on the site; Council raised no openness objection to the stable alone (DL 10) - Close-board fencing along much of the road frontage, visible through gaps in hedgerow (DL 12) - Hardcore base and tarmac access held not to reduce openness given limited profile (DL 13) - Appellant claimed fence was permitted development; inspector said not within s78 remit, limited weight (DL 15) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008866 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/19a52819-2bdc-4dab-b3b6-219853df607c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008866.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 62 Birkbeck Road, Romford - **Decision:** allowed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Eggleton - **Authority:** Havering (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6008872 - **Application reference:** P1553.25 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Loft conversion with rear dormer and change of use of 4-bed house (C3) to children's care home (C2) for up to 5 children - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO1(2)(f), Havering LP Policy 6 - **Development plan policies:** Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 Policies 3, 6, 7, 16, 34, London Plan 2021 H12, S1, S2 - **Main issues:** housing mix and need, neighbour living conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, childrens-home, specialist-housing-need, sufficiency-strategy, costs-application ## Summary A five-child care home in an extended detached house in Romford was allowed. The Framework "advises that the evidence of need, for looked after children, can be found in the relevant Children's Social Care Sufficiency Strategy" (DL ¶7; HO1(2)(f)). The Council's own Strategy showed Havering children being placed out of borough despite a numerical oversupply, and the Inspector found that "sufficient to demonstrate a need at this time" (DL ¶16). ## What made the difference Using the Sufficiency Strategy as the Framework directs turned the Council's oversupply argument around: the local homes are filled by other boroughs' children (DL ¶¶14–15). Issued on publication day, this is an early use of HO1(2)(f) in a decision. ## Policy findings - **HO1(2)(f): pass.** Framework points to the Children's Social Care Sufficiency Strategy as the source of need evidence; Strategy shows Havering children placed out of borough despite numerical oversupply → need shown (DL 7, 14-16) - **Havering LP Policy 6: accord.** need criterion (i) "generally satisfied"; no unacceptable noise/disturbance (viii) (DL 16, 18-21) - **Havering LP Policy 3: conflict.** loss of a family house weighs against but use remains residential (DL 17) ## Key facts - 19 homes / 72 places in Havering; NHS partner claims 66-place oversupply; Havering uses only 1 home - 158 Havering children placed elsewhere (March 2024); Strategy 2025-28 seeks local capacity - Contrasts with appeal 6000705 (113 Pretoria Road) where need not shown on thinner evidence ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f025aabf-6e5c-4544-aa81-2707b652f20f - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008872 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008872.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 9 Lyndhurst Road, Corringham (outbuilding as habitable space) - **Decision:** allowed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S F Barnes - **Authority:** Thurrock (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008878 - **Application reference:** 25/00922/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective use of a rear-garden outbuilding as habitable space (lounge, utility, bedroom with en-suite) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6), DM10 - **Development plan policies:** Thurrock Core Strategy 2015 PMD2, PMD8, PMD9, Residential Alterations and Extensions SPD 2017 - **Main issues:** whether a separate dwelling - **Tags:** tier-2, retrospective, outbuilding, pd-rights-condition-refused, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A converted garden outbuilding with a bedroom and en-suite but no kitchen was allowed as habitable space ancillary to the house. Without food-preparation facilities, and with shared services and address, it would not function as a separate dwelling (DL ¶10-13). A condition removing permitted development rights was refused under the Framework's clear-justification test (DL ¶18). ## What made the difference There were no cooking facilities, and the outbuilding depended physically on the main house's kitchen across the shared garden (DL ¶10-11). ## Policy findings - **DM10: accord.** removal of PD rights refused - no clear justification (DL 18) - **DM6: accord.** occupancy and no-subdivision conditions unnecessary (DL 16-17) ## Key facts - No cooking facilities; shares address, utilities and waste with the main house, so it is not a separate dwelling (DL 10-11) - Revised Framework "not material to the outcome"; no comments sought (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008878 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a90f3992-1ea3-4f2d-8cc0-c1bef770ca32 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008878.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Old Post House, Mundesley Road, Trimingham - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Richard Aston - **Authority:** North Norfolk (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008881 - **Application reference:** PF/25/2776 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective change of use of domestic garage to Class E(b) bar ("The Cliffhanger") with outdoor seating for 35 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(b), S5(1)(c), S5(2), F9, P3, TR4 - **Development plan policies:** North Norfolk Local Plan SS1, SS2, ENV6, CC5, CC8, CC9, HC7 - **Main issues:** location, noise, parking and access, coastal change, amenity space - **Tags:** s5-1-b-necessity, s5-1-c-reuse, s5-2-refusal-policy, coastal-change, retrospective, rural-tourism, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A retrospective clifftop bar in a converted garage at Trimingham was dismissed. It qualified under S5(1)(b) (tourism) and S5(1)(c) (reuse of a redundant building). It still failed the "substantially outweighed" test. The site is in a Coastal Change Management Area with no vulnerability assessment, and F9 says such development "should not take place". Noise was under-assessed, and parking relied on third-party clifftop land. ## Issues and findings - **Location: acceptable.** The garage was "not big enough to house a modern-day vehicle" and "could be reasonably regarded as redundant" (DL ¶5). "The proposal is supported in terms of being tourist development and the re-use of a building S5 (1. b and c) and by Policies E2 and E4" (DL ¶22). - **Noise, P3: FAIL.** The acoustic report modelled 20 customers at normal voice. "the proposal must be determined as applied for and its indicated overall capacity" (DL ¶10). - **Parking and access, TR4: FAIL.** "It is ultimately unknown to me ... who owns or has rights to use, pass and re-pass on this land" (DL ¶16). - **Coastal change, F9: FAIL.** "it has not been demonstrated through up to date evidence that such development in a CCMA would be safe over its planned lifetime ... This latter policy states in such circumstances such development should not take place" (DL ¶23). ## Planning balance S5(1)/S5(2) (DL ¶21). Economic benefit got modest weight, with community support noted (DL ¶22). "These are the prevailing considerations and in this case the benefits would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶24). ## What made the difference Evidence gaps. There was no CEVA, the noise assessment was not at capacity, and parking rights were not secured. F9 operated as a refusal-type policy under S5(2) even though the use itself fell within two S5(1) categories. ## Transferable points - Tourism and reuse can both qualify under S5(1)(b)/(c) for small rural leisure uses without a separate "necessity" discussion where reuse is established (DL ¶22). - F9 (Coastal Change Management Areas) is a "should not take place" policy. Without a coastal vulnerability assessment it defeats an otherwise qualifying scheme (DL ¶23-24). - Noise must be assessed at the capacity applied for, not typical trade (DL ¶10). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(b): pass.** supported as tourist development (with S5(1)(c) reuse, E2, E4); economic benefit modest (DL 22) - **S5(1)(c): pass.** redundant small garage reused without significant alteration (DL 5, 22) - **F9: fail.** in Coastal Change Management Area (Epoch 2/3 border); no Coastal Erosion Vulnerability Assessment; F9 says such development should not take place (DL 17-18, 23) - **P3: fail.** acoustic report assumed 20 normal-voice customers, not 45 capacity with raised voices and music to 22:30 next to neighbouring garden (DL 9-12, 23) - **TR4: fail.** reliance on informal parking on third-party clifftop land with no rights or mechanism (DL 13-16, 23) - **S5(2): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed; F9 is a should-not-take-place policy (DL 21, 24) ## Key facts - Bar trading since June 2025; open midday-22:30 daily (DL 2, 8) - Letter dates the Framework publication as 26 August 2026 - slip (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008881 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/dc49c4a6-6425-4c20-ac85-65be5debdd58 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008881.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 34 Vincent Gardens, Brent - **Decision:** dismissed, 26 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Williams - **Authority:** Brent (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6008885 - **Application reference:** 25/3240 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retention of second-floor rear walk-out balcony, alterations to rooflights and rear door (retrospective) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6), Brent LP DMP1 - **Development plan policies:** Brent Local Plan 2019-2041 DMP1, Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD 2025 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, privacy - **Tags:** tier-2, householder, retrospective, living-conditions, transitional-no-consultation, costs-application, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary A retrospective second-floor walk-out balcony on a suburban semi was dismissed. It harmed the character of the house and caused actual and perceived overlooking of neighbouring gardens. The benefits were limited and private. The 2026 Framework is acknowledged, but the letter cites no Framework policy. ## What made the difference The change from an approved Juliet balcony to a platform people can stand on and move around. Perceived surveillance counted as harm even over long separation distances (DL ¶14-18). ## Policy findings - **DMP1 (Brent LP): conflict (significant weight).** wide projecting balcony visually cluttered and incongruous; removal of eaves; elevated overlooking and perceived surveillance of Nos 36 and Randall Avenue gardens (DL 7-19, 27) ## Key facts - 2021 permission for Juliet balconies only; walk-out balcony materially different (DL 7) - Enforcement notice already served (DL 4) - Screening conditions rejected as unassessed and potentially intrusive (DL 21-22) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008885 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a7edf316-e373-41dd-bcdb-581f8b5c2997 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008885.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Twelve Acre Farm & Livery, Moor Drove (East), Hockwold cum Wilton - **Decision:** dismissed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Knight - **Authority:** King's Lynn and West Norfolk (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008895 - **Application reference:** 25/01933/F - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Permanent retention of rural-worker mobile home and ancillary livery unit - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, isolated - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO11, S5(3) - **Development plan policies:** King's Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan 2025 LP36 - **Main issues:** essential rural worker need, existing dwellings, financial viability - **Tags:** rural-worker-dwelling, ho11, isolated-home, equestrian, existing-accommodation ## Summary Permanent retention of a rural-worker mobile home at an equestrian livery business in open countryside. Dismissed. The inspector accepted an essential functional need and financial viability, but the need could be met by an existing (immune) barn flat on the holding that the appellant now owned, so the HO11 / local LP36 exception was not met. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties given opportunity to comment; "both parties were content that the new Framework did not materially alter the policy context … The appeal proposal does not evidently have the support of Framework Policy S5, and Policy HO11 seeks to avoid isolated homes in the countryside unless there is an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work" (DL ¶¶5, 13). - **Functional need: PASS.** "a continuous on-site presence is a commercial expectation and operational prerequisite" (DL ¶26); "the nature and scale of the appellant's business … generate an inherent essential need" (DL ¶27). Crime risk unevidenced (DL ¶¶17–18); personal horses not commercial (DL ¶19). - **Existing dwellings: FAIL.** "I see no reason to accept that the appellant could not occupy the barn flat" (DL ¶39); lease unsigned and dated "1st of June 500" (DL ¶33). - **Viability: PASS.** Net profit £16k–£22k realistic (DL ¶51); contrasted with White Dyke Farm where a £450k dwelling made a £17k profit unviable (DL ¶¶41–42). ## Planning balance Plan-led: conflict with LP36 and with the Framework's restriction of isolated homes (DL ¶56). No S5 benefit balance run; social/economic benefits not shown to be lost (DL ¶54). ## What made the difference Ownership of an existing dwelling on the holding. Had the barn flat not been available, the evidenced need and viability would likely have justified the mobile home. ## Transferable points - HO11 essential-need test is materially unchanged from 2024 §84(a); local rural-worker policies consistent with it keep full weight (DL ¶¶13–14). - Need must relate to the commercial enterprise; personal animals and unevidenced crime risk don't count (DL ¶¶17–19). - An existing dwelling under the appellant's control defeats the need, absent proof it cannot be occupied (DL ¶¶32–39). - Viability judged by whether an independent operator could live off the business, having regard to dwelling cost (DL ¶¶41–42). ## Policy findings - **HO11: fail.** essential need for rural worker found (27 horses, 8 full + 15 DIY liveries, foaling) but met by existing barn flat on the holding the appellant now owns (DL 25-27, 39, 52) - **S5(3): conflict.** isolated home not approved other than per HO11 (DL 13, 56) - **LP36 (local): conflict.** no material inconsistency with the 2026 Framework — full weight (DL 13-14, 56) ## Key facts - Temporary permission (20/00366/FM) for the mobile home had expired - 27 horses; 8 full and 15 DIY liveries; net profit £16k-£22k p.a. accepted as viable - Appellant had bought the holding including an immune barn flat; sitting-tenant lease unsigned and dated "1st of June 500" - Crime-risk and hay-baling arguments rejected for lack of evidence ## Sources - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6008895-Appeal-Decision-Twelve-Acre-Farm-Livery-Moor-Drove-east-Thetford-IP26-4JU.pdf - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/2026/rural-worker-dwelling-livery/ --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008895.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 5 Blandford Road South, Slough - **Decision:** allowed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Ramsden - **Authority:** Slough (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008903 - **Application reference:** P/20265/004 - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Appeal against conditions 6 (no subdivision/HMO) and 9 (removal of Class B and E PD rights) on householder extensions permission - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM6(2)(c), DM6(1) - **Development plan policies:** Slough Local Plan 2004 H14, Residential Extensions Guidelines SPD 2010 - **Main issues:** necessity of PD/HMO restriction conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, condition-appeal, pd-rights-removal, hmo, transitional-no-consultation, costs-application ## Summary Conditions barring subdivision or HMO use and removing Class B and E PD rights on a householder permission were deleted. The Council offered no "clear justification" under DM6(2)(c) beyond a generic amenity reason, and the large corner-plot garden could take outbuildings without breaching H14 (DL ¶¶9–23). ## What made the difference No site-specific evidence of harm from HMO use or future PD works. The comparators relied on had concrete evidence, such as parking stress or a prior unauthorised HMO, that was absent here (DL ¶¶24–29). ## Policy findings - **DM6(2)(c): pass.** no clear justification to restrict C3→C4 PD or Class B/E rights; generic amenity reason insufficient (DL 9-16, 23) - **Slough LP H14: accord.** 14 m garden below 15 m SPD guideline but 350 sq m+ usable amenity on corner plot (DL 17-22) ## Key facts - Detached 4-bed on wide corner plot; >350 sq m rear/side amenity - Council comparators (193 Vicarage Way, 100B Waterbeach Rd, 140 Langley Rd, 88/90 Quinbrookes) distinguished on evidence ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/42034dd8-c231-4404-b473-444e6a9ac30d - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008903 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008903.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 50 St Helens Road, Bolton (shopfront cladding and extensions) - **Decision:** allowed, 20 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Hatch - **Authority:** Bolton (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008914 - **Application reference:** 00060/26 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective single-storey rear and first-floor extension, new shopfront with black cladding, window and extractor flue - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** Places for Everyone JP-P1 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, retrospective, shopfront, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Black cladding on a Bolton local-centre shopfront, refused on appearance, was allowed on appeal. Among varied shopfronts, grilles and shutters it "does not appear stark" (DL ¶9). The decision is plan-led, under Places for Everyone JP-P1. ## What made the difference The street's commercial, mixed-material context (DL ¶8-9). ## Policy findings - **DP3: pass.** black cladding not stark in a varied commercial frontage with grilles and shutters; decided on JP-P1 (DL 7-11) ## Key facts - Daubhill Local Shopping Centre, busy route into Bolton (DL 7) - Framework changes "not material to the main issue"; no comments sought (DL 5) - Retrospective, so a strict-timetable condition used for the flue fume and noise scheme (DL 13) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008914 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/58978bbd-fecd-4b06-8535-db8ace26d972 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008914.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land north of Claypole Equestrian, Doddington Lane, Claypole - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Laura Bartle - **Authority:** South Kesteven (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6008915 - **Application reference:** S25/1045 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Use of land for siting 50 shipping containers for self-storage, next to an equestrian business - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(b) - **Development plan policies:** South Kesteven Local Plan SP5, E7, DE1, Claypole Neighbourhood Plan Policies 2, 6 - **Main issues:** principle of development in the countryside, character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, s5-1-b-necessity, rural-business, design-refusal, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Fifty self-storage containers on open land next to an equestrian business outside Claypole. The inspector accepted this was rural diversification (moderate weight), but convenience to the landowner did not show that a countryside location was necessary under S5(1)(b). The containers would also cause moderate harm to rural character. Dismissed on the development plan, with no S5(4) balance. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "References to the Framework in my decision are to the August 2026 version" (DL ¶2). - **S5(1)(b): FAIL.** "convenience and commercial advantage do not in themselves demonstrate necessity" (DL ¶8). "the evidence before me does not demonstrate that the self-storage use is functionally dependent upon that business or that it requires a countryside location in order to operate effectively" (DL ¶8). - **Curtilage.** "the Framework makes clear that it should not be assumed that the whole curtilage of developed land should be developed" (DL ¶9). - **Character: moderate harm.** "the proposal would introduce a utilitarian form of development which would appear incongruous within its countryside setting" (DL ¶16). ## Planning balance Plan-led only: conflict with SP5, CNP Policy 2 and DE1, and "no material considerations, including Policy S5 of the Framework, that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan" (DL ¶18). The S5(4) exceptional-circumstances test for development in no S5(1) category was not expressly run; the result would plainly be the same. ## What made the difference No evidence of functional need for a countryside location. A self-storage use has no intrinsic link to the land. ## Transferable points - The S5(1)(b) requirement that a countryside location be shown to be necessary is not met by convenience or commercial advantage to an existing rural business; the applicant must show why the use could not go in or next to a settlement or on employment land (DL ¶8, ¶11). - Hedge screening does not answer character harm: "the effect of the proposal is not solely a matter of visibility" (DL ¶15). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(b): fail.** convenience and commercial advantage of co-location with the equestrian business do not show a location outside a settlement is necessary; no evidence the use could not go in or next to a settlement or on employment land (DL 6-11) - **E4: benefit (moderate weight).** mapped: diversification of a land-based rural business, moderate weight (DL 5, 10) - **AnnexB:PDL: not-engaged.** open land with no buildings; even if within a wider curtilage, the Framework says the whole curtilage should not be assumed developable (DL 9) - **DP3(1): harm.** mapped: moderate harm - utilitarian, incongruous container rows erode rural character despite screening; conflict with local DE1; DP3 not named (DL 12-17) ## Key facts - 50 containers in rows; hedges screen them and the Neighbourhood Plan view is not affected (DL 13-14) - No S5(4) exceptional-circumstances balance run; conclusion plan-led, "no material considerations, including Policy S5 of the Framework" (DL 18) - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008915 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/caad676d-0a51-415e-ad6d-073fc6a32e0f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008915.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to 9 Ashby Close, Grimsby - **Decision:** allowed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer L Clark) - **Authority:** North East Lincolnshire (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6008922 - **Application reference:** DM/0806/24/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Two pairs of semi-detached houses on vacant hard-surfaced former council open land, keeping a footpath link - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HC7 - **Development plan policies:** North East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2018 policies 5, 34, 43 - **Main issues:** loss of public open space - **Tags:** tier-2, appeal-planning-officer, transitional-no-consultation, open-space, bng-small-site-exemption, small-scheme ## Summary Four houses on an unused, hard-surfaced patch of former council land between two cul-de-sacs were allowed. It was not safeguarded open space, better green space was a short walk away, and the footpath link was kept. The letter also records the new 0.2 ha BNG small-site exemption (in force 6 August 2026) taking the site out of BNG. ## What made the difference The absence of any open-space designation, combined with poor quality and nearby alternatives. Plot-by-plot amenity and design were not in dispute. ## Policy findings - **HC7: pass.** code mapped by harvester — not designated/safeguarded open space; hard-surfaced, unused; ample greenspace nearby along Great Coates Road and River Freshney (DL 9-11) - **N2: not-engaged.** code mapped by harvester — site 0.1075ha, so BNG not required under the new 0.2ha small-site exemption (Biodiversity Gain Amendment Regs 2026, in force 6 Aug 2026) (DL 5) ## Key facts - Site 0.1075 ha, historically intended as a play area and held as POS, but disposal notice issued (DL 5, 9) - Henlow appeal (non-designated green informal sport space) distinguished (DL 13) - 2026 Framework "do[es] not affect the substance"; no re-consultation (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008922 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fa120a04-d470-4c33-85ba-e09aacc9214f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008922.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 5A Water Street, Dursley - **Decision:** allowed, 1 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Phillips - **Authority:** Stroud (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008924 - **Application reference:** S.26/0346/P3E - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class MA prior approval — vacant office storage building to 2 flats - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** conservation-area, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Class MA.2(2)(f) - **Main issues:** Class MA natural light - **Tags:** tier-2, prior-approval, class-ma, no-framework-cited, costs-application ## Summary Class MA prior approval for two flats was granted. The natural-light problem was solved with a condition preventing occupation until windows approved under a separate extant planning permission are built. The Courts have recognised this as an "obvious solution" (DL ¶¶11–13). The Framework is not cited. ## What made the difference The separate extant full permission for the external works, coupled by condition, following *LW Zenith* (DL ¶13). ## Policy findings - **GPDO Class MA.2(2)(f): pass.** natural light secured by Grampian-style condition requiring completion of windows/rooflights under extant FUL S.25/1492/FUL (LW Zenith Ltd v SSLUHC 2022) (DL 11-16) - **HE9: neutral.** Dursley CA and nearby listed buildings unharmed (DL 17-19) ## Key facts - Extant permission for new fenestration and roof material expires 21/10/2028 - Severn Estuary SAC — Reg 77 application a separate pre-commencement requirement ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d1e9bba2-90eb-4771-bc56-418098b61ceb - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008924 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008924.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 512 High Road, Tottenham - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M Cryan - **Authority:** Haringey (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6008944 - **Application reference:** HGY/2025/3167 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Mansard extension and conversion of upper-floor 3-bed maisonette to three 1-bed flats - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, HE7, S4(1), L2(1)(d)(i), DP3(1) - **Development plan policies:** Haringey Strategic Policies 2017 SP11, Development Management DPD 2017 DM1, DM9, DM12, London Plan 2021 D6, HC1 - **Main issues:** conservation area and non-designated heritage asset - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, mansard, airspace-l2, non-determination ## Summary A mansard on a locally listed early-19th-century building in the Bruce Grove Conservation Area, turning a maisonette into three flats. It was dismissed on a non-determination appeal. The inspector found moderate harm to the CA, through the loss of the building's authenticity as a non-designated heritage asset. A net gain of two flats did not outweigh it. L2's airspace support failed its own street-scene limb (L2(1)(d)(i)), so under S4 the benefits were substantially outweighed. ## Issues and findings - **NDHA harm feeding CA harm.** "While Policy HE7 ... says that harm to the significance of an NDHA 'should be weighed against the benefits ... and a balanced judgement made', here the harm would undermine the positive contribution the appeal property makes to the significance of the BGCA as a designated heritage asset" (DL ¶13). - **Design.** "the building taking on a disproportionately tall and narrow appearance ... The dormers would be set forward of the mansard roof slope which would give them a bulky and dominant appearance" (DL ¶10). - **HE6.** The harm was moderate, "though Policy HE6 ... recognises that any harm will be a matter of considerable importance and weight". The net gain of two dwellings, "even a modest uplift in housing supply is an appreciable public benefit", did not outweigh it (DL ¶13-14). - **L2 airspace.** L2(1)(d) gives substantial weight to using airspace, but "Policy L2 goes on to say (at paragraph 1.d.i.) that such development should be consistent with the overall street scene" (DL ¶18-19). ## Planning balance This was the S4 balance: "Taken together, I find the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶20). ## What made the difference The rarity of mansards in this CA, and the building's prominence at a junction. Where a CA appraisal restricts mansards, the Framework's airspace support cannot override it. This decision is a near twin of PINS-6011521 (Westminster). ## Transferable points - Harm to a locally listed building that contributes to a CA is weighed as CA harm under HE6, not just under the NDHA balance in HE7 (DL ¶13). - L2(1)(d)(i) is an internal limit on airspace support: no street-scene consistency, no substantial weight (DL ¶18-19). - A net gain of two flats is an "appreciable" benefit but does not outweigh moderate CA harm (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** moderate less-than-substantial harm to Bruce Grove CA; net gain of two flats does not outweigh (DL 13-14) - **HE7: harm.** loss of original roof form and authenticity of locally listed building; disproportionately tall and narrow (DL 10-13) - **L2(1)(d)(i): fail.** airspace development not consistent with the street scene (DL 18-19) - **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 20) ## Key facts - CA appraisal says mansards are acceptable only if original or established and behind a parapet; only a handful exist in the CA (DL 8-9) - Prominent site opposite the Bruce Grove junction and visible from trains (DL 11) - Non-determination appeal; the letter does not say whether the parties were consulted on the new Framework (DL 2-3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008944 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b86e0098-0fa6-4690-bef3-efa85372c0c1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008944.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Outmarsh Farm, Semington (temporary rural worker caravan) - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Worley - **Authority:** Wiltshire (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008970 - **Application reference:** PL/2025/08409 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective siting of a static caravan for a rural worker for three years on a smallholding - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO11 - **Development plan policies:** Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015 CP1, CP2, CP34, CP48, CP51, CP57 - **Main issues:** essential need for rural worker dwelling, character and appearance - **Tags:** rural-worker-dwelling, agricultural-need-not-shown, temporary-permission, retrospective, caravans, plan-led, ho11, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A static caravan for a rural worker on a small, early-stage smallholding at Outmarsh Farm. No harm to character was found, but there was no essential need for a worker to live on site and the enterprise's viability was not evidenced. Dismissed on the development plan (CP1, CP2, CP48), with HO11 treated as giving the same test. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties invited to comment; the Council's reply only updated policy references (DL ¶3). - **HO11.** "Policy HO11 of the recently published Framework, like the previous versions, lends similar support to isolated homes in the countryside where there is an essential need for a rural worker" (DL ¶9). - **Functional need: not shown.** "there is no compelling evidence to demonstrate that these activities are so frequent or time sensitive so as to necessitate a continuous on-site presence" (DL ¶10). - **Financial test: not shown.** The evidence "does not demonstrate with any reasonable degree of certainty that the enterprise is currently financially viable or that it is likely to become so within the forthcoming 3 years" (DL ¶15). - **Conclusion on need.** "it has not been demonstrated that there is an essential need for a dwelling to accommodate a rural worker at the site" (DL ¶19). - **Character: no harm.** "it reflects the aims of the Framework that seek well-designed places" (DL ¶22). ## Planning balance Plan-led: "the development conflicts with Policies CP1, CP2 and CP48 of the WCS and therefore the development plan taken as a whole" (DL ¶27). No S5 route or Annex A ¶2 weighting of CP1/CP2 is set out. ## What made the difference The scale of the holding. Lambing, predator and security needs could be met by visits, seasonal accommodation, shelters or CCTV, and the three-year business plan lacked costs and profit figures. ## Transferable points - HO11 essential-need tests (functional and financial) apply to temporary accommodation too, including for a start-up enterprise (DL ¶9-16). - Security and animal-welfare arguments need evidence that alternatives (CCTV, alarms, shelters, seasonal cover) would not work (DL ¶11-13). - Caution: the letter relies on CP1/CP2 conflict without the Annex A ¶2 inconsistency step that the same inspector applied in Melksham PINS-6007352 (DL ¶7, ¶27). ## Policy findings - **HO11: fail.** no essential need for a worker to live on site, even temporarily - modest stock (15 sheep, 2 goats, 20 hens, 3 hives), security and predator risks answerable by other means, viability of the enterprise unevidenced (DL 9-17, 19) - **DP3(1): pass.** modest caravan cut into the bank, not unduly conspicuous; reflects DP3(1) aims (DL 21-22, 24) - **HE6: neutral.** setting of Grade II Outmarsh Farmhouse not affected (s66) (DL 25) ## Key facts - Caravan unoccupied and used for storage at the site visit (DL 6) - Income forecast of 6,700, 10,000 and 20,000 pounds over three years without a breakdown of costs or profit (DL 15) - Occupier would manage the holding for the appellant, who lives in the farmhouse but works away (DL 6, 17) - Decided plan-led on CP1, CP2 and CP48 with no Transitional(2) assessment; the same inspector found CP1/CP2 materially inconsistent with S5 in Melksham PINS-6007352 ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008970 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7bf8a052-f6c6-4cdf-837b-07333f718076 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008970.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 90 Park Road, Wigan - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Duff - **Authority:** Wigan (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008977 - **Application reference:** A/25/099638/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective change of use of terraced house to 6-person C4 HMO with rear dormer and rooflights - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), P3, DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Wigan Core Strategy CP6, CP7, CP10, CP17, Places for Everyone JP-P1, JP-S1, JP-C8, UDP A1S, HMO SPD - **Main issues:** mixed communities, neighbour living conditions, future occupiers - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, hmo, retrospective, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A 6-person HMO in a Wigan terrace, begun around when a borough-wide Article 4 Direction took effect, was dismissed. It would sandwich a non-HMO house between HMOs, and add noise and on-street parking pressure. Under S4, the inspector found P3 and DP3 conflicts substantially outweighed the modest housing-choice benefit and the L2 airspace benefit (DL ¶41). ## What made the difference The SPD's sandwiching test, and the treatment of parking competition as a P3 living-conditions harm. Contrast PINS-6008643 (Southend), where parking stress was amenity-only and not enough under S4. The letter also treats a rear dormer as L2(1)(d) "airspace" development (DL ¶40). ## Policy findings - **S4(1): fail.** modest HMO benefit and L2 airspace (dormer) benefit substantially outweighed by P3 and DP3 conflicts (DL 39-41) - **P3: fail.** sandwiching of No 92 between HMOs; cumulative noise and on-street parking competition harm neighbours (DL 8-24, 41) - **L2: benefit.** dormer and rooflights treated as use of airspace above residential premises (DL 40) ## Key facts - Below the 10% concentration threshold, but sandwiches a mid-terrace non-HMO between HMOs at Nos 88 and 94 (DL 7-9) - Borough-wide Article 4 Direction from 31 Aug 2025; no evidence the use began before then (DL 2, 33-35) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008977 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/dad0d8ae-d4d3-48e9-8572-99dee6cbd0fd --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008977.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south of 2 Leighton Road, Hamerton - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Dring - **Authority:** Huntingdonshire (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008987 - **Application reference:** 25/02302/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Detached dwelling with detached garage and secure bicycle store - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.68 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), S5(1)(j) - **Development plan policies:** Huntingdonshire Local Plan 2019 LP9, LP10, LP11, LP12, LP28 - **Main issues:** suitable location, character and appearance - **Tags:** s5-1-j, dp3-refuse-trigger, dp3-clear-justification, design-refusal, rural-lane-no-footway, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, self-build-unsecured, annex-a-weight-reduction, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary One large detached house on a paddock at the edge of Hamerton, a dispersed village with no services, no pavements and two buses a weekday. The scheme passed S5(1)(j) as spatially well related, and car dependence was given only limited weight. It failed on design: an overly dominant building at the village edge, with no clear justification, so DP3(3) carried substantial weight and the benefits were substantially outweighed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Both parties have had the opportunity to comment on the new Framework" (DL ¶2). - **Accessibility.** "There are no separate pavements along the road network within the settlement, and the roads are fairly narrow and unlit" (DL ¶8); the bus service "is very limited, only equating to two buses each weekday" (DL ¶9); "it is very likely that future occupants would be heavily reliant on the private car" (DL ¶11). - **S5(1)(j): PASS.** "Given the proximity of the site to the settlement edge, the site would be spatially well-related" (DL ¶32). - **Car reliance given limited weight.** "Framework Policy TR3:1 e. also identifies that in rural areas, opportunities to improve sustainable modes of transport should be taken where they exist ... I find limited weight should be attributed to this matter in this case" (DL ¶39). - **Spatial strategy: limited weight for supply.** "given the current housing land supply position, this attracts limited weight against the proposal" (DL ¶38). - **DP3(3): FAIL.** "I have not found any justification for the design approach taken in the evidence before me and therefore I give substantial weight to the conflict with Policy DP3:1 of the Framework" (DL ¶40). ## Planning balance S5(1). Moderate benefits against DP3(3) conflict (substantial), spatial strategy (limited) and car reliance (limited). "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶41). ## What made the difference Design alone. The location, on this letter's reasoning, would have passed: (j)(i) was read as spatial proximity, and TR3 car dependence was discounted as normal for rural areas. A modest pair of cottages matching Nos 1 and 2 would probably have been allowed. ## Transferable points - Clear DP3(3) step: conflict with DP3(1), no justification found, substantial weight (DL ¶40). - Contrary to the prevailing approach, this inspector reduced TR3 car-dependence harm to limited weight by reference to TR3(1)(e) and S5's support for edge-of-settlement sites (DL ¶39). Treat as an outlier; the dismissal did not depend on it. - Reduced weight for a spatial-strategy conflict because of supply is 2024-style out-of-date reasoning (DL ¶38). - S5(1)(j)(i) "physically well-related" passed on adjacency alone, before design harm is weighed (DL ¶32). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:settlement: neutral.** Hamerton accepted as a settlement; site adjacent to but outside it (DL 5, 29) - **S5(1)(j): pass.** engaged by supply shortfall (3.5-3.68 years); spatially well-related as next to settlement edge; single dwelling, infrastructure adequate (DL 31-33) - **TR3: harm (limited weight).** no pavements, narrow unlit roads, 2 buses each weekday, 20-minute cycle to Sawtry on rural roads; heavy car reliance; but TR3(1)(e) rural opportunities and S5 support for edge sites reduce weight to limited (DL 8-11, 39) - **CC2(1)(b): harm (limited weight).** car reliance at odds with limiting need to travel (DL 39) - **DP3(3): fail (substantial weight).** large, bulky, overly dominant dwelling at settlement edge conflicts with DP3(1); "I have not found any justification for the design approach"; substantial weight (DL 18-24, 40) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** one dwelling plus economic/environmental benefits moderate given scale (DL 35) - **LP LP9/LP10 spatial strategy (local): conflict (limited weight).** conflict with spatial strategy given limited weight "given the current housing land supply position" (DL 38) - **S5(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 41) ## Key facts - Supply 3.5 years (appellant) or 3.68 years (council) (DL 28) - About 24 homes adjoining, below the LP 30-home built-up area threshold (DL 6) - Two buses each weekday; no pavements; narrow unlit roads; National Cycle Route to Sawtry 20 minutes (DL 8-10) - Self-build claimed but no mechanism; negligible weight (DL 37) - Parties had the opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008987 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e6d4e67f-ac8f-429c-9ef1-ca24e2bae628 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008987.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south west of Stonards Hill, Epping (keeping of horses) - **Decision:** allowed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Owen - **Authority:** Epping Forest (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008989 - **Application reference:** EPF/1215/25 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of c.14 ha of land to the keeping of horses (up to eight) for recreational purposes, no built development - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, SSSI - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(f)(iii), N2, N6 - **Development plan policies:** Epping Forest Local Plan 2023 DM1, DM4 - **Main issues:** biodiversity - **Tags:** outdoor-recreation-f-limb, equestrian, change-of-use, habitats-mitigation ## Summary A change of use of about 14 ha of Green Belt land at Epping to recreational horse-keeping, with no built development. The appeal was allowed. The Green Belt point was uncontested: a material change of use with no structures falls within GB7(1)(f). The only main issue was biodiversity, which conditions resolved. ## Issues and findings - **GB7(1)(f): not inappropriate.** Under GB7, "material changes of use of land, or appropriate facilities for outdoor recreation, are not inappropriate, providing the impact on the openness of the Green Belt is minimised and there would not be a significant conflict with the Green Belt purposes. This is similar to the corresponding parts of the previous version of the Framework … As the proposal is for the keeping of horses only and does not include any built development such as fencing, buildings or equine related equipment, I have no reason to disagree" (DL ¶3). This correctly reflects the 2026 wording of GB7(1)(f), "not … a significant conflict", which is more lenient than the 2024 "not conflict". - **Biodiversity: acceptable.** There was "no substantive evidence … such activities by just eight horses over the whole site would be harmful to its biodiversity, particularly with mitigation in place" (DL ¶13). - **Epping Forest SAC.** Traffic would be "less than that generated by a single dwelling", so there was no likely significant effect (DL ¶14). ## Planning balance The scheme accorded with the development plan. No Green Belt balance arose (DL ¶24). ## What made the difference There was no built form, and the parties agreed on the Green Belt. Fencing, lighting and horse numbers were all controlled by condition, which kept the use within GB7(1)(f). ## Transferable points - A change of use to keeping horses without structures is a GB7(1)(f) material change of use and not inappropriate (DL ¶3). - The 2026 GB7(1)(f) purposes test is "significant conflict" with purposes (DL ¶3). Contrast Harper Royd Lane (PINS-6003507), where the 2024 "does not conflict" wording was applied and any purpose (c) conflict defeated a stable. - Concerns that a use is a precursor to housing are not material (DL ¶17). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(f)(iii): pass.** material change of use to keeping horses with no fencing, buildings or equipment → not inappropriate; agreed by parties (DL 3) - **N2: pass.** eight horses over 14 ha unlikely to harm neutral grassland/woodland; reptile mitigation, fencing details, stream buffer by condition (DL 5-13, 15) - **N6: pass.** Epping Forest SAC ZoI — negligible traffic (less than one dwelling) → no likely significant effect; NE air-quality tariff not appropriate (DL 14) ## Key facts - About 14 ha of undeveloped woodland, grassland and scrub on the edge of Epping. Informally used by the public; applications pending to record rights of way - The appellant is the housebuilder Wates. Objectors saw this as a precursor to housing, but that was not a material factor (DL 17) - Conditions cap numbers at eight horses, ban external lighting and require approval of any fencing ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008989 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/87cdb3bd-b4f2-477b-b00f-041fe2f112d8 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008989.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Windsor Lane, Little Kingshill - **Decision:** allowed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Lewis Condé - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009002 - **Application reference:** PL/25/2215/FA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of about 20 ha of agricultural land to private equestrian use, with an existing barn altered for stabling - **Site context:** green-belt, national-landscape, settlement-edge, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(f)(iii), GB7(1)(f)(iv) - **Development plan policies:** Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 GB24, LSQ1, TW6, Core Strategy for Chiltern District 2011 CS22, CS24 - **Main issues:** loss of community facility, biodiversity, character and appearance including Chilterns NL - **Tags:** tier-2, equestrian, not-inappropriate, outdoor-recreation-facilities, national-landscape, bng-exemption, community-facility, costs-application, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Change of use of about 20 ha of grassland in the Chilterns National Landscape and Green Belt at Little Kingshill to private equestrian use, reusing a barn for stables. The inspector found no loss of the Scout Hut (a separate planning unit), a BNG gain secured by condition, and the National Landscape's special qualities conserved. The use falls within GB7(1)(f): a material change of use for outdoor recreation with appropriate facilities, openness preserved. Allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The inspector applied the policies "now in force, including those concerning the natural environment, protected landscapes, the Green Belt" without further representations (DL ¶5). - **Community facility: NO LOSS.** "that boundary does not, of itself, merge separate uses into a single planning unit" (DL ¶7). - **BNG.** "the proposal involves a change of use across an extensive area, and the use of the land as paddocks may affect habitats through changes in management, grazing, enclosure and associated activity. On the evidence before me, I am therefore not satisfied that the ‘de minimis’ exemption applies" (DL ¶13). - **Chilterns NL: CONSERVED AND ENHANCED** (DL ¶23). - **Green Belt: NOT INAPPROPRIATE.** "the proposed material change of use for private outdoor recreation, together with the alteration of the existing building to provide an appropriate facility for that use, falls within Policy GB7 of the Framework, provided its impact on openness is minimised and it does not conflict significantly with Green Belt purposes" (DL ¶28). ## Planning balance Development plan compliance; no Framework balance needed once GB7(1)(f) applies (DL ¶39). ## What made the difference Keeping the scheme small and private: stabling in an existing barn, no commercial use, all trees and hedges kept, and fencing controlled by condition. ## Transferable points - Private equestrian use is a material change of use for outdoor recreation under GB7(1)(f)(iii), with stabling as an appropriate facility under (f)(iv) (DL ¶28). - The BNG de minimis exemption may not apply to a change of use to paddocks, because grazing and enclosure change habitat management across the site (DL ¶13). - A red line drawn round a separate use does not merge it into one planning unit (DL ¶7–8). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(f)(iii): pass.** material change of use for private outdoor recreation; land stays predominantly open; openness preserved (DL 28) - **GB7(1)(f)(iv): pass.** existing barn altered to stabling as an appropriate facility; no material increase in built form (DL 28) - **N4: pass.** mapped: Chilterns NL special qualities conserved and enhanced; LURA s245 duty; paddock fencing controlled by condition (DL 18-23) - **BNG (Sch 7A TCPA): pass.** de minimis exemption rejected because grazing changes habitat management over a large area; metric shows over 10% habitat and 30% hedgerow gain; HMMP condition for 30 years (DL 13-15, 36) - **HC6: pass.** mapped: Scout Hut inside the red line but a separate planning unit, retained; no loss of community facility (GB24) (DL 7-10) - **HE6: neutral.** settings of Grade II Little Kingshill Grange and outbuildings preserved (DL 25) ## Key facts - Costs application by the appellant against the Council, decided separately (DL 2) - Condition restricts use to private keeping of horses incidental to Little Kingshill Grange; no livery or commercial use (Schedule 6) - Public rights of way proceedings over the land are a separate regime (DL 26) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009002 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3d9cadba-82e3-486c-8307-a279df5c8fea --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009002.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # York bus shelter digital adverts (12 linked appeals, Bauer Media Outdoor) - **Decision:** split, 19 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Mrs Chris Pipe - **Authority:** York (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6009003 - **Application reference:** 25/01092/ADV - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Replacement of illuminated 6-sheet bus shelter posters with digital displays changing every 10 seconds at 12 York locations - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1) - **Development plan policies:** City of York Local Plan 2017-2033 (2025) D13, T1 - **Main issues:** public safety - **Tags:** advertisement, digital-advertising, public-safety, conservation-area, he6-substantial-weight, transitional-no-consultation, linked-appeals ## Summary Twelve linked appeals to digitise bus shelter adverts in York were decided in one letter. Eleven were allowed; one, on a highway-complex stretch of Boroughbridge Road, was dismissed on public safety. The case is recorded for two reasons. It is an early example of the new Framework being applied without consultation. And, unlike Chelmsford and Newcastle, the inspector cited HE6's "substantial weight" in an advertisement case. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) has been superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework (2026) … No party would be prejudiced or caused any injustice by me proceeding with the appeal in light of this change" (DL ¶14). - **Heritage.** "Policy HE6 of the Framework states that substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation when considering the potential effect of a proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset. This is irrespective of the level of harm" (DL ¶15). No harm to heritage amenity was found. - **Appeal A: public-safety HARM.** It sits in "a particularly complex section of the highway network … the digital display has the potential to divert the attention of highway users at a location where their focus should remain on negotiating the competing highway movements" (DL ¶19). - **Appeals B-L: no harm.** The reasons were: open layout with good forward visibility (DL ¶20); single inward-facing screens (DL ¶21, 24); cycle routes segregated from the carriageway (DL ¶20, 22); and slow city-centre traffic (DL ¶23, 27). ## Planning balance None. The decision turned on public safety and amenity under the Regulations. ## What made the difference Site-by-site highway complexity. The one dismissal had a petrol station access, several junctions, a bus gate, crossings and on-carriageway cycle lanes all within view. ## Transferable points - Digital displays changing every 10 seconds are not inherently unsafe. The test is local cognitive demand: junction density, cycle lanes in the carriageway, speed (DL ¶18-29). - Single-sided, inward-facing screens reduce distraction (DL ¶21, 24). - Some inspectors cite HE6's "substantial weight" to heritage conservation in advertisement appeals (DL ¶15), while others hold HE6 inapplicable (PINS-6009587, PINS-6011428). The point is unsettled. ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): pass (substantial weight).** seven sites in conservation areas; HE6 substantial weight to conservation "irrespective of the level of harm" noted; no amenity harm to heritage assets found (DL 15) - **P5: harm.** Appeal A (Boroughbridge Road) - complex junctions, PFS access, bus gate, crossings, cycle lanes; changing display an unacceptable distraction (DL 19, 31) ## Key facts - Linked appeals 6009003, 6009015, 6009018, 6009019, 6009023, 6009053, 6009025, 6009031, 6009041, 6009047, 6009065, 6009082 - one letter - Appeal A (6009003) dismissed on public safety; B-L (11 sites) allowed for five years - Decisive factors were junction complexity, cycle lane integration, speeds, and whether screens were single-sided inward-facing - Decided two days after the new Framework took effect; no consultation (DL 14) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009003 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/bad4aad2-6d64-428f-b5f9-30123fee1896 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009003.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Geldings, Bouts Lane, Holberrow Green, Inkberrow (live/work unit) - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Marley - **Authority:** Wychavon (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009011 - **Application reference:** W/26/00048/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Live/work unit with a new direct access onto the B4092 and a new agricultural access (an earlier live/work permission on the site is an agreed fallback) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4), S5(4) - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR 03, 6, 15, 29, 30, 38, 39 - **Main issues:** highway safety, location against plan policies, access to services, BNG, drainage - **Tags:** tr6-highway-safety, highway-safety-decisive, s5-4-exceptional, s5-1-b-necessity, fallback, new-local-plan, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip ## Summary A live/work unit in open countryside near Inkberrow, with a new access onto the B4092. An earlier live/work permission on the site was an agreed fallback. The inspector found the visibility splays unevidenced for the road's speeds, a TR6(4) failure given very substantial weight, and that the rural-business category S5(1)(b) was not met because necessity was not shown. Under S5(4) the benefits did not outweigh the harm. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Highway safety: FAIL.** "no substantive assessment is before me to show whether this distance is suitable for the speed limit of the road or the recorded speeds of approaching traffic" (DL ¶8). "Policy TR6 of the Framework states that development proposals should be refused where they would have such an impact. I therefore afford this harm very substantial weight in the planning balance" (DL ¶48). - **Location (plan).** Conflict with SWDPR 03 and 15 (DL ¶22), but "given the fallback permission, I attach only limited weight to that particular harm" (DL ¶48). - **Access to services.** "by its nature the proposal is for a live/work unit, and given that only one-bedroom would be provided within the residential element of the proposal it is likely that future occupiers of the site would predominantly live and work in the same space" (DL ¶26). TR3 is not cited. - **S5(1)(b): FAIL.** "no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the countryside location is necessary for its operation" (DL ¶43). - **Plan-making policies.** E1 "is a plan-making policy, and the Framework directs that plan-making policies should not be used in the determination of development proposals" (DL ¶47). ## Planning balance S5(4) exceptional circumstances, correctly stated at DL ¶43. Benefits (fallback significant on location; live/work, construction, planting limited) against very substantial highway harm. The conclusion is phrased as "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶49), the S5(1) form rather than the S5(4) "substantially outweigh" test (DL ¶43). Immaterial here: it fails either way. ## What made the difference The new direct access onto a fast B road without a speed survey. The fallback neutralised the location objection, but not the new access, which the earlier permission did not include. ## Transferable points - TR6(4) failure can carry "very substantial weight" and decide an S5(4) case (DL ¶48). - Visibility splays must be justified against recorded speeds, not just shown to be achievable (DL ¶8). - S5(1)(b) needs evidence that a countryside location is necessary (DL ¶43). - E1 and other plan-making policies are not decision tests (DL ¶47). ## Policy findings - **TR6(4): fail (very-substantial weight).** no evidence that 60 m splays suit the 40 mph limit (60 mph nearby) or recorded speeds; condition could not mitigate (DL 8-10, 14, 48) - **S5(1)(b): fail.** rural business element, but no evidence a countryside location is necessary (DL 42-43) - **S5(4): fail.** exceptional circumstances test stated correctly at DL 43; concluded at DL 49 in S5(1) form (benefits substantially outweighed) - **TR3: neutral.** mapped - TR3 not cited; limited footway and lighting and some car reliance, but live/work and the fallback mean few extra trips, so reasonable access under SWDPR 06 (DL 23-30) - **F8: pass.** drainage acceptable by condition; no conflict with CC3, F7, F8 (DL 40) ## Key facts - Live/work permission previously allowed on appeal under the old plan; agreed real-prospect fallback, significant weight on location (DL 3, 44, 49) - B4092 40 mph at the site, changing to 60 mph nearby; no speed survey (DL 6, 8) - One-bedroom residential element (DL 24) - PEA and Small Sites Metric show -15.81% area and -11.55% hedgerow units; left to the biodiversity gain plan (DL 32-35) - E1 cited by appellant is a plan-making policy, so not determinative (DL 47) - Parties given the opportunity to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009011 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5d24c981-07b1-4c4d-8617-60aab9afc81b --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009011.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Manor Farm Barns, Stratford Road, Beachampton (2 barn conversions plus 2 new dwellings) - **Decision:** allowed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Brennan - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009022 - **Application reference:** PL/25/5625/FA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of two redundant agricultural buildings, conversion and extension of two traditional barns to 2 dwellings, and 2 new-build dwellings around a farm courtyard (non-determination) - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** open-countryside, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.73 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO7, HE6, HE7(2) - **Development plan policies:** Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan BE1, BE2, C1(i), C3, H6C, I5, NE1 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, setting of listed building, non-designated heritage assets - **Tags:** heritage-no-harm, ndha, barn-conversion, ho7-substantial-weight, housing-shortfall, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, non-determination, s5-not-applied ## Summary Four dwellings around a former farm courtyard at Beachampton were allowed after the council failed to decide the application: two converted traditional barns, which are non-designated heritage assets, and two new-build "barns". The council said it would have refused on design and heritage grounds. The inspector found a positive effect on character and no harm to the Grade II farmhouse or the barns. The housing benefit was given substantial weight under HO7 with supply at 3.73 years. ## Issues and findings - **Design: POSITIVE.** "the design of the new build dwellings, extensions and conversions would maintain and enhance the agrarian character of the former farm courtyard" (DL ¶16). New-build Barn 3 is taller, but "honest in design and would not try to disguise its form or function" (DL ¶29). - **Listed farmhouse: NO HARM.** Its setting "has changed over time" and is now domestic (DL ¶21). "The proposed development would therefore preserve the setting of Manor Farmhouse … causing no effect" (DL ¶23), using the HE5(2) "no effect" category. - **NDHAs: NO HARM.** HE7(2) was applied: the extension "would not diminish the legibility of Barn 2 as a former agricultural building" (DL ¶26, ¶31). - **Housing.** "The Framework, at Policy H07, requires substantial weight to be given to the benefits of providing homes … This is especially pertinent in a district where the Council is not meeting its required 5-year supply of housing land at 3.73 years" (DL ¶48). ## Planning balance No heritage harm and a positive design effect, so there was no HE6(4) or HE7(2) balance to run. The scheme accorded with the plan, with the Framework as a material consideration. The letter never tests the open-countryside location against S5's list, perhaps because extant permissions established the residential principle. ## What made the difference Extant permissions for residential conversion (DL ¶34), a farmhouse setting that had already become domestic, and a design that kept the courtyard legible. Substantial HO7 weight in a shortfall area sealed it. ## Transferable points - HO7 gives substantial weight to housing benefits, "especially pertinent" where supply is short (3.73 years) (DL ¶48). - Where a listed building's setting has already become domestic, sensitive residential conversion of former farm buildings can have "no effect" (DL ¶21-23). - A scheme is not harmful simply because it differs from a previously approved scheme the council preferred (DL ¶27, ¶35). ## Policy findings - **DP3: benefit.** conversions, cross-form extension and new barns maintain and enhance the agrarian courtyard; positive effect on character (DL 7-17) - **HE6: neutral.** no harm to setting of Grade II Manor Farmhouse, whose setting has already become domestic (DL 19-23) - **HE7(2): neutral.** Barns 1 and 2 are NDHAs; extension and taller glazed new-build Barn 3 do not harm their significance (DL 24-31) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to 4 homes where supply is 3.73 years (DL 48-49) ## Key facts - Supply 3.73 years (DL 48) - Extant permission for 2 barn conversions and Class Q-type prior approval for 3 dwellings in Barn 3; the council preferred them (5 units), but that had "no material bearing" (DL 34-35) - Open countryside site next to a business park; the letter does not apply S5 by code - PD rights removed (Part 1 A-E, Part 2 A) to protect heritage (DL 46) - Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009022 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6f73abec-24b9-4c73-adc0-3aa811b44506 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009022.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 64 Thornton Road, Bootle - **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Chris Mayes - **Authority:** Sefton (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009026 - **Application reference:** DC/2025/01781 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of dwelling (C3) to children's care home (C2) for one child - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6), Bootle AAP BAAP18 - **Development plan policies:** Bootle Area Action Plan 2026 BAAP18, Local Plan for Sefton 2017 HC2, EQ2, EQ4 - **Main issues:** suitability of location for children's home, noise - **Tags:** tier-2, childrens-care-home, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, limited-nppf-engagement, concentration-policy ## Summary A one-child children's home in a Bootle terrace was dismissed. It fell within 400m of an existing children's home, contrary to the new Area Action Plan's anti-concentration policy BAAP18. Noise was acceptable with a condition. The Framework is referred to only generically (DL ¶23). ## What made the difference A clear, numerical local spacing rule in a recently adopted plan. The inspector held that its "unambiguous" wording prevails over general need and the favourable appeal decisions cited from elsewhere (DL ¶12-14). HO9 (specialist accommodation) was not engaged in the reasoning. ## Policy findings - **BAAP18 (Bootle AAP): conflict.** within 400m of existing children's home at 11 Linacre Lane; wording "unambiguous"; general need does not justify departure (DL 10-14) - **HC2 (Sefton LP, not NPPF HC2): neutral (limited weight).** oversupply not evidenced either way (DL 9) - **P5: harm.** code mapped by harvester — police evidence on crime/ASB and safeguarding "reinforce, rather than determine" (DL 15) ## Key facts - The index code HC2 for this letter is the Sefton Local Plan policy, not NPPF HC2 (Local Green Space) - BAAP adopted 15 Jan 2026 after application submitted; applied as the plan in force (DL 3) - Noise acceptable subject to sound-insulation condition (DL 20-21) - Parties consulted on 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009026 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/00082ba8-aa88-4b10-aac2-3994300ff1da --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009026.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Somerville, Mingoose Vale, Towan Cross, Truro (affordable PIP) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Butcher - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009030 - **Application reference:** PA25/07957 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 6-8 affordable dwellings (rural exception) on a field between clusters of Towan Cross - **Homes:** 8 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1), DP3(3), S5(1) - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan 2010-2030 Policies 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 21, 23, 27, Cornwall Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1, T1 - **Main issues:** suitability of location, land use and amount (PIP) - **Tags:** PIP, affordable-led, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, rural-lane-no-footway, settlement-definition, drafting-slip, small-scheme ## Summary Permission in principle for up to eight affordable homes as a rural exception site at Towan Cross, Cornwall, was dismissed. Towan Cross counted as a settlement and the site was well related to it, but it is one of the green gaps between the village's clusters that give it its character. Building on it would cause significant harm, conflicting with DP3(1), and eight homes likely breached HO10's 5% size limit. Substantial weight to affordable need did not prevent the harm substantially outweighing the benefits under S5(1). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I provided the main parties with an opportunity to provide comments on the new Framework" (DL ¶4). - **Is Towan Cross a settlement?** "it seems to me that the clusters of development form a settlement that is akin to a small village with definable boundaries and is not a straggle of dwellings" (DL ¶10). - **Character: SIGNIFICANT HARM.** The gaps between clusters "form an absolutely integral part of the character of the area" (DL ¶13). "the development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the immediate surroundings" (DL ¶14). - **Accessibility: NO HARM.** "the fact that the policy supports such developments in very small settlements, including hamlets, means that a reduced level of accessibility must be anticipated" (DL ¶15). "While there is no pavement from the site to the bus stops, they would still be easily reached on foot" (DL ¶15). - **HO10: likely FAIL.** "There does however appear to be a conflict with part 2(b) of the policy which notes that development should not exceed 5% of the size of the existing development" (DL ¶26). - **DP3(3).** The letter says DP3(3) "states that any development proposals which conflict with paragraph 1 of the policy should be refused" and that "it is an important matter that must be given the highest possible weight" (DL ¶27). The policy's clear-justification qualifier is left out and no justification question is asked. ## Planning balance S5(1) (via the S5(1)(f) exception-site category): "I conclude that the identified harm would substantially outweigh the benefits, even when attributing substantial weight to the above considerations" (DL ¶28). Plan-led conclusion. ## What made the difference The site's role as a landscape gap in a village made of separate clusters. Even at PIP stage the inspector held that no layout could avoid removing the gap (DL ¶22). A site that rounded off a cluster rather than closing a gap, and a scheme within HO10's 5% limit, might have succeeded. ## Transferable points - A village made of separate clusters can still be an Annex B settlement if it has definable boundaries and village signage; the gaps between clusters can be key to its character (DL ¶10, ¶13). - Character harm can be assessed at PIP stage where any form of development would remove a valued gap (DL ¶12, ¶14). - HO10(2)(b)'s 5% of existing development limit can defeat an exception site in a small village (DL ¶26). - Caution: DL ¶15 accepts an unpaved walk to bus stops for a rural exception site without testing the route, and DL ¶27 misstates DP3(3) by omitting its clear-justification qualifier. ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:settlement: pass.** Towan Cross - clusters with landscape gaps but village signs and definable boundaries; akin to a small village, not a hamlet or scattered group (DL 10) - **DP3(1): conflict.** site is one of the landscape gaps between clusters that give the village its verdant, spacious character; significant and enduring harm (DL 13-14, 24, 27) - **DP3(3): fail.** paraphrased omitting the clear-justification qualifier - proposals conflicting with DP3(1) "should be refused"; "highest possible weight"; no clear-justification question asked (DL 27) - **S5(1)(f): fail.** exception site under HO10 (DL 26) - **HO10: fail.** well related to Towan Cross, but eight homes "likely" exceed the HO10(2)(b) 5% size threshold (DL 26) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to meeting identified need, though collective benefits of up to 8 affordable homes described as "moderate" (DL 25, 27-28) - **TR3: pass.** mapped - few services, but fairly regular buses to St Agnes and Truro; no pavement to the stops yet "easily reached on foot"; reduced accessibility expected for rural exception sites; TR3 not cited (DL 15, 18) - **HE6: neutral.** no harm to setting of Mingoose CA or to the Cornwall and West Devon Mining WHS (DL 19-20) - **S5(1): fail.** harm "would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL 28) ## Key facts - Site mostly undeveloped field with some hardstanding; stables permission exists but much smaller (DL 6, 21) - Local Plan Policy 3 rounding-off/infill not met; scheme put forward as a Policy 9 rural exception (DL 7-8) - Appeal APP/D0840/W/25/3367115 (9 affordable allowed) distinguished (DL 22) - Penhale Dunes SAC mitigation apparently secured; no AA as dismissed (DL 23) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009030 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009030.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 5 Kingsfold Close, Billingshurst - **Decision:** dismissed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Alice James - **Authority:** Horsham (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009032 - **Application reference:** DC/25/2126 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Detached single-storey granny annexe (flat roof, Passivhaus, PV) and detached workshop/gym in rear garden - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1), DP3(3), DP4, S4 - **Development plan policies:** Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 Policies 32, 33, Billingshurst NP Bill 2 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, householder, annexe, design-refusal, dp3-refuse-trigger, cc2-substantial-weight, fallback, non-determination, s4-substantially-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A flat-roofed Passivhaus annexe and a pitched-roof workshop/gym in the rear garden of a detached house in a spacious close. Dismissed. The annexe would fill the visual gap between houses and clash with the prevailing roof forms, conflicting with DP3. It also failed DP4 because the appellant had not engaged with the Council on design. CC2(2) substantial weight was given for energy efficiency, but the benefits were substantially outweighed under S4. ## What made the difference The annexe's siting, visible through the gap between houses, and its flat roof. The inspector also treated failure to engage in the design process (no pre-application advice, amendments declined) as a DP4 conflict in its own right, which is an unusual use of DP4. ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): fail (substantial weight).** annexe fills gap between houses, flat roof out of keeping; substantial weight to development-plan design compliance; DP3 "among the policies … which state that development should be refused" (DL 8-14, 23) - **DP4: fail.** no pre-application engagement and Council's offer of amendments declined (DL 15) - **CC2(2): benefit (substantial weight).** Passivhaus and PV given substantial weight but outweighed (DL 23) ## Key facts - Non-determination appeal; main issue identified from Council statement (DL 4) - PD fallback limited weight because annexe use is outside PD and PD building would be lower (DL 11) - S5 cited by appellant held inapplicable within settlement boundary (DL 25) - Parties invited to comment on 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009032 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/36bac07e-42ec-4306-9d98-7ce5cec92018 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009032.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Barns at The Old Rectory, Bredicot - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Townend - **Authority:** Wychavon (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009042 - **Application reference:** W/25/00613/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion and extension of three derelict brick barns to a self-build dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, isolated, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(c), HO11(1)(c), S5(3), HE6, DP3(1) - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR 03, 6, 09, 19, 26, 28, 29, 33, 34, 35 - **Main issues:** character and heritage, location, living conditions, PROW, affordable housing and self-build - **Tags:** s5-1-c-reuse, isolated-home, heritage-harm-decisive, listed-building-setting, 5yhls-shown, old-wording-slip, self-build, barn-conversion ## Summary The appeal sought to convert three derelict brick barns beside a Grade II rectory and church at Bredicot into a self-build house. It was dismissed. The large glazed linking extension made the scheme disproportionate, so it fell outside S5(1)(c), and it harmed the listed buildings' shared setting. The group (barns plus one other house) was treated as isolated. HO11(1)(c) failed because the scheme would not, overall, enhance its immediate setting. The council had a five-year supply. The letter closes with the superseded "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" formula. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** No consultation on the August 2026 Framework is recorded; it was simply applied (DL ¶4). - **S5(1)(c): FAIL.** "the large extension would be a dominant structure which would not be visually recessive ... It would, therefore, result in a disproportionate increase in size compared to the existing building and not comply with Policy S5:1(c) or Policy DP3:1" (DL ¶16). - **Isolation / HO11(1)(c): FAIL.** "Given the appeal buildings only form a group of buildings with one other dwelling I find that the site is isolated in the countryside ... the appeal proposal would not, as a whole, enhance the immediate setting" (DL ¶20). - **Heritage.** The barns "are part of the significance of the setting of The Old Rectory" (DL ¶12). The scheme would harm both assets' settings. Re-use, L2 efficiency and carbon savings got moderate weight, self-build moderate weight, and neither outweighed the harm (DL ¶22-23). - **Location.** "the proposal would rely heavily on the private car, or home deliveries" (DL ¶25). - **Affordable housing.** "the Court of Appeal ruled in 2016 that affordable housing should not be sought for developments of fewer than 5 units this has since been superseded by Policy HO5:1(a)(i)" (DL ¶31). ## Planning balance The council had a five-year supply "includ[ing] the 20% buffer required under paragraph 9(c) of Annex D" (DL ¶37). Conflict with SWDPR 26 had significant weight (DL ¶39). Environmental benefits were moderate (DL ¶40). "Collectively the adverse impacts ... would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶41). That is old wording. No S5 "substantially outweighed" or S5(4) balance is expressly run. ## What made the difference The scale and forward projection of the glazed link. A subservient link like the timber extension (DL ¶17) would probably have kept the scheme within S5(1)(c), and possibly HO11(1)(c). With the barns in the listed buildings' setting, and the council holding a five-year supply, there was no counterweight. ## Transferable points - A group of one house plus outbuildings is "isolated" for HO11 purposes (DL ¶20). - HO11(1)(c) enhancement is judged on the scheme as a whole. Tidying and repairs do not offset a harmful extension (DL ¶20). - S5(1)(c) proportionality applies to conversion schemes, and a dominant linking extension fails it (DL ¶16). - HO5(1)(a)(i) permits plan requirements for affordable contributions on sub-major sites, displacing the 2016 small-sites ruling (DL ¶31-32). - The new small-site BNG exemption applies only to applications made on or after 6 August 2026 (DL ¶34). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(c): fail.** large glazed link extension projects beyond the barns and dominates them - disproportionate increase (DL 15-16) - **HO11(1)(c): fail.** group of the barns plus one dwelling is isolated; repairs enhance, but the dominant extension harms the immediate setting overall (DL 20) - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** harm to setting of Grade II Old Rectory and Church of St James (group value); moderate-weight public benefits do not outweigh (DL 10-14, 22-23) - **TR3: fail.** rural area with no sustainable transport opportunities; heavy car reliance even though the town is a short drive away (DL 25) - **HO5(1)(a)(i): neutral.** supersedes the 2016 Court of Appeal small-sites ruling; LP can require off-site affordable contributions below five units (DL 31-33) ## Key facts - Five-year supply shown after SWDPR adoption (March 2026), including the 20% Annex D buffer (DL 37) - The new small-site BNG exemption (0.2ha) applies only to applications made on or after 6 August 2026 (DL 34) - Balance expressed in the old "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" wording (DL 41) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009042 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/65c65edf-a22f-46cb-89a4-a2f790479dca --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009042.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Flat 2, Berther Road, Hornchurch - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Eggleton - **Authority:** Havering (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009059 - **Application reference:** P0771.25 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective change of use of first-floor flat to 7-bed sui generis HMO - **Site context:** inside-settlement, near-station - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), Havering LP Policy 8 - **Development plan policies:** Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 Policies 8, 24, London Plan 2021 T1, T6, T6.1 - **Main issues:** housing mix, occupier living conditions, neighbour amenity, parking - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, dp3-3-refusal, old-wording-slip, retrospective, no-consultation-on-2026-framework ## Summary A retrospective seven-bed HMO above a Hornchurch restaurant was dismissed for very poor internal standards. There was no communal room, the kitchen was undersized, one bedroom was below the statutory HMO licensing minimum, and seven people shared a single shower room. The Inspector relied on the Framework principle that "development that is not well designed should be refused" (DL ¶22), without saying which version. ## What made the difference The substandard layout was "particularly poor design" because it "could be avoided by addressing the requirements of Policy 8" (DL ¶22). The decision was issued on publication day by the same Inspector as PINS-6008872. It does not mention the new Framework, and it ends with the 2024 "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" formula (DL ¶23), so the Framework version applied is unclear. The design-refusal principle is common to 2024 ¶139 and 2026 DP3(3). ## Policy findings - **Havering LP Policy 8: conflict.** no communal living space; kitchen 7.91 sq m vs 9.5; five rooms below 8.5 sq m, one 4.93 sq m below 6.51 sq m licensing minimum; one shower room for 7 (DL 9-16) - **DP3(3): fail.** "The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that development that is not well designed should be refused" (DL 22) — Framework version not stated - **P3: pass.** neighbour noise/community cohesion acceptable above restaurant by station (DL 17) - **TR4: pass.** car-free acceptable at Emerson Park station; lack of cycle parking weighs against (DL 18-19) ## Key facts - Flat above restaurant, next to Emerson Park Overground station - Policy 8 120 sq m threshold possibly just met measured externally - Balance phrased "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" (2024 wording) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/bdade48b-8893-49ac-ba28-09a5abaacf1d - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009059 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009059.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Woodcote House Farm, Dodford, Bromsgrove (Class Q, 2 dwellings) - **Decision:** allowed, 1 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Marley - **Authority:** Bromsgrove (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009062 - **Application reference:** 26/00107/CUPRIO - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class Q prior approval for change of use of an agricultural building to 2 dwellings - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6, GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Class Q.2(1)(a),(f) - **Main issues:** highways, design and external appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, prior-approval, class-q, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Class Q prior approval for two dwellings in a Bromsgrove barn was allowed. The existing shared access already served a house and farm traffic, so TR6 was met (DL ¶14). The Framework's design and amenity policies were held not to import a living-conditions assessment into the Class Q "design or external appearance" matter (DL ¶19). ## What made the difference Existing use of the access (DL ¶9-11), and a narrow reading of the prior approval matter: "to extend this to include a broad assessment of the living conditions of future occupiers … would … go beyond the provisions of the subject matter of the prior approval" (DL ¶19). ## Policy findings - **TR6: pass.** existing residential and agricultural use of a 50 mph access; two more dwellings not a material intensification; conflict with Streetscape Design Guide splays given limited weight (DL 7-14) - **DP3: not-engaged.** Framework's amenity and design policies do not import living-conditions assessment into the Class Q design/external appearance matter (DL 17-19) ## Key facts - Amenity space enclosed within the open-sided barn attacked by the council on outlook and daylight (DL 15-16) - Framework "has not fundamentally changed" matters material to the decision (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009062 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8c98cda2-ec00-4760-b6e5-e612db30f050 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009062.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Rose Cottage, 38 Higher Lane, Kerridge - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Ann Veevers - **Authority:** Cheshire East (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009068 - **Application reference:** 26/0088/HOUS - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Part demolition of flat-roof garage and first-floor extension over the garage to form living accommodation (non-determination appeal) - **Site context:** green-belt, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB6(2), HE6, HE4(2) - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 PG3, SE1, SE7, Cheshire East SADPD 2022 RUR 11, GEN 1, HOU 11, HER 3 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, conservation area, VSC - **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, householder, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, visual-openness-only, conservation-area-harm, costs-refused, non-determination, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary First-floor extension over an attached garage at an already-extended stone house in the Kerridge Conservation Area, in the Green Belt. Dismissed. Together with earlier additions, the extension was disproportionate to the original building, so it failed GB7(1)(b) and was inappropriate. There was limited visual openness harm and lower-end harm to the conservation area. The benefits were limited and did not clearly outweigh the harm, so VSC failed. A separate costs application for the Council's delay was refused. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The policy tests relevant to this appeal have not fundamentally changed and I have therefore not referred back to the parties for comment" (DL ¶4). - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "the use of a numerical measure alone would be an over prescriptive approach" (DL ¶11). "Policy GB7.1(b) of the Framework, makes no mention of Green Belt openness or the five purposes listed in Policy GB2. They are therefore not relevant when undertaking an exercise of proportionality" (DL ¶13). "when considered alongside previous additions, disproportionately change the size of the original building" (DL ¶14). RUR 11's original-building date is consistent with fn40 (DL ¶9). - **Openness: limited harm, visual only.** "an impact on visual openness rather than spatial openness, as there would be no physical encroachment by reason of there being no increase in footprint" (DL ¶17). No conflict with GB2 purposes (DL ¶18). - **Conservation area (HE4(2), HE6): harm.** "the harmful effects in this case would be towards the lower end of harm. Nevertheless, any harm is a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶30). The limited public benefits did not outweigh it (DL ¶33). - **Fallback:** the expired 2011 permission "cannot constitute a realistic fallback position" (DL ¶35). ## Planning balance GB6(2): the limited considerations "do not individually or cumulatively cross the high threshold of clearly outweighing the harm to the Green Belt and to openness or the 'other' harm to the character and appearance of the CA" (DL ¶46). ## What made the difference The cumulative size of the extensions. Measured against the 1948 original, the earlier two-storey link and garage meant that any meaningful addition would be disproportionate, whatever the local openness effect. The appellants' openness-based argument failed because the (b) test is about size alone. ## Transferable points - The GB7(1)(b) proportionality test is size-based; openness and GB2 purposes are irrelevant to it (DL ¶13). - Percentage guides such as a 30% local-plan figure are not applied mechanically, but past additions count cumulatively against the original building (fn40) (DL ¶9-14). - Building upward with no footprint increase can still harm visual openness (DL ¶16-17). - An expired permission is not a fallback (DL ¶35). - Some inspectors are not consulting parties on the 2026 Framework where the relevant tests are unchanged (DL ¶4). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** disproportionate addition; with a 2003 two-storey addition and 1970s garage, increase ~57-112% (Inspector suggests ~80%) vs RUR 11 30% guide; openness and purposes irrelevant to proportionality (DL 9-14) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriate; limited visual (not spatial) openness harm as no footprint increase; no conflict with GB2 purposes (DL 16-18, 44-46) - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** lower-end harm to Kerridge Conservation Area; limited public benefits do not outweigh; no clear and convincing justification (HE4(2)) (DL 28-33) - **HE6 (Clayton's Tower, Grade II): neutral.** setting preserved (DL 39-41) ## Key facts - Dwelling previously extended by a 2003 two-storey front/side link and a 1970s double garage - Proposal adds a full-width first floor over the garage with no footprint increase; the original building (fn40) is as it stood on 1 July 1948 - Expired 2011 permission for a similar scheme was not a fallback and carried very little weight - Framework not referred back to the parties because the tests "have not fundamentally changed" (DL 4) - Costs application for Council delay refused; the Council behaved unreasonably but the appeal could not have been avoided ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009068 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/026a4cc1-ff58-46da-9af8-356fa1128a49 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/46b33c5a-ca07-4218-8735-131d5b796cfe --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009068.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 257 Hagley Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham - **Decision:** allowed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Billings - **Authority:** Birmingham (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009069 - **Application reference:** 2025/05037/PA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Modular self-service launderette pod in grounds of B&B hotel - **Site context:** conservation-area, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P5 - **Development plan policies:** Birmingham Development Plan 2017 PG3 - **Main issues:** crime and fear of crime - **Tags:** tier-2, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip, crime-fear-of-crime, conservation-area ## Summary A self-service launderette pod behind a wall in hotel grounds on Hagley Road was allowed. Natural surveillance and conditioned security measures dealt with the crime concerns. There was no conservation-area harm, and noise was controlled by operating hours. ## What made the difference The police evidence was generic: high area crime rates but no incidents at the existing facility. Surveillance from the B&B reception and windows was judged enough, so conditions could make the scheme acceptable. ## Policy findings - **P5: pass.** code mapped by harvester — natural surveillance from B&B reception and windows plus busy road; cashless payment, lighting and CCTV by condition (DL 4-8) - **HE9: pass.** code mapped by harvester — pod hidden behind wall in St Augustine's Edgbaston CA; "no effect on the significance" (DL 9-10) - **P3: pass.** code mapped by harvester — noise controlled by 07:00-23:00 hours condition (DL 11, 14) ## Key facts - Design Out Crime Officer cited high area crime but no incidents at the existing launderette being replaced (DL 6) - Letter says the revised Framework was "published on the 16 August 2026" (drafting slip); parties consulted (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009069 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7985f032-1ad8-44be-8365-44d73db832a6 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009069.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 74-76 Coombe Road, New Malden - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Simms - **Authority:** Kingston upon Thames (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009076 - **Application reference:** 24/02949/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Redevelopment of a builders' merchants for 20 flats in five buildings and 61.7 sqm commercial space, with no affordable housing - **Homes:** 20 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.48 - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 66 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), S4(2)(a)(i), HO8, DM5 - **Development plan policies:** Kingston Core Strategy CS8, CS10, DM5, DM9, DM10, DM15, DM17, London Plan 2021 E4, E7, H4, H5, T4 - **Main issues:** employment floorspace and industrial land, affordable housing, parking and access - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, employment-land-safeguarding, viability, housing-shortfall, large-scheme, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Twenty flats replacing a builders' merchants in New Malden District Centre, with no affordable housing. Kingston has only a 1.48-year supply, and the design would improve the area. But the loss of safeguarded employment land was unsupported by marketing, and the viability case for no affordable housing rested on inconsistent valuations. Under S4, with the safeguarding loss treated as an S4(2)(a)(i) type harm, the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I invited the main parties to comment on any implications of these for their cases and took their responses into account" (DL ¶4). - **Employment land: FAIL.** "Without marketing, I am also unconvinced that there is no prospect of letting the site for employment use" (DL ¶9). - **Affordable housing, HO8: FAIL.** "due to the disparities with the comparators and inconsistency with the market demand report, I am not persuaded that the lack of affordable housing is justified" (DL ¶14). "I attach significant weight to the failure to meet affordable housing requirements, which is contrary to Policy HO8 of the Framework" (DL ¶21). - **DM5.** The viability assessment "does not itself explain differences from the inputs and assumptions used in the viability assessment that informed the development plan, as required by Policy DM5 of the Framework" (DL ¶20). - **Housing: moderate.** "given the scale of unmet need and of the proposal, I nonetheless attach moderate weight to the provision of 20 dwellings" (DL ¶21). - **Plan weight.** DM15, CS10, H4 and H5 "are not materially inconsistent with the Framework and so should continue to be afforded significant weight" (DL ¶26). ## Planning balance S4(1), with S4(2)(a)(i) safeguarding named in the test (DL ¶19). "the provision of housing, improved character and appearance, re-use of land and local economic benefits are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects of the failure to meet affordable housing requirements and impacts to the safeguarding of land or buildings in the development plan" (DL ¶25). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶27). ## What made the difference Evidence. No marketing of the site, and valuations that contradicted the appellant's own demand report. A marketed site and a consistent viability benchmark could have changed both issues. ## Transferable points - S4(2)(a)(i) safeguarding loss can outweigh 20 homes with a 1.48-year supply where no marketing shows safeguarding is no longer appropriate (DL ¶23, ¶25). - Employment-safeguarding policies that allow alternatives on evidence remain consistent with S4 (DL ¶26). - DM5 requires a viability case to explain departures from plan-stage inputs; a review mechanism does not cure a flawed baseline (DL ¶15, ¶20). - E2 substantial weight is not earned by a commercial unit with no evidenced demand (DL ¶22). ## Policy findings - **S4(2)(a)(i): fail (substantial weight).** loss of commercial floorspace and land safeguarded by DM17/LP E4, E7 without marketing evidence; "substantial weight to the impact on land and buildings safeguarded" (DL 6-9, 19, 23) - **HO8: fail (significant weight).** no affordable housing; viability valuation benchmark inconsistent with the appellant's own demand report; review mechanism in UU cannot cure it (DL 10-15, 21) - **DM5: fail.** viability assessment does not explain differences from the plan-stage viability inputs (DL 20) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** 20 general-needs homes with 1.48-year supply; not the homes for different groups assessed under HO1 (DL 18, 21) - **E2: benefit.** "only modest weight" - demand evidence does not support the commercial unit, so E2 substantial weight not attracted (DL 22) - **L2: neutral.** without marketing, cannot be sure the site would become vacant, so L2 better-use benefits not relied on (DL 23, 26) - **DP3: benefit (substantial weight).** mapped: improvement to character and setting of locally listed church; "substantial weight to compliance with CS Policies CS8 and DM10" (DL 18, 24) - **TR6: pass.** disabled bays' clear zone overlapping footway low risk; TR4 and TR6 complied with (DL 16-17, 24) - **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed by affordable housing failure and loss of safeguarded employment land (DL 25) - **Transitional(2): accord (significant weight).** affordable housing and employment safeguarding policies "not materially inconsistent with the Framework" and keep significant weight (DL 26) ## Key facts - Supply 1.48 years; HDT 66% (DL 18) - Existing 436 sqm GIA warehouse, lease to December 2027; 2.9 or 7 FTE jobs on the appellant's differing figures (DL 6-7) - Unilateral undertaking resolved two other refusal reasons; viability review mechanism included (DL 3, 15) - Costs application by the appellant subject of a separate decision (DL 2), not in the corpus - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework and HDT results (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009076 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6305bbae-ec65-4494-b859-1129a7785d5f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009076.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Ground Floor Flat, 2 Douglas Road, Herne Bay - **Decision:** allowed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Knight - **Authority:** Canterbury (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009081 - **Application reference:** CA/26/00307 - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Retrospective replacement of timber windows and rear door with uPVC in a conservation area - **Site context:** conservation-area, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE5(2)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Canterbury District Local Plan 2017 DBE3, DBE6, HE1, HE6 - **Main issues:** conservation area - **Tags:** tier-2, conservation-area, heritage-no-harm, upvc-windows, retrospective, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Retrospective uPVC windows in a Herne Bay conservation-area terrace were allowed. They kept the terrace's uniform window pattern, and uPVC was already present and Council-approved nearby. The Inspector used the new HE5 categories: "the scheme has had no effect on the significance of the heritage asset" (DL ¶19). ## What made the difference The significance lay in the terrace's uniformity of pattern, not in its material, and the pre-existing photograph showed the replacement was, if anything, slimmer (DL ¶¶10, 15–17). HE5(2)(b) "no effect" meant there was no HE6 balance. ## Policy findings - **HE5(2)(b): pass.** "With reference to Policy HE5 of the Framework, the scheme has had no effect on the significance of the heritage asset" (DL 19) - **HE6(1): neutral (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation cited (DL 6) but no harm found ## Key facts - uPVC front window has slimmer mullions/transoms than the timber original and keeps the terrace's 6-panel ground-floor pattern - Council previously approved uPVC on four terrace properties ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d3b46680-d1fc-47f1-a10d-54600621cd4e - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009081 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009081.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Dovecot Avenue / Pilch Lane, Liverpool (20 m streetworks pole, prior approval) - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Mee - **Authority:** Liverpool (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009085 - **Application reference:** 26PT/0694 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** GPDO Part 16 Class A prior approval for a 20 m EE/H3G streetworks pole with antennas, dishes and ground cabinets on a wide pavement by a park and signalised junction - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** CO1(1)(a), CO1(1)(b), CO2(1)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Liverpool Local Plan 2013-2033 STP4, GI9, H7, TP1, TP3, TP4, TP5, TP6 - **Main issues:** siting and appearance, trees, living conditions, highway, alternative sites - **Tags:** telecoms, prior-approval, transitional, alternative-sites, tree-pressure ## Summary A 20 m EE/Three pole replacing coverage from a site being demolished, proposed on a wide pavement next to a park and a signalised junction in Dovecot, Liverpool. The inspector found harm to character (visual clutter), future pressure on nearby trees, and conflict with an approved junction scheme. The rejection of several alternatives was not adequately justified. Appeal dismissed. The letter is dated 17 August 2026 but applies the December 2024 Framework's paragraph numbers, so it is recorded as transitional. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** No mention of the new Framework. The reasons cite "Paragraph 119 … Paragraph 120 … paragraph 122" of the Framework (DL ¶25), the 2024 numbering, which maps to 2026 CO1/CO2. - **Character: harm.** "The height and bulk of the monopole along with the multiple associated cabinets would add appreciably to visual clutter and would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the immediate area" (DL ¶10). - **Trees: harm.** "Insufficient evidence has been provided to dispel concerns that the mast's proximity to these trees could give rise to future pressure for pruning or removal in order to maintain signal quality" (DL ¶16). - **Highway: harm.** "If implemented, the development would prejudice the delivery of the junction upgrade" (DL ¶22). - **Alternatives: not shown.** "While these sites are discounted due to the presence of nearby masts, no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate why similar interference concerns would not also arise from the two existing masts in the vicinity of the appeal site" (DL ¶27). - **Scope.** The appellant's complaint that the council had not balanced social and economic benefits was rejected, because the GPDO confines assessment to siting and appearance (DL ¶29). ## Planning balance Need against harm: "While the need for the proposed installation weighs in favour of the appeal … I am not satisfied that less harmful alternatives have been properly explored. For these reasons, I find the siting and appearance of the proposed development to be unacceptable and is not outweighed by the need for the installation" (DL ¶28). ## What made the difference Internally inconsistent site-search reasoning: rejecting sites for being near masts while choosing a site near two masts. Add to that the tree-pressure point, which counts even without direct root or canopy harm. Better alternatives evidence might have tipped it, as at Burgess Hill (PINS-6010382). The junction scheme conflict would have remained. ## Transferable points - Future pressure to prune or fell trees to keep line of sight is a legitimate siting and appearance harm for masts (DL ¶14-16). - Inconsistent reasons for rejecting alternative sites undermine the whole site search (DL ¶27). - A mast that would prejudice an approved highway improvement scheme counts against it on highway grounds (DL ¶21-23). - A decision on 17 August 2026 still cited the 2024 Framework paragraphs. It is a marker of the transition gap. ## Policy findings - **CO1(1)(b): fail.** 2024 NPPF ¶120 (sympathetic design / minimum number of masts) cited; bulkier top plus several tall cabinets add "appreciably to visual clutter" by a park (DL ¶7-10, ¶25) - **N3: harm.** tree pressure; dishes below adjacent canopies mean future pressure to prune or fell trees that contribute to character; LP GI9 conflict (DL ¶12-17) - **TR6(4): harm.** would prejudice an approved junction improvement scheme; the letter frames this as harm to highway safety (DL ¶21-23, ¶28) - **CO2(1)(b): fail.** 2024 NPPF ¶122 cited; 16 alternatives assessed, but rejection of D1-D3 (near masts, yet two masts already near the appeal site) and D16 insufficiently substantiated (DL ¶26-27) - **CO1(1): benefit.** replaces the Ash Grange site lost to a Notice to Quit; ESN contract and 5G; need "weighs in favour" but no weight label given (DL ¶24-25, ¶28) - **P3: pass.** no material harm to outlook of 123 Pilch Lane, about 10 m away (DL ¶18-20) ## Key facts - Decision dated 17 August 2026, the day the new Framework took effect, but reasons cite the December 2024 NPPF paragraphs 119, 120 and 122 (DL ¶25) - Two existing monopoles already on Dovecot Avenue (DL ¶7) - Approved council junction improvement scheme would conflict with the pole's position (DL ¶21-22) - Replaces coverage from the Ash Grange site, lost ahead of demolition (DL ¶24) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009085 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2a0521d3-496f-44d0-af2c-3e7101eaeec1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009085.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 79 Main Street, Seamer (planning appeal) - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F Cullen - **Authority:** North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6009092 - **Application reference:** SCAZF25/01310/HS - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of two curtilage-listed outbuildings and a replacement one-and-a-half-storey double garage with office, plus tarmac yard, at a Grade II former school (planning appeal A; LBC appeal B is 6008732) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(3), HE6(4), HE4(2), DP3(3), S4 - **Development plan policies:** Scarborough Borough Local Plan 2017 DEC1, DEC5 - **Main issues:** Grade II listed building and setting, Seamer Conservation Area - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, private-benefit-not-public, curtilage-listed, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, dp3-refuse-trigger, conservation-area, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary Replacing two dilapidated curtilage-listed outbuildings behind a Grade II former school in Seamer with a large generic garage and a tarmac yard. The inspector found a low level of harm to the listed building and a very low level to the conservation area. The claimed structural and salvage benefits were unevidenced and the rest were private. The letter walks through HE5(2), HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4) and HE4(2) in order, then S4 with DP3(3). Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The update includes policy changes which are relevant to the main issue of these appeals." Parties were invited to comment (DL ¶8). - **Condition and neglect.** The condition report "is fairly basic and has not been undertaken by a suitably qualified professional, such as a structural engineer" (DL ¶20). On HE4(3), "the evidence before me is insufficient to establish that the neglect in this case was deliberate" (DL ¶21). - **Visibility.** "listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interests irrespective of whether they, or any parts of them, are readily visible from public spaces" (DL ¶26). - **Degree (HE5(2)(c)).** "I find that the proposal would result in a low level of harm to the significance of the listed building, and a very low level of harm to the significance of the SCA" (DL ¶29). - **HE6(1) and (3).** Substantial weight to conservation applies to any effect: "This is irrespective of whether any potential effect amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss of its significance." (DL ¶30). - **HE6(4) and HE4(2): FAIL.** "I attach little weight to these public benefits, both individually and collectively" (DL ¶33). "clear and convincing justification has not been provided for the identified harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets" (DL ¶35). - **DP3(3).** "the Framework requires that development should be refused if, without clear justification, it does not respond to its context in terms of integrating with and enhancing its surroundings" (DL ¶42). ## Planning balance HE6(4) first, then S4: "having applied the national decision-making policies in the Framework, I find that the benefits of approving the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects" (DL ¶43). ## What made the difference The outbuildings' group value with the listed school and school house, and a replacement garage that would compete with the host building. The appellant's case that the outbuildings were beyond repair rested on a basic report not by a structural engineer. ## Transferable points - A model 2026 heritage sequence: significance, HE5(2)(c) degree (low / very low), HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4), HE4(2), then S4 (DL ¶18, ¶29-35, ¶40-43). - HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation applies whatever the degree of effect (DL ¶30). - A structural-condition claim needs a report by a suitably qualified professional; a joiner's report carries limited weight (DL ¶20, ¶33). - HE4(3) deliberate neglect needs evidence; otherwise present condition counts (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **HE5(1): neutral.** Council said the heritage statement fell short, but the inspector could assess significance from the evidence and site visit (DL 11) - **HE5(2)(c): harm.** degree identified - low harm to the listed building, very low harm to Seamer CA (DL 18, 29) - **HE4(3): neutral.** neglect not shown to be deliberate, so present poor condition taken into account, but the condition report was basic and not by a structural engineer (DL 20-21) - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation, irrespective of the degree of effect (DL 30) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** loss of early-19th-century outbuildings of group value; oversized generic garage and tarmac erode setting (DL 19, 22-25, 30) - **HE6(4): fail.** time-limited economic, claimed safety and salvage benefits little weight; private benefits; no clear and convincing justification (DL 31-35) - **DP3(3): fail.** DP3(1) context conflict cited with the refusal direction (fn 10 cites DP3(1) and DP3(3)); no separate clear-justification sentence (DL 41-42) - **S4: fail.** inside development limits; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 40-43) ## Key facts - Outbuildings treated as curtilage listed (pre-1948; structure shown on 1854 OS map) despite appellant's doubt (DL 4-6) - Proposed garage about 7.5 m x 6 m x 4.6 m to ridge, markedly larger than other outbuildings nearby (DL 22) - Harm not visible from public routes but listed buildings protected irrespective of visibility (DL 26) - Joint letter with LBC appeal 6008732 (other batch); both dismissed ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009092 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8a04baba-f14a-4e28-b386-7ba20d840376 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009092.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land to the rear of Melrose, Arndale, Wigston - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Rosie Morgan - **Authority:** Oadby and Wigston (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009097 - **Application reference:** 25/00315/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Detached one-bed bungalow on a narrow former access plot - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S3(1)(c), L2 - **Development plan policies:** Oadby and Wigston Local Plan 2019 Policies 6, 11, 15, 37, 44, Residential Development SPD - **Main issues:** character, living conditions, BNG - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-not-applied, bng-metric-missing, self-build-unsecured, small-scheme, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A one-bed bungalow squeezed onto a 6 m-wide former access plot in a Wigston cul-de-sac was dismissed. It was cramped and out of character, with too little and overlooked private garden, and without the minimum BNG information. The parties were not consulted on the new Framework: its content was said to be "similar" (DL ¶3). The inspector applied only S3(1)(c), finding no accord with an up-to-date plan, and did not run the S4 "substantially outweighed" balance for a site plainly within a settlement (DL ¶24). ## What made the difference The plot size and future occupiers' living conditions (38 sqm garden, overlooked). The letter also records that the new small-site BNG exemption applies only to applications submitted from August 2026 (DL ¶21). The omission of S4 is notable. Most inspectors run S4 even for dismissals. ## Policy findings - **L2: conflict.** efficient use of land but unacceptable living standards - 38 sqm garden against 50 sqm SPD, overlooked by window of rear building (DL 13-19) - **S3(1)(c): fail.** does not accord with the up-to-date plan, so S3 gives no reason to allow; S4 not applied (DL 24) ## Key facts - Plot about 6m wide and 150 sqm between garages at a cul-de-sac head (DL 6, 9) - Self-build BNG exemption unsecured; the post-August 2026 small-site BNG exemption does not apply to earlier applications; DMPO Art 7 BNG information missing (DL 20-22) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009097 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9e15fb57-b2ca-404a-b684-1e501db40f4d --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009097.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # White House Farm, Main Street, Ealand - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Richard Gilbert - **Authority:** North Lincolnshire (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6009098 - **Application reference:** PA/2025/1145 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for conversion of a redundant stone storage barn to 1 dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, flood-zone-3 - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** F4, F7, S4 - **Development plan policies:** North Lincolnshire Local Plan 2003 DS14, DS16 - **Main issues:** suitability of site - location, land use, amount (flood risk) - **Tags:** PIP, flood-risk, flood-fra-missing, barn-conversion, s4-substantially-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, costs-application, small-scheme ## Summary Permission in principle for converting a barn in Flood Zone 3, within the development limit of Ealand, to one dwelling. Dismissed because no flood risk assessment was submitted. The inspector held that F4's requirement for a site-specific FRA applies to PiP applications, because an FRA's "scale, nature and location" correspond to PiP's location, land use and amount. Without one, a change from less to more vulnerable use in Flood Zone 3 had to be treated as a substantial adverse effect. That substantially outweighed the limited benefit of one home under S4. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The amendments to the Framework have incurred a change in national planning policy … I have sought additional comments from the parties" (DL ¶6). - **F4: FAIL.** "The scale, nature and location of development align with the in principle matters of location, land use and amount of development. Consequently, as an FRA has not been provided, I am unable to assess the flood risk of the proposal in relation to the in principle matters, contrary to national planning policy" (DL ¶12). "an FRA would not require the creation of detail that would go beyond the in principle matters" (DL ¶14). - **Consultees not binding.** The EA and LLFA advice deferring the FRA to TDC "is not binding, particularly when it is contrary to national policy" (DL ¶15). - **Conversion capability.** Structural matters are for the TDC stage, not PiP (DL ¶17). This is why L2(1)(b) gets only limited weight (DL ¶18). ## Planning balance S4. One dwelling and reuse of a building: limited weight (DL ¶28). "A precautionary approach is therefore necessary which, in the absence of sufficient flood risk information required by Policy F4, leads me to conclude that a residential use in Flood Zone 3 would have a substantial adverse effect on future occupiers" (DL ¶29). ## What made the difference The missing FRA, plus the more vulnerable use in Flood Zone 3. The sequential and exception tests did not apply because this was a change of use. A proportionate FRA covering location, use and amount would have removed the only reason for refusal. ## Transferable points - F4's "all development proposals" FRA requirement applies at PiP stage in Flood Zones 2 and 3. An FRA addresses location, land use and amount, which are the PiP matters (DL ¶¶12–14). - The EA or LLFA saying an FRA can wait is not binding where it conflicts with the Framework (DL ¶15). - With no FRA, a precautionary approach can treat the flood risk to a more vulnerable use as a "substantial adverse effect" under S4 (DL ¶29). - In PiP, a building's structural capacity for conversion is a TDC matter, so L2(1)(b) reuse benefit gets limited rather than substantial weight (DL ¶¶17–18). ## Policy findings - **F4: fail.** site-specific FRA required for "all development proposals" in FZ2/3, including PiP — scale, nature and location map onto location, land use and amount (DL 9, 12-14) - **F5: not-engaged.** change of use so sequential and exception tests not required (DL 12) - **F7: fail.** precautionary approach; less vulnerable to more vulnerable use; substantial adverse effect on future occupiers (DL 10, 21, 29) - **L2(1)(b): benefit (limited weight).** reuse of vacant building, but conversion capability unproven until TDC (DL 18) - **S4: fail.** limited benefits of one dwelling substantially outweighed (DL 27-30) ## Key facts - Barn within settlement development limit, in Flood Zone 3, beside dykes (DL 8, 19) - EA and LLFA said FRA could wait until technical details consent; inspector held this contrary to national policy (DL 15) - Structural capability for conversion held a TDC matter, not a PiP matter (DL 17) - Parties consulted on 17 Aug 2026 Framework; costs application decided separately (DL 2, 6) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009098 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4f89d339-2a3d-4ae9-a449-65f3420f4576 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009098.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Long Barn, 46 Market Square, Witney - **Decision:** dismissed, 2 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J J Evans - **Authority:** West Oxfordshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009103 - **Application reference:** 25/01990/LBC - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of listed curtilage outbuilding (three commercial units) to one dwelling with two-storey side extension in service yard - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** listed-building-setting, conservation-area, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.3 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4), E1 - **Development plan policies:** West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2018 OS2, OS4, H2, E1, EH3, EH8, EH9, EH10, EH11, EH12, EH16, WODC Design Guide 2016 - **Main issues:** listed buildings and conservation area, living conditions of future occupiers, protected species, town centre vitality - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-harm-ungraded, old-wording-slip, conservation-area, living-conditions, housing-shortfall, employment-loss-marketing, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, annex-a-weight-reduction ## Summary Converting a listed curtilage barn behind a Grade II former inn in Witney Market Square to a dwelling, with a two-storey extension in the service yard. Both the planning and LBC appeals were dismissed. The conversion itself was sympathetic. The extension harmed the listed buildings and the conservation area, gave future occupiers poor light and privacy, and was not justified by any marketing of the employment units. The protected-species survey was also stale. The housing benefit was substantial (4.3-year supply) but outweighed. ## Issues and findings - **Heritage — HE6.** "the extension would be a harmful addition to Long Barn and one which would detract from its significance and that of No 46" (DL ¶13). "These harms are of considerable importance and must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including where appropriate securing the optimum viable use" (DL ¶16). Reusing vacant units is "an important public benefit", but "these important benefits would not outweigh the substantial harms to the designated heritage assets" (DL ¶17). - **Living conditions.** "future occupiers experiencing low levels of natural light and an oppressive, constrained outlook" (DL ¶23). - **Employment.** "the Framework accords substantial weight to supporting business growth"; no marketing evidence (DL ¶31). - **Ecology.** A 2021 survey "cannot be assumed that its findings remain extant" (DL ¶27). ## Planning balance Plan-led s38(6), with the Framework read "alongside" the plan. Plan policies consistent with the Framework keep significant weight (DL ¶36). Housing and efficient use are "substantial benefits" (DL ¶35) but are "outweighed by the substantial harms … to the listed buildings, to the conservation area, to biodiversity, to town centre vitality and viability, and the significant harms to the living conditions of future occupiers" (DL ¶37). No S4 formula is used. ## What made the difference The extension, not the conversion. Without it, the heritage and living-conditions objections largely fall away, and the conversion's own reuse benefit might have carried the HE6 balance. Missing marketing evidence and an out-of-date bat survey were independent failures. ## Transferable points - Securing reuse of vacant listed fabric is an "important public benefit" under HE6(4) (DL ¶17). It will not carry an extension that itself causes the harm. - Harm grading remains loose after the switch: "considerable importance" (DL ¶16) then "substantial harms" (DL ¶17, 37), with no HE6(5) analysis. Carry-over wording "optimum viable use" (DL ¶16). - Five-year-old protected species surveys will not do where the building's condition has changed (DL ¶27). - Loss of employment units needs marketing evidence even in a town centre where residential use is acceptable in principle (DL ¶31). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): harm (considerable weight).** harm not graded on a scale — "These harms are of considerable importance and must be weighed against the public benefits … including where appropriate securing the optimum viable use" (DL 16; "optimum viable use" is 2024 wording); later described as "substantial harms to the designated heritage assets" (DL 17, 37) though no HE6(5) substantial-harm finding; HE6(1) substantial weight stated; ss16(2), 66(1), 72(1) cited (DL 4) - **HE4(1)(a): benefit.** code mapped by harvester — ongoing use for two vacant units "an important public benefit", plus removal of infill, a town-centre home, spend (DL 17) - **HE9: harm.** extension fills open service yard and breaks cascading outrigger hierarchy; cladding and dormers discordant (DL 13-15) - **L2(1)(d)(ii): fail (significant weight).** code mapped by harvester — extension would cut light to north-facing glazing, oppressive outlook, overlooking from Nos 44/46 outriggers (DL 23-25) - **E1: fail.** "the Framework accords substantial weight to supporting business growth" — no marketing evidence to show units unviable (DL 29-31); possibly E2 substantial weight - **N2: fail.** code mapped by harvester — protected species survey from 2021 out of date; Circular 06/2005 relied on (DL 26-28) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 4.3 years (council) v 2-3 years (appellant); one home plus efficient use of land "would be substantial benefits" (DL 35) - **Annex A: neutral.** plan heritage/design/amenity/biodiversity/employment policies consistent with the Framework, so their conflict carries significant weight (DL 36) ## Key facts - Appeal A 6009101 (planning, 25/01989/FUL) and Appeal B 6009103 (LBC) decided together (DL 6) - Long Barn treated as a listed curtilage building of Grade II No 46 (former inn) (DL 5) - Two of three units vacant since 2022; no marketing evidence (DL 30-31) - Parties consulted on 2026 Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009103 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/bc7baa5b-2156-460c-b74e-e4957c2943e6 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009103.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Tuttle Farm, Lock Road, North Cotes - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Laura Bartle - **Authority:** East Lindsey (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009106 - **Application reference:** 00434/26/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for nine market houses on agricultural land in Flood Zone 3 in the Coastal Area - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** open-countryside, flood-zone-3, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** F5, F4 - **Development plan policies:** East Lindsey Local Plan Core Strategy SP1, SP2, SP17, SP18 - **Main issues:** suitability of location including Coastal Area and Flood Zone 3 - **Tags:** PIP, flood-risk, sequential-test-fail, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, s5-limb-not-identified, plan-led, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Permission in principle for nine houses on farmland outside North Cotes, in Flood Zone 3 within East Lindsey's Coastal Area. The sequential test statement was thin, with an unjustified narrow search area, and there was no site-specific flood evidence, so the site was unsuitable in principle despite the Environment Agency not objecting. The letter decided the case on the plan's coastal strategy and F4/F5 and did not run the S5 route, even though the site is outside the settlement. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were given the opportunity to comment; references are to the August 2026 version (DL ¶5). - **Location.** "There is no footway connecting the site to the village along Lock Road and for the most part it is unlit. Accordingly, the site is physically detached from the settlement and occupies a countryside location for planning purposes" (DL ¶7). - **EA non-objection not enough.** It "does not in itself demonstrate that the proposal would accord with either the LPCS or the Framework's flood risk policies F4 and F5" (DL ¶10). - **Flood risk at PIP stage.** "Whilst detailed mitigation measures would ordinarily fall to be considered at the Technical Details Consent stage, the absence of any site-specific flood risk evidence limits my ability to conclude that the site would be suitable for residential development in principle" (DL ¶11). - **F5 sequential test: FAIL.** "it contains only broad assertions regarding the absence of alternative sites and provides little substantive evidence demonstrating why the search area was appropriately restricted to North Cotes and nearby settlements" (DL ¶12). "The purpose of the sequential approach in the Framework is to steer development towards areas at the lowest probability of flooding before reliance is placed on site-specific mitigation measures" (DL ¶14). ## Planning balance Plan-led. Moderate weight to nine homes and economic benefits; "These conflicts with the development plan and national flood risk policy attract substantial weight" (DL ¶17). "I find that the adverse consequences of the proposal would outweigh its benefits" (DL ¶18). No S3, S5(1) or S5(4) step. ## What made the difference The flood evidence. A PIP applicant still has to show the site is suitable in principle in Flood Zone 3, which needs a real sequential test with a justified search area and some site-specific flood evidence. ## Transferable points - Flood risk is a "fundamental constraint" that goes to the PIP in-principle stage, not only to technical details consent (DL ¶11). - A sequential test with a narrowed search area needs evidence for the narrowing (DL ¶12). - Environment Agency non-objection does not itself show compliance with F4 and F5 (DL ¶10). - Caution: the letter skips the S5 category and S5(4) steps for a countryside site, so it is not authority on the S5 route. ## Policy findings - **F5: fail (substantial weight).** sequential test statement only "broad assertions"; search area confined to North Cotes and nearby settlements without justification (DL 12-14, 17) - **F4: fail.** no site-specific flood risk evidence; Environment Agency non-objection not enough; mitigation does not overcome putting more people in a coastal flood risk area (DL 10-11, 14-15) - **S5: not-engaged.** site outside the built-up part of North Cotes, detached, no footway and mostly unlit; S3/S5 not named and no S5(1) category or S5(4) test run; balance framed as adverse consequences "outweigh" benefits (DL 7, 18) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** up to nine homes with no five-year supply, plus economic benefits, moderate weight (DL 16) ## Key facts - Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply; figure not stated (DL 16) - Coastal Area policies SP17/SP18 restrict market housing; conflict weighed with the flood policy conflict at substantial weight (DL 9, 17) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009106 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c1a0dba7-8130-4db2-b215-a51ce825278a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009106.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 253 Ongar Road, Brentwood - **Decision:** dismissed, 1 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S F Barnes - **Authority:** Brentwood (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6009118 - **Application reference:** 25/00814/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective two-storey rear extension to commercial/flat building (variation on 2023 permission) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** Brentwood LP BE14, P3(2)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Brentwood Local Plan 2016-2033 BE14 - **Main issues:** neighbour outlook and daylight - **Tags:** tier-2, retrospective, fallback, neighbour-amenity, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A retrospective two-storey rear extension was dismissed. It replaced the sloping side wall of an approved fallback scheme with a continuous full-height wall, which enclosed the neighbour's only living-room window and cut daylight. The changes in the Framework were "not material to the outcome" (DL ¶2). ## What made the difference The comparison with the fallback: the extra height and length next to the living-room window produced "a pronounced experience of confinement between brick walls" (DL ¶8). ## Policy findings - **P3(2)(b): fail.** full-height side wall beside sole living-room window at No 251 — confinement and daylight loss (DL 8-10), decided under BE14 ## Key facts - Fallback 2023 permission (23/00725/FUL) had a sloping side wall; appeal scheme a continuous full-height wall - Built form differs from submitted drawings; assessed on drawings ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e521c83e-7181-4dff-aeed-b10860469eb0 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009118 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009118.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 6 Grenadier Drive, West Derby, Liverpool (C3 to C2 children's home) - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Mee - **Authority:** Liverpool (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009126 - **Application reference:** 26F/0005 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of dwelling to children's residential care home for up to 3 children - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** s38(6), P5 - **Development plan policies:** Liverpool Local Plan 2013-2033 STP2, H7 - **Main issues:** safeguarding and community safety, living conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, transitional, childrens-home, safeguarding, old-wording-slip ## Summary A three-child care home in a West Derby estate was dismissed. Police evidence of child exploitation and concentrated local crime made the location unsafe for vulnerable occupants, and staff activity would disturb the neighbour (DL ¶12, ¶18). The letter is dated 17 Aug 2026 but applies 2024 NPPF ¶¶96 and 135 (DL ¶11). ## What made the difference The site-specific police objection, which management conditions could not overcome (DL ¶7, ¶12). Contrast PINS-6009133, where a one-child home without such evidence was allowed. ## Policy findings - **P5: fail (significant weight).** 2024 NPPF paras 96 and 135 (safe places, fear of crime; map to HC1/P5/DP3) and s17 Crime and Disorder Act; police evidence of child criminal exploitation and local crime makes the location unsafe for vulnerable children (DL 6-12) - **P3: harm (significant weight).** staff shifts, visitors and parking next to No 8's lounge window intensify activity (DL 13-18) ## Key facts - Merseyside Police objection given significant weight despite no objection from Children's Services (DL 7, 9) - Decision dated 17 Aug 2026 cites 2024 paragraph numbers 96 and 135 without mentioning the new Framework (DL 11) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009126 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/58266483-e26d-4796-9938-6025f7606bd0 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009126.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 286 Great North Road, Woodlands, Doncaster - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Richard Gilbert - **Authority:** Doncaster (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6009127 - **Application reference:** 25/02200/COU - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of first floor and attic flat to two 1-bed flats with rooflights - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), DP3(3) - **Development plan policies:** Doncaster Local Plan 2015-2035 Policies 44, 45 (NDSS) - **Main issues:** living conditions of future occupiers - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, dp3-3-plan-compliance, space-standards, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary The proposal split a first-floor-and-attic flat in a Doncaster terrace into two 1-bed flats. It was dismissed on living conditions: rooflight-only outlook from the main living room, an undersized two-storey flat, and a bin store over 100 m away. The key Framework move was DP3(3). Its "explicit design standards set out in the development plan" limb was triggered by the local plan's adoption of the national space standard (NDSS). The inspector gave that conflict substantial weight and treated it as a refusal-type policy, so the S4 benefits were substantially outweighed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were given the opportunity to comment "in the interests of natural justice" (DL ¶3). - **Outlook.** The rooflights "would allow only limited skyward views, preventing decent outlook" (DL ¶7). - **NDSS.** For a one-bedroom unit over two storeys, "the minimum floorspace ... should be 58m2 ... Flat 1 would provide approximately 49m2" (DL ¶10). - **DP3(3).** "NDMP DP3(3) states that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with any explicit design standards set out in the development plan. The proposal would conflict with Policy 45 of the DLP which relates to housing design standards ... I therefore apply substantial weight" (DL ¶19). - **L2 and L3.** L2 weight was limited because the scheme "would also intensify the existing residential use, not convert the space from an alternative land use" (DL ¶21). L3 density support was limited where the space standards are not met (DL ¶22). ## Planning balance This was the S4 balance. HO7 got moderate weight, because one dwelling "in the absence of evidence to demonstrate what specific need it may address ... would only partly comply with NDMP HO7" (DL ¶20). L2, L3 and economic benefits were limited. The result was "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶24). ## What made the difference The 9 sqm NDSS shortfall, carried by a local plan policy, turned into a DP3(3) "explicit design standard" conflict. ## Transferable points - A local plan's space standard (NDSS) is an "explicit design standard" under DP3(3). Breaching it without justification engages a refusal-type policy within S4 (DL ¶19). - L2 "better use of buildings" weight is limited where a scheme only intensifies an existing residential use (DL ¶21). - HO7 weight falls to moderate for a single unit meeting no evidenced specific need (DL ¶20). ## Policy findings - **DP3(3): fail (substantial weight).** conflict with an explicit plan design standard (NDSS via LP 45) without clear justification - 49 sqm two-storey 1-bed flat against 58 sqm minimum (DL 9-10, 19) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** one dwelling, no evidence of specific need, so only partly complies (DL 20) - **L2(1)(b): benefit (limited weight).** intensifies residential use rather than converting another use; site too small for the units (DL 21) - **L3: benefit (limited weight).** density increase inappropriate given DP3(3) conflict (DL 22) - **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 24) ## Key facts - Flat 1 lit only by high rooflights in its living room; bin store reached by a walk of over 100m across three streets (DL 7, 13) - Works had started before the decision (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009127 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e3f7d5f1-37ff-41d3-97de-8829dd11d2b1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009127.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Paddock Farm, Bowridge Hill, Gillingham - **Decision:** allowed, 19 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Alison Fish - **Authority:** Dorset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009129 - **Application reference:** P/PAAC/2026/01142 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class Q prior approval, agricultural building to 2 dwellings - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Class Q.1(g), GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Class Q.2(1)(e) - **Main issues:** whether permitted development, location/siting - **Tags:** tier-2, class-q, no-framework-reference, prior-approval ## Summary Class Q prior approval for two dwellings was granted. Like-for-like storm repairs to the barn were not "development", so Q1(g) did not bar the scheme. Siting concerns about suburban fencing were dealt with by boundary and landscaping conditions. ## What made the difference The repairs were minor, did not change the building's form, and did not materially affect its external appearance under s55(2). The Framework plays no part in a Class Q appeal. ## Policy findings - **GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Class Q para Q1(g): pass.** storm-damage roof sheet and cladding replacement did not materially affect external appearance, so not "development" (s55(2)) (DL 8-12) - **GPDO Class Q para Q2(1)(e): pass.** exposed site by footpath; suburban fencing risk controlled by boundary and landscaping conditions under para W(13) (DL 13-17) ## Key facts - Earlier planning appeal APP/D1265/W/3344025 on same building not comparable (s78 v prior approval) (DL 16) - The Framework is not cited ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009129 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/703efb8d-d810-4103-84ff-807925982cfa --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009129.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 2 Jesmond Avenue, Middlesbrough - **Decision:** allowed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Paul Martinson - **Authority:** Middlesbrough (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009132 - **Application reference:** 25/0672/COU - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of detached 4-bed house (C3) to 3-child children's home (C2) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO9(1)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Middlesbrough Housing Local Plan 2014 H11, Middlesbrough Publication Local Plan 2025 HO1(b) (moderate weight) - **Main issues:** residential character - **Tags:** childrens-home, ho9-applied, specialist-housing-need, fear-of-crime ## Summary A three-child care home in a detached suburban house was allowed. Before turning to the main issue, the Inspector applied new Policy HO9(1)(b) directly as a two-part test, covering a management plan for a safe and secure environment and easy, safe access to services, and found both met (DL ¶¶2–5). Staff movements were comparable to a family's, and 19 beds within a mile did not amount to overconcentration. ## Issues and findings - **HO9(1)(b): PASS.** The Statement of Purpose satisfied (b)(i): "I am therefore satisfied that the proposal would represent a safe and secure environment" (DL ¶4). The local centre is 400 m away and buses 250 m, so "future residents will be able to access frequently used services easily and safely … the proposal would comply with Framework Policy HO9" (DL ¶5). - **Residential character: PASS.** Twice-daily handovers were "comparable to that of a C3 dwelling" (DL ¶12). The 19 beds within a mile equated "to just over 6 three-bedroom properties" in a dense area (DL ¶15). - **Fear of crime.** It is material only with "some reasonable evidential basis"; Ofsted regulation and supervision are safeguards (DL ¶¶16–17). - **Housing mix.** A single loss had no discernible effect on H11. The emerging plan was given moderate weight but not breached (DL ¶¶7, 20–21). ## Planning balance s38(6). The scheme accorded with the development plan, and HO9 support was added. ## What made the difference A good Statement of Purpose, walkable services and small scale. The Council's market-concentration worry was not linked to any planning harm (DL ¶14). ## Transferable points - HO9(1)(b) gives a free-standing two-limb test for looked-after children's homes: a management plan and access to services (DL ¶¶3–5). - An Ofsted Statement of Purpose can satisfy HO9(1)(b)(i) (DL ¶4). - Concentration arguments need to be tied to effects on residential character, not the care market (DL ¶¶14–15). ## Policy findings - **HO9(1)(b)(i): pass.** Statement of Purpose shows safe and secure environment (DL 3-4) - **HO9(1)(b)(ii): pass.** local centre ~400 m, buses within 250 m, schools walkable on footways (DL 5) - **Middlesbrough HLP H11: accord.** 19 Ofsted beds within 1 mile ≈ six 3-bed homes; no overconcentration; family housing dominant locally (DL 15, 19-22) - **P5: pass.** fear of crime needs evidential basis; Ofsted regulation and supervision (DL 16-17) - **DP3(2)(a): benefit.** "Framework support for providing healthy, mixed, vibrant and integrated communities" (DL 21) ## Key facts - Up to 3 children aged 7-17; 2 staff overnight; handovers 8am/8pm - Four off-street spaces on corner plot - Council Children's Commissioning concerned about market/out-of-area placements ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6970707d-c273-47c5-a8ae-48f9a619e5dd - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009132 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009132.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 1 Westwood Road, Perry Barr, Birmingham (C3 to C2 one-child home) - **Decision:** allowed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Plenty (on recommendation of appeal planning officer E Clifford) - **Authority:** Birmingham (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009133 - **Application reference:** 2025/04233/PA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion of two-bed terraced house to a children's home for one child - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** Birmingham Development Management DPD 2021 DM2, DM12, DM15, Birmingham Design Guide, Parking SPD 2021 - **Main issues:** living conditions, parking - **Tags:** tier-2, childrens-home, framework-not-cited, appeal-planning-officer ## Summary A one-child children's home in a Perry Barr terrace was allowed. Activity and parking demand would be akin to a family household (DL ¶8, ¶12). The case was decided on the local plan's care-home criteria, and the Framework is not cited. ## What made the difference Its modest scale (one child) was locked in by condition (DL ¶17), and there was no site-specific safeguarding objection (contrast PINS-6009126). ## Policy findings - **P3: pass.** activity comparable to a household; NDSS-compliant bedroom; parks nearby compensate for a small yard; on-street parking adequate (DL 5-15) ## Key facts - Occupancy limited to one child by condition (DL 17) - Decided by an inspector on an appeal planning officer's recommendation; Framework not cited ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009133 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e99736d3-26fc-48d3-aeda-6b64e93cf8af --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009133.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Footpath outside 1 Prince Street, Bridlington (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Caines - **Authority:** East Riding of Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6009141 - **Application reference:** 26/00310/PLF - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub replacing a telephone kiosk and cash machine at a prominent corner in Bridlington Quay Conservation Area (Appeal A; linked advertisement Appeal B 6009153 for two 75-inch digital screens) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), S4, DP3(3) - **Development plan policies:** East Riding Local Plan 2025 ENV1, ENV3, Bridlington Quay Conservation Area Appraisal 2010 - **Main issues:** conservation area, advertisement amenity - **Tags:** telecoms, street-hub, bt-street-hub, digital-advertising, co1-substantial-weight, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, dp3-refuse-trigger, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary A BT Street Hub replacing a kiosk and cash machine on a prominent corner of the Bridlington Quay Conservation Area. The inspector graded the harm as low but applied HE6(1) and HE6(3) weight, and found the public benefits, including CO1's substantial weight for connectivity, did not outweigh it. The design conflict was treated as a refusal policy and the S4 benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed, with the linked advertisement appeal. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties have had the opportunity to comment on the revised Framework" (DL ¶4). - **Degree of harm.** "I find that the proposal would result in a low level of harm to the significance of the CA" (DL ¶17). - **CO1.** "I attach substantial weight to the benefits of maintaining and improving network coverage, capacity, reliability and resilience, although the contribution made by this individual installation to those wider objectives would be relatively limited" (DL ¶19). - **HE6(4): FAIL.** "the public benefits would not outweigh the identified harm to the significance of the CA" (DL ¶21). - **DP3 as refusal policy.** "Policy S5(2) of the Framework indicates that conflict with a national decision-making policy requiring refusal, including Policy DP3, is a circumstance in which the benefits of development are likely to be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶25). The site is inside a settlement, so the limb is S4(2)(c); the letter cites S5(2). ## Planning balance HE6(4) first, then S4: CO1 benefits (substantial) and others (limited) against heritage harm and design conflict (substantial). "the benefits of granting permission would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects" (DL ¶26). ## What made the difference The hub's dark, monolithic form and changing illuminated screens, which made it more conspicuous than the kiosk it replaced, at a highly visible corner of a traditional townscape. ## Transferable points - CO1 substantial weight attaches to network benefits, but it can be tempered by the small contribution of one unit (DL ¶19). - Low graded harm, with HE6(1) and HE6(3) weight, outweighed CO1 benefits (DL ¶17-21). - Replacing a larger kiosk does not help if the replacement is more conspicuous (DL ¶12, ¶20). ## Policy findings - **HE5(2): harm.** degree identified - low harm to the CA's significance; dark monolithic hub with illuminated screens more conspicuous than the kiosk it replaces (DL 12, 15, 17) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** HE6(1) substantial weight irrespective of level of effect; HE6(3) considerable importance and weight (DL 18, 21) - **HE6(4): fail.** public benefits meaningful but do not outweigh (DL 19-21) - **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to network benefits, though this unit's contribution relatively limited; other social benefits and kiosk removal limited (DL 19-20, 24) - **DP3(3): fail.** conflict with DP3 (integrate with surroundings) treated as a refusal policy; routed through "S5(2)" although the site is inside a settlement (S4(2)(c)); no clear-justification words (DL 25) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 26) ## Key facts - Joint letter with advertisement Appeal B 6009153, also dismissed on amenity (DL 2, 28) - Parties had the opportunity to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 4) - Hub nearly 3 m high, dark finish, illuminated digital screens both faces; smaller footprint than the kiosk and ATM it replaces (DL 11-12) - Local policies ENV1 and ENV3 "broadly consistent" with the Framework (DL 22) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009141 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/de362c41-ab51-482e-8611-91cc15a996d8 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009141.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Unit 4A, Tinsley Lane North, Crawley - **Decision:** allowed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Catcheside - **Authority:** Crawley (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009147 - **Application reference:** CR/2025/0344/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use from B8 to flexible B2/B8 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR2 - **Development plan policies:** Crawley Borough Local Plan 2023-2040 DD1, ST2, Parking Standards Annex - **Main issues:** car parking and highway safety - **Tags:** tier-2, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, parking-standards, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary A B8 unit in Manor Royal was allowed flexible B2/B8 use. A 16-space shortfall against the indicative parking minimum was justified by trip-generation evidence and good public transport. ## What made the difference Undisputed transport evidence showing peak demand of 20 cars, together with the fact that the local standards are expressly "indicative" and allow site-specific justification. ## Policy findings - **TR2: pass.** code mapped by harvester — 35 spaces v 51 indicative minimum for sole B2; standards indicative; TAS peak demand 20; Manor Royal 24-hour buses (DL 5-13) ## Key facts - Highway authority raised no objection (DL 8) - Up to 44 spaces feasible without impeding HGVs (DL 11) - Parties consulted on 2026 Framework; no Framework policy cited in reasoning (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009147 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/97af42e0-4474-4109-ab80-a6221d92e2c9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009147.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 15 Stanfield Road, Bournemouth - **Decision:** dismissed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Leonard - **Authority:** Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009149 - **Application reference:** P/25/05300/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use from C4 HMO to 8-bed sui generis HMO with side dormers, rear roof extension and rear extension - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** Bournemouth CS41, BNG statutory condition - **Development plan policies:** Bournemouth Core Strategy 2012 CS30, CS41, Bournemouth District Wide Local Plan 2002 saved 6.17 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, BNG, neighbour amenity - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, bng-exemption-not-shown, roof-dormers, transitional-no-consultation, costs-application ## Summary An eight-bed HMO scheme was dismissed. Its large flat-roofed side dormers would overwhelm a prominent period corner house, and the claimed BNG de minimis exemption was not demonstrated. Intensification from six to eight occupants caused no neighbour harm. The Inspector found the new Framework "does not differ significantly from the 2024 version in respect of the substance" (DL ¶3). ## What made the difference The extensions were treated as part of the development, despite the appellant's PD claim (DL ¶¶7–13). That brought in both the design harm and the BNG baseline. The Inspector held BNG failure "a fundamental flaw" that could not be cured by condition (DL ¶38). ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail.** full-length flat-roofed side dormers top-heavy on prominent corner period house; erode hipped roofscape (DL 22-27), decided under CS41 - **BNG (Sch 7A TCPA): fail.** de minimis exemption doubtful (>25 sq m of garden habitat); no Article 7 statement or metric; cannot be left to condition (DL 28-39) - **P3: pass.** intensification from 6 to 8 occupants not harmful to No 17 (DL 45-48) ## Key facts - CLU for C4 HMO granted May 2026; CLP for the PD extensions refused and under appeal (6012438) - Extensions essential to scheme so included in description despite PD claim - Dorset Heathlands / New Forest SPA SAMM obligation — AA not needed given dismissal ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3f4387c1-2c9a-4cf0-ad5e-4e93ce1b050d - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009149 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009149.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 27 Gloucester Road North, Filton (7 C4 HMOs above retained Class E unit) - **Decision:** allowed, 25 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Dryden - **Authority:** South Gloucestershire (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009167 - **Application reference:** P25/02828/F - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Extension and conversion of a vacant commercial building to 7 HMOs (C4; 34 occupants) with ground-floor Class E retained - **Homes:** 7 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** South Gloucestershire Core Strategy 2013 CS17, PSP Plan 2017 PSP8, PSP16, PSP39, PSP43, HMO Refresh SPD 2026 - **Main issues:** outdoor amenity space, on-street parking, housing mix - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, plan-led, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Seven small HMOs (34 occupants) above a retained shop unit in Filton were allowed. Outdoor space was adequate given nearby parks, parking capacity was proven by survey, and housing mix was not harmed because no dwelling would be lost (DL ¶10, ¶20, ¶32-33). The decision is plan-led. ## What made the difference The parking survey, accepted by the council's own transport officer (DL ¶13-14). The SPD's concentration thresholds were aimed at C3-to-HMO changes, not the conversion of a commercial building (DL ¶24, ¶29). ## Policy findings - **P3: pass.** 40 sqm shared outdoor space acceptable given nearby parks and non-family units (DL 8-11) - **TR6: pass.** parking survey shows about 29 on-street and 20 car-park spaces; no highway objection (DL 12-20) - **HO5: pass.** SPD 10% concentration threshold aimed at C3 losses; conversion of commercial building adds housing choice (DL 21-33) ## Key facts - Committee refusal against officer advice after an earlier decision was quashed by consent (DL 4, 13) - Framework "no major changes relevant"; no comments sought (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009167 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b6f0a623-d2e5-46f8-90f0-3b031f61b439 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009167.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Bracken Ley, London Lane, Houghton Conquest - **Decision:** dismissed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Owen - **Authority:** Central Bedfordshire (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6009181 - **Application reference:** CB/25/03478/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Redevelopment of agricultural barns for six dwellings (plus retained bungalow) - **Homes:** 6 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.93 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), S5(4), HO7 - **Development plan policies:** Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2021 HQ1, EE4, EE5, EE8, EE9, T2, T3 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, highway safety, living conditions - **Tags:** s5-1-j, s5-4-exceptional, housing-shortfall, class-q-fallback, landscape-harm, sustainable-location-fail, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary This was a scheme to replace a cluster of agricultural barns (with Class Q prior approval for 8 units) with six new houses. It was dismissed. With a 3.93-year supply, S5(1)(j) was engaged. But the site, in a small cluster 400-500 m from Houghton Conquest, was not physically well-related, and no other S5(1) category applied. Under S5(4), substantial HO7 weight did not substantially outweigh the considerable-weight suburbanising character harm and highway safety harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties commented on the revised Framework (DL ¶3). - **Character: significant harm.** The scheme "would result in a dense enclave of seven houses in plots substantially smaller than the other dwellings nearby" with "a suburban character contrasting with the more scattered and varied form" (DL ¶8-9). - **Class Q fallback distinguished.** "the agricultural appearance of the site would generally be retained by the reuse of the existing buildings ... whereas the appeal scheme would have a wholly suburban appearance" (DL ¶12). "the reuse of buildings is specifically allowed for in part c. of paragraph 1" (DL ¶27). - **S5(1)(j): FAIL.** "The Council state they can only demonstrate a 3.93 year supply ... part j. adds that ... development must also be physically well-related to an existing settlement. In my view the distance between the site and Houghton Conquest means the site is not physically well-related" (DL ¶26). - **Highways.** It was not shown that a full-size fire engine could turn (DL ¶15), and the retained dwelling had only one effective space (DL ¶16). ## Planning balance S5(4) (DL ¶28): "The benefits of an additional six units at a time when the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply attracts substantial weight ... BNG, ... local economy, and ... sustainable design ... modest weight ... Conversely the harm to the character and appearance of the area and to highway safety both carry considerable weight. As such, the benefits do not substantially outweigh the adverse effects." ## What made the difference Distance and separation from the village, 400-500 m across open fields, took the scheme out of S5(1)(j). The extant Class Q permission helped the appellant less than expected. The inspector read it as supporting reuse under S5(1)(c), not redevelopment. Agricultural buildings are not PDL, so S5(1)(d) was unavailable. Building out the Class Q scheme remains the realistic route. ## Transferable points - A small rural cluster 400-500 m from a village across open fields is not "physically well-related" for S5(1)(j) (DL ¶26). - A Class Q fallback supports reuse (S5(1)(c)) but does not justify suburban redevelopment with a different appearance (DL ¶12, 27). - Under S5(4), substantial HO7 weight for six homes was not enough against considerable-weight character and highway harms (DL ¶28). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): fail.** 3.93-year supply engages need, but site in a small cluster 400-500m from Houghton Conquest is not physically well-related (DL 26) - **S5(4): fail.** HO7 substantial weight for six homes does not substantially outweigh considerable-weight character and highway harms (DL 28) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** six units without 5YHLS (DL 28) - **DP3: harm (considerable weight).** dense suburban row in open clay vale landscape, more prominent than barns (DL 7-13) - **TR4: harm (considerable weight).** full-size fire engine turning not shown; one effective space for retained bungalow (DL 15-20) ## Key facts - Supply 3.93 years (DL 26) - Extant Class Q prior approval for 8 units in the barns (CB/25/00256/PAAD) - distinguished as retaining agricultural appearance; S5(1)(c) is the route for reuse (DL 12, 27) - Houghton Conquest about 400-500m away across open fields (DL 6) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009181 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f40c6853-d035-4760-bcb8-475d041bdaf5 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009181.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Peterstone Lodge, Burnham Road, Burnham Overy Town - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer L Clark) - **Authority:** King's Lynn and West Norfolk (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6009184 - **Application reference:** 25/01006/CU - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use from holiday let to unrestricted dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** s38(6), KLWN LP LP02 - **Development plan policies:** King's Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan 2025 LP01, LP02 - **Main issues:** principle / location - **Tags:** no-framework-reference, holiday-let-conversion, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, appeal-planning-officer, decided-on-publication-day, small-scheme ## Summary Lifting the holiday-occupancy restriction on a lodge beside a 60mph B-road in open countryside near the Burnhams was dismissed as contrary to the settlement hierarchy (LP02). Permanent occupiers would be wholly car-reliant for daily trips. The decision was issued on 17 August 2026, the day the new Framework took effect. It cites no Framework, so the S5 route for development outside settlements (including reuse of existing buildings) was never tested. ## Issues and findings - **Location — LP02: CONFLICT.** "one would not 'normally' allow unrestricted dwellings in the open countryside" (DL ¶9). Occupiers of a permanent dwelling "would be more likely to undertake more regular, arguably daily, journeys … The nature and frequency of journeys would therefore be materially different" from a holiday let (DL ¶8). - **Accessibility.** The long walk to the Holkham bus stop is partly "along the side of a main road which is unlit, does not have segregated footways and carries vehicles at the national speed limit" (DL ¶7). - **Comparators.** Earlier allowed schemes "found support in the iteration of the National Planning Policy Framework at the time" (DL ¶14). This is the only reference to national policy. ## Planning balance Plan-led s38(6). The council had a five-year supply. The absence of other harms was neutral (DL ¶12-13). ## What made the difference The plan's "not normally" wording, and the difference in travel pattern between holiday and permanent occupiers. Under the 2026 Framework the inspector would have had to consider whether a change of use of an existing building fell within S5(1). Where it does, the plan's countryside restriction may carry reduced weight under Annex A. That question was not asked. ## Transferable points - Holiday-let occupancy and permanent occupancy generate materially different travel patterns. Removing a holiday condition can be resisted on car-dependence (DL ¶8). - A letter dated 17 August 2026 that applies neither Framework shows the transition gap. Later decisions on similar facts should be tested against S5. ## Policy findings - **LP02 (KLWN LP): conflict.** Tier 6 countryside; residential "not normally" supported outside development boundaries; nothing out of the "normal" here (DL 5-10) - **TR3: fail.** code mapped by harvester (not cited) — 60mph B1155, no footway or lighting; only school-day buses (2/day); "reliant upon the use of a car for every trip" (DL 4, 7-8, 11) ## Key facts - Council has an acceptable five-year supply (DL 13) - No additional built form; building can already be occupied year-round as a holiday let (DL 7) - Decided 17 Aug 2026 with no reference to either Framework; S5 (and S5(1)(c)-type reuse) not considered - Earlier comparators allowed under previous Framework's support for reuse/subdivision distinguished (DL 14) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009184 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fcdf892d-08d1-4650-86e2-9c495570cecf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009184.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Childwall Golf Club maintenance yard, Netherley - **Decision:** allowed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Chris Mayes - **Authority:** Liverpool (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009185 - **Application reference:** 26PT/0473 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Prior approval (GPDO Sch 2 Pt 16 Class A) for 30 m lattice telecoms tower with antennas, dishes, cabinets and fenced compound - **Site context:** green-belt, PDL - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** CO1, HE7 - **Development plan policies:** Liverpool Local Plan 2013-2033 STP4, HD1, UD1, UD2, GI1, GI2, GI4 - **Main issues:** siting and appearance - **Tags:** telecoms-prior-approval, gb-policy-not-applied, costs-refused ## Summary Prior approval appeal for a 30 m telecoms lattice mast in a golf club maintenance yard in the Liverpool Green Belt. Allowed. The inspector confirmed that Green Belt inappropriateness and VSC do not apply under GPDO Part 16. Only siting and appearance are assessed, with openness relevant only as context. The mast was acceptable against its mature tree backdrop. Costs were refused (local copy PINS-6009185-costs.pdf). ## Issues and findings - **Green Belt policy.** "the fact that the appeal site is within the Liverpool Green Belt does not alter this … I have not assessed whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, nor have I applied the very special circumstances test. However, the openness, vegetation and landscape characteristics of the area form part of the context" (DL ¶5-6). - **Siting and appearance: acceptable.** "visibility alone does not equate to harm" (DL ¶11). - **NDHA clubhouse: setting preserved** (DL ¶14). - **Costs.** Refused. The Council referred to network need, contrary to 2024 ¶123, but this caused no wasted expense (Costs DL ¶7). ## Planning balance None. Prior approval is limited to siting and appearance. ## What made the difference Siting inside an existing operational compound with mature tree screening. ## Transferable points - Green Belt inappropriateness and VSC do not apply to GPDO Part 16 prior approvals. Openness is context for siting and appearance only (DL ¶5-6). - "visibility alone does not equate to harm" for masts seen against tree cover (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **GB6(2): not-engaged.** Part 16 prior approval is limited to siting and appearance; inappropriateness and VSC not assessed; openness and landscape only as context for siting/appearance (DL 5-6) - **CO1: pass.** mast above tree canopy but seen within mature tree backdrop in an operational compound; "visibility alone does not equate to harm" (DL 9-17) - **HE7: neutral.** setting of Art Deco clubhouse (NDHA) preserved (DL 13-14) ## Key facts - Site is an enclosed golf-club maintenance compound ringed by mature trees (DL 8) - Revised Framework said to have "relatively limited bearing" on a GPDO prior approval (DL 3) - Costs application refused; Council's reliance on Green Belt policy and network-need arguments did not cause wasted expense (Costs DL 5-7) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009185 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3f0eaa1a-ed8f-4d3c-92b4-c92d99438640 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/71a4cf8c-7850-4c99-a46e-05754be45b6b --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009185.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Littlewood Farm, Jail Lane, Biggin Hill - **Decision:** allowed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Heppell - **Authority:** Bromley (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009189 - **Application reference:** 25/05448/FPA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of stables, tack room and hay barn; three detached two-storey dwellings - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** green-belt, PDL - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(e), AnnexB:previously-developed-land - **Development plan policies:** Bromley Local Plan 2019 Policy 49 - **Main issues:** effect of revised Framework on Green Belt assessment - **Tags:** pdl-e-limb, equestrian-pdl, non-determination, pd-rights-removed, small-scheme ## Summary Three houses replacing equestrian buildings at Biggin Hill in the London Green Belt. This was a non-determination appeal where the Council would have approved. It was allowed. The only issue was whether the August 2026 Framework changed anything. It did not: equestrian buildings are PDL, and the consolidated scheme met GB7(1)(e). ## Issues and findings - **Main issue.** Whether the revised Framework "has implications for the proposal with particular reference to the Green Belt" (DL ¶5). - **LP Policy 49 vs GB7(1)(e).** The local policy "broadly conforms with part (e) of Policy GB7 of the Framework, although the latter explicitly additionally encompasses a material change of use to residential, and the test it applies is that of substantial harm to the openness" (DL ¶7). - **GB7(1)(e): PASS.** "the site comprises previously developed land … because it consolidated the built form on the site, the proposal would have no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt despite increasing the height of the buildings" (DL ¶8-9). ## Planning balance No balance was needed. The scheme was not inappropriate and complied with the plan (DL ¶11). PD rights were removed to hold floorspace at the level of the demolished buildings (DL ¶25). ## What made the difference The Council supported the scheme, and floorspace matched the equestrian buildings being demolished. The (e) test ("substantial harm") is more lenient than the local "no greater impact" test, so meeting the stricter local test meant the Framework test was met too. ## Transferable points - Lawful equestrian buildings count as PDL for GB7(1)(e) (DL ¶8). - The GB7(1)(e) threshold is "substantial harm" to openness, which is more lenient than older local "no greater impact" wording (DL ¶7). - Consolidating built form can offset increased height (DL ¶8). - Removing PD rights is a proportionate way to keep openness where the permission relies on floorspace parity (DL ¶25). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(e): pass.** equestrian buildings = PDL; similar floorspace, consolidated built form → no greater impact on openness despite increased height; GB7(e) test is "substantial harm" (DL 7-9) - **LP Policy 49: accord.** broadly conforms with GB7(1)(e) though LP test is "no greater impact" vs Framework "substantial harm" (DL 7, 11) ## Key facts - Appeal against non-determination. The Council said it would have granted permission - There is an extant permission (23/01254/FULL1) for a single-storey dwelling and garage with a similar total footprint - Equestrian stables were accepted as PDL - Permitted development rights for Part 1 Classes A, B, C and E removed to protect openness (DL 25) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009189 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c30c412d-ce6f-4239-a152-b941be5b1b25 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009189.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 44 South Street, Romford - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Dickson - **Authority:** Havering (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009193 - **Application reference:** J0004.26 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class MA prior approval — upper-floor retail storage to 2 x 1-bed flats - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Class MA.2(2)(d), P4 - **Main issues:** Class MA noise from commercial premises - **Tags:** tier-2, prior-approval, class-ma, noise, agent-of-change ## Summary Class MA prior approval for two flats above a Romford shop was refused on the MA.2(2)(d) noise criterion. The noise survey covered only a single weekday, next to a leisure park and a kebab shop, so it was not robust (DL ¶11). The revised Framework was "broadly consistent" and was applied only so far as relevant to noise (DL ¶¶2, 6). ## What made the difference The survey period was unrepresentative, and the consultant's own recommendation for a further ventilation and overheating assessment left the mitigation's adequacy uncertain (DL ¶12). ## Policy findings - **GPDO Class MA.2(2)(d): fail.** 24-hour weekday noise survey unrepresentative of weekend activity at The Brewery leisure park and adjacent kebab shop plant (DL 9-13) - **P3(2)(a): fail.** Framework had regard to only as relevant to noise (W.10(b)) (DL 6) ## Key facts - Backs onto Exchange Street service route and The Brewery retail/leisure park - Noise report itself recommended a further Level 2 ventilation/overheating assessment ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e5b593d8-a78f-4b41-9f97-c67884080f6b - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009193 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009193.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 18 Finden Gardens, Hampsthwaite - **Decision:** allowed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Caines - **Authority:** North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6009197 - **Application reference:** 26/00434/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Two-bedroom two-storey detached self-build house in former side garden - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S3, S4 - **Development plan policies:** Harrogate District Local Plan 2020 HP3, HP4 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, garden quality for occupiers - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-approve, self-build, garden-infill, housing-shortfall, previous-appeal-followed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme ## Summary A self-build house in a corner side garden on a Hampsthwaite estate. Allowed. Following an earlier appeal finding of no character harm, the inspector found the character preserved. The shaded, awkward garden caused limited harm and conflict with HP4. Under S3/S4, with a significant supply shortfall, that did not substantially outweigh the combined benefits, which the inspector weighted substantially. ## What made the difference The earlier inspector's finding on character, and the S4 threshold. A garden that is sub-optimal but usable is "limited" harm, which falls well short of substantially outweighing a new home in a settlement during a supply shortfall. ## Policy findings - **S4: pass.** limited harm from shaded, awkward garden (82 m2) does not substantially outweigh benefits given significant supply shortfall (DL 22-27) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** benefits "taken together" (one home, shortfall, self-build, effective use of land) attract substantial weight (DL 25) - **HLP HP4: conflict (limited weight).** garden quality falls short but usable (DL 12-16, 24) ## Key facts - Previous appeal APP/E2734/W/20/3265492 found no character harm; given significant weight (DL 7) - Council cannot show 5YHLS, "significant shortfall" (figure not stated) (DL 22) - Self-build secured by unilateral undertaking; Council dropped third reason (DL 3) - Parties commented on 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009197 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/bd2dd30b-4d48-4e22-ad16-cc515bb9f7c2 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009197.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 22B Ellerdale Road, Hampstead - **Decision:** dismissed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Dryden - **Authority:** Camden (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009198 - **Application reference:** 2026/0326/P - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Raised roof with rear dormer, first-floor front and rear extensions and replacement single-storey rear extension to a two-storey house - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, HE9, L2(1)(d)(i), DP3, S4 - **Development plan policies:** Camden Local Plan 2017 D1, D2, Hampstead Neighbourhood Plan 2025-2040 DH1, DH2, Fitzjohns/Netherhall CA Appraisal 2022 - **Main issues:** character and appearance and conservation area - **Tags:** tier-2, householder, conservation-area, he6-harm-graded, heritage-harm-decisive, l2-airspace, s4-substantially-outweighed, non-determination, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Raised roof, zinc and timber upper storey, and front and rear extensions to a small set-back house in a Hampstead conservation area. Appealed for non-determination and dismissed. The extensions were not subordinate and caused "moderate" harm to the CA, including by undermining the positive contribution of two neighbouring buildings. ## What made the difference Cumulative bulk and discordant materials on a prominently visible building. The inspector ran the HE6 balance, where a larger family home was a private benefit "comfortably outweighed" by the harm (DL ¶15), and then S4. L2(1)(d) airspace support was treated as conditional on sub-criterion (i), consistency with the street scene (DL ¶23). A neutral building can still harm a CA by detracting from its positive neighbours (DL ¶¶11, 13). ## Policy findings - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** moderate harm to Fitzjohns/Netherhall CA, partly through undermining positive neighbours Nos 20 and 22; private family-home benefits do not outweigh (DL 13-16) - **L2(1)(d)(i): fail.** airspace support conditional on street-scene consistency / no substantial harm to character of building (DL 23) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 22-25) ## Key facts - Non-determination; costs application made (DL 1-3) - Lapsed 2005 permission for similar scheme given little weight under newer plan and NP (DL 18) - Parties invited to comment on the new Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009198 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/db90f29b-33d2-42af-95b0-05b430271892 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009198.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 46 The Beck, Elford, Tamworth (new dwelling in side garden) - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on recommendation of appeal planning officer Kim Vo) - **Authority:** Lichfield (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009207 - **Application reference:** 26/00078/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** New two-storey 3-bed detached dwelling in the side garden of a semi-detached house - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6), DP3, TR6 - **Development plan policies:** Lichfield Local Plan Strategy 2015 CP3, CP5, BE1, ST1, ST2, Elford NP 2019 DH1 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, highway safety - **Tags:** tier-2, plan-led, garden-infill, appeal-planning-officer, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A detached house squeezed into the side garden of a semi-detached house in Elford was dismissed. It would appear cramped, fill a characterful gap, and share a sub-standard access with no on-site turning (DL ¶8, ¶11-14). The case was decided plan-led, with no S4 balance, on the first day of the new Framework (DL ¶4). ## What made the difference The side gap's townscape role, and the inability to turn vehicles on site (DL ¶7, ¶13-14). ## Policy findings - **DP3: harm.** cramped detached dwelling fills a side gap that acts as a transition between two house types (DL 6-9) - **TR6: fail.** shared access under 4.2 m and no on-site turning, so reversing onto the road (DL 10-17) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** one self-occupied home; limited benefits (DL 18-19) ## Key facts - Inside the settlement boundary; principle accepted (DL 21) - Amended parking plans rejected at appeal (DL 3) - Decided on 17 Aug 2026; new Framework changes "do not affect the substance of the main issues" (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009207 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d6044811-a88f-4bd0-a139-db6a6945da77 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009207.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # RCCG Green Pastures, 101 Jarrom Street, Leicester - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: David Cross - **Authority:** Leicester (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009208 - **Application reference:** 20251446 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Second-floor flat-roofed extension and front balcony to church (F1) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** L2(1)(d)(i), DP3(1) - **Development plan policies:** Leicester Local Plan 2026 DQP01, DQP06 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, privacy - **Tags:** l2-1-d, design-refusal, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, upward-extension, psed ## Summary A flat-roofed second-floor extension above the modern wing of a traditional corner church in Leicester was dismissed for harm to character. The inspector tested it against L2(1)(d)'s airspace and corner-building provision. Because the extension is set back from the corner, it does not benefit from the "larger buildings at street corners" exception, and it would not be "consistent with the overall street scene" (DL ¶13). ## Issues and findings - **L2(1)(d)(i): FAIL.** "the proposal would be set back from the corner, and this arrangement contributes to its incongruous appearance … the proposal would not be consistent with the overall street scene and would not be a sensitive redevelopment" (DL ¶13). - **DP3: FAIL.** "substantial harm to the character and appearance of the host building and the area … conflict with the design and street scene requirements of Policies L2 and DP3 of the Framework" (DL ¶14). - **Benefits.** Office space got limited weight. The accessibility lift was not shown to depend on this scale of extension (DL ¶18-19). ## Planning balance Plan-led: conflict "with the development plan and the Framework when read as a whole" (DL ¶20). There was no S4 formula and no DP3(3) "should be refused". ## What made the difference Siting. The L2 corner exception protects height at the corner itself. A box set back behind the historic building's roofline cannot claim it. ## Transferable points - L2(1)(d)(i)'s street-corner allowance applies to buildings *at* the corner. A set-back upward extension on a corner site does not qualify (DL ¶13). - "Substantial harm" language is used for design harm outside the heritage context (DL ¶14). - A benefit that could be delivered without the harmful scale (here a lift) gets reduced weight (DL ¶19). ## Policy findings - **L2(1)(d)(i): fail.** upward extension set back from corner so not the "larger buildings … at street corners" exception; "would not be consistent with the overall street scene and would not be a sensitive redevelopment. It would therefore conflict with the relevant considerations of Policy L2" (DL 13) - **DP3(1): fail.** boxy flat roof jars with pitched church and terraces; "substantial harm to the character and appearance" (DL 8-14); DP3(3) "should be refused" not quoted — conclusion is plan-led s38(6) - **L2(1)(d)(ii): pass.** side windows removed by amendment; "Framework … seeks to provide acceptable living standards … in terms of privacy" met (DL 15-16) - **E2: benefit (limited weight).** code mapped by harvester — small amount of office space (DL 18) - **HC4: benefit.** code mapped by harvester — lift improves accessibility (PSED considered) but not shown to need extension of this scale (DL 19) ## Key facts - Newly adopted Leicester Local Plan 2026 applied (DL 4) - Parties consulted on revised Framework (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009208 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/125c3b60-3223-4710-9ab4-0c582e123427 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009208.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 96A Green Dragon Lane, Southgate - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F Harrison (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer S Manson) - **Authority:** Enfield (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009211 - **Application reference:** 26/00343/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion of first-floor flat into two flats with large rear dormer and hip-to-gable loft conversion - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), S4(2) - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D4, D6, D8, Enfield Core Strategy 2010 CP30, Development Management Document 2014 DMD 6, 8, 13, 37 - **Main issues:** living conditions of future occupiers, character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, design-refusal, appeal-planning-officer, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A flat subdivision with a near-ridge rear dormer and a hip-to-gable change on a prominent Southgate corner semi was dismissed, on an appeal planning officer's recommendation. The design conflicted with DP3's identity principle, which under DP3(3) requires refusal. Both units also fell below London Plan ceiling heights. Under S4, the limited benefit of one extra flat was substantially outweighed. ## What made the difference The prominent corner position and the loss of the pair's symmetry. The London Plan space standard added a living-conditions failure. This is a routine application of the DP3(3) refusal trigger inside a settlement. ## Policy findings - **DP3(3): fail (significant weight).** boxy near-ridge dormer and hip-to-gable break the symmetrical pair on a prominent corner; conflicts with the identity principle without clear justification (DL 10-12, 15) - **S4(2): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed, including substandard 2.5m floor-to-ceiling height (London Plan D6) (DL 5-7, 17) ## Key facts - Neither flat meets the London Plan D6 2.5m floor-to-ceiling height over 75% of GIA (DL 5) - No consultation on the new Framework (APO decision) (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009211 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9446fc0d-7ab2-417c-a067-e80a3d60681a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009211.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land SW Sibson Road, Sheepy Parva - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Morrison (site visit and recommendation by appeal planning officer Ellie Nutman) - **Authority:** Hinckley and Bosworth (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009220 - **Application reference:** 25/00883/OUT - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline (access only) for one self-build dwelling on a roadside paddock (resubmission after earlier appeal dismissal) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S6, S5, DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Sheepy Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2019 S1, S8, Hinckley and Bosworth SADMP DPD 2016 DM4, DM10 - **Main issues:** character and appearance of countryside - **Tags:** s6-neighbourhood-plan, s5-1-j, self-build, small-scheme, infill-rejected, housing-shortfall, appeal-planning-officer, dp3-refuse-trigger, substantially-outweighed, drafting-slip, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary One self-build dwelling on a roadside paddock at the southern edge of Sheepy Parva. Dismissed on an appeal planning officer's recommendation. The Council has no five-year supply and accepted the site is well-related, which gave the S5 route "some support". But the inspector found: - the house would extend a ribbon into open countryside; - it would not be infill; - it would conflict with the neighbourhood plan. Applying S6, the benefits (moderate weight for a single self-build unit) were substantially outweighed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The letter does not mention the 17 August 2026 revision or any invitation to comment. - **Character: HARM.** "the appeal scheme would contribute to a ribbon of housing stretching away from the established containment of the small settlement" (DL ¶5). "I do not agree therefore that a single dwelling would be classed as an infill plot" (DL ¶6). - **S5.** "The Council is unable to demonstrate the supply of housing sites that the Framework requires and … the appeal site is well related to an existing settlement. In principle therefore, there is some support for the proposals" (DL ¶11). - **S6.** "where the presumption applies to applications involving the provision of housing, development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan is likely to be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶13). "the NP became part of the development plan five years or less before the date on which this decision is made and it contains policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement … it remains part of the development plan and has primacy as such" (DL ¶14). - **Possible slip.** DL ¶7 refers to the "Sheepy Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2019", which would be more than five years old by September 2026. The letter does not say whether a review or modification was made later. Treat the S6(1)(a) finding with care until checked. ## Planning balance The S5 balance with S6 layered on top. Character harm and plan conflict: significant weight. DP3 conflict. Benefits: moderate. "the benefits of granting permission for the appeal scheme would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶15). ## What made the difference Two things. The plot sat in a wide open gap rather than a gap in a frontage, so it could not be infill and would read as ribbon development. And a neighbourhood plan the inspector treated as within S6's five-year window, with allocations, tipped the balance under S6 even with no five-year supply. If the NP is actually the 2019 version with no later modification, S6 should not have applied, and the case would rest on the ordinary S5 balance: significant harm against moderate benefits. ## Transferable points - S6 applied as a decisive gloss on S5: conflict with a recent NP that has allocations makes the benefits "likely" substantially outweighed, even without a five-year supply (DL ¶¶13–15). - A single plot in a wide open gap between a village edge and an outlying house is not infill. It extends ribbon development (DL ¶¶5–6). - One self-build unit gets moderate, not substantial, weight when the scale is so limited (DL ¶13). This contrasts with the HO7 substantial weight used elsewhere. - Check the S6(1)(a) five-year condition against the NP's actual made date (DL ¶7 vs ¶14). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): pass.** no 5YHLS and, per Council, well related to settlement — "some support" in principle; limb not named (DL 10-11) - **S5(1)(e): fail.** not infill — part of an expansive open gap between village edge and Meadowside; would extend a ribbon (DL 5-6) (made without naming S5(1)(e)) - **S6: fail.** conflict with NP; NP said to have become part of development plan five years or less ago and to contain allocations meeting its requirement, so benefits likely substantially outweighed (DL 13-15) — but DL 7 calls it the "2019" NP - **DP3: conflict (significant weight).** countryside character harm; significant weight with plan conflict (DL 12) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** self-build (obligation completed) and supply; moderate because single unit (DL 13) ## Key facts - Paddock south of a cluster on the edge of Sheepy Parva; hedge removal needed for access (DL 4-5) - Previous application refused and appeal dismissed; this is a resubmission (DL 2) - Council cannot show 5YHLS (figure not stated) (DL 11) - Appeal planning officer recommendation adopted by inspector (DL 2, 17) - Letter makes no reference to the 17 Aug 2026 transition or party consultation ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009220 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/063870dd-14c3-419e-b55c-771a8b8a6e55 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009220.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 406-410 Beverley Road, Kingston upon Hull - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Hunter - **Authority:** Kingston upon Hull (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6009228 - **Application reference:** 25/01099/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retention of metal fencing and canvas canopies (attached and free-standing) and proposed metal storage racking to a shop forecourt - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, DP3, TR6(4), S4(2)(c) - **Development plan policies:** Hull Local Plan 2016-2032 Policies 14, 15, 16, 19, 26, 28, Beverley Road CA Appraisal and Management Plan 2025 - **Main issues:** conservation area, highway safety, inclusive access, crime - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, retrospective, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tc2-substantial-weight ## Summary Retrospective shop canopies, a free-standing canopy and proposed storage racking on the forecourt of a three-unit shop in the Beverley Road Conservation Area, Hull. The appeal was dismissed on conservation-area harm (HE6) and highway safety (TR6(4)). The S4 presumption was displaced through S4(2)(c) because DP3 and TR6 were treated as policies saying development "should be refused". ## Issues and findings - **Heritage (HE6): HARM.** The canopies' "bold colour, siting, scale and forward projection make them highly visible in the streetscene" and the free-standing canopy "is a wholly discordant feature in the CA" (DL ¶11). Benefits were given limited weight: "it is unclear why canopies of an appropriate and traditional design … could not be installed … to secure these same or similar benefits" (DL ¶16). - **Highway safety (TR6(4), TR4(1)(c)): FAIL.** The dropped kerb was retained and there was a "reasonable prospect" of forecourt parking (DL ¶21). The inspector gave the absence of accident data "little weight" (DL ¶23). - **Inclusive access and crime:** no harm, subject to a layout condition (DL ¶26-31). ## Planning balance TC2 and L2 substantial weight, plus S3/S4, were on the benefit side (DL ¶35). "Policy S4 criterion 2 c. states that failing to comply with one of the national decision-making policies that state development proposals should be refused, is likely to mean the benefits of a proposal are outweighed … the conflict with Policy DP3 … the unacceptable highway safety impacts and conflict with Policy TR6 …, that both state development should be refused, along with the conflict with Policy HE6, strongly indicate to me that the benefits … including the substantial weights set out above … are outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶36). ## What made the difference The CA management plan specifically targets unauthorised canopies, and the retained dropped kerb created a credible parking risk on a busy road. Two "should be refused" policies (DP3, TR6) engaged S4(2)(c). Once that happened, the TC2 substantial weight could not rescue the scheme. Traditional-design canopies would probably have avoided the heritage objection. ## Transferable points - DP3 and TR6(4) are both "should be refused" policies for S4(2)(c) purposes (DL ¶36). - TC2 substantial weight for local shops does not survive S4(2)(c) engagement (DL ¶35-36). - Benefits get limited weight where a less harmful design could deliver them (DL ¶16). - The inspector did not state whether the S4 test was met as "substantially" outweighed; the letter says "outweighed" (DL ¶36). ## Policy findings - **HE6: harm.** canopies and racking fail to preserve the CA; business-viability and active-frontage benefits given limited weight and do not outweigh (DL 15-17) - **DP3: conflict.** fails to respond to history and character of the terrace (DL 18) - **TR6(4): fail.** retained dropped kerb, small forecourt parking and supports near pavement edge beside a cycle lane on a busy road - unacceptable highway safety impact (DL 20-24) - **TC2: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to supporting town-centre vitality and local shops, and L2 better use of land (DL 35) - **S4(2)(c): fail.** DP3 and TR6 treated as "should be refused" policies; with HE6 conflict, benefits outweighed (DL 36) ## Key facts - Three terraced shop units in the Beverley Road CA, operated as one shop; canopies in situ, racking not yet installed as per plans - Railings found not harmful (neutral); crime and inclusive-access objections not upheld (condition possible) - Retained dropped kerb opposite Grafton Street junction; cycle lane at kerb, bus lane opposite ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009228 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9c928bb5-3f99-4d66-a140-437e38320b94 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009228.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Oakland Stud (formerly Tanglewood), Forest Grange, Horsham - **Decision:** dismissed, 27 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Wright - **Authority:** Horsham (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009237 - **Application reference:** DC/25/1428 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Two-pitch settled Gypsy accommodation site and retention of cess pit on a sand school - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** open-countryside, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N4, S5(1)(g), HO12 - **Development plan policies:** Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 Policies 23, 25, 30, 33, emerging Horsham Local Plan Policy 43 (limited weight) - **Main issues:** High Weald National Landscape, traveller pitch need, personal circumstances, temporary permission - **Tags:** national-landscape, substantially-outweighed, s5-1-g-travellers, travellers-unmet-need, landscape-harm, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme ## Summary Two Gypsy pitches on a sand school in the High Weald National Landscape near Horsham. The scheme fell within S5(1)(g), since there was a 2.9-year pitch supply and an evidenced unmet need. Even so, "limited" erosion of the field pattern in the NL substantially outweighed the considerable combined benefits, and the appeal was dismissed. A temporary permission was also refused. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The new Framework also replaces the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. The parties were invited to comment (DL ¶3). - **N4: FAIL.** The site was well screened, but "the high protection afforded to NLs does not exist only in visually prominent locations … Although this erosion would be limited, the proposed scheme would not conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the HWNL" (DL ¶15). - **S5(1)(g) / HO12.** The 2.9-year supply "is a significant shortfall. In these circumstances, Policy S5 … states that development which would address an evidenced unmet need should be approved provided it meets the criteria in Policy HO12, unless … substantially outweighed" (DL ¶17). Pitch provision was given "significant weight" (DL ¶21). The best interests of the child were also given significant weight (DL ¶28). - **S5(1)(d): not engaged.** "As the site mainly comprises a sand school, the proposal would not involve the redevelopment of previously developed land" (DL ¶29). ## Planning balance S5(1). NL harm had substantial weight (DL ¶32). Against it, the other considerations "together add considerable weight … However, the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects on the HWNL … The introduction of the proposed development into the HWNL is sufficient for me to conclude that the scheme is unacceptable" (DL ¶33). A temporary permission was refused because "the harm to the HWNL, even for a temporary period, would be unacceptable" (DL ¶36). ## What made the difference The National Landscape. Even "limited" landscape harm in an NL, given N4's substantial weight, cleared the "substantially outweighed" bar against a significant pitch shortfall, a child's interests and PSED considerations. The same harm-finding in the previous enforcement appeal was followed. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(g) is engaged where there is no five-year pitch supply. The "substantially outweighed" balance still applies (DL ¶17, 33). - N4 harm need not be visible. Erosion of field pattern suffices (DL ¶15). - Limited NL harm with substantial weight can substantially outweigh combined significant benefits (DL ¶32-33). - A sand school or equestrian arena is not PDL for S5(1)(d) (DL ¶29). ## Policy findings - **N4: fail (substantial weight).** two mobile homes, domestic paraphernalia and subdividing hedges erode the field pattern of the High Weald NL; harm limited but NL not conserved/enhanced (DL 12-16, 32) - **S5(1)(g): fail.** in category (g) - 2.9-year pitch supply and unmet need (79 pitches, 50 in five years) - but benefits substantially outweighed by NL harm (DL 17-21, 33) - **HO12: benefit (significant weight).** pitch supply shortfall significant weight; best interests of the child significant; PSED weighs notably (DL 21-28) - **S5(1)(d): not-engaged.** sand school is not previously developed land (DL 29) ## Key facts - Council pitch supply 2.9 years; GTAA need 79 pitches, 50 in first five years; emerging LP at examination since July 2024 - Existing mobile home on site subject to an enforcement notice upheld on appeal (APP/Z3825/C/25/3360097) - Temporary permission also refused because NL harm unacceptable even temporarily (DL 34-37) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009237 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6bb92b2c-4e03-49e9-afab-2bf45565a3b9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009237.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pavement outside Esso, East Lancashire Road, Liverpool - **Decision:** allowed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Les Greenwood - **Authority:** Liverpool (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009241 - **Application reference:** 25F/2902 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub replacing payphone (A, 6009241) and two 75-inch digital ad screens (B, 6009242) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4), TR4(1)(c) - **Development plan policies:** Liverpool Local Plan TP1, TP6, UD9 - **Main issues:** highway and pedestrian safety - **Tags:** tier-2, street-hub, telecoms, advertisement, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A BT Street Hub and digital screens replacing a payphone beside the A580 in Liverpool were allowed. The Inspector found the effects on pedestrians, informal crossing and driver visibility were "much the same as that of the existing phone box" (DL ¶12). No consultation on the new Framework was needed given the "comparatively minor scale" (DL ¶4). ## What made the difference Light footway use, a 1.6 m residual width that met Inclusive Mobility guidance, and a like-for-like siting of the existing kiosk (DL ¶¶9, 12). ## Policy findings - **TR4(1)(c): pass.** footway narrowed to ~1.6 m — enough for two pedestrians / wheelchair per Inclusive Mobility; very light use (DL 9) - **TR6(4): pass.** no unacceptable highway safety effect — crossing 100 m away; visibility from petrol station exit unaffected (DL 10-13) ## Key facts - A580 dual carriageway; unit on verge 1.6 m from carriageway, same position as phone box - Luminance 2500/600 cd/m2 per ILP PLG 05/23 preferred over highways officer's lower figures ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/728f5966-69fa-4933-8a47-1e0040104e6e - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009241 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009241.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 2 Island Cottages, Stanwell Road, Horton - **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Ramsden - **Authority:** Windsor and Maidenhead (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009260 - **Application reference:** 25/03424/FULL - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Front gable, front/side and rear/side extensions, raised ridge, six dormers with Juliet balconies to a 1960s semi-detached bungalow - **Site context:** green-belt, flood-zone-3 - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB6(2), DP3, F4 - **Development plan policies:** RBWM Borough Local Plan 2022 QP3, QP5, NR1, Horton and Wraysbury NP 2020 NP/HOU1, NP/HOU2, NP/SUSTDEV 02 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, design, flood risk, VSC - **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, householder, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, flood-risk, design-refusal, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Remodelling of a heavily extended 1960s bungalow into a chalet-style house with a new roof storey and six dormers. Dismissed. At roughly 170-270% of the original it was disproportionate under GB7(1)(b), with limited openness harm, poor design and an inadequate FRA. No VSC. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The changes "do not affect the merits of this case in a material way", so the parties were not consulted (DL ¶2). - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "around 170% of the original 1960s bungalow … around 270% if a first floor is included … Both figures indicate a disproportionate addition" (DL ¶9). - **Openness:** "localised and limited … Whilst harm to the Green Belt would be limited in nature … it nevertheless attracts substantial weight" (DL ¶13). - **Design and flood risk:** conflict (DL ¶17-18, 24). ## Planning balance GB6(2) is "a high hurdle"; the limited considerations do not clearly outweigh (DL ¶27, 30). ## What made the difference Cumulative enlargement well beyond the original building, compounded by poor design. ## Transferable points - Limited, localised openness harm still attracts substantial weight under GB6(2) (DL ¶13, 27). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** ~170% of the original floor area, ~270% with a first floor; significant volume increase (DL 8-10) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** limited, localised spatial and visual openness harm on an enclosed island site (DL 13) - **DP3: conflict.** unconvincing roof form, poorly aligned dormers; poor design (DL 14-19) - **F4: conflict.** incomplete FRA (Flood Zone 2 or 3), no 1-in-100 plus climate change assessment (DL 20-25) ## Key facts - Heavily extended 1960s semi-detached bungalow on a small island between branches of the Colne Brook, Metropolitan Green Belt - New near-flat-roofed upper storey with six dormers on a similar footprint ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009260 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b2d30836-6bad-4002-800f-793fe554b06e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009260.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to Village Hall, Clay Hill, Great Henny (pottery studio) - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Terrence Kemmann-Lane - **Authority:** Braintree (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6009270 - **Application reference:** 25/02803/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Single-storey larch-clad pottery studio (described as replacement outbuilding) on a grass paddock in the countryside - **Site context:** open-countryside, listed-building-setting, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** s38(6), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Braintree Local Plan Section 1 SP3, Section 2 LPP1 - **Main issues:** suitability of site for proposed use, heritage setting - **Tags:** transitional, old-framework-applied, old-wording-slip, countryside, heritage-harm-decisive, fallback ## Summary A hobby pottery studio on a countryside paddock beside Great Henny village hall was dismissed. It conflicted with the local countryside policy (LPP1) and caused "a low level of less than substantial harm" to a Grade II cottage's setting with no public benefit. The letter is dated a week after the new Framework took effect, but it applies the December 2024 NPPF throughout (¶¶11, 187, 212, 215) and never mentions the 2026 Framework. ## Issues and findings - **Location: FAIL.** "the proposed use is not related to an agricultural of other appropriate countryside use. No explanation is given as to the reason for siting the pottery studio in this location … it would seem inevitable that access would be by a private motorised vehicle" (DL ¶6). - **Heritage: HARM.** "As paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework states: 'Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm …'. In this case I cannot identify any public benefit" (DL ¶7). - **The appellant's tilted-balance argument.** The appellant relied on "paragraph 11 c) or d)". The inspector rejected it because LPP1 was up to date and in accord "with paragraph 187 a) and b)", and because of "the weighty matter of less than substantial harm to a heritage asset (NPPF paragraphs 212 and 215)" (DL ¶11). ## Planning balance A plan-led s38(6) decision. Conflict with LPP1 and heritage harm, against no public benefits. ## What made the difference On the merits: no functional reason to be in the countryside, and harm to the setting with nothing on the other side. The outcome would be the same under S5 (no listed S5(1) category) and HE6(4). But the letter is an example of a post-17 Aug decision applying superseded paragraphs. ## Transferable points - Evidence of uneven transition: a letter dated 24 Aug 2026 still applies 2024 ¶¶11, 187, 212, 215 and "less than substantial harm" (DL ¶7, ¶11). This is a potential s288 point for any challenge where the switch could matter. - Fallback uses (28-day uses, open-air pottery, fencing) that are "rather fanciful" carry little weight (DL ¶10). ## Policy findings - **S5: fail.** decided under 2024 NPPF para 11(c)/(d) (maps to S3-S5); countryside policy LPP1 up to date; no reason for the location; car-dependent (DL 5-6, 11) - **HE6(4): fail.** "low level of less than substantial harm" to setting of Grade II Thatched Cottage; no public benefit; cites 2024 paras 212 and 215 (DL 7-8, 11) - **N2: conflict.** 2024 para 187(a)/(b) (valued landscapes / intrinsic character; maps to N-chapter) cited in support of LPP1 (DL 11) ## Key facts - Protected lane, Stour Valley National Landscape project area (not designated NL) (DL 3) - Decision letter dated 24 Aug 2026 applies 2024 NPPF paras 11, 187, 212 and 215 with no mention of the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 7, 11) - Fallback of 28-day uses, fencing and agriculture called "rather fanciful" (DL 10) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009270 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2c2abbd4-f99f-445d-aec7-bf76975d7609 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009270.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Premier House, 13 Bark Street East, Bolton - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Fawcett - **Authority:** Bolton (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009276 - **Application reference:** 21353/25 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of Class E building to 2 flats - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, P3, HE6, DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Places for Everyone JDPD 2024 JP-H3, JP-P1, JP-P2, Bolton Core Strategy 2011 CG4, General Design Principles SPD - **Main issues:** living conditions, conservation area - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, living-conditions, conservation-area, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary Conversion of a town-centre commercial building in Bolton's St George's Conservation Area into two flats was dismissed. The flats would give poor living conditions (P3, significant weight), and the lack of detail on windows, heat pumps and PV meant CA harm could not be ruled out (HE6). Under S4 the benefits were "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶35). ## What made the difference Poor internal amenity (below NDSS, oppressive 3.8 m outlook, workshop noise) and missing heritage detail. HO7 weight was cut to moderate because "there is no substantive evidence before me which identifies such a need for the type of accommodation proposed" (DL ¶31). That is a notable reading: HO7's substantial weight was tied to evidenced need for the specific type of home. ## Policy findings - **P3: fail (significant weight).** 1-bed flat below NDSS; 3.8 m outlook to joiner's workshop; poor daylight to second-floor rooms; no usable outdoor space; workshop noise (DL 5-15, 34) - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** lower-end harm to St George's CA from unspecified windows, ASHPs and PV; public benefits (moderate for re-use/low-carbon) do not outweigh (DL 16-27) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** no evidence of need for this type of accommodation, so moderate not substantial (DL 31) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 35) ## Key facts - Two flats in the north of Bolton town centre, in a CA; ground-floor bedroom window 3.8 m from a two-storey joiner's workshop against a 13.5 m SPD interface - Amended plans not accepted (substantial change) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009276 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/adf285f4-9d6b-4c4f-9f05-b0f2f6bf333a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009276.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 256A North Street, Bedminster, Bristol - **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M Russell (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer K Hole) - **Authority:** Bristol (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009278 - **Application reference:** 25/14205/F - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Safety rail to flat roof of rear projection (part retrospective), claimed as fire-escape requirement - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6), Bristol SADMP DM30 - **Development plan policies:** Bristol SADMP 2014 DM30 - **Main issues:** privacy, noise and disturbance - **Tags:** tier-2, living-conditions, appeal-planning-officer, transitional-no-consultation, retrospective, householder ## Summary A safety rail around a flat roof outside a first-floor flat was dismissed. The rail would in practice turn the roof into an overlooking terrace, and a condition banning its use would be unenforceable. The fire-safety justification was not shown to need this design. ## What made the difference The physical invitation to use the roof: furniture and planters were already on it. The closing sentence borrows the S4 "substantially outweigh" formula without naming S4. ## Policy findings - **DM30 (Bristol SADMP): conflict.** perimeter rail makes roof a de facto terrace; direct elevated views into rear gardens of No 258 and 1 Gathorne Road; no-use condition unenforceable (DL 6-10) - **P3: harm.** code mapped by harvester — privacy harm; noise not shown to exceed residential norms (DL 7) ## Key facts - Home Improvement Notice (fire safety) cited but perimeter-rail solution not shown to be the only compliant option (DL 9) - "adverse effects … substantially outweigh any benefits" (DL 11) — S4-style wording in an APO recommendation - Parties not re-consulted (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009278 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/90deb704-a8b8-456d-a59d-dacf8576d518 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009278.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Windsor, 22 Kirk Road, Walpole St Andrew - **Decision:** allowed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Morrison (APO L Clark) - **Authority:** King's Lynn and West Norfolk (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6009279 - **Application reference:** 25/01494/F - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Self-build detached dwelling in side garden of existing house - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, flood-zone-3 - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** KLWN LP LP21, KLWN LP LP18 - **Development plan policies:** King's Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan 2025 LP02, LP18, LP21, LP31 - **Main issues:** neighbour privacy, character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, self-build, garden-infill, appeal-planning-officer, bng-small-site-exemption-0-2ha, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A self-build dwelling in a side garden in Walpole St Andrew was allowed on the recommendation of an appeal planning officer. There was no harmful overlooking, and the street's eclectic character absorbed the loss of the corner garden. The letter records that BNG amendment regulations in force from 6 August 2026 removed the self-build exemption but introduced a 0.2 ha small-site exemption, which this 0.0308 ha site met (DL ¶4). ## What made the difference The separation distances and intervening features protected privacy. The Inspector held that the Council's 21 m window-to-window standard is a matter of judgement "in each case", not a blanket rule (DL ¶15). A point to note for other cases: the new 0.2 ha BNG small-site exemption. ## Policy findings - **P3: pass.** no harmful overlooking of No 20 or The Old School; 21 m separation rule not a blanket rule (DL 9-11, 15), decided under LP21 - **DP3: pass.** eclectic street; loss of hedged corner garden not harmful (DL 12-14) - **BNG (Sch 7A TCPA): not-engaged.** 2026 BNG amendment regs (in force 6 Aug 2026) removed self-build exemption but added 0.2 ha small-site exemption; site 0.0308 ha (DL 4) ## Key facts - Site 0.0308 ha in a flood-risk area; FRA mitigation conditioned - Self-build s106 submitted but not determinative ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5909516e-7373-434d-a6ab-3276539f8580 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009279 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009279.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Willow Tree Farm, Denham Lane, Chalfont St Peter - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Plenty - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009281 - **Application reference:** PL/25/5959/OA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline permission for up to 4 dwellings (access only) on manège and part of a residential garden - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt rejected) - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.98 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), GB7(1)(g)(i), AnnexB:grey-belt, GB7(1)(e) - **Development plan policies:** Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (consolidated 2007/2011) GB2, GB8 - **Main issues:** grey belt, PDL, inappropriate development, openness, VSC balance - **Tags:** grey-belt-rejected, pdl-e-limb, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, draft-gb-assessment-relied-on, sustainable-location-pass, drafting-slip ## Summary Outline scheme for up to four houses on a manège and garden land on the open side of Denham Lane, at the edge of Chalfont St Peter. It was dismissed. The site was not PDL as a whole under GB7(1)(e) and was held not to be grey belt, because it makes a strong contribution to purpose (a) on the council's draft 2026 Green Belt Assessment. So the development was inappropriate. Four homes against an acute shortfall, in an accessible location, did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶2). The plan GB policy got only moderate weight because GB7 is broader (DL ¶5-6). - **GB7(1)(e) PDL: FAIL.** "As only part of the site can be regarded as previously developed, the site as a whole is not regarded as PDL" (DL ¶9). Even if it were PDL, "the scheme would significantly increase the scale of development on site and cause harm to the openness" (DL ¶11). - **Grey belt / GB7(1)(g)(i): FAIL.** The inspector relied on the draft Green Belt Assessment "despite its draft status … the site makes a strong contribution to purpose 'a' due to its proximity to the town and the intact nature of the open Green Belt to the north, south and east" (DL ¶15). The conclusion is couched in encroachment terms: "the site performs strongly with respect to guarding against encroachment and thus cannot be regarded as grey belt land" (DL ¶18). Purpose (c) is not a grey belt purpose, so the ¶18 wording is vulnerable. The ¶15 purpose (a) finding carries the conclusion. - **Openness: moderate harm.** Openness is visible from the highway, the adjacent footpath and the cemetery (DL ¶10). - **Accessibility.** "bus stops within a short walk … High Street is also within a 15-minute walk … deemed to be in an accessible location, which also weighs in favour" (DL ¶21). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC balance. Substantial weight to Green Belt harm plus moderate openness harm. On the other side, housing counted "only of moderate significance being for only 4 dwellings" (DL ¶24), economic benefits had moderate to limited weight, and location had moderate weight (DL ¶25). The harm was "not clearly outweighed" (DL ¶26). The s38(6) conflict with LP GB2 then followed (DL ¶27). ## What made the difference Grey belt status. The site is on the open side of a road that forms a clear edge to the town, with intact countryside on three sides. A council-wide (even draft) Green Belt assessment scoring it strongly on purpose (a) was accepted as the starting point. Had the site been grey belt, (ii) (1.98-year supply) and (iii) (accessible, walkable to the High Street) would very probably have been met. The scheme would then not have been inappropriate. ## Transferable points - A manège is "fixed surface infrastructure" but only the surfaced part is PDL. A site partly PDL is "not regarded as PDL" as a whole for GB7(1)(e) (DL ¶9). - A council's draft Green Belt assessment can be relied on for grey belt purpose (a), even though it is broad-brush and not site-specific (DL ¶15-16). - A road forming a clear edge to the built-up area supports a strong purpose (a) contribution for land on the open side (DL ¶15). - Even in an accessible location with a 2-year supply, four dwellings attract only moderate weight in a VSC balance (DL ¶24). - Note the letter's apparent reliance on purpose (c) encroachment for grey belt (DL ¶16-18) and its inconsistent supply figures (0.75 years at DL ¶20, 1.98 at DL ¶24). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(e): fail.** manège is fixed surface infrastructure but covers about a third of the site, so the site as a whole is not PDL; four houses would in any case cause moderate harm to openness (DL 9-11) - **AnnexB:grey-belt: fail.** site "strong contribution" to purpose (a) per council's draft 2026 Green Belt Assessment; Denham Lane a clear boundary to the built-up area; inspector's reasoning also relies on encroachment (purpose (c)) (DL 15-18) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): fail.** not grey belt so (g) fails; remaining limbs not reached (DL 18-19) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriate development plus moderate spatial/visual openness harm (DL 10, 23, 25) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** substantial in principle given 1.98-year supply but "only of moderate significance being for only 4 dwellings" (DL 24) - **TR3: benefit (moderate weight).** bus stops a short walk, High Street within 15 minutes' walk; accessibility weighs moderately in favour (DL 21, 25) - **Chiltern LP GB2: conflict (moderate weight).** plan GB policy only moderate weight because its exceptions are narrower than GB7 (DL 5-6) ## Key facts - Site is a manège plus part of a large garden on the undeveloped side of Denham Lane; open Green Belt to north, south and east - Council's draft 2026 Green Belt Assessment scored the area as strong contribution to purpose (a) - Housing supply cited as 0.75 years (as of March 2024) at DL 20 and 1.98 years at DL 24 — inconsistency in the letter - Accessible location - bus stops close, High Street within a 15-minute walk ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009281 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/46853a23-820b-4ec3-aac6-35696c26ee7a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009281.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to 50 Middleton Way, Fen Drayton - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Simms - **Authority:** South Cambridgeshire (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6009303 - **Application reference:** 25/04091/OUT - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline for two self-build dwellings (access only) on a former Land Settlement Association smallholding - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), CC2, TR3, HO7 - **Development plan policies:** South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 S/2, S/7, H/5, TI/2 - **Main issues:** suitable location, accessibility of services - **Tags:** sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, self-build, self-build-unsecured, s5-1-j, 5yhls-shown, substantially-outweighed, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Two self-build dwellings on a former smallholding on the Fen Drayton LSA estate, about 1 km from the village's school and 1.3 km from shops, off an unlit private road with no footway. The appeal was dismissed as heavily car dependent. The self-build benefit collapsed because the unilateral undertaking was unenforceable, and there was no evidence of a 5YHLS or HDT failure to trigger S5(1)(j). ## Issues and findings - **Location (TR3/CC2): FAIL.** The private road "is narrow, unlit and has no footway. As such, it is unlikely to feel safe for most pedestrians and cyclists, particularly after dark" (DL ¶8). "I accept that opportunities for sustainable transport solutions vary between urban and rural areas, and that routes need not be lit to be usable. However … the proposal would be heavily car dependent" (DL ¶10). - **Housing supply.** "I have no evidence that there is less than five years' supply or that less than 75% of the requirement has been delivered over the last three years" (DL ¶13). - **Self-build.** The late UU "was undated and did not contain a plan … I consider it unlikely to be enforceable" (DL ¶15). HO7 weight was therefore modest: "the proposal would not contribute to such a need" (DL ¶21). - **PDL.** "the definition in the Framework specifically excludes land last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings" (DL ¶18). ## Planning balance The inspector framed S5(1)(j) (DL ¶19) and gave significant weight to the CC2/TR3 conflict (DL ¶20): "The adverse effects of the unsuitable location would substantially outweigh the benefits … I have also found that the proposal would not be suitably related to an existing settlement and that its need for access to services and facilities could not be accommodated by available infrastructure" (DL ¶22). Local Plan policies S/2, S/7, H/5 and TI/2 were held consistent with the Framework and given significant weight (DL ¶23). ## What made the difference Two failures of evidence. First, there was no enforceable self-build mechanism, so the self-build need did not count as an "evidenced unmet need". Second, there was no 5YHLS or HDT failure. That left general housing benefits against a car-dependent location. The inspector read the (j)(i) infrastructure test as covering access to services ("need for access to services and facilities could not be accommodated by available infrastructure"). ## Transferable points - An unenforceable self-build UU removes the self-build limb of "unmet need" and cuts HO7 weight to modest (DL ¶15, 21). - Unlit rural routes are not automatically unusable, but narrow, unlit roads without footways plus 1-1.7 km distances equal heavy car dependence (DL ¶8-10). - S5(1)(j)(i) "scale which can be accommodated taking into account … infrastructure" was applied to accessibility of services, not only utilities (DL ¶22). - Land last occupied by agricultural buildings is not PDL (DL ¶18). - A highway authority's non-objection on the adopted highway says nothing about sustainable travel (DL ¶10). ## Policy findings - **TR3: fail (significant weight).** private road narrow, unlit, no footway; school 1.0 km, shops 1.3 km (Fenstanton), pub 1.5 km; bus stops realistically reachable only by cycle; heavily car dependent (DL 7-10, 20) - **CC2: conflict (significant weight).** not located to support sustainable patterns of movement; EV charge points now mandatory so little credit (DL 16, 20) - **S5(1)(j): fail.** no evidence of under five years' supply or HDT below 75%; unenforceable self-build UU so no contribution to self-build need; not suitably related to a settlement (DL 13-15, 19, 22) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** modest weight - self-build UU undated and without plan, so proposal would not meet self-build need (DL 15, 21) - **AnnexB:PDL: fail.** land last occupied by agricultural structures excluded from PDL (DL 18) ## Key facts - Self-build shortfall of 456 plots against demand of 843, but UU unsigned/undated and without plan (unenforceable) - Private road unlit with no footway; primary school 1.0 km, shops 1.3 km, pub 1.5 km, church 1.7 km - Local highway authority did not object but commented only on the adopted highway ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009303 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/07ecb4f0-575c-40a3-be78-148a7a80c590 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009303.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 486 Blackburn Road, Bolton - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Fawcett - **Authority:** Bolton (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009313 - **Application reference:** 00256/26 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective single-storey glazed front extension to a restaurant in a former 1903 school - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE7, DP3, S4 - **Development plan policies:** Bolton Core Strategy 2011 RA1, Places for Everyone JDPD 2024 JP-P1, JP-P2 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, non-designated heritage asset - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, ndha, design-refusal, retrospective, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary A retrospective glazed front extension to a restaurant in a Gothic former school (an NDHA) in Bolton was dismissed. It caused moderate harm to the NDHA's significance (HE7) and conflicted with DP3. Under S4 the small social and economic benefits were "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶21). ## What made the difference The extension obscured the principal elevation and cut across tall arched windows. The claimed benefits carried only small weight because there was no evidence the extension was needed for the business's viability (DL ¶15). ## Policy findings - **HE7: harm.** moderate harm to NDHA (Gothic former school) - obscures frontage and severs two tall arched windows (DL 8-13) - **DP3: conflict.** fails to respond to history and character; "should be refused" limb cited (DL 20) - **S4: fail.** small social/economic benefits substantially outweighed (DL 14-15, 21) ## Key facts - Former 1903 Gothic school identified by council as NDHA; extension covers much of ground-floor principal elevation - No evidence extension needed for business viability; upper-floor dining and alternative accessible seating available ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009313 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/89d18c9e-e29a-4d27-87b0-2900ecef89f8 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009313.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 184-186 Gipsy Lane, Leicester (Class MA first-floor flat) - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: David Cross - **Authority:** Leicester (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009328 - **Application reference:** 20260349 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class MA prior approval for change of use of a first-floor Class E unit to one 1-bed flat above commercial ground floor - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Class MA.2(2)(d), P3 - **Development plan policies:** Leicester Local Plan 2026 DQP06 - **Main issues:** accompanying details, commercial noise impact on occupiers - **Tags:** tier-2, prior-approval, class-ma, noise, missing-evidence, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Class MA prior approval for a flat above a Leicester commercial parade was dismissed. No noise impact assessment was provided, despite ground-floor commercial uses and multiple flues and plant (DL ¶12-15). The Framework's P3-type aim on noise exposure was applied only to the prior approval matter. ## What made the difference The missing noise impact assessment. Past residential use of the unit did not help, because the building "may not meet modern standards in respect of noise mitigation" (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **P3: fail.** no noise impact assessment despite ground-floor commercial uses, extract flues and AC units; Framework aim of avoiding unacceptable noise exposure not met (DL 8-15) ## Key facts - New Leicester Local Plan 2026 adopted after the council's decision and applied (DL 3) - Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009328 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ddccbfce-9d39-403c-ba9c-5a545e19fcd5 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009328.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Verge by Abingdon Road / Broadway, Didcot (micro energy storage) - **Decision:** allowed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S McIntyre - **Authority:** South Oxfordshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009340 - **Application reference:** P25/S1790/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Micro battery energy storage installation on a highway verge beside a roundabout - **Site context:** settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** W3(1), W3(2), DP3(3) - **Development plan policies:** South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2020 STRAT3, DES1, DES2, DES9 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** renewable-energy, battery-storage, w3-substantial-weight, dp3-clear-justification, s38-6-material-considerations ## Summary A small battery energy storage unit on a roadside verge at a Didcot roundabout. South Oxfordshire refused it on character grounds. The inspector found minor, localised harm and conflict with the development plan, and with DP3(1). But substantial W3 weight to energy security and net zero, which needs no proof of need, supplied the "clear justification" DP3(3) requires. Appeal allowed. The parties were consulted on the new Framework (DL ¶4). ## Issues and findings - **Character: minor harm.** The unit "would be conspicuous in close public views … It follows that the proposal would lead to a reduction in openness and verdancy to the detriment of local character. Due to the small-scale of the proposal, the effects would be minor in nature and localised in scale, but they would nonetheless be harmful" (DL ¶10). - **W3: substantial weight without quantified need.** "Whilst the benefit of the proposal is not precisely quantified in the evidence, Policy W3 of the Framework is clear that applicants should not be required to demonstrate the need … and that substantial weight should be given to the benefits of improving energy security and the transition to a net zero future, as well as the contribution that small-scale renewable and low carbon energy projects can make" (DL ¶13). "Notwithstanding its small scale, the proposal would make an important contribution … these benefits of the scheme carry substantial positive weight" (DL ¶14). - **Battery safety.** NFCC guidance, referenced in PPG, was addressed by separation from the planned active travel routes (DL ¶16). ## Planning balance This was a s38(6) balance with Framework DP3 as a material consideration. The proposal conflicted with the plan as a whole and with "Policy DP3.1 of the Framework which expects developments to enhance their surroundings" (DL ¶21). But "the substantial weight I ascribe to the benefits … would outweigh the minor and localised harm … There would, therefore, be clear justification for the harm that would arise, as is required by Policy DP3.3 of the Framework" (DL ¶22). ## What made the difference The W3(1) "substantial weight" instruction applied to a very small battery unit with no quantified output, set against a character harm the inspector rated minor. The already heavily engineered setting (pylons, railway gantry, substation) kept the harm low. Compare the Ashford sister appeal (PINS-6010987). There the verge was a prominent landscape buffer, the harm was "extremely prominent", and the inspector gave renewable benefits only "little weight", without citing W3. ## Transferable points - W3 substantial weight applies to battery storage even where the benefit is not quantified. W3(2) means need need not be shown (DL ¶13-14). - DP3(3) "clear justification" can be supplied by weighty public benefits, so a DP3(1) conflict does not automatically mean refusal (DL ¶22). - Small-scale energy storage counts as a "small-scale … low carbon energy project" for W3(1)(c) (DL ¶13). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): conflict.** minor, localised erosion of verge openness and verdancy at a gateway / future cycle entrance to Ladygrove East (DL ¶10, ¶21) - **DP3(3): pass.** "clear justification" for the design harm supplied by the substantial W3 benefits (DL ¶22) - **W3(1): benefit (substantial weight).** energy security and net zero, plus small-scale contribution under (c), even though benefit "not precisely quantified" (DL ¶13-14) - **W3(2): benefit.** need does not have to be demonstrated (DL ¶13) - **STRAT3 / DES1 / DES2 (SOLP 2020): conflict.** harm to character; conflict with plan as a whole (DL ¶11, ¶21) - **P5: pass.** NFCC battery siting guidance, good separation from the proposed active travel routes (DL ¶16) ## Key facts - Operator AMP Clean Energy; one of a series of near-identical verge "micro energy storage" appeals (see related) - Roundabout verge dominated by highway, pylons, railway gantry and a small substation, but still open and green (DL ¶6-7) - Adjoins the Ladygrove East strategic site (up to 750 homes), which will urbanise the area (DL ¶8) - Benefit not quantified in evidence, yet substantial weight still given (DL ¶13) - Maintenance visits twice a year, secured by a site maintenance plan condition (DL ¶20) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009340 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/aa8183a1-2446-43cf-8275-4e7e65e2fdb4 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009340.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Annexe at 8 Longridge Road, Hurst Green - **Decision:** allowed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F Rafiq - **Authority:** Ribble Valley (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009357 - **Application reference:** 3/2026/0146 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of annexe to a separate dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.24 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, HO7, TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Ribble Valley Core Strategy 2008-2028 DMG2, DMI2 - **Main issues:** suitable location, access to services - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, sustainable-location-pass, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, conservation-area ## Summary Conversion of a detached annexe to a separate dwelling in Hurst Green, a Tier 2 village in Ribble Valley, was allowed. The scheme conflicted with the Core Strategy's village policy (DMG2). But it was inside a village with walkable facilities and an hourly bus, and the council had only a 2.24-year supply. Under S4 the plan conflict did not "substantially outweigh" the benefits. ## Issues and findings - **Location: PASS (TR3/CC2).** Hurst Green has a primary school, pub, café and village hall but no shop. The bus "operates an hourly service Monday to Saturday which is when most journeys, such as those to and from work, education or shopping are likely to be undertaken" (DL ¶6). "the highway outside the appeal site has a footway and street lighting that provide convenient pedestrian access to the village's facilities … I do not consider there would be a heavy reliance on the private car" (DL ¶7). - **Housing supply.** "It is common ground that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply … 2.24 years … Although the proposal would deliver a single dwelling, this provision would be in an area where there is a significant shortage" (DL ¶14). - The Framework was simply "considered". The letter records no separate consultation (DL ¶2). ## Planning balance S4 was applied because the site is within the village (DL ¶13). "the adverse effects arising from conflict with the development plan's strategy to direct new housing development to certain defined locations, would not substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶16). ## What made the difference The site was inside a village, so S4 applied rather than S5. A footway and lighting ran to the local facilities, an hourly weekday bus was available, and supply was 2.24 years. Conflict with a settlement-hierarchy policy is not, on its own, an "adverse effect" of the kind that substantially outweighs a home. ## Transferable points - In a lower-tier village with a footway, lighting, a school, pub and hourly Mon-Sat bus, a missing shop does not make a site unsustainable (DL ¶6-7). - Weekday-only hourly buses are enough because "most journeys … are likely to be undertaken" Mon-Sat (DL ¶6). - A breach of the plan's settlement hierarchy alone does not "substantially outweigh" housing benefits under S4 where supply is 2.24 years (DL ¶16). - HO7 substantial weight was applied to a single dwelling in a shortfall area (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **TR3: pass.** footway and street lighting to village facilities (school, pub, cafe, village hall); no shop/post office but hourly bus Mon-Sat; not heavily car reliant (DL 6-8) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 2.24-year supply, significant shortage; one dwelling still attracts HO7 support (DL 14) - **S4: pass.** conflict with DMG2 Tier 2 village strategy does not substantially outweigh benefits (DL 13-16) ## Key facts - Tier 2 village in the Core Strategy hierarchy; DMG2 criteria not met - Council supply 2.24 years (common ground) - Hourly bus Monday-Saturday, reduced Sunday, no late service; footway and lighting outside site ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009357 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3745115b-afc8-4f72-b80e-777ceda5c779 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009357.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Carlow House Barn, Woodman Lane, Cowan Bridge - **Decision:** allowed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Chris Mayes - **Authority:** Lancaster (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009367 - **Application reference:** 26/00093/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of detached studio/office building to a dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(c), S5(1) - **Development plan policies:** Lancaster SPLA DPD 2025 SP2, Lancaster DM DPD 2025 DM4, DM13, DM49 - **Main issues:** suitability of location for housing - **Tags:** s5-1-c-reuse, s5-5-balance, substantially-outweighed, housing-shortfall, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, material-considerations-outweigh-plan, small-scheme ## Summary Converting a lawful rural studio/office to a dwelling outside Lancaster's settlement hierarchy was allowed. The proposal conflicted with local location policies SP2/DM4, and that conflict carried moderate weight. It was outweighed because the scheme is a reuse of an existing building supported by S5(1)(c), and under S5 the adverse effects did not "substantially outweigh" the benefits. ## Issues and findings - **Plan conflict.** The site is "in a location that is not identified for housing growth within the settlement hierarchy … conflict with the development plan when read as a whole" (DL ¶9), given "moderate weight against" (DL ¶10). - **S5(1)(c) reuse.** "the proposal is consistent with Policy S5(c) of the Framework, which supports the re-use of existing buildings outside settlements in appropriate circumstances. I attach moderate weight to that benefit" (DL ¶12). - **Housing.** No five-year supply. One dwelling gets "moderate weight" (DL ¶11). - **L2 not engaged.** The building no longer suiting the appellants "does not in itself demonstrate that it is vacant, redundant or under-utilised in planning terms" (DL ¶15). ## Planning balance S5: "the adverse effects arising from the proposal would not substantially outweigh its benefits when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework" (DL ¶13). The Framework is a material consideration that indicates a decision other than in accordance with the plan (DL ¶24). ## What made the difference Reusing an existing lawful building with no external change, which brings S5(1)(c) into play. Moderate plan conflict set against moderate benefits could not meet the "substantially outweighed" bar. Compare PINS-6009184 (Norfolk, 17 Aug 2026), a holiday-let conversion dismissed on the plan alone with no reference to S5. ## Transferable points - A countryside conversion of an existing lawful building falls within S5(1)(c) and passes S5 unless the harms *substantially* outweigh the benefits, even where the location conflicts with the plan's settlement hierarchy (DL ¶12-13, 24). - L2(1)(b) substantial weight needs evidence that the building is vacant, redundant or under-utilised. An owner's changed needs are not enough (DL ¶15). - One-dwelling housing benefit in a shortfall authority was given "moderate" weight, not HO7 "substantial" (DL ¶11). This inconsistency recurs across inspectors. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(c): pass (moderate weight).** cited as "Policy S5(c)" — "secure the residential re-use of an existing lawful building without the need for substantial new construction … consistent with Policy S5(c) … I attach moderate weight to that benefit" (DL 12) - **S5(1): pass.** "the adverse effects arising from the proposal would not substantially outweigh its benefits when assessed against the national decision-making policies" (DL 13) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** no 5YHLS (figure not stated); one dwelling "moderate weight" — HO7 substantial weight not applied (DL 11) - **SP2 / DM4 (Lancaster): conflict (moderate weight).** outside settlement hierarchy; conflict with plan as a whole given moderate weight (DL 9-10) - **L2(1)(b): neutral.** building not shown to be vacant/redundant/under-utilised, so L2 substantial weight not triggered (DL 15) - **HE6: neutral.** no external change; setting of Grade II Overtown Farm preserved; s66 cited; Class AA PD removed to protect setting (DL 14, 21) ## Key facts - Building lawfully used as studio/office within the Overtown building group; no external alterations (DL 6, 8) - Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply (DL 11) - Parties consulted on 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009367 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a0513942-c3ed-42c8-9738-021257d49b72 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009367.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Floringham Lodge, Old Bracknell Lane East, Bracknell (46 retirement flats) - **Decision:** allowed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Stephen Wilkinson - **Authority:** Bracknell Forest (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009377 - **Application reference:** 25/00456/FUL - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Demolition of a house and redevelopment with 46 one- and two-bed retirement living flats (C3) with parking, landscaping and communal facilities - **Homes:** 46 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.53 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, HO5, HO9 - **Development plan policies:** Bracknell Forest Local Plan 2024 LP16, LP24, LP25, LP26, LP30, LP32, LP38, LP45, LP46, LP50, LP61, LP62, South East Plan 2009 NRM6 - **Main issues:** affordable housing review mechanism, living conditions of neighbours, living conditions of future occupiers, SPA mitigation, infrastructure - **Tags:** specialist-housing, s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, housing-shortfall, viability, habitats-mitigation, inclusive-access, brownfield, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip, large-scheme ## Summary McCarthy and Stone's scheme for 46 retirement flats on a large house plot near Bracknell town centre was allowed after a hearing. The only conflict was with the new Local Plan's requirement that all older persons' units meet the full wheelchair standard (M4(3)(2)(a)); the scheme offered four. The inspector also rejected the Council's demand for a late viability review with no affordable housing. With a 3.53-year supply, benefits to older people's housing and a brownfield location near the stations, the S4 presumption applied. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Parties were asked to provide a closing statement demonstrating how this affected their respective cases" (DL ¶8). - **Viability review mechanism.** "the adopted policies of the Local Plan do not provide a sound and consistent basis to support a late review mechanism to secure contributions to affordable housing" (DL ¶18). - **Neighbours: limited impact.** Despite breaching the SPD separation distances, "its impacts on surrounding properties would be limited. The scheme does not conflict with policy LP50" (DL ¶33). - **Wheelchair standard: CONFLICT.** "the appeal scheme conflicts with policy LP38 which requires 100% provision of all units to Part M4(3)(2)(a) standard for the appeal scheme" (DL ¶42). - **Benefits.** Older persons' housing benefits "are accorded significant weight" (DL ¶74); economic moderate (DL ¶76); environmental (brownfield, efficient use of land, near stations) moderate (DL ¶77). - **SPA: no adverse effect on integrity** with SANG and SAMM (DL ¶54). ## Planning balance S4 within a settlement. "In this case the only adverse effect is the scheme's failure to include all dwellings built to the Part M4(3)(2)(a) standard" (DL ¶81). "I conclude that in this instance the adverse impacts would not substantially outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole" (DL ¶84). Material considerations outweigh the conflict with the plan as a whole (DL ¶85). ## What made the difference Viability left no room for affordable housing or the full wheelchair standard, and the Council's plan gave no firm basis for a review mechanism. Against one policy conflict, the undersupply (3.53 years) and the benefits of specialist older persons' housing on a brownfield site near public transport carried the S4 balance. ## Transferable points - A late-stage viability review needs clear support in adopted policy; supporting text and an SPD are not enough (DL ¶13–18). - Breach of SPD separation distances is not decisive where vegetation, orientation and obscure glazing prevent actual harm (DL ¶26–33). - Failure to meet a local 100% M4(3) requirement for older persons' housing can be outweighed in the S4 balance where all units meet M4(2) (DL ¶81–82). - A unilateral undertaking with a deemed-approval mechanism is consistent with the Framework's emphasis on delivery (DL ¶56). ## Policy findings - **LP LP38 (local): conflict.** only 4 of 46 units (8.7%) to M4(3)(2)(a) against LP38's 100% requirement for older persons' housing; the remaining 42 meet M4(2); the only adverse effect, outweighed (DL 35-42, 81-82) - **HO5: accord.** letter says HO5 requires 40% of homes on major developments to M4(2); scheme exceeds that (DL 80-82) - **HO9: benefit (significant weight).** 46 market older persons' homes, chain moves, health benefits; letter cites "H05, H07 and H09" (DL 71-74) - **HO8: neutral.** no affordable housing on agreed viability; LP16/LP24 give no sound basis for a late review (claw-back) mechanism (DL 11-18, 83) - **DP3: accord.** breaches SPD separation distances to southern neighbours but limited impact; urbanising view from Laurel Cottage not overbearing; LP50 consistent with DP3 (DL 20, 23-33, 80) - **DP4: accord.** design review panel engagement changed the scheme from three blocks to two villas (DL 19) - **P3: pass.** mapped - obscured secondary bedroom windows to flats 14 and 28 not oppressive (DL 44-46) - **L3: benefit (moderate weight).** brownfield site, efficient use of land (net 45 homes), 10 minutes' walk to rail and bus stations (DL 77, 80) - **E2: benefit (moderate weight).** mapped - construction jobs and apprenticeships; letter links them to "L2 and S4" (DL 75-76) - **TR6: pass.** 72 daily movements; access radii revised; 3-space parking shortfall against new standards, but no on-street parking harm (DL 64-69) - **N6: pass.** Thames Basin Heaths SPA - SANG (237,750 GBP) and SAMM (30,658 GBP) by UU; no adverse effect on integrity (DL 47-54) - **DM6: pass.** UU obligations meet Reg 122; Council's objection to the 'deemed' approval mechanism unwarranted given the Framework's delivery emphasis (DL 56, 63) - **S4: pass.** adverse impacts would not substantially outweigh benefits (DL 81-84) ## Key facts - Council supply 3.53 years at 1 April 2026 (DL 7) - Header says "Inquiry held on 18-19 August 2026", but DL 2 says it became a blended hearing; DL 1 grants full permission while DL 86 says "outline" - Viability agreed - no surplus for affordable housing; dispute only over a late-stage review, rejected (DL 12, 18) - Villas A (about 12.5 m) and B (just over 14.5 m) set 8.3-8.9 m from the southern boundary (DL 24) - Appellant's residents' survey - 2.7% use a wheelchair at home (DL 39) - Lymington (APP/B1740/W/20/3265937) and Warrington (APP/M0655/W/23/3327682) decisions considered (DL 41) - Occupancy restricted to 60 and over (condition 27) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009377 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009377.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Historic Toilet Block, Road of Remembrance, Folkestone - **Decision:** allowed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Gardner - **Authority:** Folkestone and Hythe (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009405 - **Application reference:** 25/2308/FH - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Soldier-statue military memorial at exposed Victorian latrine on the Road of Remembrance - **Site context:** conservation-area, listed-building-setting, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE9, HE6, DM7 - **Development plan policies:** Folkestone & Hythe Places and Policies Local Plan 2020 HB1 - **Main issues:** conservation area and listed building settings, highway safety - **Tags:** tier-2, conservation-area, heritage-no-harm, dm7-other-regimes, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A modest soldier-statue memorial beside Folkestone's grade II* War Memorial was allowed. It would complement the existing commemorative grouping rather than cluttering it, and the conservation area and listed-building settings were preserved. The Inspector cited DM7 to decline a stopping-up condition: decision makers "should assume … that separate regulatory regimes will operate effectively" (DL ¶27). ## What made the difference The modest scale and physical separation from the existing memorials (DL ¶12). The use of DM7 is a small but reusable point against conditions that duplicate highways powers. ## Policy findings - **HE9: pass.** complementary to existing memorial concentration, not clutter; CA preserved (DL 12-13) - **HE6: not-engaged.** settings of grade II* War Memorial and grade II Memorial Cairn preserved (DL 13, 21) - **DM7: pass.** stopping-up order condition unnecessary — assume other regimes operate effectively (DL 27) - **TR4: pass.** no footway on that side but no persistent crossing likely (DL 14-17) ## Key facts - Site is highway land requiring a stopping-up order - Flagpole and signage need separate advertisement consent - Parties given opportunity to comment on new Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/154d3a19-ada4-40ac-8000-fbb2d64283e9 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009405 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009405.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Two Oaks, Whitchurch Road (A49), Spurstow - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: MG Garrard - **Authority:** Cheshire East (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009407 - **Application reference:** 25/2641/OUT - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline permission (access, layout and scale) for three dwellings on a semi-wooded plot beside the A49 - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.3 - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 213 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), S5(2) - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 PG6, SD1, SD2, SE1, SE3, SE4, SE5, MP1, SADPD 2022 PG10, ENV1, ENV5, ENV6, HOU12 - **Main issues:** location and accessibility, character and trees, living conditions of future occupiers, BNG, ecological connectivity - **Tags:** dp3-refuse-trigger, s5-2-refusal-policy, s5-1-j, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, tree-loss, living-conditions, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, previous-appeal-followed, ho1-plan-making-only, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Three homes on a wooded plot beside the A49 at Spurstow, a scattered roadside hamlet. Dismissed. The location was car-dependent: there is no continuous footway or lighting and no bus within walking distance, and a previous appeal found the same. The loss of woodland harmed rural character, and it was not shown that the retained trees could survive. The inspector accepted S5(1)(j) because the site is physically close to existing development. But the DP3 conflict without clear justification brought S5(2) into play, and the benefits (substantial weight to housing) were substantially outweighed. ## Issues and findings - **Accessibility.** "access on foot or by bicycle to local services is constrained by the absence of continuous footway provision in the vicinity of the site and the characteristics of the A49 including no apparent street lighting in the vicinity. Furthermore, there is no public bus service within easy walking distance of the appeal site" (DL ¶13). "future occupiers would be likely to depend on private vehicles for a significant proportion of their daily needs" (DL ¶15). - **Trees and character.** "the evidence before me does not satisfactorily establish that the remaining trees could be sustainably retained and managed over the longer term as part of the layout of the development proposed" (DL ¶24). - **Plan-making policy.** "H06 is a plan-making policy and paragraph 8 of the Framework confirms that plan-making policies should not be used when making decisions on development proposals" (DL ¶42). - **Neutral factors.** "the absence of an objection is not a benefit of the proposal and does not weigh positively in its favour" (DL ¶41). - **DP3.** "Where such conflict would occur without clear justification, the Framework advises that development proposals should be refused" (DL ¶48). - **S5.** "in meeting some of the Council’s unmet need for housing, the proposal would accord with Policy S5:1.j. However, the Framework’s advice to refuse proposals that conflict with Policy DP3 brings the proposal within the circumstances envisaged by Policy S5.2" (DL ¶51). ## Planning balance S5(1)(j) with the S5(2) trigger. HO7 substantial weight (3.3 years), and modest economic benefits (DL ¶50), against character and tree harm, harm to future occupiers' living conditions and car reliance. "the benefits of approving the development proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects of granting permission" (DL ¶52). ## What made the difference The DP3 conflict: woodland loss and a layout that put retained trees under pressure. It turned S5(1)(j) support into an S5(2) refusal. Poor accessibility also counted against the scheme, although the letter did not carry it into the (j) test. ## Transferable points - A DP3 conflict (context and tree cover) without clear justification is an S5(2) circumstance even where S5(1)(j) is met (DL ¶48, 51). - Where tree retention is claimed, the layout must show that retained trees can survive long term, including shading and future pressure to prune or remove them (DL ¶22-24, 29). - HO6 (small sites) is plan-making and cannot be relied on in a decision (DL ¶42). - A consultee's lack of objection is neutral, not a benefit (DL ¶41). - HDT 213% did not remove the supply shortfall (3.3 years); HO7 still carried substantial weight (DL ¶46, 50). - Caution: DL ¶51 accepts S5(1)(j) on physical proximity alone, although DL ¶13-15 find the location car-dependent. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): pass.** "relatively close to existing development in physical terms", so accords with S5:1.j; TR3 not tested within (j) despite the location finding at DL 13-15 (DL 51) - **TR3: harm.** mapped: TR3 not cited; no continuous footway, no street lighting on the A49, no bus within easy walking distance; reliance on private cars; previous appeal found the same (DL 12-16, 47) - **DP3(1): conflict.** loss of woodland and a clustered group harm rural character (DL 19-25, 48) - **DP3(2)(c): conflict.** fails to maintain and enhance tree cover; long-term retention of retained trees not shown (DL 22-24, 48) - **DP3(3): fail.** "Where such conflict would occur without clear justification, the Framework advises that development proposals should be refused"; applied as an S5(2) circumstance (DL 48, 51) - **N2(1)(d): conflict.** letter cites N2 and N3 for landscape character and conserving established trees (DL 49) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** three homes; 3.3-year supply despite HDT 213% (DL 46, 50) - **BNG (Sch 7A TCPA): pass.** small hedgerow loss can be met through the statutory condition; no significant enhancement requiring securing now (DL 32-36) - **S5(2): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 51-52) ## Key facts - Spurstow is not a PG10 infill village; the gap is not a small gap in a built-up frontage (DL 8-11) - A49 heavily trafficked, no continuous footway and no apparent street lighting near the site; no public bus within easy walking distance (DL 10, 13) - Earlier PIP appeal on the site dismissed (APP/R0660/W/21/3271467) for poor connectivity; no material change (DL 14, 45) - [object Object] - Absence of objection from consultees is not a benefit (DL 41) - Council supply 3.3 years; HDT 213% (DL 46) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009407 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/75903d71-f257-4c1b-b37f-0226f5e10886 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009407.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Godolphin House Stables, Broughton Lane, Leire - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer Kim Vo) - **Authority:** Harborough (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009409 - **Application reference:** 26/00120/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of stables (with extant conversion permission) and rebuilding as a dwelling in a revised position, plus replacement barn as garage/tack room - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(c), S5(1)(d), S5(1)(j), S5(3), HO11, TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Harborough Local Plan 2019 SS1, GD2, GD3, GD4, H5, Leire Neighbourhood Plan 2022 H2 - **Main issues:** principle of development, location, fallback - **Tags:** sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, isolated-home, s5-1-j, s5-1-c-reuse, substantially-outweighed, fallback, housing-shortfall, self-build, small-scheme, appeal-planning-officer ## Summary A proposal to demolish stables that already had permission for conversion and rebuild them as a dwelling, near but outside Leire (Harborough), was dismissed. The inspector worked through the S5(1) limbs in turn. (c) failed because a replacement must be for the same use. (d) failed because the site was not PDL as a whole. (j) failed because the site was not physically well-related to Leire. The dwelling was also isolated under S5(3), and access was along an unlit 60 mph lane with no footway (TR3). ## Issues and findings - **Settlement status.** The site is "clearly beyond the Limits to Development boundary for Leire … more closely associated with its rural surroundings than with the built up area of the village" (DL ¶7). - **TR3: FAIL.** Broughton Lane "is a narrow unlit road with no footway, that is subject to a national speed limit of 60 miles per hour … pedestrians would be required to do so on the carriageway" (DL ¶8). Occupants "would be heavily dependent on the use of private vehicles" (DL ¶9). - **S5(1)(c): FAIL.** "Criterion c. relates to the replacement of an existing building, these should be for the same use. As the proposed dwelling would replace a stable building … the proposal would not meet this exemption" (DL ¶18). - **S5(1)(d): FAIL.** The buildings and menage "occupy only a small part of a wider field, and the proposal includes an area of undeveloped land. Therefore, the site cannot be regarded, as a whole, as previously developed land" (DL ¶18). - **S5(1)(j): FAIL.** "As the Council cannot demonstrate the required housing land supply … criterion j) is relevant. However … the appeal site is not physically well related to settlement of Leire" (DL ¶19). The site was separated by "an intervening large field … as well as a dismantled railway line which provides a clear demarcation" (DL ¶12). - **S5(3)/HO11: FAIL.** "the site lies outside any settlement or group of houses and would result in an isolated dwelling" (DL ¶20). - **Fallback.** The extant conversion was a real prospect, but that cut against the appeal: "To accept it is a simple matter of there being a dwelling on the site regardless … would serve to undermine the principles of spatially strategic planning policies" (DL ¶14-16). ## Planning balance Conflict with the spatial strategy had significant weight (DL ¶26). One self-build home had moderate weight: "I am mindful of Policy HO7 … That said, this appears to be more related to evidenced needs of the community as identified through such assessments. No such evidence has been provided" (DL ¶27). Environmental features had moderate weight and private benefit limited weight. "the adverse effects relating to the location of the proposal would substantially outweigh the limited benefits" (DL ¶29). ## What made the difference Physical separation from Leire (a field and an old railway line) defeated the (j) route despite the lack of a 5YHLS. The same-use rule killed (c). The existing permitted conversion did not help: the inspector expected it to be built anyway, so it was not a fallback justifying a new-build replacement. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(c) replacement must be for the same use. A stable-to-dwelling rebuild does not qualify (DL ¶18). - For S5(1)(d), a few buildings in a larger field do not make the whole site PDL (DL ¶18). - For S5(1)(j), physical features such as a dismantled railway line and an intervening field can mean a site is not "physically well-related" even when close to a village (DL ¶12, 19). - A lane with a 60 mph limit, no footway and no lighting means walking on the carriageway, which fails TR3 (DL ¶8, 21). - HO7 substantial weight was read as tied to "evidenced needs of the community"; a single self-build home got only moderate weight (DL ¶27). - A dwelling outside any settlement or group of houses is "isolated" for S5(3), even close to a village (DL ¶20). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(c): fail.** replacement must be for the same use; stable replaced by dwelling is a different use (DL 18) - **S5(1)(d): fail.** stable, barn and menage occupy only a small part of a wider field and proposal includes undeveloped land - site not PDL as a whole (DL 18) - **S5(1)(j): fail.** 5YHLS shortfall so (j) relevant, but not physically well-related to Leire - separated by field, dismantled railway and landscaped strip (DL 12, 19) - **S5(3): fail.** outside any settlement or group of houses - isolated dwelling, no HO11 circumstance (DL 20) - **TR3: fail (significant weight).** narrow unlit 60 mph lane with no footway, walking on carriageway; no bus stops within easy walk (DL 8-9, 21) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** single self-build unit; HO7 weight related to evidenced community need, none provided (DL 27) ## Key facts - Outside Leire Limits to Development (Leire NP 2022); separated from village by a field and a dismantled railway line - Broughton Lane - narrow, unlit, no footway, national speed limit (60 mph) - Extant permission to convert the stables to a dwelling; fallback given insufficient weight because it would be implemented anyway and water-main risk unevidenced (DL 13-16) - Council cannot demonstrate five-year supply (figure not stated) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009409 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/15ed9383-c714-423e-9ba0-28edea9ffe27 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009409.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land rear of 53 Beresford Avenue, Chapel-en-le-Frith (agricultural containers) - **Decision:** allowed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: MG Garrard - **Authority:** High Peak (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009410 - **Application reference:** HPK/2025/0352 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Siting of two storage containers for agricultural machinery with permeable hardstanding; retention of beehives and small poultry enclosure (already carried out) - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(a), S5(2) - **Development plan policies:** High Peak Local Plan 2016 S2, EQ2, EQ3, EQ6, High Peak Landscape Character SPD5 2006 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, acceptable countryside use - **Tags:** tier-2, agricultural-building, retrospective, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Two agricultural storage containers, beehives and a poultry run in a field on the edge of Chapel-en-le-Frith. The local plan requires countryside agricultural development to support an existing agricultural enterprise, and this hobby-scale activity did not. But S5(1)(a) supports development for agriculture without that requirement, no "should be refused" policy was breached, and the containers caused no landscape harm. The benefits were not substantially outweighed. Allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "References to the Framework in my decision are to the August 2026 version" (DL ¶3). - **Character: no harm.** "the containers, hardstanding and associated works sit relatively comfortably in their surroundings and do not appear to be intrusive or discordant features within the countryside" (DL ¶11). DP3 complied with (DL ¶12). - **Plan conflict.** "I cannot conclude that currently there is a meaningful agricultural enterprise that is supported by the development" (DL ¶17), so conflict with S2 and EQ3 (DL ¶19). - **S5(1)(a).** "Policy S5 of the Framework supports development for agriculture outside settlements and does not require such development to support an existing agricultural enterprise" (DL ¶22). - **DM8.** "there is no substantive evidence before me that this was the case, and I therefore attach limited weight to that matter" (DL ¶21). ## Planning balance S5(1) balance with S5(2) checked: "the benefits of granting planning permission would not be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects of doing so" (DL ¶23). The plan conflict was outweighed as a material consideration (DL ¶25). Annex A(2) was not named, but the effect is the same: the plan's extra requirement to support an existing enterprise, which S5(1)(a) does not impose, carried little weight. ## What made the difference The gap between the local policy (agriculture must support an existing enterprise) and S5(1)(a) (agriculture as such). With no landscape harm, the Framework route prevailed. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(a) does not require agricultural development to support an existing agricultural enterprise; a local policy that does is outweighed (DL ¶22-23). - Retrospective development is weighed against only where intent is evidenced under DM8 (DL ¶21). - An ancillary-agricultural-use condition answers fears of non-agricultural use (DL ¶15, ¶24). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(a): pass.** "Policy S5 of the Framework supports development for agriculture outside settlements and does not require such development to support an existing agricultural enterprise" (DL 22) - **S5(2): pass.** no conflict with any Framework "should be refused" policy (DL 22) - **DP3: accord.** dark green, recessed containers not discordant in edge-of-settlement views; hedging maturing (DL 7-12) - **DM8: neutral (limited weight).** no substantive evidence that the unauthorised development was intentional; limited weight (DL 21) - **S5(1): pass.** modest benefits not substantially outweighed by limited adverse effects including the plan conflict (DL 23) - **DM6: pass.** condition limiting containers to purposes ancillary to the site's agricultural use (DL 15, 24) ## Key facts - Hobby-scale poultry and beekeeping only; no meaningful agricultural enterprise, so conflict with local S2 and EQ3, which require support for an existing enterprise (DL 14-20) - One container admitted to hold engineering-business equipment; controlled by condition (DL 15) - Plan conflict outweighed; Annex A not named (DL 22-25) - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009410 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a2cab900-2215-4c93-93a2-f1acffe9dac6 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009410.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 5 Chatterton Road, Bromley (Class MA - storage extension into existing flat) - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Whitfield - **Authority:** Bromley (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009412 - **Application reference:** 26/01029/NOT - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class MA prior approval to change a commercial storage extension into additional rooms for the adjoining flat - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Class MA - **Main issues:** scope of Class MA - **Tags:** tier-2, prior-approval, class-ma, framework-not-cited ## Summary An attempt to use Class MA to absorb a commercial side extension into an existing flat was dismissed. Class MA grants rights to create new dwellinghouses, not to enlarge existing ones (DL ¶14-17). The Framework is not cited. ## What made the difference No new dwelling would be created. The inspector followed a 2024 appeal reading of the 2021 Explanatory Memorandum (DL ¶13-15). ## Policy findings - **GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Class MA: not-engaged.** Class MA covers creating new dwellinghouses, not enlarging an existing one (DL 11-17, following APP/U5360/W/23/3328874) ## Key facts - Appellant had been advised by enforcement officers to submit a retrospective planning application instead (DL 16) - Framework not cited ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009412 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9b84ddce-a810-4573-844b-af1fee822ef9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009412.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land west of 21 Hemsby Road, Martham - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Somers - **Authority:** Great Yarmouth (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6009413 - **Application reference:** 06/25/0272/F - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** New B2 industrial unit next to existing workshop, backing onto new-build housing gardens - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3 - **Development plan policies:** Great Yarmouth Core Strategy 2015 CS9, Local Plan Part 2 A1, B1, emerging Local Plan HEC7 - **Main issues:** living conditions (noise, enclosure, outlook) - **Tags:** tier-2, living-conditions, emerging-plan-weight, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A new industrial unit next to fresh housing in Martham was dismissed. It would create an oppressive outlook for small gardens, and because the B2 use was undefined, its noise could not be assessed. The only Framework policy named is DM4, used to give the emerging plan policy moderate weight (DL ¶3). ## What made the difference An ill-defined use class. Without knowing what B2 operation would take place, conditions could not be shown to control noise. The Framework's transition is not mentioned. ## Policy findings - **DM4: neutral (moderate weight).** "In my application of Policy DM4 of the Framework" — emerging HEC7 advanced, consistent with the Framework, outstanding objections, so moderate weight (DL 3) - **P3: harm.** code mapped by harvester — 4.6m metal shed 2.6m from 10m-deep gardens, oppressive outlook; unspecified B2 use means noise cannot be assessed (DL 11-12) - **E1: benefit.** code mapped by harvester — 7 FTE, construction, planting; not enough (DL 13) ## Key facts - Application form ambiguous between existing E(g)(iii) use and new B2; decided as open B2 (DL 4) - Neighbouring 112-dwelling scheme under construction with small rear gardens backing onto site (DL 8) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009413 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7a265760-961a-4e3e-ab67-8eb7d528cb0c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009413.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 36 St Kildas Road, Harrow - **Decision:** allowed, 27 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Fulford - **Authority:** Harrow (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009442 - **Application reference:** PL/0548/26 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use from 6-bed HMO (C4) to 7-bed HMO (sui generis) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** Harrow LP HO10 - **Development plan policies:** Harrow Local Plan 2021-2041 (2026) HO10 - **Main issues:** HMO location, neighbour living conditions, occupier living conditions - **Tags:** hmo, transitional-no-consultation, limited-nppf-engagement, tier-2 ## Summary Enlargement of an existing HMO in Harrow from six to seven occupants was allowed. It accorded with Harrow Local Plan policy HO10. The corpus index's "HO10" tag refers to that local policy, not NPPF HO10 (exception sites). The decision is plan-led with no substantive Framework reasoning. A separate costs decision exists. ## What made the difference The property was already an HMO, so there was no loss of family housing. One extra occupier made no discernible difference. The inspector did not re-consult on the 2026 Framework because "Those parts of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have not been significantly amended" (DL ¶3). ## Policy findings - **Harrow LP HO10: accord.** local plan HMO policy (not NPPF HO10) - existing HMO so no loss of family housing; one extra occupier not discernible (DL 5-16) ## Key facts - Existing 6-bed HMO in a street of family houses; lounge converted to a seventh bedroom - Inspector did not seek submissions on the August 2026 Framework as relevant parts "not significantly amended" (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009442 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/584a143b-e60a-4c9d-b3e7-fc8c8f347ebc --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009442.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land east of Nordic Barn, Kilkhampton, Bude (glamping pods) - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: O Marigold - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009443 - **Application reference:** PA26/00089 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Three glamping pods with hardstanding, access drive and solar array - **Site context:** open-countryside, valued-landscape, national-landscape, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(b), E4, N4, TR3(1), CC2(1)(a) - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan 2016 Policies 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, 23, 27, Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1, T1 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, access to services - **Tags:** sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, rural-tourism, landscape-harm, national-landscape, s5-1-b-substantially-outweighed, small-scheme ## Summary Three glamping pods in open Area of Great Landscape Value countryside near the Cornwall National Landscape were dismissed at appeal. There were two harms, each given "very substantial negative weight": landscape intrusion, including a permanent gravel drive across the field, and poor access to services. The inspector held that E4, although it accepts rural businesses may be poorly served by public transport, still requires well-related sites and appropriate siting. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties commented on the new Framework, and the appeal was decided "using the current planning policy position" (DL ¶3). - **Landscape and National Landscape setting: HARM.** The new drive "would have an intrusive and scarring effect on the landscape, on a permanent basis" (DL ¶11). The scheme "would detract from the NL setting, harming its natural beauty" (DL ¶13). There was conflict with N2 and N4, which require development in the setting of Protected Landscapes to be "sensitively located and designed" (DL ¶24). - **Access: FAIL.** Bus drivers "may not be willing to stop hereabouts given the narrow nature of the road and its 60mph speed limit. Holidaymakers unfamiliar with the area may well feel uneasy at relying on such an arrangement" (DL ¶17). "Patterns of movement associated with holiday use may be different … but I have little reason to believe that trips would necessarily be limited" (DL ¶18). TR3(1)(e) "recognises the constraints on connectivity opportunities in rural areas. Even so … the proposal would not accord with these policies" (DL ¶25). - **E4: CONFLICT.** E4 "recognises that such proposals may need to be located outside settlements, and may not be well served by public transport. Nevertheless, it makes clear that such proposals should take opportunities to use sites physically well-related to existing development, and must be appropriate in respect of their siting" (DL ¶23). - **Other permissions.** "Some of the cases pre-date the adoption of current Development Plan policy, as well as the new Framework" (DL ¶20). ## Planning balance The S5(1)(b) route was engaged. The benefits were construction and visitor spend, renewable energy, EV charging, BNG and social benefits. They were "substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶27). The Framework "is a material consideration of critical importance and therefore weighs heavily against it" (DL ¶28). The local plan Policy 1 tilted balance, which applied because Cornwall lacks a five-year supply, also failed (DL ¶22, 28). ## What made the difference Landscape siting was as important as accessibility. Pods placed away from the existing buildings, with a long new drive, could not meet E4's "physically well-related" expectation. Clustering the pods beside the existing barn and implement store, using the existing entrance, would have removed most of the landscape objection. The access objection would have remained. ## Transferable points - E4's acceptance that rural businesses may be poorly served by public transport does not excuse siting remote from existing buildings. The site must still be "physically well-related to existing development" (DL ¶23). - Request-stop or hail-and-ride buses on a fast, narrow road do not give holidaymakers a realistic alternative to the car (DL ¶17). - Holiday use does not reduce trip generation enough to overcome poor accessibility (DL ¶18). - Permissions granted before the 2026 Framework carry limited weight in consistency arguments (DL ¶20). ## Policy findings - **N4: harm (substantial weight).** pods, solar array and long gravel drive intrude into open AGLV countryside next to Cornwall National Landscape; detracts from NL setting (DL 10-14, 24) - **TR3(1): fail (substantial weight).** Bude c.4 miles on narrow unlit lanes without pavements; buses three each way weekdays, request stops on 60 mph road; TR3(1)(e) rural constraint acknowledged but not enough (DL 16-18, 21, 25) - **CC2(1)(a): fail.** does not support good access to facilities to limit need to travel (DL 25) - **E4: fail.** E4 accepts rural business may be outside settlements and poorly served by public transport, but still requires physically well-related sites and appropriate siting; not met (DL 23) - **N2: fail.** does not contribute positively to natural environment (DL 24) - **S5(1)(b): fail.** benefits (spend, renewables, EV charging, BNG) substantially outweighed by landscape and accessibility harm (DL 26-27) ## Key facts - Three timber green-roofed pods set well away from existing barn conversion, with a new gravel drive across the field - Area of Great Landscape Value, opposite Cornwall National Landscape - Nearest town Bude c.4 miles; 3 buses each way on weekdays, one on Saturday, none on Sunday - Cornwall accepted to lack a five-year housing land supply, engaging local plan Policy 1 tilted balance (DL 22) - Numerous other Cornwall tourism permissions cited; given limited comparative weight, some pre-dating the new Framework (DL 19-20) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009443 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/314a4b01-5edf-42eb-8af5-e527dc2214a9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009443.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Compounds A, A1 and A4, Youngs Industrial Estate, Aldermaston - **Decision:** allowed, 2 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Everitt - **Authority:** West Berkshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009448 - **Application reference:** 26/00212/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73 to remove SuDS, external lighting and landscaping conditions on retrospective B8 storage permission - **Site context:** open-countryside, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM6(1), West Berkshire LPR SP6 - **Development plan policies:** West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2023-2041 SP6, SP7, SP8, SP10, DM5, DM30 - **Main issues:** flood risk and water quality, character, neighbour amenity - **Tags:** tier-2, condition-appeal, s73, costs-application, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary In a s73 appeal on an industrial-estate B8 permission, the SuDS condition was kept, the lighting condition was re-triggered to apply only if lighting is proposed, and the landscaping condition was deleted. The existing screening was not under threat, and new planting was not necessary even though DP3 and N3 aspire to it (DL ¶¶15, 19, 22–24). ## What made the difference There was no evidence on how the storage use drains or controls pollutants, so the SuDS condition was necessary (DL ¶11). The landscaping was disproportionate to a change of use on a small part of an existing estate (DL ¶23). ## Policy findings - **F8: fail.** SuDS condition retained — no evidence on drainage or pollutant control for plant/material storage (DL 7-15), under SP6 - **DM6(1): pass.** lighting condition re-triggered to "prior to installation"; landscaping condition deleted as unnecessary (DL 17-29) - **DP3: neutral.** additional planting would accord with DP3 and N3 aspirations but is not necessary to make development acceptable (DL 22) - **N3: neutral.** as above (DL 22) ## Key facts - Retrospective B8 on long-standing hardstanding; Flood Zone 1; AWE Aldermaston emergency plan conditions - Existing boundary vegetation screens grade II 48-49 Paices Hill; Aldermaston Court RPG unaffected ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8fe73869-fea4-4299-b79b-fb672955a728 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009448 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009448.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 157 Lodge Lane, Hyde, Tameside (outline, 1 dwelling in side garden) - **Decision:** allowed, 21 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on recommendation of appeal planning officer S Jamieson) - **Authority:** Tameside (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009460 - **Application reference:** 25/00965/OUT - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline permission for one 2-bed dwelling extending an end terrace (access, layout, scale) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6), DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Tameside UDP 2004 H9, H10, Places for Everyone JP-P1, JP-G8 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, garden-infill, bng-exemption, appeal-planning-officer, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary An outline permission for a house extending an end terrace onto a corner side garden in Hyde was allowed. In an area of varied building lines it would read as "a logical and proportionate continuation of the existing terrace" (DL ¶8). The letter records that the 6 Aug 2026 BNG amendment regulations replaced the self-build exemption with a 0.2 ha small-site exemption (DL ¶13). ## What made the difference The area's mixed pattern, and the retained corner openness (DL ¶7, ¶10). ## Policy findings - **DP3: pass.** logical continuation of the terrace in a varied area; openness at the corner retained (DL 7-12) ## Key facts - Biodiversity Gain amendment regulations of 6 Aug 2026 removed the self/custom-build exemption but added a 0.2 ha small-site exemption; site 0.032 ha, so no BNG (DL 13) - Framework changes "do not affect the substance of the main issue" (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009460 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7185f784-8b14-405c-9a1e-1ee9485bf27c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009460.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Lowgate Farm, Lowgate, Tydd St Mary - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer L Clark) - **Authority:** South Holland (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009463 - **Application reference:** H21-1138-25 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion of two brick barns to a self-build dwelling and garage - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(c) - **Development plan policies:** South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2019 Policy 23 - **Main issues:** principle - extent of works for conversion - **Tags:** s5-1-c-reuse, self-build-unsecured, transitional-no-consultation, appeal-planning-officer, small-scheme, tier-2 ## Summary Conversion of two farmyard barns outside Tydd St Mary to a self-build dwelling was dismissed. The works amounted to significant rebuilding, contrary to LP Policy 23. The inspector treated S5(1)(c)'s "permanent and substantial construction" test as "a similar position" to Policy 23, so did not re-consult on the new Framework (DL ¶3). ## What made the difference The main barn was open-fronted and partly collapsed. The proposal was "more the incorporation of what is currently remaining on site rather than the re use or conversion thereof in the true sense" (DL ¶8). The letter also notes that the self-build BNG exemption was removed by regulations in force from 6 August 2026 (DL ¶12). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(c): fail.** treated as equivalent to LP Policy 23 - open-fronted, partly collapsed barn needs new front, side rebuild and new roof; "incorporation" not conversion (DL 3, 8-9) - **N2: neutral.** self-build BNG exemption removed from 6 August 2026 by amended regulations; no s106 to secure self-build anyway (DL 12) ## Key facts - Larger barn open along one long elevation and partly collapsed on one side; no evidence roof structure could carry new roof - Self-build not secured; family-succession reason given limited weight as personal ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009463 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/bc094389-7149-467e-8194-6cf97cc35ea0 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009463.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 7 Market Street, Stourbridge - **Decision:** allowed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Plenty (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer E Clifford) - **Authority:** Dudley (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009469 - **Application reference:** P25/1190 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Shopfront alterations and conversion of upper floors to 4-bed C4 HMO - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** conservation-area, listed-building-setting, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P5 - **Development plan policies:** Dudley Local Plan 2026 DLP17, DLP39, Black Country Core Strategy 2011 ENV3, Dudley Residential Design Guide 2023 - **Main issues:** crime and fear of crime - **Tags:** tier-2, appeal-planning-officer, hmo, crime-fear-of-crime, conservation-area, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A four-bed HMO above a shop in Stourbridge town centre was allowed. There was no evidence that the HMO would raise crime or the fear of crime. The external works were found to enhance the conservation area and the setting of listed buildings. ## What made the difference The evidence gap. Area crime statistics and objectors' assumptions about HMO occupiers did not establish a link to the proposal (DL ¶9, 12). ## Policy findings - **P5: pass.** code mapped by harvester — area crime above national average, but no evidence linking HMOs to crime; fear of crime "subjective conjecture" (DL 9-13) - **HE9: benefit.** code mapped by harvester — reinstating historic second-floor openings enhances CA and setting of Grade II Town Hall; ss66/72 cited (DL 14-16) ## Key facts - Newly adopted Dudley Local Plan 2026 applied (DL 4) - Parties not re-consulted on Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009469 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/76c77921-64ac-4ae3-8c8f-4ebef6764628 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009469.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Unit 9a, Birkdale Avenue, Selly Oak, Birmingham - **Decision:** allowed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Billings - **Authority:** Birmingham (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009473 - **Application reference:** 2026/00006/PA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class MA prior approval — industrial-estate unit to 15 apartments - **Homes:** 15 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Class MA.2(2)(d), P3(1), P3(2)(a) - **Main issues:** space standards, noise - **Tags:** tier-2, prior-approval, class-ma, noise, p3-preexisting-conditions ## Summary Class MA prior approval was granted for 15 flats in an industrial-estate unit beside a railway. The studios met NDSS as one-person units. The Inspector used new P3, which covers pollution "the product of preexisting conditions in its vicinity", to hold that railway noise must be considered under MA.2(2)(d) via W.10(b). With mitigation, that noise was acceptable (DL ¶¶16–19). ## What made the difference A noise assessment and rear-corridor layout accepted by Environmental Protection, secured by conditions. The P3 reading answers appellants who argue that non-commercial noise sources fall outside the Class MA noise test (DL ¶17). ## Policy findings - **P3(1): pass.** via GPDO W.10(b), P3's "product of preexisting conditions in its vicinity" brings railway noise into MA.2(2)(d) though not a "commercial premises" (DL 16-17) - **P3(2)(a): pass.** with enhanced glazing, mechanical ventilation and rear corridor, no harmful noise; conditions on insulation and overheating (DL 15, 19, 21) - **GPDO Art 3(9A) NDSS: pass.** studios >37 sq m with shower rooms as 1b1p; double bed shown does not make them 2-person (DL 9-12) ## Key facts - Industrial estate backing onto a railway with passenger trains 05:30-midnight and night freight - Previous residential conversion attempts refused on noise - Vibration not a MA.2(2) matter (DL 18) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9b93a6d3-c9a1-4d8f-b70d-b13ec3b18e45 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009473 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009473.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Sussex Topiary, Naldretts Lane, Rudgwick - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Stewart Glassar - **Authority:** Horsham (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009474 - **Application reference:** DC/26/0271 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 3-9 self-build park homes (non-determination) - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.9 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(e), S5(1)(h), S5(4), TR3, CC2, DP2, N2 - **Development plan policies:** Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 Policies 2, 19, 25, 26, 32, 33, Shaping Development in Horsham PAN 2025 - **Main issues:** location, land use and amount of development - **Tags:** PIP, non-determination, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, s5-1-e-infill, s5-4-exceptional, connectivity-tool, self-build-unsecured, housing-shortfall, landscape-harm, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Permission in principle for 3 to 9 self-build park homes on a field in open countryside near Rudgwick was refused on appeal. The site was not "limited infilling within groups of houses" (S5(1)(e)), was not near a station (S5(1)(h)) and fitted no other S5(1) category. Under S5(4) the housing benefits (substantial weight, 2.9-year supply) did not substantially outweigh car dependence and harm to the countryside. The council's boundaries were held out of date, but that was not enough to change the outcome. ## Issues and findings - **S5(1)(e): FAIL.** "as the site is an undeveloped parcel of land with sporadic development in the vicinity it would not represent limited infilling within a group of houses" (DL ¶16). - **S5(1)(h): FAIL.** No well-connected station within reasonable walking distance (DL ¶17). - **TR3 / CC2 / DP2: FAIL.** "The Framework considers a reasonable walking distance to be 800m … There is no indication that the site would be within these thresholds" (DL ¶21). "Access to Rudgewick would be via unlit roads. Not all of Naldretts Lane benefits from a dedicated footpath" (DL ¶22). The "Hail and Ride" bus was unexplained (DL ¶23). "No information from the Connectivity Tool has been provided in support of the proposal" (DL ¶24). - **Countryside character (N2): HARM**, even at three units (DL ¶31). - **Supply and HO7.** 2.9 years was uncontested. "Even though there is no indication as to any local need for park homes specifically, the delivery of up to nine new residential units will clearly go some way to meet the needs of the community and in accordance with Framework Policy HO7 this attracts substantial weight" (DL ¶34). - **Self-build: limited weight.** No s106, and a condition "is unlikely to pass the test of enforceability" (DL ¶36). - **Plan-making policies.** L1 is plan-making and not for decisions (Framework ¶8) (DL ¶51). ## Planning balance The boundary conflict carried "very limited weight" because "local policies are not meeting the expectations of national policy … the current boundaries are out of date" (DL ¶52). But the non-essential countryside location, car reliance, character harm and unsustainable growth "collectively carries substantial weight" (DL ¶53). "Where proposals are contrary to Policy S5 they should only be approved in exceptional circumstances, where the benefits would substantially outweigh the adverse effects" (DL ¶55). The benefits did not do so (DL ¶57). ## What made the difference The site fell into no S5(1) category, so the reverse S5(4) test applied. Out-of-date boundaries and a 2.9-year supply do not turn an isolated field into infill. The absence of Connectivity Tool evidence, and of any offer to improve connectivity under TR3(1)(e), was noted against the appellant. ## Transferable points - Out-of-date settlement boundaries reduce the weight of the boundary conflict to very limited, but the S5 categories still apply (DL ¶52-55). - S5(1)(e) needs an existing group of houses around the gap. An open field with sporadic development nearby is not infill (DL ¶16). - Under S5(4) the benefits must *substantially outweigh* the harms, the reverse of S5(1) (DL ¶55). - TR3(2) Connectivity Tool evidence is expected from the promoter; its absence counts (DL ¶24). - HO7 substantial weight does not depend on evidence of need for the specific housing type (DL ¶34). Compare PINS-6009276 and PINS-6009409. - DL ¶50 refers to "the site's inherent conflict with Policy P5", apparently a slip for S5. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(e): fail.** undeveloped parcel with sporadic development nearby is not limited infilling within a group of houses (DL 16) - **S5(1)(h): fail.** not within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station (DL 17) - **TR3: fail.** Rudgwick facilities limited and beyond 800 m; unlit roads, part of Naldretts Lane without footway; unexplained "hail and ride" bus; no Connectivity Tool evidence (TR3(2)); no connectivity improvements (TR3(1)(e)) (DL 18-26) - **N2: harm.** up to nine units would suburbanise an open field; harm even at the minimum three (DL 29-33) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 2.9-year supply (2023 AMR, not updated by council); no park-home-specific need needed for substantial weight (DL 34) - **S5(4): fail.** benefits do not substantially outweigh numerous adverse effects (DL 55-57) ## Key facts - Undeveloped field, not within or adjacent to a settlement; sporadic houses nearby - Supply 2.9 years (appellant's Dec 2023 AMR figure, uncontested); settlement boundaries out of date - boundary conflict very limited weight - Self-build unsecured (no s106; condition would not be enforceable) - limited weight - No Connectivity Tool output submitted ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009474 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2a06db19-8413-4c06-ba1f-51eef7bf797c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009474.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Homestead, Liverpool Road, Tarleton - **Decision:** allowed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Gravett - **Authority:** West Lancashire (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009486 - **Application reference:** 2026/0109/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of 4-bed dwelling to a children's care home for up to 2 children (C2) - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(c), S3, HO9(1), HO7 - **Development plan policies:** West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 GN3 - **Main issues:** suitability of location - need, local services, community balance - **Tags:** s5-1-c-reuse, specialist-housing, childrens-home, plan-making-policy-not-for-decisions, substantially-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Change of use of a countryside house near Tarleton to a two-child children's home was allowed. The inspector found some harm: pressure on over-stretched Lancashire services (HO9, plan policy GN3). But the scheme fell within S5(1)(c) as the reuse of an existing building, so the "substantially outweighed" test applied, and a modest harm limited to two children did not meet it. The inspector expressly departed from a December 2024-era decision (Briars Green) that had relied on need/mix policies now found only in plan-making policy HO1. ## Issues and findings - **S5(1)(c) applies to any existing building.** "The proposal falls within the list at policy S5(1)(c) which is the reuse of an existing building provided that the existing building is of permanent and substantial construction and is lawful in planning terms. Policy S5(1)(c) does not only relate to rural agricultural buildings" (DL ¶24). - **Services (HO9(1)): CONFLICT.** The "proposal would contribute to the detrimental effects on local education, health and police services … However, these detrimental effects would be tempered by the placing of only two supervised children" (DL ¶15). - **Need is not a decision-making test.** "Although policy HO1(2) of the Framework has a similar objective, this is a plan-making policy, and paragraph 8 of the Framework is clear that such policies should not be used when making decisions" (DL ¶18). HO7 "does not impose a ceiling on housing provision or require individual planning applications to demonstrate a need for the sort of housing proposed" (DL ¶26). ## Planning balance s38(6), with the Framework "a material consideration of critical importance" (DL ¶24). S5(1)(c) put the scheme in the "approve unless substantially outweighed" test. The only adverse effect was service pressure, tempered by scale: "I do not find that the adverse effects arising from the proposal would be so significant that they would substantially outweigh the benefits. In the context of policy S5 … the presumption in favour of sustainable development therefore applies" (DL ¶27). This outweighed the conflict with plan policy GN3 (DL ¶28). ## What made the difference The move from the December 2024 NPPF to the August 2026 NPPF. Under the old Framework, need and community-mix concerns could be run against a scheme in decisions (Briars Green). Under the new one they sit in plan-making HO1, and S5(1)(c) gives any reuse of a lawful building outside a settlement a strong presumption. A proven but modest service-pressure harm could not clear the "substantially outweighed" bar. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(c) covers reuse of any lawful, permanent building, including a dwelling changed to C2, not just rural or agricultural buildings (DL ¶24). - Plan-making policies (e.g. HO1(2)) cannot be used to refuse a proposal (DL ¶18). - HO7 does not require individual schemes to show need for their housing type, and absence of need is not a conflict (DL ¶26). - Proven HO9 harm can still fall short of "substantially outweighed" when limited by scale and condition (DL ¶25-27). - Pre-August 2026 appeal decisions that relied on superseded NPPF paragraphs are distinguishable (DL ¶18). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(c): pass.** reuse of an existing lawful, permanent building; (c) "does not only relate to rural agricultural buildings" (DL 24) - **HO9(1): conflict.** strain on Lancashire education, CAMHS and police services from saturation of children's homes; management plan not sufficient (HO9(1)(b)); tempered by only two children (DL 8-15, 25) - **HO7: neutral.** absence of local need is not a conflict - HO7 imposes no ceiling and does not require need to be shown (DL 26) - **HO1(2): not-engaged.** plan-making policy; not used for decisions (Framework para 8) - departing from Briars Green appeal decided under Dec 2024 NPPF (DL 18) - **S5(1): pass.** adverse effects not so significant as to substantially outweigh benefits; presumption applies (DL 27) ## Key facts - Lancashire market position statement - county saturated with children's homes; only 14% of beds used by Lancashire children - Isolated property outside a settlement with no immediate neighbours; condition limits to two children - Earlier contrary decisions - Warren Drive, Blackpool (APP/J2373/C/23/3325930) and Briars Green, Skelmersdale (APP/P2365/W/25/3361672) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009486 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/11d21316-cc57-4bb5-ae40-f8a219a080eb --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009486.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Serif House, 10 Dudley Street, Luton - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Everitt - **Authority:** Luton (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6009487 - **Application reference:** 25/01306/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Raised roof, first-floor side extension and six dormers to convert an office building to four flats - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), S4(2)(c), L2(1)(d), S4 - **Development plan policies:** Luton Local Plan 2011-2031 LLP10, LLP15, LLP19, LLP25, LLP30, LLP31, LLP37, Appendix 2, Appendix 6 - **Main issues:** character and appearance and CA setting, future occupiers' living conditions, neighbours' living conditions, BNG - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, living-conditions, flat-conversion, upward-extension, heritage-no-harm, conservation-area-setting, bng-exemption, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Raising the roof of a two-storey Luton office building and adding a side extension and dormers to create four flats. The enlarged building would be incongruous in the street, and the flats would be sub-standard in space, privacy and outdoor amenity. The DP3 conflict was not clearly justified, and with the L2(1)(d) failure the benefits were substantially outweighed under S4. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties invited to comment (DL ¶4). - **Character.** "the proposed development would fail to integrate with its surroundings and would appear incongruous in the streetscene, particularly when viewed in conjunction with No 12" (DL ¶8). - **CA setting.** "the development would have a negligible effect on the contribution that the CA’s setting makes to its significance" (DL ¶11). - **Future occupiers.** Even if NDSS were broadly met, "the development would, nevertheless, result in sub-standard internal accommodation" (DL ¶16). - **Housing weight.** "although the provision of housing attracts substantial weight, overall, this matter attracts moderate weight in favour of the proposed development" (DL ¶38). - **Location.** A benefit, "consistent with the support within Policies L3 and TR3 of the Framework for making efficient use of land in well-connected locations" (DL ¶39). - **L2 and DP3.** "I find that the proposal would fall wholly short of these requirements of the Framework. I attach substantial weight to this conflict" (DL ¶41). - **DP3(3) / S4(2)(c): FAIL.** "On the basis that this conflict has not been clearly justified, it, in accordance with the provisions of part 3 of Policy DP3, represents a reason to refuse planning permission." (DL ¶42). ## Planning balance S4 with the S4(2)(c) trigger: "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶43). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶44). ## What made the difference The loss of the visual pairing with No 12 and the break in the rhythm of building heights, together with poor internal and external space. L2's substantial weight to airspace and brownfield homes is conditional on consistency with the streetscene and acceptable living conditions, which the scheme failed. ## Transferable points - L2's substantial weight for making better use of buildings and airspace depends on L2(1)(d): streetscene, safe access, living conditions and external amenity (DL ¶40-41). - HO7 substantial weight can be tempered to moderate overall for a small contribution of poor-quality homes (DL ¶38). - A clear DP3(3) sentence: the conflict "has not been clearly justified", so it is a reason to refuse under S4(2)(c) (DL ¶42). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): conflict (substantial weight).** enlarged roof and dormers break the rhythm of heights and the pairing with No 12; incongruous and unduly prominent (DL 8-10, 41) - **DP3(3): fail.** explicit - the DP3 conflict has not been clearly justified, so it is a reason to refuse (DL 42) - **L2(1)(d): fail (substantial weight).** additional homes must be consistent with the streetscene and give acceptable living conditions and external amenity space; scheme falls wholly short (DL 40-41) - **P3: harm.** mapped; sub-standard internal space, stacking noise, no privacy for Flat 1, no private outdoor space for Flats 3-4, cramped bins and cycles (DL 15-26) - **HE9: neutral.** in setting of High Town CA; negligible effect, character and appearance preserved (DL 11) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** four homes attract substantial weight in principle but, because of the small contribution and poor standard, moderate overall (DL 38) - **TR3: benefit (moderate weight).** good access to services and public transport, with L3 efficient use and economic benefits, moderate weight (DL 39) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed; S4 does not point to permission (DL 37, 42-43) ## Key facts - BNG de minimis exemption applies; site entirely hardstanding (DL 31-32) - Neighbours' living conditions not harmed (DL 30) - Appellant's offer of amendments or conditions could not overcome harm without fundamentally altering the scheme (DM3, DM6) (DL 34) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009487 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c2e71f4e-0736-45e3-94fc-f1e0a5d052d7 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009487.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Vestacare Stadium, Whitebank Road, Oldham (extended hours for 2 events a year) - **Decision:** dismissed, 20 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Mee - **Authority:** Oldham (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009498 - **Application reference:** VAR/354748/25 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73 variation of hours and floodlight conditions on a 3G pitch to allow two non-football events a year until 11pm (May-Sept) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3(1), P3(2)(b), P3(2)(d), P3(2)(e), DP3(2)(a) - **Development plan policies:** Oldham Joint Core Strategy 2011 Policy 9 - **Main issues:** living conditions (noise and light) - **Tags:** tier-2, s73, noise, missing-evidence, old-to-new-mapping, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A request to extend a community football stadium's pitch and floodlight hours to 11pm on two summer event days a year was dismissed. There was no noise evidence, and a draft event management plan could not mitigate the harm (DL ¶9, ¶11). The letter maps the new P3 and DP3 limbs expressly onto 2024 ¶¶135(f) and 198(a) (DL ¶13). ## What made the difference No acoustic evidence despite a previous refusal, and summer-evening timing when neighbours' windows and gardens are in use (DL ¶8-9). ## Policy findings - **P3: fail.** no noise evidence; extended noise and light on summer evenings close to homes; conflicts with P3(1), P3(2)(b),(d),(e) and DP3(2)(a), which are "broadly consistent" with old paras 135(f) and 198(a) (DL 8-13) - **HE9: neutral.** no harm to the adjoining Garden Suburb Conservation Area (DL 7) ## Key facts - Earlier refusal for 4 event days a year; no technical noise information despite that (DL 9) - Framework "does not change the planning policy context" (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009498 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ad545ac3-ba7b-4f94-9b11-dcfd6092cf92 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009498.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Leapman House, 59 Primrose Gardens, Belsize Park - **Decision:** dismissed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Dryden - **Authority:** Camden (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009503 - **Application reference:** 2025/4625/P - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of artist's studio and erection of part single, part two-storey self-build dwelling on a backland site - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 53 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, S4, L2(1)(d)(i), DP3(1) - **Development plan policies:** Camden Local Plan 2017 D2, H4, T1, T2, A1, T4, DM1 - **Main issues:** conservation area, character and appearance - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, self-build, backland, l2-plot-intensification, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A part two-storey self-build house replacing a demolished artist's studio on a backland site in the Belsize Park Conservation Area was dismissed. The inspector found moderate harm to the CA, visible in glimpsed views between the villas. The L2(1)(d) plot-intensification support did not apply because the house would be visible from the street. There was also an extant permission for a single-storey dwelling. Under S4 the benefits, including a 53% HDT, were "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶29). ## Issues and findings - **Heritage (HE5/HE6/HE9): moderate harm.** The house "would appear as a bulky and visually intrusive addition … largely characterised by subordinate backland development and a sense of openness" (DL ¶10). "even a moderate level of harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset carries considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶14). The benefits were "comfortably outweighed", and "insufficient information to demonstrate that the claimed benefits … could not be achieved in a less harmful manner, particularly given that planning permission for a single storey dwelling remains extant" (DL ¶15-16). - **L2.** "Policy L2 of the Framework requires substantial weight to be given to the creation of additional homes … within existing plots … the Framework Policy L2 1.d)i. requires such development not to be visible from the street frontage" (DL ¶24). - **HO7 / HDT.** The 2023 HDT of 53% was accepted, but the contribution was modest, a 4-bed home is a low local priority, and there is an extant consent (DL ¶26-27). ## Planning balance S4: "Taken together, I find the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶29). DP3(1) conflict was also found (DL ¶25). ## What made the difference The extant, less harmful single-storey permission. It showed the benefits (a family home) could be delivered with less harm, and it undercut the housing-supply weight. The street-frontage visibility condition in L2(1)(d)(i) removed the automatic substantial weight for plot intensification. ## Transferable points - L2(1)(d)'s substantial weight for homes within existing plots depends on the development not being visible from the street frontage, and glimpsed views count (DL ¶9-10, 24). - An extant less-harmful permission shows benefits could be achieved with less harm, which undermines the HE6 public-benefit case (DL ¶16, 27). - A poor HDT (53%) does not by itself tip an S4 balance against moderate CA harm (DL ¶26-29). ## Policy findings - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** moderate less-than-substantial harm to Belsize Park CA - two-storey bulk visible in glimpsed views between villas and from surrounding rear gardens; benefits "comfortably outweighed" (DL 9-16) - **L2(1)(d)(i): fail.** substantial weight for additional homes within plots applies only where not visible from the street frontage; this is visible (DL 24) - **HO7: benefit.** HDT 53% (2023) accepted; modest contribution; extant permission for smaller dwelling; 4-bed homes low local priority (DL 26-27) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 29) ## Key facts - Backland site reached by a footpath, visible in glimpsed views between Belsize Grove / Belsize Park Gardens villas, especially in winter - Extant permission (2022/3470/P) for single-storey 3-bed dwelling - a less harmful way to secure the benefits (DL 16) - UU for affordable housing contribution, car-free and CMP provided ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009503 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b58fc27d-6ef6-4d72-a7d9-c13d80e4e385 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009503.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Nunhayes, Great Stone, Cuddington - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Brennan - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009513 - **Application reference:** PL/25/4389/FA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition and erection of a detached dwelling in the side garden of Nunhayes, with access, parking and amenity space - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.62 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE7(2), S4 - **Development plan policies:** Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2013-2033 BE1, BE2, Cuddington Neighbourhood Plan CDN03, CDN04 - **Main issues:** conservation area, listed building settings, non-designated heritage asset - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-harm-graded, conservation-area, ndha, ndha-harm, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, garden-infill, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A house squeezed into the side garden of Nunhayes, a converted barn and non-designated heritage asset in the Cuddington Conservation Area. Dismissed: mid-range harm to the CA and to the NDHA, each outweighing the benefits of one home (substantial weight with a 3.62-year supply). The letter runs HE6(1), (3), (4) and HE7(2) as a separate heritage balance before the S4 conclusion. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The parties have been provided with the opportunity to comment on the implications of the revisions to their cases" (DL ¶2). - **CA: HARM (mid-range).** "the domestic and ordered character to the design and siting of the proposed dwelling would be discordant and visually incongruous with the agrarian historic character" (DL ¶12); "the degree of harm found to the CCA would be calibrated at the mid-range of such harm" (DL ¶15). - **Listed buildings: no effect** (DL ¶17, ¶19). - **NDHA: HARM.** "This crowding effect would diminish the significance of the NDHA" (DL ¶26). - **Heritage balance.** "whilst the proposal's public benefits attract substantial weight, they would not outweigh the considerable weight ascribed to the harm that would be caused to the heritage significance of the CCA and the significance of the NDHA and the substantial weight afforded to the conservation of designated heritage assets" (DL ¶38). ## Planning balance S4(1): "the benefits of the proposed development within a settlement, would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects of the proposal" (DL ¶43), citing conflicts with L2(1)(d)(i), DP3(1), HE6(4) and HE7(2) (DL ¶42). DP3(3) is not named. ## What made the difference The green gap's role in both the CA's sporadic pattern and the NDHA's setting. Limited public visibility behind a wychert wall did not help. A permitted scheme next door was distinguished because it respected the spacing. ## Transferable points - Heritage harm graded as "mid-range" and HE6(4) run on its own terms before S4 (DL ¶15, ¶33–38). - A side garden can be an "important green gap" contributing to CA significance even with limited public views (DL ¶9, ¶13–14). - NDHA harm from crowding: a 2.5 m gap "would fail to provide a proportional and adequate separation distance" (DL ¶26). - Substantial weight to benefits of one home in a 3.62-year-supply district still loses to CA harm given considerable importance and weight (DL ¶35–38). ## Policy findings - **HE9(1): harm.** site (former orchard) makes important positive contribution; cramped infill, forced building line, domestic design and hardstanding erode loose-knit agrarian pattern; harm "calibrated at the mid-range" (DL 8-15); letter attributes the total loss / harm / no effect / positive effect scale to HE9(1) - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation stated (DL 33, 38) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** considerable importance and weight to CA harm (DL 33-34) - **HE6(4): fail.** combined benefits (substantial) do not outweigh CA harm (DL 38, 42) - **HE6: neutral.** no effect on settings of Grade II Nunhayes Cottage and outbuilding, or Great Stone House (DL 16-19) - **HE7(2): fail.** Nunhayes (converted barn, NP-identified and locally listed NDHA) suffers mid-range / moderate harm from 2.5 m gap and loss of side garden; balanced judgement against one dwelling (DL 20-26, 28, 42) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** one dwelling; supply 3.62 (council) or 3.16 (appellant); combined benefits substantial (DL 35-38) - **L2(1)(d)(i): fail.** not consistent with the overall street scene (DL 42) - **DP3(1): fail.** would not respond well to its context (DL 42); DP3(3) not named - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 43) ## Key facts - Supply 3.62 years (council) or 3.16 years (appellant) (DL 35) - Adjoining site has permission (21/04844/APP) for dwellings, under construction (DL 10) - Nunhayes identified as NDHA in made neighbourhood plan and later added to local list (DL 20) - Parties given opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009513 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d0ba26df-78db-4d57-928e-63fe9aa9cc44 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009513.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Fairfield Cottage, Cross in Hand Road, Heathfield - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Thomas Courtney - **Authority:** Wealden (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009517 - **Application reference:** WD/2025/0828/O - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline (access and layout) for two self-build/custom-build dwellings in the side garden of Fairfield Cottage, using an existing access off Herring Lane near the A267 - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.44 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4), S5(1)(j) - **Development plan policies:** Wealden Core Strategy Local Plan 2013 SPO10, SPO12, SPO13, Wealden Local Plan 1998 saved TR3 - **Main issues:** highway safety, flood risk - **Tags:** s5-1-j, tr6-highway-safety, highway-safety-decisive, self-build, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, garden-land, plan-making-policy-as-harm, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Two self-build homes in a side garden between Cross-in-Hand and Heathfield, using an existing lane access onto the busy A267. The site met S5(1)(j), with a 3.44-year supply, and was in a reasonably sustainable location, with no flood objection. But westbound visibility of about 80 m, against the 116 m needed for measured 43 mph speeds on a road carrying over 21,000 vehicles a day, meant an unacceptable highway safety impact under TR6(4). That harm substantially outweighed the housing benefits. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Both main parties "were given the opportunity to comment on the implications of the updated national policy" (DL ¶3). - **Visibility.** "This remains considerably below the 116m visibility distance identified as necessary having regard to the recorded vehicle speeds on the A267" (DL ¶7). "the fact that a proposal would improve an existing arrangement does not necessarily demonstrate that the resulting arrangement would be safe and suitable" (DL ¶8). "even a relatively small increase in traffic may be harmful where it would rely upon access arrangements that have not been demonstrated to be safe" (DL ¶8). - **Manual for Streets 2.** It "does not remove the requirement to undertake a site-specific assessment of highway safety nor does it establish that departures from recommended visibility distances should generally be accepted" (DL ¶9). - **No collisions.** "The absence of evidence of recorded collisions does not demonstrate that the remaining deficiency is acceptable" (DL ¶10). - **Highway safety: FAIL.** "I therefore conclude that the proposal would give rise to an unacceptable impact on highway safety" (DL ¶16). - **Flood risk: PASS** (DL ¶20, ¶22). - **S5(1)(j): PASS** (DL ¶23). - **The 2024 access test argument.** "I agree that the structure of national policy has changed. However, I do not agree that this materially alters the assessment of the appeal. Policy TR3 requires significant adverse impacts on highway safety to be mitigated to an acceptable degree and Policy TR6(4) provides that development proposals should be refused where they would result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety" (DL ¶28). ## Planning balance S5(1). Substantial weight to two homes (HO7) and moderate weight to self-build (HO1(2)(i)); location and other matters neutral. "the substantial positive weight is overcome by the even more substantial weight I attach to the identified highway safety harm" (DL ¶30). The adverse impacts "would substantially outweigh its benefits" (DL ¶30). ## What made the difference Measured speeds and flows. The appellant improved visibility but could not reach the 116 m needed, and the inspector would not treat MfS2 flexibility or a clean collision record as enough on a fast, busy A-road. ## Transferable points - The 2024 "safe and suitable access" wording has gone, but TR3(1)(c) and TR6(4) together still require unacceptable safety impacts to be refused (DL ¶28). - Improving a substandard access is not enough if the result is still unsafe for the intensified use (DL ¶8, ¶13). - An absence of recorded collisions does not show a visibility shortfall is acceptable (DL ¶10). - A site that passes S5(1)(j) can still fail on TR6(4), a "should be refused" policy, through the S5 balance (DL ¶28–30). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): pass.** outside the settlement boundary but physically well related to the linear development along the A267; 3.44-year supply (DL 23) - **TR6(4): fail (substantial weight).** westbound visibility about 80 m against 116 m needed for 85th percentile speeds of about 43 mph on an A-road carrying over 21,000 vehicles a day; improvement on existing is not enough; no speed data for Herring Lane; no collisions does not show safety (DL 7-16, 29) - **TR3: fail (substantial weight).** TR3(1)(c) highway safety limb, cited with TR6(4); location itself "reasonably sustainable" and not disputed (DL 27-29) - **F7: pass.** mapped: Flood Zone 1; surface water risk confined to a small part of the site, layout avoids it; drainage by condition (DL 17-22) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** two homes against a 3.44-year supply (DL 25) - **HO1(2)(i): benefit (moderate weight).** self-build plots with unmet demand; plan-making policy cited as a decision consideration (DL 26) - **DM4: neutral (limited weight).** Reg 19 plan puts the site inside the Cross-in-Hand boundary; some weight only (DL 4, 24) - **S5(1): fail.** highway harm substantially outweighs the benefits (DL 30) ## Key facts - Recorded 85th percentile speeds about 43 mph both ways; A267 flows over 21,000 vehicles per day (DL 10) - Revised access plan FFC 005 Rev 2 improves visibility from under 50 m to about 80 m westbound; not seen by the highway authority (DL 7-8, 14) - Appellant argued the 2024 "safe and suitable access" test had been removed; rejected (DL 28) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009517 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/59e06bcb-2e6f-4262-ad15-62d4bec7f170 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009517.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 32 Bromley Road, Catford, Lewisham - **Decision:** dismissed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Whitfield - **Authority:** Lewisham (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009541 - **Application reference:** DC/25/141224 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion of former children's nursery (E(f)) to a 9-bedroom, 16-person HMO - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3(2), DP3(1), DP3(3), S4(2)(c), S4 - **Development plan policies:** Lewisham Local Plan 2025 QD8, HO8, London Plan 2021 D6, H9 - **Main issues:** living conditions, HMO concentration - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, living-conditions, hmo, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A proposed 16-person HMO in a former nursery on Bromley Road, Catford, was dismissed. Two ground-floor studios would be gloomy and poorly sunlit, and occupants would have no communal living space. The council's HMO-overconcentration objection failed for lack of current, local evidence. Under S4 the P3 conflict carried substantial weight. The DP3(3) "should be refused" limb engaged S4(2)(c), so the benefits were substantially outweighed. ## Issues and findings - **Living conditions (P3/DP3): FAIL.** The studios "would be gloomy, oppressive and insufficiently sunlit" (DL ¶15). The sunlight target is not merely aspirational where "occupants would be entirely reliant on their bedrooms as their only private habitable space" (DL ¶14-15). - **HMO concentration: no harm.** The 2022 HMO Review "is some 4 years out of date and ward level data is inherently broad" (DL ¶22). - **S4(2)(c).** "Paragraph 3 of Policy DP3 … states that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 … In accordance with paragraph 2.c. of Policy S4, this represents a circumstance where the benefits … are likely to be outweighed by adverse effects. However, even if I were to set this aside, the scheme remains contrary to national decision-making Policy P3 … this conflict attracts substantial weight" (DL ¶38). ## Planning balance The benefits, bringing an underused building back into use and adding to housing mix and choice, carried moderate weight (DL ¶36). The P3 conflict carried substantial weight (DL ¶37). Result: "the benefits of the development would be substantially outweighed … the presumption in favour of sustainable development therefore does not apply" (DL ¶39). ## What made the difference Two studios with poor sunlight and outlook, in a layout with no communal living room. P3 amenity failures were given substantial weight, and DP3(3) acted as a gateway into S4(2)(c). The council's HMO-cluster evidence was too broad and too old to add harm. ## Transferable points - A P3 living-conditions failure can carry *substantial* weight in the S4 balance (DL ¶37). - DP3(3) ("should be refused if … without clear justification") is a "refuse in specific circumstances" policy for S4(2)(c) (DL ¶38). - BRE sunlight shortfalls matter more where bedrooms are the only private habitable space (DL ¶14-15). - Ward-level, four-year-old HMO data does not prove overconcentration against recent street-level mapping (DL ¶22-25). ## Policy findings - **P3(2): fail (substantial weight).** two north-facing ground-floor studios fail BRE sunlight targets and face a boundary wall over a short distance; no communal living space so bedroom is only habitable space (DL 11-16, 37) - **DP3(3): fail.** conflict with DP3(1) without clear justification - "should be refused" - engages S4(2)(c) (DL 38) - **Lewisham LP HO8: accord.** HMO overconcentration not shown - 2022 HMO Review limited weight, ward-level data broad and out of date (DL 17-27) - **S4: fail.** moderate benefits substantially outweighed; S3 presumption does not apply (DL 36-39) ## Key facts - Studios 2 and 3 receive adequate daylight (BRE illuminance) but fail sunlight (under 1.5 h on 21 March) and have enclosed outlook - Shared kitchens without dining space, no communal lounge - Conservation area issues resolved by amended plans (chimneys retained) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009541 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ea96fb11-1d01-4920-9cd9-378cb600f2b9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009541.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Redundant Barn, Kings Hill, Brassington - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M Clowes - **Authority:** Derbyshire Dales (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009542 - **Application reference:** 25/00700/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of redundant 19th-century barns and erection of a dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** conservation-area, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** HE7, HE6, TR6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Derbyshire Dales Local Plan 2017 S4, PD1, PD2, PD3, HC19 - **Main issues:** NDHA and conservation area, highway safety, protected species - **Tags:** transitional, heritage-harm-decisive, ndha, conservation-area, tier-2 ## Summary Demolition of 19th-century roadside barns (an NDHA) in the Brassington Conservation Area, to build a dwelling behind, was dismissed. The grounds were near-total loss of the NDHA, CA harm, unsafe visibility splays and no bat survey. The letter is dated 17 August 2026, the day the new Framework was published, but it cites only December 2024 NPPF paragraphs (212, 215, 216, 206, 187). The "S4" in the corpus index is Local Plan policy S4. ## What made the difference There was no structural, viability or marketing evidence that the barns could not be repaired or reused: "The possibility that a building may continue to deteriorate if permission is refused is not, in itself, a convincing justification for its demolition" (DL ¶17). The case is useful mainly as a same-day transitional example where the old Framework was applied without comment. ## Policy findings - **HE7: harm (substantial weight).** decided under Dec 2024 NPPF para 216 - near-total loss of NDHA barns, harm of very considerable magnitude; no structural, viability or marketing evidence (DL 5-21) - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** Dec 2024 paras 212/215 - middle of less-than-substantial scale to Brassington CA; limited benefits (DL 22-27) - **TR6(4): fail.** visibility 2 m north / 13.5 m south on narrow lane - unsafe access (plan policies S4, HC19) (DL 28-34) ## Key facts - Decision dated 17 August 2026 (publication day) but reasoned wholly under December 2024 NPPF paragraph numbers - The S4 cited is Derbyshire Dales Local Plan policy S4, not NPPF S4 - No 5YHLS shortfall evidence and self-build not secured; bat survey lodged late and not accepted ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009542 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6f446668-97d3-45ac-90cd-06152e901c3f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009542.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at 38 Ackerman Street, Eaton Socon, St Neots - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Allen - **Authority:** Huntingdonshire (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6009545 - **Application reference:** 25/01894/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Three-bedroom backland bungalow with garage in former pub garden - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.68 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), S4(1), DP3(1) - **Development plan policies:** Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 LP11, LP12, LP34, St Neots Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2029 A3 - **Main issues:** setting of listed building, conservation area, character - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-harm-graded, s4-substantially-outweighed, housing-shortfall, backland, conservation-area, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme ## Summary A backland bungalow in a former pub garden behind a Grade II cottage in St Neots Conservation Area was dismissed. The inspector found heritage harm of "a low level" and gave the benefits "substantial weight" (3.68-year supply). The inspector still concluded that the benefits were "substantially outweighed" under S4. The considerable importance and weight attached to heritage harm, together with DP3 context and grain conflict, tipped the balance. ## Issues and findings - **Setting of No 36 — HE6.** "it would greatly reduce the openness to the rear of No 36, harmfully diminishing the contribution that the site makes to its significance" (DL ¶9). - **Grading.** "the harm to the significance of the heritage assets … would, individually and cumulatively, be of a low level" (DL ¶17). - **L2/L3.** "whilst the proposal would create an additional home and contribute to an increase in density in the area … the proposal would fail to accord with Framework Policies LP2 and LP3" (DL ¶14). - **Benefits.** 3.68-year supply, "an important contribution"; "Overall, I attach substantial weight to the benefits of the proposal" (DL ¶18-20). ## Planning balance The HE6(4) and S4(1) balances are merged. On the adverse side: DP3 grain conflict and heritage harm, "a matter to which I attach considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶21). On the other side: substantial-weight benefits. Conclusion: "the benefits of the proposal are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶23). S4(2)(c) was not invoked. ## What made the difference The inspector treated low-level heritage harm, carrying HE6(3)'s "considerable importance and weight", as able to *substantially* outweigh housing benefits given substantial weight. The statutory duty in effect lifts even low harm above the S4 threshold. That is a strong reading for objectors and a questionable one for appellants: the letter does not explain how "low level" harm clears "substantially outweighed". ## Transferable points - Low-level harm to the setting of a Grade II building and to a conservation area was held to *substantially* outweigh substantial-weight housing benefits in a 3.68-year-supply authority (DL ¶17-23). - Backland development contrary to a road-fronting historic grain fails DP3(1) and the L2/L3 effective-use tests even though it adds density (DL ¶14, 21). - Energy efficiency, BNG and flood-free status "would be expected of any well-designed development" (DL ¶20). The inspector nonetheless folded them into the benefits package. - Drafting slip: "LP2 and LP3" for L2/L3 (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): harm (considerable weight).** grading "individually and cumulatively, be of a low level" (DL 17); HE4(1)/HE4(2) irreplaceable resource and clear and convincing justification, HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation stated (DL 16); harm to No 36 "a matter to which I attach considerable importance and weight" (DL 21) — HE6(3) wording; ss66(1)/72(1) cited (DL 11) - **HE9: harm.** backland dwelling at odds with road-fronting historic grain of St Neots CA (DL 8-11) - **DP3(1): fail.** unlabelled — "the Framework requires that development responds to its context … such as through the arrangement of development plots and buildings and the integration of heritage assets" (DL 21); DP3(3) not invoked - **L2(1)(d)(i): fail.** cited as "Framework Policies LP2 and LP3" — visible from street frontage and at odds with grain, so fails effective/efficient use despite adding a home and density (DL 14) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 3.68-year supply; "Overall, I attach substantial weight to the benefits of the proposal" (DL 18-20) - **S4(1): fail.** "when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework, the benefits of the proposal are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL 23) — reached despite low-level heritage harm v substantial-weight benefits ## Key facts - Council supply 3.68 years (DL 18) - Site already subdivided from No 38, a former pub garden; never part of No 36's curtilage (DL 4, 6) - Grade II No 36 is an C18 timber-framed cottage (List entry 1127987) (DL 5) - Parties consulted on 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009545 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/594883fd-8295-488a-bb86-f05dd6c418c8 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009545.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 7 Wych Lane, Gosport - **Decision:** allowed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Crutchfield - **Authority:** Gosport (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009558 - **Application reference:** 26/00067/FULL - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Detached storage/home-office outbuilding incidental to a ground-floor flat - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** Gosport LP LP10 - **Development plan policies:** Gosport Borough Local Plan 2015 LP10, LP23 - **Main issues:** incidental relationship to host dwelling - **Tags:** tier-2, outbuilding, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary A storage and home-office outbuilding larger than its host flat was allowed as incidental. It had no sleeping accommodation or full facilities, and any future independent use would need planning permission (DL ¶¶8–10). The parties had the opportunity to comment on the new Framework, but the letter does not otherwise engage with it. ## What made the difference The Inspector judged the scheme as applied for, not on speculation about future residential use. A use-restricting condition was unnecessary because the description itself limited the use (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **Gosport LP LP10: accord.** outbuilding larger than the small flat but can function incidentally; no sleeping or full kitchen/bathroom (DL 7-11) ## Key facts - Outbuilding separated from flat by a neighbour's small access/parking area - Future residential use would need permission and be enforceable ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ca9a31d5-d266-4ae7-9b51-d786759d18c4 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009558 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009558.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # School House Barn, Circular Road, Seaview, Isle of Wight (pedestrian gateway) - **Decision:** allowed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Cahalane - **Authority:** Isle of Wight (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009569 - **Application reference:** 25/01462/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Pedestrian gateway in a historic stone wall onto Circular Road and external alterations to the west elevation, closing a substandard door onto High Street (Appeal A; linked s73 Appeal B 6009573) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6 - **Development plan policies:** Isle of Wight Core Strategy 2012 DM2, DM17, Seaview Conservation Area Appraisal 2007 - **Main issues:** highway safety - **Tags:** tier-2, highway-safety, manual-for-streets, conservation-area, ndha, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary The planning-permission half (Appeal A) of the Seaview gateway appeals; see PINS-6009573 for the full distillation. A new gate onto low-speed Circular Road, replacing a door directly onto the busier High Street, was a "minor betterment" to highway safety (DL ¶21), and the small loss of wall fabric preserved the conservation area. Allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The new policies "do not substantially alter the policies in the previous Framework relevant to the main issue of this appeal" (DL ¶7). - **Highway safety.** "replacing the existing High Street access with the proposed gated access off Circular Road would provide a minor betterment to highway safety" (DL ¶21). "There is thus no conflict with the Framework in this respect" (DL ¶22). - **Heritage.** The character and appearance of the wall and the CA "would therefore be preserved" (DL ¶29). ## What made the difference The net comparison with the existing, worse access. ## Transferable points - Highway safety is judged on the net change against the existing access (DL ¶21-22). ## Policy findings - **TR6: pass.** mapped - swapping the High Street door for the Circular Road gate is a minor betterment; no unacceptable impact on highway safety; minor DM2 conflict for the gate alone (DL 16, 21-22) - **HE9: pass.** small loss of NDHA wall fabric; CA preserved (s72) (DL 26-29) - **HE6: pass.** setting of Grade II Alton House Shirley Cottage not harmed (s66) (DL 30) ## Key facts - Joint letter with s73 Appeal B 6009573, which holds the fuller distillation (DL 5) - Circular Road 85th percentile 13-15.4 mph; High Street 14.6-17.8 mph with several times the traffic (DL 11, 19-20) - DMRB CD 143 1.5 m X-distance given very little weight on a non-trunk road (DL 8-9) - Parties not consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 7) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009569 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/364e35e0-897e-438b-a696-5943f0a5df70 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009569.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # School House Barn, Circular Road, Seaview, Isle of Wight - **Decision:** allowed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Cahalane - **Authority:** Isle of Wight (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009573 - **Application reference:** 25/01463/RVC - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** New pedestrian gateway in historic stone wall onto Circular Road, replacing substandard High Street door, and s73 removal/variation of access conditions 4 and 6 on 2004 barn-conversion permission - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** conservation-area, listed-building-setting, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6 - **Development plan policies:** Isle of Wight Island Plan Core Strategy 2012 DM2, DM17, Seaview CA Appraisal 2007 - **Main issues:** highway safety - **Tags:** highway-safety, dmrb-cd143-not-applicable, manual-for-streets, s73-variation, conservation-area, transitional-no-consultation, ndha ## Summary A new pedestrian gate onto a narrow, low-speed Seaview street was allowed. It replaced an existing door opening directly onto the busier High Street, and access conditions on the 2004 barn-conversion permission were varied to match. The gate alone would not be "entirely safe", but swapping accesses was a "minor betterment", so there was no unacceptable impact on highway safety. The inspector gave the DMRB CD 143 visibility standard very little weight on a non-trunk road. ## Issues and findings - **Which standard.** "the DMRB requirements typically apply to motorways and trunk roads … use of the DMRB could result in significant over-specification … I therefore give very little weight to CD143's recommended absolute minimum X distance of 1.5m. MfS however does not provide specific guidance regarding pedestrian access visibility requirements" (DL ¶8-9). - **Gate alone.** The gate "would thus not achieve an entirely safe environment for all users … in particular children and those with restricted mobility … such highway safety risk to be low in terms of severity and probability". There is a minor DM2 conflict (DL ¶16). - **Net effect.** "replacing the existing High Street access with the proposed gated access off Circular Road would provide a minor betterment to highway safety" (DL ¶21). "not amount to an unacceptable impact on highway safety" (DL ¶22). - **Accident record.** The absence of recorded collisions is not "a reliable indicator of highway safety" because only injury crashes are recorded (DL ¶23). ## Planning balance Plan-led. A minor DM2 conflict was outweighed by DM17 compliance, and the scheme accords with the plan as a whole (DL ¶22, 37). ## What made the difference The comparison with the existing access. The new gate was assessed as a net change, not in the abstract. Measured 85th-percentile speeds of about 15 mph also put the site well within Manual for Streets territory. ## Transferable points - Inspectors treat DMRB CD 143 as over-specification on local roads and prefer MfS. Where MfS is silent, pedestrian-access safety is a matter of judgement on observed speeds and flows (DL ¶8-9). - Absence of recorded injury collisions is not reliable evidence of safety (DL ¶23). - Highway "unacceptable impact" is assessed on the net change against the existing access arrangement (DL ¶21-22). ## Policy findings - **TR6: pass.** code mapped by harvester — "the residual highway safety risk would be minor, the proposed scheme would not amount to an unacceptable impact on highway safety. There is thus no conflict with the Framework" (DL 22) - **TR4: pass.** code mapped by harvester — DMRB CD 143 1.5m X-distance given "very little weight" on non-trunk road; MfS/MfS2 silent on pedestrian access visibility so a matter of judgement (DL 8-9); 85th percentile 13-15.4mph on Circular Road (DL 11) - **HE9: pass.** small loss of NDHA wall fabric; CA preserved; s72 cited (DL 26-29) - **HE6: pass.** setting of Grade II Alton House Shirley Cottage unharmed; s66 cited (DL 30) ## Key facts - Appeal A 6009569 (gateway, 25/01462/FUL) and Appeal B 6009573 (s73) decided together (DL 5) - Earlier appeal APP/P2114/W/22/3294647 for a Circular Road doorway dismissed in 2022 (different layout) (DL 6) - ATC surveys Feb 2023 and Aug 2024; High Street has several times the traffic and higher speeds (DL 11, 19-20) - Parties not re-consulted on 2026 Framework (DL 7) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009573 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/0874d78b-21b4-406b-a328-eff06f9feaab --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009573.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 13 Stone Lane, New Whittington, Chesterfield - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Unwin - **Authority:** Chesterfield (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009578 - **Application reference:** CHE/26/00071/HOU - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** First-floor rear extension over existing single-storey extension (non-determination) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** Chesterfield LP CLP14, P3(2)(a) - **Development plan policies:** Chesterfield Borough Local Plan 2020 CLP14, CLP20, Successful Places SPD 2013 - **Main issues:** living conditions of future occupiers and neighbours - **Tags:** tier-2, non-determination, future-occupier-amenity, 45-degree-rule ## Summary A first-floor rear extension was dismissed. The harm was not to the neighbour, where departing from the 45-degree guidance was justified, but to the extension's own occupiers. A bedroom lit only by an obscure-glazed window facing a flank wall would have an "exceptionally poor outlook" (DL ¶4). ## What made the difference The internal layout of bedroom 2. The appeal was lost on future-occupier amenity even though the neighbour supported it. ## Policy findings - **P3(2)(a): fail.** bedroom 2's only window obscure-glazed and facing No 15's flank — "exceptionally poor outlook" (DL 4), under CLP14/CLP20 - **P3(2)(b): pass.** marginal 45-degree breach acceptable to depart from given existing extension, low roof, lower ground (DL 6-7) ## Key facts - Would create five first-floor bedrooms - Neighbour No 15 supported the scheme ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/55b07f10-22a3-4b4f-aac7-a0eb04196cd7 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009578 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009578.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 10 Windlesham Road, Brighton (HMO alterations, 10 residents plus manager) - **Decision:** dismissed, 26 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Wright - **Authority:** Brighton and Hove (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009586 - **Application reference:** BH2026/00119 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Alterations and rear extensions to a 10-person sui generis HMO, garage conversion, manager's studio and a C3 studio (part retrospective) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** Brighton and Hove City Plan Part Two 2022 DM1, DM7, DM20, DM40 - **Main issues:** living conditions of future occupiers, neighbours (noise) - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, living-conditions, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Reconfiguring a Brighton HMO for ten residents plus a manager was dismissed. Communal space would fall short of the City Plan DM7 standard and be fragmented across three floors, with smaller bedrooms (DL ¶12-15). There was no neighbour harm, given the adjoining lawful large HMO (DL ¶17). ## What made the difference The studio occupiers would still use the communal rooms, so the shortfall could not be discounted (DL ¶11-12). ## Policy findings - **P3: fail.** communal space 30.3 sqm split over three floors against about 36-44 sqm required under DM7 (DL 11-15) - **P3: pass.** one extra occupant next to a lawful 11-person HMO causes no unacceptable neighbour disturbance (DL 16-18) ## Key facts - The new Framework "has introduced significant changes to its structure and presentation", but the policy approach on these issues "has not fundamentally changed"; no comments sought (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009586 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/abef994f-e32f-4e6b-8236-87c58f186923 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009586.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Meadows car park, High Street, Chelmsford (digital totem) - **Decision:** dismissed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Martin Seaton (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer J Kirkaldy) - **Authority:** Chelmsford (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6009587 - **Application reference:** 26/00190/ADV - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Internally illuminated two-sided digital advertising totem in a car park beside High Bridge Road - **Site context:** conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6 - **Development plan policies:** Chelmsford Local Plan 2020 DM13, DM23, S3 (material only) - **Main issues:** visual amenity including CA setting, public safety - **Tags:** advertisement, amenity-only-regulations, he6-not-applied-to-adverts, conservation-area, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A digital advertising totem next to a Chelmsford bridge was refused consent on amenity grounds, including harm to the setting of a conservation area. The decision's lasting point is procedural: the HE6 harm-versus-public-benefits balance in the new Framework does not apply to advertisement consent, because "the policy only applies to heritage-related consent regimes under the 1990 Act". ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Having reviewed the most recent changes … I am satisfied that they do not affect the substance of the main issue" (DL ¶4). - **Amenity: HARM.** "By reason of its considerable width, height, overall massing and illumination the totem would appear as a visually bulky and conspicuous feature" (DL ¶11). It "would harm the visual amenity of the locality and would fail to preserve the setting, and consequently the significance of the CA" (DL ¶14). - **Public safety: no harm** (DL ¶16-17). - **HE6 not applied.** "whether this harm is outweighed by the public benefits, as set out in Policy HE6 of the Framework, are not relevant to matters in this appeal, as the policy only applies to heritage-related consent regimes under the 1990 Act" (DL ¶18). ## Planning balance No balance: the Regulations restrict control to amenity and public safety, and amenity harm was decisive. ## What made the difference The uncluttered, open character of the bridge approach and river corridor. The same totem in a busy commercial frontage would likely have passed. ## Transferable points - HE6's harm/public-benefit balance is not applied to advertisement consent appeals. Heritage is considered only as part of "amenity" (DL ¶18). Contrast York (PINS-6009003), which cited HE6's "substantial weight" in an advert case, and Soho (PINS-6010668), which treated HE policies as material to amenity. - Illumination controls by condition do not cure harm arising from bulk and siting (DL ¶13). ## Policy findings - **HE6: not-engaged.** HE6 harm/public-benefit balance "only applies to heritage-related consent regimes under the 1990 Act" - not advertisement consent (DL 18) - **HE9: harm.** bulky illuminated totem visible from within and towards the Chelmer and Blackwater Navigation CA; fails to preserve setting (amenity ground under the Regulations) (DL 8-14) ## Key facts - Totem in a car-park bay beside elevated High Bridge Road, largely free of advertising, with views over the river "green fingers" - Public safety objection (obstructing bridge maintenance) rejected (DL 16-17) - Decided on an Appeal Planning Officer's recommendation; no consultation on new Framework (DL 2, 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009587 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3cccc4f3-3d42-401c-8fe7-cb3c6fc1259d --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009587.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south of 47 Necton Road (Ashbridge House), Little Dunham - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Knight - **Authority:** Breckland (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6009588 - **Application reference:** PL/2026/0265/FMIN - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** One dwelling and garage on open land at the southern edge of the village - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.82 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), N6, DP3(3), DM6 - **Development plan policies:** Breckland Local Plan 2023 GEN 01, GEN 02, GEN 03, GEN 05, HOU 05, COM 01, ENV 02, ENV 05 - **Main issues:** location under local plan, character and appearance, habitats sites - **Tags:** s5-1-j, substantially-outweighed, s5-2-refusal-policy, settlement-status-disputed, habitats-mitigation-unsecured, landscape-harm, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary One house on the open plot beyond the last dwelling of Little Dunham, a Breckland village with no settlement boundary. The inspector found the village is a "settlement" under Annex B but the plot is outside it. The scheme passed the S5(1)(j) gateway: 2.82-year supply, physically well-related. It was dismissed because two "should be refused" policies were breached: N6 (unpaid GIRAMS tariff) and DP3(3) (intrusion into the countryside). That pushed the balance to "substantially outweighed" despite substantial HO7 weight. ## Issues and findings - **S4 or S5.** "The term 'settlement' is defined as including villages. As such, I take Little Dunham to be a settlement for the purposes of the Framework. That said … the appeal site is beyond the edge of the existing built form of the village. For that reason, I find the site to be outside of a settlement" (DL ¶23). - **S5(1)(j): gateway met.** "The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply … 2.82 years. This constitutes an evidenced unmet need" (DL ¶24). The dwelling "would broadly continue the existing, established pattern of development … I see no reason to find that the appeal scheme would be anything other than physically well-related to Little Dunham" (DL ¶25). - **Character (DP3): harm.** The plot is "open, green, and undeveloped … it has far more in common with the fields beyond it than with the residential plots alongside it" (DL ¶15). The house "would be readily perceived as an intrusion into that open countryside" (DL ¶16). The inspector nonetheless found no "abrupt or incongruous termination" of built form (DL ¶14). - **Habitats (N6): FAIL.** There was no legal agreement for the GIRAMS payment, and "Policy DM6 … states that conditions should not be used to require payments of money" (DL ¶21-22). ## Planning balance S5(1)(j), "approve unless substantially outweighed". HO7 carried substantial weight (DL ¶27). "Framework Policies N6 and DP3 both give a clear directive to refuse the proposal. To my mind this indicates that the benefits of allowing the scheme, even once I attribute substantial weight to them, would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶31). This is effectively the S5(2) route, though (2) is not cited by number. ## What made the difference A £304 unpaid mitigation tariff and a DP3 "no clear justification" failure. Without either, the scheme was on course for approval under (j). The site being physically well-related to the village for (j) was compatible with a DP3 finding that it reads with the fields. The inspector treated "well-related" and "integrates with its surroundings" as different tests. ## Transferable points - A village with no plan-defined boundary is still a "settlement" under Annex B. A plot beyond the last house is outside it, so S5 applies (DL ¶23). - A 5YHLS shortfall (2.82 years) is itself an "evidenced unmet need" for S5(1)(j) (DL ¶24). - An edge-of-village plot continuing a frontage can be "physically well-related" yet still fail DP3 as an intrusion into the countryside (DL ¶15-16, 25). - Two "should be refused" policies (N6, DP3(3)) substantially outweigh HO7 substantial weight for one home (DL ¶31). - Habitats tariffs must be secured by an obligation, not a condition (DM6) (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:settlement: neutral.** Little Dunham (no plan settlement boundary) is a village and so a settlement, but the site lies beyond the edge of existing built form - outside the settlement, S5 applies (DL 23) - **S5(1)(j): pass.** 2.82-year supply = evidenced unmet need; physically well-related (continues frontage pattern, shared access); no infrastructure issue (DL 24-26) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** one dwelling towards significant shortfall (DL 27) - **N6: fail.** GIRAMS tariff (about GBP 304) not secured; DM6 bars conditions requiring payment; cannot rule out harm to Habitats sites (DL 18-22, 28) - **DP3(3): fail.** open green plot reads with the fields; prominent expansion into countryside with no clear justification (DL 15-17, 29-30) ## Key facts - Council treats Little Dunham as a village without a settlement boundary (countryside in plan terms) - Site is the hedged open plot beyond the last house (No 47) on the east side of Necton Road - Unpaid GIRAMS recreational-impact tariff of about GBP 304 per dwelling; no UU submitted ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009588 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/54fefcc5-b88d-43fe-9676-8410e64aca5f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009588.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land east of Spring Gardens, Washington - **Decision:** allowed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Jane Smith - **Authority:** Horsham (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009593 - **Application reference:** DC/26/0035 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Single self-build two-storey dwelling and relocation of existing stable - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S3, S5(1)(e), S5(1)(d), TR3, HO7 - **Development plan policies:** Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 Policies 1, 2, 4, 26, Storrington Sullington and Washington NP 2019 Policy 1 - **Main issues:** suitable location for housing, S5 categories, access to services - **Tags:** s5-1-e-infill, s5-1-j, self-build, small-scheme, car-dependence-moderate, substantially-outweighed, inspector-raised-own-ground, bng-self-build-exemption ## Summary One self-build house in the countryside outside any built-up area boundary, between two existing houses in a roadside group off the A24. Refused by Horsham; allowed on appeal. The site failed S5(1)(j) (not well-related to a settlement) but qualified as limited infilling within a group of houses under S5(1)(e), which has no well-related requirement; moderate car-dependence harm did not substantially outweigh the benefits. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties commented on the 2026 Framework after 17 Aug (DL ¶2). - **S5(1)(d) PDL: partial.** Stable/hardstanding PDL, but paddock "does not clearly fall within the definition of PDL" (DL ¶12). - **S5(1)(j): FAIL.** "relevant settlements exclude hamlets and scattered groups of houses located outside predominantly built-up areas … The nearest settlements … are all some distance away, and the site is not physically well-related to them" (DL ¶13). - **S5(1)(e): PASS.** "It would be embedded within the established group of houses, in a position where a single additional dwelling could reasonably be classified as limited infilling, notwithstanding any encroachment beyond the existing extent of PDL" (DL ¶15). "Policy S5 does not require that proposals for redevelopment of PDL and/or limited infilling within groups of houses are physically well-related to a settlement, since that requirement only appears within parts 1h and 1j" (DL ¶16). - **TR3: moderate harm.** "the development would not generate a significant amount of movement, given its small scale and the relatively short travel distances … A public transport service is also available … no more than moderate weight" (DL ¶19). ## Planning balance S5(1) balance. HO7 substantial weight (modest contribution, self-build, rural services) vs moderate travel harm: "the benefits of the development would not be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects. In those circumstances, Policy S5 states that the development should be approved" (DL ¶22). Conflict with the development plan as a whole outweighed by "the presumption in favour of sustainable development as defined in national decision-making policies S3 and S5" (DL ¶23). ## What made the difference Physical form: the plot was a genuine gap in a cohesive roadside group, with houses either side fronting the same road — which unlocked S5(1)(e) despite the site not being near a settlement. Car dependence was accepted but scored only moderate because one dwelling generates little movement, a few very local facilities were walkable and a bus stop was close. A site at the end of a group, or one without any public transport, would be weaker. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(e) and S5(1)(d) do not carry the "physically well-related to a settlement" test; that test is only in (h) and (j) (DL ¶16). - A hamlet or scattered roadside group is not a "settlement" for S5(1)(j) unless the development plan defines it as one (DL ¶13). - Inspectors will apply an S5 limb neither party argued where S5 as a whole is in play (DL ¶14). - TR3 harm from a single dwelling can be moderate even where most daily needs require a car, given small trip generation (DL ¶19). - Local-plan boundary conflict can be outweighed by the S3/S5 presumption (DL ¶23). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(d): pass.** stable and hardstanding accepted as PDL, but development extends into paddock which is not clearly PDL (DL 12) - **S5(1)(j): fail.** significant shortfall undisputed but site not physically well-related to a settlement; hamlets/scattered groups excluded by Annex B definition (DL 13) - **S5(1)(e): pass.** inspector raised it herself; single dwelling in a gap between two houses fronting Spring Gardens is "limited infilling within groups of houses" (DL 14-15) - **TR3: harm (moderate weight).** car reliance for most needs; farm shop/cafe walkable, useful bus on A24; small scale → no significant movement (DL 17-19) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** HO7 substantial weight to homes meeting evidenced needs; modest contribution to sizable shortfall; self-build (DL 21) - **HDPF 2, 4, 26: conflict.** outside BUAB; conflict with plan as a whole outweighed by S3/S5 presumption (DL 23) ## Key facts - One self-build house on a plot between 1 Spring Gardens and The Orchard, fronting the same road, off the A24 dual carriageway - Council had a "significant shortfall" in housing land supply (figure not stated in letter) - Ashington village cannot realistically be reached on foot or bike across the dual carriageway; bus stops very close - Self-build secured by s106 with BNG fallback if not occupied as self-build ## Sources - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6009593-Decision-Land-East-of-Spring-Gardens-Washington-RH20-3BP.pdf - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/2026/horsham-nppf-s5-infill/ --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009593.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 4A Gimmels Gate, Spalding - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Gee - **Authority:** South Holland (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009598 - **Application reference:** H11-1294-25 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective change of use of storage shed to residential - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, flood-zone-3 - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(c), S5(2), F6, F7 - **Development plan policies:** South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2011-2036 Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 17, 23 - **Main issues:** flood risk, location, living conditions - **Tags:** s5-1-c-reuse, s5-2-refusal-policy, substantially-outweighed, flood-risk, retrospective, plan-policy-inconsistent-with-framework, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme ## Summary A retrospective conversion of a storage shed to a dwelling near Spalding. The location was acceptable under S5(1)(c), and the Local Plan's requirement that a converted building have architectural merit was held inconsistent with the new Framework. The appeal failed on flood risk: Flood Zone 3a with no workable design for the 400 mm floor raise. The F6/F7 failure engaged S5(2), so the benefits were "substantially outweighed". ## Issues and findings - **S5(1)(c): PASS, and local policy displaced.** Policy 23's requirement "that the building is of architectural or historic merit … [is] not consistent with the revised Framework, which contains no equivalent requirement … The building is of permanent and substantial construction … the proposal accords with criterion c) of S5. I therefore afford only limited weight to the conflict with Policy 23" (DL ¶12). - **No need to prove necessity once a limb is met.** "As the proposal would accord with criterion 1 c) of Policy S5, it is not necessary for it to satisfy each of the alternative criteria" (DL ¶13). - **Flood (F6/F7): FAIL.** "no plans or drawings have been submitted that adequately demonstrate how/if the raising could be achieved" (DL ¶8). This could not be left to condition because it "is fundamental to ensuring the safe occupation" (DL ¶9). - **Transition.** "The revised Framework introduced a presumption in favour of sustainable development for certain proposals outside of settlement boundaries through NDMPs S3 and S5" (DL ¶27). ## Planning balance S5(1)(c) applied. Flood harm had substantial weight and the benefits limited weight (DL ¶29-30). The inspector quotes "Paragraph 2(c) of NDMP S5", in fact S5(2): where a "should be refused" policy is failed, the benefits are likely substantially outweighed (DL ¶31-32). ## What made the difference The flood evidence. The principle was won under S5(1)(c), and local policy was trimmed back to the Framework's test, but a conversion in FZ3a with an undesigned floor raise cannot show lifetime safety. ## Transferable points - Local conversion policies that add an architectural-merit test are inconsistent with S5(1)(c) and carry limited weight (DL ¶12). - Meeting one S5(1) limb is enough. Countryside necessity (S5(1)(b)) need not also be shown (DL ¶13). - Flood-mitigation fundamentals (floor raising in an existing building) cannot be left to condition (DL ¶9). - F6/F7 failure engages S5(2) and defeats an S5(1)(c) scheme (DL ¶31-33). - The letter's "Paragraph 2(c) of NDMP S5" is a slip: S5(2) has no sub-paragraph (c); the words mirror S4(2)(c) (DL ¶31). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(c): pass.** building of permanent and substantial construction; LP Policy 23 requirement for architectural/historic merit inconsistent with Framework, limited weight to conflict; no need to prove countryside necessity once (c) met (DL 12-14) - **F5: not-engaged.** sequential test not required for this change of use (DL 5) - **F6: fail (substantial weight).** Flood Zone 3a, "danger for some", breach depth up to 0.25 m; 400 mm floor raise undrawn and not shown achievable in existing low building - not left to condition (DL 5-10, 29) - **F7: fail.** safety for lifetime not demonstrated - "should be refused" policy (DL 10, 32) - **S5(2): fail.** F-policy failure engages S5(2) - benefits substantially outweighed (DL 31-33) ## Key facts - Shed next to a cluster of houses and businesses at Gimmels Gate / Roman Bank - not isolated - Flood Zone 3a; SFRA future hazard "danger for some"; breach depths up to 0.25 m to 2115 - 48 sq m studio (NDSS 50 sq m) found acceptable; headroom after floor raise unknown ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009598 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/02e99a2c-1660-4284-b882-8b1db4430e49 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009598.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 17 Bournewood Road, Orpington - **Decision:** dismissed, 1 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L J Evans - **Authority:** Bromley (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009605 - **Application reference:** 26/00185/FPA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of semi-detached house to 8-person sui generis HMO - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3(2)(a) - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, D6, D14, Bromley Local Plan 2019 policies 4, 9, 37 - **Main issues:** living standards of HMO occupiers, neighbours' living conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, living-conditions, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, old-wording-slip, s4-substantially-outweighed ## Summary An 8-person HMO in an Orpington semi was dismissed. The single communal kitchen and living area was too cramped for eight residents, and the light to one room was unevidenced. There was no harm to neighbours. The closing balance mixes S4 and old paragraph 11(d) language ("substantially and demonstrably outweigh") (DL ¶23). ## What made the difference The internal standard of the communal space for future occupiers. The need to carry bicycles through the only communal room compounded the problem. ## Policy findings - **P3(2)(a): fail.** code mapped by harvester — cramped sole communal kitchen/living space for 8, bikes carried through kitchen, top-floor room light/ventilation unevidenced (DL 8-13) - **P3(2)(b): pass.** code mapped by harvester — no demonstrable noise/disturbance harm to neighbours (DL 14-18) - **S4(1): fail.** hybrid wording — harm "would substantially and demonstrably outweigh the benefits … The proposal is not therefore sustainable development for which there is a presumption in favour" (DL 23); mixes S4 "substantially" with old 11(d) "demonstrably" ## Key facts - Works largely complete but not yet occupied, so treated as proposed (DL 3) - Claimed NHS-staff occupancy unevidenced, no weight (DL 20) - Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009605 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/94e98bb5-15cb-4e3c-9057-9c074308748a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009605.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land off Rectory Rise, Petrockstowe - **Decision:** dismissed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Cooper-Young - **Authority:** Torridge (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009618 - **Application reference:** 1/0338/2025/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Three open-market dwellings - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.61 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(e), S5(1)(j), TR6(4), TR3, HO7 - **Development plan policies:** North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 ST01, ST07, ST10, ST17, DM05, DM06, DM24 - **Main issues:** suitability of location, highway safety, housing mix - **Tags:** s5-1-j, s5-1-e-infill, s5-2-refusal-policy, substantially-outweighed, sustainable-location-fail, connectivity-tool, housing-shortfall, rural-lane-no-footway, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Three market homes on a field adjoining Petrockstowe on three sides, in Torridge. The inspector applied S5 because the site is outside the settlement despite adjoining it. S5(1)(e) infill failed. S5(1)(j) was engaged by the 4.61-year supply, but the housing benefit got only little weight. Against that were an unsafe access (TR6(4), a "should be refused" policy, substantial weight) and a Connectivity Tool score of 6/100. The benefits were "substantially outweighed". ## Issues and findings - **S4 or S5.** "on the basis that the appeal site is adjacent to, but outside of a settlement, policy S4 is not relevant. Instead … policy S5 should be applied" (DL ¶32). - **S5(1)(e): FAIL.** "Whilst the site is bounded by existing residential development on a number of sides, it comprises an undeveloped field that remains visually and functionally connected to the wider agricultural land … the site does not read as a small gap within an otherwise continuously developed frontage … more appropriately characterised as an extension to the settlement rather than infill" (DL ¶34-35). - **S5(1)(j): engaged.** "because the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply … and on the basis that the criteria at S5:1.j. would be met, the circumstance at Framework policy S5:1.j. is relevant" (DL ¶36). - **TR3: FAIL.** "The Framework Connectivity Tool indicates that the appeal site achieves a score of 6 out of 100, this figure reflects a location with very poor connectivity" (DL ¶7). Lanes are "only intermittently served by footways and street lighting" (DL ¶8). The closure of the pub and church since earlier permissions changed the picture (DL ¶10). Arguments about e-bikes and homeworking were rejected as "optional, weather-dependent and unevenly accessible" (DL ¶14). - **TR6(4): FAIL.** Visibility could not be secured over third-party land, and the highway authority objected (DL ¶17-22). ## Planning balance S5(1)(j). Supply was 4.61 years; "because a shortfall of around this order is marginally below Government expectations, little weight is attributed to the contribution" (DL ¶28). HO7: "the appeal proposal comprises 3 unrestricted open market dwellings that would not address the specific housing requirements within the local area … only little weight" (DL ¶39-40). "Framework policy TR6:4., which is a national decision making policy as referred to in policy S5 … indicates that the development should be refused. Consequently, substantial weight" (DL ¶41). Conclusion: "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶42). ## What made the difference Highway safety, combined with a marginal supply shortfall and market housing that did not match the local mix. The inspector scaled HO7 weight down by the size of the shortfall and by whether the homes met identified local needs. Note the contrast with Torridge's other appeal at Holsworthy Beacon (PINS-6009632), allowed the same day under a different inspector. ## Transferable points - A site adjoining a settlement on three sides is still "outside" it, so S5 applies, not S4 (DL ¶32). - S5(1)(e): a field connected to open farmland beyond is not infill, even if bounded by houses on several sides (DL ¶34-35). - A marginal shortfall (4.61 years) can reduce the housing contribution to "little weight", even though (j) is engaged (DL ¶28, 36). - HO7 substantial weight can be withheld where market homes do not meet identified local needs (DL ¶38-40). - TR6(4) is a "should be refused" policy for the S5 balance (DL ¶41). - A Connectivity Tool score of 6/100 was cited as showing very poor connectivity (DL ¶7). - Lost village services (pub, church) since earlier permissions weaken a location (DL ¶10). ## Policy findings - **S3(1): neutral.** site adjoins development on three sides but is outside the settlement - S4 not relevant, S5 applies (DL 6, 32) - **S5(1)(e): fail.** undeveloped field visually/functionally connected to farmland - extension of settlement, not a small gap in a continuous frontage (DL 34-35) - **S5(1)(j): pass.** no 5YHLS (4.61 years) and criteria met - (j) relevant (DL 36) - **TR3: fail (substantial weight).** Connectivity Tool score 6/100; lanes with intermittent footway and lighting; pub and church closed; Merton 2 miles, Hatherleigh 4.5, Great Torrington 7.5 (DL 7-11) - **TR6(4): fail (substantial weight).** steep narrow access, visibility splay needs third-party land; highway authority objected (DL 12-22, 41) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** little weight - 4.61 years marginal shortfall and open-market homes do not address specific local needs (DL 28, 38-40) ## Key facts - Council supply 4.61 years (acknowledged shortfall) - Connectivity Tool score 6/100 ("very poor") - Pub and church in Petrockstowe closed since adjacent development was approved (1/0246/2020/OUT) - Highway authority recommended refusal; visibility needs land outside appellant's control ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009618 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/39806ced-2c80-4fc7-a10b-dda86840a46a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009618.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Cosy Cow Shed, near Dalwood, Devon (holiday let to dwelling) - **Decision:** allowed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Sharp - **Authority:** East Devon (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009619 - **Application reference:** 25/1721/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of a holiday-let dwelling to unrestricted residential occupation (removal of holiday restriction) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, national-landscape, rural-lane, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.5 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(d), TR3, S5(2) - **Development plan policies:** East Devon Local Plan 2016 Strategies 1, 3, 5B, 7, 27, TC2 - **Main issues:** appropriate location for an unrestricted dwelling - **Tags:** s5-1-d-pdl, holiday-let, rural-lane-no-footway, national-landscape, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tr3-1a-small-scale, plan-conflict-overridden ## Summary Removal of a holiday-occupancy restriction from a converted cow shed near Dalwood, East Devon, was allowed. The inspector walked the unlit, unpaved route to the village and found that residents would rely on the car, conflicting with the local plan. But under the 2026 Framework the existing holiday dwelling is previously developed land, so S5(1)(d) applies. No "should be refused" policy was breached, and TR3 was not engaged for a single dwelling. The Framework outweighed the plan conflict. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were provided with an opportunity to comment" (DL ¶2). - **Route walked.** "The journey is on unlit roads, devoid of segregated footways, and an uphill, moderately steep incline was encountered on the return leg" (DL ¶5). "it is probable that future occupiers of the proposed development would turn to car borne trips after nightfall and/or in inclement weather" (DL ¶7). - **S5(1)(d): PASS.** Category (d) covers "the redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL) (including a material change of use to residential or mixed-use including residential). The appeal property accords with the definition of PDL in the glossary in Annex B of the Framework" (DL ¶15). - **S5(2): no trigger.** The inspector lists and checks each "should be refused" policy (DL ¶16). - **TR3: NOT ENGAGED.** "I have already found that the proposed development would not result in a significant number of movements in absolute terms given it is for just a single dwelling" (DL ¶18). "I also find that the change of use nature of the proposal means that a genuine choice of transport modes for future occupiers would be impractical. Overall, I find no conflict with policies CC2, TR3 and TR4 of the Framework" (DL ¶18). - **Housing benefit.** "Notwithstanding that the current housing land supply is the equivalent to 3.5 years, I only afford this benefit minor weight" (DL ¶19). ## Planning balance S5(1): minor benefit and no adverse effects under the Framework's decision-making policies, so the benefits are not substantially outweighed (DL ¶19). The local-plan conflict on car reliance stands, but "the Framework is a material consideration of critical importance" and outweighs it (DL ¶22–23). ## What made the difference S5(1)(d) treats a change of use of an existing dwelling (here holiday-restricted) as PDL redevelopment, and the S5 balance weighs only harms under the Framework's own decision policies. Once TR3 was found not engaged for one dwelling, there was no Framework harm to weigh against the local-plan conflict. For a larger number of units, the same unlit route would probably have engaged TR3. ## Transferable points - Lifting a holiday-occupancy restriction on an existing dwelling can fall within S5(1)(d) as a material change of use of PDL to residential (DL ¶15). - A single dwelling is not "a significant amount of movement" for TR3(1)(a), even on an unlit, unpaved route (DL ¶17–18). - Contestable: the letter treats the "nature of the development" proviso in TR3 as met because the proposal is a change of use of an existing building (DL ¶17–18). Other letters read TR3 as a whole even for small schemes (e.g. PINS-6009966 ¶27). - Local-plan conflicts on car reliance can be outweighed where the Framework's S5 test is met with no adverse effects under its decision policies (DL ¶22–23). - The inspector ran a full S5(2) check, listing each "should be refused" policy (DL ¶16). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(d): pass.** existing holiday dwelling is PDL; material change of use to residential falls within (d) (DL 15) - **AnnexB:PDL: pass.** property accords with the Annex B definition (DL 15) - **S5(3): not-engaged.** part of a group of houses and a Methodist church, so not isolated; HO11 not triggered (DL 4, 20) - **S5(2): pass.** no conflict with any "should be refused" policy - L3(4), DP3(3), TR6(4), F6(1), F7(2), N2(2), N6(1)(a), N6(2), HE6(5) listed and checked (DL 14, 16) - **TR3: not-engaged.** route to Dalwood walked - 7 min, unlit, no footways, steep return; car reliance likely; but one dwelling is not significant movement absolutely or relative to the road, and the "change of use nature" makes a genuine choice of modes "impractical" (DL 5-7, 17-18) - **CC2: pass.** no conflict with CC2/TR3/TR4 (DL 17-18) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** one extra home, "minor weight" despite a 3.5-year supply (DL 19) - **N4: neutral.** Blackdown Hills National Landscape - statutory purpose considered; no physical change (DL 10) - **N6: pass.** River Axe SAC nutrient catchment - existing use allowed 365 days, so no increase in occupancy; screened out (DL 11) - **LP Strategies 1/3/5B/7/27, TC2 (local): conflict.** car reliance and unrestricted housing in the countryside conflict with the plan as a whole; outweighed by the Framework (DL 8, 22-23) ## Key facts - Holiday let in a roadside group outside Dalwood (pub, village hall, church, shop, cafe, preschool) (DL 4-5, 7) - Walk to Dalwood about 7 minutes each way; unlit, no segregated footway, moderately steep uphill return, nowhere to rest (DL 5) - Residential use would add employment, medical and school trips; carbon emissions "materially greater" but "not significant in scale overall" (DL 6-7) - BNG small-site exemption (DL 12, 25) - East Devon supply equivalent to 3.5 years (DL 19) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009619 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009619.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Flat 1, 5 Darley Road, Eastbourne - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Bhupinder Thandi - **Authority:** Eastbourne (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009620 - **Application reference:** 250709 - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Retention of polycarbonate/uPVC-clad rear veranda to ground-floor flat (greenhouse and store not disputed) - **Site context:** conservation-area, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** Eastbourne CS D10a, EBP UHT1 - **Development plan policies:** Eastbourne Core Strategy 2013 D10a, Eastbourne Borough Plan 2003 saved UHT1, UHT4, HO20 - **Main issues:** character and appearance of host, neighbour outlook - **Tags:** tier-2, retrospective, no-framework-cited, conservation-area ## Summary A retrospective rear veranda of polycarbonate and plastic cladding on a traditional semi in the Mead conservation area was dismissed for harm to the host building. It was not visible from the street, so the conservation area was preserved. The letter does not mention the Framework. ## What made the difference The veranda's scale and materials in relation to the host building, even in private views: it "appears as a disproportionate addition that unacceptably dominates the rear" (DL ¶7). This shows that character harm to a host building can be decisive even where no conservation-area harm is found. ## Policy findings - **Eastbourne CS D10a: conflict.** sizeable, visually heavy, plastic/polycarbonate veranda disproportionate and incongruous on traditional host (DL 6-8, 13) - **HE9: neutral.** not visible from street; Mead CA preserved (DL 18) ## Key facts - Veranda extends almost full width off an existing rear extension - Not visible from Darley Road ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/582a3c15-a750-49fd-9cd6-fb6e9c97fb9e - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009620 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009620.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 3 Old Glass House, Kents Lane, North Weald Bassett - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Billy Pattison - **Authority:** Epping Forest (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6009621 - **Application reference:** EPF/0117/26 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Subdivision of a five-bed dwelling into two and conversion of outbuildings into a third dwelling, in the Metropolitan Green Belt - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, rural-lane, PDL - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), S5(2), S5(5), GB7(1)(e) - **Development plan policies:** Epping Forest District Local Plan 2011-2033 Part One (2023) DM4, DM9, SP1, T1 - **Main issues:** Green Belt, character and appearance, suitable location - **Tags:** pdl-e-limb, not-inappropriate, s5-5-balance, dp3-refuse-trigger, s5-2-refusal-policy, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, backland, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, drafting-slip, dp3-2-a-connectivity, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Splitting a large house into two and converting outbuildings into a third home on a rural lane in the Epping Forest Green Belt. Dismissed. The site is previously developed land, and the harm to openness was moderate, not substantial, so GB7(1)(e) made the scheme not inappropriate. DM4's stricter "no greater impact" (DL ¶9) test was given very limited weight. Under S5(5), though, the scheme conflicted with DP3(1) (a cramped, backland layout) and with DP3(2)(d) (poor connections to North Weald along unlit lanes without footways). DP3 is a should-be-refused policy, so S5(2) applied and the benefits were substantially outweighed. ## Issues and findings - **Plan weight.** "Policy DM4 C (vi) of the LP requires proposals to have no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt. This approach is more closely aligned with a previous version of the Framework. Consequently, the wording of Policy DM4, insofar as it relates to openness, is not consistent with the current Framework" (DL ¶9). - **GB7(1)(e).** "I find that the development would cause a moderate degree of harm to the openness of the Green Belt when compared with the existing situation, but not substantial harm" (DL ¶16). - **Character.** Unit 3 "would appear ‘squeezed’ onto the site in a manner that would appear cramped" (DL ¶22). - **Location.** The roads to North Weald are "rural roads which are unlit and would not be an attractive route outside daylight hours. Furthermore, there are no dedicated cycle lanes or footpaths for the majority of the route" (DL ¶28). "Whilst the increase in trips may be limited, over time these would cumulatively result in a significant number of additional private vehicle movements" (DL ¶29). - **GB and location are separate.** "Whilst I have found that the proposal is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, this is a separate planning assessment to the consideration of whether a site is in a suitable location for residential development" (DL ¶32). - **Not isolated.** The site is in a ribbon cluster, "therefore the site would not be isolated for the purposes of Policy HO11 of the Framework" (DL ¶30). - **DP3 as a trigger.** "Policy DP3.2.d requires proposals to reflect principles such as providing good connections to nearby settlements and prioritising walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport" (DL ¶40). "Policy DP3 is one of the national decision-making policies that indicates planning permission should be refused in specific circumstances" (DL ¶40). ## Planning balance S5(5) with S5(2). "Where development is proposed within the Green Belt, Policy S5 directs decision-makers to Policies GB6, GB7 and GB8 in the first instance" (DL ¶39). Substantial weight to reusing land and to housing (DL ¶41), against DP3 conflicts on character and connectivity. "the proposal's benefits would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects on the character and appearance of the area, together with its failure to align with principles that promote sustainable travel and good connections to nearby settlements" (DL ¶41). ## What made the difference Passing the Green Belt test did not settle the case. The S5(5) balance still applies DP3's refusal trigger, and here two DP3 limbs failed: context (a cramped subdivision) and movement (car-dependent lanes). A layout that kept plot sizes spacious would have removed the DP3(1) conflict, but not the connectivity point. ## Transferable points - An old local Green Belt policy using a no-greater-impact openness test is inconsistent with the substantial-harm threshold in GB7(1)(e); only that part loses weight (DL ¶9, 17). - Passing GB7(1)(e) does not settle the location question (DL ¶32). - Poor connectivity can engage DP3(2)(d), making DP3 a should-be-refused policy under S5(2) even for a not-inappropriate Green Belt scheme (DL ¶40-41). - Small increases in trips add up to "a significant number of additional private vehicle movements" over time (DL ¶29). - Unlit rural roads without footways or cycle lanes are not attractive "outside of daylight hours or during inclement weather" (DL ¶28). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(e): pass.** agreed PDL; a small porch, a 14 sqm link between outbuildings, paraphernalia and more comings and goings cause moderate, not substantial, harm to openness (DL 8-16, 18) - **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** DM4 C(vi) no-greater-impact openness test inconsistent with the substantial-harm threshold in GB7(1)(e); very limited weight to that part (DL 9, 17) - **HO11: not-engaged.** within a ribbon cluster, so not isolated (Braintree) (DL 30) - **TR3: harm.** low connectivity on the Essex map; unlit rural lanes without footways or cycle lanes to North Weald; cumulative extra car trips (DL 27-29, 32) - **DP3(1): conflict.** cramped subdivision and backland unit 3 at odds with spacious plots (DL 20-24, 40) - **DP3(2)(d): conflict.** poor connections to nearby settlements; walking, wheeling and cycling not prioritised (DL 40) - **DP3(3): fail.** DP3 treated as a should-be-refused policy under S5(2); clear justification not separately reasoned (DL 39-41) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** letter says "Policy HO11" for the substantial-weight wording (a miscitation of HO7); no 5YHLS, shortfall not stated (DL 35) - **L2: benefit (limited weight).** L2/L3 effective use given limited weight for the scale; later folded into "substantial weight" to use of underutilised land (DL 36, 41) - **S5(5): fail.** GB7 first; not inappropriate; then S5(2) trigger and benefits substantially outweighed (DL 39-41) ## Key facts - Kents Lane is a quiet single-track lane; the route to North Weald is along unlit Kents Lane and Weald Bridge Road, mostly without footways or cycle lanes (DL 25, 28) - Essex connectivity map shows low connectivity, undisputed (DL 27) - Increase from one five-bed dwelling to three three-bed dwellings (DL 15) - Epping Forest SAC contribution offered by UU; appropriate assessment not needed as dismissed (DL 34) - Parties consulted on the August 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009621 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/66ce7a80-0c31-46f1-beed-9abb7ad6510c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009621.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 54 Meltham Road, Huddersfield - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer S Manson) - **Authority:** Kirklees (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6009626 - **Application reference:** 2026/62/90733/W - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Subdivision of terraced house into two apartments - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, P3 - **Development plan policies:** Kirklees Local Plan 2019 LP24, Housebuilders Design Guide SPD 2021 - **Main issues:** living conditions of future occupiers - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, living-conditions, transitional-no-consultation, appeal-planning-officer, small-scheme, tier-2 ## Summary Splitting a Huddersfield terraced house into two flats was dismissed. The basement living room of Apartment 1 would have very poor daylight and outlook. Under S4, the P3 harm (substantial weight, "permanent and enduring") substantially outweighed the moderate benefit of one extra home (DL ¶13-14). ## What made the difference A single window behind a porch facing a retaining wall. Whether the flats met NDSS did not matter, because the daylight and outlook failure alone was enough (DL ¶9). ## Policy findings - **P3: fail (substantial weight).** basement living room lit by one window behind a porch facing a retaining wall - poor daylight and outlook (DL 6-9, 13) - **S4: fail.** one net additional unit, moderate weight, substantially outweighed (DL 12-14) ## Key facts - Net gain of one dwelling; apparent undersupply acknowledged but not quantified - Framework changes judged immaterial - no further consultation (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009626 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7d473b7d-49e3-42bc-b82f-75d3c32b7023 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009626.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Stratton House Hotel, Stratton, Cirencester (Appeal A - sauna and plant room) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Smith - **Authority:** Cotswold (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009631 - **Application reference:** 25/03108/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Erection of plant room, outdoor dip pool/jacuzzi, shower and sauna in the garden of a Grade II listed hotel (Appeal A planning; LBC Appeal B 6009635 allowed) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting, flood-zone-2, flood-zone-3 - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** F7(2), F8, S4(2)(c), S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 EN1, EN2, EN4, EN10, EN14, EN15 - **Main issues:** setting of Grade II listed building, noise, flood risk - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, flood-risk, evidence-gap, heritage-no-harm, costs-application, drafting-slip, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A sauna, plant room and dip pool in the garden of the Grade II Stratton House Hotel, in Flood Zones 2 and 3a. The inspector found no heritage harm and allowed the listed building consent (Appeal B), and found noise could be conditioned. But the flood risk assessment gave no levels, so safety was not shown under F7(2), and there was no drainage strategy under F8. F7 is a "should be refused" policy, so under S4(2)(c) the tourism benefits were substantially outweighed. Planning appeal dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I have had regard to the revised Framework in reaching my decision" (DL ¶7). No consultation recorded. - **Flood, F7/F8: FAIL.** "the FRA does not identify the existing ground levels at the proposed development location above ordinance datum (AOD), the proposed finished floor levels for the buildings (AOD), or the Environment Agency’s modelled 1% AEP plus climate change flood level" (DL ¶13). "conditions would not be reasonable as any mitigation measures found necessary to reduce flood risk and incorporate sustainable drainage systems could lead to a substantial redesign of the scheme" (DL ¶19). - **Heritage: NO HARM.** "the proposal in its current form would preserve the significance of the listed building, including in terms of how it is experienced in its setting" (DL ¶41). - **Noise: PASS** with a rating-level condition (DL ¶26-28). - **S4(2)(c).** "Policy F7 of the Framework states that where development is proposed in a location known to be at risk from any form of flooding now or in the future it should be refused unless it meets relevant criteria. I have found that not to be the case" (DL ¶44). ## Planning balance S4(1) with F7 as the S4(2)(c) trigger (DL ¶44). The hotel's economic, social and heritage investment benefits "would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶45). Plan-led conclusion for Appeal A (DL ¶47). ## What made the difference A flood evidence gap: no levels in the FRA. Because raising floor levels could change the buildings' height relative to the listed house, the gap could not be left to a condition. A levels-based FRA and drainage strategy could have allowed both appeals. ## Transferable points - F7(2) operates as a "should be refused" trigger through S4(2)(c) even for small leisure buildings (DL ¶44-45). - An FRA without existing levels, finished floor levels and the design flood level cannot show lifetime safety (DL ¶13-14). - Flood mitigation cannot be conditioned where it could force a redesign, especially where height affects a listed building's setting (DL ¶19-20). - The same scheme can gain listed building consent while planning permission is refused on flood grounds (DL ¶41-42, ¶47-48). ## Policy findings - **F7(2): fail.** Flood Zones 2 and 3a (Daglingworth Stream); revised FRA gives no ground levels, finished floor levels or 1% AEP plus climate change level; safety for lifetime not shown; cannot be conditioned because raised floor levels could force redesign affecting the listed setting (DL 11-22) - **F8: fail.** no SuDS strategy, infiltration testing, runoff or attenuation; claimed discharge to stream unevidenced (DL 15, 17-18, 22) - **S4(2)(c): fail.** F7 named as a "should be refused" policy; letter cites "Policy S4(c)" (DL 44) - **S4(1): fail.** economic, social and heritage investment benefits substantially outweighed (DL 44-45) - **HE6: neutral.** low, timber-clad, set-back structures preserve the significance and setting of the Grade II hotel and its listed garden wall (DL 29-41) - **P3: pass.** mapped: BS 4142 assessment; rating limit LAr 42 dB and hours 09:00-20:00 could be conditioned (DL 23-28) ## Key facts - Revised FRA (April 2026), acoustic assessment and business case accepted at appeal (DL 8) - Sequential test (F5) not discussed - LBC Appeal B (6009635) allowed in the same letter because the works preserve the listed building; a redesign for flood safety may need a new consent (DL 41-42, 48) - Costs applications by the Council against the appellant are the subject of separate decisions (DL 3), not in the corpus - New Framework applied without recorded consultation (DL 7) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009631 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9e634ca9-4970-4e52-bbd8-3b43bf6ca6d2 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009631.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land east of Hawarden, Holsworthy Beacon - **Decision:** allowed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: O Marigold - **Authority:** Torridge (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009632 - **Application reference:** 1/0736/2025/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Two detached market dwellings - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(e), DP3(3), TR3 - **Development plan policies:** North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2018 ST07, ST10, DM02 - **Main issues:** spatial strategy and access to services, foul drainage - **Tags:** s5-1-e-infill, s4-vs-s5, sustainable-location-pass, plan-policy-inconsistent-with-framework, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Two market houses at the edge of Holsworthy Beacon, a small Torridge hamlet, were allowed. The inspector found the site outside any "settlement" but within S5(1)(e) as limited infilling within a group of houses. With connectivity found acceptable for a rural location (TR3; DP3(3) read proportionately), S5 supported the scheme. The Local Plan's restriction (ST07) was given very limited weight as materially inconsistent with S5 (Annex A). ## Issues and findings - **S4 or S5.** "Settlements do not include hamlets and scattered groups of houses located outside predominantly built-up areas. The pattern of development around the appeal site is somewhat sporadic and secluded" (DL ¶13). - **S5(1)(e): PASS.** "Hawarden and another dwelling lie close to the site, and planning permission has been granted for two additional dwellings between the site and Highfield, which are under construction. Other properties … are not far from the site, and not all have a linear position, instead forming a group … I find that the development would meet the S5(1)(e) definition" (DL ¶14). - **Accessibility.** There was no footway or lighting to Holsworthy, but "the length of car journeys to Holsworthy would be relatively short, limiting the adverse effects … bus stops are available within reasonable walking distance … buses provide some weekday services" (DL ¶6-7). The walk to the stops was on an unlit lane "but only for a fairly short distance … within the 30mph speed limit area … a 'ring and ride' scheme" (DL ¶8). - **DP3(3) as the S5(2) route.** DP3(3) is a "should be refused" policy covering liveability and movement, but "the application of the design principles must be appropriate to the nature of the development, its location and context. Framework policy TR3 recognises that connectivity opportunities may differ in rural areas … the proposal would have an acceptable degree of connectivity and would not conflict with Framework policy DP3" (DL ¶16-17). ## Planning balance s38(6). "Local Plan policy ST07 … is materially inconsistent with Framework policy S5, by not supporting general housing which constitutes infilling within groups of houses in locations that are not in Rural Settlements. In accordance with Framework Annex A, I give the conflict with policy ST07 very limited weight. Against that, I give substantial weight to the support to the proposal provided by the Framework" (DL ¶24). ## What made the difference S5(1)(e) and a non-linear reading of "group of houses". Plots under construction nearby counted towards the group. The council had also conceded "infill" in its statement. The inspector then treated the Framework's support as substantial weight, overriding a restrictive plan policy. The same council lost the Petrockstowe appeal (PINS-6009618) the same day: there the field ran on into farmland, the access was unsafe and the Connectivity Tool score was 6/100. ## Transferable points - A hamlet with sporadic development is not a "settlement", so S5 applies (DL ¶13). - "Group of houses" for S5(1)(e) need not be linear. Dwellings under construction count (DL ¶14). - A local plan policy that bars infill market housing outside named settlements is "materially inconsistent" with S5(1)(e) and carries very limited weight (Annex A) (DL ¶24). - Framework support under S5(1) can itself carry "substantial weight" in the s38(6) balance (DL ¶24). - Short car trips, weekday buses and a short unlit walk to a stop in a 30 mph zone gave acceptable rural connectivity (DL ¶6-8, 17). - DP3(3)'s movement and liveability principles are applied in proportion to rural context, and TR3 allows for rural differences (DL ¶16-17). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:settlement: neutral.** Holsworthy Beacon sporadic and secluded - treated as outside a settlement (hamlet/scattered group) so S5 applies (DL 13) - **S5(1)(e): pass.** near Hawarden, another dwelling and two dwellings under construction; hamlet properties form a group, not only linear; council had accepted "infill" (DL 14) - **DP3(3): pass.** liveability/movement principles applied proportionately to rural location, with TR3's rural allowance; acceptable connectivity (DL 16-17) - **TR3: pass.** no footway/lighting to Holsworthy, but short car trips, bus stops within reasonable walking distance on 30 mph lane, weekday buses to Holsworthy and Barnstaple, ring-and-ride (DL 6-8) - **ST07: conflict (very-limited weight).** materially inconsistent with S5 by not supporting infill market housing outside Rural Settlements - Annex A (DL 24) ## Key facts - Holsworthy Beacon lacks facilities to be a Local Plan "Rural Settlement" - Two dwellings under construction between site and Highfield; council's own statement called it infill - Foul drainage in Holsworthy critical drainage area resolved by pre-commencement condition (BS6297 percolation tests) - Earlier Hollocombe appeal (6005680) distinguished - different policy position ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009632 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1e10fcc2-d170-4f05-a5e1-21ee0d94a60d --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009632.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Stratton House Hotel, Stratton, Cirencester (LBC) - **Decision:** allowed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Smith - **Authority:** Cotswold (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009635 - **Application reference:** 25/03109/LBC - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Listed building consent for a plant room, outdoor dip pool/jacuzzi, shower and sauna in the garden of a Grade II hotel (appeal B; planning appeal A 6009631 dismissed on flood risk) - **Site context:** listed-building-setting, flood-zone-3 - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6 - **Development plan policies:** Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 EN1, EN2, EN4, EN10, EN14, EN15 - **Main issues:** setting and significance of Grade II Stratton House Hotel - **Tags:** listed-building-consent, heritage-no-harm, tier-2, transitional-no-consultation, costs-application, flood-risk ## Summary Listed building consent for small spa buildings and a dip pool in the garden of the Grade II Stratton House Hotel was allowed. The low, subordinate structures would sit beside the existing spa extension and away from the principal garden elevation. The linked planning appeal (6009631) was dismissed on flood risk, and the inspector warned that a flood-safe redesign could need a new consent. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I have had regard to the revised Framework in reaching my decision." (DL ¶7). No consultation recorded. - **Heritage: NO HARM.** "In terms of scale and height, the proposed buildings would remain subordinate to the listed building." (DL ¶35). Set back from the garden wall, "they would not result in harm to the historic fabric of the wall" (DL ¶38). "the proposal in its current form would preserve the significance of the listed building, including in terms of how it is experienced in its setting" (DL ¶41). - **Flood caveat.** For the planning appeal, "I cannot be certain that the proposal in relation to flood risk would not result in unacceptable harm to the setting of the listed building" (DL ¶20). "If changes are required to ensure flood safety, then a further application for listed building consent or amendment may be required." (DL ¶42). ## What made the difference The spa structures were low, clustered with the modern spa extension and screened by planting. The heritage case succeeded while the planning case failed on an incomplete flood risk assessment. ## Transferable points - Listed building consent and planning permission can diverge in one letter: heritage acceptable on the drawings, but planning dismissed on flood risk because a flood-safe redesign could change the heritage effects (DL ¶20, ¶41-42). ## Policy findings - **HE6: pass.** low, timber-clad flat-roofed buildings set away from the garden elevation beside the spa extension; freestanding from the curtilage-listed garden wall; significance and setting preserved; no HE code cited (DL 35-41) - **F7: fail.** appeal A only - FRA lacks ground levels, finished floor levels and modelled flood level; site in Flood Zones 2 and 3a (DL 11-22) ## Key facts - Joint letter; planning appeal A (6009631, other batch) dismissed on flood risk and drainage (F7, F8), LBC allowed (DL 1-2, 22, 47-48) - Inspector noted flood-resilience redesign (raised floor levels) could change heights and need a fresh LBC (DL 20, 42) - Costs applications by the Council against the appellant decided separately (DL 3) - Framework switch noted without consultation (DL 7) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009635 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ed67d675-c759-4ff0-8bbb-382cbbf95937 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009635.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 15 Stradbroke Drive, Chigwell - **Decision:** dismissed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Gardner - **Authority:** Epping Forest (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6009640 - **Application reference:** EPF/2554/24 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion of a backland annexe into a separate dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, DP3(1), DP3(3), L2(1)(d) - **Development plan policies:** Epping Forest District Local Plan Part One 2023 DM9, DM10 - **Main issues:** character of the area, living conditions - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, l2-plot-intensification, design-refusal, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary Converting a backland annexe in Chigwell into a separate dwelling was dismissed, although no physical works were proposed. Subdividing the plot would disrupt the spacious pattern of large detached plots, contrary to DP3(1). Under S4, the benefits, given substantial weight under L2(1)(d), were still "substantially outweighed" because DP3(3) says such proposals "should be refused" (DL ¶24-26). ## What made the difference Plot legibility. Even with no new building, creating a small separate curtilage in an area of large plots breached DP3(1)'s "arrangement of development plots", and DP3(3) turned that into an S4(2)(c)-type refusal. The case shows L2(1)(d) substantial weight losing to a DP3 failure. ## Policy findings - **L2(1)(d): benefit (substantial weight).** efficient windfall development within an existing plot - substantial weight (DL 24) - **DP3(3): fail.** subdivided cramped plot at odds with spacious detached-plot character; no clear justification (DL 7-12, 25) - **S4: fail.** substantially outweighed via S4(2) "should be refused" route (DL 22-26) ## Key facts - 1980s annexe; lawful development certificate refused for independent occupation - No external works; living conditions acceptable; within 3 km of Epping Forest SAC (not assessed) - Page headers read "Appeal Decision 6001788" - PINS template slip ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009640 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/bd19654d-10d4-482a-9fda-e526f0b6ed01 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009640.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 110 Sundon Park Road, Luton (verge crossover and front parking) - **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C J Leigh - **Authority:** Luton (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6009643 - **Application reference:** 26/00210/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of grass verge to permeable hardstanding and vehicle crossover for one off-street space - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** Luton Local Plan 2011-2031 LLP1, LLP25, LLP31, LLP32, Appendix 2 parking standards - **Main issues:** character and appearance, pedestrian safety - **Tags:** tier-2, householder, highway-safety, framework-not-cited ## Summary A crossover and front parking space across a grass verge in Luton was dismissed on pedestrian safety. The forecourt was too shallow to park without blocking the front door, so cars would overhang a busy footway (DL ¶10-11). There was no character harm, and a 2021 permission for the same scheme did not bind the inspector (DL ¶12). ## What made the difference Where the front door sits relative to the space made a full-length park impractical (DL ¶10). ## Policy findings - **TR6: fail.** 5.07 m forecourt with the front door behind the space means cars would overhang a well-used footway (DL 8-13); decided on LLP32 ## Key facts - The council had approved the same scheme in 2021 without highway objection; the inspector preferred the current objection (DL 6, 12) - Framework not cited ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009643 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/45147235-fdc0-4bf5-aac6-66f19c54dd7a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009643.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Grandview House, 94 Broad Street, Wood Street (Guildford) - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Walker - **Authority:** Guildford (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009645 - **Application reference:** 25/P/01540 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Chalet-style dwelling in the rear garden of Grandview House (non-determination appeal) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N6, N2(2), GB7(1)(g)(iii) - **Development plan policies:** Guildford Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2019 P2, ID3, ID4, P5, D2, Guildford DMP P7, D4, D5, D14, D16, South East Plan NRM6 - **Main issues:** grey belt, sustainable location, SPA, ecology, privacy, character - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-pass, unlit-footway-crossing, demand-responsive-bus, habitats-refusal, gcn-no-survey, self-build, small-scheme, non-determination, costs-refused, not-inappropriate ## Summary A new dwelling in a Green Belt rear garden near Wood Street Village. It passed all four GB7(1)(g) limbs, including limb (iii), despite an unlit footway that changes sides of the road, because the footway is continuous and there is a demand-responsive bus at the drive end. So it was not inappropriate. It was dismissed on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA (no mitigation secured), unsurveyed great crested newt risk, tree and privacy harm. The costs application was refused (copy at `PINS-6009645-costs.pdf`). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties given the opportunity to comment (DL ¶5). - **Grey belt, (g)(i), (ii), (iv): common ground** (DL ¶8). - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): PASS.** "Although pedestrians would be required to cross Broad Street at one point where the footway changes sides, and the route is not street lit, reducing its attractiveness during the hours of darkness and in inclement weather, it nevertheless provides a continuous and reasonably safe pedestrian connection to a limited number of local services and facilities" (DL ¶12). Demand-responsive bus: "no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that future occupiers would be unable to access the service" (DL ¶13). "recognising that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport choices will vary between urban and rural areas … a reasonably sustainable location in the context of its rural surroundings" (DL ¶14). - **Private drive without footway acceptable:** short, good visibility, very few dwellings (DL ¶11). - **SPA: FAIL.** "In the absence of an effective mechanism before me through which the payment of the tariff could be secured" (DL ¶21). - **GCN: FAIL.** No survey; no exceptional circumstances for a condition (DL ¶29–30). ## Planning balance Not inappropriate, so no VSC. The final balance was framed as development plan conflict plus the Framework "taken as a whole". N6 "indicates that in such circumstances planning permission should be refused". Substantial weight to SPA and GCN harm against the considerable weight of the benefits (DL ¶55–56). The letter did not expressly name S5(5) or S5(2), though N6 functions as a refusal policy. ## What made the difference Ecology and habitats procedure, not Green Belt. On location, the site sits near the pass line: a continuous footway, even unlit and with a crossing, plus a bookable bus was enough for one dwelling in a rural context. ## Transferable points - A continuous footway can satisfy (g)(iii) for a single dwelling even though it is unlit and requires crossing the road where it changes sides (DL ¶12). This is a point against objectors whose case is only that the footway is on the far side. - A demand-responsive bus counts unless eligibility limits are evidenced (DL ¶13). - Sustainability is judged relative to the rural context (DL ¶14). - Passing GB7 does not save a scheme that fails habitats (N6) or has no protected-species survey (N2(2)) (DL ¶56). - Non-determination delay was unreasonable but caused no wasted expense where refusal was inevitable (costs DL ¶9–11). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** common ground grey belt meeting (g)(i), (ii), (iv) (DL 8) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** backland in a roadside hamlet, not isolated; pavement to Wood Street Village (school 800 m, post office 1 km, more services 1.6 km) is continuous but unlit, with one crossing where the footway changes sides; demand-responsive bus stop at the drive end (DL 9-14) - **TR3: pass.** "reasonably sustainable location in the context of its rural surroundings" (DL 14) - **N6: fail (substantial weight).** Thames Basin Heaths SPA 400 m-5 km zone; no mechanism to secure SAMM/SANG tariff, so adverse effect on integrity (DL 16-22, 56) - **N2(2): fail (substantial weight).** red impact risk zone for great crested newts, 9 ponds within 500 m, no survey (DL 27-31, 56) - **N3: conflict.** no arboricultural survey; boundary trees likely affected (DL 24-26) - **DP3: harm.** privacy conflict; about 10 m to neighbour's rear garden (DL 34-39); character itself acceptable (DL 44) - **HO7: benefit (considerable weight).** urgent need; self-build given limited weight as not securable; combined benefits considerable (DL 55) ## Key facts - Backland plot on a private drive behind a ribbon of homes on Broad Street; Council called it a hamlet - Footway to Wood Street Village is continuous but unlit and switches sides once, requiring a crossing of Broad Street - Demand-responsive pre-bookable bus stop at the end of the drive; eligibility limits alleged but unevidenced - Separate costs decision (partial award sought for non-determination delay) refused ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009645 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3a6a8ec0-f69f-4ce5-80b9-b7c84e22fc2e - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/935ecce0-60f2-4a1e-927b-70d9f908346f (costs decision) --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009645.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 23 Manchester Street, Luton (shop to takeaway) - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F Leung - **Authority:** Luton (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6009647 - **Application reference:** 26/00073/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of vacant ground-floor shop (Class E) to hot food takeaway (sui generis), replacement shopfront and rear flue - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HC5(1)(a), HC5(1)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Luton Local Plan 2011-2031 (2017) LLP22, LLP21, LLP3, LLP1, LLP25 - **Main issues:** town centre vitality and viability, health and wellbeing - **Tags:** hot-food-takeaway, hc5-town-centre-exception, frontage-policy, over-concentration, no-consultation-on-2026-framework ## Summary A proposed takeaway in a vacant shop on a Luton town-centre secondary frontage. It passed HC5 on both limbs: the designated town centre is an express exception to limb (a), and there was no location-specific evidence of health harm for limb (b). It was dismissed under the local frontage policy, because non-retail units would reach two-thirds of the frontage. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The changes made to the Framework, insofar as they relate to the substantive matters in this appeal, do not fundamentally alter the relevant policy position" (DL ¶3). - **HC5(1)(a): town centre exception.** "I acknowledge that children and young people may reasonably be expected to congregate at and around St George's Square. Nevertheless, the town centre location is a relevant exception under Policy HC5 of the Framework" (DL ¶17). The inspector footnoted the Annex B "reasonable walking distance" for HC5: around 400 m or five minutes' walk (fn 1). - **HC5(1)(b): concentration evidence.** The public-health material "does not adequately demonstrate that this particular location at Manchester Street has such a concentration of hot food takeaways that it is causing an adverse impact on local health" (DL ¶18). "there is limited planning control over the precise food choices" (DL ¶19). - **Frontage policy: CONFLICT.** "The proposal would increase the number of non-retail units to six out of nine units … would significantly exceed the 50% threshold set out in Policy LLP22" (DL ¶8). The inspector noted the change to the Use Classes Order (DL ¶7) but did not reduce the policy's weight. ## Planning balance Plan-led. The frontage conflict and harm to vitality and viability outweighed limited shopfront benefits (DL ¶28-29). No S4 or TC2 analysis. ## What made the difference The frontage percentage and the lack of marketing evidence. On HC5, the case shows the town-centre exception doing its work, and that limb (b) needs site-specific evidence of harm from concentration. Compare Ruislip (PINS-6011516): there Annex A para 2 was used to cut the weight of a pre-Class E frontage policy, but it was not raised here, and a 50% non-A1 cap was applied in full. ## Transferable points - HC5(1)(a) does not apply within a designated town centre, even where young people congregate nearby (DL ¶17). - HC5(1)(b) needs evidence that a concentration at the specific location is harming health. General public-health strategies are not enough (DL ¶18-19). - Reasonable walking distance for HC5 is around 400 m (Annex B) (fn 1). - Pre-2020 frontage caps may still be applied in full where Annex A para 2 is not argued. Compare PINS-6011516. ## Policy findings - **HC5(1)(a): pass.** opposite the central library, where young people congregate, but within a designated town centre, which is an express exception; school not within the 400 m Annex B distance (DL 16-17) - **HC5(1)(b): pass.** public-health strategies did not show that a concentration at this location is harming local health; outlets offer varied food (DL 18-21) - **LLP22 (Luton LP): conflict.** non-retail units would rise to 6 of 9 in the secondary frontage, against a 50% cap; applied in full despite pre-dating Class E; no marketing evidence (DL 6-9, 14) - **TC2: not-engaged.** not cited; vitality and viability assessed under local policy only ## Key facts - Secondary shopping frontage facing St George's Square, Luton town centre; former grocery store, vacant - Nine units on the frontage, five already non-retail food outlets - Opposite Luton Central Library; Dallow Primary School beyond reasonable walking distance - Parties not re-consulted; changes "do not fundamentally alter the relevant policy position" (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009647 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/af4e37ed-d6cd-4fcd-865c-3990bdd0baba --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009647.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land east of Hole House Lane, Tosside (food truck) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Fawcett - **Authority:** Ribble Valley (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009649 - **Application reference:** 3/2025/0686 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of agricultural land to mixed agriculture and retail (siting of a food truck) with customer parking - **Site context:** open-countryside, national-landscape, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N4, DP3(3), S5(1) - **Development plan policies:** Ribble Valley Core Strategy 2014 Key Statement EN2, DMG1, DMG2, DMG3, DMB3 - **Main issues:** character and appearance of National Landscape, highway safety - **Tags:** tier-2, national-landscape, landscape-harm, s5-1-b-necessity, dp3-refuse-trigger, fallback, rural-business, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, s5-limb-not-identified ## Summary A farm-diversification food truck and customer parking on a field near Gisburn Forest in the Forest of Bowland National Landscape. Dismissed: parked cars and commercial activity would be an incongruous intrusion in the open pastoral landscape. The principle had S5(1) support, but N4's substantial weight and DP3(3) meant the modest economic benefits were substantially outweighed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were provided with an opportunity to comment" (DL ¶3). - **NL landscape: HARM.** The use "would diminish the site's open, rural character and weaken the contribution it makes to the natural beauty of the FBNL" (DL ¶11). Customer vehicles cannot be controlled: "there would be no realistic mechanism to control the colour, size or type of customers' vehicles" (DL ¶16). - **Highways: PASS by condition** (DL ¶26, ¶28). - **Fallback.** 28-day GPDO use "significantly less harmful"; small weight (DL ¶29). - **S5(1).** "the principle of development in this location attracts support from the Framework" (DL ¶31). - **DP3(3).** "The proposal would also conflict with Policy DP3 which indicates that proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they fail to respond to the character and features of their site and its setting" (DL ¶35). ## Planning balance S5(1): limited economic and environmental benefits against NL harm (N4 substantial weight) and DP3 conflict. "Taken together, the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶36). ## What made the difference Exposure. The site reads as part of open pasture, not the enclosed forest where the existing car park sits, so vehicles and activity would be seen over a long stretch of road. A site next to an existing farmstead or within the forest edge might have succeeded. ## Transferable points - Temporary, removable features (a food truck, customers' cars) still harm a National Landscape when present in daylight operating hours (DL ¶11, ¶14–15). - Conditions cannot control the size or colour of customers' vehicles (DL ¶16). - Visibility-splay works (bound surface, lowered dry-stone wall) add to landscape harm (DL ¶18). - E4 support for diversification is qualified by its own siting-and-design requirement (DL ¶33). ## Policy findings - **N4: harm (substantial weight).** Forest of Bowland NL; parked vehicles and commercial activity in open pastoral landscape, detached from farmsteads; access splay works remove wall and hedge; landscaping could itself harm openness (DL 5-21, 35) - **S5(1): fail.** principle "attracts support" as rural business/tourism and reuse of hardstanding (limbs b and d referred to, not formally concluded); benefits substantially outweighed (DL 31-32, 36) - **E2: benefit.** substantial weight principle noted; economic benefits limited by small scale (DL 33) - **E4: benefit.** farm diversification supported, but E4 also requires siting appropriate to character (DL 33) - **N2: benefit (limited weight).** landscaping and biodiversity "a small amount of weight" (DL 34) - **DP3(3): fail.** cited with "without clear justification" wording; not sensitively located (DL 35); no separate justification finding - **TR6: pass.** 2.4 x 43 m splay required by condition despite low measured speeds and flows (DL 23-28) ## Key facts - Next to Gisburn Forest recreational hub; visitor demand could fluctuate (DL 7, 16) - Truck removed daily and seasonal operation offered; harm arises in daylight hours when in use (DL 14-15) - 28-day GPDO temporary-use fallback greater than theoretical but far less harmful; small weight (DL 29) - Achievable splay 2.4 x 16.5 m; LHA sought 43 m; condition imposed (DL 25-26) - Parties given opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009649 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ce476423-c8c5-490d-b0ac-84083650d46c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009649.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 150 Barnhorn Road, Bexhill - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Bhupinder Thandi - **Authority:** Rother (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009653 - **Application reference:** RR/2025/1832/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Single-storey (self-build) dwelling formed by altering and extending an outbuilding in rear garden - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.04 - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** NPPF2024 para 11(d), Rother CS OSS4, Rother CS SRM2 - **Development plan policies:** Rother Local Plan Core Strategy 2014 OSS4, EN1, EN3, SRM2, DaSA Local Plan 2019 DEN1 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, surface water drainage, neighbours' living conditions - **Tags:** transitional, old-wording-slip, decided-on-publication-day, backland, garden-land, housing-shortfall, self-build, small-scheme, drainage-not-conditionable ## Summary A backland self-build bungalow in a Bexhill rear garden was dismissed for harm to character and for unproven surface-water drainage. The letter is dated 17 August 2026, the day the 2026 Framework took effect, but it runs the December 2024 tilted balance: "paragraph 11 d) … is engaged" (3.04-year supply). It found the adverse impacts "significantly and demonstrably" outweighed the benefits (DL ¶31, 36). The new Framework is not mentioned. ## Issues and findings - **Character.** "significant urbanising effect … back-land position, uncharacteristic tandem arrangement with the host property and small plot" (DL ¶10). Harm visible only from neighbours' private windows still counted (DL ¶11). - **Drainage.** "there are gaps in the technical information submitted including in respect of infiltration testing and run off calculations … I am not satisfied that the proposed development could be made acceptable through the imposition of conditions as the surface water drainage system would have a direct bearing upon the layout" (DL ¶17-18). - **Amenity.** Acceptable (DL ¶20-24). ## Planning balance Old 11(d) tilted balance. The conflict with the most important policies was given "very significant weight" (DL ¶35). Benefits were modest or moderate (DL ¶32-33). ## What made the difference Character harm plus a drainage evidence gap that affected the layout. Under the 2026 Framework the same facts would fall to S4(1) with its higher "substantially outweighed" bar, and L2(1)(d) would give substantial weight to an extra home in a residential curtilage. But the scheme takes about two-thirds of the garden (DL ¶9), so the L2(1)(d)(iii) 50% retained-curtilage threshold would likely not have been met. The outcome may well have been the same, but the test was the old one. ## Transferable points - Transition: at least one 17 August 2026 letter applied the December 2024 Framework without mentioning the new one. Such letters are of limited value as authority on the 2026 tests. - Where surface-water drainage design would change the layout, it cannot be deferred to a condition (DL ¶18). - Backland character harm can rest on private views from neighbouring windows (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **NPPF2024 para 11(d): fail.** tilted balance applied under the December 2024 Framework on 17 Aug 2026 — "paragraph 11 d) … is engaged … adverse impacts … would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL 31, 36); maps to S4(1) in the 2026 Framework - **OSS4/EN1/EN3 (Rother CS): conflict (significant weight).** backland tandem plot takes two-thirds of garden; urbanising; private views count (DL 5-14); "very significant weight" to conflict with most important policies (DL 35) - **SRM2 (Rother CS): conflict (significant weight).** code mapped by harvester — F8; gaps in infiltration testing and runoff calcs; drainage affects layout so cannot be left to condition (DL 16-19) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** one self-build dwelling, construction and spend "modest" (DL 32); reuse, energy, BNG etc moderate (DL 33) ## Key facts - Council supply 3.04 years (January 2026 position statement), undisputed (DL 30) - Previous refused application and dismissed appeal on the site not addressed (DL 3) - Decided on 17 Aug 2026, the day the new Framework took effect, but applies old para 11(d) and does not mention the new Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009653 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/09bfe426-3e00-429b-9634-909dec2ead62 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009653.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 6 Rooth Street, Wednesbury - **Decision:** allowed, 24 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Gary Deane - **Authority:** Sandwell (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009660 - **Application reference:** DC/25/71294 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use from 6-person HMO (C4) to 7-bed sui generis HMO - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Black Country Core Strategy ENV3, Sandwell SAD DPD EOS9 - **Main issues:** on-street parking and highway safety - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, tr6-highway-safety, parking-stress ## Summary A one-bedroom increase to an HMO was allowed. The Council's refusal rested on the Framework alone. The Inspector applied new TR6 directly: "the test before me is the effect of the increase from 6 to 7 residents … not existing parking conditions generally", and spare capacity within reasonable walking distance meant no unacceptable safety or severe cumulative impact (DL ¶¶11–12). ## What made the difference The appellant's parking survey showed spare capacity on a street reachable by a lit route with a signal crossing (DL ¶10). The test was the increment, not the existing parking stress. ## Policy findings - **TR6(4): pass.** one extra resident's parking can use spare capacity on Jockey Lane, reached via signal crossing; not unacceptable safety or severe cumulative impact (DL 7-12) ## Key facts - Refusal reason cited only the Framework, no plan policy - Nearest streets at or over capacity; Jockey Lane consistently had spare spaces ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/33df9713-c5b2-43cd-b3d2-12f931d8b843 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009660 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009660.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 10 Broadgate, Preston (6-bedroom HMO) - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Walker - **Authority:** Preston (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009669 - **Application reference:** 06/2026/0279 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use from a five-bedroom dwelling (C3) to a six-bedroom HMO (C4) in a Grade II listed terrace - **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, DP3(3) - **Development plan policies:** Preston Local Plan HS7, AD1 - **Main issues:** character and living conditions, balance and mix of housing - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, concentration-policy, s4-within-settlement, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, heritage-no-harm, listed-building, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Conversion of a five-bedroom family house in a Grade II listed Preston terrace to a six-bedroom HMO. Five of the terrace's houses, clustered next to the site, are already HMOs. The inspector found a further HMO would worsen the overconcentration and cause cumulative noise and disturbance, conflicting with HS7/AD1 and with DP3's liveability principle. Under S4 that failure meant refusal. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were invited to comment on any implications for the appeal of this change" (DL ¶3). - **Concentration.** "the number within what is a very short section of Broadgate indicates a particularly high concentration of HMOs in this area" (DL ¶8). "This exacerbates the existing over concentration of such properties and the imbalance in the mix of housing in the area" (DL ¶9). - **Plan policies consistent.** HS7 and AD1 "are consistent with Policy DP3 of the Framework, which seeks, amongst other things, to create well designed places which achieve liveability, support healthy, mixed, vibrant and integrated communities and function well over time" (DL ¶13). - **Plan-making policies.** HO5 and HO6 "are plan making policies rather than decision making policies and so not determinate" (DL ¶14). - **Heritage: NO HARM** (DL ¶16). - **S4 via DP3.** "in accordance with Policy S4 of the Framework, the failure to comply with a relevant national decision-making policy (DP3) means that the proposal should be refused" (DL ¶22). ## Planning balance S4. Limited benefits against harm to character and living conditions through overconcentration. DP3 is treated as a refusal-type policy that decides the S4 balance (DL ¶22), without a clear-justification finding. ## What made the difference The cluster of five HMOs within a few doors. The inspector judged overconcentration on the local evidence even without a numerical threshold in the plan. ## Transferable points - HMO overconcentration can be a DP3(2)(a) liveability conflict ("mixed, vibrant and integrated communities") and so engage DP3(3) and S4(2)(c) (DL ¶13, ¶22). - There is no need for a numerical threshold: overconcentration is a planning judgement on local evidence (DL ¶7–8). - HO5 and HO6 are plan-making policies and cannot be refusal grounds in themselves (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **DP3(2)(a): fail.** five of the terrace's HMOs clustered at Nos 3-8; another HMO worsens the imbalance and cumulative noise and disturbance; conflicts with the DP3 liveability principle (DL 8-13) - **DP3(3): fail.** failure to comply with DP3 treated as a "should be refused" policy through S4; no clear-justification step (DL 22) - **Transitional(2): accord.** HS7 and AD1 "consistent with Policy DP3 of the Framework" (DL 13) - **HO5: not-engaged.** HO5 and HO6 correctly identified as plan-making policies, not determinative; objectives of Chapter 6 still noted (DL 14) - **HE6: neutral.** listed building consent already granted for internal works; no harm to the Grade II terrace (DL 2, 16) - **S4: fail.** limited benefits; DP3 failure means refusal under S4 (DL 21-22) ## Key facts - Five HMOs within Nos 1-18 Broadgate, clustered at Nos 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 (DL 8) - Emerging Central Lancashire Local Plan HS10 and a new Article 4 Direction not yet in force; diminished weight (DL 15) - Fallback of six adults living together receiving care not shown to be realistic (DL 19) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009669 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a02d0db9-8978-4a27-87a8-5e55cfac6394 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009669.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Black Cottage, Henley Down, Catsfield (holiday-let rooflight glazing condition) - **Decision:** allowed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Thomas Courtney - **Authority:** Rother (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009677 - **Application reference:** RR/2025/2135/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Appeal against condition 4 (electrochromic/smart glazing to rear rooflights) on permission for garage-to-holiday-let conversion in the High Weald National Landscape - **Site context:** open-countryside, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM6, N4, P3 - **Development plan policies:** Rother Core Strategy 2014 EN1, EN5, DaSA Local Plan 2019 DEN1, DEN2, DEN7, High Weald AONB Management Plan DS1, DS2 - **Main issues:** necessity of dark-skies condition - **Tags:** conditions-appeal, dark-skies, national-landscape, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary The appeal was against a condition requiring electrochromic or smart glazing in the rear rooflights of a holiday let in the High Weald. It was allowed, but only by substituting a less prescriptive condition. The inspector held that controlling light spill was necessary under N4 and P3 of the 2026 Framework. Tying the condition to one glazing technology failed the DM6 tests. ## Issues and findings - **Need for control.** "Policy N4 of the Framework requires substantial weight to be afforded to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of protected landscapes, whilst Policy P3 seeks to maintain the character of tranquil areas and limit adverse impacts from artificial light on intrinsically dark landscapes and nature" (DL ¶6). Rooflights facing unlit land "would erode the sense of darkness and tranquillity" (DL ¶7). - **Blinds not enough.** "Given that the accommodation would operate as a holiday let, such measures would not provide a sufficiently reliable or enduring means of controlling light spill" (DL ¶11). - **Wording (DM6).** "Condition 4 in its current form is overly prescriptive … Such a condition [allowing any permanent measure] would satisfy the requirements of Policy DM6" (DL ¶13-14). ## Planning balance No overall balance; this was a test of whether the condition was necessary and reasonable. ## What made the difference Rooflights set flush in the roof and facing an unlit orchard justified control. The council accepted that films and similar treatments could work, which made naming a single technology unreasonable. ## Transferable points - In a National Landscape, N4's substantial weight and P3's dark-landscape limb justify conditions controlling internal light spill from rooflights (DL ¶6-8). - Occupier-dependent mitigation such as blinds is not reliable for holiday lets (DL ¶11). - Conditions should specify the outcome, not one proprietary technology (DL ¶13-14). ## Policy findings - **N4: harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conserving natural beauty; rooflight light spill against an unlit orchard would erode darkness and tranquillity (DL 6-7) - **P3: harm.** P3 limits artificial light on intrinsically dark landscapes and nature; nocturnal species (DL 6, 8) - **DM6: accord.** a light-control condition is necessary, but specifying electrochromic/smart glass is over-prescriptive; replaced with a condition allowing any permanent light-reduction measure (DL 3, 13-14) ## Key facts - Blinds and curtains rejected as unreliable in a holiday let (DL 11) - [object Object] - Parties consulted on the Aug 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009677 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/eb8f3c25-380b-4c53-b520-ff0ee7aaea42 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009677.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Bradford Golf Club, Hawksworth Lane, Guiseley - **Decision:** dismissed, 27 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Ryan Cowley - **Authority:** Leeds (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6009680 - **Application reference:** 25/05530/FU - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Sports netting system on 15 m steel lattice towers along golf club boundary - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, conservation-area, TPO - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, DP3, P3, N2 - **Development plan policies:** Leeds Core Strategy 2019 P10, P11, P12, G9, UDPR 2006 GP5, N19, BD5, NRWLP 2013 Land 2 - **Main issues:** character and appearance incl. conservation area and trees, living conditions, ecology - **Tags:** not-inappropriate, gb7-1-f-outdoor-recreation, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, transitional-no-consultation, gb-incidental ## Summary Fifteen-metre ball-stop netting at a golf club on the Green Belt edge beside a conservation area. Green Belt was not in dispute: the netting was an appropriate facility for outdoor sport under GB7(1)(f)(iv). The appeal was dismissed on moderate harm to the conservation area's setting and to protected trees, on neighbour amenity and on ecology. The limited public benefits did not outweigh those harms. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The parts of the Framework relevant to this appeal have not substantively changed. I have thus not sought further submissions" (DL ¶2). - **GB7(1)(f)(iv): PASS.** The Inspector agreed with the Council that the netting is an appropriate facility for outdoor sport that "would preserve openness and would not conflict with the purposes" (DL ¶23). - **Heritage (HE6): moderate harm.** "the proposal would loom over the area as an obtrusive incursion into the skyline … industrial and utilitarian appearance" (DL ¶8). "substantial weight must be given to the conservation of the CA" (DL ¶12). - **Living conditions: FAIL.** The netting would "dominate the outlook … appear overbearing and create a sense of enclosure" (DL ¶14). ## Planning balance HE6 harm against public benefits. Those benefits were limited because the course had already been redesigned and alternatives had not been explored (DL ¶¶26–28). ## What made the difference Height and proximity to houses and a conservation area. Green Belt status helped rather than hindered: the (f)(iv) sport-facility exception was accepted. ## Transferable points - Tall ball-stop netting at an existing golf course can be an "appropriate facility" for outdoor sport under GB7(1)(f)(iv) where it sits at the GB edge near the clubhouse (DL ¶23). - HE6 applied with "substantial weight" to conservation (2024 "great weight" → 2026 "substantial weight") (DL ¶12). - Weak evidence on alternatives reduces the weight given to claimed public benefits (DL ¶28). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(f)(iv): pass.** appropriate facilities for outdoor sport; edge of GB near clubhouse and development envelope; openness preserved, no conflict with purposes (DL 23) - **HE6: harm (substantial weight).** moderate harm to setting/significance of Tranmere Park CA; "substantial weight must be given to the conservation" (DL 8, 12) - **P3: fail.** overbearing, enclosure, netted shadow on neighbouring gardens (DL 13-18) - **N2: harm.** collision/entanglement barrier in Leeds Habitat Network, no ecology assessment (DL 19-22) ## Key facts - 15 m galvanised lattice towers with black mesh close to rear gardens on Greenfield Lane - Adjacent to Tranmere Park Conservation Area; foundations encroach on RPAs of CA-protected trees - Benefits (ball-strike protection) reduced because the nearest area is now a putting/chipping green and alternatives were not explored ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009680 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4e004ed8-6ca9-44ed-a222-9996a4ba73c8 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009680.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjoining Pioneer Point, 3-5 Winston Way, Ilford - **Decision:** allowed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Gardner - **Authority:** Redbridge (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009681 - **Application reference:** 0287/26 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub with illuminated advertisement panels on footway (planning + advertisement consent) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** s38(6), Redbridge LP LP26, Redbridge LP LP28 - **Development plan policies:** Redbridge Local Plan 2018 LP26, LP28, London Plan 2021 D8, T4 - **Main issues:** character/visual amenity, highway/public safety - **Tags:** tier-2, telecoms, street-hub, advertisement, no-framework-reference ## Summary A BT Street Hub with illuminated ads on a wide footway in Ilford Metropolitan Centre was allowed, for both planning and advertisement consent. It sat comfortably in a busy urban street scene and left an adequate footway. ## What made the difference Context: a large-scale mixed-use centre with plenty of street furniture already, and distance from the junctions. The letter never cites the Framework. Other street-hub letters in the corpus (for example the Reading hub, 6002960, indexed with CO1) do engage the telecoms policy. ## Policy findings - **LP26 / LP28 / D8 (Redbridge LP, London Plan): accord.** subservient and unobtrusive in Metropolitan Centre street scene; footway width retained; not near enough junction/roundabout to distract (DL 9-16) ## Key facts - Appeal A 6009681 (planning, 0287/26) and Appeal B 6009686 (advertisement consent, 0288/26) decided together (DL 3) - 2015 payphone prior-approval refusal not comparable (DL 17) - No reference to the Framework in any version; CO1 not considered ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009681 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5fa5287f-4e1d-4603-8c5d-abaf0bdbc45a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009681.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 306 Ballards Lane, Finchley - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A J Boughton - **Authority:** Barnet (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009688 - **Application reference:** 26/0505/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Full-width sliding shopfront and new vehicular access across footway to a tyre garage - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR4(1)(a), TR4(1)(c)(i), Barnet LP CDH01 - **Development plan policies:** Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 CDH01, TRC01 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, highway and pedestrian safety - **Tags:** tr4-pedestrian-priority, highway-safety-fail, town-centre ## Summary A new vehicle entrance across a busy town-centre footway, to let cars into a tyre garage through the shopfront, was dismissed. Customers would have to reverse across the pavement between an uncontrolled junction and a signalled crossing. The Inspector ended with new TR4: the scheme conflicts with "TR4 which seeks that priority should be given first to walking, wheeling and cycle movements and that scope for conflict with vehicles should be minimised" (DL ¶14). ## Issues and findings - **Character: FAIL.** "character is not limited to visual considerations … substantial weight should be attached to improving or retaining walk-to access to businesses or services" (DL ¶7). Vehicle movements and tyre-changing noise would be "an intrusive feature in this location" (DL ¶8). - **Highway safety: FAIL.** Reversing "would be both unavoidable and a notable risk" with pushchairs and children on the footway, and waiting or turning would conflict with the zig-zag controls (DL ¶¶10–11). - **TR4(1)(a) and (c)(i): FAIL** (DL ¶14). - The economic benefits, argued from superseded 2024 paragraphs, were outweighed (DL ¶13). ## Planning balance s38(6). The private operational benefits were outweighed by public-realm harm and risk. ## What made the difference The access was unnecessary, because the workshop already had rear access. The front of the site sat on a heavily used pedestrian route in a pinch between a junction and a crossing. ## Transferable points - TR4's walking-first hierarchy can decide an appeal on a small access change in a town centre (DL ¶14). - Character includes activity and pedestrian experience, not only appearance (DL ¶7). ## Policy findings - **TR4(1)(a): fail.** "priority should be given first to walking, wheeling and cycle movements" (DL 14) - **TR4(1)(c)(i): fail.** reversing across a busy wide footway between junction and signal crossing zig-zags; scope for conflict not minimised (DL 10-11, 14) - **Barnet LP CDH01: conflict.** "character is not limited to visual considerations" — vehicle activity and noise intrude on walk-to parade (DL 7-9) - **E1: benefit.** appellant relied on superseded 2024 paras 11 and 39; business benefits outweighed (DL 13) ## Key facts - 6 m frontage, secondary retail parade, Finchley Church End town centre - Existing workshop already accessed from rear on Rosemont Avenue - Heavy pedestrian use incl. children and pushchairs observed ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/01d45d56-a24a-4baf-8081-dd76db45dddd - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009688 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009688.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land off Shire Lane, Hurst Green (self-build PIP) - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer Ellie Nutman) - **Authority:** Ribble Valley (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009691 - **Application reference:** 3/2026/0159 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for up to 3 self-build dwellings including 1 bungalow for over-55s on a smallholding - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** national-landscape, open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N4, S5, CC2 - **Development plan policies:** Ribble Valley Core Strategy 2014 DS1, DMI2, DMG1, DMG2, DMG3, DMH3 - **Main issues:** suitability of location, land use and amount (PIP) - **Tags:** PIP, self-build, self-build-unsecured, national-landscape, landscape-harm, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, s5-limb-not-identified, appeal-planning-officer, transitional-no-consultation, old-wording-slip, class-q-fallback ## Summary Permission in principle for up to three self-build homes on a smallholding outside Hurst Green, in the Forest of Bowland National Landscape, was dismissed on an appeal planning officer's recommendation. The site's access to the village and bus is by an unlit lane with no footway, so it was not well related to the settlement. The houses and curtilages would urbanise an unspoilt landscape. Self-build and over-55 need were unevidenced and unsecured, so the benefits carried limited weight. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** No switch paragraph; the 2026 policies (N4, S5, DP3, CC2) are applied. - **Accessibility: FAIL.** "the road is unlit and lacks any segregated footpaths which would provide an unattractive option for accessing the services and facilities within the village by all users" (DL ¶10). "Therefore, the site would not be physically well-related to the existing settlement and sustainable modes of transport would not be reasonably available for future occupiers" (DL ¶10). - **National Landscape, N4: FAIL.** "the scheme would cause unacceptable harm to the special qualities of the NL" (DL ¶12). - **Not infill; not PDL; fallback very limited** (DL ¶14, ¶16–17). - **Benefits: LIMITED.** Self-build and over-55 provision: "I do not have a sufficiently compelling amount of evidence before me pertaining to an evidenced need in each regard. In any case, neither of these matters are secured via a completed planning obligation or otherwise" (DL ¶19). ## Planning balance S5, framed by the lack of a five-year supply: "The Council is unable to demonstrate the supply of housing sites required by the Framework. With this and the appeal site's location in mind, Policy S5 of the Framework explains that a planning permission should be granted, unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶18). That is 2024 tilted-balance thinking; S5 does not turn on supply, and no S5(1) category is named. Harms given significant weight (DL ¶21); "the benefits of granting a planning permission for the proposed development would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects" (DL ¶22). ## What made the difference The unlit, unpaved lane to Hurst Green and its bus stop, and the unspoilt National Landscape setting. Evidence of self-build and older-person need, secured by obligation, would have added weight, but could not overcome the landscape harm. ## Transferable points - An unlit lane with no segregated footway is "an unattractive option … by all users", so the site is not physically well related and sustainable modes are not reasonably available (DL ¶10). - A bus stop in the village does not help if reaching it requires the same unlit walk (DL ¶10). - Self-build and over-55 benefits need evidenced need and a securing mechanism before they attract weight (DL ¶19). - A smallholding with an agricultural shed is not PDL (DL ¶16). - Caution: DL ¶18 ties S5 to the supply position; cite for the location findings, not the balance structure. ## Policy findings - **N4: fail (significant weight).** three curtilages, access and outbuildings would urbanise high-quality unspoilt rolling landscape in the Forest of Bowland National Landscape; statutory "seek to further" duty; no LVIA (DL 11-12, 21) - **TR3: fail.** mapped (TR3 not named; CC2 cited) - services in Hurst Green within walking distance but road unlit with no segregated footway, unattractive "by all users"; bus route 5 to Clitheroe also needs the unlit walk (DL 10, 21) - **S5(1)(j)(i): fail.** letter finds site "would not be physically well-related to the existing settlement" on access grounds, without naming a category; evidenced need not shown (DL 10, 19) - **S5(1)(e): fail.** not infill - adjoins a dwelling on one side and fields on the other (DL 14) - **AnnexB:PDL: fail.** occupied by an agricultural shed, so excluded from PDL (DL 16) - **DP3: harm (significant weight).** DP3 "development should respond to its context" cited in the harm; no DP3(3) step (DL 21) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** self-build and over-55 bungalow - substantial weight in principle but need unevidenced and nothing secured; benefits limited (DL 19-20) - **S5: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed; S5 introduced by reference to lack of 5-year supply; no S5(1) category or S5(4) route identified (DL 18, 22) - **GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Class Q fallback: neutral (very-limited weight).** no prior approval scheme before the inspector (DL 17) ## Key facts - Hurst Green is a Tier 2 settlement; the site is outside it (DL 9) - Shire Lane junction with 40 mph Longridge Road has substandard splays; appellant owns land to widen; not pursued (DL 4-5) - Council cannot show a 5-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 18) - Appeal 3372635 (site adjoining a settlement boundary) distinguished (DL 15) - Letter has no Framework switch paragraph ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009691 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009691.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Vyners Estate, Mill Lane, Tidmarsh - **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Everitt - **Authority:** West Berkshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009718 - **Application reference:** 25/02270/OUT - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline for 3 dwellings (access only) on a commercial vehicle storage site - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** open-countryside, national-landscape, listed-building-setting, flood-zone-2, flood-zone-3, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(3), HO11, HE6, F5, F7, F8 - **Development plan policies:** West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2023-2041 (2025) SP1, SP3, SP5, SP6, SP9, SP19, DM1, DM4, DM7, DM10 - **Main issues:** countryside location, accessibility, heritage setting, highway safety, flood risk, drainage, climate change, character, contamination - **Tags:** isolated-home, s5-3-isolated, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, heritage-harm-decisive, flood-risk, national-landscape, pdl, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme ## Summary Outline for three houses on a commercial storage yard in the North Wessex Downs near Tidmarsh, dismissed on many grounds. The key Framework point is that the inspector treated the houses as "isolated homes" under S5(3), being "close to, rather than within" a group of houses. That excluded them from S5 support "irrespective of whether the proposal would involve the redevelopment of previously developed land" (DL ¶60-61). Heritage setting harm, the need for a flood sequential test (the access floods), missing drainage evidence and poor accessibility also counted against it. ## Issues and findings - **S5(3)/HO11: FAIL.** "the appeal site is located close to some existing residential dwellings. However, its siting is such that it is close to, rather than within, the group of houses. Consequently, I consider that the proposal would comprise isolated homes" (DL ¶60). "irrespective of whether the proposal would involve the redevelopment of previously developed land, the application of the presumption … does not indicate that permission should be granted" (DL ¶61). - **Accessibility: FAIL.** Mill Lane "is narrow, has no street lighting and limited footpaths, and includes sharp bends … inconvenient and lack appeal for many, particularly in winter months, after dusk or during poor weather, irrespective of the distance" (DL ¶13). - **Heritage (HE6).** Lower-end less-than-substantial harm "is of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶53). Benefits, including removing a lawful HGV-generating use, had moderate weight and did not outweigh (DL ¶54-56). - **Flood (F5/F7).** "the information before me indicates that the site access would be at risk of flooding. In accordance with Policy F5 … there is, therefore, a need for the sequential test" (DL ¶32). - **NL (N4): no harm.** A residential use "may appear, where visible, more in-keeping" than the storage yard (DL ¶45). ## Planning balance The decision is plan-led, with S3/S5 considered at the end. Because the S5(3) isolated-homes bar applied, the presumption did not help (DL ¶59-61). HO7 was acknowledged but its weight "tempered" by the small scale (DL ¶54). ## What made the difference S5(3). The inspector read "isolated" spatially (not within a group) rather than functionally, and placed it ahead of any S5(1)(d) PDL argument. Even a brownfield yard next to houses can be "isolated" if it sits beside the group rather than within it. The many evidential gaps (FRA design event, drainage, energy statement) were also fatal at outline stage. ## Transferable points - S5(3) "isolated homes" includes sites "close to, rather than within" a group of houses (DL ¶60). - The S5(3) isolated-homes bar can defeat a scheme whatever the PDL status under S5(1)(d) (DL ¶61). This is a strong reading; S5(1)(d) and S5(3) may otherwise be argued to operate independently. - The F5 sequential-test exemption fails where access or escape routes are at risk of flooding (DL ¶31-32). - Replacing a lawful HGV storage use with houses had moderate weight as a benefit and improved NL character (DL ¶45, 55). - Unlit, narrow lanes with sharp bends put occupiers off walking "irrespective of the distance" (DL ¶13). ## Policy findings - **S5(3): fail.** site "close to, rather than within" a group of houses - isolated homes; no HO11 criterion met; applies "irrespective of whether" PDL (DL 60-61) - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** lower-end harm to setting of Grade II Barn at Keepers Cottage; moderate public benefits do not outweigh (DL 19-23, 51-56) - **F5: fail.** access in flood zone, so the "no built development at risk" exemption fails - sequential test needed and not done; FRA used wrong design flood event (DL 29-33) - **F8: fail.** no drainage strategy; viability of any solution unknown (DL 34-38) - **N4: pass.** well screened; residential use could be more in keeping than the commercial storage - no NL harm (DL 43-46) - **TR3: fail.** Mill Lane narrow, unlit, limited footpaths, sharp bends; buses only in Tidmarsh; Tilehurst route with steep inclines (DL 11-18) ## Key facts - Site in commercial storage use under a lawful development certificate (21/01688/CERTE) - North Wessex Downs National Landscape; setting of Grade II late-16th-century thatched barn - Access within Flood Zones 2/3; EA required 1% AEP + 31% climate change, not the 0.1% AEP used ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009718 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1b7677cb-4a1f-4493-a422-9a68e9f0455a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009718.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 12 Hyde Park Terrace, Leeds (9-bed HMO to 6 flats) - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A M Nilsson (on recommendation of appeal planning officer T Morris) - **Authority:** Leeds (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6009737 - **Application reference:** 25/05170/FU - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use from 9-bed sui generis HMO to six self-contained flats with rooflights and lightwell - **Homes:** 6 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6), TR6 - **Development plan policies:** Leeds Core Strategy 2019 P10, H6, H9, T2, Leeds UDP Review 2006 GP5, Transport SPD 2023 - **Main issues:** living conditions, highway safety - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, flat-conversion, living-conditions, parking-stress, appeal-planning-officer, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Converting a Hyde Park, Leeds HMO into six flats was dismissed on poor living conditions (attic flat headroom and outlook, stacked living rooms over bedrooms) and on highway safety, given no parking in a saturated street (DL ¶18, ¶28). Housing and HMO-reduction benefits carried limited weight (DL ¶29). ## What made the difference The unproven headroom and sky-only outlook of flat 6, and parking photos that confirmed on-street stress (DL ¶9-12, ¶23). ## Policy findings - **P3: fail.** attic flat 6 unproven against 2.3 m headroom standard (H9), sky-only outlook, living rooms stacked over bedrooms (DL 7-18) - **TR6: fail.** no parking in a saturated street; no cycle-store details in a conservation area; Framework refusal on unacceptable highway safety cited (DL 19-28) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** replaces an existing housing use; small reduction in HMO concentration (DL 29-30) ## Key facts - Existing HMO parking demand only 1 space under the SPD ratio, so fallback carries limited weight (DL 26) - Framework changes "do not affect the substance of the main issues" (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009737 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8e90203d-3a8b-4eca-83fe-583075abf0c9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009737.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Footpath outside The Heart Centre, Hepworth Way, Walton-on-Thames - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Alice James - **Authority:** Elmbridge (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009738 - **Application reference:** 2025/3164 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub unit with integrated digital advertisement panels (linked advert appeal 6009551) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, DP3, HC4 - **Development plan policies:** Elmbridge Core Strategy 2011 CS17, Elmbridge DM Plan 2015 DM2, DM15 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, visual amenity - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, telecoms, bt-street-hub, design-refusal, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary A BT Street Hub and its advert panels outside Walton Library were dismissed (with the linked advertisement appeal 6009551). HC4 public-service benefits were given substantial weight. But the unit would clutter an open forecourt that frames the library, and an existing hub nearby already provides most of the functions. Under S4 the benefits were "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶25). ## What made the difference A duplicate facility close by cut the real benefit, and the site's open gateway character was sensitive. The letter paraphrases DP3 as requiring "substantial weight … to compliance with relevant development plan policies when assessing the design quality" (DL ¶24). ## Policy findings - **HC4: benefit (substantial weight).** Wi-Fi, helplines, charging, possible 4G/5G - substantial weight (DL 22-23) - **DP3: conflict.** bulky illuminated unit harms open forecourt and setting of Walton Library; existing hub nearby already provides many functions (DL 8-14, 24) - **S4: fail.** substantially outweighed (DL 25) ## Key facts - Existing hub allowed on appeal (APP/K3605/W/24/3351207) very close by - Offer to remove a nearby BT kiosk not secured by any mechanism ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009738 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4bf52b33-0e41-4530-94f5-f1675ada8ea8 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009738.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Priors Court Farm, Rudge Lane, Beckington - **Decision:** allowed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Cooper-Young - **Authority:** Somerset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009739 - **Application reference:** 2026/0437/PAA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class Q prior approval, agricultural barns C and D to 6 dwellings (with extension to Barn D) - **Homes:** 6 - **Site context:** open-countryside, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Class Q.1(p), GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Class Q.2(1)(a) - **Development plan policies:** Somerset Countywide Parking Strategy - **Main issues:** suitable existing access, transport impacts, location/siting (noise) - **Tags:** tier-2, class-q, prior-approval, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Class Q prior approval for six dwellings in two barns was granted. The existing 4.8m access was suitable, transport impacts were acceptable, and a neighbouring storage barn conditioned against livestock would not make the conversion undesirable. ## What made the difference The council had already accepted residential conversion of Barns A and B, and the neighbouring Barn E was already restricted by condition. Q.1(p)'s "suitable existing access" was read as meaning fit for normal day-to-day residential use (DL ¶12). ## Policy findings - **GPDO Class Q para Q.1(p): pass.** existing 4.8m access with good visibility is "suitable existing access" (5m local standard) (DL 12-16) - **TR6: pass.** code mapped by harvester — Q.2(1)(a): no harm to highway safety nor "severe residual cumulative impacts" (DL 17-20); Framework relevant via GPDO para W.10(b) (DL 5) - **P4: pass.** code mapped by harvester — Q.2(1)(e) neighbouring Barn E conditioned to hay/machinery storage only; limited farm activity; not impractical or undesirable (DL 21-26) ## Key facts - Barns A and B already have conversion consents (DL 21) - Mells Valley SAC Bat Consultation Zone C; Reg 75 Habitats condition applied (DL 27) - Parties consulted on 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009739 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/bed2220e-4e91-455b-a2ab-43bf8382316b --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009739.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pine Lodge, Chilworth Drove, Chilworth - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Leonard - **Authority:** Test Valley (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009745 - **Application reference:** 25/02219/FULLS - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Detached 4-bed dwelling and carport in side garden of existing house - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.54 - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** NPPF2024 para 11(d)(ii), Test Valley RLP COM2, TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Test Valley Revised Local Plan 2011-2029 COM2, E1, E2, LHW4 - **Main issues:** location, character and appearance, privacy, SPAs - **Tags:** transitional, old-framework-applied, same-day-decision, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, housing-shortfall, tilted-balance-2024, small-scheme, tpo-trees ## Summary A new market dwelling in a garden 500 m outside Chilworth, reached along unlit, footway-less rural lanes, was dismissed. The decision was issued on 17 August 2026, the day the new Framework took effect, but it is reasoned wholly under the December 2024 Framework. It uses the ¶11(d)(ii) tilted balance with a 2.54-year supply, ¶61, ¶73 and Chapter 12, and does not mention the 2026 Framework at all. ## Issues and findings - **Location: FAIL.** "future occupiers would be required to traverse most of the route along narrow, single width rural lanes … no street lighting, and in the main, no footpath" (DL ¶14). "they would be almost wholly dependent upon the car for all such journeys … would not provide a genuine choice" (DL ¶16). COM2 was given moderate weight despite the supply shortfall, being "generally consistent with … the National Planning Policy Framework 2024" (DL ¶11). - **Character: FAIL.** Two dwellings side by side and a large parking area would give "a detrimental erosion of the prevailing verdant soft landscaped rural character" (DL ¶26). RPA incursion into a protected Cypress exceeded BS5837's 20%, and tree protection could not be left to condition (DL ¶¶30–33). The Inspector described this as "contrary to Policies of the Framework which seek to achieve well-designed places as set out in Chapter 12" (DL ¶35). - **Privacy: PASS** (DL ¶¶37–39). ## Planning balance 2024 ¶11(d)(ii) tilted balance. The benefits of one family home got moderate weight, and the location and character harm was significant: "the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶51). ## What made the difference Car dependence on unlit rural lanes, plus suburbanisation of a verdant lane and a threat to a TPO tree. Under the 2026 Framework this would have been an S5 case: a garden plot outside a settlement, not in any S5(1) category. The outcome would very likely have been the same or firmer. ## Transferable points - Evidence of the transition: at least one PINS decision dated 17 August 2026 applied the 2024 Framework in full without acknowledging the new one (DL ¶¶11, 44–51). - Unlit single-track lanes with no footway over about 500 m to a Key Service Centre gave "almost wholly dependent upon the car" (DL ¶¶14–16). - RPA incursion over 20% with no services or drainage routing is not curable by condition (DL ¶¶32–33). ## Policy findings - **Test Valley RLP COM2: conflict (moderate weight).** 500 m outside Chilworth settlement boundary; no countryside exception; moderate weight despite 2.54-yr supply (DL 7-11) - **TR3: fail.** narrow unlit hedged single-track lanes, no footway — "almost wholly dependent upon the car"; applied as 2024 Framework transport objectives (DL 14-18) - **DP3: fail.** suburbanising second frontage dwelling and parking; carport/drive in RPA of TPO Lawson Cypress >20% (BS5837) — applied as 2024 Chapter 12 (DL 25-35) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** one family home, quick delivery, economic benefits — 2024 paras 61, 73 (DL 47-48) - **NPPF2024 para 11(d)(ii): fail.** adverse impacts "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" (DL 51) ## Key facts - Housing land supply agreed at 2.54 years - Site 500 m south of Chilworth, separated by M27 and countryside; lanes unlit, no footway - Protected trees (Oak, Beech, two Lawson Cypress) on boundaries - Solent/New Forest SPA nutrient and recreation mitigation s106 not completed (AA not needed) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1c3e33ce-5b6a-467a-a5ac-120b66b871bb - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009745 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009745.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 148 Bradwell Common Boulevard, Milton Keynes (house to 6-bed HMO) - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Harris-Watkins - **Authority:** Milton Keynes (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009760 - **Application reference:** PLN/2025/2471 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of a terraced house (C3) to a six-bedroom, six-person HMO (C4), already in use - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(2)(a), DP3(3), S4(2)(c), S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Plan:MK 2019 HN7, D1, Milton Keynes HMO SPD 2012 - **Main issues:** character of the area - mix and balance of the community - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, hmo, hmo-concentration, retrospective, psed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A six-person HMO in a Milton Keynes terrace, already operating, pushed the local HMO concentration over the SPD's 35% threshold. The inspector found harm to the mix and balance of the community and framed it as a conflict with DP3(2)(a), a "should be refused" principle under DP3(3). The limited benefits were substantially outweighed under S4. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties have been invited to comment on the relevance of the Framework to the appeal" (DL ¶4). - **Concentration.** Licensed HMOs count in the SPD calculation even without planning permission: "Given that it does therefore form part of the current housing mix, No. 160 should be included in the calculation" (DL ¶10). - **Community balance: HARM.** "The more transient nature of HMO occupation, together with reduced tenure, diminishes opportunities for community integration and cohesion" (DL ¶14). - **DP3(2)(a) / DP3(3).** The harm "conflicts with the principles of Policy DP3(2)(a) of the Framework, which support healthy, mixed, vibrant and integrated communities" (DL ¶21). "Development should be refused if without clear justification it conflicts with the principles of Policy DP3 of the Framework" (DL ¶21). ## Planning balance S4(1), with the S4(2)(c) trigger set out (DL ¶20). "Given the modest scale of the development, the weight of each of the benefits noted under other considerations is limited. Consequently, the benefits are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶22). Residents' circumstances got moderate weight; PSED and Article 8 considered (DL ¶23-26). ## What made the difference The SPD threshold, with a methodology the council evidenced and an earlier appeal on the same street. No evidence of specific need or lack of alternative housing for the residents. ## Transferable points - HMO over-concentration can be framed as a DP3(2)(a) conflict and a DP3(3) trigger under S4 (DL ¶20-22). - Licensed HMOs count towards a concentration threshold even if unpermitted (DL ¶10). - Displacement of existing occupiers gets moderate weight absent evidence of no alternative accommodation (DL ¶15, ¶23). ## Policy findings - **DP3(2)(a): conflict (significant weight).** HMOs within 50 m exceed the SPD's 35% threshold (licensed but unpermitted No 160 counted); loss of family housing and transient occupation harm mix and balance of the community (DL 8-16, 21, 23) - **DP3(3): fail.** "Development should be refused if without clear justification it conflicts with the principles of Policy DP3" - set out; justification not separately assessed (DL 21) - **S4(1): fail.** limited-weight benefits (shared affordable accommodation, efficient use, supply) substantially outweighed; S4(2)(c) framing set out (DL 20-22) - **PSED: neutral (moderate weight).** residents described as vulnerable; no evidence of lack of alternative accommodation; residents' situation moderate weight; Article 8 and A1P1 interference proportionate (DL 15, 23-26) ## Key facts - Licensed as an HMO since 2021; Article 4 Direction in force (DL 3, 6) - Three HMOs within 50 m including the site; follows appeal APP/Y0435/W/23/3329546 at No 184; Lancaster appeal APP/A2335/W/24/3343024 distinguished (DL 9-12) - No parking, refuse or living-conditions objection (DL 13, 18) - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009760 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f1994683-827d-4d6f-bfb5-357bcb0c015c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009760.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Flat 4, 3 Grimston Avenue, Folkestone (uPVC replacement windows in conservation area) - **Decision:** allowed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Martin Seaton (on recommendation of appeal planning officer J Kirkaldy) - **Authority:** Folkestone and Hythe (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009762 - **Application reference:** 25/1555/FH - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Replacement of 9 timber windows (4 retrospective) with uPVC at second floor and attic - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE9 - **Development plan policies:** Folkestone and Hythe Places and Policies Local Plan 2020 HB1, HB8 - **Main issues:** conservation area - **Tags:** tier-2, conservation-area, upvc-windows, heritage-no-harm, appeal-planning-officer, transitional-no-consultation, drafting-slip ## Summary uPVC windows at second-floor and attic level of a Folkestone conservation-area building were allowed, with detailed specifications by condition. They are seen only from a distance, among existing uPVC (DL ¶12-13). The inspector found a neutral effect, so no HE6 balance was needed (DL ¶17). ## What made the difference The low visibility of the upper-floor windows, and uPVC already on the property. Once no harm is found, a less harmful alternative does not count against the scheme (DL ¶15); contrast PINS-6008669, where harm was found and the timber alternative decided the case. ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): neutral.** upper-floor windows seen from a distance; details by condition; neutral effect on the CA, so no public-benefit balance (DL 9-17) ## Key facts - Existing uPVC windows at the property (2009 permission) and in the street (DL 3, 11) - Availability of a double-glazed timber alternative "does not mean as a prerequisite" that the proposal is unacceptable (DL 15) - Letter cites "Policy HE6:5" for the public-benefit balance and says "no substantial harm" (DL 9, 17) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009762 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/accf534e-efad-47de-ab81-7ebe9f2396e2 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009762.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 88 Eastern Road, Romford - **Decision:** allowed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Peter Eggleton - **Authority:** Havering (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009771 - **Application reference:** P1622.25 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Single-storey rear extension and change of use from dwelling to 10-person sui generis HMO with 5 rear parking spaces - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** NPPF2024 para 11(d), Havering LP Policy 8(iii) - **Development plan policies:** Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 policies 7, 8, 24, 34, London Plan 2021 D14, T1, T6, T6.1 - **Main issues:** neighbours' living conditions (parking noise) - **Tags:** tier-2, transitional, decided-on-publication-day, old-wording-slip, hmo, fallback, living-conditions, housing-shortfall, costs-application, psed ## Summary A 10-person HMO with five rear parking spaces was allowed after an earlier 10-space scheme had failed. The lawful 6-person HMO fallback meant the extra parking noise was not unacceptable. The letter is dated 17 August 2026 but applies the old tilted balance ("not significantly and demonstrably outweigh", DL ¶21) and never mentions the new Framework. ## What made the difference Halving the parking and moving it deeper into the site, together with the lawful C4 fallback. A shortfall authority and the "considerable support" given to ten lower-cost homes did the rest. ## Policy findings - **NPPF2024 para 11(d): pass.** "I conclude that the harm would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL 21) — old tilted-balance wording on 17 Aug 2026; no reference to the new Framework; council lacks 5YHLS (figure not stated) (DL 19) - **Policy 8(iii) (Havering LP): conflict.** noise from 5-space rear parking greater than a family house, but lawful 6-bed HMO fallback makes it "just under" the threshold of Policy 7 (DL 9-11) - **HO5: benefit.** code mapped by harvester — ten lower-cost households in accessible location "gains considerable support" (DL 19) ## Key facts - Previous 10-space scheme dismissed on appeal 6000600 (9 Dec 2025) for noise to No 86 (DL 4-5) - Lawful development certificate for 6-person C4 HMO (DL 9) - UU prevents residents obtaining parking permits (DL 14) - Officers recommended approval; members refused (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009771 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/85c42484-4465-4d95-9680-70d29a8ef531 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009771.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pavement outside 297 King Street, Hammersmith - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C McDonagh - **Authority:** Hammersmith and Fulham (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009772 - **Application reference:** 2025/03048/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Freestanding multifunctional hub with digital screen and public defibrillator on footway (non-determination) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(3), HE6(4), HE4, DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan 2018 DC1, DC8, DC10, T3, London Plan 2021 D8, T1, T2, D5 - **Main issues:** character and CA setting, highway safety - **Tags:** street-hub, telecoms, conservation-area-setting, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-ungraded, he6-3-considerable-weight, non-determination, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A new multifunctional hub (screen and defibrillator) on a verdant, uncluttered stretch of King Street was dismissed. It harmed the character of the street and, through that, the settings of two conservation areas opposite. The Inspector ran the new heritage sequence: HE5 (no assessment submitted), HE4, HE6(3) "considerable importance and weight", and HE6(4) against limited CO1-type benefits. ## Issues and findings - **HE5(1): no assessment.** HE5 requires an assessment of significance including setting. "This is not before me" (DL ¶6). - **Character: harm, significant weight.** The hub "would appear somewhat monolithic … a significant and prominent addition to a street scene which is generally clear of furniture" (DL ¶12). - **CA setting: harm, ungraded.** "As a result of this harm, it stands to reason that it would also harm the significance of both conservation areas through harm to their respective settings" (DL ¶12). The Inspector used the Annex B definition of setting (DL ¶9). - **HE6(3)/(4).** "any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶19). The Wi-Fi, calls, defibrillator and wayfinding benefits "contribute to the aims of section 9 … However, this is with the caveat that … support is not ubiquitous. These benefits are given limited weight" (DL ¶20). - **Highway safety: PASS** (DL ¶¶15–18). ## Planning balance An HE6(4) weighing inside a s38(6) decision. Considerable weight to setting harm plus significant character harm, against limited benefits. ## What made the difference The street had been deliberately kept clear of furniture, and the frontage facing it is a key contributor to the Westcroft Square CA. Compare the Islington and Liverpool hubs allowed where the setting was cluttered or modern (PINS-6008701, PINS-6009241). ## Transferable points - Harm to CA setting can be found without grading, then given HE6(3) "considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶¶12, 19). - The absence of an HE5 significance assessment is noted against the applicant (DL ¶6). - Communications benefits under the new chapter 9 (CO1) are limited where the kit is not justified at that spot (DL ¶20). ## Policy findings - **HE5(1): fail.** no heritage assessment of setting submitted (DL 6) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** harm to setting of Westcroft Square and Ravenscourt & Starch Green CAs — ungraded; "a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL 12, 19) - **HE6(4): fail.** Wi-Fi, calls, defibrillator, wayfinding — limited weight (DL 20) - **HE4(1): conflict.** "heritage assets, as an irreplaceable resource, should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance" (DL 13) - **DP3: fail (significant weight).** monolithic 2.64 m hub on a clear, verdant street — harm to character weighs "significantly" (DL 12, 19) - **CO1: benefit (limited weight).** section 9 support for communications "not ubiquitous" (DL 20) - **TR4: pass.** set back 3 m+ from cycle-lane crossing; 2.4 m wheelchair space (DL 15-18) ## Key facts - Wide verdant stretch of King Street clear of street furniture; CAs on opposite side with Buildings of Merit frontage - Ad consent application undetermined and not appealed; screen assessed as structure only - No existing hub at the site despite reference to replacement ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e752355f-6e28-42cc-a398-413c62650f91 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009772 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009772.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Footpath outside 297 Pentonville Road, King's Cross (BT Street Hub and digital adverts) - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Caroline Skelly - **Authority:** Camden (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009775 - **Application reference:** 2025/5873/P - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub replacing a kiosk (Appeal A) with digital advert panels both sides (Appeal B, 6009777, 2026/0198/A) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), P5 - **Development plan policies:** Camden Local Plan 2017 A1, C5, C6, D1, D2, G1, T1 - **Main issues:** heritage and character, community safety, pedestrian safety, advert amenity - **Tags:** telecoms, street-hub, heritage-harm-decisive, transitional, old-wording-slip, crime-safety, advert-heritage ## Summary A BT Street Hub with digital adverts on the pavement beside the Grade II "Lighthouse Building" at King's Cross was dismissed on heritage and community-safety grounds. The advertisement consent appeal was dismissed on amenity. The decision is dated 17 Aug 2026 but applies the December 2024 heritage paragraphs and does not cite CO1. ## Issues and findings - **Heritage: HARM.** The hub's scale and digital screens would clutter a stretch of pavement without advertising and "erode the views along Pentonville Road towards the Grade I listed St Pancras Station and Former Midland Hotel and Kings Cross Stations" (DL ¶12). "I find the harm to be less than substantial in this instance, and at the lower end of the spectrum, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework …" (DL ¶14). - **Public benefits: INSUFFICIENT.** "they occupy only a small part of the structure, with the dominant element being the advertisements. Moreover, I have not been provided with any evidence that these benefits could not be provided in a way which does not result in the harm I have identified" (DL ¶15). - **Community safety: FAIL.** "in the lack of any compelling evidence to the contrary, I cannot be satisfied that the proposed hub would not lead to increased criminal activity" (DL ¶20-21). - **Pedestrian safety: PASS** (DL ¶25-26). ## Planning balance An HE6(4)-type balance under 2024 ¶215: low harm with considerable weight against connectivity benefits, which were treated as incidental to the adverts. Community-safety conflict was an additional reason. ## What made the difference The adverts dominated the hub, and there was no evidence that the digital benefits needed this form or location. Police evidence on drug-dealing via free calls was site-relevant. Under the 2026 Framework, CO1 would have required the benefits to carry substantial weight; this letter did not engage CO1. ## Transferable points - Street-hub benefits can be discounted where "the dominant element" is advertising and no less harmful alternative is shown (DL ¶15). - Police crime evidence, even at ward level, can defeat hubs where the management plan is not site-specific (DL ¶19-23). - Transition evidence: this 17 Aug 2026 letter applied 2024 ¶¶212 and 215 without CO1. Compare PINS-6008051, where CO1 substantial weight was applied but still outweighed. ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): fail (considerable weight).** "less than substantial … lower end" harm to Grade II Lighthouse Building setting, King's Cross/St Pancras CA and views to Grade I stations; public benefits (Wi-Fi, 5G, free calls, 999, sensors) insufficient; applies 2024 NPPF paras 212 and 215 (DL 11-16) - **P5: fail.** Met Police evidence of drug dealing via free calls and phone theft; larger hub gives concealment; management plan not site-specific; decided on Camden C5 (DL 18-23) - **TR4: pass.** pavement about 3.2 m retained; no evidence of high-flow threshold (DL 24-26) ## Key facts - Decision dated 17 Aug 2026, citing 2024 paras 212 and 215 and "less than substantial" harm - Benefits "occupy only a small part of the structure, with the dominant element being the advertisements"; no evidence they could not be provided without the harm (DL 15) - Concurrent appeals by the same inspector at 366 Gray's Inn Road and outside the Standard Hotel (DL 6) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009775 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7ee9ebe1-b5a5-4bf7-8408-bcf928039877 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009775.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pavement outside 1b Shepherds Bush Road, Hammersmith - **Decision:** dismissed, 20 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C McDonagh - **Authority:** Hammersmith and Fulham (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009776 - **Application reference:** 2025/03050/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Freestanding multifunctional street hub with digital screen and public defibrillator on footway (non-determination) - **Site context:** conservation-area, listed-building-setting, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE7(2) - **Development plan policies:** Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan 2018 DC1, DC8, DC10, T3, London Plan 2021 D5, D8, T1, T2 - **Main issues:** character and appearance / heritage, highway safety - **Tags:** telecoms, street-hub, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-harm-ungraded, conservation-area, ndha-harm, old-wording-slip, transitional-no-consultation, non-determination ## Summary A street hub on an uncluttered footway in Shepherd's Bush Conservation Area, next to the Granville Mansions Building of Merit, was dismissed. The harm to the conservation area was given "considerable importance and weight" without being graded. The harm to the non-designated heritage asset was "moderate". Telecoms and public-safety benefits got limited weight. Highway safety was acceptable. ## Issues and findings - **Significance (HE5).** "There is nothing before me to establish the significance of the CA as required by policy HE5 of the Framework" (DL ¶6). The inspector derived it from site observation. - **Harm.** The hub "would appear somewhat monolithic … a significant and prominent addition to a street scene which is generally open and includes sparse furniture … it would also harm the significance of the CA and the Granville Mansions non-designated heritage asset" (DL ¶14). - **HE6.** "I must give this harm considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶22). "great weight should be given to the asset's conservation" (DL ¶26). - **HE7.** "a moderate level of harm to the setting of the BoM … worthy of additional moderate weight against the scheme" (DL ¶23). - **Benefits.** "support is not ubiquitous. These benefits are given limited weight" (DL ¶24). ## Planning balance HE6(4) and HE7(2) balances against limited public benefits. Contrary to the plan, with no material considerations indicating otherwise (DL ¶26-27). ## What made the difference The setting: an uncluttered footway next to historic frontages in a conservation area. Compare PINS-6009681 (Ilford, allowed), where a busy Metropolitan Centre footway already full of street furniture absorbed a similar hub. ## Transferable points - Street-hub telecoms benefits get limited weight against conservation-area harm (DL ¶24, 26). - Harm to a conservation area is expressed only as "harm" carrying "considerable importance and weight", with no grading. Old "great weight" wording persists (DL ¶22, 26). - A failure to supply an HE5 significance assessment is noted but does not stop the inspector forming their own view (DL ¶6-7). ## Policy findings - **HE5(1): neutral.** "There is nothing before me to establish the significance of the CA as required by policy HE5" — inspector assessed significance from own observations (DL 6-7) - **HE6(4): harm (considerable weight).** harm to Shepherd's Bush CA ungraded — "I must give this harm considerable importance and weight" (DL 22, HE6(3) wording); later "great weight should be given to the asset's conservation" (DL 26) — 2024 wording, not HE6(1) "substantial weight"; s72 and s66 cited (DL 6, 8); listed Empire and Grampians settings not affected (DL 15) - **HE7(2): harm (moderate weight).** "moderate level of harm to the setting" of Granville Mansions (Building of Merit), "additional moderate weight" (DL 23) - **CO1: benefit (limited weight).** code mapped by harvester — free wi-fi, calls, wayfinding, emergency button, defibrillator; support "not ubiquitous" and subject to environmental safeguards (DL 24); removal of an old hub elsewhere also limited (DL 25) - **TR4: pass.** code mapped by harvester — 1.75m clearance for wheelchair users; no visibility obstruction at Miller's Way (DL 18-21) ## Key facts - Hub 2.64m high x 1.33m wide; 0.6m from kerb, 4.9m to building line; sparse existing street furniture (DL 5, 14) - Advertisement consent not before the inspector; screen assessed as structure only (DL 2) - Parties not re-consulted; Framework "material … from the day of publication" (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009776 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1afff23f-8cbf-4c61-871f-6f0078c62efc --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009776.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 60 Second Avenue, Billericay - **Decision:** dismissed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R C Shrimplin - **Authority:** Basildon (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6009787 - **Application reference:** 25/01268/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Extension and conversion of detached double garage to a two-storey annexe - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4 - **Development plan policies:** Basildon Local Plan Saved Policies 2007 BE12 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, backland, design-refusal, householder, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary A proposal to turn a rear double garage in Billericay into a large dormered "annexe" was dismissed. It would function as a backland dwelling out of keeping with the street's pattern. The inspector noted that the revised Framework "places an additional emphasis on the need to make good use of land within settlements (for example at Policy S4)" (DL ¶10), but found the character harm "substantially outweighs the benefits" (DL ¶14). ## What made the difference The building's scale and layout meant it would work as an independent dwelling, not an ancillary annexe. Conditions to keep it ancillary would be "so complex and onerous as to be unreasonable" (DL ¶16). ## Policy findings - **S4: fail.** new emphasis on making good use of land within settlements acknowledged, but backland form out of character - harm "substantially outweighs" benefits (DL 10-14) ## Key facts - Converted garage would in practice function as a separate chalet-bungalow dwelling behind the house, served from Frithwood Lane ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009787 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/123512ec-86ef-4f63-b790-faf99b8c88b1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009787.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 58 and 60 Waverley Road, St Albans (former sports and social club) - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Bell-Williamson - **Authority:** St Albans (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6009808 - **Application reference:** 5/25/0057 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Redevelopment of a cleared former sports and social club site with four houses (2 x 3-bed, 2 x 2-bed) - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.12 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), DP3(1), TR3(1)(c), S4 - **Development plan policies:** St Albans Local Plan 2024-2041 (adopted 9 Sep 2026) SP7, SP12, DES1, DES4, TRA1 - **Main issues:** loss of community use, character and appearance, neighbours' living conditions, amenity space, parking and highway safety - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, backland, community-facility, living-conditions, housing-shortfall, new-local-plan, drafting-slip, costs-application, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Four houses on the site of a demolished sports and social club in St Albans. Loss of the community use was accepted under HC6, since the club had failed financially. But the rear pair would be cramped and overlook neighbours, the front gardens would be too small, and highway safety was not demonstrated. With DP3(3) cited and a highway conflict under TR3(1)(c), the adverse effects substantially outweighed four homes on a 1.12-year supply. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Plan and Framework.** "The St Albans Local Plan 2024-2041 was adopted on 9 September 2026." (DL ¶2). Parties consulted on the Framework (DL ¶3). - **Community use, HC6: PASS.** "I must conclude that it has been demonstrated that the community use of the site is no longer needed" (DL ¶14). - **Character.** "This would result in a cramped appearance to the dwellings in this location." (DL ¶17). - **Highways.** "A Grampian condition to ensure the land’s availability would not be appropriate as this type of condition should relate to land that is not controlled by the applicant." (DL ¶31). - **Framework balance.** "Policy P3 requires the application of a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Policy P4 states that development within settlements, as proposed here, should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects" (DL ¶37). These are slips for S3 and S4. - **Housing.** "The proposal would provide four dwellings in circumstances where there is 1.12 years supply of deliverable housing sites" (DL ¶38). "Substantial weight is given to this benefit in accordance with Policy HO7." (DL ¶38). - **DP3.** "I give this adverse effect substantial weight, particularly as the Framework states at DP3(3) that proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 of the policy" (DL ¶40). - **Highway safety, TR3(1)(c).** "there is a conflict with Policy TR3(1)(c). This adverse effect should attract significant weight." (DL ¶41). ## Planning balance S4 (as "P4"): "I conclude that in this case the adverse effects of granting permission substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶42). Plan-led conclusion against the new Local Plan (DL ¶43). ## What made the difference Squeezing a second pair of houses into the rear of the site, close to both the neighbouring garden and the Chene Mews frontages. The community-use objection fell away on the viability evidence, but the design and amenity objections did not. ## Transferable points - HC6 is met where a closed club went into receivership through lack of viability, even if other management might have kept it open (DL ¶12-14). - DP3(3) used to lift the weight of a DP3(1) conflict to substantial, without an express clear-justification finding (DL ¶40). - Highway-safety conflicts are coded to TR3(1)(c) (significant adverse impacts on highway safety to be mitigated) rather than TR6 (DL ¶41). - A Grampian condition is not the tool for land the appellant already controls; an obligation is needed (DL ¶31). ## Policy findings - **HC6: pass.** club closed 2018 after financial decline and receivership; no reasonable prospect of the use being retained (DL 8-14) - **DP3(1): conflict (substantial weight).** rear pair cramped, too close to Chene Mews frontages and forward of their building line; plus living conditions and garden size (DL 17-19, 40) - **DP3(3): fail.** cited to support substantial weight to the DP3(1) conflict; no separate clear-justification finding (DL 40) - **P3: harm.** mapped; overlooking and overbearing effect on No 62 garden (about 4.5 m separation) and inter-visibility with Chene Mews (DL 20-25) - **TR3(1)(c): fail (significant weight).** highway safety not demonstrated - turning relies on land outside site with no obligation; splays and signs unevidenced (DL 29-34, 41) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** four homes on a 1.12-year supply (DL 38) - **L3: benefit (limited weight).** efficient use of land discounted because the scheme is not well designed (DL 38) - **S3: fail.** letter says Policy P3 and Policy P4 for the presumption and development within settlements (S3, S4); adverse effects substantially outweigh benefits (DL 37, 42-43) ## Key facts - New St Albans Local Plan 2024-2041 adopted 9 Sep 2026 replaced the 1994 plan during the appeal (DL 2) - Rear gardens of the front 3-bed houses 36.5 and 37.5 sq m against the 80 sq m standard now in the supporting text to DES4 (DL 26-28) - Grampian condition over land in the appellant's control not appropriate; no planning obligation offered (DL 31) - Costs application by the appellant decided separately (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009808 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/cd04fbba-78b3-4507-8410-8f8d88c88c49 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009808.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Woodside Equestrian Centre, Forest Road, Colgate (parking and storage containers) - **Decision:** dismissed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Wright - **Authority:** Horsham (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009817 - **Application reference:** DC/26/0206 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retention of top-surfaced hardcore parking area and re-siting of lorry storage containers let to local trades at an equestrian centre (part retrospective) - **Site context:** open-countryside, national-landscape, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(b), S5(4), E4, N4 - **Development plan policies:** Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 Policies 10, 25, 26, 30 - **Main issues:** suitable location, National Landscape - **Tags:** rural-business-not-necessary, national-landscape, cross-subsidy-rejected, s5-4-exceptional, retrospective, small-scheme ## Summary Commercial container storage let to Horsham tradespeople, plus an expanded surfaced car park at an equestrian centre in the High Weald National Landscape, was dismissed. The storage was not a rural business needing a countryside location, and cross-subsidising the equestrian business did not make it diversification. Both local policies were read as consistent with S5 and E4. The scheme harmed National Landscape character under N4. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were invited to comment; only the council responded (DL ¶3). - **Location: FAIL.** HDPF 26 is "broadly consistent" with S5's rural-business-where-necessary category (DL ¶6), and HDPF 10 "generally accords with Policy E4" (DL ¶7). The containers "operate as a separate commercial activity which is not dependent on a rural location and could reasonably be accommodated within established employment areas" (DL ¶8). "Whilst they help with the viability of the existing equestrian business, the commercial storage use does not diversify a farming enterprise" (DL ¶9). - **National Landscape: HARM (N4).** N4 "requires substantial weight to be placed on the importance of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of NLs" (DL ¶13). "the high protection afforded to NLs does not exist only in visually prominent locations … Although this erosion would be relatively localised, the proposed scheme would not conserve and enhance the natural beauty" (DL ¶20). - **Balance (S5(4)).** "the benefits do not substantially outweigh the adverse effects, including to the character of the countryside, for proposals which do not fall within the categories outlined in Policy S5" (DL ¶23). ## Planning balance The route was S5(4) exceptional circumstances. Benefits: secure, affordable storage for local businesses and staff retention. Harms: unsuitable location and National Landscape harm (substantial weight under N4). The benefits did not substantially outweigh the harms. ## What made the difference The absence of any functional link between the storage and the land-based use. Cross-subsidy of an equestrian business is not enough under S5(1)(b) or E4. Storage ancillary to the equestrian use, or housed in a converted building, would have been assessed differently. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(b)/E4 necessity is not shown by income cross-subsidy of an existing rural business. The new use must itself need a rural location or be functionally linked (DL ¶8-9, 11). - N4 protection of National Landscapes applies to localised, poorly visible erosion of character, not only prominent views (DL ¶20). - Local countryside policies requiring development to be "essential to a countryside location" are consistent with S5 and keep full weight (DL ¶6-7). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(b): fail.** container storage for Horsham trades not dependent on a rural location and could be in employment areas; HDPF 26 "broadly consistent" with S5 (DL 6, 8, 11) - **E4: fail.** storage not functionally linked to equestrian or land-based use; income cross-subsidy of the equestrian business does not make it diversification (DL 7, 9, 11) - **N4: harm (substantial weight).** top-surfaced parking and a row of metal containers urbanise pastoral High Weald character; "high protection … does not exist only in visually prominent locations" (DL 13-21) - **S5(4): fail.** outside S5 categories; benefits (affordable storage, staff retention) do not substantially outweigh harm (DL 23) ## Key facts - Equestrian centre in High Weald National Landscape, St Leonard's Forest LCA (highly sensitive) - Container rental subsidises a loss-making equestrian business and retains staff - Previous appeal for container and caravan storage dismissed (APP/Z3825/W/25/3374616) - Trial-hole photos did not prove extent of historic hardstanding; no lawful development certificate (DL 18) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009817 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ca3ab78e-ea35-4251-a796-d331e4062f08 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009817.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Mill Road, Whitfield - **Decision:** dismissed, 2 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Eleni Marshall - **Authority:** West Northamptonshire (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009818 - **Application reference:** 2026/0210/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective agricultural timber store - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(a), DP3 - **Development plan policies:** West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2014 S10, South Northamptonshire Part 2 Local Plan SS1 - **Main issues:** whether required for agriculture - **Tags:** s5-1-a, agricultural-building, retrospective, drafting-slip, transitional-no-consultation, tier-2 ## Summary A retrospective "agricultural" timber store on grassland at the edge of Whitfield was dismissed. Agriculture is an S5(1)(a) category. But the appellant gave no clear evidence of the scale of the farming activity, so "it is not realistically possible to quantity the benefits" (DL ¶16). The domestic-looking design (UPVC windows and doors) meant those unquantified benefits were substantially outweighed (DL ¶17). ## What made the difference Evidence of genuine agricultural need. S5(1)(a) is not a free pass: it still needs benefits that can be weighed. DP3 is cited as "National Policy D3" (a drafting slip). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(a): fail.** agriculture is an S5(1)(a) category, but without evidence of the scale/nature of the agricultural activity benefits cannot be quantified; substantially outweighed by design failure (DL 16-17) - **DP3: conflict.** UPVC windows/doors and domestic form not designed for agricultural function (DL 10-12, 17 - cited as "D3") ## Key facts - Site inside Whitfield village in general context but outside the village boundary - open countryside - Council suspected domestic storage for a caravan; enforcement history; costs application decided separately - Framework changes judged immaterial - no re-consultation (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009818 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/cefa74a2-17e5-4524-be6a-b08cb3fd6364 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009818.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at 260A Hawkes Mill Lane, Allesley, Coventry - **Decision:** allowed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Sibley - **Authority:** Coventry (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009837 - **Application reference:** PL/2025/0001987/OUT - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline permission for two dwellings (access only) behind houses on Hawkes Mill Lane - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g), TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Coventry Local Plan 2017 GB1, H3, AC1, AC4, AC5 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development in Green Belt, sustainable location - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, not-inappropriate, sustainable-location-pass, hdt-below-75, small-scheme, self-build-unsecured, bng-exemption-not-shown, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Outline permission for two houses on a contained plot within a small group of houses at Hawkes End, Coventry Green Belt. Allowed: grey belt, unmet need via the published Housing Delivery Test (below 75%), and a sustainable location under TR3, so not inappropriate under GB7(1)(g). The location finding rests on a short description of a partly unlit footpath and "nearby" buses, with no distances or frequencies. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were given the opportunity to comment on the implications of the new Framework" (DL ¶2). - **Grey belt: PASS.** "I therefore find that the site does not strongly contribute to purpose (a)" (DL ¶7), and likewise (b) and (d). - **(g)(ii) via HDT: PASS.** "the HDT remains the published measure for the purposes of applying national policy at the time of this decision" (DL ¶9); "I find that there is an evidenced unmet need for the proposed dwellings" (DL ¶10). - **(g)(iii) / TR3: PASS.** "Although the part of the route nearest to the site is not fully street lit, the route is lit for much of its length and would provide a walking route for future occupiers" (DL ¶12). "day-to-day travel would not be wholly dependent on the private car. The proposal would therefore accord with Policy TR3 of the Framework" (DL ¶13). - **Self-build UU: defective and unnecessary.** "the undertaking lacks the clarity and precision required for an enforceable planning obligation" (DL ¶16). ## Planning balance None. Not inappropriate and compliant with the development plan as a whole (DL ¶14, ¶31). S5(5) is not mentioned. ## What made the difference The site's containment within an existing group of houses (grey belt) and a published HDT result the council could not displace. The TR3 finding is brief; compare Coventry 6011410 (same authority, same week). ## Transferable points - The published HDT result governs fn41 until a new plan is adopted, even if the council questions the ONS figures behind it (DL ¶9–10). - A contained plot within a group of houses behind a road frontage does not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b) or (d) (DL ¶7). - Weak authority on (g)(iii): the letter accepts "not be wholly dependent on the private car" without distances or bus frequencies (DL ¶12–13). - An imprecise self-build UU is not relied on; the BNG condition then applies (DL ¶16–17). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** within small group of houses behind Hawkes Mill Lane frontage; no strong contribution to (a), (b) or (d) (DL 6-8) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** would not fundamentally undermine purposes across plan area; letter also says no undermining of encroachment purpose (DL 8) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** fn41 via published HDT below 75% (figure not stated); council's challenge to ONS figures behind HDT rejected pending plan review adoption (DL 9-10) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** footpath to Allesley, not fully lit near the site but "lit for much of its length"; cycling practicable; "nearby bus services" to Coventry; no distances, times or bus frequencies stated; "not be wholly dependent on the private car" (DL 11-13) - **TR3: pass.** TR3 paraphrased incl. rural practicability; accords (DL 11, 13) - **DM6: neutral.** self-build UU imprecise (refers to "the Dwelling", "first occupier") and not necessary; not relied on; BNG condition applies as self-build exemption not secured (DL 15-19) ## Key facts - Hawkes End has limited services; Allesley nearby with day-to-day needs (distance not stated) (DL 12) - Published HDT result relied on; council argued emerging plan evidence questions the ONS figures (DL 9) - Access via existing track between 244 and 248 Hawkes Mill Lane (DL 22) - [object Object] - Parties given the opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009837 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d42c6b84-e004-45ff-8d15-3140c2719b45 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009837.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land on north side of Lodge Lane, Bolney - **Decision:** dismissed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Wright - **Authority:** Mid Sussex (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009838 - **Application reference:** DM/26/0317 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for a phased development of up to 9 self-build dwellings - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.38 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), S5(4), HE6, TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Mid Sussex District Plan 2014-2031 DP6, DP12, DP15, DP21, DP26, DP34, DP35, Bolney Neighbourhood Plan 2016 BOLBB1, BOLE2, BOLD1 - **Main issues:** suitability of location, character and appearance, heritage - **Tags:** PIP, s5-1-j, s5-4-exceptional, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, self-build-unsecured, heritage-harm-decisive, housing-shortfall, landscape-harm, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Permission in principle for up to nine self-build homes in a field near Bolney (Mid Sussex) was refused on appeal. Supply was 3.38 years, so there was an evidenced unmet need. But the site was not "physically well-related" to Bolney for S5(1)(j): it was reached by a single access onto a lane far from the village core and separated by gaps from nearby houses. S5(4) therefore applied, and the substantial HO7 weight did not substantially outweigh the location, character and heritage harms. ## Issues and findings - **S5(1)(j): FAIL on "well-related".** "Development in the settlement of Bolney is largely centred around The Street … In contrast, the proposed residential development … would have a single access point onto Lodge Lane some distance from The Street, with a gap between it and the public footpath and nearby properties. As such, regardless of whether it would be of a scale which could be accommodated … it would not be physically well-related to the existing settlement" (DL ¶15). - **Unmet need.** "There is no dispute that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year supply … 3.38 year supply … Consequently, there is an evidenced unmet need" (DL ¶14). - **TR3: FAIL.** Lodge Lane "includes two very sharp bends … no separate footways or streetlights and for the most part is subject to the national speed limit" (DL ¶19). "There are examples where Inspectors have accepted that unlit lanes with no footpaths may provide acceptable walking or cycling routes in rural locations … However, the nature of the route … and the infrequent bus services … would limit their attractiveness, particularly for older people, those with reduced mobility or with children and at times of darkness and bad weather" (DL ¶20). - **Heritage (HE6):** limited harm to the CA and The Thatched House, not outweighed (DL ¶37-40). - **Self-build.** The UU was unexecuted, so self-build could not be secured and got limited weight (DL ¶46). ## Planning balance S5(4): "it should only be approved in exceptional circumstances, where the benefits of the proposal would substantially outweigh the adverse effects" (DL ¶44). HO7 carried substantial weight (DL ¶45). The location, character and heritage harms carried "considerable weight" (DL ¶48). The benefits did "not substantially outweigh", so there were no exceptional circumstances (DL ¶49). ## What made the difference The "physically well-related" limb. The inspector judged it by the village's form (centred on The Street) and by physical contiguity: the site kept gaps to existing houses and had its own access onto a remote lane. The council's large Foxhole Farm approval, also outside the boundary, was distinguished because it came with pedestrian and cycle links and bus improvements. ## Transferable points - "Physically well-related" in S5(1)(j) looks at relationship to the settlement's form and core, and at gaps between the site and existing houses (DL ¶15). - The infrastructure-capacity limb of (j)(i) is irrelevant if the site is not well-related (DL ¶15). - Failing (j) sends the scheme to S5(4), where the benefits must substantially outweigh the harms (DL ¶44-49). - Unlit lanes without footways are not automatically unacceptable, but sharp bends, national speed limit and infrequent buses tip the balance (DL ¶19-20). - A larger nearby approval outside the boundary is distinguishable where it offered active-travel links and bus enhancements (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): fail.** 3.38-year supply = evidenced unmet need, but single access onto Lodge Lane away from The Street with gaps to footpath/houses - not physically well-related, regardless of infrastructure capacity (DL 13-15) - **TR3: fail.** Lodge Lane narrow, two very sharp bends, no footway or lighting, mostly national speed limit; bus stops 250 m but infrequent (DL 17-21) - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** limited harm to setting of Bolney CA and Grade II The Thatched House; modest benefits do not outweigh (DL 28-40) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** up to nine homes towards evidenced unmet need (DL 45) - **S5(4): fail.** benefits do not substantially outweigh considerable-weight harms - no exceptional circumstances (DL 44-49) ## Key facts - Site set about 6 m off the Bolney built-up area boundary - not "contiguous" for DP6 (glossary definition; Corbett v Cornwall considered) - Supply 3.38 years (from appeal APP/D3830/W/25/3361729, Oct 2025); self-build deficit 488 plots; UU not executed - Council-approved 200 homes at Foxhole Farm (DM/25/1129) distinguished - it had pedestrian/cycle links and bus enhancements ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009838 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/24dbf796-d197-4a2a-bd80-fc95e54b044f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009838.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 17 Brook Lane, Brookville - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Knight - **Authority:** King's Lynn and West Norfolk (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6009844 - **Application reference:** 25/01585/O - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline (access) for one self-build dwelling on garden land beyond the Brookville development boundary - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge, garden-land - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1), CC2, Transitional(2) - **Development plan policies:** King's Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan 2021-2040 LP01, LP02, LP13, LP18, LP19, LP21, LP31 - **Main issues:** location, highway safety, living conditions (odour) - **Tags:** self-build, self-build-unsecured, infill-rejected, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, five-year-supply-met, small-scheme, plan-policy-consistent-full-weight, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary One self-build house on garden land beyond Brookville's development boundary in Norfolk. The self-build element could not be secured, so S5(1)(j) was not available, and houses on one side only meant it was not infill under S5(1)(e). The location fails on access to services: the nearest café is along an unlit road with no pavement, and the shop and school are 1.5 to 1.8 miles away along a fast B-road. The inspector framed the location test under CC2, not TR3. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The main parties were given the opportunity to comment on the new Framework (DL ¶4). - **Self-build unsecured.** "it is not clear to me that a planning condition securing the plot for self-build would be enforceable. There is no legal agreement in place" (DL ¶12). - **Accessibility.** The café route is "along a stretch of the B1112 that contains no pavements or lighting" (DL ¶14). "These distances are great enough that few people would walk them very often" (DL ¶16). "That the B1112 is fast-moving and the route has no lighting confirms me in these views. Overall, it is likely that occupiers of the proposed development would depend upon the private car for their day-to-day needs" (DL ¶16). - **S5(1)(j): FAIL.** "the self-build aspect of the proposal cannot be ensured. As such, the proposal does not evidently have the support of Policy S5(1)(j)" (DL ¶30). - **S5(1)(e): FAIL.** "there is no house on the other side of the site and, as such, the scheme would not comprise infilling within a group of houses" (DL ¶32). - **No category.** "As such, the Framework provides a clear directive to dismiss the appeal" (DL ¶34). - **Plan weight.** "in the context of this appeal, the Local Plan Policies listed above are not materially inconsistent with the Framework and so should continue to be afforded significant weight" (DL ¶36). ## Planning balance Plan-led with S5. A modest housing benefit against the unsuitable location. "The adverse effects of the unsuitable location would outweigh the benefits of the appeal scheme" (DL ¶36). The S5(4) test (exceptional circumstances, with benefits that substantially outweigh) is not named. With modest benefits the result is plainly the same. ## What made the difference No securing mechanism for self-build, which removed the (j) route, and a car-dependent location. A signed unilateral undertaking would have reopened (j), but the location evidence would then have weighed against the benefits. ## Transferable points - A self-build proposal cannot rely on S5(1)(j) self-build need without a legal agreement securing the plot (DL ¶11–12, ¶30). - A house with neighbours on one side only is not "infilling within a group of houses" (DL ¶32). - Distances of 1.5 to 1.8 miles along a fast, unlit B-road mean car dependence, even with a partly shared footway (DL ¶15–16). - A development-boundary policy can be "not materially inconsistent" with the Framework in the context of a scheme that meets no S5 category (DL ¶36). This is a context-specific Annex A ¶2 reading. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): fail.** self-build shortfall possibly an unmet need, but the self-build element cannot be secured (no legal agreement; condition not shown enforceable) (DL 11-12, 30) - **S5(1)(e): fail.** open fields north and south; houses on one side only on Brook Lane; not infilling within a group (DL 31-32) - **S5(1): fail.** no category met, so "a clear directive to dismiss"; S5(4) exceptional-circumstances test not named, balance framed as adverse effects "would outweigh the benefits" (DL 34, 36) - **CC2: fail.** location test run under CC2, not TR3; café 0.6 miles along the B1112 with no pavement or lighting; shop 1.5 miles and primary school 1.8 miles; fast, unlit B-road; car dependence (DL 14-16, 35) - **Transitional(2): accord (significant weight).** LP02 and other policies "not materially inconsistent with the Framework" in the context of this appeal, so significant weight (DL 36) ## Key facts - Borough has a "healthy" housing land supply (DL 33) - Access relies on resurfacing an unmade access point; appellant's right to do so not shown; highway safety conflict (DL 18-24) - Odour from nearby poultry units (moderate predicted effect) not unacceptable (DL 25-29) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009844 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/087a5b2d-16ff-4814-9b65-1cee259d2106 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009844.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Old Stables, 12 Kenward Court, Hadlow (uPVC windows, listed building consent) - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Pearce - **Authority:** Tonbridge and Malling (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009847 - **Application reference:** TM/25/01244/PA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Listed building consent to replace 1980s timber windows and doors with timber-effect uPVC in a curtilage-listed former stables of the Grade II Maltings I and II - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(3), HE6(4) - **Main issues:** special interest of listed building - **Tags:** tier-2, listed-building-consent, listed-building, upvc-windows, windows, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, private-benefit-not-public, energy-efficiency, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Listed building consent to replace modern timber windows with timber-effect uPVC in a curtilage-listed former brewery stables at Hadlow. Removing the 1980s windows was harmless, but uPVC was an inappropriate material, causing a limited degree of harm. Energy efficiency was not evidenced against the existing double glazing, and security and maintenance were private benefits. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The revised Framework is a material consideration which should be taken into account from the day of publication" (DL ¶3). - **Material.** "it is not possible to accurately reflect the textural qualities, natural variations and weathering characteristics of timber in a modern material" (DL ¶12). - **Degree of harm.** "Consequently, there would be a limited degree of harm to the significance of the heritage asset" (DL ¶14). - **HE6(4): FAIL.** "there is no substantive evidence before me that demonstrates that the proposed windows and doors would enhance energy efficiency in comparison to the existing double-glazed windows. Moreover, the maintenance levels and security capabilities of the windows and doors are private benefits" (DL ¶16). ## Planning balance HE6(4): limited harm, with considerable importance and weight, against no evidenced public benefit. ## What made the difference The material itself. Even replacing non-historic windows, uPVC was held harmful, and the energy benefit was not shown against the existing double glazing. ## Transferable points - Replacing non-historic windows can still harm significance through an inappropriate material (DL ¶11-14). - The HE6(4) energy-efficiency benefit needs evidence of improvement over the existing (DL ¶16). - Security and maintenance are private benefits (DL ¶16). ## Policy findings - **HE5(2): harm.** degree identified - limited harm; uPVC inappropriate even though the windows replaced are not historic (DL 12-14) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation and HE6(3) considerable importance and weight stated (DL 10, 15) - **HE6(4): fail.** energy efficiency named in HE6(4) but no evidence of improvement over existing double glazing; security and low maintenance are private benefits (DL 15-16) ## Key facts - Existing windows date from a 1980s conversion and have no historic value (DL 11) - No precise drawings or cross-sections of the replacements (DL 13) - Parties given the opportunity to comment on the revised Framework (DL 3) - LBC for uPVC at No 11 not comparable on the evidence (DL 17) - Hadlow Conservation Area preserved (DL 20) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009847 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5bc3a9df-dd9d-4655-b198-f52c2ad10869 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009847.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Adj Grassmere, Horseman Side, Navestock (self-build dwelling in garden) - **Decision:** allowed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Billy Pattison - **Authority:** Brentwood (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6009849 - **Application reference:** 25/01260/OUT - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline (access, layout and scale) for one self-build family dwelling in the garden of a rural house - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, PDL, rural-lane, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.53 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(e), S5(5), S5(2), HO7, L2 - **Development plan policies:** Brentwood Local Plan 2022 MG02, MG03, BE07, BE09, BE14 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development in the Green Belt, suitability of location and accessibility - **Tags:** pdl-e-limb, pdl-rural-garden, not-inappropriate, s5-5-balance, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, self-build, self-build-unsecured, housing-shortfall, annex-a-weight-reduction, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, pd-rights-condition-refused ## Summary A single dwelling in the garden of a rural house at Navestock, in the Green Belt, was allowed. Because the garden is outside a built-up area it counts as previously developed land, and the moderate harm to openness was below GB7(1)(e)'s "substantial" threshold, so the scheme was not inappropriate. The inspector found occupiers would be largely car-reliant on unlit lanes, but gave the local settlement-hierarchy conflict limited weight because of the supply shortfall, did not treat it as a TR3 conflict, and allowed the appeal under S5(5). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "During the appeal the main parties were invited to comment on the relevance of the revised Framework to the appeal proposal" (DL ¶2). - **Rural garden is PDL.** "Although the appeal site is within a small cluster of dwellings and buildings, it does not form part of a built-up area. Consequently … I consider that the appeal site is not in a built-up area and therefore represents previously developed land" (DL ¶11). - **GB7(1)(e): PASS.** "the development would cause a moderate degree of harm to the openness of the Green Belt when compared with the existing situation, but not substantial harm" (DL ¶16). "not all harm to openness will necessarily be substantial" (DL ¶12). - **Location: car reliance found.** "the occupants would be largely reliant on private vehicles to access these, due to the lack of safe pedestrian and cycle routes and having limited options for alternative modes of transport" (DL ¶20). Personal ties to the area do not count: "It is probable that the proposed dwelling would remain long after the appellants' personal circumstances cease to be material" (DL ¶22). - **Plan weight.** "The overall housing land supply position indicates that the development plan is failing to meet its strategic challenges and the settlement strategy is not working effectively. The conflict with policies relating to these matters should therefore be afforded limited weight" (DL ¶37). - **Self-build unsecured.** "There is therefore no mechanism to ensure that the proposal would be a self-build house. As such, I have to assess the proposal as market housing" (DL ¶28). ## Planning balance S5(5) via S5(2): "the proposal does not conflict with any decision-making policies that indicate planning permission should be refused" (DL ¶38). Substantial weight to effective use of PDL (DL ¶38) and to one home (DL ¶39). "I do not find that the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶40). TR3 is not named, and the car-reliance finding enters the balance only as a local-plan conflict of limited weight. ## What made the difference Treating the rural garden as PDL opened GB7(1)(e), which carries no location limb, and the screening by neighbouring houses kept openness harm moderate. The accessibility failure then counted only through local policies whose weight was cut for the supply shortfall. Had the inspector tested TR3 directly, or kept the settlement-hierarchy policies at full weight, the balance could have gone the other way. ## Transferable points - A garden in a small rural cluster that is not a built-up area is PDL (Dartford), opening GB7(1)(e) for a new dwelling (DL ¶9–11). - GB7(1)(e) needs "substantial" openness harm to fail; moderate harm from a house slotted into a roadside ribbon passes (DL ¶12–16). - An applicant's personal ties to the area do not overcome an inaccessible location (DL ¶21–22). - Self-build status needs an obligation; a personal occupation condition fails DM6 (DL ¶28). - Caution: DL ¶37 cuts local location policies for under-supply without an Annex A ¶2 test, and TR3 is never applied. Do not cite as TR3 authority. ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:PDL: pass.** garden of Grassmere, no internal boundary and only accessed via the house, so within the curtilage; small rural cluster is not a built-up area, so the garden is PDL (Dartford [2017] EWCA Civ 141) (DL 9-11) - **GB7(1)(e): pass.** two-storey house slots into roadside ribbon between dwellings and Wattons Works; hedge retained; moderate, not substantial, openness harm (DL 12-16) - **GB7(1)(g): not-engaged.** not considered as (e) is met (DL 17) - **TR3: harm.** mapped (TR3 not named) - unlit narrow lanes, no pavements or cycle lanes for much of the route, poor public transport; occupiers largely car-reliant; appellants' local family and business ties discounted as personal (DL 18-23) - **S5(5): pass.** S5 directs to GB6-GB8, then S5(2); no "should be refused" policy breached; benefits not substantially outweighed (DL 36-40) - **L2: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to effective use of PDL (DL 38); L2/L3 given only limited weight at DL 25 ("Given the scale of the proposal") - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** one dwelling given substantial weight against a 4.53-year supply (DL 39) - **LP MG03/BE09/BE14 (local): conflict (limited weight).** settlement hierarchy and sustainable travel conflict given limited weight because the supply position shows "the settlement strategy is not working effectively" (2024-style, no Annex A(2) test) (DL 37) - **DM6: fail.** no obligation securing self-build; occupation-by-builder condition would fail the tests, so treated as market housing (DL 28) ## Key facts - Site is the far end of the garden of Grassmere in a small roadside cluster with three houses and Wattons Works light industry (DL 10, 14) - Council supply 4.53 years, agreed (DL 24) - Appellants' family and businesses nearby and they own the field behind for a smallholding; given no weight as personal circumstances (DL 21-22) - Visibility splays 2.4 x 87 m NE and 2.4 x 62 m SW by condition (condition 11) - PD-rights removal conditions refused for lack of clear justification (DL 35) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009849 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009849.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Barn at land off Bakers Lane, Holt, Dorset - **Decision:** dismissed, 27 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Dryden - **Authority:** Dorset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009850 - **Application reference:** P/PAAC/2025/06052 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class Q prior approval — barn to dwelling with extension (2024 GPDO amendments) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Class Q.1(i)(ii), GPDO Class Q.1(i)(vi) - **Main issues:** Class Q extension limitations - **Tags:** tier-2, prior-approval, class-q, principal-elevation, framework-not-applicable ## Summary A Class Q barn conversion with an extension was refused prior approval. The existing barn's principal elevation is the west side facing the yard, where its openings are, not the blank, screened side facing the lane. The extension was therefore not "to the rear" and breached Q.1(i)(ii) and (vi) (DL ¶¶10–13). Class Q does not require regard to the Framework (DL ¶16). ## What made the difference The principal elevation was judged functionally, from the openings and loading area, rather than by the highway-facing rule of thumb in householder technical guidance (DL ¶¶10–12). ## Policy findings - **GPDO Class Q.1(i)(ii): fail.** principal elevation of existing barn is west (openings to yard), so extension on east lane side is not to the rear (DL 10-13) - **GPDO Class Q.1(i)(vi): fail.** extends beyond a principal elevation wall (DL 13) ## Key facts - Extant Class Q approval P/PAAC/2024/07631 without extension - East elevation faces Bakers Lane but blank and screened - Dorset Heaths SAC — Reg 77 separate ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/90512710-770e-4b5c-8556-f08f5726bc9f - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009850 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009850.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 16 George's Street, Ovenden, Halifax - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer S Manson) - **Authority:** Calderdale (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6009852 - **Application reference:** 24/01271/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** New-build dormer bungalow on residual land within a former care-home site - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, DP3, P3 - **Development plan policies:** Calderdale Local Plan 2023 BT1, BT2 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, neighbour living conditions - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, design-refusal, living-conditions, transitional-no-consultation, appeal-planning-officer, small-scheme, tier-2 ## Summary A dormer bungalow squeezed onto residual land at a former care-home site in Ovenden, Halifax, was dismissed. It was cramped and incongruous (DP3/L2) and overbearing and overlooking for neighbours (P3). Under S4 these lasting harms, given substantial weight, substantially outweighed the moderate benefit of one home in an undersupply situation (DL ¶15-16). ## What made the difference Plot width and proximity. A kitchen window facing the neighbour's kitchen window at close range, together with a forward projection beyond the building line, made the harms "lasting", which justified substantial weight. ## Policy findings - **DP3: conflict (substantial weight).** cramped, prominent, forward of building line; ignores cohesive character of former care facility (DL 5-8, 15) - **P3: fail (substantial weight).** overbearing on No 11 garden and No 10 windows; direct kitchen-to-kitchen overlooking with No 16 (DL 9-12, 15) - **S4: fail.** one dwelling (moderate weight) substantially outweighed (DL 14-16) ## Key facts - Housing undersupply acknowledged but unquantified; one dwelling given moderate weight - No re-consultation on the 2026 Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009852 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2863ce35-50c6-4baf-82e3-689a9b353f6a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009852.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 11 and 13 Marlborough Avenue, Hull (render and palisade fence in the Avenues CA) - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Hunter - **Authority:** Kingston upon Hull (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6009857 - **Application reference:** 25/00618/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of two terraced houses (flats) to sui generis supported living with office, rear external wall insulation render, rear windows and fencing (retrospective) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), DP3(3), S4(2)(c) - **Development plan policies:** Hull Local Plan 2016-2032 Policies 14, 15, 16 - **Main issues:** effect on the Avenues and Pearson Park Conservation Area - **Tags:** tier-2, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-harm-ungraded, energy-efficiency, energy-benefit-discounted, dp3-refuse-trigger, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, drafting-slip, retrospective, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Retrospective change of use of two terraced houses in Hull's Avenues Conservation Area to supported living with an office. The rear walls were rendered with external wall insulation and a palisade fence was put up. Dismissed, but only because of the render and the fence. The use, the windows and the bins were acceptable. The heritage balance gave the insulation's energy benefit modest weight, because it was unquantified and less harmful options had not been excluded. DP3(3) and S4(2)(c) were applied. ## Issues and findings - **Render.** "the discordant appearance of the render, particularly across the entire rear sides of both properties appears jarring" (DL ¶11). Low public visibility "is not a reason to justify poor quality development, and the duty applies to the whole of the CA" (DL ¶12). - **Palisade fence.** "The galvanised metal appearance, together with its utilitarian design ... appears incongruous against views of the rear sides of the terrace of properties, and harms the CA" (DL ¶14). - **Energy efficiency as a public benefit.** "Whilst Policy HE6 says important public benefits can include enabling energy efficiency and low carbon heating measures to be employed, the actual thermal improvements by the insulation and environmental benefits have not been quantified, and it is not clear if similar or greater benefits could not have been found from alternative sustainable technologies in a less harmful manner" (DL ¶22). "I therefore attach modest weight to these benefits, even when taken collectively" (DL ¶22). - **DP3.** "section (2) of Policy DP3 says where there is conflict with this part of the policy, without clear justification (as in this case) the development should be refused" (DL ¶31). - **Housing weight.** "there is no needs assessment provided to justify a need for it, and the development would result in a net loss of 1 no. residential unit. As such I am not able to attach the substantial weight from this policy" (DL ¶32). - **CC2.** "The external insulation in this case would attract the substantial weight provided by Policy CC2" (DL ¶33). ## Planning balance The HE6 balance failed (DL ¶23). S4 with the should-be-refused carve-out: "where there is conflict with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused, this is likely to indicate the benefits are substantially outweighed" (DL ¶34). The CC2 weight did not change the result. ## What made the difference The materials. Brick-matching insulation, or insulation inside the building, and a traditional boundary treatment would probably have been acceptable, since the use itself raised no objection. The letter is internally uneven: the same insulation gets modest weight in the heritage balance (DL ¶22) and substantial CC2 weight in the overall balance (DL ¶33). ## Transferable points - The energy-efficiency benefit named in HE6(4) can be discounted where the thermal gain is unquantified and less harmful ways to achieve it are not excluded (DL ¶22). - Rear elevations seen only from a back lane (the "ten foot") and neighbouring properties are within the conservation area duty (DL ¶12). - HO7 substantial weight needs an evidenced accommodation need; a net loss of units does not attract it (DL ¶32). ## Policy findings - **HE9: harm.** light render over the rear brick of a unified terrace, and a galvanised palisade fence on the ten-foot, harm the Avenues and Pearson Park CA; use, windows and bins acceptable (DL 7-19, 24) - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation; degree of harm not graded and HE6(3) wording not used (DL 20) - **HE6(4): fail.** EWI carbon benefit not quantified and less harmful alternatives not excluded; supported-living and reuse benefits not dependent on the render or fence; modest weight collectively (DL 21-23) - **DP3(3): fail.** context conflict "without clear justification (as in this case)"; the letter cites "section (2) of Policy DP3" for the refusal wording, which is in DP3(3) (DL 31) - **CC2: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to improving energy efficiency of existing buildings, although the heritage balance gave the same insulation modest weight (DL 22, 33) - **HO7: neutral.** no needs assessment and a net loss of one unit, so HO7 substantial weight not applied; L2 substantial weight also not applied (DL 32) - **S4(2)(c): fail.** conflict with a should-be-refused policy; benefits do not outweigh (DL 34) ## Key facts - Works already carried out (DL 3) - Rear render on Nos 7 and 9 said to be unauthorised, given limited weight (DL 10) - Palisade fence offer to paint or powder-coat rejected; security need not shown (DL 15) - Crime data too basic to attribute increases to the use; a management plan condition would have addressed concerns (DL 27-28) - Parties consulted on the August 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009857 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/473e8943-d81e-4548-b358-35fc4933ee62 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009857.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Outside 80 Middle Street, Yeovil (communication kiosk) - **Decision:** allowed, 21 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Alison Fish - **Authority:** Somerset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009864 - **Application reference:** 26/00448/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Communication kiosk with telephone, touchscreen, defibrillator and illuminated digital advertisement on a pedestrianised town-centre street (linked advertisement appeal 6009865, ref 26/00449/ADV) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** CO1 - **Development plan policies:** South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 EQ2 - **Main issues:** character and appearance / amenity - **Tags:** telecoms, street-hub, co1-substantial-weight, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A communication kiosk with defibrillator and digital advertising, proposed on pedestrianised Middle Street in Yeovil town centre. The inspector found that its compact form, off-centre siting and the lower level of the street relative to the Triangle amphitheatre kept it from being dominant, and that its advertising matched the commercial context. The planning and advertisement appeals were both allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "There have been no fundamental changes relevant to the main issues in this appeal. Therefore, I will not prejudice any party by taking the Framework into account" (DL ¶3). - **Character: acceptable.** "The compact form and modest scale of the proposed kiosk would prevent it from appearing overly dominant or visually intrusive in the street" (DL ¶11). "The addition of the kiosk in this busy commercial setting would not be incongruous" (DL ¶12). "The width of the street and the visual distance to the nearby signage would be sufficient to prevent excessive visual clutter" (DL ¶14). - **CO1.** "Policy CO1 of the Framework states that in considering proposals for telecommunications infrastructure, the need for the expansion or upgrading must not be questioned and that substantial weight should be given to the benefits of maintaining or improving network coverage" (DL ¶17). - **Other matters.** The ICNIRP declaration answers the health concerns (DL ¶20). Management, maintenance and CCTV were secured by a management plan condition (DL ¶19). ## Planning balance No harm was found, so the scheme complied with LP EQ2 and there was no formal balance (DL ¶15-16, ¶27). ## What made the difference A wide, pedestrianised, commercial street where the kiosk sat off-centre and did not obstruct views of the new public realm. The same product at the door of Barnsley Interchange failed (PINS-6009866). ## Transferable points - Kiosks in wide pedestrianised shopping streets with existing free-standing advertising are unlikely to cause harmful clutter (DL ¶12-14). - **Paraphrase caution.** ¶17 reads CO1 as saying need "must not be questioned". The actual text is CO1(2): LPAs "should not … question the need for the expansion or upgrading of telecommunications networks". It is close, but quote the policy, not the letter. ## Policy findings - **DP3: pass.** not cited by code; compact kiosk, off-centre on a wide pedestrian street, with the Triangle amphitheatre still prominent; no harmful clutter (DL ¶11-16) - **CO1(2): benefit (substantial weight).** paraphrased as "the need for the expansion or upgrading must not be questioned and … substantial weight should be given" (DL ¶17) - **CO1(1)(c): pass.** ICNIRP compliance confirmed (DL ¶20) ## Key facts - Pedestrianised Middle Street in the Primary Shopping Area; recent demolitions have opened up the street (DL ¶9-10) - More than 3 m of clear footway in all directions (DL ¶18) - Inspector did not re-consult on the 2026 Framework, finding "no fundamental changes relevant to the main issues" (DL ¶3) - Same operator (NWP Street Ltd / Mr T Johnston) as the dismissed Barnsley kiosk (6009866) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009864 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/98791230-14ef-44ba-a3df-d8d4a710eb8e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009864.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Outside Exchange Station / Barnsley Interchange, Midland Street (communication kiosk) - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Harding - **Authority:** Barnsley (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6009866 - **Application reference:** 2025/0219 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Communication kiosk (about 2.5 m high, over 1 m wide) with integrated defibrillator and illuminated digital advertisement (linked advertisement appeal 6009867, ref 2025/0294) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, near-station, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), CO1(1)(b), S4(2)(c), S3 - **Development plan policies:** Barnsley Local Plan 2019 BTC3, D1 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, visual amenity - **Tags:** telecoms, street-hub, co1-substantial-weight, dp3-refuse-trigger, s4-2-c, substantially-outweighed, alternative-sites, design-refusal ## Summary A communication kiosk with defibrillator and digital advertising, proposed immediately outside the entrance to the Barnsley Interchange. It would narrow a busy pavement and create an "excessively cluttered cluster" of street furniture. The inspector gave CO1 substantial weight to the telecoms benefits. But the scheme failed CO1(1)(b), because no operational need for this exact spot was shown, and it failed DP3(3), so S4(2)(c) applied. Both appeals were dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Character: harm.** "It would lead to a noticeable narrowing of the pavement and would lead to an excessively cluttered cluster of street furniture being evident at this location. The digital illuminated advertisement would only serve to draw the eye further" (DL ¶14). - **CO1: substantial weight, but siting fails (b).** "Being mindful of Framework Policy CO1, I afford substantial weight to the benefits that the communication kiosk would bring" (DL ¶24). "Framework Policy CO1 (b) states that telecommunications infrastructure should be sited and designed to minimise the visual impact … It has not been shown that there are any operational requirements which would prevent the proposal being located in a less harmful location" (DL ¶29). - **DP3(3).** "This policy states that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with aspects of the policy. The harm that I have found, in both cases, means that the proposal would not comply with this policy, and the harm I have found is not clearly justified" (DL ¶30). - **Other benefits discounted.** Defibrillator: limited weight, because "it has not been shown that this could not be provided in another, less harmful, location" (DL ¶26). Information and communication benefits at a transport hub: likewise could be provided elsewhere (DL ¶27). ## Planning balance The S3/S4 presumption: "both the proposed communication kiosk in Appeal A and the proposed advertisement in Appeal B would fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which states that proposals should be refused in specific circumstances" (DL ¶31). "I find that the adverse effects of the proposals within both appeals would substantially outweigh their respective benefits" (DL ¶32). ## What made the difference The specific spot, directly across the pavement in front of the Interchange doors, and the lack of any operational reason why it had to be there. That combination turned CO1(1)(b) and DP3(3) against the scheme. A kiosk on a wide pedestrianised street, as at Yeovil (PINS-6009864, the same operator), succeeded. ## Transferable points - CO1(1)(b) "so far as practical taking into account its operational requirements" puts the onus on the operator to show why a less harmful location is not practical (DL ¶29). - Public benefits that could be delivered at a less harmful location carry reduced weight (DL ¶26-27). - The DP3(3) conflict leads through S4(2)(c) to "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶30-32). This is the same reasoning as PINS-6003086, with two different inspectors. - Unenforceable pledges, such as trees planted by a third-party charity, carry very limited weight (DL ¶25). ## Policy findings - **CO1(1): benefit (substantial weight).** telecoms infrastructure benefits (DL ¶24) - **CO1(1)(b): fail.** no operational requirement shown that prevents a less harmful location (DL ¶29) - **DP3(3): fail.** cluttered cluster in front of the Interchange doors, narrowing the pavement; harm "not clearly justified" (DL ¶12-16, ¶30) - **S4(2)(c): fail.** failure to comply with a "should be refused" national policy (DP3) (DL ¶23, ¶31) - **S4(1): fail.** adverse effects "substantially outweigh" the benefits for both appeals (DL ¶32) - **HE6: not-engaged.** setting of a conservation area and the Grade II Queen's Hotel; no harm alleged (DL ¶20) ## Key facts - Kiosk about 45 cm from the Interchange frontage, set across the pavement in front of the main sliding doors; plans omitted some existing street furniture, so the claimed 3.7 m clearance was likely overstated (DL ¶12) - 10 existing defibrillators in the town centre, including near the Interchange; the defibrillator got limited weight (DL ¶26) - Tree-per-kiosk charity pledge not conditionable and given very limited weight (DL ¶25) - Public service messaging on the screen not guaranteed and given little weight (DL ¶28) - Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009866 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9afc9c46-f4d8-4652-8fb9-ec265d73b4bf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009866.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 77 Harvey Road, Ilford (storage to retail) - **Decision:** dismissed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Gardner - **Authority:** Redbridge (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009871 - **Application reference:** 0583/26 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective change of use from storage (Class B) to retail (Class E(a)), about 23 m2 (motorbike hire) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TC3(1), TC3(4), S4(2) - **Development plan policies:** Redbridge Local Plan 2018 LP9, LP10, London Plan 2021 SD7 - **Main issues:** vitality of local centres, sequential test - **Tags:** sequential-test, town-centre-first, tc3-should-be-refused, s4-substantially-outweighed, small-scale, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A 23 m² storage unit on an Ilford residential street, converted to retail without permission. The appeal was dismissed because no sequential test was done. The inspector applied S4, and held that failure of TC3, which says such proposals "should be refused", is an S4(2) circumstance in which modest benefits are substantially outweighed. The small size of the unit was no answer. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were consulted; "I have had regard to the 2026 version of the Framework" (DL ¶2). - **Sequential test: FAIL.** "I have not been provided with any substantive evidence to suggest that there are no other suitable town or local centre sites available" (DL ¶8). "the size of the unit alone does not eradicate the potential for the development to have a material impact on the retail function of nearby local and town centres" (DL ¶10). - **Not an isolated shop.** The site is "within the same local walking catchment as Ilford Lane Local Centre … The development therefore does not comprise an isolated shop. Instead, it potentially competes and detracts from the existing uses" (DL ¶12). - **S4 with TC3.** "the development is at odds with Policy TC3 of the Framework which is clear that where a development proposal fails to satisfy the sequential test, it should be refused" (DL ¶21). "the benefits of approving the development are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects, arising in part from the failure to comply with Policy TC3 of the Framework" (DL ¶22). ## Planning balance S4. Benefits: efficient use of the building and a small business with jobs, modest. Adverse: harm to local-centre vitality and failure of TC3 (a "should be refused" policy). Result: substantially outweighed. ## What made the difference No sequential assessment at all. Even for a tiny unit below the impact threshold, TC3(1) applies to any out-of-centre main town centre use that needs permission, and TC3(4) makes failure a refusal reason. A short sequential assessment of Ilford Lane vacancies might have changed the result. ## Transferable points - There is no size threshold for the sequential test. TC3 applies to a 23 m² out-of-centre retail unit (DL ¶8-10). - Failing the sequential test engages TC3(4) ("should be refused"), which S4(2) treats as a circumstance in which benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed (DL ¶19-22). - A shop within walking distance of a centre is not an "isolated shop" meeting day-to-day needs; it competes with the centre (DL ¶11-12). ## Policy findings - **TC3(1): fail.** out-of-centre main town centre use (220 m from a key parade, 550 m from the local centre); no sequential assessment submitted (DL 5-8) - **TC3(4): fail.** failing the sequential test "should be refused"; feeds S4(2) (DL 19, 21) - **TC3(5): not-engaged.** not argued; urban site, and the small-scale rural exemption does not apply - **S4(2): fail.** modest benefits substantially outweighed, "arising in part from the failure to comply with Policy TC3" (DL 18-22) - **LP9, LP10 (Redbridge LP) / SD7 (London Plan): conflict.** potentially dilutes nearby local centres; not an "isolated shop" because it is within the walking catchment of Ilford Lane (DL 11-14) ## Key facts - 23 m2 unit on a residential street, about 220 m from a key retail parade and 550 m from Ilford Lane Local Centre - Below the local impact-assessment threshold - Use already running (motorbike hire), treated as retrospective - Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009871 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fd37577a-1f32-4636-886f-5551c3592433 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009871.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 13 Harewood Road, South Croydon - **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Barry John Lomax - **Authority:** Croydon (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009886 - **Application reference:** 25/04001/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Three-storey block of flats and two detached houses (net gain 6 dwellings), access, parking and landscaping - **Homes:** 6 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4), S4(2)(c), S4 - **Development plan policies:** Croydon Local Plan 2021 SP8, DM10, DM29, DM30, London Plan 2021 D3, D4, T4 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, safe and inclusive layout and access, planning obligations - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, highway-safety, inclusive-design, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme ## Summary Flats and two backland houses (net +6) in South Croydon were dismissed. The design and density were acceptable. But the shared-surface layout gave no pedestrian segregation, and the access splays depended on unsecured third-party land. That was an unacceptable highway safety impact under TR6, a "should be refused" policy. Under S4(2)(c), the substantial housing benefit was "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶42). ## Issues and findings - **Character: no harm.** Backland development "is a feature of the locality" and has limited public visibility (DL ¶8-17). - **Layout and inclusive design: FAIL.** Swept paths showed vans overrunning the pedestrian path, and flat entrances opened onto the shared surface. This was a particular problem for residents with visual impairments (DL ¶20-24, MfS 7.2.10). - **Access: FAIL.** No evidence of control over the splay land. "the absence of recorded accidents and the historic operation of the access are not, in themselves, determinative" (DL ¶28-30). ## Planning balance "Given that Policy TR6 of the Framework directs that development should be refused where it would have such an impact, this matter attracts substantial weight against the proposal and leads me to conclude that the benefits of the development would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶42). The benefits were six family-sized homes (substantial weight) and economic, accessibility and biodiversity gains (moderate) (DL ¶43). ## What made the difference Third-party land for visibility splays and a shared-surface design that could not be fixed by condition without knock-on effects. The inspector used TR6(4) to trigger S4(2)(c), even though the council itself saw no demonstrable safety impact from the splay uncertainty. ## Transferable points - TR6(4) is a "should be refused" policy, so an unacceptable safety impact engages S4(2)(c) and carries substantial weight (DL ¶42). - An unevidenced agreement over third-party land for splays does not secure access, and a condition requiring the splays fails for lack of control (DL ¶26, 30). - A shared surface without segregation can fail on inclusive-design grounds (DL ¶22-24). ## Policy findings - **DP3: pass.** L-shaped rear wing and backland houses not overdevelopment; backland is part of local character (DL 7-19) - **TR6(4): fail (substantial weight).** 1.5 x 1.5 m pedestrian splays need third-party land with no evidence of control; 34 two-way movements a day; shared surface overrun by vans with no pedestrian segregation (inclusive design) (DL 20-33, 42) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** net six family-sized homes in a well-connected location (DL 43) - **S4: fail.** TR6 "should be refused" limb - substantially outweighed; presumption not engaged (DL 40-42) ## Key facts - Council itself did not think the visibility uncertainty caused a demonstrable safety impact; inspector disagreed - UU for GBP 10,500 sustainable transport contribution; costs application decided separately ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009886 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c9fef924-5907-4a68-a408-a938f2fec932 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009886.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Paddock House, Paddock Lane, Audlem (Class Q, 1 dwelling) - **Decision:** allowed, 25 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Smith - **Authority:** Cheshire East (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009894 - **Application reference:** 26/1059/PRIOR-3Q - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class Q prior approval to convert a timber agricultural building to a 3-bed single-storey dwelling with rear extension - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Class Q.1(j) - **Main issues:** whether the works are reasonably necessary for conversion - **Tags:** tier-2, prior-approval, class-q, hibbitt, framework-not-cited ## Summary Class Q prior approval for a timber barn conversion at Audlem was allowed. Internal insulated blockwork was held to be primarily a thermal envelope, with only incidental structural support, so the works were not a rebuild under *Hibbitt* (DL ¶8-9, ¶13). ## What made the difference A structural report, and the site visit, showed the frame could stand without the blockwork (DL ¶9). ## Policy findings - **GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Class Q.1(j): pass.** internal insulated blockwork is mainly a thermal envelope with incidental structural support; localised cladding repairs; not a rebuild under Hibbitt (DL 6-13) ## Key facts - Structural report found the building capable of conversion; frame and slab seen in adequate condition on site (DL 7, 9-10) - Framework not cited ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009894 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/29bcf203-1084-49c1-8834-dfc9560233bc --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009894.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 271 The Drive, Cranbrook, Ilford - **Decision:** allowed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Gardner - **Authority:** Redbridge (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009905 - **Application reference:** 3511/25 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Single storey rear extension and change of use of dwelling to C4 small HMO for 6 people - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO7 - **Development plan policies:** Redbridge Local Plan 2018 LP5, LP26, LP29, LP39, London Plan 2021 H9, D6 - **Main issues:** family housing supply, living conditions, Epping Forest SAC - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, living-conditions ## Summary Change of use of a four-bed house to a six-person C4 HMO with a rear extension. Allowed. The loss of one family home was "marginal" in a street still more than 90% single dwellings, and the inspector found "no specific conflict with Policy HO7 of the Framework" (DL ¶11). The council's living-conditions objection rested on a misreading of the plans as three self-contained units. ## What made the difference Low local HMO concentration and a plan-reading error by the council. The Framework was cited only through HO7 (housing for different groups). An occupancy cap was refused as "not realistically enforceable" (DL ¶29). ## Policy findings - **HO7: accord.** no conflict — loss of one 4-bed family house marginal; HMO adds housing choice (DL 10-11) - **LP5 (Redbridge LP): accord.** family-housing policy read as a whole supports a range of homes; >90% of The Drive remains single dwellings (DL 10-11) - **N6: neutral.** Epping Forest SAC — no new dwelling so no likely significant effect; no mitigation contribution needed (DL 18); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Council refused treating plans as three self-contained units (bedrooms labelled "units" with kitchens); appeal plans re-annotated (DL 2-4) - Over 90% of properties along half of The Drive remain single dwellinghouses (DL 10) - Occupancy-cap and no-conversion-of-communal-space conditions rejected as unenforceable/unnecessary (DL 28-29) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009905 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ad758255-dad3-4304-b731-9c6b0ff03793 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009905.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 7 Marine Parade, Folkestone - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Gardner - **Authority:** Folkestone and Hythe (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009917 - **Application reference:** 25/2193/FH - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of former hotel (Grade II listed terrace) to a dwelling house - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.1 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(2)(a)(i), S4, HO7 - **Development plan policies:** Folkestone and Hythe Places and Policies Local Plan 2020 E4 - **Main issues:** loss of visitor accommodation and tourism - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-a-safeguarding, hotel-loss, housing-shortfall, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme ## Summary Change of use of a vacant former hotel on Folkestone's seafront to a single house was dismissed. Supply was 3.1 years, and the housing benefit was given substantial weight. But Local Plan Policy E4 safeguards visitor accommodation, and the appellant had not shown safeguarding was no longer appropriate. That was a substantial adverse impact on safeguarding under S4(2)(a)(i). This is one of the first decisions to apply that limb. ## Issues and findings - **Loss of hotel (LP E4): FAIL.** There was "very little substantive evidence to the likely costs associated with such a renovation, such as a viability assessment or a schedule outlining costs against revenue" (DL ¶9). Occupancy data from a larger nearby hotel got limited weight (DL ¶10). Marketing was for 12 months, but its reasonableness was unproven (DL ¶14-15). - **HO7: substantial weight.** "The appellant contends that the latest evidence suggest that the Council's housing supply is currently 3.1 years, a figure which the Council has not disputed" (DL ¶25). "I attach substantial positive weight to the benefits, primarily associated with additional housing delivery" (DL ¶27). - **S4(2)(a)(i).** "the circumstances in which the benefits … are likely to be substantially outweighed … include … a substantial adverse impact in relation to the safeguarding of land or buildings for particular uses in the development plan. … I am not satisfied that the safeguarding of the appeal site as visitor accommodation is no longer appropriate. I therefore find Policy S4(2)a.i. to be of direct relevance" (DL ¶29). ## Planning balance S4. On one side, substantial weight for housing (3.1 years) and limited weight for heritage preservation. On the other, "the substantial adverse impact in relation to the impact on the provision of visitor accommodation in an established tourist location, would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶30). ## What made the difference The development-plan safeguarding policy, given force by S4(2)(a)(i). The escape route in (a)(i), "evidence that the safeguarding is no longer appropriate", required a viability assessment and credible marketing, and neither was provided. ## Transferable points - A local plan policy protecting a use (here hotels, LP E4) counts as "safeguarding of land or buildings for particular uses" in S4(2)(a)(i) (DL ¶29). - To escape (a)(i), the appellant must evidence that safeguarding is "no longer appropriate", for example through viability and properly priced marketing (DL ¶9-15, 29). - A single-home loss of a hotel can be a "substantial adverse impact" in an established tourist location (DL ¶30). - Substantial HO7 weight with a 3.1-year supply still lost to an S4(2)(a)(i) impact (DL ¶25-30). ## Policy findings - **S4(2)(a)(i): fail.** LP E4 safeguards visitor accommodation; not shown that safeguarding is no longer appropriate (no viability, weak marketing) - substantial adverse impact (DL 6-16, 29-30) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 3.1-year supply uncontested; one dwelling reusing a vacant listed building - substantial weight (DL 25-27) - **HE6: neutral.** no physical works - no harm to listed building or CA; preservation benefit limited as residential not the only viable use (DL 17-20, 26) ## Key facts - Hotel use ceased 2008; building needs utilities and renovation but no viability assessment or cost schedule - Marketed since March 2025 on residential and commercial listings, but price reasonableness and conditional sale unclear - Supply 3.1 years (appellant's figure, not disputed) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009917 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/701b7738-71ac-4726-8b5d-1589592348c6 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009917.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Ewen House, High Road, Fobbing (pool and annexe) - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Heppell - **Authority:** Thurrock (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6009919 - **Application reference:** 25/01158/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Covered pool and single-storey "eco annexe" with green roof on a former builder's yard behind two High Road houses - **Site context:** green-belt, washed-over-village, conservation-area, listed-building-setting, PDL - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB6(2), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Thurrock Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development 2015 PMD2, PMD4, PMD6, PMD8, CSTP22, CSTP23, CSTP24 - **Main issues:** grey belt and inappropriateness, openness, character and heritage, highway safety, VSC - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, heritage-harm-decisive, private-benefit-not-public, pdl-e-limb, pdl-blended-into-landscape, annexe, sustainable-location-pass, washed-over-village, self-build-unsecured, non-determination, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A covered pool and "eco annexe" on a former builder's yard behind two houses in Fobbing, a washed-over Green Belt village and conservation area. Only part of the site was PDL, so GB7(1)(e) failed. The site was grey belt and the location passed (g)(iii), but there was no evidenced unmet need for an annexe and pool, so (g)(ii) failed and the scheme was inappropriate. With openness loss and moderate conservation-area harm, VSC was not shown. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were afforded the opportunity to comment on the implications of the new Framework for the proposal" (DL ¶4). - **PDL: part only.** "there is insufficient evidence that the land behind Vine Cottage and Sandiacre was previously developed, given that the remains of any permanent structure or fixed surface structure that may have existed have since blended into the landscape" (DL ¶14). "I conclude that the site as a whole is not previously developed land" (DL ¶15). - **Grey belt: PASS; (g)(i): PASS.** Encroachment "would be not be so significant as to affect the ability of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area to serve all five Green Belt purposes in a meaningful way" (DL ¶19). - **(g)(ii): FAIL.** "It has not therefore been demonstrated that there is an unmet need for the development, and consequently criterion ii is not satisfied" (DL ¶21). - **(g)(iii): PASS.** "I observed that the pedestrian route to Corringham utilises a pavement with street lighting and is relatively level for most of the way" (DL ¶22); passed "having regard to its rural situation" (DL ¶22). - **Openness.** "giving rise to a significant increase in built form and a consequent loss of spatial openness" (DL ¶27). - **Heritage: HARM, moderate.** "The result would be a moderate degree of harm to the CA’s significance, to which I attach considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶34). "The immediate benefits of the custom-built proposal would be private rather than public" (DL ¶35). - **Washed-over village.** "villages which lie within and are defined as part of the Green Belt, as is the case with Fobbing, are not settlements for the purposes of the Framework, and consequently Policy S4 is not engaged. As the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, Policy S5 does not apply to it either" (DL ¶49). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC: substantial weight to inappropriateness and openness harm, and HE6(3) considerable weight to heritage harm, against limited-weight benefits. "The other considerations above do not clearly outweigh the harm arising from inappropriateness and other harm" (DL ¶46). HE6(4) was run separately first (DL ¶35). ## What made the difference Need. An annexe and pool for one household is not an "evidenced unmet need" for (g)(ii), and a possible future bungalow is theoretical. A split PDL finding also closed the (e) route. ## Transferable points - A washed-over Green Belt village is not a settlement in the Framework sense: S4 is not engaged, and S5 does not apply to inappropriate development (DL ¶49). - PDL is judged over the whole site; where part has blended into the landscape, GB7(1)(e) fails for the site as a whole (DL ¶14-15). - (g)(ii) needs need for the "type of development proposed"; a private annexe and pool with unexplained personal need, unsecured self-build and a theoretical future use do not qualify (DL ¶20-21, ¶45). - Purpose (c) is argued under (g)(i) "fundamentally undermine", not the grey belt definition (DL ¶18-19). - Weak on location: (g)(iii) passed with a four-a-day bus "having regard to its rural situation", though the walking route was tested (DL ¶22). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:PDL: fail.** hardstanding behind the two houses is PDL, but the vegetated part behind Vine Lodge/Sandiacre has blended into the landscape; site as a whole not PDL (DL 9-15) - **GB7(1)(e): fail.** not available because the site as a whole is not PDL (DL 15) - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** common ground - no strong contribution to (a), (b) or (d) (DL 16-17) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** purpose (c) encroachment argued under the "fundamentally undermine" limb; not so significant (DL 18-19) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): fail.** no evidence of the family member's needs, local self-build need, or need for a pool; future bungalow use theoretical (DL 20-21) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** Fobbing very limited services, bus 4 times a day; lit, largely level pavement to Corringham shops; "sustainably located having regard to its rural situation" (DL 22) - **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** inappropriate; significant loss of spatial openness, moderate visual; VSC not shown (DL 24-28, 46) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** moderate harm to Fobbing CA by eroding significant open space identified in the appraisal; utilitarian design (DL 30-34) - **HE6(4): fail.** benefits mainly private (annexe and pool); tidying, BNG, local contractors limited weight (DL 35) - **AnnexB:settlement: not-engaged.** Fobbing is washed over by the Green Belt, so not a settlement; S4 not engaged and S5 does not apply to inappropriate development (DL 49) - **TR6: pass.** mapped: long shared drive; limited intensification; no highway harm (DL 40-43) ## Key facts - Non-determination appeal; council's putative reasons were Green Belt, CA and highways (DL 3) - Amended pitched-roof plans rejected under the Holborn Studios tests (DL 5-6) - Earlier lawful development certificate appeal (APP/M1595/X/19/3231066) found no lawful B8 use; not decisive on PDL (DL 13) - Self-build claimed but no securing mechanism, so no weight (DL 45) - Settings of Grade I St Michael's Church and nearby Grade II houses unaffected (DL 36-38) - Costs application by the appellant subject of a separate decision (DL 2), not in the corpus - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009919 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d0ed7e80-8d00-4b5c-b774-24717f78e1ce --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009919.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 7A Saxon Drive, Acton - **Decision:** dismissed, 20 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer E Street) - **Authority:** Ealing (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009929 - **Application reference:** 253131FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion of a flat into two flats with roof extension and dormers - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, DP3 - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, D4, D6, Ealing DM DPD 2013 3.5, 7.4, 7B, 7D - **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, design-refusal, living-conditions, old-wording-slip, transitional-no-consultation, appeal-planning-officer, tier-2 ## Summary Subdividing an upper flat in Acton with dormered roof accommodation was dismissed. The dormers cluttered the roofscape, and NDSS headroom for the new roof flat was not shown. Under S4 the limited benefit of one unit, with "no specific housing shortfall" advised, was substantially outweighed (DL ¶13-14). ## What made the difference Without shortfall evidence, the APO treated efficient use of land as the baseline, not a benefit: "an efficient use of land would be expected to make a proposal acceptable in principle" (DL ¶13). The letter refers to the old NPPF's "section 12". ## Policy findings - **S4: fail.** one unit, no specific shortfall advised - limited weight; enduring design and NDSS headroom harm significant weight - substantially outweighed (DL 13-14) ## Key facts - Catslide dormers on outrigger clutter plain terrace roofscape; unproven 2.2 m headroom over 75% of the roof flat - No re-consultation on the new Framework; "section 12" reference to the old NPPF chapter numbering (DL 14) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009929 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c094d2bf-827c-4575-9185-e4c6ceeed9c6 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009929.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 219 Fullingdale Road, Northampton - **Decision:** dismissed, 2 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Eleni Marshall - **Authority:** West Northamptonshire (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009933 - **Application reference:** 2025/4860/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Increase of 8-occupant HMO to 10 occupants, including loft conversion and full-width flat-roof rear dormer - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3 - **Development plan policies:** West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy H1, BN9, Northampton Local Plan Part 2 2023 Q1, Q2, HMO SPD 2019 Principle 1 - **Main issues:** character and amenity, dormer design, overlooking - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, transitional-no-consultation, fallback ## Summary Proposal to take an 8-person HMO to 10 persons with a full-width rear dormer, in a street of family houses. Dismissed on character/amenity from intensified use, the dormer's design, and overlooking. The Inspector did not consult on the new Framework because it "do[es] not substantially alter matters" (DL ¶2). DP3 was cited once as an additional conflict (DL ¶13). ## What made the difference Evidence of existing complaints about noise and ASB at the site distinguished it from the Council's other HMO uplift approvals: "there are material differences in the evidence" (DL ¶9). The dormer extended over the side extension, so it went beyond what PD would allow, and the fallback carried limited weight (DL ¶17). ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail.** intensified HMO occupation out of character with family-house street; evidence of existing noise/ASB complaints (DL 6-13) - **P3: fail.** overlooking from dormer and more intensive loft occupation harms neighbours (plan policy H1, not P3 by name) (DL 19-21) ## Key facts - Extant permission already took the HMO from 6 to 8; this was a further incremental increase to 10 - Documented neighbour complaints of noise and antisocial behaviour distinguished the appellant's comparator approvals - Dormer spanned original roof and two-storey side extension, so PD fallback given limited weight ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6604be54-259e-4db9-a79d-270f58adefa5 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009933 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009933.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Bulls Head Public House, 96 Cambridge Street, St Neots - **Decision:** allowed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: David Reed - **Authority:** Huntingdonshire (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6009938 - **Application reference:** 25/01539/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of former public house to convenience store (Class E) with ancillary first-floor accommodation, demolition of single-storey structure, access and parking - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HC6(1)(a) - **Development plan policies:** Huntingdonshire Local Plan 2019 LM22 - **Main issues:** loss of public house - **Tags:** pub-loss, hc6-marketing-12-months, community-facility, viability-evidence, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Change of use of a closed Greene King pub in St Neots to a convenience store with a manager's flat above. The appeal was allowed. Fifteen months of specialist marketing produced plenty of viewings but no viable pub offer, and the trading figures showed a loss. That satisfied local policy LM22 and HC6(1)(a). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were invited to submit comments on the relevance of the latter and these have been taken into account" (fn 4). - **Loss of pub: PASS (HC6(1)(a)).** "the numerous viewings and clear feedback indicate an effective marketing exercise. The asking price reflected achieved sales figures in the £275,000 - £375,000 range for a series of local comparable public houses" (DL ¶10). "For these reasons the loss of the public house has been sufficiently justified and complies with HLP Policy LM22 and Policy HC6 of the recently published National Planning Policy Framework" (DL ¶11). - **Local policy consistent with HC6.** "Policy LM22 with supporting paragraph 6.49 is consistent with and very similar to Policy HC6" (fn 2). - **Council's objections rejected.** The council said the pub was actively marketed for only 11 months; the inspector held that "a gap whilst an offer proceeds is standard practice" (DL ¶10). - **Heritage.** Some less-than-substantial harm to the conservation area from signage was outweighed "since the building would remain in community use as a convenience store" (DL ¶4, 15). ## Planning balance Policy compliance, with no formal S4 balance. The shop was treated as "another, albeit different, community facility" (DL ¶15). ## What made the difference The quality of the marketing and viability evidence: a specialist licensed-trade agent, a price in line with comparables, documented enquiries, viewings and feedback, and trading accounts showing a loss. The period was 15 months, comfortably over HC6's 12 months, even allowing for a pause while an offer was pursued. This is the counterpart to Liverpool (PINS-6008083), where three months of unverified marketing failed. ## Transferable points - Fifteen months of documented specialist marketing at a price supported by comparables meets HC6(1)(a) (DL ¶5-11). - A pause in active marketing while an offer proceeds does not break the marketing period (DL ¶10). - A convenience store replacing a pub can itself count as a community facility, which weighs in the heritage balance (DL ¶4, 15). - Local plans with wording like LM22 are treated as consistent with HC6 and keep full weight (fn 2). ## Policy findings - **HC6(1)(a): pass.** 15 months of specialist marketing, 38 enquiries, 16 viewings, one offer withdrawn; negative fair maintainable operating profit; price in line with comparables; loss "sufficiently justified" (DL 5-11) - **LM22 (Huntingdonshire LP): accord.** LM22(e) and para 6.49 "consistent with and very similar to Policy HC6" (DL 9, fn 2) - **HE6: harm.** signage and window graphics cause some less-than-substantial harm to the St Neots CA, outweighed because the building stays in community use as a shop (DL 4) ## Key facts - Greene King pub, closed August 2023; specialist agent Everard Cole marketed it from 15 Aug 2023 at £350,000 - 15-month marketing, 38 enquiries, 16 viewings, one offer withdrawn after water damage; sold to the appellant Nov 2024 - Last full year of trading about £140,000 in sales; fair maintainable operating profit estimated at about -£7,700 a year - Nine pubs within 1 km, including St Neots town centre - Council's complaints about active marketing of only 11 months and an unrealistic price rejected; the Brampton appeal (APP/H0520/W/24/3346758) distinguished ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009938 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f61564d9-5adf-4656-ae42-a8cfd508c747 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009938.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 18 Newick Avenue, Little Aston (replacement self-build dwelling) - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Townend - **Authority:** Lichfield (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009942 - **Application reference:** 26/00234/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of bungalow and erection of a 4-bed self-build dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TCPA Sch 7A (BNG) - **Development plan policies:** Lichfield Local Plan Strategy 2008-2029 BE1, NR3, ST1, ST2 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, biodiversity net gain - **Tags:** bng, self-build, transitional-no-consultation, replacement-dwelling, tier-2 ## Summary A replacement self-build house in Little Aston was acceptable on character and design. The appeal was still dismissed because no legal agreement secured self-build status, so the exemption from statutory biodiversity net gain was not established and a net loss would result (DL ¶13-15). ## What made the difference The missing planning obligation. "Without a completed legal agreement I cannot be certain that the appeal proposal would be exempt from BNG" (DL ¶15). The new Framework was not engaged: "the wording of the details most pertinent to this appeal are unchanged" (DL ¶2). ## Policy findings - **DP3: pass.** scale and design consistent with other large dwellings on Newick Avenue; boundary planting retained; BE1 met (DL 9-12) - **N2: fail.** no legal agreement securing self-build status, so BNG exemption not established; statutory 10% BNG and NR3 conflict (DL 13-15) ## Key facts - Inspector did not re-consult; the revised Framework is "significantly different" but the pertinent wording was unchanged (DL 2) - Appellant offered but did not supply a legal agreement to secure self-build status (DL 14) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009942 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9c53a9c6-8d99-45e5-8390-4bdbccaf1d75 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009942.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pentire, The Avenue, Worplesdon - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Walker - **Authority:** Guildford (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009962 - **Application reference:** 25/P/01670 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Rear extension with first-floor overhang, entrance extension, full upper storey/loft conversion to bungalow and new linked triple garage (non-determination) - **Site context:** green-belt - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), GB7(1)(b), GB7(1)(g)(ii) - **Development plan policies:** Guildford Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2019 Policy 2, LPDMP P2, Green Belt SPD 2023 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, VSC - **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, grey-belt-extension-no-net-gain, unmet-need-not-evidenced ## Summary Extensions turning a Green Belt bungalow at Worplesdon into a two-storey house with a triple garage. Dismissed on non-determination. The additions were disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). The appellant's grey belt argument failed at limb (ii), because an extension adds no dwelling and so meets no unmet housing need, even though Guildford lacks a five-year supply. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties commented on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶4). - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "the proposal would transform the modest character of the existing dwelling to such an extent that it would be largely unrecognisable as the original building" (DL ¶13). "both calculations indicate a substantial increase in size" (DL ¶14). - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): FAIL.** "whilst the Council are unable to meet the necessary five-year housing land supply requirement … as this proposal is for an extension to a dwelling, there would be no net gain in housing. As such, it would have a neutral impact on unmet housing need" (DL ¶17). - **Openness: harm** (DL ¶18). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to Green Belt harm against moderate weight to energy and biodiversity measures and limited weight to improved access. VSC not shown (DL ¶19-25). ## What made the difference Adding a full storey plus a garage to a modest bungalow. The attempt to use the grey belt route for a householder extension was dealt with briefly: limb (ii) cannot be satisfied by housing need where no net dwelling results. ## Transferable points - The GB7(1)(g) grey belt route does not help householder extensions, because a lack of five-year supply is irrelevant where there is no net gain in dwellings (DL ¶17). - For GB7(1)(b), disputes over the original floorspace figure need not be resolved where every calculation shows a substantial increase (DL ¶9, ¶14). - Bulk, massing and "unrecognisable" transformation matter as well as height and plot ratio (DL ¶12-13). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** bungalow to two storeys plus triple garage; floorspace uplift 56% (appellant) to 75% (Council); bulk and massing make it unrecognisable; disproportionate (DL 12-15) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): fail.** extension gives no net gain in housing, so neutral for unmet need despite lack of 5YHLS; self-build claim unsecured (DL 17) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriate plus spatial openness loss, limited public views (DL 18, 23) - **CC2: benefit (moderate weight).** green roof, ASHP, PV and modernisation (DL 19) ## Key facts - Existing bungalow about 5.59 m high; proposed 6.22 m flat-roofed two-storey form (DL 12) - Original floorspace disputed (242 vs 342 sq m); inspector held the dispute not fundamental (DL 9, 14) - Guildford lacks a five-year supply, but an extension adds no dwelling (DL 17) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009962 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d5f7ab77-8bc6-4a78-bd99-56e50b174f09 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009962.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Chedworth, Coopers Hill Road, South Nutfield - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Barry John Lomax - **Authority:** Tandridge (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009966 - **Application reference:** TA/2025/954 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for up to 5 dwellings on a paddock - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Tandridge Local Plan Part 2 2014 DP5, DP7, DP10, DP13, Tandridge Core Strategy 2008 CSP18 - **Main issues:** grey belt, sustainable location, openness, character and appearance, VSC balance - **Tags:** PIP, grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, small-scheme, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, housing-shortfall, previous-appeal-consistency, bus-evidence-insufficient ## Summary Permission in principle for up to 5 dwellings on a paddock in the Green Belt, about 800 m outside South Nutfield. Grey belt, GB7(1)(g)(i) and (ii) were all common ground. The appeal failed on limb (iii) sustainable location, because the walking and cycling routes are unlit lanes with no continuous footway and the bus evidence was thin. As inappropriate development, substantial weight to the housing benefit did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt, openness, character and travel harms. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework; "references to the Framework in this decision are to the August 2026 version" (DL ¶7–8). - **Local plan GB exceptions out of date.** DP13 replicates 2012 ¶89 exceptions, is "inconsistent with current national policy", so the GB7 exceptions are applied directly (DL ¶11–12). - **GB7(1)(e) PDL: FAIL.** "the site does not comprise PDL for the purposes of the Framework and the exception in policy GB7 1(e) is not satisfied" (DL ¶13). - **Grey belt / GB7(1)(g)(i)–(ii): PASS** (common ground; DL ¶15–17). - **GB7(1)(g)(iii) / TR3: FAIL.** "These roads are subject to speed limits of 40mph and 30mph respectively and lack continuous footways and street lighting. As a result, pedestrians and cyclists would be required to share the carriageway with vehicular traffic for much of the journey" (DL ¶21). On the bus: "limited evidence has been submitted concerning the frequency, hours of operation, all destinations served, or reliability of that service … I cannot be satisfied that it would provide a convenient and attractive alternative" (DL ¶22). On scale: "the proposal does not engage criterion (a) of the policy to the same degree as a larger-scale development … Nevertheless, Policy TR3 must be read as a whole … would not provide future occupants with a genuine choice of transport modes" (DL ¶27). Conclusion: "criterion iii) of policy GB7 1(g) of the 2026 Framework is not satisfied" (DL ¶28). - **Consistency.** Previous 9-dwelling PIP dismissal on the same site given "significant weight" absent material change (DL ¶25). Other appellant comparators given limited weight (DL ¶19). - **Highway authority remit.** Appellant argued the CHA exceeded its powers in commenting on sustainability. Given "little weight": the inspector reached the conclusion "irrespective of the CHA's consultation response" (DL ¶43). - **Openness: significant harm.** Undeveloped paddock; conflicts with the encroachment purpose (DL ¶33). - **Character: harm** (DL ¶36–37). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Harm: inappropriateness plus openness and encroachment (substantial), character (significant), unsustainable travel (significant). Benefits: housing (substantial), economic and SME small-site benefits (moderate each). "insufficient to clearly outweigh" (DL ¶45). S5(5) not reached: "the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development" (DL ¶50). ## What made the difference The route to services: 800 m of unlit lane with no continuous footway to reach the village edge, then a similar distance again, with pedestrians in the carriageway, and no proper evidence on the bus. It made no difference that five dwellings would generate only modest traffic: TR3 was read as a whole. To pass, the site would have needed a continuous lit footway, or a documented bus service with usable frequency and hours. ## Transferable points - Small scale does not rescue limb (iii). TR3 "must be read as a whole", and a genuine choice of modes is still required even where TR3(1)(a) is only weakly engaged (DL ¶27). - Unevidenced bus claims (no frequency, hours, destinations or reliability) carry little weight (DL ¶22). - Lanes without continuous footways and lighting, where pedestrians share the carriageway, "materially diminish the attractiveness of walking and cycling" (DL ¶21). - A previous dismissal on the same site carries significant weight on location unless circumstances materially change (DL ¶25). - A local plan GB exceptions policy modelled on the 2012 NPPF is inconsistent, so GB7 applies directly (DL ¶11–12). - A highway authority's comments on sustainability are admissible, but the decision-maker forms its own view (DL ¶43). - A Green Belt scheme that is inappropriate gets no S3/S5 presumption. S5(5) routes GB proposals to GB7 (DL ¶49–50). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(e): fail.** paddock; no evidence of permanent structure or fixed surface infrastructure, so not PDL (DL 13) - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** common ground, inspector agrees (DL 15) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** common ground, would not fundamentally undermine purposes of remaining GB (DL 16) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** no 5YHLS, so unmet need (DL 17) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): fail.** 800 m to settlement edge, services a similar distance beyond; 40/30 mph lanes, no continuous footways or lighting; hail-and-ride bus unevidenced (DL 21-23, 28) - **TR3: conflict (significant weight).** 5 dwellings do not engage TR3(1)(a) as strongly as a large scheme, but TR3 "must be read as a whole" and is breached (DL 27); unsustainable travel given significant weight (DL 44) - **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** inappropriate; significant/substantial openness harm and encroachment (purpose c); VSC not shown (DL 33, 44-46) - **DP3: harm (significant weight).** urbanising effect on rural paddock; conflict with DP7 and CSP18 (DL 36-37, 44) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** up to 5 homes against a significant shortfall, "small but meaningful" (DL 39) - **S5(5): not-engaged.** inappropriate GB development gets no presumption; S5(5) only applies if not inappropriate after GB7 (DL 49-50) ## Key facts - Site c. 800 m from edge of South Nutfield; first services a similar distance beyond - Coopers Hill Road (40 mph) and Kings Cross Lane (30 mph) lack continuous footways and street lighting; pedestrians share the carriageway - Hail-and-ride bus service claimed, but no evidence on frequency, hours, destinations or reliability - Previous PIP for 9 dwellings on the same site dismissed 17 Nov 2025 (APP/M3645/W/25/3371822); given significant weight for consistency - Tandridge cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply (figure not stated in letter) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009966 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/43581fad-386d-4fed-b5d8-0eaff075bfdf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009966.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 1 & 1A Lytton Avenue, Enfield - **Decision:** dismissed, 2 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Boughton - **Authority:** Enfield (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009970 - **Application reference:** 26/00380/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of two dwellinghouses to one 4-bed and one 5-bed HMO (sui generis), fenestration changes (part retrospective) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3(2)(a) - **Development plan policies:** Enfield DMD 2014 DMD5, DMD8, Enfield HMO Standards - **Main issues:** living conditions of occupiers - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, living-conditions, retrospective, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Retrospective conversion of two conjoined houses into two HMOs. Dismissed. Room sizes met the standards, but the windowless shared kitchens created "an unacceptable risk of unhealthy condensation and poor air quality" (DL ¶16). The Framework (August 2026) was noted as published without saying whether parties were consulted (DL ¶3). It was invoked only loosely: effective use of land "should not diminish healthy living conditions" (DL ¶17). ## What made the difference Quality, not quantity, of shared space. Ventilation could not be fixed by condition because it might need external changes (DL ¶16). A licence does not show planning acceptability (DL ¶7). ## Policy findings - **P3(2)(a): fail (significant weight).** kitchens with no openable window, ventilation only via external door — "unacceptable risk of unhealthy condensation and poor air quality", significant weight (DL 14-16); letter refers generically to the Framework "effective use of land should not diminish healthy living conditions" — code mapped by harvester - **DMD5 (Enfield DMD): conflict.** floor areas adequate but not a "high-quality form of accommodation" (DL 9-12, 17) ## Key facts - Two conjoined houses with no interconnection treated as two separate HMOs; description amended (DL 2) - Dining-kitchen in No.1 just over the 8.5 sqm HMO standard but lit and ventilated only by an external door (DL 10, 15) - HMO licence notice given little weight — plans did not match (DL 6-7) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009970 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c771d08a-3ba8-4cc0-8a92-dcffb0b81cf5 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009970.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 1 & 1A Lytton Avenue, Enfield - **Decision:** dismissed, 2 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A J Boughton - **Authority:** Enfield (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009972 - **Application reference:** 25/03478/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of two dwellinghouses to two 5-bedroom HMOs with fenestration changes (part retrospective) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3(2)(a) - **Development plan policies:** Enfield Development Management Document 2014 DMD5, DMD8 - **Main issues:** living conditions of occupiers - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, retrospective ## Summary Two adjoining houses converted into two separate 5-bed HMOs. Dismissed because the communal kitchen-diners were inadequate: one was undersized, and neither had an openable window, so there was "unacceptable risk of unhealthy condensation and the accumulation of mould" (DL ¶13). The new Framework was taken into account (DL ¶3) but only referenced at a high level: effective use of land "should not diminish healthy living conditions" (DL ¶14). ## What made the difference Quality, not just area. Floor area met NDSS-equivalent levels, but "the quality of an essential facility such as a kitchen … is not determinable solely on the basis of floor area" (DL ¶12). Significant weight was given because these were the only communal rooms (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **P3(2)(a): fail (significant weight).** kitchen-diners (only communal rooms) have no openable window; one undersized against the 8.5 sqm HMO standard; risk of condensation and mould (DL 9-14) - **L2: neutral.** Framework cited as saying effective use of land "should not diminish healthy living conditions" (footnote refers to intensification incl. HMO) (DL 14) ## Key facts - Each house has 5 bedrooms and one kitchen-diner as its only shared habitable room - No 1A kitchen below Enfield HMO standard of 8.5 sqm for up to 5 persons; neither kitchen has an openable window ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5e5693d6-1e10-4648-8403-2e063087dd1d - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009972 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009972.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Uplands Farm, Meggett Lane, Alkham (agricultural barn prior approval) - **Decision:** allowed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Gardner - **Authority:** Dover (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009974 - **Application reference:** 26/00144 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Prior approval (GPDO Sch 2 Part 6 Class A) for a 30.5 m x 15.2 m lambing barn - **Site context:** national-landscape, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Sch 2 Pt 6 Class A - **Main issues:** permitted development, siting design and appearance - **Tags:** prior-approval, agricultural, national-landscape, tier-2 ## Summary Prior approval was allowed for a lambing barn on a 13 ha holding in the Kent Downs National Landscape. The inspector accepted evidence of an agricultural trade or business without accounts, and found the siting behind a dense roadside hedge acceptable (DL ¶9, ¶16-17). ## What made the difference Persuasive non-financial evidence of an agricultural business (invoices, a grazing tenancy, stock seen on site) and DEFRA-based sizing (DL ¶8-11). The Framework was not relevant to this GPDO determination. The National Landscape duty was treated as satisfied by the finding of no harm (DL ¶18). ## Policy findings - **N4: pass.** CRoW Act s85 "seek to further" duty considered; no harm to Kent Downs NL (DL 18) ## Key facts - 13 ha holding recently bought; invoices for ewes, grazing tenancy and stewardship scheme accepted as evidence of trade or business despite no accounts (DL 7-9, 20) - 400 m livestock restriction met by the lambing exception in D.1(3) (DL 12-13) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009974 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a70ef91f-4e38-48f5-bdf5-cc493749ab68 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009974.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 31A Kent Road, Chiswick - **Decision:** allowed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Carla Livingstone - **Authority:** Ealing (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009978 - **Application reference:** PP-14216223 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73A variation of plans condition for rear roof extension with roof terrace — lower (1.45m) terrace screen/planter, altered doors - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, D6, Ealing DM DPD 2013 7B - **Main issues:** privacy of neighbouring occupiers - **Tags:** tier-2, living-conditions, retrospective, s73-variation, transitional-no-consultation, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary Retrospective s73A variation to lower a roof-terrace privacy screen from 1.7m to 1.45m. Allowed. There was no material increase in overlooking over the existing rear windows. On transition, the inspector said the 2026 changes were "not substantive or determinative to the outcome of this appeal" beyond "significant amendments to its layout and formatting", so the parties were not asked for comments (DL ¶3). ## What made the difference The existing overlooking baseline. The decision was made entirely on development plan policy, with no Framework policy engaged. ## Policy findings - **P3: pass.** no material increase in overlooking of ground-floor flat garden beyond existing rear windows (DL 8, 10); no Framework policy cited — code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Approved terrace screen 1.7m; built/proposed 1.45m (DL 6) - Views to garden below restricted by existing rear extension; rear windows already overlook (DL 8) - s73A amendments not limited to non-material changes (DL 9) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009978 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/0ae8dd90-e02d-4720-a8bc-94ea2f19bf01 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009978.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Plot 1, F I M Renewable Energy Farm, Mill Lane, Kirtlington - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Ramsden - **Authority:** Cherwell (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009985 - **Application reference:** 25/02893/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle - conversion of an agricultural building to 2 dwellings - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** open-countryside, isolated, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(3), HO11, S5(1)(j), TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 ESD1, ESD13, ESD15, saved Cherwell Local Plan 1996 H19, C28, C30 - **Main issues:** sustainable location, character and appearance - **Tags:** PIP, isolated-home, s5-3-isolated, s5-1-j, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, substantially-outweighed, agricultural-building, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme ## Summary Permission in principle for converting an agricultural building 700 m outside Kirtlington into two homes was refused on appeal. The homes would be "isolated" (S5(3)) with no HO11 justification. The site was not physically well-related to the village (S5(1)(j)) and was almost wholly car dependent. The inspector accepted the site "could be described" as PDL attracting S5 support, but the benefits (substantial HO7 weight) were still "substantially outweighed". ## Issues and findings - **Location / TR3: FAIL.** "Mill Lane is unlit and has no defined or separate footway … Around half the distance … is a gravelled bridlepath, which would not provide easy access … by users with limited mobility" (DL ¶11). Bus stops were about 1 km away (DL ¶13). - **S5(3)/HO11: FAIL.** "The appeal site is some distance outside the settlement of Kirtlington and it is not within a group of existing houses … not well-related to an existing settlement. Policy S5.3 … isolated homes should not be approved other than in accordance with policy HO11" (DL ¶30). HO11 reuse was not met: "no substantive evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the building is redundant or disused, and the proposal would not enhance its immediate setting" (DL ¶31). - **PDL.** "The proposal would involve the reuse of a site which could be described as constituting previously development land, which would attract support under Policy S5" (DL ¶32). This sits uneasily with the Annex B exclusion of land last occupied by agricultural buildings (compare PINS-6009303 DL ¶18). - **Character:** domestic use would harm a tranquil rural landscape (DL ¶17-23). ## Planning balance The S5 balance: HO7 substantial weight and economic/social benefits moderate weight, against unsustainable location and character harm. "the benefits … would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶33-34). ## What made the difference Isolation and access, not the building. An in-use agricultural building with no evidence of redundancy cannot use HO11's reuse route. Its distance from the village, across fields and a golf course, defeated (j). ## Transferable points - HO11 reuse of a building for an isolated home needs evidence that the building is redundant or disused, and an enhancement of its setting (DL ¶31). - A site 700 m from a village across open fields is neither "within a group of houses" nor "physically well-related" (DL ¶9, 30). - Unlit lanes and gravel bridleways do not provide inclusive access for users with limited mobility (DL ¶11). - Even where some S5 support (PDL) is found, isolation and car dependence can substantially outweigh substantial housing weight (DL ¶32-34). - Contrast PINS-6009718, where S5(3) was treated as overriding PDL status outright. Here it was weighed instead. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): fail.** at least 700 m from Kirtlington across fields and golf course - not physically well-related (DL 9, 20, 30) - **S5(3): fail.** not within a group of houses and not well-related - isolated homes; HO11 not met (no evidence building redundant/disused, no enhancement of setting) (DL 30-31) - **S5(1)(d): benefit.** inspector says the site "could be described as" PDL attracting S5 support - questionable for an agricultural building (DL 32) - **TR3: fail.** Mill Lane unlit, no footway, half of route a gravel bridlepath; bus stops about 1 km; almost entirely car dependent (DL 9-15) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** housing supply position (figure not stated) (DL 33) ## Key facts - Building in current agricultural use; no evidence of redundancy - Kirtlington has pub, school, church, village hall; store/post office asserted but not seen - Nearest bus stops about 1 km; half the route is gravel bridleway ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009985 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1d74e907-e7e4-4796-8e4f-d55c8b412064 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009985.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 56 Burlington Road, New Malden - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Cleary - **Authority:** Kingston upon Thames (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6009988 - **Application reference:** 25/02055/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition and a four-storey building with a replacement commercial unit and 7 flats - **Homes:** 7 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, L2(1)(d)(ii), P3 - **Development plan policies:** Kingston Core Strategy 2012 DM10, London Plan 2021 D3, D6, T6, Residential Design SPD 2013 - **Main issues:** neighbours' daylight, future occupiers' external space, parking - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, living-conditions, daylight-sunlight, obligation-unsecured, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary A four-storey block of seven flats over a commercial unit in New Malden, built right up to the boundary beside a neighbour's ground-floor bedroom window. The daylight loss to that window (93.7% VSC) was so severe that it substantially outweighed substantial weight to seven homes under S4. The car-free undertaking was also defective. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Daylight.** "W15 would experience a 93.7% reduction in VSC, and a 100% loss under the NSL test" (DL ¶7). "The magnitude of this loss goes well beyond minor urban friction and represents a profound deterioration in living conditions." (DL ¶24). It conflicts with "the Framework’s decision-making policies (L2 and P3), which seek to ensure acceptable living standards in terms of daylight and sunlight" (DL ¶24). - **Parking.** The unilateral undertaking's monitoring fee was blank: "Without a specified amount, the undertaking is incomplete and the obligation cannot be enforced." (DL ¶21). - **Housing.** The seven flats "would contribute to addressing this shortfall, a matter to which I attach substantial weight" (DL ¶23). ## Planning balance S4(1): "the adverse effects substantially outweigh the benefits when assessed against national decision-making policies as a whole. The proposal therefore fails the test in Policy S4." (DL ¶26). ## What made the difference The loss of almost all daylight to the only bedroom of a one-bedroom flat, with no evidence that this massing was the only feasible redevelopment. ## Transferable points - Severe daylight loss to a single habitable window can alone substantially outweigh substantial housing weight under S4 (DL ¶24-26). - L2 and P3 are the Framework hooks for neighbours' daylight (DL ¶24). - A car-free undertaking with an undefined monitoring fee is unenforceable (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **L2(1)(d)(ii): fail.** ground-floor bedroom window W15 at 52-54 Burlington Road loses 93.7% VSC and 100% NSL; sole window to the only bedroom of a one-bed flat (DL 4-12, 24) - **P3: fail.** cited with L2 on acceptable daylight standards (DL 24) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** seven flats where no five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 23, 25) - **TR2: harm.** mapped; car-free UU incomplete (monitoring fee undefined and unpaid), so on-street parking pressure in CPZ not controlled; London Plan T6 conflict (DL 19-22) - **S4: fail.** severe amenity harm substantially outweighs benefits (DL 23-26) ## Key facts - Amenity space shortfall against the SPD accepted as not harmful (play space counted as communal) (DL 13-18) - Mirror-image test and No 50 precedent not persuasive (DL 9-10) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009988 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/99c98bc3-1c16-450d-8025-71b43e0ec785 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009988.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south of Park Farm, Whalley, Wiswell - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on the recommendation of appeal planning officer Ellie Nutman) - **Authority:** Ribble Valley (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009990 - **Application reference:** 3/2026/0190 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for one self-build dwelling replacing an agricultural barn - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j)(i), S5(1) - **Development plan policies:** Ribble Valley Core Strategy 2014 Key Statement DS1, DMG1, DMG2, DMG3, DMH3, DMI2 - **Main issues:** suitability of site for residential development - **Tags:** PIP, appeal-planning-officer, s5-1-j, sustainable-location-fail, self-build-unsecured, class-q-fallback, infill-rejected, small-scheme, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Permission in principle for a self-build house replacing a barn in open countryside near Whalley, reached from a 70 mph dual carriageway with no footways. Dismissed on the recommendation of an appeal planning officer: the site is not physically well related to Barrow under S5(1)(j)(i) because of its poor accessibility, and future occupiers would be heavily car reliant. ## Issues and findings - **Accessibility: FAIL.** "Access to the site is via the dual carriageway, which has no formal footpaths and is subject to a 70 mph speed limit" (DL ¶6). "Accessing Clitheroe Golf Club bus stop would require walking alongside and crossing the dual carriageway, which would not be safe for all users" (DL ¶6). - **S5(1)(j)(i): FAIL.** "Barrow is not a significant distance to the south of the appeal site, but given my findings on its accessibility in regard thereto, I would not consider it to be physically well related" (DL ¶15). - **Character: HARM** from new access and domestic curtilage (DL ¶8). - **Fallback.** Class Q not yet applied for; "limited weight as a fallback position" (DL ¶11). ## Planning balance S5(1): significant weight to travel and character harms against limited benefits. "the benefits of granting planning permission for the appeal scheme would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶17). ## What made the difference The dual carriageway. There was no safe walking route to anything, including the nearest bus stop. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(j)(i) "physically well related" read through accessibility: a settlement a short distance away is not well related if the only route is an unsafe dual carriageway (DL ¶15). - Walking alongside and crossing a 70 mph dual carriageway to reach a bus stop is not a safe alternative "for all users" (DL ¶6). - A Class Q fallback not yet applied for carries limited weight (DL ¶11). - Appeal planning officer letter: lower authority than an inspector's own reasoning. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j)(i): fail.** unmet need accepted in principle; Barrow "not a significant distance" but not physically well related given poor accessibility (accessibility reading of (j)(i)) (DL 15) - **TR3: harm (significant weight).** access via 70 mph dual carriageway with no footways; bus stop requires walking alongside and crossing it; heavy car reliance (DL 6, 16); TR3 not named, harm framed as conflict with policies "geared around reducing the need to travel" - **DP3(1): harm (significant weight).** new access, driveway and garden urbanise open agricultural fields (DL 8, 16); DP3(3) not invoked - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** one home, very limited contribution; self-build unsecured; benefits collectively limited (DL 15-16) - **S5(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 17) ## Key facts - Appeal planning officer recommendation adopted by inspector (DL 2, 19) - Access from dual carriageway with 70 mph limit and no formal footpaths (DL 6) - Class Q fallback for the barn not yet applied for; limited weight (DL 11) - [object Object] - No switch paragraph; Framework applied by 2026 codes (DL 14-17) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009990 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f1684f5d-c7c9-4330-8471-f589f8dbd2b4 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009990.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Erith Cottages, Main Road, Lacey Green - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Plenty - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6009997 - **Application reference:** 24/07369/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Erection of 4 detached dwellings on former builder's yard / garden land - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** green-belt, inside-settlement, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.98 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4), TR3(1)(c), TR4(1)(d), S4, GB7(1)(g) - **Development plan policies:** Wycombe Local Plan 2019 CP9, DM20, DM30, DM32, DM33, DM35, Delivery and Site Allocations Plan 2013 DM5 - **Main issues:** highway safety, loss of business use, character and National Landscape, bin storage - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, not-inappropriate, lpa-conceded-grey-belt, highway-safety-refusal, s5-2-refusal-policy, substantially-outweighed, housing-shortfall, national-landscape, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme ## Summary Four houses on a narrow former builder's yard and garden site in the middle of Lacey Green, in the Green Belt and Chilterns National Landscape. Once the 2026 Framework was published, the council conceded the site was grey belt and met GB7(1)(g), and dropped its Green Belt refusal reason. The appeal still failed on highway safety: the access visibility splay depends on a neighbour's hedge. TR6(4) says such proposals should be refused, and the benefits (substantial weight to 4 homes against a 1.98-year supply) were "substantially outweighed". ## Issues and findings - **Green Belt: conceded.** "Upon review of the Framework the Council finds that the proposal would be regarded as Grey Belt and would comply with the Framework's policy GB7(1)(g). As such, it no longer seeks to defend Reason for Refusal 1 … I see no reason to disagree" (DL ¶3). - **Highway safety: FAIL.** "the appellant has failed to demonstrate how a suitable visibility splay can be achieved without crossing third party land" (DL ¶14), "resulting in a significant adverse highway safety impact" (DL ¶15). - **Business-use loss:** not engaged; there was no evidence of an active builder's yard (DL ¶19). - **Character and National Landscape:** no harm, being a backland cul-de-sac within the settlement's pattern (DL ¶21–26). ## Planning balance The inspector applied S4 because the site is "within a settlement" (DL ¶33). Benefits: substantial weight to homes (HO7, 1.98-year supply), plus bus stops within 155 m and efficient use of land. Against them: TR6(4), TR3(1)(c) and TR4(1)(d) conflicts. "the benefits of the proposed development, would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects … the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply" (DL ¶37). ## What made the difference Third-party land at the access. The Green Belt objection disappeared under the new Framework, but one TR6(4) "should be refused" failure was enough to outweigh substantial housing benefits. A splay within the appellant's control would probably have produced an approval. ## Transferable points - Councils are withdrawing Green Belt refusal reasons for small infill sites within villages once grey belt is reassessed under the 2026 Framework (DL ¶3). - One unsafe access (TR6(4)) can "substantially outweigh" substantial weight for housing in a 1.98-year-supply district (DL ¶36–37). - Relying on third-party land for visibility is fatal unless it is secured (DL ¶13–14). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(g): pass.** after the new Framework the council conceded grey belt and GB7(1)(g) compliance and withdrew GB reason for refusal; inspector agreed (DL 3) - **N4: neutral.** within a settlement, Chilterns NL special qualities unaffected (DL 24-26) - **TR6(4): fail.** north-west visibility splay needs third-party hedge land; unsafe access on a curving 30 mph road (DL 11-16, 36) - **TR3(1)(c): conflict.** highway safety impact not mitigated (DL 36) - **S4: fail.** site treated as within the settlement; benefits substantially outweighed by the highway-safety harm (DL 33, 37) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 4 homes in a district with 1.98-year supply (DL 32) ## Key facts - Council conceded grey belt / GB7(1)(g) after 17 Aug and dropped the Green Belt refusal reason (DL 3) - Bus stops 65 m and 155 m away with a high-frequency High Wycombe–Aylesbury service (DL 35) - Access onto a curving 30 mph road; 2.4 x 43 m splay relies on a neighbour's hedge (DL 11-14) - Buckinghamshire supply 1.98 years (DL 32) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009997 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/154b45d1-cfbc-417e-82b4-4aa6e21f5163 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009997.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land South of Mount Pleasant Cottage, Poundstock - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: O Marigold - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010020 - **Application reference:** PA25/05551 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** One custom-build dwelling with attached garage and a small solar array in a field off the old A39 near Bude - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(4), S5(1)(j)(i), S5(1)(e) - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan 2016 policies 1, 2, 3, 7, 12, 21, 23, 27, Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1, T1 - **Main issues:** spatial strategy, character and appearance, access to services - **Tags:** self-build, s5-4-exceptional, s5-1-j, infill-rejected, settlement-definition, hamlet, landscape-harm, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A single custom-build house with a solar array in a field among a handful of houses by the old A39 near Bude. The self-build unit was secured by a unilateral undertaking and got substantial weight. But the site is outside any settlement, not infill, and not physically well related to a settlement, so no S5(1) category applied. The suburbanising harm to the rural landscape, given very substantial weight, meant no exceptional circumstances under S5(4). Access to services passed the plan policies on short car trips and two-hourly buses. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The Council and the appellants have had the opportunity to comment on this change in policy" (DL ¶3). - **Character: HARM.** "The proposed dwelling would result in the domestication and suburbanisation of the land, caused by the additional built form, the new access, and residential paraphernalia associated with the use" (DL ¶10). "I give this harm and conflict very substantial negative weight in the planning balance" (DL ¶12). - **Access: PASS on plan policies.** Walking and cycling to Bude use "the busy A39, which has no street lighting or pavement in the area" (DL ¶13). "Even so, the length of car journeys to Bude would be relatively short" (DL ¶14). "Consequently, given its rural context, the proposal would maximise the ability of people to make trips by public transport and other sustainable modes of travel" (DL ¶15). TR3 is not mentioned. - **Settlement.** The site "lies outside of a settlement, defined by the Framework as excluding scattered groups of houses located outside predominantly built-up areas" (DL ¶20). - **S5(1)(e) and (j)(i): FAIL** (DL ¶20–21). - **S5(4): FAIL.** "I give substantial positive weight to this benefit, in accordance with Framework policy HO7 ... No exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated" (DL ¶23). ## Planning balance S5(4) exceptional circumstances. Substantial weight to one secured custom-build home and very limited weight to other benefits, against very substantial character harm and conflict with CLP policies 2, 3, 7, 12, 21 and 23. The Framework is "a material consideration of critical importance" (DL ¶24). ## What made the difference Landscape character, not accessibility. The site is a green, rolling field, and a set-back, angled house with a sweeping drive and solar array would suburbanise it. Securing self-build by undertaking earned substantial weight but could not meet the S5(4) bar. ## Transferable points - A small cluster of houses along a road outside any built-up area is not a "settlement" under Annex B (DL ¶20). - A self-build unit secured by unilateral undertaking attracts substantial HO7 weight even for one dwelling (DL ¶4, ¶23). - Caution on access: the letter accepted short car trips and two-hourly buses "given its rural context" under plan policies without applying TR3 (DL ¶14–15). Do not cite it as TR3 authority. ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:settlement: fail.** a handful of houses along the old A39; "scattered groups of houses located outside predominantly built-up areas" excluded, so outside a settlement (DL 20) - **S5(1)(e): fail.** large field gap; not infilling even if the houses form a group (DL 20) - **S5(1)(j)(i): fail.** unmet housing need applies, but the site is some distance from a settlement, so not physically well related (DL 21) - **S5(4): fail.** substantial weight to the secured custom-build unit, very limited to other benefits; no exceptional circumstances against very substantial character harm (DL 22-23) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** custom-build unit secured by UU; Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act duty noted (DL 4, 23) - **N2(1)(a): harm (very-substantial weight).** mapped: domestication and suburbanisation of an open rolling field; angled siting and sweeping drive uncharacteristic; solar array utilitarian; "very substantial negative weight" (DL 10-12) - **TR3: not-engaged.** TR3 not cited; access judged under plan policies CLP 27, CEDP C1(6), T1 and passed on short car trips to Bude and two-hourly buses "given its rural context", despite no footway or lighting on the A39 (DL 13-18) ## Key facts - Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply; figure not stated (DL 19) - Unilateral undertaking dated 25 Aug 2026 secures the custom-build unit (DL 4) - Buses about every two hours, weekdays and weekends; northbound stop needs a crossing of the A39 (DL 14-15) - CLP policy 1 carries the 2024-style "significantly and demonstrably" test as a plan policy; conflict found (DL 19, 24) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010020 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/05b0cfc8-2b97-41a9-af22-4fceebe8e6db --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010020.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to 10 Hurtley Street, Burnley (PIP, 6 flats) - **Decision:** allowed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Fawcett - **Authority:** Burnley (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010021 - **Application reference:** PIP/2026/0028 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for one building of 6 flats (min 6, max 6) on a grassed plot at the end of a terrace - **Homes:** 6 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** development-plan-only - **Development plan policies:** Burnley Local Plan 2018 SP1, SP5, SP6, HS3, NE2 - **Main issues:** suitability of site for residential development, character and appearance, loss of open space - **Tags:** PIP, within-settlement-s4, small-scheme, limited-nppf-engagement, no-consultation-on-2026-framework, housing-supply-5yr, density-l3 ## Summary Permission in principle for six flats on a small grassed plot at the end of a terrace in urban Burnley. Allowed. The plot was not designated open space and had no evidenced green infrastructure function beyond limited visual relief, so its loss complied with local plan SP6. The decision is entirely development-plan-led: no 2026 Framework policy is cited, and the inspector decided without inviting comments on the new Framework. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "As there are no substantive changes relevant to the appeal before me, I am satisfied that no interested parties would be prejudiced by my determining the appeal without seeking representations on the revised Framework" (DL ¶5). - **Open space / green infrastructure — SP6, NE2: ACCORD.** "There is no compelling evidence that it performs a significant recreational, ecological or strategic green infrastructure function … Its principal value appears to be aesthetic, providing a degree of openness and relief within a densely developed urban environment although limited by its small scale" (DL ¶11). "the harm arising from the loss of the green infrastructure would be small" (DL ¶12). NE2 does not apply to undesignated land; supporting text "does not form part of the policy itself" (DL ¶10). - **Density — HS3.** "The provision of 6 flats on the appeal site would equate to approximately 309 dph … this largely reflects that the proposal relates to flats rather than dwellinghouses. The level of built form would be unlikely to be significantly greater than that which might arise from 3 dwellings" (DL ¶9). - **Housing supply.** "Whilst the Council can demonstrate a housing land supply that exceeds 5 years, this is not a maximum target" (DL ¶14). - **Parking / amenity at PIP stage.** Relevant only "insofar as they relate to the type and quantum"; on-street parking could absorb six flats in an accessible urban location (DL ¶16-17). ## Planning balance No balance run: the proposal complied with SP1, SP5, SP6, HS3 and NE2 and was therefore suitable in location, land use and amount (DL ¶13, 18). The S3(1)(c)/S4 presumption is not mentioned. ## What made the difference The absence of any designation or evidenced function for the grass plot. The council's objection rested on loss of open space, but without a Protected Open Space designation or evidence of recreational/ecological use, the inspector found only small aesthetic harm, compatible with SP6 which "does not preclude the loss of green infrastructure assets" (DL ¶10). A designated or functionally connected open space would have engaged NE2 (and potentially HC7 under S4(2)(a)(ii)). ## Transferable points - A five-year supply "is not a maximum target" and does not count against a compliant scheme (DL ¶14). - Undesignated amenity grass with no evidenced function can be lost where GI policy seeks mitigation rather than prohibition (DL ¶10-12). - High dph figures for flats can be discounted where built form matches the equivalent terraced houses (DL ¶9). - Some inspectors are treating the 2026 Framework as making "no substantive changes" for plan-compliant urban PIPs and deciding without consultation (DL ¶5). ## Policy findings - **Burnley LP SP6: accord.** small privately owned mown grass plot, no evidenced recreational/ecological/strategic GI function; loss of green infrastructure "small" (DL 10-12) - **Burnley LP NE2: not-engaged.** site not designated Protected Open Space; supporting-text reference to non-designated open space is not policy (DL 10) - **Burnley LP HS3: accord.** 6 flats ≈ 309 dph, far above surroundings, but built form comparable to 3 terraced houses (DL 9) - **HO7: neutral.** not cited; council has more than 5 years' supply, "this is not a maximum target" (DL 14) ## Key facts - Mown grass plot at the end of a row of 2-storey terraces; indicative scheme continues the terrace with 3 ground and 3 first-floor flats - About 309 dwellings per hectare against a local plan minimum of 25 dph - No green infrastructure audit submitted; larger open space and landscaping to the south - Council can demonstrate more than a five-year housing land supply (figure not stated) - Decided without seeking comments on the 2026 Framework; no 2026 NPPF policy is cited ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010021 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4f0f3e97-3da9-484c-bd62-535f390c24fc --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010021.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 111-113 Cauldwell Hall Road, Ipswich - **Decision:** dismissed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Wright - **Authority:** Ipswich (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010023 - **Application reference:** IP/26/00124/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of first floor of a commercial building to 5 two-bed flats with retained ground-floor Class E (supermarket), no parking - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, near-station - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR4, S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Ipswich Core Strategy and Policies DPD Review 2022 DM21, DM22, Suffolk Guidance for Parking 2023 - **Main issues:** highway and pedestrian safety, parking - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, housing-shortfall, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, parking-stress, highway-safety, car-free-unsecured, l2-effective-use, drafting-slip, small-scheme ## Summary Five two-bed flats above a supermarket in an Ipswich local centre, with no parking. Dismissed on highway safety, even though the highway authority did not object and the council has a supply shortfall. The appellant's overnight parking survey missed the daytime restriction hours. Overspill parking on footways would obstruct pedestrians and access, conflicting with TR4. The inspector gave the benefits substantial weight (HO7, L2, TC2), but the S4 conclusion is worded the wrong way round. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "the Council and the appellant were invited to make further comments. My decision reflects the latest version of the Framework, and the responses received on it" (DL ¶3). - **Late highway plan not accepted.** "the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme" (DL ¶2). - **Parking survey — DM21/DM22: FAIL.** The 00:30 survey was taken "when significantly more on-street parking is available as there are no parking restrictions on single yellow lines at those times" (DL ¶12). "there is no mechanism available to prevent future residents from owning private cars" (DL ¶13). "In the absence of any assessment of available spaces when the single yellow line parking restrictions apply, I cannot be certain that additional vehicles generated by the proposed development could be accommodated" (DL ¶15). - **Pedestrian safety — TR4: FAIL.** More footway parking "would exacerbate obstructions to pedestrians, particularly those with young children, pushchairs and disabilities" (DL ¶15). The development "would contravene Policy TR4 where it seeks to minimise the scope for conflict between pedestrians and vehicles and requires proposals to allow for the efficient delivery of goods, and ease of access by service and emergency vehicles" (DL ¶25). - **Highway authority's non-objection outweighed.** "in this case there is no means to achieve car free development and insufficient evidence that the proposal would not result in further inappropriate parking" (DL ¶18). - **Network impact — "TR3" [sic]: no severe impact.** "Whilst it would not have a severe adverse impact on the transport network in terms of Policy TR3" (DL ¶25). The severe residual cumulative impact test sits in TR6. ## Planning balance S4: benefits from HO7 (homes, no five-year supply), L2 (underutilised floorspace) and TC2 (centre vitality) given "substantial weight" (DL ¶¶23–24). TR4 harm "attracts considerable weight. Consequently, in this case, the benefits of the proposal would not be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects, and thus the appeal scheme would be contrary to Policy S4 of the Framework" (DL ¶25). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶26). The dismissal implies the inspector meant "would be substantially outweighed". ## What made the difference The parking evidence was taken at the wrong time of day: the survey showed spare capacity only because yellow-line restrictions lapse overnight. The inspector's own daytime observation of footway parking outside the site then carried the case. Without a legal mechanism to make the scheme car-free (e.g. a permit restriction), "car-free" was only a label. A daytime survey showing capacity, or a secured car-free obligation, would probably have won, given the substantial benefits and the highway authority's support. ## Transferable points - TR4 (minimising pedestrian/vehicle conflict; service and emergency access) is used as a freestanding reason for refusal separate from the "severe" network test (DL ¶25). - Parking stress surveys must cover the hours when on-street restrictions apply; a Lambeth-method overnight survey alone can be inadequate (DL ¶¶12, 15). - "Car-free" carries little weight without a mechanism to stop residents owning and parking cars (DL ¶¶13, 18). - An inspector can find highway safety harm despite no highway authority objection, based on site observation (DL ¶¶6–7, 18). - Substantial weight can go to HO7, L2(1)(b) and TC2 benefits together for a small mixed-use conversion (DL ¶¶23–24). - Drafting slip: DL ¶25 says the benefits "would not be substantially outweighed" but concludes the scheme is contrary to S4. The inspector also cites the "severe" test under TR3 rather than TR6. Substantial benefits vs "considerable" harm sits awkwardly with a "substantially outweighed" finding, so the decision is vulnerable to challenge on reasoning. ## Policy findings - **TR4: fail (considerable weight).** overspill parking onto footways; blocks safe access to flats, bin/bike stores, deliveries, service and emergency access; pedestrian/vehicle conflict (DL 15-16, 25) - **TR3: pass.** no severe adverse impact on the network "in terms of Policy TR3" (DL 25); severe-impact test more naturally TR6 - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 5 homes; council cannot show 5-yr supply, figure not stated (DL 23-24) - **L2(1)(b): benefit (substantial weight).** better use of underutilised floorspace (DL 23-24) - **TC2: benefit (substantial weight).** retained commercial space supports local centre vitality and viability (DL 23-24) - **S4(1): fail.** concluded contrary to S4, but DL 25 literally says benefits "would not be substantially outweighed" - inverted wording (DL 25) - **Ipswich DPD DM21, DM22: conflict.** parking standard (11 spaces) not met; car-free status not securable (DL 8, 13, 19) ## Key facts - 5 two-bed flats, zero parking; county standard would require 11 spaces (DL 8) - Highway authority did not object (sustainable location, parking survey) (DL 18) - Appellant parking stress survey at 00:30 (Lambeth method) outside single-yellow-line hours (8am-6pm Mon-Sat); showed 12-17 spaces free; no survey during restricted hours (DL 5, 11-12, 15) - Inspector observed cars on the footway outside the site and on Springland Close at the daytime visit (DL 6-7) - Station just over 800 m away; buses to town centre (DL 13) - Council accepts no 5-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 24) - Highway improvement plan submitted at appeal not considered - appeal not to evolve a scheme (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010023 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3262d784-d318-492b-8880-bcf3c9369c51 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010023.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 15 Warwick Road, Batley (home-kitchen takeaway) - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on the recommendation of appeal planning officer S Manson) - **Authority:** Kirklees (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6010024 - **Application reference:** 2026/62/90709/E - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective change of use of part of a residential kitchen for small-scale home cooking for takeaway and delivery - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HC5(1)(a), S4 - **Development plan policies:** Kirklees Local Plan 2019 LP13, LP16, LP24, LP47, LP52, Hot Food Takeaway SPD 2022 - **Main issues:** location of hot food takeaway near school, living conditions - **Tags:** hot-food-takeaway, hc5-school-400m, s4-substantially-outweighed, home-business, retrospective, appeal-planning-officer-recommendation, no-consultation-on-2026-framework ## Summary A retrospective home-kitchen takeaway business in a Batley terrace near a primary school. The appeal was dismissed. It fell squarely within HC5(1)(a): within 400 m of a school and outside a designated centre. It also failed on amenity for lack of extraction and waste details, and the S4 balance went against it. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "There have been some layout and subsequent paragraph numbering changes. I am however satisfied that … they do not have a material bearing" (DL ¶3). - **Scale is irrelevant to the use.** "the use applied for and undertaken is that of a HFT, which is classed as a main town centre use. Neither the development plan nor the Town and Country (Use Classes) Order … distinguishes such uses by reference to the scale of operation" (DL ¶6). - **HC5(1)(a): FAIL.** "Policy HC5 of the Framework clearly states … that proposals for a HFT should be refused if it is to be located within a reasonable walking distance of a school, which it quantifies as 400 metres … It is not disputed that the appeal site falls within this distance" (DL ¶7). "the potential influence of a HFT in close proximity to a school is not confined to the traditional start and end of the school day" (DL ¶8). - **S4.** "the harm I have found, and the subsequent development plan conflict, would be obvious and enduring and I therefore ascribe it significant weight. The benefits … would therefore be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶14). ## Planning balance S4. Benefits: small economic contribution. Harms: HC5 location conflict and amenity harm, significant weight. Substantially outweighed. ## What made the difference The 400 m distance to a primary school outside any designated centre. HC5(1)(a) is phrased as "should be refused", so there was little room for argument. Contrast Luton (PINS-6009647), where the town-centre exception applied. ## Transferable points - HC5(1)(a) applies to a home-kitchen takeaway of any scale within about 400 m of a school, outside a designated centre (DL ¶6-7). - The school-proximity concern is not limited to school opening and closing times (DL ¶8). - A "should be refused" failure under HC5 plus amenity harm gives an S4 "substantially outweighed" result (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **HC5(1)(a): fail.** within 400 m of a primary school (undisputed); not in a designated centre; risk extends beyond school start and finish times (after-school clubs, pupils who walk alone); signage adds prominence (DL 7-9) - **TC3: fail.** a takeaway is a main town centre use whatever its scale; no sequential test (local LP13/LP16) (DL 6) - **P3: harm (significant weight).** no extraction, odour control, acoustic or waste details in a dense terrace; conflict with local amenity policies (DL 10-13) - **S4: fail.** "obvious and enduring" harm, significant weight; small economic benefits substantially outweighed (DL 14) ## Key facts - Mid-terrace house on a residential street; Warwick Road Junior, Infant and Nursery School a short walk away - Appellant said it was small-scale home cooking; neither the plan nor the Use Classes Order distinguishes takeaways by scale - No extraction or waste storage details - Site visit by an appeal planning officer, decision by the inspector on that recommendation - Parties not re-consulted ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010024 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a34ca1a4-54ec-43f7-bef0-1342db1acb48 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010024.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Victoria Vaults, 47-49 Nunnery Lane, York (pub/music venue to 3 townhouses) - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M Clowes - **Authority:** York (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6010035 - **Application reference:** 25/01690/FUL - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Conversion of Victoria Vaults public house and live-music venue into 3 townhouses (non-determination appeal) - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HC6(1)(a), HC6(2), E2, S4(2)(a)(i), S4 - **Development plan policies:** City of York Local Plan 2025 HW1, D3, EC2, D4, D5 - **Main issues:** loss of community facility and cultural venue, loss of employment use, S4 balance - **Tags:** pub-loss, cultural-venue, hc6-marketing-12-months, community-facility, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-a-i, housing-supply-5yr, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, costs-refused, non-determination ## Summary The companion appeal to PINS-6011055: converting the Victoria Vaults pub and music venue in York into three townhouses. It was dismissed for the same HC6 reasons. The inspector also found conflict with E2 (loss of an employment-generating use), and gave only moderate weight to a small housing gain where the council has a five-year supply. The S4 balance went against the scheme. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were given the chance to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶6). - **HC6.** Same findings as the café appeal (DL ¶11, 22, 33-34). The loss was not justified and "the proposal would also conflict with Policy HC6 of the Framework and Policy E2, which seeks to support economic growth by ensuring the availability of land and premises to meet the needs of businesses and employment-generating activities" (DL ¶46). - **Housing benefit.** "there is agreement that the Council is currently able to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply … Even taking the appellant's case at its highest, the contribution to housing supply would be modest. Consequently, I attach moderate positive weight to these benefits" (DL ¶62). - **S4.** The same structure as the café appeal: unjustified loss under HC6 gives a substantial adverse effect, which substantially outweighs moderate benefits (DL ¶60-64). - **Costs (separate decision, refused).** Non-determination delay did not amount to unreasonable behaviour where the council "had substantive planning reasons for continuing to consider the proposal" (Costs ¶6); commissioning an independent viability/marketing review after the statutory period was not unreasonable (Costs ¶7); a councillor's use of the call-in mechanism "does not of itself, indicate improper influence" (Costs ¶11). ## Planning balance S4 balance. Benefits: 2-3 homes by reuse of previously developed land in a sustainable location, together moderate. Heritage: neutral. Harm: unjustified loss of a community facility, cultural venue and employment use, substantial weight. The benefits were substantially outweighed. ## What made the difference As in PINS-6011055. In addition, the five-year supply meant the housing gain could not be given HO7's "substantial weight". Compare Churchill (6007705, not written here), where 4.38 years' supply gave substantial weight to two homes. ## Transferable points - Inside a settlement, a small housing scheme that unjustifiably removes an HC6 facility fails S4. Where the council has a five-year supply, the housing gain was given moderate rather than substantial weight (DL ¶62-64). - The inspector read E2 as supporting the retention of premises used by employment-generating businesses, and found the loss of such a use to conflict with it (DL ¶37, 46). ## Policy findings - **HC6(2): pass.** pub and cultural venue are both key community facilities (DL 22) - **HC6(1)(a): fail (substantial weight).** same marketing and viability failings as the café appeal; 12-month period evidential not determinative (DL 25-36, 64) - **E2: conflict.** the inspector reads E2 as seeking land and premises for business needs; loss of an employment-generating use conflicts with E2 and local EC2 (DL 37, 46) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** council has a 5-year supply; net gain of 2-3 homes "modest"; moderate weight with the sustainable reuse (DL 62) - **S4(2)(a)(i): fail (substantial weight).** unjustified loss of the community facility, cultural venue and employment use gives a substantial adverse effect (DL 46, 64) - **HE6: neutral.** rear extension and conversion preserve the SAM, listed buildings and CA (DL 47-53, 63) ## Key facts - Council agreed it can demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply - Net gain of 2 dwellings if the upstairs flat is already a separate unit, 3 on the appellant's case - Relisted as an ACV on 11 Aug 2026; companion café appeal 6011055 heard at the same hearing - Appellant's full costs application (delay, late independent review, alleged political interference, ACV inconsistency) refused (costs decision 22 Sep 2026) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010035 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7196bbf1-7396-483b-89b1-f9e33df78b23 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e5775279-1b6d-4f70-b747-b9789c3d3aa3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010035.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Emmaus School, School Lane, Staverton - **Decision:** allowed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Worley - **Authority:** Wiltshire (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010036 - **Application reference:** PL/2026/00464 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective 2m bow-top fence and 3m mesh security fence around school MUGA - **Site context:** settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE7(2) - **Development plan policies:** Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015 CP57, CP58, Wiltshire Design Guide 2024 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, NDHA - **Tags:** tier-2, retrospective, ndha, old-heritage-wording, heritage-harm-outweighed ## Summary Retrospective school security fencing next to a Victorian school that is a non-designated heritage asset. The Inspector found no harm to character but some harm to the NDHA's significance through its setting. Applying HE7(2), "the benefits are of considerable weight which outweigh the less than substantial harm" (DL ¶12). Allowed. ## What made the difference Safeguarding and highway-safety benefits of enclosing the only play area, against modest significance and harm limited to part of the views (DL ¶¶11–12). Note that the Inspector kept the 2024 "less than substantial" label for NDHA harm, although neither the 2024 nor the 2026 Framework uses that category for NDHAs (DL ¶¶11, 17). ## Policy findings - **HE7(2): harm.** 3m fence interrupts views of Victorian school (NDHA of "modest significance"); harm called "less than substantial" (DL 9-11) - **HE7(2): benefit (considerable weight).** safe secure play area, balls kept off roads, supports PE and community use; outweighs harm (DL 12) - **DP3: pass.** lightweight, recessive colour, common at schools; no harm to character (DL 7-8) ## Key facts - 3m black mesh fence encloses the school's only outdoor play area - Host Victorian Bath-stone school is a non-designated heritage asset ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a48e45b9-2a46-4462-ac2f-b32c69050b4c - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010036 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010036.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Euston Road outside the Standard Hotel, Camden (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Skelly - **Authority:** Camden (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010059 - **Application reference:** 2025/5879/P - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub with digital advertisement panels (linked advert appeal 6010061) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), P5 - **Development plan policies:** Camden Local Plan 2017 D1, D2, C5, T1 - **Main issues:** heritage setting, community safety, pedestrian safety - **Tags:** telecoms, street-hub, transitional, heritage-harm-decisive, old-wording-slip, tier-2 ## Summary A BT Street Hub with digital adverts opposite St Pancras was dismissed. It caused harm to the settings of listed buildings and the conservation area, and it undermined community safety given Metropolitan Police evidence of hub-related crime. Pedestrian safety was acceptable. ## What made the difference The prominent position in an uncluttered stretch of pavement, eroding views of the Grade I station (DL ¶12-13), plus site-specific crime evidence (DL ¶20-22). The letter is dated 17 Aug 2026 but reasons entirely under the 2024 Framework (¶¶212, 215, "less than substantial"). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): fail (considerable weight).** harm to setting of Grade I St Pancras / Midland Grand Hotel and CA, "less than substantial … lower end"; assessed under 2024 NPPF paras 212 and 215 (DL 13-17) - **P5: fail.** community safety: Met Police evidence of drug dealing and phone theft around hubs; Camden C5 conflict (DL 19-24) - **TR4: pass.** 5.7 m clear footway remains (DL 25-27) ## Key facts - Decision dated 17 Aug 2026 but applies 2024 NPPF paras 212/215 with no mention of the new Framework (DL 15, 17) - Same inspector decided concurrent Pentonville Road and Gray's Inn Road hubs (DL 7) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010059 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9b5f082f-b39e-415a-b892-e7b4fe43b220 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010059.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 1 Waldegrave Road, Ealing - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer E Street) - **Authority:** Ealing (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010063 - **Application reference:** 251413FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective conversion of house to two flats with extensions and outbuilding - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, P3 - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D6, Ealing DM DPD 2013 3.5 - **Main issues:** living conditions of occupiers, character and appearance - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, living-conditions, retrospective, old-wording-slip, transitional-no-consultation, appeal-planning-officer, tier-2 ## Summary A retrospective subdivision of an Ealing end-terrace into two flats was dismissed because the second bedroom's size, and so NDSS compliance, was ambiguous. Under S4 the limited benefit of one extra unit was substantially outweighed by living-conditions harm given significant weight (DL ¶15-16). ## What made the difference Conflicting room measurements and no enforceable way to fix which room is the double. The same APO and inspector pairing as PINS-6009929 treated efficient land use as "expected" rather than a benefit (DL ¶15). ## Policy findings - **P3: fail (significant weight).** ambiguity over "Bed 2" size (9.41 vs 12.2 sq m) - NDSS compliance of 2-bed 4-person flat not shown; not conditionable (DL 5-10, 16) - **S4: fail.** one extra unit limited weight - substantially outweighed (DL 15-16) ## Key facts - Extensions found acceptable in character terms; privacy fixable by 1.8 m fence condition - No re-consultation on the new Framework; refers to "section 12" (old NPPF numbering) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010063 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/cff3794e-2e8f-4c7f-a50e-f54560ab113e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010063.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Windmill Court Country House, Keighley Road, Illingworth - **Decision:** allowed, 1 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer S Manson) - **Authority:** Calderdale (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6010078 - **Application reference:** 25/01274/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Single-storey extension to catering kitchen of hotel / holiday-let premises (former pub) - **Site context:** green-belt, valued-landscape - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Calderdale Local Plan 2023 GB1 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, VSC balance - **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, burden-of-proof-original-building, vsc-shown, business-need, openness-harm-very-limited, no-consultation-new-framework, appeal-planning-officer ## Summary A small kitchen extension to a Green Belt hotel. Found inappropriate only because nobody had quantified past additions to the original building, so the inspector could not rule out a disproportionate increase. VSC was nonetheless shown: very limited openness harm against a compelling business need. Allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The 2026 changes were "minor relevant alterations to Green Belt matters … they do not have a material bearing"; the decision proceeded without consultation (DL ¶3). - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL on evidence.** "Neither party have provided a detailed assessment of additions to the original building … I cannot be sufficiently certain that a disproportionate increase has not occurred" (DL ¶8). The test concerns "the extension of a building, not buildings with which it is associated or within its curtilage" (DL ¶6). - **Openness: very limited harm** (DL ¶10). - **Need: compelling.** "The existing kitchen is indeed very small for the size of the related commercial operations" (DL ¶11). ## Planning balance GB6(2). "it is purely ambiguity that has led to the conclusion on inappropriate development. I therefore attach greater than substantial weight to the other considerations, such that the very special circumstances … have been demonstrated" (DL ¶14). ## What made the difference The harm was tiny and the business need genuine. The inspector openly weighted the VSC balance by noting the inappropriateness finding rested only on missing evidence. ## Transferable points - The burden is on the parties to show original-building versus cumulative additions. Without it, GB7(1)(b) can fail even for a small extension (DL ¶8–9). - GB7(1)(b) looks at the building being extended, not detached structures in the curtilage (DL ¶6). - Where inappropriateness rests on evidential ambiguity and the openness harm is very limited, a genuine business need can amount to VSC (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** no floorspace or volume analysis of cumulative additions since the original building, so cannot be satisfied the increase is not disproportionate (DL 8-9) - **GB6(2): pass (substantial weight).** very limited openness harm; clear business need given "greater than substantial weight"; VSC shown (DL 10-11, 14) - **E4: benefit.** thriving rural business, kitchen undersized for operations (DL 11) ## Key facts - Large former pub now a hotel and holiday-let business; kitchen extension 2004, function room enlargements 2016 - Neither party quantified additions to the original building - Extension "contextually very small", largely within the building envelope, on an inconspicuous elevation - 2026 Framework applied without consultation because the changes were not material to the issue (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010078 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fcec61c3-11c8-4979-aee0-83b0fb10fee1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010078.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pilmore Farm, Old Cassop - **Decision:** allowed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Graham Wraight - **Authority:** County Durham (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010086 - **Application reference:** DM/26/00471/FPA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Erection of a livestock building - **Site context:** open-countryside, conservation-area, valued-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** County Durham Plan 2020 Policies 10, 29, 39 - **Main issues:** landscape character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, agricultural-building, landscape-harm, conservation-area, transitional-no-consultation, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary Livestock building for the last working farm in Old Cassop, in an Area of Higher Landscape Value and the conservation area. Allowed. The landscape harm was "localised" and limited because the building sits next to the existing farm complex (DL ¶7). The farm and BNG benefits clearly outweighed that harm under the local plan's own AHLV test. The inspector declined to use the Framework: "the policies of the development plan are of more assistance in assessing local landscape impact" (DL ¶9). The parties were not consulted on the 2026 Framework because it did "not materially affect the assessment" (DL ¶2). ## What made the difference The building clusters with the existing farm group, and the council gave no evidence of the AHLV's special qualities. Agricultural buildings are "expected sights" in the countryside (DL ¶7). ## Policy findings - **Policy 39 (CDP, AHLV): accord.** localised, limited landscape harm next to existing farm complex; benefits "clearly outweigh" so accords with the policy's own balance (DL 7, 16-18) - **Policy 29 (CDP): conflict.** does not contribute positively to character; outweighed by benefits (DL 9, 18) - **E4: benefit (significant weight).** last working farm in Old Cassop; economic, animal-welfare and manure-containment benefits, significant weight (DL 11); code mapped by harvester - **N2: benefit (moderate weight).** 31.69% BNG on appellant's land (DL 12); code mapped by harvester - **HE9: neutral.** building in CA fields north of village but low-lying next to farm complex; no harm to CA significance (DL 13-15); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Site in an Area of Higher Landscape Value and within Old Cassop Conservation Area; council gave no evidence of the AHLV's special qualities (DL 4) - Views only fleeting from the A181 (DL 6) - BNG 31.69% (DL 12) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010086 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b436cfad-ab4c-4465-ab04-1b0c18303652 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010086.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Idson Farm, Idson Lane, Stogursey - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Butcher - **Authority:** Somerset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010090 - **Application reference:** 3/32/25/001 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retention of one caravan as temporary Hinkley Point C worker accommodation - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, isolated, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), S5(3), HO11, S5(4), TR6(4) - **Development plan policies:** West Somerset Local Plan 2016 OC1, SC1, SD1, EN1, NH13, TR2 - **Main issues:** location, highway safety - **Tags:** isolated-home, s5-1-j, s5-4-exceptional, sustainable-location-fail, housing-shortfall, retrospective, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tr6-highway-safety ## Summary Retention of a static caravan in open countryside near Stogursey as temporary accommodation for a Hinkley Point C worker. Dismissed. The site is outside any defined settlement and is an isolated home, so it is outside S5(1)(j) (not well-related to a settlement) and fails S5(3)/HO11. The small benefits came nowhere near the S5(4) "exceptional circumstances" test. The inspector also found a TR6(4) highway safety conflict that was not in the council's reasons. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were given an opportunity to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶2). - **Location: FAIL.** Nothing showed "why the accommodation could not be provided within a defined settlement" (DL ¶6). Evidence of HPC housing pressure was "rather anecdotal" (DL ¶7), and park and ride buses serve the accommodation sites (DL ¶9). The occupier may walk or cycle to Hinkley but "this cannot be guaranteed or secured by condition. Moreover, they are still heavily reliant on the private car to access other services and facilities needed for everyday life such as supermarkets" (DL ¶10). - **Highway safety, TR6(4): FAIL.** "when I drove off the site, I did not gain sufficient visibility in either direction until my vehicle was quite far onto the narrow carriageway" (DL ¶13). Getting enough visibility would mean removing hedgerow, which would harm character (DL ¶14). "While not referenced on the Council's decision notice, the development would also conflict with Policy TR6(4)" (DL ¶15). - **S5(1)(j): FAIL.** "I note that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year supply … However, the requirements of Policy S5(j) are not met on the basis that the development is not physically well related to an existing settlement" (DL ¶18). - **S5(3)/HO11: FAIL.** "None of the clauses in Policy HO11 would be met" (DL ¶18). ## Planning balance The decision was taken under s38(6). The benefits (one home, "an area that enables sustainable travel to Hinkley", some local spend) were "very limited", and the plan conflict "substantially outweighs the benefits" (DL ¶17). On S5(4): "HO7 … could be considered to be relevant here in light of the shortfall … [but] development proposals which do not fall within one of the categories … should only be approved in exceptional circumstances, where the benefits … would substantially outweigh the adverse effects. This would clearly not be the case here, even when taking account of Policy HO7" (DL ¶19). ## What made the difference The site was not physically well-related to any settlement, so the lack of a five-year supply could not bring it into S5(1)(j). With no category available, S5(4) needed exceptional circumstances, and one caravan for a worker who could live elsewhere was nowhere near that. Evidence that HPC workers could not be housed in settlements might have supported an exceptional-circumstances or OC1 case, but the access problem would have remained. ## Transferable points - Having no 5YHLS does not help a site that is not physically well-related to a settlement. The (j) locational limb is a separate gate (DL ¶18). - HO7's "substantial weight" to housing does not override S5(4)'s requirement that benefits *substantially outweigh* the harm for development outside the categories (DL ¶19). - A walk or cycle commute to a single workplace does not answer car reliance for everyday services, and cannot be secured by condition (DL ¶10). - An inspector may find a TR6(4) conflict that is not in the reasons for refusal (DL ¶15). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): fail.** council lacks a 5YHLS (figure not stated) but site not physically well-related to an existing settlement (DL 18) - **S5(3): fail.** isolated home; none of the HO11 clauses met (DL 18) - **S5(4): fail.** outside all categories; benefits very limited, even with HO7 substantial weight, nowhere near substantially outweighing harm (DL 19) - **HO7: benefit (very-limited weight).** HO7 substantial weight acknowledged as relevant given shortfall, but one unit gives very limited benefit (DL 17, 19) - **TR6(4): fail.** not in reasons for refusal; substandard visibility at the existing access; unacceptable highway safety impact (DL 13-15) - **TR3: fail.** occupier may walk/cycle to Hinkley but still reliant on car for supermarkets and other services (DL 10) ## Key facts - Caravan in open countryside housing a Hinkley Point C worker; retrospective - No evidence the worker could not be housed in a settlement; HPC park and ride buses widely available (DL 6-9) - Access visibility inadequate; the inspector had to pull well onto the carriageway to see (DL 13) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010090 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5a38efdc-5e50-4b24-af10-b66ba44815e5 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010090.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 846 Chester Road, Stretford - **Decision:** dismissed, 26 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Smith - **Authority:** Trafford (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010095 - **Application reference:** 118677/VAR/26 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73 variation of acoustic verification condition on café-to-bar (sui generis) permission, below a residential flat - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3(2)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Trafford Core Strategy 2012 L7, Places for Everyone 2024 JP-P1 - **Main issues:** living conditions — noise - **Tags:** tier-2, s73-variation, noise, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary Application to replace a condition requiring acoustic verification of the ceiling insulation below a flat with a music-only trigger. Dismissed: "Music is not the sole source of noise … the proposed revision to Condition 9 would not adequately control all sources of noise" (DL ¶7). The letter decides the case on plan policy and never cites the Framework. ## What made the difference The appellant's own noise assessment predicted internal levels of about 83 dB. The absence of complaints was not evidence of acceptability: "The objective should be to prevent such harm from arising in the first place" (DL ¶10). Community support attracted only "limited, yet positive weight" (DL ¶15). ## Policy findings - **P3(2)(b): fail.** revised condition controls only live music; patron noise from up to 80 customers (NIA predicts ~83 dB internal) unmitigated for flat above; decided under plan policy L7 and JP-P1, Framework not cited (DL 5-16) - **P4: neutral.** agent-of-change argument rejected because neighbouring parade uses are quiet daytime uses (DL 12) ## Key facts - Appellant's own NIA predicted ~83 dB internal noise against the proposed 66 dB music limit - Bar capacity about 80 patrons, directly below a first-floor flat ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ea9a1134-7fa2-4e73-a329-50e1ca568159 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010095 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010095.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pound Scots, Chinnor Road, Bledlow Ridge (self-build dwelling in listed building's garden) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Lewis Condé - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010097 - **Application reference:** PL/25/4253/FA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Self-build three-bedroom detached house, carport, shed and new access in the front garden of Grade II listed Pound Scots - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, washed-over-village, inside-settlement, listed-building-setting, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), S4 - **Development plan policies:** Wycombe District Local Plan 2019 CP11, DM31 - **Main issues:** setting of listed buildings - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, self-build-unsecured, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, national-landscape, green-belt-policy-not-applied, washed-over-village-as-settlement, garden-land, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A self-build house in the front garden of Grade II listed Pound Scots at Bledlow Ridge, in the Chilterns National Landscape and the Green Belt. The inspector found modest harm to the listed building's setting through loss of its spacious garden, and even substantial weight to one home did not outweigh it under HE6(4). The case was then run through S4 as a within-settlement scheme, leaving the Green Belt question undecided. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties given an opportunity to comment on the new Framework (DL ¶2). - **Setting harm.** The development "would erode the spacious landscaped character that contributes to the listed building's significance" and "that harm would be modest in extent" (DL ¶8). - **Housing.** "In accordance with policy HO7 of the Framework, I attach substantial weight to this benefit. However, as there is no appropriate legal mechanism to secure the dwelling as self-build housing … I attach no additional weight on that basis" (DL ¶11). - **HE6: FAIL.** "The substantial weight attached to the additional dwelling, together with the other public benefits, would not outweigh that harm" (DL ¶14). - **S4.** "As the proposal is within a settlement, it benefits from the in-principle support provided by policies S3 and S4 of the Framework" (DL ¶15). - **Green Belt not decided.** "it is unnecessary to determine whether the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt because that assessment would not alter the outcome" (DL ¶20). ## Planning balance HE6(4), then S4: "the adverse heritage effect would substantially outweigh the benefits of granting permission" (DL ¶15). ## What made the difference The garden's contribution to the listed building's setting. Modest harm, with HE6(1) and HE6(3) weight, beat substantial housing weight for one home. ## Caution The site is in the Green Belt within a village the letter treats as a settlement. Under S3(1) and S5(5), Green Belt proposals go to GB6 and GB7, not S4, and washed-over villages are not settlements under Annex B. The route did not change the result (dismissed on heritage), but do not cite this letter as S4 authority for a Green Belt village. ## Transferable points - Modest harm to a listed building's garden setting outweighed substantial housing weight for one self-build dwelling (DL ¶14). - Self-build status earns no extra weight without a legal mechanism (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): fail.** modest harm to the setting of Grade II Pound Scots from erosion of its spacious garden; substantial weight to conservation, considerable weight to harm; benefits including housing (substantial) do not outweigh (DL 8, 10, 14) - **HE6: neutral.** setting of the Grade II listed waterspout preserved (DL 9, 13) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** one dwelling against a significant shortfall; no extra weight for self-build without a legal mechanism (DL 11) - **S4: fail.** site treated as inside Bledlow Ridge's settlement boundary; heritage harm substantially outweighs benefits (DL 15) - **GB6: not-engaged.** site in the Green Belt but inappropriateness not determined because the appeal fails on heritage (DL 20); S4 applied to a Green Belt site - **N4: neutral.** garden plot within the village; Chilterns NL natural beauty not materially eroded (DL 17) ## Key facts - Council has a significant housing land supply shortfall (figure not stated) (DL 11) - Parties given an opportunity to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 2) - Council did not allege Green Belt harm (DL 20) - Harm described as "modest in extent" (DL 8, 14) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010097 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5d91fe7d-15f8-4ce4-9af1-6927dcb7331c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010097.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pear Tree Barn, Old Gloucester Road, Alveston (listed building consent, Appeal B) - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Phillips - **Authority:** South Gloucestershire (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010098 - **Application reference:** P26/00443/LB - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Listed building consent for a single-storey oak-framed rear extension to a curtilage-listed converted barn - **Site context:** green-belt, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE4(2) - **Development plan policies:** South Gloucestershire Core Strategy 2013 CS1, CS9, Policies Sites and Places Plan 2017 PSP1, PSP17, PSP38 - **Main issues:** special interest of curtilage listed building and setting of Grade II farmhouse - **Tags:** listed-building-consent, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, heritage-harm-decisive, barn-conversion, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary Listed building consent for a glazed oak-framed extension to Pear Tree Barn, a curtilage-listed converted barn next to Grade II Angers Farmhouse at Alveston, was refused on appeal. The extension would overwhelm the barn's simple agricultural form and weaken the farm group's contribution to the farmhouse. The low harm to both assets was not outweighed by modest private and economic benefits. The linked householder appeal (6010093) was dismissed in the same letter. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The Council and the appellant have had opportunity to comment on this" (DL ¶5). - **Harm to the barn.** The extension "would overwhelm the otherwise simple form and undermine the agricultural character of the building" (DL ¶13). The works "would fail to preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the curtilage listed building" (DL ¶14). - **Harm to the farmhouse.** The works "would therefore affect the authenticity of how Angers Farmhouse is experienced" (DL ¶15). - **Degree of harm.** "I find the degree of harm to both heritage assets to be, individually and cumulatively, at a low level but nevertheless is of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶16). - **Public benefits: insufficient.** "There is little evidence before me that maintaining or securing a use consistent with conservation of the property, including its continued occupation and upkeep, is dependent on the proposed extension" (DL ¶18). "in giving considerable importance and weight to the harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset, I find that this would not be outweighed by the public benefits that the proposal would generate" (DL ¶21). - **HE4(2).** No "clear and convincing justification" (DL ¶22). ## Planning balance HE6(4), with HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation stated (DL ¶20). No S4/S5 balance for the consent appeal. ## What made the difference The barn's significance lies in its plain agricultural form, and the extension's scale and glazing would obscure it. Nothing showed that the extension was needed to keep the building in use. A smaller, more solid addition in keeping with the barn's restrained openings might have succeeded. ## Transferable points - For a converted barn, harm comes from obscuring the legibility of the former agricultural function, even where the extension is subservient and stepped away (DL ¶12–13). - Harm to a curtilage-listed building can also harm the principal listed building by eroding the farm group (DL ¶15). - Other consented works that have already diluted a group's character do not justify further harm (DL ¶19). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** HE6(1) stated - "substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation"; highly glazed extension overwhelms the barn's simple L-shaped agricultural form (DL 12-14, 20) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** low harm, individually and cumulatively, to the curtilage-listed barn and to the Grade II Angers Farmhouse (via erosion of the farm group), "of considerable importance and weight" (DL 14-16) - **HE6(4): fail.** economic and housing-stock benefits; no evidence that the building's use or upkeep depends on the extension; other consented works elsewhere no justification (DL 17-19, 21) - **HE4(2): fail.** no clear and convincing justification (DL 22) ## Key facts - Joint letter with Appeal A (planning, householder, ref 6010093), also dismissed; Council accepted the extension is not inappropriate in the Green Belt under GB7(1)(b) (DL 1, 6) - Barn curtilage listed under s1(5) with Grade II Angers Farmhouse (list entry 1321101), 17th century with 18th-century stables (DL 9) - Extension stepped away from the barn, subservient in height, matching tiled roof, but expansive glazing (DL 12-13) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010098 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010098.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 4 Lloyd Road, Dagenham (dwelling to C4 HMO) - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Eggleton - **Authority:** Barking and Dagenham (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010107 - **Application reference:** 26/00018/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of 3-bed dwelling to C4 HMO - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** BDLP DMH5 - **Development plan policies:** Barking and Dagenham Local Plan 2024 DMH5 - **Main issues:** housing mix, living conditions, parking - **Tags:** hmo, family-housing-loss, tier-2 ## Summary Change of a three-bed family house to a small HMO was dismissed because it would lose a family dwelling, contrary to Local Plan policy DMH5. The third bedroom was also too small for an adult (DL ¶6, ¶14-16). ## What made the difference A recent (2024) local plan policy that expressly protects family homes from HMO conversion. The efficiency benefits could not outweigh it. The Framework is not cited. ## Policy findings - **HO5: conflict.** loss of a family-sized dwelling contrary to DMH5; Framework not cited (DL 6, 16) ## Key facts - Small third bedroom inadequate for an adult occupant (DL 14) - Letter does not mention the Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010107 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/dd712912-b97c-4af3-befa-e3de0243db30 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010107.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pavement outside Aldi, 76-86 High Street, Feltham - **Decision:** allowed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Lancaster - **Authority:** Hounslow (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010150 - **Application reference:** P/2026/0885 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub (Appeal A) and two 75-inch digital advert screens (Appeal B, ref 6010152, P/2026/0780) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR4 - **Development plan policies:** Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 EC2, CC5 - **Main issues:** pedestrian movement and safety, public safety (advert) - **Tags:** tier-2, street-hub, digital-advertising, telecoms, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip ## Summary BT Street Hub with digital adverts on a wide Feltham town-centre pavement. Both appeals allowed. The retained 2.9m footway exceeds the 2m minimum in DfT Inclusive Mobility, and the council had no adopted width standard (DL ¶11-12). Parties were invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶3), but no Framework policy is cited on the merits. ## What made the difference Pavement width, measured against a national guidance benchmark. Contrast PINS-6010180 (Huddersfield), where a hub in a tighter, uncluttered conservation-area street was dismissed. Drafting slip: the Appeal B banner names "Manchester City Council" as the decision-maker, not Hounslow. ## Policy findings - **TR4: pass.** 5.4m pavement reduced to about 2.9m clear, above the 2m Inclusive Mobility minimum; crossing not impeded (DL 10-13); code mapped by harvester (letter cites local policies only) - **HE9: neutral.** adjacent to Feltham Town Centre CA; conservation officer no objection; setting preserved (DL 15); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Retained clear footway about 2.9m against a 2.0m DfT Inclusive Mobility (2021) minimum; no adopted local width standard (DL 11) - Kiosk removals outside site boundary and unsecured, so deleted from description (DL 4) - Advert consent granted for 10 years instead of 5 (DL 18) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010150 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/42cbdd2f-2c98-4e53-9c49-c52afba5e8a4 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010150.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Crown Inn, 97 Station Road, Cradley Heath - **Decision:** allowed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Bromley - **Authority:** Sandwell (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010155 - **Application reference:** DC/25/70389 - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Demolition of public house and erection of retail unit (convenience store) with parking and landscaping - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HC6(1)(c), DM4, S4 - **Development plan policies:** Sandwell SADDP 2012 SAD H1, emerging Sandwell Local Plan 2024-2041 SEC3, SDM8, SDS6 - **Main issues:** principle, loss of public house - **Tags:** pub-loss, hc6-alternative-provision, community-facility, emerging-plan-weight, s4-approve, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Demolition of a closed pub in Cradley Heath and its replacement with a convenience store. The appeal was allowed. The adopted plan has no pub-protection policy, so the inspector applied HC6 directly. It was met through limb (1)(c), sufficient alternative provision: other pubs within walking distance meant access would not be diminished. Marketing evidence was therefore not needed. The emerging employment-area policy got considerable weight under DM4. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties addressed the 2026 Framework in writing and at the hearing (DL ¶4). - **DM4: emerging plan.** "it is not disputed that there are no outstanding objections to Policy SEC3 of the eSLP. Therefore, having regard to Policy DM4 of the Framework, I afford it considerable weight" (DL ¶12). - **HC6 applied directly.** "there are no policies within the SADDP that prevent the loss of public houses. However, Policy HC6 of the Framework, sets out that development proposals should not result in the loss of key community facilities … which includes public houses, unless a set of limited circumstances apply" (DL ¶20). Emerging SDM8 is "broadly consistent with Policy HC6" (DL ¶21). - **HC6(1)(c): PASS.** "The residential area surrounding the appeal site is well served by other public houses which include the Waterfall, the Spring Meadow and the Haden Cross. They are each within walking distance … the loss of The Crown Inn would not diminish access to key community facilities and public service infrastructure. As such, the loss of the public house would not conflict with Policy HC6" (DL ¶22). - **S4.** "No such adverse effects have been identified" (DL ¶24). ## Planning balance S4 with no adverse effects, so approve. It accorded with the adopted plan (a gap in shop provision under SAD H1) and with the emerging SEC3 and SDM8. ## What made the difference HC6(1)(c). Several pubs within walking distance let the appellant bypass the 12-month marketing requirement in HC6(1)(a) entirely. Compare Liverpool (PINS-6008083), where nearby pubs did not help because the local policy required no need for any community use; and York (PINS-6011055), where no alternative existed because the venue's cultural role was specialised. ## Transferable points - HC6's three limbs are alternatives. Where there are alternative pubs within walking distance, limb (c) can be met without any marketing evidence (DL ¶20-22). - Where the development plan is silent on pub loss, HC6 applies directly as a national decision-making policy (DL ¶20). - Under DM4, an emerging policy at main-modifications stage with no outstanding objections can carry considerable weight (DL ¶12). ## Policy findings - **HC6(1)(c): pass.** other pubs within walking distance (Waterfall, Spring Meadow, Haden Cross) and many more in the wider area, so the loss "would not diminish access"; no 12-month marketing needed on this route (DL 20-22) - **DM4: accord (considerable weight).** emerging SEC3 (Local Employment Area) at main-modifications stage with no outstanding objections given considerable weight (DL 12) - **SEC3 (emerging Sandwell LP): accord (considerable weight).** the shop is an ancillary employment-generating use serving the employment area and residents (DL 13-18) - **SAD H1 (SADDP): accord.** housing allocation allows local shops where there is a gap in provision; gap found (DL 7-10, 23) - **S4: pass.** no adverse effects identified, so approve (DL 24) - **TC3: not-engaged.** council withdrew its sequential and impact reason after more information (DL 5) ## Key facts - Pub intermittently closed for 12 months and shut since January 2026 - Site allocated for housing (SAD H1) but hemmed in by industry; council accepts housing is hard to deliver - Emerging plan reallocates it as a Local Employment Area (SEC3), at main-modifications stage - Nearest similar shops are a Londis and a Lifestyle Express towards Old Hill; Heron Foods too far; gap in provision found - No marketing evidence relied on; the HC6(1)(c) alternative-provision route decided it ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010155 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fa88a84d-41b2-40ae-ab66-ef09f4004787 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010155.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 2 North Field, Newby Bridge, Windermere (boathouse) - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Teasdale - **Authority:** Lake District National Park Authority (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010157 - **Application reference:** 7/2025/5543 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Two-storey lakeshore boathouse with boat storage below and a glazed day room with balcony above - **Site context:** national-park, open-countryside, flood-zone-2, flood-zone-3 - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N4, HE8, HE6(4), DP3(3), F7(2), S5(2) - **Development plan policies:** Lake District National Park Local Plan 2020-2035 Policies 01, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 24 - **Main issues:** character, National Park and World Heritage Site, flood risk - **Tags:** national-park, world-heritage-site, s5-2-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, flood-risk, heritage-harm-decisive, private-benefit-not-public, fallback-rejected, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A two-storey boathouse with a glazed day room and balcony on an undeveloped stretch of the Windermere shore at Newby Bridge, in the Lake District National Park and World Heritage Site. The inspector found a high level of harm to the landscape and to the World Heritage Site, largely private benefits, and an inadequate flood risk assessment in Flood Zones 2 and 3. DP3(3) and F7 were both "should be refused" policies under S5(2), and the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Although there have been significant amendments made, the changes relevant to this appeal are not substantive or determinative to the outcome of my decision. I have therefore not gone back to the parties to seek any comment" (DL ¶2). - **Landscape, N4: FAIL.** "The narrowness of the lake at this point is such that two-storey development would be dominant and imposing in public view" (DL ¶14). "Given the scale and prominence of the proposals, it would result in a high level of harm" (DL ¶20). - **World Heritage Site, HE8/HE6: HARM, high.** "The benefits associated with the scheme are largely of a private nature" (DL ¶22). "The magnitude of the benefits associated with the scheme taking into account the nature and scale of proposals are not sufficient to outweigh the identified heritage harm, to which considerable importance and weight must be given" (DL ¶22). - **Flood, F7: FAIL.** The FRA "is very basic in its detail" (DL ¶27); "there is not sufficient information before me to be satisfied that the proposals would be safe in the event of flooding" (DL ¶29). - **Triggers.** DP3(3) and F7 set out under S5(2); "Given my findings in terms of character and appearance matters and flood risk, such policy considerations weigh strongly against the grant of planning permission" (DL ¶34). ## Planning balance S5(1) (outdoor sport and recreation) with S5(2), and in the alternative a straight balance: "the benefits of the scheme would also be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects identified" (DL ¶35). Landscape, WHS and flood harms each given substantial weight (DL ¶32). ## What made the difference Scale and siting on an undeveloped, narrow stretch of shore where existing boathouses are single-storey and discreet. The day room made it read as domestic. A single-storey store set back, with a proper FRA, would likely have been acceptable (compare the fallback). ## Transferable points - In a National Park and WHS, a two-storey domestic-looking boathouse on an undeveloped shore causes a "high level of harm" (DL ¶14, ¶20). - Private convenience benefits (a day room near the owner's house) do not outweigh WHS harm (DL ¶15, ¶22). - DP3(3) and F7 can operate together as S5(2) triggers (DL ¶34). - A basic FRA that the Environment Agency rejects cannot be rescued by condition (DL ¶28-29). ## Policy findings - **N4: fail (substantial weight).** two-storey glazed boathouse on an undeveloped, tranquil stretch of shore; fails to conserve natural beauty and special qualities; high level of harm (DL 10, 13-16, 20, 32) - **HE8: fail.** English Lake District World Heritage Site; high level of harm to its significance (DL 12, 20, 22) - **HE6(4): fail (considerable weight).** benefits largely private (boat storage, day room); CC2 energy measures noted; not sufficient against high WHS harm; HE4(2) not met; letter also says the harm "is afforded substantial weight" (DL 21-22) - **DP3(1): conflict.** assertive, domestic-looking intervention out of keeping with discreet single-storey boathouses (DL 14-16, 24) - **DP3(3): fail.** DP3(3) set out as a "should be refused" policy under S5(2); weighs strongly against; clear justification not separately assessed (DL 34) - **F7(2): fail (substantial weight).** Flood Zones 2 and 3, within 20 m of main river; basic FRA; Environment Agency not satisfied (incl. climate change allowance); not conditionable (DL 25-31, 34) - **F4: fail.** FRA did not meet minimum requirements (DL 26-28) - **S5(1)(a): fail.** outdoor sport and recreation category referred to; benefits substantially outweighed; S5(2) triggers DP3(3) and F7 weigh strongly (DL 33-35) ## Key facts - Fallback boat store permission (7/2025/5258) set further back and differently designed, not comparable (DL 17) - Alloa boathouse (7/2017/5749) approved 2018 under an older plan on a contained site, not comparable (DL 18) - EIA screening direction - not EIA development (DL 3) - New Framework applied without consultation; changes "not substantive or determinative" (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010157 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7ff412f5-d11c-49cd-906b-b47df38c4a87 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010157.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 13 and 15 Galena Road, Hammersmith - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C McDonagh - **Authority:** Hammersmith and Fulham (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010163 - **Application reference:** 2025/02695/PMA56 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Two Class MA prior approvals, office to 3 flats in each of two adjoining buildings (Appeal A 6010163, Appeal B 6010167) - **Homes:** 6 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, flood-zone-3 - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** F4, P3(2)(a) - **Main issues:** transport, contamination, flooding, noise, natural light - **Tags:** tier-2, prior-approval, class-ma, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary Linked Class MA prior-approval appeals (6010163 and 6010167) for office-to-residential conversion. Both were dismissed for insufficient information on refuse and highway, contamination, tidal flood risk, noise and daylight. The Framework was treated only as a material consideration relevant to prior-approval matters (DL ¶13), and no 2026 policy was applied expressly. ## What made the difference Amended layouts and replacement technical reports submitted at appeal were refused on Holborn grounds as an attempt to "evolve a scheme" (DL ¶¶8–11). That left the original, deficient FRA and noise reports as the only evidence. ## Policy findings - **F4: fail.** GPDO MA.2(2)(c) — FRA did not assess tidal/breach risk; EA objection; amended FRA rejected under Holborn (DL 23-24) - **P3(2)(a): fail.** GPDO MA.2(2)(d) and (f) — noise survey lacked methodology; daylight unproven for original layouts (DL 25-30) ## Key facts - Revised layouts and new technical reports at appeal rejected as a fundamental change (Holborn tests) (DL 8-11) - PTAL 6a; car-free UU accepted, but no refuse storage shown (MA.2(2)(a)) (DL 12-19) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8cdb8193-acd1-46ef-9cd1-33f6b86af5ef - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010163 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010163.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Verge at Chelmsford Road, Great Dunmow (micro energy storage) - **Decision:** allowed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Reid - **Authority:** Uttlesford (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010164 - **Application reference:** UTT/26/0113/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Micro battery energy storage installation on an overgrown roadside verge - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM6 - **Development plan policies:** Uttlesford Local Plan 2021-2041 (adopted March 2026) Core Policies 25, 40, 44, Policy 52 - **Main issues:** protected species, noise, crime and disorder - **Tags:** battery-storage, renewable-energy, transitional-no-consultation, conditions-overcome-refusal, ecology-survey-condition ## Summary A micro battery storage unit on a roadside verge in Great Dunmow, refused over ecology, noise and security. The inspector found each concern could be dealt with by condition: an ecological survey before commencement, a further noise assessment, and fencing and security details. Appeal allowed. The decision barely engages the Framework. It is useful mainly as a contrast with the other AMP Clean Energy verge appeals and as an example of an inspector declining to consult on the 2026 NPPF. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Any policies that are material to this decision have not fundamentally changed in the Framework. As a result, I consider that there is no requirement for me to seek further submissions on the revised Framework" (DL ¶2). - **Protected species: acceptable subject to condition.** Relying on Circular 06/2005 ¶99, surveys should normally precede permission. But "there is limited credible evidence to demonstrate that protected species are present … any ecological concerns could be appropriately dealt with by way of a planning condition requiring an ecological survey" (DL ¶6-8). - **Noise: acceptable.** Receptors are "in excess of 60 metres" away. The council's concern was "the lack of detailed technical information, rather than … any identified unacceptable impact", so a further assessment was secured by condition (DL ¶11-12). - **Crime and disorder.** Mesh fencing concerns were addressed by a condition on fencing and security details (DL ¶14-15). ## Planning balance None was needed. There was no conflict with the development plan once conditions were imposed (DL ¶9, ¶13, ¶15, ¶22). W3 is not mentioned. ## What made the difference The council's reasons were about missing information rather than demonstrated harm, and a small verge unit left headroom (receptors over 60 m away, low habitat value). No character objection was taken, unlike at Didcot and Ashford. ## Transferable points - Deficient technical information on a small energy scheme can be cured by pre-commencement conditions where there is no credible evidence of actual harm (DL ¶8, ¶12). - An example of an inspector treating the 2026 Framework as making no material change for ecology, noise and crime issues, and so not re-consulting (DL ¶2). ## Policy findings - **Core Policy 25 (Uttlesford LP 2026): accord.** renewable energy encouraged where impacts on ecology and noise can be addressed; met subject to conditions (DL ¶9, ¶13) - **N6: neutral.** Framework not cited; Circular 06/2005 ¶99 applied; bat-roost potential only, "limited credible evidence" of protected species, so survey by pre-commencement condition (DL ¶6-8) - **P3: neutral.** Framework not cited; nearest receptors over 60 m away; further noise assessment by condition (DL ¶11-13) - **Policy 52 (Uttlesford LP 2026): accord.** crime and disorder addressed by a fencing and security condition (DL ¶14-15) ## Key facts - Operator AMP Clean Energy; sister appeals at Didcot (allowed) and Ashford (dismissed) - Inspector did not invite comments on the 2026 Framework because material policies had "not fundamentally changed" (DL ¶2) - New Uttlesford Local Plan adopted March 2026 after the refusal; parties commented on it (DL ¶3) - BNG statutory exemption applies (DL ¶10, ¶21) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010164 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f36c742a-5f0e-4046-a20c-d76175dedd46 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010164.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Ferns, 6 Broc Hill Way, Brocton - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Barton - **Authority:** Stafford (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010165 - **Application reference:** 25/41298/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Replacement of stables with a larger building for storing land-maintenance equipment, on an existing concrete pad, with permeable access paving - **Site context:** green-belt, national-landscape, PDL - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(a), GB7(1)(b), GB7(1)(e), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Plan for Stafford Borough 2011-2031 SP7 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, VSC balance - **Tags:** openness-harm, vsc-not-shown, pdl-e-limb, replacement-building-materially-larger, agricultural-exception-fail, transitional-no-consultation, national-landscape ## Summary A proposal to replace a stable block with a larger equipment store on a domestic landholding in the Green Belt and Cannock Chase National Landscape. Dismissed. It was not agricultural (GB7(1)(a)). It was not a like-for-like replacement (GB7(1)(b)). As PDL redevelopment (GB7(1)(e)) the extra bulk would cause substantial harm to spatial openness. Moderate-weight benefits did not clearly outweigh the harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The policy emphasis of the parts of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have not changed. As a result, I have not sought comments on the new version" (DL ¶2). - **GB7(1)(a): FAIL.** "There is no compelling case that the activities are of a scale and nature that it is for agriculture, horticulture and forestry" (DL ¶8). - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "the replacement building would not be in the same use and would be materially larger" (DL ¶9). - **GB7(1)(e): FAIL.** The concrete slab was treated as PDL. Visual harm was limited, but "the increase in the quantum of development by virtue of the substantially greater footprint and height … would result in significant harm to the spatial openness … would cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt" (DL ¶11). - **GB7(1)(f)(i): PASS for the paving.** Permeable paving "would not result in an area of urban-style hardstanding" (DL ¶13). ## Planning balance GB6(2). Substantial weight to harm. Benefits (securing machinery, replacing a building, upkeep of land) were given moderate weight. VSC not shown. "for this reason, policy S5 of the Framework is not engaged" (DL ¶21). ## What made the difference Size. Low visibility did not save a scheme whose footprint and height grew substantially: spatial openness alone carried the finding of "substantial harm" under (e). A same-size replacement, or evidence of a genuine agricultural use, would have been needed. ## Transferable points - Under GB7(1)(e), strong visual containment does not prevent a finding of substantial harm to openness where spatial bulk increases significantly (DL ¶11). - Maintaining private land does not count as "agriculture" for GB7(1)(a) (DL ¶8). - Where the relevant GB policy wording is unchanged, an Inspector may apply the 2026 Framework without consulting the parties (DL ¶2). - An Inspector read S5 as "not engaged" where GB7 fails and VSC is not shown (DL ¶21), consistent with S5(5). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(a): fail.** equipment store for maintaining private land, not agriculture/horticulture/forestry or nature conservation (DL 8) - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** replacement not in the same use and materially larger (DL 9) - **GB7(1)(e): fail.** concrete slab treated as PDL; limited visual harm, but much larger footprint and height → substantial harm to openness (DL 10-11) - **GB7(1)(f)(i): pass.** permeable paving engineering operation minimises openness impact (DL 13) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriateness and openness harm (DL 20) - **N4: neutral.** no harm to Cannock Chase National Landscape (DL 16) - **S5: not-engaged.** Inspector says S5 is not engaged once VSC fails (DL 21); consistent with S5(5) routing GB proposals to GB6-GB8 ## Key facts - Existing stables used mainly for log storage; replacement substantially larger in footprint and height - Building sits in a dip, surrounded by dense vegetation, so limited visual harm - Site within Cannock Chase National Landscape and 15 km SAC zone - Inspector did not seek comments on the new Framework because the relevant policy emphasis was unchanged ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010165 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/75bfc575-c4b5-4bb0-8c79-d079a244a380 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010165.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Nectar Haze, Bounds Cross, Pyworthy - **Decision:** dismissed, 1 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Cooper-Young - **Authority:** Torridge (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010166 - **Application reference:** 1/0003/2026/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolish stables and erect a new dwelling in lieu of an approved stable conversion (1/0368/2025/FUL) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.61 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), S5(4), S3 - **Development plan policies:** North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 ST07, DM02 - **Main issues:** location of housing, drainage, fallback - **Tags:** s5-1-j, s5-4-exceptional, housing-shortfall, fallback, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A new two-storey dwelling in the Torridge countryside, to replace an approved conversion of a stable block. Dismissed. The council's supply was 4.61 years, but the site was not physically well-related to a settlement, so S5(1)(j) was not met. With no category met, the S5(4) exceptional-circumstances test failed. The conversion fallback was real but less harmful than the proposal, so it carried little weight. Drainage could have been handled by condition. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were consulted on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶2). - **Location, ST07: conflict.** The site is "some distance outside of Pyworthy and outside any other identified settlement boundaries" (DL ¶5). - **S5(1)(j): FAIL.** "With a lack of a 5YHLS and an unmet need, the most applicable criteria is sub-paragraph 1(j)" (DL ¶14). "Even though the appeal site is close to a few other houses, I have already found it is not well-related to an existing settlement. It therefore does not fall within category 1(j) or any other category" (DL ¶15). - **S5(4): FAIL.** The benefits "do not, alone or cumulatively, amount to exceptional circumstances to warrant a departure from the development plan" (DL ¶18). - **Fallback.** It was a real prospect (DL ¶21), but "for significant weight to be afforded to a fallback position there needs … [it] would also need to be equally or more harmful than the scheme" (DL ¶22). The two-storey suburban house with a larger curtilage was more harmful than the low-key conversion (DL ¶25-28). - **Drainage.** Acceptable subject to a condition (DL ¶9). ## Planning balance The inspector gave substantial weight to ST07 as broadly consistent with the Framework. The shortfall "reduces the weight to this conflict" but "There are no exceptional circumstances that would substantially outweigh the adverse effects" (DL ¶18, 29). ## What made the difference The site's relationship to the settlement. The inspector treated "near a few other houses" as not the same as "physically well-related to an existing settlement", so the shortfall did not open S5(1)(j). The fallback failed because it was a less harmful form of development. A like-for-like replacement under S5(1)(c) was not available, because a stable is not the same use. ## Transferable points - Proximity to a scattered group of houses does not make a site "physically well-related to an existing settlement" for S5(1)(j) (DL ¶15). - With no category met, S5(4) requires exceptional circumstances. One dwelling, construction spend and modest BNG are not enough, even with a shortfall (DL ¶17-18). - An approved barn/stable conversion is not a strong fallback for a new-build dwelling. It must be equally or more harmful to carry significant weight (DL ¶19-28). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): fail.** unmet need accepted (4.61 years) but site "some distance outside" Pyworthy and not well-related to a settlement, despite being near a few other houses (DL 13-15) - **S5(4): fail.** one dwelling (even as windfall/self-build), construction and spend benefits, modest BNG - not exceptional circumstances (DL 16-18, 29) - **S5(1)(c): not-engaged.** not argued; the inspector contrasts the policy support for conversion of rural buildings with a new-build dwelling (DL 19) - **S3: neutral.** ST07 broadly consistent with the Framework; substantial weight to it, conflict reduced somewhat by the shortfall (DL 18, 29) ## Key facts - Council supply 4.61 years (agreed shortfall) - Extant permission to convert the single-storey stable to a dwelling accepted as a real-prospect fallback but less harmful than a new two-storey dwelling, so not given significant weight (DL 19-28) - Rural roads; site some distance from Pyworthy near a few scattered houses ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010166 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c3fe52bf-45be-498b-a4f0-edbb34c35bef --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010166.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 13 and 15 Galena Road, Hammersmith (Class MA prior approval) - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C McDonagh - **Authority:** Hammersmith and Fulham (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010167 - **Application reference:** 2025/02696/PMA56 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Prior approval under GPDO Class MA for two buildings, each converted to three flats (linked appeal 6010163) - **Homes:** 6 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Sch 2 Pt 3 Class MA MA.2(2)(c), MA.2(2)(d) - **Main issues:** flooding, noise, transport, contamination, light - **Tags:** prior-approval, class-ma, holborn-studios, tier-2 ## Summary Two Class MA prior approvals for commercial-to-residential conversions were dismissed. Flooding and noise impacts were not shown to be acceptable, and amended layouts and reports submitted at appeal were rejected as fundamental changes (DL ¶9-10, ¶24, ¶27). ## What made the difference Inadequate technical evidence at application stage, which the appeal could not cure. The Framework was relevant only to the prior approval matters (DL ¶13). ## Policy findings - **F4: fail.** flood risk not demonstrated; amended technical reports rejected as a fundamental change under Holborn Studios (DL 9-10, 24) - **P3: fail.** noise surveys lacked methodology (DL 26-27) ## Key facts - Amended layouts and new technical reports submitted at appeal rejected as procedurally unfair (DL 10) - Framework and local plan treated only as material to the prior approval matters (DL 13) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010167 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6ea8403b-5a8b-4f40-8951-b7c1349052d0 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010167.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pavement outside 19-23 Market Street, Huddersfield - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N McGurk - **Authority:** Kirklees (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6010180 - **Application reference:** 2026/62/90569/W - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub incorporating two 75-inch digital advert screens and removal of two BT kiosks - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE4(2), TR4 - **Development plan policies:** Kirklees Local Plan 2019 LP17(a), LP21, LP24(a), LP35 - **Main issues:** conservation area and listed building setting, highway safety - **Tags:** street-hub, digital-advertising, telecoms, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, less-than-substantial-legacy-wording, he6-harm-ungraded, no-framework-reference, generic-benefits ## Summary BT Street Hub with two digital screens on an uncluttered stretch of Market Street, Huddersfield, next to a Grade II listed building in the town-centre conservation area. Dismissed on heritage and highway-safety grounds. The letter never says which Framework it applies and never mentions the 17 August 2026 publication. It uses pre-2026 language, "less than substantial" harm, alongside 2026-style "clear and convincing justification" and "considerable importance". ## Issues and findings - **Conservation area / listed setting — HE9 / HE6: HARM.** The hub "would result in a development of such scale and prominence as to appear as an incongruous and unduly dominant feature" (DL ¶13). - **Heritage balance — HE6(4) / HE4(2): FAIL.** "The harm arising would be less than substantial … any harm to a designated heritage asset is a matter of considerable importance and should be weighed against the public benefits … they are generic benefits that would arise from the Street Hub model wherever it were sited, rather than comprising benefits specific to this particular, sensitive location … I do not consider that they amount to a clear and convincing justification" (DL ¶14). - **Highway safety — TR4: FAIL.** "the illuminated and eye-catching nature of the proposal would result in it being likely to distract the attention of both drivers and pedestrians" (DL ¶18). ## Planning balance An HE6(4) harm-versus-public-benefits balance, run together with the HE4(2) "clear and convincing justification" test. The benefits were accepted as "not insignificant", but their generic, location-independent character reduced their weight. ## What made the difference The site's openness and lack of clutter in a conservation area, and the absence of site-specific benefits. The kiosk removals were elsewhere, so they did not offset the harm. For the other outcome, the hub would have needed an already-cluttered location or a real one-for-one kiosk replacement at the site (compare PINS-6010150). ## Transferable points - Benefits that "would arise from the Street Hub model wherever it were sited" carry less weight against site-specific heritage harm (DL ¶14). - Removing street furniture away from the site does not offset harm at the site (DL ¶12). - Some letters dated after 17 August 2026 still use "less than substantial" harm, a category the 2026 HE5/HE6 no longer has, and do not identify the Framework version (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): harm (considerable weight).** grading — "less than substantial in terms of the proposal's effect on the significance of heritage assets" (legacy wording); "any harm to a designated heritage asset is a matter of considerable importance" (HE6(3) wording, without "and weight"); no HE6(1) substantial-weight statement; s66/s72 duties cited (DL 3, 14) - **HE4(2): fail.** public benefits (Wi-Fi, free calls, emergency button, wayfinding, charging, sensors, kiosk removal) "genuine and, cumulatively, not insignificant" but "generic benefits ... wherever it were sited" — not a "clear and convincing justification" (DL 14) - **HE9: harm.** 3m illuminated structure incongruous and dominant on uncluttered section of Huddersfield Town Centre CA; adjacent Grade II 21 Market Street (DL 8-13) - **TR4: fail.** changing screens near signalised junction and crossing distract drivers and pedestrians (DL 16-19); letter cites only "the National Planning Policy Framework" — code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Hub 1.23m wide, 2.98m high, next to Grade II listed 21 Market Street, within Huddersfield Town Centre CA (DL 8, 10) - Payphones to be removed are across Cloth Hall Street, not at the site, so no offset (DL 12) - Previous hub at the site dismissed on appeal in 2019 (DL 4); linked advert appeal 6010183 decided separately (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010180 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f909c6d8-4971-435d-beee-8304fed585a5 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010180.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Wagtails Farm, Okehurst Road, The Haven, Billingshurst - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: T Bennett - **Authority:** Horsham (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010187 - **Application reference:** DC/25/1803 - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Siting of temporary (3-year) rural worker's dwelling (mobile home) and associated works - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, isolated - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 1 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO11(1)(a), S5(3), S5(1)(j) - **Development plan policies:** Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 Policies 1, 3, 4, 20, 26 - **Main issues:** functional need for rural worker's dwelling, isolated homes - **Tags:** isolated-home, rural-worker-dwelling, s5-1-j, housing-shortfall, e2-substantial-weight, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A temporary mobile home for a worker at a small organic poultry and sheep start-up in the Horsham countryside. Dismissed after a hearing. It was agreed to be an isolated home, so S5(3) sent it to HO11(1)(a), and essential need for a permanent on-site presence was not shown. The 1-year supply created an unmet need, but S5(1)(j) failed because an isolated dwelling cannot be physically well-related to a settlement. E2's substantial weight to rural business did not help, because the business did not depend on the dwelling. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The Framework was discussed at the hearing (DL ¶2). - **S5(3) → HO11.** "the parties agreed that policy HO11 … was applicable" (DL ¶8). The PPG rural-worker tests were applied (DL ¶9). - **Essential need: NOT SHOWN.** Daily tasks "could likely be carried out without a rural working residing on site 24/7" (DL ¶13). Incubator failure: "the appellant stated that they had never experienced a malfunction" (DL ¶15). Monitoring alternatives: "remotely operated CCTV, alarm and/or automation systems … none of which are currently in use" (DL ¶17). Lambing: "temporary seasonal accommodation over the lambing period could meet the welfare needs" (DL ¶20). Predators: the coop that was attacked "had not been protected by electric netting" (DL ¶21). A temporary permission "does not remove the need to demonstrate an essential functional need" (DL ¶26). - **S5(1)(j): FAIL.** "The Council is only able to demonstrate a 1 year housing land supply … However, this alone is insufficient to garner support from policy S5 paragraph 1.j. … As it is common ground that the dwelling would be isolated, this criterion is not met … the appeal proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in policy S3" (DL ¶30). - **E2/E4.** "Notwithstanding the substantial weight to be afforded, the limited scale of the proposal means any resulting economic benefits would be limited" (DL ¶34). ## Planning balance The decision was taken under s38(6), with conflict with HDPF Policy 20 and the Framework's HO11/S5(3). Housing had very limited weight because the unit was temporary and tied (DL ¶31). E2 benefits were limited (DL ¶33-34). Absence of other harm was neutral (DL ¶35). ## What made the difference The evidence on functional need. The appellant had not tried CCTV, alarms, netting or seasonal cover, so it could not be shown that only a permanent on-site presence met the risks. A 1-year supply does not rescue an agreed isolated home, because S5(1)(j)(i) needs a physical relationship to a settlement. ## Transferable points - Isolated homes route through S5(3) to HO11. The S5(1)(j) shortfall route is closed to them, however severe the shortfall (DL ¶30). - HO11(1)(a) essential need is assessed with the PPG rural-worker considerations. Untried alternatives (CCTV, alarms, netting, seasonal presence) defeat a 24/7 case (DL ¶9, 17, 20-22). - A temporary permission for a new enterprise still requires essential functional need to be shown (DL ¶26). - E2's "substantial weight" attaches to the benefits, and these are small where the enterprise can prosper without the dwelling (DL ¶33-34). ## Policy findings - **HO11(1)(a): fail.** no essential need for a rural worker to live on site 24/7; the poultry and ewes could be managed with CCTV/alarms, electric netting and seasonal lambing cover (DL 8-25) - **S5(3): fail.** agreed isolated home, so HO11 governs (DL 7-8, 27) - **S5(1)(j): fail.** 1-year supply means unmet need, but the dwelling is agreed isolated, so not physically well-related to a settlement; no presumption under S3 (DL 30) - **E2: benefit (limited weight).** substantial weight in principle, but the dwelling is not needed for the enterprise to grow, so benefits limited (DL 32-34) - **HO7: benefit (very-limited weight).** temporary and tied to a rural worker (DL 31) ## Key facts - 25-acre organic livestock start-up; by year 3, 4,000 laying hens, 1,200 broilers, 400 quail, 25 ewes; currently about 280 birds - Council supply only 1 year - Rudgwick and Billingshurst 10-15 minutes' drive - No CCTV, alarms or netting in use; a predator attack occurred on an unnetted coop, and break-ins happened while the appellant lived on site ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010187 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/46e1bbdd-b89d-4e3b-ab47-4a24dbc11144 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010187.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 1391-1393 London Road, Norbury (adult gaming centre) - **Decision:** allowed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Burch - **Authority:** Croydon (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010189 - **Application reference:** 26/00641/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of vacant ground-floor Class E unit (former bank) to 24-hour adult gaming centre (sui generis) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3 - **Development plan policies:** Croydon Local Plan 2018 DM4.2, DM10, DM23, London Plan 2021 D13, D14 - **Main issues:** living conditions noise at night - **Tags:** town-centre, 24-hour-use, noise-night-time, marketing-evidence, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary Change of use of a vacant former bank in Norbury District Centre to a 24-hour adult gaming centre (Merkur Slots). Croydon refused permission on night-time noise from the opening hours alone. The appeal was allowed: a site-specific noise impact assessment and an operational management plan showed that the flats above and nearby residents would not be harmed, and the council could not say what difference closing at 1am would make. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were consulted on the 2026 Framework: "I have had regard to the 2026 version of the Framework in my decision" (DL ¶4). No specific Framework policy is applied in the reasoning. - **Noise: PASS.** "The Council has not however demonstrated what material difference there would be in terms of noise or disturbance impacts between the premises operating until 1:00am and operating beyond its suggested 1:00am closing time … The fact that there are relatively few 24-hour premises in the area does not, in itself, demonstrate that a 24-hour operation would give rise to unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance" (DL ¶24). - **Loss of a retail unit.** "I am satisfied that a genuine and robust marketing exercise was undertaken. I therefore attach significant weight to their professional opinion regarding the limited prospect of securing a retail occupier" (DL ¶29). The operator's footfall evidence gave "some support" (DL ¶30). ## Planning balance This was a development-plan decision. There was compliance on noise, and the council itself accepted the frontage conflict given the marketing. The PSED and Article 9 were considered, and objections about nearby places of worship and schools did not change the outcome (DL ¶44 onward). ## What made the difference The evidence. Compare Ruislip (PINS-6011516, dismissed four days later on the same kind of 24-hour gaming use): here there was a site-specific noise impact assessment with a night-time baseline, an agreed internal noise criterion (NR20), a management plan secured by condition, no objection from environmental health, and existing late-night premises nearby. Ruislip had none of these. ## Transferable points - A refusal of 24-hour opening fails if the council cannot show what harm the extra hours after its preferred closing time would cause (DL ¶24). - A site-specific noise impact assessment with a 2–3am survey, plus a management plan secured by condition, can carry a 24/7 use above flats in a district centre (DL ¶10-27). - More than 18 months of credible Class E marketing justified losing a frontage unit (DL ¶29). - This decision only nominally engages the 2026 Framework. Its value is as a factual contrast with PINS-6011516. ## Policy findings - **DM23 (Croydon LP) / D13, D14 (London Plan): accord.** site-specific NIA (NR20 internal criterion, 2-3am external baseline survey, BS8233, WHO 60 dBA smoking area) plus operational management plan; council did not show a material difference between 1am and 24-hour closing (DL 10-27) - **DM4.2 (Croydon LP): conflict (limited weight).** loss of retail unit in Secondary Retail Frontage; outweighed because unit marketed for Class E for over 18 months without success, and the AGC generates footfall (DL 28-32) - **P3: pass.** Framework consulted on (DL 4) but the decision rests on development plan noise policies; no Framework policy cited expressly ## Key facts - District Centre, Secondary Retail Frontage; flats above the unit; several late-night premises nearby open to 2-3am - 24/7 operation; noise impact assessment used measurements from 10 of the operator's venues and a 2-3am baseline survey at the site - Council's own Pollution Control Officer had no objection subject to the NIA mitigation - Marketed for Class E use for more than 18 months with no retail taker - PTAL 5 ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010189 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2359e5a1-e7dd-46de-b63d-12f9ab1be2af --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010189.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Timberdown, adjacent 1 Jackson Road, Bromley - **Decision:** dismissed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Sabu - **Authority:** Bromley (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010191 - **Application reference:** 25/03925/FPA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of outbuildings and erection of 5 houses (semi-detached pair and terrace of 3) with parking and access - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.93 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), P3(2)(b), DP3(2)(a) - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, Bromley Local Plan 2019 Policies 3, 4, 37, Urban Design Guide SPD 2023 - **Main issues:** outlook and light, character and appearance, noise - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, fallback, drafting-slip, living-conditions-decisive ## Summary Five houses on a backland site in Bromley, where supply is 1.93 years. The appeal was dismissed on outlook harm to a single neighbouring garden, even though housing got substantial weight under the S4 within-settlement presumption. The Council had already approved a 4-house scheme on the site that placed the rear building further from the boundary. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were consulted on the new Framework (DL ¶2). - **Outlook, P3: FAIL.** "the proposed terrace would appear unacceptably oppressive from the rear windows and rear garden of No 35" (DL ¶5). BRE daylight and sunlight to windows passed. The loss of garden sun was "noticeable" but "not unacceptable" (DL ¶7). - **Character, DP3: PASS.** In a varied area the scheme "would not harm the character and appearance of the area" (DL ¶16). - **Noise: PASS** (DL ¶¶17–21). ## Planning balance S4(1) is quoted correctly: "should be approved unless the benefits … would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶22). HO7 housing benefit is quoted as substantial weight, given 1.93 years (DL ¶¶23–24). The outlook harm got significant weight, and the Inspector added that the scheme "would not support the principle of liveability in the terms of the Framework" (DL ¶25). The conclusion then drops the qualifier: "the benefits of the proposal would be outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶26). The appeal was decided s38(6)-style, on conflict with the plan as a whole (DL ¶29). ## What made the difference Harm to one neighbour's outlook, from a flank wall spanning more than the full width of a modest garden. That harm was given significant weight, and it beat substantial-weight housing benefit at 1.93 years' supply. The approved 4-house fallback, which kept the rear building back from that boundary, showed a less harmful layout was achievable. ## Transferable points - Inspectors will count amenity harm to a single neighbour as an S4 "adverse effect" capable of outweighing substantial-weight housing benefit, even with supply below 2 years (DL ¶¶24–26). - DP3(2)(a) "liveability" is being deployed to cover harm to *existing* neighbours, not just future occupiers (DL ¶25). - Watch for the S4 "substantially" qualifier being dropped at the point of conclusion (DL ¶26 vs ¶22). ## Policy findings - **S4(1): fail.** within settlement; letter concludes benefits "would be outweighed by the adverse effects" — omits "substantially" (DL 22, 26) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 5 dwellings with 1.93-year supply (DL 23-24) - **P3(2)(b): fail (significant weight).** 2-storey flank wall of terrace close to modest garden of 35 Ribston Close — oppressive outlook; BRE light passed (DL 5-9, 25) - **DP3(2)(a): fail.** oppressive effect means scheme "would not support the principle of liveability" (DL 25) - **DP3: pass.** varied backland context; no character harm (DL 10-16) ## Key facts - Council granted a 4-dwelling scheme on the site during the appeal (26/02197/FPA); given significant weight as a realistic fallback (DL 3) - Council supply 1.93 years - Garden of No 35 with 2+ hours sun on 21 March cut from about 57% to 45%, found acceptable (DL 7) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9af6da6a-500a-450d-8c4e-1e5d18acca66 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010191 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010191.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 24 Eastwood Road, South Woodford - **Decision:** allowed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Gardner - **Authority:** Redbridge (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010195 - **Application reference:** 0650/26 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use from dwelling (C3) to small HMO (C4), five bedrooms - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), S3 - **Development plan policies:** Redbridge Local Plan 2018 LP5, LP26, LP29, London Plan 2021 D6, H9, Housing Design SPD 2019 - **Main issues:** living conditions of occupiers, loss of family housing, HMO management - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, hmo, plan-conflict-overridden, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Change of use of a four-bed house in South Woodford to a five-bed small HMO. **Allowed**, even though the inspector found a development plan conflict: one bedroom (6.7 sq m) was below the SPD minimum, conflicting with local plan and London Plan space standards. The inspector reasoned that the S4 balance is run against the Framework's *national decision-making policies*, and the undersized room did not conflict with any of them. The adverse effects therefore did not "substantially outweigh" the benefits, and the presumption carried the scheme. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were given the opportunity to comment (DL ¶4). Appeal-stage revised plans were rejected on Wheatcroft grounds (DL ¶3). - **Living conditions: conflict with LP26, LP29, London Plan D6.** "The single bedroom annotated as room 2 would have a floor area of just 6.7m², falling short of the SPD requirements by some margin" (DL ¶7). - **Loss of family housing: no conflict.** It "cannot follow that Policy LP5 … seeks only for the provision of family housing" (DL ¶12), and London Plan H9 recognises HMOs (DL ¶13). - **S4.** "Whilst I have found that the appeal scheme would not provide adequate internal space for the future occupiers of room 2, this in itself does not represent specific conflict against the national decision-making policies in the Framework" (DL ¶26). "I therefore do not find that the adverse effects arising from the proposal would be so significant that they would substantially outweigh the benefits. In the context of Policy S3 … the presumption … applies" (DL ¶27). ## Planning balance S4(1), used as the material consideration that outweighs a development plan conflict (DL ¶33). The benefits were a more effective use of land, housing mix, and local spending (DL ¶25). The adverse effect was one undersized room, which found no counterpart in the national decision-making policies. ## What made the difference The inspector read S4(1)'s "when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework" literally. A harm that breaches only a local space standard, with no matching Framework decision-making policy, carries little weight in the S4 balance. That was enough to override the development plan conflict. Contrast PINS-6010223 and PINS-6010197, where the harms mapped onto P3 and DP3/HE6 and the S4 balance went against the scheme. ## Transferable points - The S4(1) adverse effects are those "assessed against the national decision-making policies". A local-standard breach with no Framework counterpart may not substantially outweigh housing benefits (DL ¶26-27). - The S4 presumption can outweigh a development plan conflict under s38(6) (DL ¶33). - A condition limiting HMO occupancy numbers is not realistically enforceable (DL ¶32). ## Policy findings - **S4(1): pass.** undersized bedroom (6.7 sq m against 7.5 sq m SPD) conflicts with the local plan but "does not represent specific conflict against the national decision-making policies", so adverse effects do not substantially outweigh benefits (DL 24-27) - **HO5: benefit.** HMO diversifies the housing mix for single people and sharers; more effective use of land (DL 18, 25) - **DM6: neutral.** occupancy cap and communal-space conditions refused as unenforceable; management plan by condition (DL 30-32) ## Key facts - Room 2 of 6.7 sq m below the 7.5 sq m SPD minimum; conflict with LP26, LP29 and London Plan D6 found - Loss of a 4-bed family house not harmful; under the 20% HMO street threshold - Allowed despite development plan conflict via S4 "substantially outweighed" test ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010195 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9925c1dd-a1bb-4aca-85d2-73ad1b1b239b --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010195.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at OS 7540 6621 Stourport Road, Great Witley (4 dwellings) - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: MG Garrard - **Authority:** Malvern Hills (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010196 - **Application reference:** M/25/01626/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** 4 large detached dwellings on an edge-of-village field with extant permission in principle for up to 9 - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 5.48 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** L3(4), L3(2)(b), HO7 - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2021-2041 (Mar 2026) SWDPR 03, SWDPR 16, SWDPR 39 - **Main issues:** efficient use of land, drainage - **Tags:** density-refusal, l3-efficient-use, PIP, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, substantially-outweighed, small-scheme, s5-2-refusal-policy ## Summary Four large detached houses were proposed on an edge-of-village field at Great Witley, which already had permission in principle for up to nine dwellings. The appeal was dismissed because the scheme's very low density (about 4 dwellings per acre) failed the new Framework's efficient-use-of-land policy L3. L3(4) says such proposals "should be refused". It is the first decision found that refuses housing for under-using land under L3. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were given an opportunity to comment on the implications of the revised Framework … References to the Framework in my decision are to the August 2026 version" (DL ¶5). - **Principle.** The site lies outside the settlement boundary but is reasonably accessible, and the PiP "establishes the principle of residential development on the site" (DL ¶13-14). - **Efficient use of land: FAIL (L3(2)(b), L3(4)).** "Policy L3:2.b. of the Framework seeks to achieve appropriate densities and applies to land outside settlements, and to land at the edge of built-up areas which is allocated or has permission for development and so will form part of the settlement … in accordance with Policy L3:2b. the proposal's development footprint should make the best use of the site's development potential. Policy L3:4. indicates that development proposals that do not make efficient use of land in accordance with paragraph 2 of the policy should be refused" (DL ¶23). "the proposal's low density has not been sufficiently justified by the appeal site's context or constraints" (DL ¶24). The spacious layout was not out of keeping with the area's character (DL ¶20). The failure was one of efficiency, not appearance. - **Housing benefit (HO7).** Substantial weight in principle, but "The Council's evidence indicates a particular need for smaller homes which is not addressed by the proposal. Consequently … this limits the weight I attach to that benefit" (DL ¶31). - **Drainage: PASS.** Infiltration and attenuation were shown in the appeal evidence (DL ¶25-27). ## Planning balance A plan-led s38(6) decision, with an S-policy style test: "the benefits of approving the proposal are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects arising from the failure to make efficient use of the appeal site and the conflict with the development plan" (DL ¶33). Benefits (housing, affordable contribution, BNG, spending) weighed moderately. The council could show a 5.48-year supply, so no evidenced unmet need was in play. ## What made the difference L3(4) gave a national "should be refused" hook for under-development. Paired with the SWDPR 30 dph benchmark and the SHMA need for smaller homes, it outweighed modest benefits. A denser scheme of smaller homes on the lower, flatter part of the site (DL ¶20) would probably have succeeded. ## Transferable points - L3(2)(b) applies to edge-of-settlement land that has permission, including PiP, so it "will form part of the settlement". Such schemes must "make the best use of the site's development potential" (DL ¶23). - L3(4) works as a free-standing refusal policy against low-density housing even where character is not harmed (DL ¶20, ¶23-24, ¶30). - HO7 substantial weight is reduced where the housing mix does not match the evidenced need (DL ¶31). ## Policy findings - **L3(2)(b): fail.** site adjoins settlement boundary and has PiP, so footprint "should make the best use of the site's development potential"; about 4 dpa unjustified by constraints (DL 20-24) - **L3(4): conflict.** proposals not making efficient use of land "should be refused" (DL 23, 30) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** substantial weight to homes meeting evidenced needs, reduced because SHMA need is for smaller homes (DL 31-32) - **AnnexD(9): neutral.** Council shows 5.48 years including 20% buffer (DL 29) - **F8: pass.** infiltration drainage feasible; SWDPR 39 met (DL 25-27) ## Key facts - Extant PiP (APP/J1860/W/23/3330800, June 2024) for up to 9 dwellings; scheme proposed 4 large detached houses at about 4 dwellings per acre (DL 13, 16-17) - SWDPR 16 sets 30 dph minimum for allocated village sites (DL 18-19) - Council able to show 5.48 years supply after SWDPR adoption (DL 4, 29) - Parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010196 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e5cdd099-0fd7-4db6-83e0-988d09f0e137 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010196.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 5 Wellesley Street, King's Lynn - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Marriott - **Authority:** King's Lynn and West Norfolk (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010197 - **Application reference:** 25/02106/F - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of former vehicle workshop and erection of four duplex flats - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL, conservation-area, listed-building-setting, flood-zone-3 - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(2)(c), DP3(1), DP3(3), HE4, HE6 - **Development plan policies:** King's Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan 2021-2040 (2025) LP02, LP06, LP18, LP20, LP21, LP25, LP40 - **Main issues:** character and heritage setting, living conditions, flood exception test - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s5-2-refusal-policy, design-refusal, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, pdl, flood-exception-test, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, costs-application ## Summary Four duplex flats replacing a single-storey former workshop in central King's Lynn, behind a Grade II terrace and next to the Norfolk Street Conservation Area. Dismissed. The backland, back-to-back layout and deep M-plan roof were out of keeping with the railway-era grid and harmed the settings of the listed terrace and the CA. The inspector treated DP3 as a refusal policy that engages S4(2)(c). With considerable weight on the heritage harm, the benefits were "substantially outweighed" even though PDL redevelopment was given substantial weight under L2/L3. The flood exception test was passed. A costs application was made (separate decision). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties had an opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶3). - **Character/heritage: HARM.** "the two dwellings to the rear would create a backland, back-to-back form of development … at odds with the character of the surrounding area and would erode the legible grid pattern" (DL ¶12). "The appellant contends that there is no conflict with a specific design standard, code or masterplan … However, that does not alter my assessment, which is ultimately a matter of planning judgement" (DL ¶15). The public benefits did not outweigh "harm to the significance of designated heritage assets" (DL ¶18). - **Flood F6: PASS.** The exception test "requires a different exercise" from the heritage balance, and benefits outweighed flood risk given the defences (DL ¶27-29). - **S4 and DP3.** "Policy DP3 states that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 … Moreover, in line with Policy S4, the circumstances in which the benefits of approving development proposals are likely to be outweighed by adverse effects include situations where the development proposals would fail to comply with Policy DP3" (DL ¶34). ## Planning balance S4(1)/S4(2)(c). For the scheme, "substantial weight to the redevelopment of this previously developed underutilised site in a sustainable urban location" (L2/L3), a housing contribution ("not aware of an acute need"), and economic benefits (DL ¶33). Against it, DP3 conflict and HE4/HE6 harm "which attracts considerable weight". The benefits were "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶35). ## What made the difference The heritage and design harm from a backland plan form in a planned Victorian grid. Using DP3(3) as a refusal policy fed straight into S4(2)(c), so substantial L2 weight for PDL could not carry the scheme. A frontage-only terrace that reflected the rhythm of the adjoining terrace would probably have succeeded. ## Transferable points - A DP3(1) conflict is a S4(2)(c) "refusal policy" circumstance, which tilts S4 towards refusal (DL ¶34). - The absence of a design code does not prevent a DP3 refusal. Design is a matter of judgement (DL ¶15). - The heritage balance and the flood exception test are different exercises. The same benefits can fail one and pass the other (DL ¶27). - L2/L3 give substantial weight to urban PDL redevelopment, but that weight does not outweigh considerable-weight heritage harm plus DP3 conflict (DL ¶33-35). ## Policy findings - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** harm to setting of Grade II 3-15 Portland Street and adjacent Norfolk Street CA; public benefits (PDL, housing, removing workshop fallback) do not outweigh (DL 15-18) - **DP3(1): fail.** backland back-to-back layout, deep M-plan roof, flat frontage fail to respond to the railway-era grid; DP3(3) refusal limb engaged even with no design code conflict (DL 12-15, 34) - **L2: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to redevelopment of underused PDL in sustainable urban location (L2/L3) (DL 33) - **F6: pass.** FZ3/Tidal Hazard Zone; sequential test agreed passed; exception test met - a "different exercise" from the heritage balance (DL 25-29) - **S4(2)(c): fail.** failing DP3 is a S4(2) refusal-policy circumstance; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 34-35) ## Key facts - Previous 6-dwelling scheme dismissed at appeal (APP/V2635/W/21/3288475); this scheme reduced in scale - Neighbour living conditions and flood exception test found acceptable - No acute housing need identified by the inspector ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010197 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a8a6bbb1-4f69-4979-a6d7-6b414d4ff1ec --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010197.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Rusper, Nottingham Road, Heronsgate - **Decision:** allowed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Bowden - **Authority:** Three Rivers (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010198 - **Application reference:** 26/0236/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of a mid-20th-century chalet bungalow and a larger self-build replacement dwelling in the Green Belt and Heronsgate Conservation Area - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, conservation-area, PDL - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(e) - **Development plan policies:** Three Rivers Core Strategy CP1, CP11, CP12, Three Rivers Development Management Policies LDD DM1, DM2, DM3, Appendix 2 - **Main issues:** Green Belt inappropriateness and openness, Heronsgate Conservation Area - **Tags:** not-inappropriate, pdl-e-limb, replacement-dwelling-materially-larger, pdl-rural-garden, self-build, bng-self-build-exemption, conservation-area, heritage-no-harm, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A larger self-build replacement for a 1950s chalet bungalow in Heronsgate, a low-density Chartist settlement washed over by the Metropolitan Green Belt. The replacement was materially larger, so it failed GB7(1)(b). But the plot was previously developed land because Heronsgate is not a built-up area, and there would be no harm to openness, so it passed GB7(1)(e). The conservation area was preserved. Allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The changes to the Framework could affect the merits of this case in a material way and I, therefore, consulted the parties with regard to these changes." (DL ¶2). - **Local policy weight.** DM2 "pre-dates the current Framework but is, broadly, not materially inconsistent with national decision-making policies in the Framework." (DL ¶7). - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "the proposal would well exceed the size of the original and/or existing building and would be materially larger than the one it replaces" (DL ¶10). - **PDL.** Heronsgate lacks street lighting, footways and building lines: "I must therefore conclude that the site is not within a built-up area." (DL ¶12). "Nevertheless, the site is previously developed land." (DL ¶13). - **GB7(1)(e): PASS.** "I have found that the proposed dwelling would be materially larger than the one it replaces. However, this is not the test of this element of the policy of the Framework which requires that a proposal should not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt." (DL ¶14). "I do not find it to be so significant that it would cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt in a visual or spatial dimension" (DL ¶15). - **Conclusion.** "the proposal complies with the requirements of paragraph 1. e. to policy GB7 of the Framework and is therefore also in accordance with policy CP11 of the Three Rivers Core Strategy (TRCS) and policy DM2 of the TRLDD" (DL ¶16). This sits awkwardly with the DM2 conflict found at DL ¶10. - **Conservation area: no harm.** "I am unable to find that it would harm the character or appearance of the CA" (DL ¶22). - **BNG.** "SBCH is exempted from providing a 10% net increase in biodiversity" (DL ¶25), so self-build is secured by condition. ## Planning balance None needed: not inappropriate under GB7(1)(e), CA preserved, plan compliance (DL ¶36). ## What made the difference Reading residential curtilage in a washed-over, low-density village as previously developed land, because the Annex B exclusion covers gardens only in built-up areas. That opened GB7(1)(e), whose openness test the larger house passed, when GB7(1)(b) could not be met. ## Transferable points - A replacement dwelling that fails GB7(1)(b) as materially larger can still pass GB7(1)(e), where the plot is PDL and openness harm is not substantial (DL ¶14-16). - Annex B's exclusion of residential gardens from PDL applies only in built-up areas; a verdant, very low-density Green Belt settlement is not built-up (DL ¶11-13). - Caution: a local policy with a stricter original-building size test (DM2) was called broadly consistent and then treated as satisfied via GB7(1)(e) (DL ¶7, ¶10, ¶16). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** replacement well exceeds the size of the original/existing and is materially larger (DL 10) - **AnnexB:PDL: pass.** garden land counts as PDL because Heronsgate, though developed, is not a built-up area (verdant, very low density, no footways or street lights, lane-like roads) (DL 11-13) - **GB7(1)(e): pass.** no harm to openness in visual or spatial terms, so no substantial harm (DL 14-16) - **Transitional(2): neutral.** DM2 found broadly not materially inconsistent (DL 7), found in conflict on size (DL 10), then said to be complied with (DL 16) - internal inconsistency - **HE6(1): pass.** larger but muted replacement of a neutral modern building; plot layout unaltered; CA character and appearance preserved (s72, HE9(2)) (DL 19-23) - **HE9: pass.** HE9(2) relative significance of the element replaced (DL 21-22) ## Key facts - Appellant's case framed on 2024 paras 154(d) and (g); inspector maps them to GB7(1)(b) and (e) (DL 8) - Self-build secured by condition so the BNG self-build exemption applies; application made before 6 Aug 2026 (DL 25, 34) - Permitted development rights not removed; CA is Article 2(3) land (DL 35) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010198 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7c060b0d-7e06-4acb-bf80-c366cad5dc1d --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010198.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 61 Hawthorn Road, Edmonton, Enfield (HMO) - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F Harrison (on the recommendation of appeal planning officer S Manson) - **Authority:** Enfield (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010207 - **Application reference:** 25/04165/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of a dwellinghouse to a 3-bedroom, 4-person HMO (C4) with refuse and cycle storage - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), S4(2)(c) - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D6, D12, Enfield DMD 2014 DMD 5 - **Main issues:** living conditions of future occupiers, fire safety - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, appeal-planning-officer, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, living-conditions, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A small HMO conversion in Edmonton, dismissed on an appeal planning officer's recommendation. The shared living room would have no window of its own, failing DP3(2)'s liveability principle, and one bedroom's escape route would pass through that room. DP3(3) was cited as a "should be refused" policy and S4(2) applied. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The changes "do not have a material bearing on the substance of the main issues ... I have proceeded without further consultation" (DL ¶3). - **Liveability: FAIL.** "The proposal would not therefore employ features that promote social interaction and in doing so would fail to comply with the liveability key principle for well-designed places required by Framework Policy DP3 Paragraph 2" (DL ¶8). - **Fire safety: FAIL.** "I am not persuaded that reliance on escaping through a window would represent a suitable, convenient and dignified means of escape for all future occupiers" (DL ¶11). - **DP3(3).** "The proposal would also fail to comply with national decision-making Policy DP3 of the Framework which states that proposals should be refused if without clear justification, they conflict with relevant aspects of the principles in paragraph 2" (DL ¶14). ## Planning balance S4 with S4(2): "the benefits of the proposed development would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects to the living conditions for future occupiers and fire safety identified above" (DL ¶17). ## What made the difference An internal, borrowed-light living room. A layout giving the communal room an external window and a protected escape route would have removed both reasons. ## Transferable points - DP3(2) "liveability" applies to internal layout: a windowless communal room in an HMO fails it (DL ¶8). - An HMO licence carries limited weight in planning (DL ¶16). - Escape through a window is not a suitable means of escape "for all future occupiers" (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **DP3(2): fail (significant weight).** communal living room has no external window, daylight only through internal partition windows, poor outlook; fails the "liveability" key principle (DL 6-9) - **DP3(3): fail.** cited as should-be-refused policy for conflict with DP3(2) principles "without clear justification"; no separate justification finding (DL 14) - **LP London Plan D12 (local): conflict (significant weight).** bedroom 1 escape route through high-risk communal room; escape by window not suitable for all (DL 10-12) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** contribution to housing mix, limited given scale (DL 15) - **S4: fail.** having regard to S4(2) circumstances, benefits substantially outweighed (DL 13, 17) ## Key facts - Appeal planning officer recommendation adopted (DL 2, 19) - HMO licence already held; limited planning weight (DL 16) - Framework switch without consultation as no material bearing (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010207 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/63cbab0c-197e-471c-b0d8-922cd16a5732 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010207.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Disley Meadow, Lower Greenshall Lane, Disley - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M Clowes - **Authority:** Cheshire East (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010213 - **Application reference:** 26/0974/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retention of a shipping container, two timber shelters and stone hardstanding said to be for keeping four alpacas - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(a), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy PG3, SE1, SD2, Site Allocations and Development Policies Document 2022 GEN1, Disley Neighbourhood Plan 2018 BE2 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, character and appearance, VSC balance - **Tags:** tier-2, agricultural-need-not-shown, grey-belt-accepted, unmet-need-not-evidenced, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, retrospective, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Retrospective permission for a shipping container, two timber shelters and stone hardstanding on a Green Belt field at Disley, said to support four alpacas. There was no evidence of an established agricultural enterprise, and signs of camping, wedding and experience uses, so GB7(1)(a) did not apply. The site was accepted as grey belt, but GB7(1)(g)(ii) failed because nothing showed an evidenced unmet need for the development. Inappropriate, with limited openness harm and moderate character harm; no VSC. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The parties were given the opportunity to comment on the revisions during the appeal process" (DL ¶5). - **Plan weight.** "Whilst Policy PG3 predates the Framework's provisions relating to grey belt land, it remains broadly aligned with the Framework's overarching aim of safeguarding the Green Belt. I therefore attach significant weight to the policy" (DL ¶8). - **GB7(1)(a): FAIL.** "the appellant must nevertheless demonstrate that the appeal development is genuinely for the purposes of agriculture" (DL ¶11). "diversification supplements, rather than replaces, an established primary use" (DL ¶14). "I saw that the structure referred to as a biosecurity shelter was a tiled shower enclosure" (DL ¶16). - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): FAIL.** "demonstrating that development may be useful or beneficial to an intended activity is not the same as demonstrating an evidenced unmet need for that development" (DL ¶19). - **Openness: limited HARM** (DL ¶23). **Character: moderate HARM** (DL ¶30). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to Green Belt harm, moderate weight to character harm, limited weight to ecological benefits: "the harm would not clearly be outweighed" (DL ¶34). ## What made the difference Evidence. The appellant had no records of an agricultural enterprise, and the site visit found leisure uses. That defeated both the agriculture exception and the grey-belt route, which needed an evidenced unmet need. ## Transferable points - GB7(1)(a) needs evidence that the development is genuinely for agriculture and reasonably required at its scale; a new holding is not excused from this (DL ¶11–17). - GB7(1)(g)(ii) needs an evidenced unmet need for the type of development, not just an applicant's statement that it would be useful (DL ¶19). - A Green Belt policy that predates grey belt can keep significant weight where it stays aligned with the Framework's protective aim (DL ¶8). The grey-belt route was still tested directly. ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(a): fail.** alpacas can be livestock (s336), but no evidence of an established agricultural enterprise; site promoted for camping, weddings, kayak hire and alpaca experiences; container and hardstanding not shown to be reasonably required; "biosecurity shelter" was a tiled shower (DL 9-17) - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** accepted by the Council; contained position (DL 18) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt (DL 18) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): fail.** usefulness to an intended activity is not an evidenced unmet need; only the appellant's assertions (DL 19) - **Transitional(2): accord (significant weight).** PG3 predates grey belt but "remains broadly aligned" with the Framework, significant weight (DL 8) - **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** inappropriate; limited, localised spatial and visual loss of openness; VSC not shown (DL 21-23, 33-34) - **DP3: harm (moderate weight).** mapped: container industrial in appearance, extensive hardstanding conspicuously engineered; letter cites "the Framework's design objectives" without a policy code (DL 26-30) ## Key facts - Four alpacas; no breeding records, wool sales, business plan or other evidence of production (DL 12) - Bell tent, hot tub and shower cubicle on site but outside the application (DL 3) - Enforcement investigation into the use of the land is ongoing (DL 4) - Ecological enhancements claimed but limited evidence; limited weight (DL 31) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010213 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/053f3203-f7c8-4da8-a2ee-877973f0fb2f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010213.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 70 London Road, Grays - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S F Barnes - **Authority:** Thurrock (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010223 - **Application reference:** 25/01093/CV - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73 variation of opening-hours condition for a local shop (08:00-22:00 to 07:00-23:00) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3, S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Thurrock Core Strategy 2015 PMD1 - **Main issues:** living conditions - noise - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, e2-substantial-weight, amenity-noise, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Extending a Grays local shop's customer hours by one hour at each end of the day. Dismissed, because of night-time noise from the adjoining customer car park. Under S4, E2 economic benefits carried only limited weight because of the small scale and no evidence of need. The P3 noise harm carried significant weight and "substantially outweighed" the benefits (DL ¶15-16). ## What made the difference The noise evidence was weak: averaged levels, with no assessment of intermittent car-park events. The harm also mapped onto a Framework decision-making policy, P3. E2's "substantial weight" is applied to the size of the actual benefit, which here was small. ## Policy findings - **P3: fail (significant weight).** night-time car park noise next to habitable-room windows; noise assessment used averages and ignored intermittent events (DL 8-9, 16) - **E2: benefit (limited weight).** substantial weight in principle but no evidence the business needs the hours; small scale (DL 15) - **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 16) ## Key facts - Customer car park directly below upper-floor flat and beside front windows of 72 London Road - Noise assessment relied on average levels and did not isolate car-door or engine-start events ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010223 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6e5f9d29-64c8-4058-adfa-13338b801f63 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010223.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # A1 London Retail Park, Biggleswade - **Decision:** allowed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Chris Couper - **Authority:** Central Bedfordshire (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010226 - **Application reference:** CB/26/00286/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Electrical infrastructure (chargers, cabinets, substation) for EV charging hub in retail park car park, removal of one TPO tree - **Site context:** inside-settlement, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N3, N2 - **Development plan policies:** Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2015-2035 CC1, T5, HQ1, EE4, Biggleswade NP 2022 BGS1 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, protected trees - **Tags:** tier-2, ev-charging, tpo-tree-loss, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary EV charging hub in a retail-park car park requiring the loss of one young TPO lime. Allowed. The tree loss was a "limited, but nonetheless harmful" impact, justified and compensated by two replacements (DL ¶12-14, 18). The inspector found "no significant material differences" between the 2026 and superseded Frameworks for this issue and did not consult the parties (DL ¶2). N2, N3 and TR4 were cited in general terms. ## What made the difference The tree was of moderate quality, a near-identical lime next to it remained, and replacements were secured by condition. The EV charging need was supported by TR4. ## Policy findings - **TR4: benefit.** EV charging hub supported by TR4 and local EV strategy (DL 9) - **N3: pass.** loss of young TPO lime T7 (limited harm) justified; two heavy-standard replacements broadly equivalent; root protection by method statement (DL 12-18) - **N2: pass.** read with N3 as requiring conservation of established trees "where possible" (DL 17-18) ## Key facts - One 6m young small-leaved lime (TPO 40/2024) lost; two 2.5-3m replacements in same belt (DL 12-13) - Net loss of 4 of 716 car park spaces (DL 19) - Updated AIA accepted at appeal as not evolving the scheme (DL 3-5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010226 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/945f6f9f-53f1-465b-bc37-553304793daf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010226.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land east of 52 Exeter Road, Claydon - **Decision:** dismissed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Wright - **Authority:** Mid Suffolk (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010228 - **Application reference:** DC/25/05276 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Use of land to store building materials for two years (retrospective) - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(b), S5(1), F4, F7, DP3, P3, N2 - **Development plan policies:** Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan Part 1 2023 SP03, SP09, LP16, LP24, LP27 - **Main issues:** location, character, living conditions, flood risk, ecology - **Tags:** settlement-status-disputed, s5-1-b-necessity, flood-fra-missing, retrospective, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Two years' storage of building materials on an open plot at the end of a new housing cul-de-sac in Claydon, outside the settlement boundary. Dismissed. The inspector applied the Annex B "settlement" definition: an undeveloped plot outside the boundary that merely adjoins houses is not within a settlement, so S5 applied. Materials storage was not an S5(1)(b) rural business needing a countryside location. Independently, the lack of an FRA (F4/F7), the risk to great crested newts (N2), and character and amenity harm each told against it. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Further comments on the 2026 Framework were invited (DL ¶3). - **Settlement status.** "Its definition of settlement includes predominantly built-up areas and areas defined as such in the development plan. The site adjoins houses but does not contain any buildings or structures. Given the boundaries on the Policies Map and the situation on the ground, the site is not within a settlement" (DL ¶8). - **S5(1)(b): FAIL.** "the proposed storage of building materials is not a rural business or service where a location outside settlements is necessary" (DL ¶9). - **Flood F4/F7: FAIL.** "Policy F4 … does not exempt such development from the requirement to provide an FRA" (DL ¶25). F7 "indicates that the development should be refused" (DL ¶27). - **Ecology N2: FAIL.** GCN presence "cannot be ruled out", and survey conditions are not appropriate (DL ¶29-32). ## Planning balance "the benefits of the proposal are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects, so it does not meet the requirement for development outside settlements in Policy S5" (DL ¶35). The inspector ran the S5(1) balance even after finding the use outside category (b), rather than going to S5(4). ## What made the difference Settlement status was decided on both the Policies Map boundary and the ground: an undeveloped plot is not "predominantly built-up". Once outside, a use with no locational need falls outside S5(1)(b). The missing FRA and ecology survey were independent failures that a condition could not cure. ## Transferable points - Land adjoining houses but itself undeveloped, and outside a Policies Map boundary, is outside the Annex B settlement (DL ¶8). - S5(1)(b) requires the business to *need* a countryside location. General storage does not (DL ¶9). - F4 applies to temporary uses on land at surface-water risk. A missing FRA cannot be conditioned (DL ¶25-26). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:settlement: fail.** plot adjoins houses at end of new cul-de-sac but has no buildings and is outside the Policies Map boundary; "not within a settlement" (DL 8) - **S5(1)(b): fail.** storage of building materials is not a rural business or service needing a countryside location (DL 9) - **F4: fail.** surface water flood risk (high on parts of boundary); no FRA; temporary use not exempt; not curable by condition; F7 indicates refusal (DL 21-27) - **N2: fail.** GCN in ponds within 275 m; no preliminary ecological assessment (DL 28-34) - **DP3: fail.** fenced compound erodes verdant cul-de-sac end and gives PROW a tunnel-like feel (DL 12-14) - **S5(1): fail.** benefits (reuse of materials) substantially outweighed by adverse effects (DL 35) ## Key facts - Site adjoins 52 Exeter Road at the end of a completed estate cul-de-sac; outside the Claydon settlement boundary - Surface water flood risk; no FRA - Great crested newts in ponds within 275 m ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010228 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8bb76c79-4610-431d-8729-a3c705c413d2 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010228.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Knightswood Cottage, Prince Albert Drive, Ascot - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Bell-Williamson - **Authority:** Bracknell Forest (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010236 - **Application reference:** 25/00773/FUL - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Single-storey infill extension with roof lantern, rooflights, front dormer to house and side dormer to garage - **Site context:** green-belt - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Bracknell Forest Local Plan 2020-2037 (2024) LP 34 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, VSC - **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, householder-gb, fallback, vsc-not-shown, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A small further extension to an already much-extended semi-detached house in the Green Belt at Ascot. The appeal was dismissed. Cumulatively it would take the house to about 145% over its original volume, which is disproportionate under GB7(1)(b), even though the new element is small and enclosed. ## Issues and findings - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "Neither Policy LP 34 … nor Policy GB7 … set a numerical ceiling on additions. However, when viewed cumulatively alongside the existing extensions, due to the increase in volume, the appeal scheme would result in a disproportionate increase" (DL ¶8). - **Openness.** Limited spatial harm. It "would not sprawl onto undeveloped land, which would limit any harm to visual openness" (DL ¶10-11). - **Fallback.** A replacement dwelling was "no greater than a theoretical possibility", so limited weight (DL ¶13). ## Planning balance GB6(2). Moderate weight went to better living space, since "it has not been demonstrated that this could not be achieved by a less harmful scheme" (DL ¶12), and limited weight to the fallback. Together they did not clearly outweigh (DL ¶16). ## What made the difference Earlier extensions had used up the allowance. The test is cumulative against the original building, so even a small, visually contained addition fails. ## Transferable points - The GB7(1)(b) test is cumulative against the original building. A small addition to a heavily extended house is still disproportionate (DL ¶7-8). - A replacement-dwelling fallback for a semi-detached house is theoretical without evidence it is being pursued (DL ¶13). - The absence of other harms is neutral in the VSC balance (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** original 361 m³, existing 793 m³, proposed 888 m³ → c.145% cumulative increase vs LP guide of 40% → disproportionate (DL 5-8) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** limited spatial harm; largely enclosed by existing building so limited visual harm (DL 9-11, 16) ## Key facts - A semi-detached house already extended to more than double its original volume before this proposal - [object Object] - Absence of other harms treated as neutral (DL 14) - No consultation on the 2026 Framework, because the approach "has not fundamentally changed" (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010236 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1b8558bd-c95b-4c66-a229-3dc6239f36ab --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010236.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 225 Faversham Road, Kennington, Ashford - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Nicola Davies - **Authority:** Ashford (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010238 - **Application reference:** PA/2026/0333 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** First-floor side extension to dental practice for surgery and waiting room - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE9 - **Development plan policies:** Ashford Local Plan 2030 SP6, ENV14 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, conservation area - **Tags:** conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, public-benefits-unevidenced, hc-healthcare ## Summary First-floor side extension to a dental surgery on a prominent corner in Kennington Conservation Area. The Inspector found harm to the CA and weighed it against NHS dentistry benefits under HE5, HE6 and HE9. The benefits were unsubstantiated and got only modest weight. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Revised Framework taken into account; no consultation mentioned (DL ¶2). - **Conservation area, HE9 route to HE5/HE6: HARM.** "Policy HE9 of the 2026 Framework requires an assessment of a proposal's impact on the significance of the conservation area as a whole, and the effects of this considered in accordance with Policies HE5 and HE6" (DL ¶10). "I consider there would be harm to both the character and appearance of the CA. In accordance with Policies HE5, HE6 and HE9 of the Framework I must weigh the harm against the public benefits" (DL ¶11). The harm is not graded; there is no "less than substantial" label. - **Public benefits, HE6(4): insufficient.** NHS dental access would be "clear social benefits", but "no substantiated evidence has been submitted that would demonstrate that these benefits would be delivered by this development. Alternatively, they could be delivered through a different less harmful scheme" (DL ¶12). "the public benefits carry modest weight and do not outweigh the harm" (DL ¶13). ## Planning balance HE6(4): ungraded harm to the CA against public benefits of modest weight. Harm prevailed, together with conflict with plan policies SP6/ENV14 and s72 (DL ¶14). ## What made the difference The benefits case was asserted, not evidenced. The Inspector also accepted that the same benefits could come from a less harmful design, which let modest-weight benefits lose to an ungraded CA harm. ## Transferable points - Under the 2026 Framework, CA harm can be found and weighed via HE9(2) → HE5/HE6 without being labelled "less than substantial" (DL ¶¶10–11). - Public benefits under HE6(4) need evidence that *this* scheme will deliver them. If they could be had from a less harmful scheme, their weight is reduced (DL ¶12). ## Policy findings - **HE9: harm.** bulky, undetailed first-floor side extension on prominent corner erodes spaciousness and first-floor/eaves detailing that give the CA its significance (DL 4-11) - **HE6(4): fail.** harm (unquantified — no "less than substantial" label) weighed against NHS dentistry benefits; benefits given "modest weight", unsubstantiated and deliverable by a less harmful scheme (DL 11-13) - **DP3: fail.** over-dominant at junction; featureless flank; does not respect building's detailing (DL 6-9) ## Key facts - Claimed 3,000–4,000 additional NHS patients a year in an area of NHS dental deficiency, but no substantiating evidence - Corner plot at crossroads within Kennington CA; host building makes a positive contribution ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/686be801-6f71-4bfa-acb3-56c6a574c6f2 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010238 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010238.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent Langley Cricket Club, Cock Hall Lane, Langley, Macclesfield (PIP one dwelling) - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Mee - **Authority:** Cheshire East (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010253 - **Application reference:** 26/0446/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for one dwelling on a 0.1 ha part of an open field beyond the edge of Langley - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, rural-lane, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.3 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2010-2030 (2017) PG 3, SD 1, SD 2, CO 1, MP 1, Table 9.1 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development in the Green Belt, accessibility, VSC - **Tags:** PIP, grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, connectivity-tool, small-scheme, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, housing-shortfall, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, old-wording-slip, local-policy-consistency ## Summary Permission in principle for one dwelling on a field beyond the edge of Langley, near Macclesfield, in the Green Belt. Grey belt and unmet need (3.3-year supply) were undisputed, but GB7(1)(g)(iii) failed: the walk to the village bus stop is on an unlit, footway-free lane at the national speed limit, and a Connectivity Tool score of 25 came with no useful detail. Small scale did not help. As inappropriate development with significant openness harm, significant housing weight did not clearly outweigh. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I have had regard to the 2026 version of the Framework in my decision" (DL ¶5). - **Plan weight.** PG 3 is "broadly consistent with the Framework" but predates grey belt, so the inspector gave "greater weight to the Framework in relation to this main issue" (DL ¶9). SD 1 and SD 2 are consistent with TR3, so "I therefore attach only very limited weight to any alleged inconsistency" (DL ¶14). The letter frames plan weight in the 2024 terms "on the basis of their degree of consistency with the Framework" (DL ¶9); incidental. - **TR3 and the plan.** "the reference to Policy TR3 does not displace other relevant considerations, including those arising from the development plan" (DL ¶12). - **Route: FAIL.** "Beyond the edge of the village, the route lacks footways and street lighting, is subject to the national speed limit and is on an incline. For part of this route, opportunities for pedestrian refuge are limited due to the lack of verges and dense roadside vegetation" (DL ¶17). - **Scale.** "Consequently, notwithstanding the small scale of the proposal, future occupiers would be likely to rely heavily on private car use to meet their day-to-day needs" (DL ¶18). - **Connectivity Tool.** "little detail has been provided regarding its findings beyond a score of 25 and a colour-coded map" (DL ¶19). - **Comparators distinguished.** Other appeals had sites "closer to existing residential development, bus stops, public rights of way or routes subject to lower speed limits" (DL ¶20). - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): FAIL.** "the appeal site would not occupy a sustainable location. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to criterion (iii)" (DL ¶23). - **Openness.** "significant harm to openness" (DL ¶29). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to Green Belt harm, plus openness and car dependence, against housing (significant) and other benefits including L3(2)(b) efficient use (moderate). "the benefits, whilst they would be significant, would not clearly outweigh the totality of this harm" (DL ¶35). S5(5): no presumption (DL ¶37). ## What made the difference The first few hundred metres: an unlit, footway-free, national-speed, uphill lane from the site to the village edge, even though the route beyond is lit and footwayed. A bare Connectivity Tool score did not help. ## Transferable points - Even one dwelling fails GB7(1)(g)(iii) where the only walk to the village is an unlit national-speed lane without footways: "notwithstanding the small scale of the proposal" (DL ¶17-18, ¶23). - A Connectivity Tool score needs its analysis, not just a number and a map (DL ¶19). - TR3 does not displace local accessibility policies; SD 1 and SD 2 are consistent with it (DL ¶12-14). - Comparator appeals are distinguished on proximity to houses, bus stops, rights of way and lower speed limits (DL ¶20). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** undisputed; would not undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt (DL 10) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** undisputed (DL 10) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** no five-year supply (3.3 years Council, 3.8 appellant) (DL 11, 32) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): fail.** bus stop about 550 m in the village; route beyond the village edge unlit, no footways, national speed limit, incline, little refuge; supermarkets, GP and station (about 4.5 km) in Macclesfield; heavy car reliance notwithstanding small scale (DL 12-23) - **TR3: fail.** TR3(2) Connectivity Tool score of 25 with little detail given no weight; TR3 does not displace development plan considerations; local accessibility policies SD 1 and SD 2 broadly consistent with TR3 (DL 12-14, 19) - **GB8: not-engaged.** Golden Rules apply to major development only (DL 24) - **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** inappropriate; significant openness harm from building on an open field; benefits significant but VSC not shown (DL 25-26, 29, 35) - **HO7: benefit (significant weight).** one dwelling against a significant shortfall (DL 32) - **L3(2)(b): benefit (moderate weight).** one dwelling on 0.1 ha an efficient use of land; moderate weight with economic, social and BNG benefits (DL 33) - **S5(5): not-engaged.** presumption does not apply to inappropriate Green Belt development without VSC (DL 37) ## Key facts - Nearest bus stop about 550 m away in Langley; route unlit, no footways, national speed limit, uphill, limited refuge (DL 17) - Onward route from the village to Macclesfield has lit footways for its full length (DL 17) - Macclesfield station about 4.5 km, at the upper end of regular cycling (DL 18) - Connectivity Tool score 25, with only a colour-coded map (DL 19) - Supply 3.3 years (Council) or 3.8 (appellant) (DL 32) - Parties given an opportunity to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 5) - Council withdrew its reference to footnote 7 land in the 2024 Framework (DL 6) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010253 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3d44fb69-affb-4123-a5b3-a48f46666513 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010253.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land east of Old Shackerley Lane, Albrighton - **Decision:** dismissed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C McDonagh - **Authority:** Shropshire (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010260 - **Application reference:** 25/04594/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 1 or 2 detached dwellings in the garden of a rural cottage (site of former cottages) - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.81 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), GB7(1)(e), AnnexB:previously-developed-land, TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Shropshire Core Strategy 2011 CS1, CS5, SAMDev 2015 MD2, MD7a - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, PDL, openness, suitable location, spatial strategy - **Tags:** PIP, pdl-e-limb, pdl-blended-into-landscape, grey-belt-not-argued, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, rural-lane-no-footway, sustainable-location-fail, old-balance-wording ## Summary PIP for one or two houses in the garden of a rural cottage near Albrighton, on land that once held four earlier cottages. It was dismissed. The former buildings had "blended into the landscape", so the site was not PDL under GB7(1)(e). No other exception was argued, so the scheme was inappropriate. Location on a narrow, unlit, national-speed-limit lane added spatial-strategy and car-dependence harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The August 2026 Framework was applied, and the parties were invited to comment (DL ¶5). - **GB7(1)(e): FAIL.** "the Framework is clear that previously developed land excludes land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape … it was clear from my observations that the former dwellings had blended into the landscape given the domestic use of the site" (DL ¶11). - **Openness:** "a limited loss of openness … This harm must be given substantial weight" (DL ¶16). - **S5 inapplicable:** "section 5 of S5 is clear that this policy does not apply to proposals in the Green Belt, unless the proposal would not be inappropriate in accordance with policy GB7" (DL ¶19). - **Location / TR3:** "Shackerley Lane, which is narrow, unlit and has a national speed limit … highly unlikely prospective future residents would choose to walk or cycle … highly reliant on the private vehicle" (DL ¶20). ## Planning balance The inspector gave substantial weight to inappropriateness and to loss of openness "in each instance", plus spatial-strategy harm, against limited housing and construction benefits (DL ¶30). Oddly, the conclusion uses the 2024 tilted-balance wording, "significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶31), not the GB6(2) "clearly outweighed" VSC formula. The result is the same. ## What made the difference The PDL argument failed on the "blended into the landscape" exclusion. Historic dwellings replaced by lawn and domestic garden use do not count. With no grey belt case put and no other exception, the scheme was inappropriate. The benefits of 1-2 unsecured self-build homes were too small. A grey belt argument would probably have failed on (iii) anyway, given the lane conditions at DL ¶20. ## Transferable points - Demolished buildings whose sites have become garden lawn have "blended into the landscape" and are not PDL for GB7(1)(e) (DL ¶11). - S5 does not apply in the Green Belt unless the scheme is not inappropriate under GB7 (S5(5)) (DL ¶19). - A narrow, unlit, national-speed-limit lane means occupiers are "highly reliant on the private vehicle" (DL ¶20). Extra spending in local services is cancelled out where trips are by car (DL ¶28). - Unsecured self-build attracts no weight without an obligation (DL ¶27). - Absence of heritage or ecology harm is neutral (DL ¶28). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(e): fail.** former cottages on site had "blended into the landscape" through garden use, so excluded from PDL definition (DL 10-11) - **GB7(1)(a): not-engaged.** appellant cited it (and GB3(2)(a), a plan-making policy); nothing to show agriculture/forestry/nature use (DL 12) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriate; limited spatial loss of openness, very limited visual (DL 15-16) - **S5(5): not-engaged.** S5 does not apply in Green Belt unless the proposal is not inappropriate under GB7 (DL 19) - **TR3: harm.** narrow, unlit, national speed limit lane; residents "highly reliant on the private vehicle" (DL 20, 28) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** 3.81-year supply; 1-2 dwellings "important but limited contribution"; self-build unsecured so no weight (DL 26-27) - **DP3: neutral.** character harm unsubstantiated at PIP stage (DL 24-25) ## Key facts - Garden of No.5 Shackerley Cottages; four earlier cottages once stood on the site but remains had blended into the landscape - Shackerley Lane narrow, unlit, national speed limit; M54 to the south - Council supply 3.81 years; no officer report or LPA appeal statement - Neither party identified which GB7 exception applied; grey belt not argued ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010260 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9f3bfd27-8a29-4d32-aa30-8b9cd91d2d22 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010260.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land beside 43 Westminster Road, Worcester (1 dwelling) - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Townend - **Authority:** Worcester (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010271 - **Application reference:** 25/00909/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** New dwelling in the side gap of a semi-detached house, forming a short terrace - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3, S4 - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR 28, SWDPR 35 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions, biodiversity net gain - **Tags:** design-refusal, bng, transitional-no-consultation, small-scheme, s4-substantially-outweighed, tier-2 ## Summary A new house in the side gap of a 1950s-style estate corner in Worcester was dismissed. It would erode one of the repeated "designed gaps" that give the estate its openness, overlook a neighbour's garden, and it had no BNG baseline (DL ¶10-21). ## What made the difference The gap's role in the estate's layout (DL ¶10). With a five-year supply now shown, one dwelling's limited benefits were "substantially outweigh[ed]" (DL ¶23). ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail.** loss of a designed gap at a corner, eroding the rhythm and openness of the estate; SWDPR 28 conflict (DL 10-14) - **P3: fail.** rear first-floor window overlooks garden of No 45; SWDPR 35 conflict (DL 15-18) - **S4: fail.** limited benefits of one home "substantially outweigh[ed]" by character harm (DL 23) ## Key facts - Not re-consulted: the revised Framework was "significantly different" but the pertinent wording unchanged (DL 4) - No baseline habitat assessment, so the statutory 10% BNG could not be shown (DL 19-21) - Council shows 5-year supply after SWDPR adoption (DL 22) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010271 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a9c63b8f-0fa4-4fee-b2e2-dd6b31354ef7 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010271.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 118A Hempstead Road, Kings Langley - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K E Down - **Authority:** Dacorum (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010273 - **Application reference:** 26/00671/RET - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Retrospective raised rear patio with balustrade, fencing, steps and under-patio storage - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), GB7(1)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Dacorum Core Strategy 2013 CS5, CS11, CS12 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, character, privacy, VSC - **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, openness-harm, vsc-not-shown, retrospective, psed-disability ## Summary Retrospective raised patio behind a new bungalow on sloping land at the Green Belt edge of Kings Langley. Dismissed. Its height and width made it a disproportionate addition under GB7(1)(b), causing moderate openness harm, plus character and privacy harm. The disabled occupier's need for accessible outdoor space got moderate weight but did not clearly outweigh the harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Although changes have been made to Green Belt policy, those policies that are relevant to this decision have not materially changed" (DL ¶2). - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "Although the depth of the patio is not disproportionate … its height and width, emphasised by the balustrade, result in it overwhelming the rear elevation of the modest host dwelling" (DL ¶7). "proportionality does not rely only on specific measurements or parameters" (DL ¶8). - **Openness: moderate harm** (DL ¶12). - **VSC / PSED.** "the appellant has not provided evidence to show that the patio is in the only feasible position and is no larger than necessary … I can only attach moderate weight" (DL ¶20). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to Green Belt harm and significant weight to character and privacy harm, against moderate weight to disability need. Not clearly outweighed (DL ¶21-22). The PSED was weighed (DL ¶23). ## What made the difference The steep fall of the land meant a patio became a large elevated structure. The personal need was not supported by evidence that a smaller or differently located solution would not do. ## Transferable points - Raised patios and platforms can count as disproportionate "extensions" under GB7(1)(b), judged on height, width and visual effect, not floorspace alone (DL ¶7-8). - Personal disability need in a VSC case needs evidence that the scheme is the minimum necessary and in the only feasible location (DL ¶20). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** full-width raised patio on sloping land overwhelms modest bungalow; "proportionality does not rely only on specific measurements" (DL 7-9) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriate plus moderate openness harm; visible from open land east and south (DL 10-12, 21) - **DP3: harm (significant weight).** bulky, pale, dominant addition at rural edge; also privacy harm to No 118 (CS11, CS12) (DL 13-18, 21) ## Key facts - Bungalow permitted 2022 as a replacement; patio built beyond a 2025 non-material amendment for steps (DL 6) - Need for accessible outdoor space for a disabled occupier; PSED considered; moderate weight, as no evidence the position or size was the minimum necessary and need is personal/temporary (DL 19-20, 23) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010273 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/bd1b2b74-6f09-43a1-aa33-f9e70f4f4e70 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010273.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 76 Andover Road, Cheltenham (listed garden wall rebuild) - **Decision:** allowed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Hannah Guest - **Authority:** Cheltenham (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010276 - **Application reference:** 26/00312/LBC - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Listed building consent for partial demolition and like-for-like rebuilding of a structurally defective section of a listed garden wall - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE4(2) - **Main issues:** special interest of Grade II listed building, character of conservation area - **Tags:** listed-building-consent, heritage-harm-outweighed, he6-harm-graded, non-determination, conservation-area, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary Listed building consent was granted on a non-determination appeal to rebuild a leaning, deteriorating section of a listed brick garden wall in Cheltenham. Rebuilding would lose some historic fabric and the wall's evolved lean, a limited harm. Three structural reports showed the wall needed stabilising and that buttresses were not a reliable long-term fix. The long-term survival of the wall was a public heritage benefit that outweighed the limited harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The Council and the appellant were given an opportunity to comment on those amendments during the appeal process" (DL ¶2). - **Significance assessment, HE5(1).** Despite objections, "I have been able to determine the special interest and significance of the designated heritage assets relevant to the appeal and to assess the effects of the proposed works" (DL ¶10). - **Need for works.** "the three structural reports provide compelling justification for remedial works to stabilise the garden wall" (DL ¶24). - **Harm: LIMITED.** "The resulting reduction in the garden wall's authenticity and integrity would give rise to a limited degree of harm to the significance of the listed building" (DL ¶30). "it is the effect on the listed building's significance rather than the scale of the proposed works which should be considered" (DL ¶30). - **Conservation area: preserved** (DL ¶31). - **HE6(4): PASS.** "The proposed works would secure the long-term structural stability of the garden wall … This is a meaningful public heritage benefit" (DL ¶33). "giving considerable importance and weight to the limited harm that I have identified, together with substantial weight to the conservation of the heritage asset, I conclude that, in this case, the public benefits of the proposal would outweigh that harm" (DL ¶34). - **Alternatives.** No evidence "that a properly specified buttress scheme would represent a less harmful and satisfactory long-term alternative" (DL ¶35). ## Planning balance HE6(4), with HE6(1) and HE6(3) stated correctly (DL ¶34). HE4 cited, including the clear and convincing justification requirement (DL ¶17–18). No S4 balance (consent appeal). ## What made the difference Independent structural evidence, including a report commissioned by the Council itself, that the wall was failing and that buttresses would not secure it. Brick reuse and conditions on lime mortar and foundations kept the harm limited. ## Transferable points - Securing a heritage asset's long-term structural survival is a public heritage benefit under HE6(4) that can outweigh limited harm from rebuilding (DL ¶33–34). - Harm is judged on the effect on significance, not the scale of works (DL ¶30). - A less harmful alternative must be shown to work before it counts against the proposal (DL ¶35). ## Policy findings - **HE5(1): pass.** third parties said significance not assessed; the 2021 Heritage Report plus site visit sufficient (DL 10) - **HE6(1): benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation (DL 34) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** limited harm - loss of some historic fabric and of the wall's evolved lean and meandering alignment (evidential value); minimised by brick reuse (DL 29-30, 34) - **HE6(4): pass.** long-term structural stability of the wall is "a meaningful public heritage benefit"; with modest economic benefits, considerable weight; outweighs limited harm (DL 32-34) - **HE4(2): pass.** three structural reports give "compelling justification" for remedial works; buttress alternative not shown to be less harmful or effective (DL 17-18, 24, 35) - **HE9: neutral.** Cheltenham Central Conservation Area (Tivoli Character Area) preserved; s72(1) met (DL 31) ## Key facts - Wall 1.6-1.7 m high, 230 mm brick in lime mortar, between the gardens of Nos 74 and 76; part of the Grade II terrace 72-80 Andover Road (list entry 1386687) under s1(5)(a) (DL 3, 13) - Non-determination appeal; Council's appeal statement said it would have recommended consent (DL 7) - Three structural reports (May, Jul, Dec 2025) including one commissioned by the Council (Davidson Walsh); buttresses added in 2023 and later on No 74's side not shown to stabilise the wall (DL 21-28) - Rebuild chainage 12.5-36.86 m with specialist foundations near an apple tree's root zone; repair and repointing 0-12.5 m (DL 20) - Council refusals of wall works in 2021 superseded by later structural evidence (DL 36) - Boundary ownership disputes are private matters (DL 37) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010276 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010276.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # St Albans House, 98 East Hill, Dartford - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F Leung - **Authority:** Dartford (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010288 - **Application reference:** DA/26/00051/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Vehicular crossover onto the A226, paved parking for two cars, partial removal of boundary wall - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), TR6(4), TR4(1)(c)(i), S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Dartford Local Plan 2024 M1, M16 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, highway safety - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, design-refusal, tr6-highway-safety, retrospective, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A driveway and crossover on a prominent corner front garden onto the A226 in Dartford. Dismissed. The inspector applied the 2026 Framework without re-consulting, because it did not "fundamentally alter the relevant policy position" (DL ¶5). Both DP3(3) (design) and TR6(4)/TR4(1)(c)(i) (highway safety) were treated as weighing "substantially" against, so the modest parking and EV benefits were "substantially outweighed" under S4 (DL ¶23-26). ## What made the difference Two Framework refusal policies were engaged together. The highway evidence was also deficient: the swept paths used cars shorter than the 4.8 m standard, which could not be cured by condition without changing the access design (DL ¶17, 20). ## Policy findings - **DP3(3): fail (substantial weight).** loss of a large open corner front garden to parking; DP3(1) conflict without clear justification "weighs substantially" (DL 9-14, 24) - **TR6(4): fail (substantial weight).** tracking used cars shorter than the 4.8 m highway-authority standard; reversing across the footway near a junction, crossing and bus stop (DL 16-21, 25) - **S4(1): fail.** two spaces and an EV charger attract modest weight; substantially outweighed (DL 23, 26) ## Key facts - Prominent corner plot at the A226/St Albans Road signalled junction, near a crossing, bus stop and school - Swept paths drawn with cars shorter than 4.8 m ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010288 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8162faa5-4693-46a2-baad-ebb0e307c882 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010288.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Rose Cottage, Kentish Lane, Hatfield - **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Felgate - **Authority:** Welwyn Hatfield (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010292 - **Application reference:** 6/2025/2623/HOUSE - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Retrospective replacement of a garden outbuilding (hobby vehicle/aircraft store) with a larger steel-framed building - **Site context:** green-belt, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB7(1)(e), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Welwyn Hatfield Borough Local Plan 2023 SADM 11, SADM 34, SP9 - **Main issues:** Green Belt, character and appearance, living conditions - **Tags:** householder-gb, replacement-building-not-permanent, replacement-dwelling-materially-larger, pdl-e-limb, vsc-not-shown, retrospective ## Summary A retrospective, part-built replacement of a flimsy garden shed with a much taller steel-framed building in the Hertfordshire Green Belt. The appeal was dismissed. It failed every route: GB7(1)(b) replacement (materially larger, and the old shed was not "permanent and substantial"), GB7(1)(e) PDL (substantial harm to openness), and GB7(1)(b) extension (the cumulative threshold was already passed). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶4). - **GB7(1)(b) replacement: FAIL on two grounds.** Size: "These changes in the shape and orientation of the roof add significantly to the new building's overall height and volume" (DL ¶10). Permanence: "the original building was not of permanent or substantial construction, but was in fact essentially always a short-life structure" (DL ¶11). - **GB7(1)(e): FAIL.** "As residential garden land outside any built-up area, the appeal site could potentially be considered as previously developed land (PDL) … the increase in built volume would result in a considerable loss of openness … the resultant harm to the green belt would be substantial" (DL ¶13). - **Extension route: FAIL.** The cumulative threshold was already passed (DL ¶14). ## Planning balance GB6(2). There were no other considerations of any significant weight. Removing the old shed was not a benefit that depended on this scheme (DL ¶24-25). ## What made the difference Height. The same footprint with more than double the eaves height was materially larger. And the old shed's construction ruled out the replacement exception entirely. ## Transferable points - The "permanent and substantial construction" requirement in GB7(1)(b) applies to replacements. A lightweight shed that was never permanent cannot found a replacement (DL ¶8, ¶11). - Height and roof form alone can make a same-footprint replacement "materially larger" (DL ¶10). - Rural residential gardens (outside built-up areas) can be PDL for GB7(1)(e), but a large volume increase is still substantial harm (DL ¶13). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** replacement materially larger (eaves 2m→4.6m, ridge 4.6m→5.8m, roof turned 90°); and former timber/plywood/plastic shed was not of permanent and substantial construction (DL 8-12) - **GB7(1)(e): fail.** rural residential garden potentially PDL, but considerable volume increase = substantial harm to openness (DL 13) - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** as a detached "extension", cumulative additions threshold already passed (DL 14) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriateness and substantial loss of openness (DL 15) - **DP3: harm.** visually jarring, out of scale, transverse ridge (LP SP9) (DL 16-20) ## Key facts - The former shed (c.12 m x 6 m, erected 1995) had been demolished. It was plywood and timber, with plastic-sheet windows, and was not watertight - The new building had the same footprint but was much taller - The appellant was unaware permission was needed. The inspector accepted this but it did not help ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010292 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6711bee3-d0cc-4714-9f8d-80b1ceaacc38 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010292.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land east of Hockerton Road, Upton - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Harris-Watkins - **Authority:** Newark and Sherwood (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010301 - **Application reference:** 26/00382/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 1-5 dwellings on agricultural field at village edge - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, conservation-area, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.84 - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), S3 - **Development plan policies:** Newark and Sherwood Amended Core Strategy 2019 SP1, SP3, CP14, Allocations and DM DPD 2013 DM8, DM9 - **Main issues:** suitable location, conservation area, presumption - **Tags:** transitional, PIP, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, less-than-substantial-legacy-wording, housing-shortfall, rural-lane-no-footway, small-scheme, old-wording-slip ## Summary PIP for 1-5 dwellings on a field at the edge of Upton, inside the conservation area, where the council had only 3.84 years' supply. Dismissed. The decision is dated 17 August 2026, the day the new Framework took effect, but it was reasoned entirely under the December 2024 Framework: paragraph 11(d)(i), footnote 7, "less than substantial harm" and "great weight". The new Framework is not mentioned. ## Issues and findings - **Location — local plan DM8: CONFLICT.** The site is in open countryside. Hockerton Road "does not benefit from a footway … would not provide suitable access for all and at all times of year and day" (DL ¶9-10). - **Conservation area — HE9 / HE6: HARM.** "The proposed development would result in the subdivision and fragmentation of the wider agricultural field. This would erode the legibility of the historic field pattern" (DL ¶16). - **Heritage balance (2024 wording).** "the proposal would have less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset. The harm would be in the mid-range of that category of harm, but nonetheless of considerable importance and weight … great weight given to the assets' conservation" (DL ¶18). Housing and economic benefits "would not outweigh the great weight to be attached to the conservation" (DL ¶19). - **Presumption — 2024 ¶11(d)(i): disapplied.** "I have found that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the CA, providing a strong reason for refusal. The presumption in favour of sustainable development therefore does not apply" (DL ¶27). ## Planning balance 2024 heritage balance (LTS harm vs public benefits), then the 2024 ¶11(d)(i) footnote-7 route. Under the 2026 Framework the equivalent is S5 (outside settlement) and HE6(4). A small, non-exception scheme outside a settlement would probably fail S5(1) in any case. ## What made the difference The site's part in the pre-enclosure field pattern that gives the conservation area its significance. The shortfall did not help because heritage was a footnote-7 disapplying policy. Under 2026 policy the scheme would face S5 location control as well as HE6. ## Transferable points - Even at PIP stage, location and use alone can cause conservation-area harm where a field forms part of a historic enclosure pattern (DL ¶15-17). - Transition hazard: a letter issued on 17 August 2026 applied the superseded 2024 tests without comment. This shows the risk of decisions straddling the changeover (DL ¶18, 26-27). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): harm (great weight).** decided under 2024 wording — "less than substantial harm ... in the mid-range of that category ... of considerable importance and weight"; "great weight" to conservation (2024 NPPF 212/215); s72 cited; public benefits = housing in shortfall, economic/social; not outweighed (DL 5, 18-19) - **HE9: harm.** subdivision of pre-enclosure field erodes historic field pattern; peninsula into countryside; domestication of approach (DL 13-17) - **S3: not-engaged.** 2024 para 11(d)(i) / fn7 — heritage harm a "strong reason for refusing", presumption disapplied (DL 26-27) - **DM8 (N&S DPD): conflict.** open countryside; no footway on narrow unlit Hockerton Road (DL 9-12) ## Key facts - Council accepted 3.84 years supply (DL 26) - Site in pre-enclosure field within Upton Conservation Area, one of best-preserved in district (DL 13-14) - Hockerton Road has no footway, narrow, limited lighting (DL 9) - Refused by committee against officer recommendation (DL 6) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010301 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/11669faa-1586-46e8-8b53-5f92d0745fd6 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010301.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 2 West Edge Cottage, West Edge, Marsh Gibbon - **Decision:** allowed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Hall - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010310 - **Application reference:** PL/25/5588/HB - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Listed building consent for glazed link between 20th-century extension and garage, new kitchen window and French doors - **Site context:** conservation-area, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE4 - **Development plan policies:** Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2021 BE1 - **Main issues:** special interest of listed building - **Tags:** tier-2, listed-building-consent, heritage-no-harm, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary Listed building consent for a small glazed link joining a 20th-century extension to a converted garage at a Grade II cottage. Allowed. The link would touch no historic fabric, keep the historic plan form legible, and not compete with the historic two-storey range. The Framework is referred to only generally ("satisfy the requirements of the Act and the Framework", DL ¶10). ## What made the difference The new work was confined to 20th-century fabric and was lightweight and glazed, so there was no harm to weigh. Note for indexers: the corpus index tagged this letter "S4" because of drawing numbers (SYKES/S4/P/…), not the policy. ## Policy findings - **HE4: pass.** link joins only 20th-century fabric; historic plan form legible; no harm to the special interest of the Grade II 17th-18th-century cottage (DL 6-10) ## Key facts - Link connects two 20th-century elements; no loss of historic fabric - The corpus S4 code tag is a false positive; "S4" is the plan-drawing prefix (SYKES/S4/P/01) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010310 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e7359619-6249-4541-add3-af0a99cdb5d0 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010310.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 15 Compton Road, Buxton - **Decision:** allowed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Elaine Moulton - **Authority:** High Peak (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010311 - **Application reference:** HPK/2025/0140 - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Replacement of timber porch windows and doors with heritage-style composite uPVC - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE9 - **Development plan policies:** High Peak Local Plan 2016 EQ6, EQ7, Buxton Conservation Areas Character Appraisal 2007 - **Main issues:** conservation area - **Tags:** tier-2, conservation-area, transitional-no-consultation, upvc-windows ## Summary Heritage-style uPVC to replace the timber joinery of two side porches on a positive building in Buxton College CA. Allowed, with detailed specifications reserved by condition, so the CA would be preserved (DL ¶17). There was no consultation on the new Framework because its content "has not significantly changed" for this case (DL ¶3). ## What made the difference The rear porch timber was visibly rotten, so replacement rather than repair was justified. The Conservation Officer's objection was about missing specifications, not uPVC in principle, and a condition could cure that (DL ¶¶12–16). ## Policy findings - **HE9: pass.** rotten rear-porch joinery justifies replacement; composite uPVC acceptable in principle; detailed profiles by condition; CA preserved (DL 11-17) ## Key facts - Rear-porch timber substantially rotten or missing on site inspection; front porch replaced for consistency - Manufacturer's literature showed thicker flat profiles than the plans, so details were reserved by pre-commencement condition ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/159194e4-9c56-435c-a4a5-cc94c94efd41 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010311 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010311.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Branford Wells (1-5 South View Barns), Brickhouse Lane, Newchapel - **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Wright - **Authority:** Tandridge (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010313 - **Application reference:** TA/2025/1413 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion of agricultural building to five dwellings with parking and landscaping - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, rural-lane, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.97 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, GB6(2), HE6 - **Development plan policies:** Tandridge Local Plan Part 2 2014 DP7, DP10, DP13, DP20, Tandridge Core Strategy 2008 CSP18, CSP21 - **Main issues:** grey belt, sustainable location, openness, heritage, character, living conditions, VSC balance - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, small-scheme, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, heritage-harm-decisive, housing-shortfall, fallback, neutral-no-harm, gb7-1-b-reuse ## Summary Conversion of a barn complex to five dwellings in the Tandridge Green Belt, where supply is 1.97 years. Grey belt and unmet need were accepted, but GB7(1)(g)(iii) failed: the site is on a 40 mph lane with no footways or lighting, away from settlements and buses. As inappropriate development causing openness, heritage (Grade II setting), character and amenity harm, it did not show VSC even with an acute shortfall. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties invited to comment; none received; "My decision reflects the latest version of the Framework" (DL ¶5). - **GB7(1)(b): PASS (for the building).** "the proposal would meet the exception in Policy GB7(1)(b) of the Framework" (DL ¶9). **Unreconciled tension:** the letter goes on to test (g) and concludes the proposal "would therefore be inappropriate development" (DL ¶14) without explaining why the (b) finding does not settle appropriateness. The likely reading is that the subdivided curtilages, parking and open land adjoining the driveway fall outside a simple re-use. Rely on the (g)(iii) reasoning, not on the overall appropriateness logic. - **Grey belt: PASS** (DL ¶10). **(g)(ii): PASS.** "there is an evidenced unmet need for the type of development proposed under criterion (ii)" (DL ¶11). - **GB7(1)(g)(iii) / TR3: FAIL.** "The proposed development would introduce five dwellings into an area with very few residential properties. Residents, their visitors, service and delivery vehicles … would generate a significant amount of movement in this context" (DL ¶13). "It lies on Brickhouse Lane which is subject to a 40 mile per hour speed limit and lacks footways and streetlighting … future occupiers … would be heavily reliant on private vehicles to access services, and the location would not offer them a genuine choice of transport modes" (DL ¶14). - **Openness: demonstrable loss,** visual and spatial, from subdivision and domestic paraphernalia (DL ¶17–18). - **HE6: moderate harm** to the Grade II farmhouse setting. "given the relatively modest scale of the public benefits, these would not outweigh the harm" (DL ¶23). - **Character and amenity: harm** (DL ¶26–27, ¶32). - **Neutral factors.** "the absence of harm would be a neutral matter which would not carry weight in favour of the scheme" (DL ¶36). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to Green Belt harm, plus openness, heritage, character and living-conditions harm. On the other side: five homes and social/economic benefits (moderate at DL ¶33, "modest" at DL ¶38), and a fallback of limited weight. "the other considerations would not clearly outweigh the harm" (DL ¶38). ## What made the difference Location. The site is isolated from settlements and buses, on an unlit 40 mph lane with no footway, which failed limb (iii) and made the scheme inappropriate. Heritage harm independently failed HE6. Even an acute 1.97-year supply only earned moderate weight for five homes. A site adjoining a settlement with a footway, or a scheme confined to the LDC fallback footprint, might have succeeded. ## Transferable points - Five dwellings can "generate a significant amount of movement in this context" where the area has very few homes. TR3(1)(a) is relative to context (DL ¶13). - A 40 mph lane without footways or lighting, away from bus services, means no "genuine choice of transport modes" (DL ¶14). - An acute supply shortfall satisfies (g)(ii) but does not overcome a (g)(iii) failure, and five homes attract only moderate or modest weight (DL ¶11, ¶33, ¶38). - An absence of harm on technical matters (highways etc.) is neutral, not a benefit (DL ¶36). - For a five-home scheme, HE6 moderate setting harm outweighs "relatively modest" public benefits (DL ¶23). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): pass.** re-use of permanent and substantial building, no increase in size (DL 9); not reconciled with the later finding that the scheme is inappropriate (DL 14), presumably because curtilages and open land go beyond the building - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** undisputed; does not strongly contribute to (a), (b), (d) (DL 10) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** 1.97-year supply, shortfall over 3,000 homes = evidenced unmet need (DL 11) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): fail.** five dwellings in an area with very few homes = significant movement "in this context"; rural, away from settlements, facilities and buses; 40 mph lane without footways or lighting (DL 12-14) - **TR3: fail.** no genuine choice of transport modes (DL 12, 14) - **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** inappropriate; demonstrable loss of openness from curtilages and paraphernalia; VSC not shown (DL 17-18, 37-38) - **HE6: harm.** moderate harm to setting of Grade II 16th C Branford Wells farmhouse; modest public benefits do not outweigh (DL 21-24) - **DP3: harm.** cluster of five terraced dwellings at odds with scattered pattern; also poor amenity space for plots 1-4 (DL 26-27, 30-32) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** moderate weight at DL 33, "modest" weight in the VSC balance at DL 38 ## Key facts - Tandridge supply 1.97 years; shortfall over 3,000 homes, described as "persistent, chronic and extremely serious" (Nutfield appeal APP/M3645/W/25/3374913) - Brickhouse Lane 40 mph, no footways, no street lighting; site "away from settlements, facilities and bus services" - Class Q-type LDC fallback (2021) for five dwellings with less land; given limited weight (DL 34-35) - Previous five-dwelling scheme dismissed (APP/M3645/W/22/3296968) - Absence of harm on highways, trees, biodiversity etc. is neutral (DL 36) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010313 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8f58816b-7d23-46e2-ac2b-595f5013dac1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010313.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land rear of The Green Man, Clophill (1 dwelling) - **Decision:** allowed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Owen - **Authority:** Central Bedfordshire (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010315 - **Application reference:** CB/26/00472/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Detached dwelling on the former pub car park, replacing an implemented permission for a dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE4, HE6 - **Development plan policies:** Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2021 HE3, HQ1, HQ8 - **Main issues:** heritage setting, neighbour privacy, future occupiers living conditions - **Tags:** fallback, conservation-area, heritage-no-harm, tier-2 ## Summary A replacement design for an already-implemented house behind a Grade II former pub in Clophill was allowed. It preserved the settings of the listed building and the conservation area under HE4/HE6. Poor garden privacy was no worse than under the extant permission (DL ¶17-18, ¶27). ## What made the difference The implemented permission for a dwelling on the same site was the fallback. It neutralised the privacy conflict, and the site "provides very little contribution to the setting of the listed building" (DL ¶12). ## Policy findings - **HE6: pass.** setting of Grade II Green Man and Clophill CA preserved; site contributes very little to setting (DL 10-18) - **P3: conflict.** poor privacy to new garden from 1a High Street, outweighed by the extant permission fallback (DL 23, 27) ## Key facts - Implemented permission for a dwelling on the same site (DL 5) - Access through the conservation area over a route already used by vehicles (DL 28) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010315 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/262da798-6d66-488f-9bf0-8973eb0d6a03 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010315.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 52 Eaton Drive, Romford (pair of houses in a rear garden) - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Victor Callister - **Authority:** Havering (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010339 - **Application reference:** P1538.25 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of a garage and erection of a pair of semi-detached houses fronting Carter Drive in the rear garden of an end-of-terrace house - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4 - **Development plan policies:** Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (2021) Policies 7, 10, 26, 34 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, design-refusal, living-conditions, garden-land, small-scheme, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Two semi-detached houses in the long rear garden of an end-of-terrace house in Romford. Dismissed. There was moderate character harm and substantial harm to the neighbour at No 50 (overbearing and overlooking), against substantial weight to housing. The S4 conclusion is worded the wrong way round. ## Issues and findings - **Character.** The houses "would stand somewhat isolated from other houses, within an otherwise open rear garden context" (DL ¶8) and would appear "overbearing and cramped on their plots" (DL ¶9). - **Living conditions.** "The proposal would produce a degree of overlooking that would be intrusive and result in a significant loss of privacy of the occupiers of this neighbouring property" (DL ¶13). - **Findings.** "the proposal would result in moderate harm to the character and appearance of the local area and substantial harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers" (DL ¶14). - **Housing.** "Collectively small housing developments in such circumstances make a significant contribution to the delivery of new housing, to which I have given substantial weight" (DL ¶17). - **S4 (drafting slip).** "I find that the benefits of 2 additional new houses as proposed does not substantially outweigh the collective adverse effects of the proposal" (DL ¶18). S4 asks the opposite question: whether the benefits are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects. The dismissal is plainly consistent with the correct test, given substantial harm to living conditions. ## Transferable points - Long rear gardens can be a defining spatial characteristic, and two-storey backland houses that interrupt them are incongruous (DL ¶5-9). - Caution: DL ¶18 inverts the S4 test. Do not cite it for the S4 formula. ## Policy findings - **DP3: harm (moderate weight).** two-storey houses cramped and incongruous against the long-garden spatial character; conflict with DP3 and L2; no DP3(3) or clear-justification step (DL 5-9, 14) - **P3: harm (substantial weight).** mapped: letter cites DP3 liveability; overbearing presence and significant overlooking of No 50 and its garden (DL 10-14) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** small sites collectively significant; two homes a small contribution; Havering shortfall on the HDT (DL 16-17) - **S4: fail.** letter says the benefits "does not substantially outweigh" the adverse effects, inverting the S4 formula (DL 18) ## Key facts - Long, narrow rear gardens of the terraces give the area its spaciousness; Carter Drive has no houses fronting it (DL 5-6) - The plot would be split into three roughly equal parts (DL 7) - Council's Policy 34 (pollution) reason not relied on (DL 15) - Parties consulted on the August 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010339 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4c61062b-aba0-4b0d-aa0e-bce92b78db0a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010339.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Firs Country Park, West End Road, Boston (workshop to holiday let) - **Decision:** allowed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Gee - **Authority:** Boston (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010342 - **Application reference:** B/25/0346 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of an existing single-storey workshop to holiday let accommodation with external alterations and acoustic screening - **Site context:** open-countryside, flood-zone-3 - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3 - **Development plan policies:** South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2019 Policies 2, 3, 9 - **Main issues:** living conditions - noise, disturbance and privacy - **Tags:** tier-2, limited-nppf-engagement, flood-risk, fallback, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A small holiday let converted from a workshop at a holiday lodge park near Boston. The council refused on neighbour noise and privacy. The inspector found the use no noisier than a house, with acoustic screening and the lawful workshop use as a fallback. Allowed, plan-led, with no Framework policy named in the reasoning. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "My decision reflects the latest version of the Framework, and the responses received on it" (DL ¶3). - **Living conditions: PASS.** "Given the modest scale of the accommodation, which would be capable of accommodating only a very limited number of guests, I have no substantive evidence that the proposed use would give rise to noise and disturbance beyond that typically associated with a dwellinghouse" (DL ¶10). - **Flood risk, handled only in conditions.** The site "could experience flood depths of 0.5 – 1.6m arising from a breach in the defences" (DL ¶23). "The Environment Agency consider that this is an acceptable measure to manage the risk of flooding to the holiday let" (DL ¶23): no winter occupation, resilience measures and an evacuation plan. ## Planning balance Plan-led: accords with the development plan as a whole (DL ¶28). No S5 category or balance was run. ## What made the difference Small scale, an acoustic wall and a noisy lawful fallback. On flood risk the Environment Agency's acceptance of seasonal closure was decisive. ## Transferable points - A very small holiday let generates no more noise than a dwelling; general complaints about a wider holiday park carry limited weight without evidence (DL ¶10, ¶16). - Seasonal occupancy restrictions accepted by the Environment Agency were used to manage a "Danger to All" tidal breach hazard in Flood Zone 3 (DL ¶23). Treat with care: F5 and F7 were not engaged in terms. ## Policy findings - **P3: pass.** mapped: small holiday let, 3.3 m wall, canopy and acoustic fence; oblique overlooking only; lawful workshop fallback; complaints about the wider park unevidenced; "Nor do I find conflict with the Framework insofar of its objective of protecting living conditions" (DL 9-18) - **F7(2): pass.** mapped: Flood Zone 3, future hazard "Danger to All"/"Danger to Most", breach depths 0.5-1.6 m; floor levels cannot be raised; EA accepts no occupation 1 Nov-14 Mar plus resilience and an evacuation plan, all conditioned; F5/F7 not named and no sequential test discussed (DL 23-24, conditions 4-6) - **E4: benefit.** mapped: more holiday accommodation choice and support for local tourism economy "supported by the Framework" (DL 19) ## Key facts - Existing lodges at The Firs Country Park share the access; earlier dismissed appeal on an acoustic-barrier condition for 15 lodges distinguished (DL 5, 20) - Holiday occupancy condition with register; wood-burner and noise management plan conditions refused as unnecessary (DL 22, 26-27) - Costs application by the appellant subject of a separate decision (DL 2), not in the corpus - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010342 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7387af35-c6cb-410a-a6ab-d7002c913542 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010342.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Barn on West Lane, Galphay, Ripon - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Caines - **Authority:** North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6010348 - **Application reference:** 26/00533/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of traditional stone barn and erection of one dwelling with new access (extant consent to convert the barn) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, national-landscape, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(c), S5(1)(j), S5(4), N4, TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Harrogate District Local Plan 2020 GS2, GS3, GS6, HP3, NE4 - **Main issues:** location of housing, National Landscape character, fallback - **Tags:** s5-1-c-reuse, s5-1-j, s5-4-exceptional, national-landscape, fallback, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Demolition of a traditional stone barn in the Nidderdale National Landscape, which already had consent for conversion to a dwelling, and its replacement with a new-build house. Dismissed. S5(1)(c) did not apply because a replacement must be for the same use. S5(1)(j) did not help because the scheme added no home beyond the fallback and was not physically well-related to Galphay. Under S5(4), the unjustified loss of the barn (N4, substantial weight) and car reliance outweighed the benefits, even with significant weight to the fallback. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties commented on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶2). - **Location / TR3: FAIL.** "The surrounding roads are narrow, unlit country lanes with limited opportunities for safe pedestrian movement … future occupiers would be likely to rely heavily on private vehicle travel" (DL ¶7). - **Fallback.** Given "significant weight", but the approved scheme "does not authorise the complete demolition of the traditional barn … the fallback position reduces the weight to be attached to the conflict arising from the proposal's countryside location, it does not remove that conflict" (DL ¶9-11). - **N4: HARM.** The structural evidence "does not demonstrate that demolition is unavoidable" (DL ¶17). The result is "the unnecessary loss of a traditional rural building that contributes positively to local distinctiveness" (DL ¶18). - **Housing.** "an extant planning permission already exists for the creation of a dwelling on the site … the appeal proposal would not materially increase housing supply" (DL ¶23). - **S5 categories.** "Policy S5(1)(c) does not apply because the replacement building would not be for the same use … Whilst the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply … the proposal would not materially increase housing delivery … and would not be physically well-related to an existing settlement" (DL ¶27). ## Planning balance S5(4). On the harm side: countryside location, TR3, and N4 (substantial weight). On the benefit side: the fallback (significant weight, but offsetting only the locational conflict), the safer access (moderate), highway retaining wall (limited), energy and housing (little). "The exceptional circumstances required by Policy S5(4) have therefore not been demonstrated" (DL ¶29). ## What made the difference The barn itself had value. A conversion fallback can neutralise the principle of a dwelling in the countryside, but not the loss of a traditional building in a National Landscape. A structural report showing the barn could not be repaired would have changed the N4 finding, though (c) would still not apply because the use changes. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(c) replacement requires the same use. A barn cannot be "replaced" by a dwelling under (c) (DL ¶27). - Where an extant permission already delivers the home, the shortfall adds little weight and (j) is not engaged (DL ¶23, 27). - A conversion fallback offsets locational conflict, not the harm of demolishing the building it relies on (DL ¶11, 18, 26). - A structural report that lists defects and repairs does not justify demolition (DL ¶10, 17). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(c): fail.** replacement must be for the same use; agricultural barn to dwelling is not (DL 27) - **S5(1)(j): fail.** council lacks a 5YHLS (figure not given) but no net addition over the extant conversion and not physically well-related to Galphay (DL 23, 27) - **S5(4): fail.** fallback (significant weight), access (moderate), highway support (limited), energy/housing (little) do not substantially outweigh harm (DL 26-29) - **N4: harm (substantial weight).** unjustified loss of traditional stone barn contributing to Nidderdale NL special qualities; structural survey shows repair possible (DL 15-19, 25) - **TR3: fail.** narrow unlit lanes, limited safe pedestrian movement; heavy car reliance (DL 7, 25) ## Key facts - Extant permission (25/03836/FUL) to convert the barn; officer accepted the conversion was a substantial rebuild - Structural evidence showed defects but not that demolition was unavoidable - Council cannot show 5YHLS, but the appeal would add no dwelling beyond the fallback ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010348 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4e8fccc3-c804-452b-baea-ae565da3e8c3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010348.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 5 Silverwood Road, Peterborough (annexe to flat) - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Fuller - **Authority:** Peterborough (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010349 - **Application reference:** 25/01209/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective change of use of a granny annexe to a separate one-bedroom flat - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, P3, TR4, L2(1)(d)(ii) - **Development plan policies:** Peterborough Local Plan 2016-2036 LP13, LP17, Appendix C - **Main issues:** parking and highway safety, occupiers' living conditions, neighbours' privacy - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, living-conditions, annexe, retrospective, parking, l2-1-d, drafting-slip, transitional-no-consultation, tier-2 ## Summary Retrospective use of a rear granny annexe in Peterborough as a separate one-bedroom flat. Its main rooms face a tall boundary wall, its bedroom is overlooked from the main house, and the two homes share a tandem driveway on a congested street. Under S4 these harms (P3, TR4, L2(1)(d)(ii)) substantially outweighed one additional home. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The changes to the Framework do not affect the merits of this case in a material way and I, therefore, have not consulted the parties with regard to these changes." (DL ¶5). - **Highway safety.** "Irrespective of the low levels of accidents recorded in Silverwood Road, the development creates a greater risk of conflict between road users to the detriment of highway safety." (DL ¶10). - **Living conditions.** "the outlook is extremely poor considering these are rooms where occupants could reasonably be expected to spend significant periods of time" (DL ¶14). - **L2.** "the development fails to meet (d)(ii) which requires development to maintain safe access and egress for occupiers, as well as acceptable living standards for residents in terms of daylight, sunlight and privacy" (DL ¶24). - **Personal circumstances.** "there is no over-riding reason to allow the development to address the occupants personal circumstances" (DL ¶26). ## Planning balance S4: HO7 substantial weight (the letter writes "Policy H07 of the Framework states that substantial weight should be given", DL ¶32). But the flat would "conflict with other policies of the Framework, including P3 in respect of living conditions and TR4 in respect of access and parking" (DL ¶33), and "I find the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶33). ## What made the difference The annexe's rooms were designed as ancillary to the house. As a separate home, the wall-facing main rooms and overlooked bedroom gave unacceptable living conditions. ## Transferable points - L2(1)(d)(ii) safe access and acceptable living standards apply to extra homes within residential curtilages, including annexe conversions (DL ¶24). - A low recorded accident rate does not answer a parking-conflict objection on a congested street (DL ¶10). ## Policy findings - **TR4: fail.** shared tandem driveway without independent access; congested street, parking on pavements; risk of conflict despite low accident record (DL 7-11, 33) - **P3: fail.** living and dining rooms face a tall boundary wall at close range - poor daylight and outlook; bedroom overlooked from No 5 (DL 12-16, 33) - **L2(1)(d)(ii): fail.** fails safe access and acceptable living standards (daylight, sunlight, privacy) (DL 24) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** letter says H07; one dwelling where no five-year supply (DL 32) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 31-33) ## Key facts - Annexe approved 2018 (18/00056/HHFUL) and occupied as a separate flat since 2018 (DL 2) - Current occupants a homeless family with a child; Article 8 considered but not decisive (DL 25-26) - No harm to neighbours' privacy (DL 17-23) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010349 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a3bcceec-0306-4019-8310-41720e6060ce --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010349.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Footpath outside 3 Millbrook Place, Camden (Mornington Crescent) - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: David Troy - **Authority:** Camden (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010352 - **Application reference:** 2026/0295/P - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub with double-sided illuminated advert panels (Appeal A planning; Appeal B 6010353 advert consent 2026/0442/A) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), CO1, TR4 - **Development plan policies:** Camden Local Plan 2017 D1, D2, D4, G1, A1, C5, C6, T1 - **Main issues:** character, appearance and heritage, highway safety, community safety - **Tags:** street-hub, digital-advertising, telecoms, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-harm-graded, co1-substantial-weight, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary BT Street Hub with illuminated advert screens on an open footway next to Grade II Mornington Crescent station in the Camden Town conservation area. Both appeals dismissed. Heritage harm "at the lower level" was weighed under HE6(4) against telecoms benefits, which got CO1 "substantial weight" but were judged "modest". Pedestrian obstruction on a desire line was a separate reason. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶4). - **Heritage — HE6(4): HARM, lower level.** "Whilst the degree of harm resulting from the proposed Hub and advertisement on the significance of the CA and the listed station building would be at the lower level, in accordance with Policy HE6 (4) of the Framework, that harm should be weighed against any public benefits" (DL ¶14). - **Benefits — CO1.** "whilst given substantial weight in line with the Framework, given the limited scale of the proposals, these benefits would be modest. I therefore find insufficient public benefits arising from the proposals to offset the identified harm to which I attach substantial weight" (DL ¶16). - **Pedestrians: FAIL.** The hub "would cause an undue obstruction to pedestrians and impede the free flow of pedestrian movements" (DL ¶21). - **Community safety: PASS.** There was "limited substantive evidence … including recent site-specific crime data" (DL ¶25). ## Planning balance HE6(4) harm against public benefits. Both sides are described as carrying "substantial weight". The inspector resolved this by treating the benefits as modest in scale, not by lowering the formal weight label. ## What made the difference An open, uncluttered footway next to a listed station, with the hub on a pedestrian desire line. The off-site kiosk removals counted for nothing: one had already gone and the other was not on the site. ## Transferable points - CO1 "substantial weight" to telecoms benefits does not fix their scale. Benefits can carry substantial weight and still be "modest" (DL ¶16). - The 2026 grading vocabulary is appearing: harm "at the lower level", weighed under HE6(4) (DL ¶14). - Generic "crime generator" objections without site-specific data do not found a refusal (DL ¶25). - A kiosk removal already done, or outside the site, is not a benefit of the scheme and cannot be secured by condition (DL ¶27). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): harm (substantial weight).** grading — "the degree of harm ... would be at the lower level"; inspector attaches "substantial weight" to the harm; no explicit HE6(1)/HE6(3) wording; s66/s72 duty paraphrased ("special attention must be paid"); harm to Camden Town CA and setting of Grade II Mornington Crescent station; no harm to listed Camden Palace Theatre or Cobden statue (DL 11-16) - **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** telecoms benefits "given substantial weight in line with the Framework" but "given the limited scale of the proposals, these benefits would be modest" — insufficient to offset heritage harm (DL 15-16, 31) - **TR4: fail.** hub on pedestrian desire line to crossings/station; actual clear width less than claimed 5m because of cafe seating and furniture (DL 19-22); code mapped by harvester - **P5: pass.** council/Met Police crime-generator concerns generic, no site-specific crime data (DL 23-26); code mapped by harvester - **DM6(1): fail.** condition to remove off-site kiosk fails tests; one kiosk already removed (DL 27) ## Key facts - Site adjacent to Grade II Mornington Crescent station, in Camden Town CA (DL 7, 11) - One of two kiosks offered for removal had already gone; the other is off-site (DL 27) - Pedestrians observed walking across the hub position, a natural desire line (DL 20) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010352 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4ef07686-9763-44ca-bfe5-6917c16ab219 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010352.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Three Acres Farm, The Common, South Creake - **Decision:** dismissed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Knight - **Authority:** King's Lynn and West Norfolk (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010354 - **Application reference:** 26/00461/F - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Self-build dwelling (chalet bungalow) in exchange for giving up a Class Q approval for two dwellings - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(e), S5(4), DP3(3) - **Development plan policies:** King's Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan 2021-2040 (2025) LP01, LP02, LP18, LP31 - **Main issues:** location, character and appearance, fallback, self-build - **Tags:** s5-1-e-infill, s5-4-exceptional, fallback, class-q-fallback, self-build, design-refusal, rural-lane-no-footway, 5yhls-shown, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A self-build chalet bungalow in a loose rural enclave 1.7 km from South Creake, offered in exchange for surrendering a Class Q approval for two dwellings. Dismissed. The mixed-use enclave was not a "group of houses", so S5(1)(e) infill failed. On S5(4), the modest travel benefit of one fewer home was outweighed by prominent harm to the countryside character. Under the ordinary fallback test, the Class Q scheme was less harmful, so DP3(3) gave "a clear directive to dismiss". ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties commented on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶2). - **Character: HARM.** The enclave is "surrounded by open fields … The road is unlit, lacks pavements … significant open, green gaps between many of the developed sites, giving a dispersed feel" (DL ¶14). The dwelling would erode "the open gap between existing developments" (DL ¶18). - **S5(1)(e): FAIL.** "Given this [mix of uses], I find little reason to view the enclave as a group of houses rather than an intermittently developed area containing a mix of uses" (DL ¶20). The mobile home to the north gave "little reason to consider the mobile home to be a house for the purposes of the Framework policy" (DL ¶21). - **S5(4): FAIL.** "occupiers of either the appeal scheme or the Class Q approval would likely rely on private motor vehicles … The appeal scheme would … be the less harmful of the two in that respect" (DL ¶24). However, the character harm "would be prominent" (DL ¶26), so the benefits "would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects" (DL ¶27). - **Fallback test separate from S5(4).** "That the appellant has cited fallback in respect of Framework Policy S5(4) does not negate the need to also apply that usual, and less stringent, test" (DL ¶28). The Class Q scheme gives one more home and less character harm, so "the policy [DP3] gives a clear directive to dismiss" (DL ¶30-32). - **Self-build.** The shortfall was accepted but unquantified. There was little evidence it "can only be met by eroding neighbourhood character" (DL ¶38-39). ## Planning balance The decision was taken under s38(6), with S5(4) and a separate fallback comparison. Self-build and economic benefits did not outweigh the character harm (DL ¶41). ## What made the difference S5(1)(e) was read strictly on two points: "group of *houses*" excludes a mixed enclave of caravans and light industry, and the plot on one side must hold a house, not a mobile home. The Class Q fallback, which converts an existing building, was the benchmark and was plainly less harmful to character. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(e) "groups of houses" means a residential group. A mixed-use rural enclave does not qualify (DL ¶20). - A mobile home of uncertain status is not a "house" bounding an infill gap (DL ¶21). - Swapping a Class Q consent for a new build has to pass both S5(4) and the ordinary fallback test. Fewer car trips do not offset greater character harm (DL ¶24-32). - A self-build shortfall carries limited weight where it is not shown that only character-harming sites can meet it (DL ¶39). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(e): fail.** mixed-use enclave (caravan sites, light industry, a handful of houses) is not a "group of houses"; land to one side has a mobile home, not a house (DL 20-21) - **S5(4): fail.** 1.7 km from a Tier 5 village; one fewer car-dependent home than the Class Q fallback is a modest gain, outweighed by prominent countryside character harm (DL 22-27) - **DP3(3): fail.** erodes an open gap in a sporadic, dispersed enclave; avoiding the fallback is not "clear justification" as the fallback is less harmful (DL 31-32) - **HO7: neutral.** council supply described as in "good health"; the fallback gives one more home (DL 30) ## Key facts - About 1.7 km outside the South Creake development boundary (Tier 5 rural village); unlit road, no pavements - Class Q prior approval (25/00084/PACU3) for two dwellings in an existing barn; fallback greater than theoretical - Previous appeal for a dwelling next door dismissed (APP/V2635/W/25/3373292); SBCH shortfall acknowledged but unquantified ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010354 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/97b0fe81-e1be-4455-8d51-a0fdd53add91 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010354.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Rear of 291 Whippendell Road, Watford - **Decision:** dismissed, 27 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: T Bennett - **Authority:** Watford (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010362 - **Application reference:** 25/00827/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of rear of ground-floor commercial unit to a studio flat - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), DP3, L2(1)(d)(ii) - **Development plan policies:** Watford Local Plan 2021-2038 QD6.4, HO3.11, ST11.4, ST11.5, VT5.3 - **Main issues:** living conditions, refuse and cycle storage, highway safety, local centre vitality - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, l2-substantial-weight, living-conditions-future-occupiers, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A studio flat carved from the back of a shop in a Watford local centre. Dismissed. It met the NDSS floor area, but it had no private outdoor space, a deep plan lit from one end, and a window directly on the pavement. These were treated as poor design (DP3) and a breach of L2(1)(d)(ii). Under S4, one home carried "substantial" L2 weight but was "a modest benefit", and it was substantially outweighed (DL ¶29-31). ## What made the difference The inspector separated the *weight* of the benefit (substantial, per L2) from its *size* (one unit). Living-condition failures that map onto DP3 and L2(1)(d)(ii) were enough to outweigh it. Contrast PINS-6010195, where a space-standard shortfall alone had no Framework counterpart. ## Policy findings - **L2: benefit (substantial weight).** one unit in an accessible location; "a modest benefit, albeit one which attracts substantial weight" (DL 29) - **L2(1)(d)(ii): fail.** no private outdoor amenity space; gloomy deep plan; window on the pavement (DL 8-11, 30) - **S4(1): fail.** poor living conditions (DP3) substantially outweigh modest benefit; TR6(4) and HC6 passed (DL 21, 24, 31) ## Key facts - Studio of about 38 sq m meets NDSS (37 sq m with shower) but has no outdoor space and a poorly lit deep plan - Parking on a constrained hardstanding judged safe on a straight 20 mph road ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010362 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b073d02c-6565-485b-a1c5-7151524aa139 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010362.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land rear of 21-27 Brixey Road, Poole - **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Rachael Pipkin - **Authority:** Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010375 - **Application reference:** P/26/01143/CONDR - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73 variation of approved-plans condition to raise ridge of backland bungalow (Unit 3 of 3) by 1.8m with dormers - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3(2)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Poole Local Plan 2018 PP27 - **Main issues:** living conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, s73-variation, limited-nppf-engagement, habitats-mitigation ## Summary Section 73 amendment adding first-floor rooms to an approved backland bungalow. Dismissed for overshadowing and overbearing effect on 19a Brixey Road and overlooking of the approved Unit 2. The decision rests entirely on Poole Local Plan PP27, and the Framework is not cited. ## What made the difference The added height sat directly south of a neighbour's small garden, and there was no daylight or sunlight evidence (DL ¶¶7–8). The s73 added no homes, so the Council's "unmet housing need … does not attract weight" (DL ¶12). ## Policy findings - **P3(2)(b): fail (significant weight).** 6.6m-high unit south of 19a overshadows and overbears small garden; no daylight/sunlight evidence; overlooking of Unit 2 garden (decided under PP27; Framework not cited) (DL 6-10) - **HO7: neutral.** no additional homes over the approved scheme, so unmet need attracts no weight (DL 12) ## Key facts - Ridge raised about 1.8m to 6.6m close to the southern boundary of 19a - SAMM reasons dropped (application pre-dated 1 April 2026 fee uplift); nitrate issue not reached ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a519c687-9931-4a9b-9d86-e74f4cf8053b - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010375 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010375.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 6 Marsh Road, Newton Abbot (veranda over River Lemon) - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Cooper-Young - **Authority:** Teignbridge (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010378 - **Application reference:** 25/01810/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective veranda and associated works extending over the River Lemon - **Site context:** inside-settlement, flood-zone-3 - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** F7 - **Development plan policies:** Teignbridge Local Plan EN6 - **Main issues:** flood risk and river maintenance - **Tags:** flood-risk, statutory-consultee-weight, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary A veranda built over the River Lemon was dismissed. Although exempt from the sequential test as minor householder development, it would impede Environment Agency access to flood defences and was unlikely to get a Flood Risk Activity Permit (DL ¶11-18). ## What made the difference The EA's specialist objection, given "significant weight" and not rebutted (DL ¶15). ## Policy findings - **F7: fail (significant weight).** structure over the river would impede EA access to a flood defence asset and increase flood risk; EA would not grant a FRAP (DL 13-18) ## Key facts - Parties consulted on the August 2026 Framework (DL 7) - Minor householder development, so not subject to the sequential test (DL 11) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010378 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f19e25d8-b162-4952-8589-8bf2b70a87a3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010378.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 10 Goodmayes Lane, Ilford - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F Bradley - **Authority:** Redbridge (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010379 - **Application reference:** 2482/25 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use from small HMO (C4) to large HMO (sui generis, 11 persons) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, near-station - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 30 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), TR6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Redbridge Local Plan LP5, LP6, LP23, LP26, LP29, London Plan 2021 D6, T6, T6.1, Housing Design SPD 2019 - **Main issues:** living conditions, parking and highway safety, location, neighbour amenity, loss of family dwelling - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, hmo, sustainable-location-pass, tr6-highway-safety, housing-shortfall, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Intensifying a small HMO in Ilford to an 11-person large HMO. Dismissed. The location passed TR3 (walkable shops and services, buses, Goodmayes station). But the undersized communal space (significant weight) and an unproven parking and turning layout (TR6(4), moderate weight) substantially outweighed the moderate benefits under S4. This was so even though the HDT results were very low: 24% (2024) and 30% (2025). ## What made the difference Undersized communal space for 11 occupants, and no swept-path evidence. A very poor HDT raised the housing benefit only to "moderate" for a single HMO conversion (DL ¶28, 33). ## Policy findings - **TR3: pass.** short walk to shops, buses and Goodmayes station; LP6 town-centre locational criterion breach given limited weight (DL 16-18) - **TR6(4): fail (moderate weight).** two spaces (over London Plan maximum), no tracking in a constrained yard; safe access not shown (DL 11-15, 32) - **S4(1): fail.** 8.2 sq m communal room against 21 sq m SPD (significant weight) plus highway harm substantially outweigh moderate housing benefits, despite HDT 24%/30% (DL 28, 31-34) ## Key facts - HDT 2024 24% and 2025 30% (results released with the new Framework) - 11 occupants; communal lounge 8.2 sq m including a shower room ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010379 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/34995ca6-29aa-4fe3-8b7f-91fc9802028c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010379.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Kings Way verge, Burgess Hill (17.5 m monopole, prior approval) - **Decision:** allowed, 27 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Wright - **Authority:** Mid Sussex (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010382 - **Application reference:** DM/26/0328 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** GPDO Part 16 Class A prior approval for a 17.5 m monopole with 6 antennas, 2 dishes, 3 cabinets and ancillary works on a suburban grass verge - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** CO1(1), CO1(1)(a), CO2(1)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Mid Sussex District Plan 2014-2031 DP23 - **Main issues:** siting and appearance, alternative sites - **Tags:** telecoms, prior-approval, co1-substantial-weight, alternative-sites, harm-outweighed ## Summary A prior approval appeal for a 17.5 m monopole on a suburban verge in Burgess Hill. The inspector found real visual harm: "dominant and incongruous", seen against the skyline. But the operator's exhaustive site search, which the council itself accepted left no realistic alternative, and the substantial weight CO1 gives to 4G/5G coverage outweighed that harm. Appeal allowed and prior approval granted. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "A new National Planning Policy Framework … was published on 17 August 2026. As this could affect the issues and matters in this case, the Council and the appellant were invited to make further comments" (DL ¶3). - **Siting and appearance: harm.** "Due to its height and location, the monopole and associated equipment would be particularly dominant and incongruous in views along Kings Way and from nearby houses where the top part of the installation would be seen against the skyline" (DL ¶10). The cabinets were acceptable (DL ¶12). - **CO1 / CO2.** "Policy CO1 of the Framework states that … substantial weight should be given to the benefits of improving network coverage, capacity, reliability and resilience" (DL ¶14). "Where a new site is proposed, Policy CO2 of the Framework requires evidence that the number of these is kept to a minimum" (DL ¶15). - **Alternatives: none realistic.** Twenty-two sites were assessed, and the council's two suggestions failed: the basketball court because of TPO trees and railway proximity, the field because of an extant care-home consent (DL ¶16-19). "The Council acknowledges that the appeal site represents the only realistic option within the defined search area. Based on the evidence before me, I agree" (DL ¶20). ## Planning balance This was the prior approval balance: harm against need, taking alternatives into account. "The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area … Nonetheless, the proposal would have significant benefits in providing improved 4G and new 5G coverage in the area, as supported by the Framework. Along with the lack of any suitable alternative sites in the search area, this outweighs the harm" (DL ¶21). ## What made the difference The site-search evidence, and the council's concession that there was no realistic alternative. Harm alone was not enough to refuse once CO1 substantial weight was combined with an exhausted search. Contrast Dovecot, Liverpool (PINS-6009085), where rejected alternatives were not adequately justified. ## Transferable points - In prior approval appeals, CO1 substantial weight plus a demonstrably exhausted CO2(1)(b) site search can outweigh clear visual harm from a new monopole (DL ¶14-21). - A long history of refused attempts to serve the same area helps show the search was genuine (DL ¶20). - Health, energy use and interference are not determining issues in Part 16 prior approval when an ICNIRP certificate is supplied (DL ¶22-23, ¶27). ## Policy findings - **CO1(1): benefit (substantial weight).** improved 4G and new 5G for VMO2 (DL ¶14, ¶16, ¶21) - **CO1(1)(a): pass.** no mast-sharing opportunities in the search area (DL ¶16) - **CO2(1)(b): pass.** 22 sites assessed plus the 2 the council suggested; council conceded the appeal site was the only realistic option; operator had sought coverage since 2016, with 3 refusals (DL ¶16-20) - **CO1(1)(b): harm.** "particularly dominant and incongruous"; top would be seen against the skyline above 8 m trees; cabinets acceptable (DL ¶10-13) - **CO1(1)(c): pass.** ICNIRP certificate; health is not a determining issue in prior approval (DL ¶22) - **DP23 (Mid Sussex DP): conflict.** material only so far as it bears on siting and appearance (DL ¶5, ¶13) ## Key facts - 17.5 m slimline grey monopole, under the 25 m permitted development ceiling (DL ¶8) - Suburban verge; streetlights and trees about 8 m high; no heritage or landscape designations (DL ¶7) - Alternatives rejected included a TPO-ringed basketball court within 50 m of a railway (monopoles cannot be sited there) and a field with consent for a care facility (DL ¶18-19) - Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010382 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ba613760-6d7a-4ede-8293-30d7a5e1ea9a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010382.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 285 High Road Leyton - **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Gardner - **Authority:** Waltham Forest (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010391 - **Application reference:** 252938 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Single-storey side and rear extensions to ground-floor commercial unit, new shopfront - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), DP3(3), S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Waltham Forest Local Plan Part 1 2024 Policies 45, 53, 72, 79, London Plan 2021 D4, HC1, G6 - **Main issues:** character and conservation area, biodiversity - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, design-refusal, e2-substantial-weight, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Side and rear extensions and a new shopfront to a corner commercial unit in the Leyton Town Centre Conservation Area. Dismissed. Heritage harm was "at the lower end of less than substantial" but of considerable weight, and not outweighed by moderate public benefits under HE6(4). In the S4 balance, E2 gave substantial weight to the commercial benefits, but the DP3(3) and heritage-policy failures meant the benefits were "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶31-33). ## What made the difference The failures under the Framework's refusal-type policies (DP3(3) and the HE policies) fed S4(2)(c). Even E2's substantial weight could not overcome them. Note the inspector gave the same benefits moderate weight in the heritage balance and substantial weight in the S4 balance. ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): harm (considerable weight).** lower end of less than substantial harm to Leyton Town Centre CA; dominant corner-plot rear extension, unbalanced shopfront; moderate public benefits do not outweigh (DL 11-19) - **E2: benefit (substantial weight).** E2(1)(a) substantial weight to additional commercial floorspace (DL 31) - **S4(1): fail.** failure of DP3(1)/(3), HE4, HE6 and HE9 means benefits substantially outweighed (DL 29-33) ## Key facts - Prominent corner plot in a three-storey parade; extensions would cover most of the site - BNG exempt; landscaping could be conditioned ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010391 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d37dfbf3-3326-442c-900c-bd591e4902b0 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010391.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Mulberry House, Middle Street, East Lambrook - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Butcher - **Authority:** Somerset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010393 - **Application reference:** 25/00931/OUT - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline for one single-storey custom-build dwelling in rear garden, planting, foul water upgrade - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.22 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), L2(1)(d)(i), DP3(3), S5(1)(j) - **Development plan policies:** South Somerset Local Plan 2015 SS1, SS2, EQ2, HG5 - **Main issues:** location and character - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s5-1-j, backland, design-refusal, l2-residential-curtilage, self-build, housing-shortfall, w4-water-quality, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary An outline custom-build bungalow in the rear garden of a house at the loose western edge of East Lambrook, reached by a long new access track. Dismissed. The inspector treated the garden as "likely" part of the settlement, so S4 applied. HO7 (supply only 2.22 years) and W4 (septic tank replacement) each attracted substantial weight. But the backland form failed L2(1)(d)(i) and DP3(1), and DP3(3) was "a key determinative feature". The harm substantially outweighed the benefits, and the result would have been the same under S5(1)(j). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were consulted (DL ¶2). - **Character: considerable harm.** "there was a very clear perception of moving away from the core of the small settlement towards the open countryside … backland style developments do not form part of the predominant character" (DL ¶7). The access track "would appear as an obvious and somewhat incongruous feature" (DL ¶9). The LVA "underplays the potential impacts to a significant degree" (DL ¶8). - **Settlement status.** "The site is well connected to existing built form, and given that it is part of an existing rear garden, it is likely that the site can be considered to form part of the settlement" (DL ¶19). - **W4.** "Given the proposal includes the replacement of an existing septic tank, this policy would also be triggered" (DL ¶19). - **L2(1)(d)(i): FAIL.** The unmade track in front "is still publicly accessible … The appellant's own evidence … confirms that the proposal would be visible from the site access" (DL ¶20). - **DP3(3).** "I am of the view that this is a key determinative feature of this appeal" (DL ¶21). ## Planning balance S4(1): "the identified level of harm would substantially outweigh the benefits of the proposal, even when affording substantial weight with regards to Policy HO7 and W4" (DL ¶22). In the alternative: "even if the site were considered to be outside of the settlement, and therefore that Policy S5(j) … was in play, the appeal would still fail" (DL ¶23). ## What made the difference Design, via DP3(3). A backland plot with a long, visible track at a soft settlement edge conflicted with both the L2(1)(d) street-scene test and DP3. With a 2.22-year supply, S4 or S5(1)(j) would otherwise have strongly favoured the scheme. A frontage plot would probably have passed. ## Transferable points - A rear garden at the edge of a small village can fall within the Annex B settlement, so S4 rather than S5 applies (DL ¶19). - L2(1)(d)(i) visibility is judged from any publicly accessible frontage, including an unmade track, and from PROWs (DL ¶20). - W4 substantial weight can be triggered by replacing an existing septic tank (DL ¶19). - A DP3(3) design failure can override *two* substantial-weight benefits (HO7 and W4) under S4 or S5(1)(j) (DL ¶21-23). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:settlement: pass.** rear garden well connected to built form "likely … part of the settlement", so S4 applied; S5(1)(j) considered in the alternative (DL 19, 23) - **L2(1)(d)(i): fail.** backland plot and long access track visible from a publicly accessible unmade track and PROWs; not consistent with the street scene (DL 20-21) - **DP3(3): fail.** "a key determinative feature"; backland suburban form erodes settlement-edge transition (DL 7-10, 21) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 2.22-year supply implies unmet need including custom-build (DL 6, 19) - **W4: benefit (substantial weight).** replacement of an existing septic tank triggers W4 substantial weight (DL 19) - **S5(1)(j): fail.** in the alternative, harm would still substantially outweigh benefits (DL 23) ## Key facts - Council supply 2.22 years - Edge of small rural settlement (pub and church); unusually long access track; LVA admits partial winter visibility from PROWs - Elderly appellants wanting to downsize; phosphate mitigation UU offered (Somerset Levels and Moors SPA) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010393 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/403ff1ec-3e13-4f5d-9641-8854f14d190f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010393.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pavement outside 42 New Street, Huddersfield - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Alec Hickey - **Authority:** Kirklees (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6010396 - **Application reference:** 2026/62/90544/W - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub with two 75-inch digital advert screens replacing a BT kiosk (Appeal A); advert consent Appeal B 6010399 (2026/64/90545/W) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Kirklees Local Plan 2019 LP17, LP24, LP35 - **Main issues:** conservation area and listed building settings, visual amenity (advert) - **Tags:** street-hub, digital-advertising, telecoms, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, less-than-substantial-legacy-wording, he6-harm-graded, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, old-wording-slip, drafting-slip ## Summary BT Street Hub replacing an old kiosk on pedestrianised New Street, Huddersfield, among four Grade II listed buildings in the town-centre conservation area. Both appeals dismissed. The parties were consulted on the 2026 Framework, yet the letter still grades the harm as "less than substantial". It then asks whether the benefits achieve "substantial public benefits", which is the test for substantial harm. ## Issues and findings - **Heritage — HE9 / HE6.** The hub "would be considerably more prominent, overt and intrusive than the kiosk currently in place. Its height, illuminated screen and changing displays would interrupt views along New Street and compete with the historic elevations" (DL ¶17). - **Grading.** "I find the harm to the CA and the listed buildings to be at the lower end of the scale of less than substantial, but nonetheless of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶20). - **Balance.** "even acknowledging the support in the Framework for high quality communications … these public benefits would be very modest and attract moderate weight … the identified benefits do not achieve substantial public benefits sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm" (DL ¶22). ## Planning balance HE6(4) harm against public benefits. Telecoms benefits got moderate weight, with no CO1 "substantial weight" (contrast PINS-6010352, where CO1 substantial weight was given but the benefits were called modest). ## What made the difference Replacing a kiosk one-for-one did not help, because the hub is taller, illuminated and animated in a street of listed frontages. It would sit right at the Imperial Arcade entrance framed by 42-48 New Street. ## Transferable points - A like-for-like replacement of street furniture does not neutralise harm where the replacement is materially taller and illuminated (DL ¶17). - Inconsistency across inspectors: some still use the "less than substantial" scale after 17 August 2026, and here the balance was framed as needing "substantial public benefits". That test belongs to substantial harm under HE6(5) (DL ¶20-22). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): harm (considerable weight).** grading — "at the lower end of the scale of less than substantial, but nonetheless of considerable importance and weight" (legacy LTS wording + HE6(3) phrase); s66/s72 cited; benefits "very modest", moderate weight; "do not achieve substantial public benefits sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm" — imports the HE6(5)/substantial-harm test (DL 5, 20-22) - **CO1: benefit (moderate weight).** Wi-Fi, 5G, charging, emergency access, sensors, renewable power — "very modest", moderate weight despite Framework support for communications (DL 21-22); no CO1 substantial-weight language - **HE9: harm.** taller illuminated hub in place of kiosk competes with historic elevations and Imperial Arcade entrance framed by Grade II 42-48 New Street (DL 16-18) ## Key facts - Hub directly replaces an existing kiosk — no net increase in clutter, but taller and illuminated (DL 15-17) - Settings of Grade II 34, 36, 40 and 42-48 New Street; pedestrianised street in Huddersfield Town Centre CA (DL 7-13) - Parties had the opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010396 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/bf27b6f5-8a45-4d28-a700-39aff0869ccc --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010396.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 41a Liverpool Road, Birkdale, Southport - **Decision:** allowed, 1 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Gravett - **Authority:** Sefton (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010397 - **Application reference:** DC/2025/01256 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** First-floor extension to form a two-bed flat above a hairdresser's - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, near-station - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), L2, CC2(2), TC2 - **Development plan policies:** A Local Plan for Sefton 2017 SD2 - **Main issues:** effect on neighbouring solar panels - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, l2-airspace, plan-conflict-overridden, solar-shading, conservation-area, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A first-floor flat above a single-storey hairdresser's in Birkdale village centre. The council refused it because it would shade the Post Office's solar panels next door. **Allowed.** The inspector found moderate harm to the panels' operation, which conflicted with local plan SD2 and cut against CC2(2). But under S4, one new home using airspace above a commercial unit (L2, substantial weight) was not "substantially outweighed". The Framework, "a material consideration of critical importance", justified departing from the plan. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The Framework is a material consideration of critical importance which should be taken into account from the day of publication" (DL ¶2). - **Solar shading: moderate harm.** The evidence was thin, but "Policy DM2 … states that additional information … should be proportionate … there would unlikely be a total, or even significant, loss in operation or performance" (DL ¶10). Conclusion: "a moderate harmful effect" (DL ¶11). - **CC2(2).** The harm "would fail to accord with Policy CC2 paragraph 2 … which requires that substantial weight be given to the benefits of improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings, including through the installation of solar panels" (DL ¶20). - **TC2.** No evidence the Post Office would close. TC2 "recognises that [vitality] can be achieved through … provision of residential accommodation" (DL ¶21). - **L2.** "substantial weight to the benefits of creating additional homes within settlements by using the airspace above existing commercial premises" (DL ¶22). ## Planning balance S4(1): "the benefit of creating an additional home in this location would not be substantially outweighed by the harmful effect on the operation of the solar panels … although I have found conflict with the development plan, the Framework is a material consideration of critical importance which indicates planning permission should be granted" (DL ¶23). ## What made the difference The harm was moderate, not significant, and the benefit engaged L2's specific airspace limb. The inspector used S4 as the material consideration overriding a plan conflict. Significant loss of solar output, or evidence of a threat to the Post Office, could have tipped the balance. ## Transferable points - Loss of a neighbour's solar output engages CC2(2), but moderate shading does not substantially outweigh an L2 airspace home (DL ¶20-23). - S4 can justify departing from the development plan (DL ¶23, 28). - DM2 proportionality means a small scheme is not refused for incomplete technical evidence where the likely effect can be judged (DL ¶10). - Appeal-stage evidence may be refused where neighbours have not seen it, even if the council has (DL ¶4). ## Policy findings - **CC2(2): harm.** moderate harm to operation of neighbour's (Post Office) roof solar panels through shading; conflicts with CC2(2) substantial weight to solar installations (DL 6-11, 20) - **L2: benefit (substantial weight).** new home using airspace above commercial premises, consistent with street scene, acceptable living standards (DL 22) - **TC2: benefit.** residential intensification supports centre vitality; no evidence the Post Office would close (DL 21) - **DM2: neutral.** information should be proportionate; incomplete solar evidence not fatal for a small scheme (DL 10) - **S4(1): pass.** moderate solar harm does not substantially outweigh one airspace home; Framework outweighs plan conflict (DL 19, 23) ## Key facts - Only conflict was with Sefton SD2 (climate change / best use of resources) due to shading of neighbour's panels - Appeal-stage solar evidence rejected as neighbours may not have seen it - In Birkdale Village CA; design matches the adjoining house, CA preserved ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010397 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fac227f2-5d07-4ae3-acc0-3ad2ca89ede3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010397.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Windmill Farmhouse, Carlton Road, Wilbarston - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Chris Couper - **Authority:** North Northamptonshire (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010401 - **Application reference:** 25/01457/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of two agricultural buildings and erection of two dwellings - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(4), DP3 - **Development plan policies:** North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2016 Policies 1, 8, 11, 13, 29, Kettering Site Specific Part 2 Local Plan 2021 RS5 - **Main issues:** location, design and character - **Tags:** s5-4-exceptional, class-q-fallback, fallback, design-refusal, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Two new dwellings replacing two steel-framed farm buildings in the countryside outside Wilbarston, argued mainly on a Class Q fallback for two dwellings in the Dutch barn. Dismissed. The appellant conceded no S5(1) category applied, so S5(4) governed. The fallback neutralised the locational (car-dependence) objection, but not the design harm: the new houses were bulky, suburban in layout and poorly proportioned. They were "significantly more harmful" to character than the Class Q conversion, and there were no exceptional circumstances. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were consulted (DL ¶2). - **Location.** "there is no roadside footpath or street lighting between the site and the village, and the future occupants … would be largely reliant on the private car" (DL ¶6). - **S5 route.** "The appellant acknowledges that the proposal does not fall within any of the listed categories at Policy S5(1)" (DL ¶5). - **Design / DP3: FAIL.** "their substantial size, their width and extensive shallow pitched roof would give them an awkward and bulky form" (DL ¶8). Together with garages, fencing and tarmac, they would have "a markedly suburban appearance" (DL ¶9). - **Fallback.** Class Q "constitutes a lawful fallback, to which I attribute significant weight" (DL ¶14). Its occupants "would be equally dependent on the private car", but it re-uses a typical rural structure with a "very tightly drawn residential curtilage" (DL ¶15). Overall the appeal scheme is "significantly more harmful" (DL ¶17). ## Planning balance S5(4): "the scheme's limited benefits and the fallback of the PAS, do not amount to exceptional circumstances which would substantially outweigh its adverse effects on the character of the countryside" (DL ¶21). Housing had limited weight because the fallback delivers the same number of homes (DL ¶18). ## What made the difference Design quality. A Class Q fallback can cancel out the sustainability-of-location objection, but then the comparison turns on character. Here the new-build was bulkier and more suburban than the conversion. A scheme closely matching the barn form, on a tight curtilage, might have succeeded. ## Transferable points - With a like-for-like Class Q fallback, car-dependence becomes a neutral factor and the S5(4) comparison turns on countryside character (DL ¶15, 19-21). - Where the fallback delivers the same number of homes, the housing benefit gets limited weight (DL ¶18). - Inspector found both spatial-strategy conflict and "significant harm" to character, and expressly tied the DP3 conflict to "well-designed, visually attractive development, which responds to its context, and integrates with and enhances its surroundings" (DL ¶12) — DP3(3) refusal direction not invoked by name. - Suburban layout (double garages, tall fencing, tarmac) and pseudo-agricultural forms with the wrong proportions fail DP3 in open countryside (DL ¶8-9). ## Policy findings - **S5(1): not-engaged.** appellant accepted no S5(1) category applied (DL 5) - **S5(4): fail.** limited benefits plus Class Q fallback (significant weight) not exceptional circumstances substantially outweighing countryside character harm (DL 14-21) - **DP3: fail.** bulky, shallow-pitched pseudo-barns with suburban layout, garages, fencing and tarmac (DL 8-12) - **TR3: fail.** no roadside footpath or lighting to Wilbarston; car reliant, same as the fallback (DL 6, 15, 19) - **Kettering Part 2 LP RS5: conflict.** 1960s steel barns treated as 'historic farm buildings'; retention not shown impossible (DL 13) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** only two units and Class Q fallback delivers similar quantity; HO7 not named in letter (DL 18) ## Key facts - Class Q prior approval (NK/2025/0006) to convert the Dutch barn to two dwellings; real prospect, significant weight - Existing 1960s steel barns treated as "historic farm buildings" for local policy RS5 - Housing land supply figure not stated in the letter; letter does not name HO7 or TR3 (TR3 finding above is inferred from DL 6) - Some distance beyond the Wilbarston boundary; no footway or lighting ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010401 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/cab5bff2-6f07-4222-92a8-1c69aca917c9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010401.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pigeon Farm Cottage, Cold Harbour Lane, Bobbing - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Knight - **Authority:** Swale (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010408 - **Application reference:** 25/502501/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Temporary (three-year, retrospective) change of use of garden land to store plant, machinery and equipment - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(b), S5(4) - **Development plan policies:** Swale Borough Local Plan 2017 ST3, DM3, DM14, CP1, CP4 - **Main issues:** suitable location, character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, s5-1-b-necessity, s5-4-exceptional, alternative-sites, retrospective, temporary-permission, local-policy-consistency, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A three-year temporary plant and equipment yard in a countryside garden near Sittingbourne. Dismissed: the business was not shown to need a countryside location under S5(1)(b), available town premises were not properly discounted, and S5(4) exceptional circumstances were absent. The yard also harmed the rural character. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties have been given the opportunity to comment" (DL ¶3). - **Plan consistency.** "I do not consider there to be any material inconsistency between the Local Plan and the Framework; In both cases, policy support depends on whether it is necessary for the business to operate from the appeal site" (DL ¶8). - **S5(1)(b): FAIL.** "That he has such an intention confirms me in the view that there is no evident necessity for the business to operate from the appeal site" (DL ¶10). - **S5(4): FAIL.** "The considerations listed above do not comprise such exceptional circumstances" (DL ¶24). - **Accessibility.** "I cannot be certain, therefore, that locating the business at the appeal site would not result in a greater likelihood of car dependency than the alternatives" (DL ¶23). - **Character: HARM** (DL ¶29, ¶33). ## Planning balance S5(4): the jobs and temporary nature carry minimal weight; no exceptional circumstances (DL ¶19–20, ¶24). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶34). ## What made the difference The necessity test. The appellant's own plan to move within three years showed the location was not necessary, and the alternative-sites evidence did not explain why listed premises were unsuitable. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(b) "shown to be necessary" fails where the applicant intends to relocate anyway (DL ¶7, ¶10). - Alternatives must be discounted with evidence of the business's size, cost and location needs (DL ¶11–14). - Services near a site that make it sustainable for housing do not show a business needs to be there (DL ¶21). - Temporary permission carries little weight without evidence of what will change (DL ¶20). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(b): fail.** nothing inherent in the business needing this site; appellant intends to relocate within 3 years; alternative Sittingbourne premises not properly discounted (DL 7, 9-17, 25) - **S5(1)(j): fail.** no evidenced unmet need shown (DL 7, 25) - **S5(4): fail.** no exceptional circumstances; benefits (12 jobs, temporary nature) given minimal weight (DL 18-20, 24) - **Transitional(2): neutral.** no material inconsistency between DM3(1)(b) and S5(1)(b); both turn on necessity and alternatives (DL 8) - **TR3: neutral.** 13-minute walk to bus stops; no evidence on connectivity of alternatives, so no locational advantage shown (DL 21, 23) - **LP ST3/DM3/DM14/CP4 (local): conflict.** incongruous commercial storage eroding openness and rural character; surrounding commercial uses mostly unauthorised (DL 27-33) ## Key facts - Business employs 12; office adjoins the site (DL 18, 22) - Estate agent list of available premises; reasons for rejection unevidenced (DL 11-14) - Nearby commercial uses largely unauthorised, enforcement commenced; assessed against authorised uses only (DL 27-28) - Parties given opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010408 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9ffa5052-13f8-47d2-b71d-b5a17990c881 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010408.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Berry Cross, Peters Marland - **Decision:** dismissed, 20 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Cooper-Young - **Authority:** Torridge (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010409 - **Application reference:** 1/0031/2026/AGMB - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class Q prior approval, agricultural building to 1 dwellinghouse with building operations - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM9 - **Main issues:** whether permitted development - **Tags:** tier-2, prior-approval, class-q, inspector-raised-own-ground, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary Class Q barn-to-dwelling prior-approval appeal, dismissed on a point the Inspector raised herself. The barn's 1997 permission restricted it to agricultural use "only and for no other purpose", and under Article 3(4) that impliedly excludes PD rights (DL ¶¶10–14). The new Framework was noted as not raising determinative matters (DL ¶5). ## What made the difference The word "only" in the use condition "evinced an intention to identify an acceptable use, whilst prohibiting unacceptable uses" (DL ¶12). The Class Q limitations were never reached. A separate costs decision was issued. ## Policy findings - **DM9: not-engaged.** GPDO Article 3(4) — 1997 condition "used for agricultural purposes only and for no other purpose" impliedly excludes Class Q; Framework "does not raise any new matters which are determinative" (DL 5, 10-14) ## Key facts - 1997 permission 1/1407/97/34/0017 condition limited the barn to agriculture "only and for no other purpose" - Inspector raised the condition point on her own initiative and sought parties' views ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/84d65f51-e6ea-49a7-bbe2-af06eb27c44a - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010409 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010409.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land to the South of Telegraph Road, Caldy - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Evans - **Authority:** Wirral (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010411 - **Application reference:** PIP/25/01491 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for up to three dwellings on horse-grazing paddocks next to a ribbon of houses on Telegraph Road - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(c), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Wirral Local Plan 2022-2040 (adopted 2025) WS1 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, VSC balance - **Tags:** PIP, openness-harm, vsc-not-shown, infill-rejected, small-scheme, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Permission in principle for up to three houses on paddocks in the Wirral Green Belt, beside a ribbon of houses on Telegraph Road near Caldy. Both parties accepted Caldy as a village and the scheme as limited, but the inspector found the ribbon visually separate from the village and the site bounded by houses on one side only, so it was not limited infilling in a village under GB7(1)(c). Inappropriate development with modest openness harm; limited housing weight; no VSC. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Both parties have had an opportunity to comment. My decision has been made on the basis of the revised Framework" (DL ¶5). - **GB7(1)(c): FAIL.** "the ribbon of development appears distinctly separate to the village" (DL ¶9). "As a result, development of the site would not appear as an infill development" (DL ¶10). "The appeal site before me has residential development to just one side of the site only" (DL ¶19). - **Openness: HARM.** "this would be modest given the small scale of the proposal. Nevertheless, the proposal conflicts with the purposes of the Green Belt and substantial weight should be given to the harm" (DL ¶15). - **Housing: limited weight.** No shortfall evidence and dwelling types unknown (DL ¶16). - **Weight slip.** The balance says the harm "attracts significant weight, in line with Policy GB 6 of the Framework" (DL ¶21), where DL ¶15 and GB6 say substantial. Immaterial. ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. "Other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt" (DL ¶21). ## What made the difference The visual break between the Telegraph Road ribbon and the main village, and the lack of houses on both sides. The grey-belt route was not argued. ## Transferable points - GB7(1)(c) infill needs the site to read as part of the village and as a gap within it; a ribbon visually separated by green space and trees is not the village (DL ¶9–11). - Development on one side only is not infilling, and earlier infill decisions with houses on both sides are distinguishable (DL ¶19). - An accessible location with footway and lighting is neutral, not a benefit, in a Green Belt VSC balance (DL ¶17). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(c): fail.** Caldy agreed to be a village and the scheme limited, but the Telegraph Road ribbon reads as separate from the village behind green space and mature trees, and the site has houses on one side only; not infilling (DL 8-12, 19) - **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** modest visual and spatial openness harm; substantial weight at DL 15 but "significant weight" at DL 21; VSC not shown (DL 13-15, 21) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** no evidence of a supply shortfall; dwelling types unknown at PIP stage (DL 16) ## Key facts - Footway and streetlights along Telegraph Road; site described as accessible; neutral (DL 9, 17) - Comparator infill appeals (APP/V1505/W/21/3283535, APP/F2360/W/20/3244797) had development on both sides (DL 19) - Grey belt route under GB7(1)(g) not argued ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010411 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ef347da6-5e6b-461e-bbe8-f9eecb8d946a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010411.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Stonewood, Almshouse Hill, Bramham - **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Ryan Cowley - **Authority:** Leeds (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6010416 - **Application reference:** 26/01387/FU - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of land to garden, first-floor and single-storey side extensions, balcony, parking, gabions - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Leeds Core Strategy 2019 SP13, P10, P11, P12, T2, G9, UDPR 2006 GP5, N19, N20, LD1, Bramham cum Oglethorpe NDP 2018-2033 NE2, H3, H5 - **Main issues:** heritage and character, highway safety, BNG - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, bng-exemption-not-shown, householder, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Substantial extensions and a garden extension onto "transitional land" at a prominent hillside house in the Bramham Conservation Area, above the Grade II war memorial. Dismissed. The inspector did not re-consult because the relevant policy had "not substantively changed" (DL ¶2). Moderate heritage harm, risk to TPO trees, unsafe reversing manoeuvres and an unsupported BNG exemption substantially outweighed the largely private benefits under S4 (DL ¶38-39). ## What made the difference Mainly the elevated, prominent position: doubling the first-floor width made a neutral building dominant over the historic core. The BNG exemption failed because the application described the extra land as "transitional land", undermining the claim that it was already garden (DL ¶32-34). ## Policy findings - **HE6: harm.** moderate harm to Bramham CA and setting of Grade II war memorial; extensions double first-floor width on prominent hillside; TPO woodland at risk; very modest public benefits (DL 9-20) - **N2: fail.** more than 25 sq m of habitat affected, including "transitional land" not shown to be garden; no BNG information (DL 29-35) - **S4(1): fail.** heritage, trees, highway safety (reversing on a narrow hill) and BNG failure substantially outweigh private benefits (DL 37-39) ## Key facts - Elevated late-20th-century house above the village core and war memorial - Parking layout forces long reversing on a narrow shared hill; highway authority objected ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010416 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/91761df2-af45-4819-8eaf-e34df9412406 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010416.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south of Darlifields, Heywood Road, Tibenham (two self-build dwellings, outline) - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Glasin - **Authority:** South Norfolk (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010418 - **Application reference:** 2025/3159 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline permission (access only) for two self-build dwellings with a shared access, beside a dwelling and agricultural buildings on a narrow country road - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(e), S5(1)(j)(i), S5 - **Development plan policies:** Greater Norwich Local Plan 2024 Policies 2, 7.5, South Norfolk Local Plan Development Management Policies 2015 DM1.4, DM3.8, DM3.10 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, sustainable form of development - **Tags:** s5-1-e-infill, infill-rejected, s5-1-j, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, self-build, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, old-balance-wording, old-wording-slip, drafting-slip, letter-internal-inconsistency ## Summary Two self-build dwellings beside a house and farm buildings on a narrow Norfolk lane, about 5 miles from Diss. The inspector found an unwarranted incursion into a sparsely settled area, heavy car dependence on a lane without footpaths or lighting, and no support from S5(1)(e) or S5(1)(j)(i). The letter's S5(1)(e) reasoning contradicts itself and its conclusion uses the 2024 "significantly and demonstrably" formula (DL ¶24). Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Annex 1A makes clear that the appeal proposal should be assessed against this version of the Framework" (DL ¶5). - **Character.** "It would therefore represent an unwarranted incursion of residential development into the rural landscape" (DL ¶11). - **S5(1)(e).** The site "does not constitute an infill plot, but an extension of built development into the countryside", yet "the development falls within the scope of S5(e) of the Framework" (DL ¶12); then "the adverse effects of the development would substantially outweigh the benefits" so there is no support (DL ¶12). Code it as a fail. - **Access.** "it is acknowledged that the Framework recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas" (DL ¶17), which is 2024 wording. But "The absence of safe walking and cycling routes would not promote travelling by foot, cycling or wheeling. Consequently, future occupants of this development would be heavily reliant on the use of a private car" (DL ¶18). - **S5(1)(j)(i): FAIL.** "the development is not physically well related to an existing settlement and therefore fails to satisfy criterion j(i)" (DL ¶20). ## Planning balance S5, with categories (e) and (j) rejected. Benefits modest. The conclusion is 2024 wording: "the harm arising from the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole" (DL ¶24). Incidental: no category was met, so S5(4) would require the benefits to substantially outweigh the harm, and they plainly did not. ## What made the difference Remoteness (5 miles to Diss) and a lane with no footways or lighting, plus a site that extended development into open countryside rather than infilling. ## Transferable points - Not a clean authority. The S5(1)(e) and balance paragraphs are muddled; rely on DL ¶18 (car reliance) and DL ¶20 ((j)(i) not physically well related) only. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(e): fail.** letter finds the site not an infill plot, then says it falls within the scope of S5(e) as part of a group, then that adverse effects substantially outweigh so no support; internally inconsistent (DL 12) - **S5(1)(j)(i): fail.** not physically well related to an existing settlement; Diss about 5 miles (DL 17, 20) - **TR3: fail.** mapped - TR3 not cited; narrow road without footpaths or lighting, heavy car reliance; 2024 "vary between urban and rural areas" acknowledged but not relied on (DL 17-18) - **DP3(1): harm.** mapped - unwarranted incursion into a sparsely settled rural area; conflict with local policies; no DP3 or DP3(3) step (DL 11, 14-15) - **S5: fail.** concluded in 2024 wording - harm would significantly and demonstrably outweigh benefits (DL 24) ## Key facts - Nearest services in Diss, about 5 miles (DL 17) - Tree reason for refusal withdrawn after an arboricultural assessment; GIRAMS obligation acceptable if executed (unsigned) (DL 3-4) - Parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework; no comments received (DL 5) - Benefits (housing, self-build plots, construction) given "some weight" and described as modest (DL 22) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010418 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/022bf89d-ed13-409b-8829-32e072f04701 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010418.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 40 Millers Lane, Harpley (self-build dwelling) - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Dring - **Authority:** King's Lynn and West Norfolk (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010422 - **Application reference:** 26/00172/F - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** One self-build dwelling on a grass field adjoining the development boundary of Harpley - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(4), DP3(3), TR6(4), S5(1)(j)(i) - **Development plan policies:** King's Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan 2021-2040 LP01, LP02, LP03, LP06, LP13, LP18, LP21, LP31 - **Main issues:** suitable location - spatial strategy and character, highway safety and accessibility, self-build provision - **Tags:** self-build, s5-1-j, s5-4-exceptional, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, tr6-highway-safety, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tr3-1a-small-scale ## Summary A self-build house on a field at the edge of Harpley, Norfolk, was dismissed. Self-build need was evidenced and the UU could secure it, so S5(1)(j) was in play, but the character harm and highway danger on a single-track lane made the nature of the development inappropriate there, failing (j)(i). Under S5(4), substantial weight to self-build did not substantially outweigh substantial weight to an unjustified DP3 conflict, considerable weight to TR6(4) safety harm and moderate TR3 harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Both parties have had the opportunity to comment on the new Framework" (DL ¶8). - **Character: SIGNIFICANT HARM.** "the erosion of the rural character and appearance of the site at the settlement edge, alongside the incongruity with the settlement pattern to which it would sit adjacent would result in significant harm" (DL ¶18). - **Highway safety, TR6(4): FAIL.** "Millers Lane is so narrow that cars are unable to pass each other, whilst remaining fully on the carriageway" (DL ¶21). "It would therefore result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety contrary to Policy TR6:4 of the Framework, to which I attribute considerable weight" (DL ¶50). - **Accessibility, TR3: moderate harm.** "There is no separate footway along Millers Lane or Short Lane, nor is there any lighting along the majority of the route" (DL ¶25); "some may struggle to do that, including those with limited mobility or those with young children" (DL ¶25). "the development would not generate a significant amount of movement, given its small scale" (DL ¶49), but moderate negative weight (DL ¶49). - **S5(1)(j).** "there does not appear to be a requirement set out in the Framework on the level of contribution that a proposal might make to an evidenced unmet need" (DL ¶41). But "the nature of the development would be inappropriate in this location and therefore criterion j. would not be satisfied" (DL ¶42). - **DP3(3).** "I do not find that the conflict with this Framework policy has been justified in the evidence before me. I therefore attribute substantial weight to the conflict with Policy DP3:1" (DL ¶48). - **Self-build.** "Given the evidenced unmet need in relation to SBCB provision, I attribute substantial weight to the proposal, in line with Framework Policy HO7:1" (DL ¶44). - **Neutral factors.** Lack of harm on ecology, drainage and similar matters is neutral (DL ¶46). ## Planning balance S5(4) exceptional circumstances: benefits must substantially outweigh harm. For: SBCB (substantial), economic and environmental (limited). Against: DP3 conflict (substantial), TR6(4) (considerable), N2(1) ("medium"), TR3 (moderate). "the benefits would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects, when considering them in combination" (DL ¶51). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶52). ## What made the difference A single-track lane with no passing places, footway or lighting, and a set-back plot that broke the village's roadside pattern. Even with evidenced self-build need, a secured UU and substantial weight, those harms were too many for the S5(4) test. A frontage plot on a wider road with a footway could have passed (j)(i). ## Transferable points - S5(1)(j) sets no minimum contribution to the unmet need; one self-build plot can qualify (DL ¶41). - S5(1)(j)(i) "nature of the development would make this inappropriate" read to include character and highway harm, even where the site adjoins the settlement (DL ¶40, ¶42). - A single dwelling can fail TR6(4) where it adds traffic to a lane too narrow for vehicles to pass (DL ¶21, ¶24, ¶50). - TR3 for one dwelling: not significant movement, yet a 600 m unlit route with no footway still counts as moderate harm in an S5(4) balance (DL ¶25, ¶49). - DP3(3) applied inside S5(4): an unjustified DP3(1) conflict given substantial weight (DL ¶48). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): pass.** evidenced unmet self-build need (appellant claims 243-plot shortfall; Council concedes supply not met); no minimum contribution required by the Framework (DL 31, 39-41) - **S5(1)(j)(i): fail.** physically adjacent and of limited scale, but character and highway harm make "the nature of the development … inappropriate in this location" (DL 42) - **S5(4): fail.** benefits do not substantially outweigh the adverse effects; no exceptional circumstances (DL 43, 51) - **DP3(1): conflict (substantial weight).** set-back siting, oversized garden and close-boarded fence by the PRoW at odds with linear roadside pattern; erodes rural edge; significant harm (DL 13-18, 48) - **DP3(3): fail.** explicit - conflict with DP3(1) not justified on the evidence; given substantial weight in the S5(4) balance (DL 48) - **N2(1)(a): harm.** at odds with N2(1) (natural beauty of the countryside); "medium weight" (not a standard weight word) as effects localised (DL 47) - **TR3: harm (moderate weight).** one dwelling not significant movement; 600 m walk to Nethergate Street on narrow lanes with no footway or lighting, unattractive for many, esp. limited mobility or young children; TR3(1)(e) rural opportunities noted; moderate negative weight (DL 25-28, 49) - **TR6(4): fail (considerable weight).** Millers Lane too narrow for cars to pass; verge used; six trips a day increase conflict with pedestrians and cyclists; no severe capacity impact (DL 20-24, 50) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** HO7(1) substantial weight to SBCB given evidenced unmet need; UU dated 30 Jul 2026 could secure it (DL 32, 44) - **LP LP02 (local): conflict.** Harpley (tier 5) requirement of one dwelling already exceeded by 16 permissions; outside development boundary (DL 10-12) ## Key facts - Harpley is a tier 5 rural village; site outside but adjacent to the development boundary (DL 10) - Amended plans and a late traffic survey not accepted (DL 3-5) - Services (school, church, pub, village hall, bus stops) about 600 m via Millers Lane and Short Lane (DL 25) - Restricted visibility at the Back Street junction is an existing constraint (DL 22) - Pre-application advice more positive but superseded by the new Local Plan (DL 34) - AA not needed as dismissed (DL 53) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010422 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010422.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Wharfedale Cottage, Wath Lane, Ulleskelf (PiP 1 dwelling) - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Hatch - **Authority:** North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6010426 - **Application reference:** ZG2026/0114/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for one detached dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Selby District Local Plan ENV1, T1, Selby Core Strategy SP19 - **Main issues:** location - highway safety, amount, land use - **Tags:** PIP, transitional, old-wording-slip, highway-safety, housing-shortfall, tier-2 ## Summary Permission in principle for one house at a rural junction in Ulleskelf was dismissed on highway safety (inadequate visibility splays). The inspector applied the December 2024 tilted balance, finding the harm "significantly and demonstrably outweigh[ed]" the benefit of one home (DL ¶13, ¶18-22). ## What made the difference The unsafe junction access (DL ¶13). The letter, dated the day the new Framework took effect, runs the old paragraph 11(d) test with no reference to the new Framework. ## Policy findings - **TR6(4): fail (substantial weight).** substandard visibility at a multi-road junction; DMRB splays not met; assessed under 2024 Framework wording (DL 9-14, 21) - **S5: not-engaged.** decided under 2024 para 11(d)(ii) tilted balance - "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" (DL 18, 22) ## Key facts - Council cannot show a 5-year supply (DL 18) - Decision dated 17 Aug 2026 but applies 2024 para 11(d) and the 2024 WMS; no mention of the new Framework (DL 18-22) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010426 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c178e38b-b23c-4e25-b14a-e416aa0ab3e3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010426.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 30 Cranleigh Close, Cheshunt - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Pattison - **Authority:** Broxbourne (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010428 - **Application reference:** 07/26/0156/F - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective change of use of amenity land to residential garden and erection of boundary fence - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** Broxbourne Local Plan 2020 DSC1, DSC3, DSC6, ORC3 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, public safety on footpaths - **Tags:** tier-2, retrospective, amenity-land-loss, transitional-no-consultation, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary Retrospective enclosure of an estate amenity corner as garden with a tall fence. Dismissed on character grounds and because it creates a blind corner where public footpaths meet. On transition the inspector said the Framework changes were "not fundamental to matters which are determinative" (DL ¶2). The decision rests wholly on development plan policy. ## What made the difference The loss of the visual break, and natural surveillance at the footpath crossroads. Planting could not restore the visibility (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **DSC1 / ORC3 (Broxbourne LP): conflict.** tall panel fence encloses open amenity space at footpath crossroads — "cramped and intrusive" (DL 7-8) - **P5: fail.** fence creates blind corner at footpath junction; users likely to feel less safe (DL 10-12); letter cites only LP DSC6 — code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Fence erected by previous owner, in place over five years; appellants bought in good faith (DL 15) - Earlier similar approvals pre-dated the 2020 Local Plan (DL 13) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010428 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d892e94b-4e91-4985-ae4c-1cdff08e5899 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010428.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 16 Wellington Drive, Bracknell - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Megan Thomas KC - **Authority:** Bracknell Forest (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010429 - **Application reference:** 25/00557/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Dropped kerb, paved driveway, low fence, change of use of amenity land to garden - **Site context:** inside-settlement, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Bracknell Forest Local Plan 2024 Policies 25, 28, 53, 54, Bracknell Town Neighbourhood Plan HO4 - **Main issues:** character and trees, highway safety, BNG - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, tr6-highway-safety, bng-exemption-not-shown, householder, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A driveway, crossover and fencing on open-plan frontage land at a Bracknell New Town estate house opposite a primary school. Dismissed on three grounds. The fencing would harm the estate's open frontages and risk the roots of TPO trees. The visibility splay was over land outside the appellant's control, next to the school entrance. And no BNG metric was provided. The benefits were substantially outweighed under S4 (DL ¶16). ## What made the difference Road safety next to the school entrance, which cannot be managed by occupier intent because permission runs with the land (DL ¶12). The missing BNG information was an independent failure that a condition could not cure. ## Policy findings - **S4(1): fail.** harm to open New Town frontages and TPO roots, visibility splay over third-party land opposite a primary school entrance, no BNG metric (DL 7-16) - **N2: fail.** more than 25 sq m habitat affected; no 10% BNG evidence; not conditionable (DL 14-15) ## Key facts - Opposite the Harmans Water Primary School entrance; splay land outside appellant's control - Corpus HO4 tag is the Neighbourhood Plan's HO4, not the Framework's ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010429 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4408f2eb-ef4a-47a0-9f68-48830c9a2ca3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010429.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Regency House, 65 New Bridge Street, Leicester - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Richard Snow - **Authority:** Leicester (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010430 - **Application reference:** 20251872 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of B2 factory to car repair workshop and MOT centre (sui generis) (retrospective) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Leicester Local Plan 2020-2036 (adopted 9 June 2026) T07 - **Main issues:** highway safety - **Tags:** tier-2, highway-safety-fail, retrospective, conditions-unenforceable, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Retrospective change of use of a factory to an MOT and repair garage on a narrow residential-commercial street. Dismissed for "significant harm to highway safety through the parking and manoeuvring of cars on the public highway" (DL ¶21). The only Framework input was the conditions tests, which a vehicle management plan could not meet (DL ¶16). The parties were not consulted on the new Framework as the changes were "not material" (DL ¶5). ## What made the difference The Inspector saw on site that the operation could not fit within the building. The proposed management condition depended on third-party land and customer behaviour outside the appellant's control (DL ¶¶10, 16–17). ## Policy findings - **TR6(4): fail (significant weight).** 4 spaces for repair, storage, collection and 5 staff; cars displaced onto narrow street with no turning head; decided under plan T07 (DL 13-21) - **DM6: fail.** vehicle management plan condition unenforceable and outside appellant's control — "would not meet the tests of the new Framework" (DL 16) - **E1: benefit.** local service, jobs, reuse of vacant floorspace — do not overcome harm (DL 20) ## Key facts - At the site visit 6+ cars were inside, more in the sports-ground car park, and cars were parked temporarily on street - Parking on sports club land was a rolling one-month informal arrangement, given little weight ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/12422054-698b-4b22-83ae-130cf4129ae9 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010430 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010430.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Footway outside 8 Matmer House, Hull Road, York (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Chris Pipe - **Authority:** York (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6010433 - **Application reference:** 26/00439/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub with digital advert panels on a shared footway near a cycle route (linked advert appeal 6010434) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P5, TR6 - **Development plan policies:** City of York Local Plan D13, T1 - **Main issues:** highway and public safety - **Tags:** telecoms, street-hub, transitional-no-consultation, highway-safety, tier-2 ## Summary A BT Street Hub and its adverts on a Hull Road footway in York were dismissed. The unit would harm pedestrian and cyclist safety where the footway meets a cycle route (DL ¶12-13). ## What made the difference The site-specific footway geometry and cycle movements. The public benefits of the hub could not outweigh the safety harm (DL ¶14, ¶16). ## Policy findings - **P5: fail.** unacceptable effect on pedestrian and cyclist safety on the footway and nearby cycle route; conflicts with "public safety objectives of the Framework" (DL 12-13) - **CO1: benefit.** hub benefits (wifi, emergency calls, sensors) given weight but do not outweigh the safety harm (DL 16) ## Key facts - Inspector proceeded under the 2026 Framework without consultation, finding no prejudice (DL 4) - Advert benefits irrelevant under the Advertisement Regulations, which cover amenity and public safety only (DL 17) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010433 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/0aaef2ee-d4b2-4c73-bcf0-06cb77da7253 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010433.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Unit 116, The Burrows, East Goscote (noise condition) - **Decision:** allowed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Richard Snow - **Authority:** Charnwood (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010437 - **Application reference:** P/25/1892/2 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Appeal against condition 3 (noise assessment and mitigation within one month) on a retrospective permission for an external ventilation system and three A/C units on an industrial unit - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM6 - **Development plan policies:** Charnwood Local Plan 2021-37 DS4 - **Main issues:** whether the condition is reasonable and necessary - **Tags:** tier-2, conditions-appeal, conditions-unenforceable, noise, retrospective, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Appeal against a noise condition on a retrospective permission for ventilation plant on an industrial unit. Allowed. The condition was needed in principle, but it failed the DM6 tests: the timescale was unreasonable, mitigation was required whatever the assessment found, and there was no sanction. It was replaced with a condition requiring the approved acoustic surround to be installed within three months, or the use of the ventilation system to stop. ## Issues and findings - **DM6.** "Furthermore, given the retrospective nature of the planning permission, a sanction for not complying with the condition was essential, and without it, the condition is unenforceable. I therefore find that the condition is neither reasonable nor enforceable. Accordingly, it does not meet the tests for planning conditions set out in Policy DM6 of the National Planning Policy Framework" (DL ¶12). ## Transferable points - A condition on a retrospective permission needs a sanction (cessation or removal) to be enforceable (DL ¶11-12). - Requiring mitigation regardless of what a required assessment finds is unreasonable (DL ¶10). ## Policy findings - **DM6: fail.** condition necessary in principle, but a one-month deadline was unreasonable, mitigation was not tied to the assessment's findings, and with no sanction the condition was unenforceable; replaced with a condition requiring the approved acoustic surround within three months or cessation of use (DL 9-13) ## Key facts - Nearest homes 70-90 m away; fan noise audible at them (DL 6, 9) - The acoustic surround shown on the approved plans had not been installed (DL 4) - Council submitted no appeal statement (DL 4) - [object Object] ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010437 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/876f9913-8285-4fac-b193-a6cc245e1cfd --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010437.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land west of Pits Mingle Bungalow, Tregoss Moor, Roche - **Decision:** dismissed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Nick Davies - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010442 - **Application reference:** PA25/07857 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for one self-build dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.9 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), S5(1)(e), S5(4), TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan 2016 Policies 2, 3, 7, 21, Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1, T1, Roche Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2018 A1 - **Main issues:** suitability of location - PIP stage 1 - **Tags:** PIP, s5-1-j, s5-1-e-infill, s5-4-exceptional, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, housing-shortfall, self-build, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Permission in principle for one self-build home on grassland next to a small cluster of buildings west of Roche, beyond the new A391 bypass. Dismissed. Cornwall's supply was 3.9 years and HO7 carried substantial weight. But the site was not physically well-related to Roche, so S5(1)(j) did not apply. Building next to the last house would *extend* the group rather than infill within it, so S5(1)(e) failed. The walking route (900 m, unlit, no footway, then an unsignalised four-lane crossing at a roundabout) was a TR3 failure given substantial weight, and S5(4) was not met. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties commented on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶5). - **Relationship to Roche.** "The small cluster of buildings is not a settlement in its own right, and the site is a considerable distance away from the built-up edge of Roche … There is … a substantial tract of land between the western edge of the settlement and the new highway" (DL ¶10). - **TR3: FAIL.** "the walking route to the centre of the village … is about 900 metres, and the school is 1.25 km away … Tregoss Road is unlit and has no footpaths" (DL ¶12). "The main deterrent to walking, however, is the need to cross the A391 close to a busy roundabout junction … pedestrians must cross four lanes of traffic" (DL ¶13). The bus stop, 450 m away, is across the same crossing, and cycling is deterred for less confident riders (DL ¶14). - **Weight to plan.** "Paragraph 2 of Annex A … says that development plan policies should not be given reduced weight simply because they were adopted prior to publication … However, it is not delivering a sufficient supply of homes … I can only afford moderate weight to the conflict with the development plan policies that govern the spatial location of housing" (DL ¶16). The climate DPD transport policies are consistent with TR3, so "substantial weight to the harm" (DL ¶17). - **S5(1)(j) and (e): FAIL.** "the site lies outside the settlement and … is not physically well-related to it. Consequently, the approach … in Policy S5.1.j … does not apply … Whilst the site is adjacent to a dwelling, the proposal would be an extension to the group of buildings, rather than being within the cluster, so would not be infilling" (DL ¶20). ## Planning balance S5(4). For the scheme: HO7 substantial weight (self-build, local family) and modest economic benefits. Against: moderate weight to the spatial strategy conflict and substantial weight to the TR3 conflict. "the benefits of the proposal do not substantially outweigh the harm" (DL ¶21). ## What made the difference The A391 crossing. The site is only about 280 m from Roche's edge, but the bypass severs it physically and functionally. That defeated both "well-related" and TR3. Distance alone might have been tolerable. The unlit lane and unsignalised dual crossing at a roundabout were decisive. ## Transferable points - A major road with an uncontrolled multi-lane crossing can sever a site from a nearby settlement for both S5(1)(j)(i) and TR3 (DL ¶10, 13-14, 20). - S5(1)(e) infill must lie *within* the group. A plot on the edge of a cluster extends it (DL ¶20). - Annex A para 2: pre-Framework plans keep their weight, but the weight can be moderated where the spatial strategy is not delivering supply (DL ¶16). - Plan transport policies consistent with TR3 can attract substantial weight on a one-dwelling scheme (DL ¶17). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): fail.** 3.9-year supply, but site in a small cluster about 280 m from Roche's edge, separated by the A391 bypass and open land; "not physically well-related" (DL 10, 20) - **S5(1)(e): fail.** land beside the last house would extend the cluster, not infill "within" it (DL 20) - **TR3: fail (substantial weight).** 900 m walk to village shops, 1.25 km to school; unlit lane without footway; unsignalised four-lane A391 crossing by a roundabout; bus stop 450 m but beyond the same crossing (DL 12-14, 17) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** self-build for a local family; shortfall considerable (DL 15) - **S5(4): fail.** benefits do not substantially outweigh harm (DL 20-21) ## Key facts - Council supply 3.9 years - Former kennels site, now grassed; not shown to be PDL or lawful garden (DL 9) - Annex A para 2 cited - plan policies not reduced in weight for pre-dating the Framework, but spatial strategy given moderate weight as it is not delivering supply (DL 16) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010442 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fe88bcf9-e9b1-43f2-b132-c23f164d2dff --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010442.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Footpath outside Aldi, 106A Newport Road, Middlesbrough - **Decision:** dismissed, 2 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F Harrison - **Authority:** Middlesbrough (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010457 - **Application reference:** 26/0109/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub with advert panels (Appeal A); advert consent Appeal B 6010458 (26/0108/ADV) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR4 - **Development plan policies:** Middlesbrough Core Strategy 2008 DC1, CS5, emerging Publication Local Plan 2025 CR2, CR8, IN7 - **Main issues:** highway safety, safe places - **Tags:** tier-2, street-hub, digital-advertising, telecoms, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary BT Street Hub on a roadside footway at a supermarket car-park junction near a busy crossroads. Both appeals dismissed on highway and public safety grounds. The crime concern was rejected, and the inspector expressly found accordance with P5 and TR4 on safe places (DL ¶16). The 2026 Framework brought "no material changes in policy emphasis" (DL ¶6). ## What made the difference The junction context: drivers exiting across two lanes, with no visibility-splay evidence. Benefits of a single hub were "modest" where other hubs exist nearby (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **TR4: fail.** hub at roadside edge next to supermarket car-park junction and busy signalised crossroads — blocks visibility and distracts drivers (DL 9-14); code mapped by harvester - **P5: pass.** no substantive site-specific ASB evidence; ASB management plan by condition; "in line with Framework Policy P5" and TR4 safe places (DL 15-17) - **CO1: benefit (limited weight).** benefits "modest" — single hub and other hubs nearby (DL 18-21) - **DM4: neutral (limited weight).** emerging PLP weight limited — no information on objections (DL 4); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - 30mph four-lane Newport Road with right-turn filter into Aldi car park; no visibility-splay evidence from appellant (DL 9-10) - Earlier Middlesbrough hub allowed at Southfield Road (6003065/6003067) distinguished (DL 13) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010457 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f34d0426-4675-4e50-93d6-ceea68e319e7 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010457.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Footpath outside 2 Benson Street, Middlesbrough (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** allowed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F Harrison - **Authority:** Middlesbrough (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010460 - **Application reference:** 26/0113/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub with digital advertisement panels (Appeal A planning 6010460; Appeal B advertisement consent 6010461) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR4(1)(c), TR6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Middlesbrough Core Strategy 2008 DC1, emerging Publication Local Plan 2025 IN7, CR2, CR8, Urban Design SPD 2013 - **Main issues:** street clutter, highway and public safety - **Tags:** tier-2, street-hub, telecoms, advertisement ## Summary BT Street Hub on a wide local-centre pavement, with linked planning (A) and advertisement (B) appeals. Both were allowed. The hub would not cause clutter, and there would be no highway harm "which Framework Policy TR6 seeks to avoid" (DL ¶12). The Inspector also found it in line with TR4's "avoids unnecessary street clutter" limb (DL ¶12). The new Framework brought "no material changes in policy emphasis" (DL ¶5). ## What made the difference The site specifics were decisive: a generous, uncluttered pavement, a straight road with good visibility, and a commercial context. CCTV conditions were refused because problems at town-centre hubs were not shown to apply in a local centre (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **TR6(4): pass.** set back on wide pavement with good visibility on a straight road; illumination controlled by condition (DL 12) - **TR4(1)(c): pass.** minimises conflict between road users and "avoids unnecessary street clutter" (DL 12) - **DP3: pass.** wide, uncluttered local-centre pavement absorbs the hub (DL 7-9) ## Key facts - Local centre on Linthorpe Road, wide pavement, existing street furniture dispersed - Conditions — ASB and noise management plans; 600 cd/m2 night luminance; 10-second minimum display ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c76fc65b-6bee-4941-a0bd-d11a7e1c6756 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010460 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010460.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south of Coppice Road, Higher Poynton - **Decision:** allowed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Mee - **Authority:** Cheshire East (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010471 - **Application reference:** 25/4766/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 1 to 7 dwellings on a 0.33 ha greenfield roadside parcel - **Homes:** 7 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(i), GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3(2), S5(5) - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 PG3, PG6, SD1, SD2, Poynton-with-Worth NP 2019 HOU1 - **Main issues:** grey belt, sustainable location, S5(5) balance - **Tags:** PIP, grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-pass, connectivity-tool, continuous-lit-footway, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, village-not-large-built-up-area, parcel-vs-site, s5-5-substantially-outweighed, not-inappropriate ## Summary PIP for up to 7 dwellings on a Green Belt field edge opposite a ribbon of houses between Poynton and Higher Poynton. Allowed. The site was grey belt because Higher Poynton is a village, not a large built-up area. It passed limb (iii) on a continuous lit 30 mph footway to Poynton, regular buses, and a Connectivity Tool score of 52. Not inappropriate, so S5(5) favoured approval. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties given the opportunity to comment; 2026 version applied (DL ¶5). - **Grey belt, purpose (a): PASS.** "the PPG makes clear that villages such as Higher Poynton should not be regarded as large built-up areas … the site cannot reasonably be regarded as being adjacent to, or near to, a large built-up area" (DL ¶13). Purpose (c) "is not relevant to the assessment of whether land constitutes grey belt" (DL ¶12). "the assessment of Green Belt purposes should focus on the land subject to the proposal and its specific role, rather than the wider parcel within which it sits" (DL ¶15). - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): PASS** (DL ¶16). - **GB7(1)(g)(iii) / TR3: PASS.** "connected to Poynton … by a continuous lit footway along a road subject to a 30mph speed limit. Whilst the nearest shops are just over one mile away and the route includes a modest incline; it nevertheless provides a safe and attractive opportunity for walking and cycling" (DL ¶18). Buses "regular daytime and early evening services" (DL ¶19). "This is further demonstrated by the use of the Connectivity Tool as recommended within Policy TR3(2) of the Framework … the resulting overall score is 52 which, for a rural town and fringe location, is above average" (DL ¶20). - **Openness not assessed** once not inappropriate: "there is no place for a subsequent assessment of the effect … on the openness" (DL ¶23). ## Planning balance S5(5): "proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects". Benefits "not outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶36–37). Out-of-date countryside policy PG6 given very limited weight (DL ¶35). ## What made the difference Route quality and public transport. More than a mile to the shops was acceptable because the whole way is a continuous lit footway on a 30 mph road, and the buses were evidenced as regular. The Connectivity Tool score corroborated this. Contrast Chedworth (PINS-6009966) and Branford Wells (PINS-6010313), which had unlit lanes without footways. ## Transferable points - The Connectivity Tool (TR3(2)) is accepted as corroborative evidence; a score of 52 is "above average" for a rural town and fringe location (DL ¶20). - A distance over 1 mile to shops is not fatal where the route is a continuous lit footway at 30 mph (DL ¶18). - Villages are not "large built-up areas" for purpose (a) (PPG) (DL ¶13). - Grey belt is judged on the site, not the wider Green Belt assessment parcel (DL ¶15). - Once GB7 is met, there is no separate openness assessment and no VSC (DL ¶23). - Local plan GB policies lacking a grey belt exception are inconsistent with the Framework (DL ¶9). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** disputed on purpose (a); Higher Poynton is a village, not a large built-up area; Poynton 500 m away with sparse, discontinuous development between; purpose (c) irrelevant to grey belt (DL 12-14) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** assess the site, not the wider GB assessment parcel (PY21 "major contribution") (DL 14-15) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** no 5YHLS (undisputed) (DL 16) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** meets CELPS SD2 Table 9.1 thresholds except a convenience store; continuous lit footway at 30 mph to Poynton (shops just over 1 mile); regular daytime and early-evening buses; Connectivity Tool score 52, above average for rural town and fringe (DL 17-20) - **TR3(2): pass.** first recorded appellate use of the Connectivity Tool, supporting (not deciding) the conclusion (DL 20) - **GB7(1)(g)(iv): not-engaged.** not major (DL 21) - **PG3 / PG6 (CELPS): accord (very-limited weight).** PG3 inconsistent (no grey belt exception); PG6 out of date, materially inconsistent, so very limited weight (DL 9, 35) - **S5(5): pass.** not inappropriate, so approve unless benefits substantially outweighed; not outweighed (DL 36-37) ## Key facts - 0.33 ha greenfield at the northern edge of a larger field; ribbon of dwellings opposite links Poynton to Higher Poynton - Poynton c. 500 m away; nearest shops just over one mile on a continuous lit footway (30 mph), modest incline - Buses regular daytime and early evening, reduced Sundays; connect to Poynton rail station and Stockport bus station - Connectivity Tool overall score 52 (above average for "rural town and fringe") - GB Assessment Update 2015 parcel PY21 "major contribution" set aside as a wider-parcel assessment ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010471 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e64b72e2-95aa-4518-8a48-4c99b58f4ff8 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010471.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 65A Brookhill Road, Barnet (first-floor rear extension) - **Decision:** allowed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Powys Jones - **Authority:** Barnet (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010492 - **Application reference:** 26/0793/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** First-floor rear extension (flat); corrected decision under s56(2) PCPA 2004 superseding one of 19 Aug 2026 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** Barnet Local Plan CDH01 - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, Barnet Local Plan 2025 CDH01, CDH05 - **Main issues:** neighbour living conditions - **Tags:** householder, spd-flexibility, correction-notice, tier-2 ## Summary A first-floor rear extension refused for exceeding SPD depth guidance by about 0.5 m was allowed. The inspector held that the SPD is guidance to be applied with judgement, and there was no harm to the neighbours (DL ¶14). ## What made the difference The council's mechanical use of SPD formulae. The Framework played no part. ## Policy findings - **P3: pass.** extension about 0.5 m deeper than SPD guidance does not harm outlook of Nos 63 and 67a; SPD is guidance, not a formula (DL 9, 14-15) ## Key facts - Framework not mentioned - Correction decision under s56(2) PCPA 2004 ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010492 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b1eb1f47-8e6a-4646-bfc6-a43a6a5d9bf9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010492.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Higher Bal Farm, Higher Bal, St Agnes (PIP, one dwelling) - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Butcher - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010498 - **Application reference:** PA25/07856 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for one dwelling on a former mineworkers' smallholding plot in the hamlet of Higher Bal - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, national-landscape, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), DP3(1), DP3(3), S5(1) - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 Policies 2, 3, 7, 21, 23, 24, 27, St Agnes Neighbourhood Development Plan Policies 10, 11, Cornwall Climate Emergency DPD T1 - **Main issues:** suitability of location - WHS, transport, spatial strategy, National Landscape - **Tags:** PIP, s5-1-e-infill, world-heritage-site, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, dp3-refuse-trigger, rural-lane-no-footway, national-landscape, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, substantially-outweighed, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Permission in principle for one dwelling on a plot in the hamlet of Higher Bal, near St Agnes, inside the Cornwall Mining World Heritage Site and the Cornwall National Landscape. The plot was almost certainly part of a mineworkers' smallholding, an attribute of the site's Outstanding Universal Value. The inspector accepted S5(1)(e) infill, but found WHS harm that very limited benefits could not outweigh, a DP3(1) conflict engaging DP3(3), and some car reliance. The harm substantially outweighed the benefits. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "In the interests of fairness, I provided the main parties with an opportunity to provide comments on the new Framework" (DL ¶4). - **WHS: HARM.** "Given that the appeal site almost certainly formed part of a smallholding, and that the relevant features of the site can still be appreciated today, I must conclude that the appeal site does contribute positively to the OUV of the WHS" (DL ¶8). "the visual loss of an attribute of the WHS resulting from the proposal before me would amount to ‘harm’. However, given the limited scale of the development, I find that the extent of this harm would not be substantial" (DL ¶10). HE6(4): "it is clear that the harm outweighs the public benefits in this instance" (DL ¶11). - **Transport: limited harm.** The walk to St Agnes is along "a relatively narrow lane which is unlit and has no pavement" (DL ¶12), so occupiers "would be largely reliant on private vehicles" (DL ¶12). But "due to the scale of the proposal, any additional journeys would be small in number, while their length would often be very short. As such, the amount of ‘on the ground’ harm associated with this issue would be very limited" (DL ¶12). - **Settlement.** "the glossary of the Framework makes it clear that the definition of a settlement does not include hamlets" (DL ¶22). - **S5(1)(e): PASS.** "I am satisfied that the proposal could constitute limited infilling in accordance with this policy" (DL ¶23). - **DP3(1)/(3).** "Part 3 of the same policy indicates that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1. This is therefore clearly a very important matter within the overall planning balance" (DL ¶25). ## Planning balance S5(1) balance for a scheme within category (e). HO7 and L2 substantial weight applied, but "the identified harm would substantially outweigh the benefits, even when applying substantial weight to the aforementioned policies within the Framework" (DL ¶26). ## What made the difference The site's WHS significance as a surviving smallholding plot. The same plot outside the WHS would likely have passed as (e) infill: the spatial strategy and the National Landscape raised no objection. ## Transferable points - A hamlet can be a settlement for a local plan but not for the Framework; S5, not S4, applies (DL ¶14, ¶22). - An S5(1)(e) pass does not guarantee approval: WHS harm plus DP3(3) can substantially outweigh HO7 and L2 substantial weight (DL ¶23-26). - Plots can contribute to a WHS's OUV through historic land-use pattern even with no mining structures on them (DL ¶8). - Weak on transport: short car trips used to reduce car-reliance harm to "very limited" (DL ¶12); do not cite for TR3. - The reading of S5(1)(j)(i) as needing a "defined settlement" (DL ¶23) does not match the Framework, which says existing settlement. ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:settlement: not-engaged.** Higher Bal is a settlement for Local Plan rounding-off purposes, but a hamlet, which the Framework glossary excludes from the settlement definition; S5 applies, not S4 (DL 14, 22) - **S5(1)(e): pass.** "the proposal could constitute limited infilling"; possibly also S5(1)(d) PDL (DL 23) - **S5(1)(j)(i): not-engaged.** "not of relevance given that it requires developments to be physically well related to a defined settlement" (DL 23) - the Framework text says existing settlement - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation of the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape WHS stated (DL 10) - **HE6(4): fail.** plot almost certainly part of a mineworkers' smallholding, an OUV attribute; a dwelling would make it unreadable; harm "would not be substantial" but outweighs very limited benefits (DL 6-11) - **DP3(1): conflict.** fails to respond to site history and integrate heritage assets (DL 25) - **DP3(3): fail.** "should be refused if, without clear justification" - "clearly a very important matter within the overall planning balance"; justification not separately assessed (DL 25) - **TR3: harm (very-limited weight).** narrow unlit lane without pavement to St Agnes; occupiers "largely reliant on private vehicles", but few, short journeys so on-the-ground harm "very limited" (DL 12) - **N4: neutral.** Cornwall National Landscape and heritage coast; a well-designed dwelling within the settlement's extent would preserve scenic beauty (DL 15) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** HO7 and L2 substantial weight applied, but benefits of one dwelling "very limited" in combination (DL 21, 24, 26) - **S5(1): fail.** harm would substantially outweigh the benefits even with substantial weight to HO7/L2 (DL 26) ## Key facts - PIP stage 1 - location, land use and amount only (DL 2-3) - WHS Site Office objection based on tithe maps and census; site reads as part of the smallholding landscape (DL 7-8) - Council lacks a five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 23) - Letter writes "H07" for HO7 (DL 24) - Penhale Dunes SAC zone of influence; no appropriate assessment needed on dismissal (DL 19) - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010498 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1b519df0-24fe-40b3-9d0d-2c417f63b859 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010498.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 111A Parchmore Road, Thornton Heath - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Burch - **Authority:** Croydon (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010501 - **Application reference:** 26/00540/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Extensions and conversion of a 2-bed maisonette to a studio and a 1-bed flat - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), HO7, TR4, DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Croydon Local Plan 2018 DM1, DM13, DM29, DM30, London Plan 2021 T5, T6 - **Main issues:** loss of small homes, cycle storage, refuse storage, parking - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, 5yhls-shown, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Splitting a 2-bed maisonette in Thornton Heath into a studio and a 1-bed flat. Dismissed. The inspector found the loss of a home under 130 sq m (protected by Croydon DM1.2) contrary to HO7 as well, and found the remote cycle and refuse stores contrary to TR4 and DP3. With a five-year supply agreed, one net unit had limited weight and was substantially outweighed under S4 (DL ¶28-30). ## What made the difference The inspector read HO7 as supporting a local policy that protects existing mid-sized homes. Weak cycle and bin access added national-policy conflicts, which made the S4 balance straightforward. Parking was not a problem. ## Policy findings - **HO7: conflict.** loss of a 74.85 sq m home, protected by local DM1.2 (under 130 sq m), also treated as contrary to HO7 (DL 8-11) - **TR4: fail.** cycle store reachable only via street and rear alley; discourages cycling (TR4, DP3) (DL 13-15) - **S4(1): fail.** net one extra unit (limited weight) substantially outweighed by loss of small home and poor cycle and refuse storage (substantial weight) (DL 27-30) ## Key facts - Five-year supply agreed - Existing 2-bed of 74.85 sq m lost to two smaller units ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010501 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/578df057-a915-4337-92d9-21f5e5fae8d5 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010501.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 14-16 Lingwood Road, Hackney - **Decision:** dismissed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Plenty (APO E Clifford) - **Authority:** Hackney (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010507 - **Application reference:** 2026/0155 - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Joint first floor rear extension to two terraced houses - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D1, D3, D4, Hackney Local Plan 2020 LP1, LP17, Residential Extensions SPD 2025 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, householder, design-refusal, appeal-planning-officer, transitional-no-consultation, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary A joint first-floor rear extension on two already much-extended terraced houses backing onto a recreation ground. Dismissed as bulky and "monolithic", contrary to the 2025 Hackney extensions SPD. The Framework changes "do not affect the substance of the main issue", so there was no consultation (DL ¶3). DP3 is not cited. ## What made the difference Cumulative stacking on existing large extensions and dormers, seen in public views from the recreation ground. A recently adopted SPD made earlier approvals irrelevant. ## Policy findings - **LP1 / LP17 (Hackney LP): conflict.** stacked first-floor extension over large existing extensions and box dormers — monolithic, not subordinate; prominent from Spring Hill Recreation Ground (DL 7-11) - **DP3: fail.** no Framework design policy cited; code mapped by harvester for design-character conflict ## Key facts - SPD 2025 permits two-storey rear extensions only where they form the dominant character (DL 7) - Comparable approvals pre-dated the 2025 SPD (DL 12) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010507 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/024b26f1-bfa7-4dec-87f8-9fc7e1a461c5 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010507.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 60 Langdale Road, Nottingham (subdivision of family house) - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Craddock - **Authority:** Nottingham (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010508 - **Application reference:** 25/01876/PFUL3 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Subdivision of a three-bedroom semi-detached house into a two-bedroom house and a one-bedroom flat - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(2)(a)(i), S4 - **Development plan policies:** Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategies 2014 Policy 8, Nottingham Land and Planning Policies DPD 2020 HO1, HO2 - **Main issues:** loss of family housing - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, family-housing-loss, plan-led, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary Splitting a three-bedroom semi in Nottingham into a two-bed house and a one-bed flat. The loss of a family home conflicted with local policies protecting family housing, and there was no evidence of need for smaller units. The inspector treated this as a safeguarding case under S4(2) and gave the conflict substantial weight, drawing on HO7's evidenced-need wording. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Need for small units.** "I have been provided with no substantive evidence to demonstrate that there is an unmet need for smaller units sufficient to justify the loss of a family dwelling" (DL ¶7). - **S4(2) trigger.** "One such circumstance where the benefits of approving development are likely to be substantially outweighed by adverse effects includes the safeguarding of buildings for particular uses in the development plan." (DL ¶12). - **Weight.** "Accordingly, I attach substantial weight to the conflict with Policy 8 of the ACS and Policies HO1 and HO2 of the LAPP." (DL ¶13). ## Planning balance S4: "I find the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effect" (DL ¶14). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶15). ## What made the difference The plan's family-housing protection, backed by the evidence base showing a shortage of family homes, and no counter-evidence of need for smaller units. ## Transferable points - A development-plan policy protecting family houses was treated as "safeguarding of buildings for particular uses" under S4(2)(a)(i) (DL ¶12). - HO7's "evidenced accommodation needs" can cut against a scheme that removes the type of home the evidence says is needed (DL ¶13). ## Policy findings - **S4(2)(a)(i): fail.** letter reads the safeguarding of buildings for particular uses in the development plan as covering the plan's protection of family housing (HO2) (DL 12) - **HO7: harm (substantial weight).** HO7 evidenced-need wording used to give substantial weight to the conflict with the family-housing policies, given the evidenced shortage of family homes (DL 13) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 14) ## Key facts - No evidence of unmet need for smaller units (DL 7) - NDSS, amenity space and parking all compliant (DL 10) - Local HO1/HO2 are LAPP policies, not Framework HO1 ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010508 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6817aa6e-1d87-4f10-9c58-8444ab42df8e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010508.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 4 Offington Court, Offington, Worthing - **Decision:** dismissed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Housden - **Authority:** Worthing (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010518 - **Application reference:** AWDM/1475/25 - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Single-storey rear extension with gable roof to create first-floor bedroom - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3, S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Worthing Local Plan 2023 DM5 - **Main issues:** neighbour daylight and sunlight - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, householder, non-determination, fallback, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A bungalow extension with an extended gable ridge in a Worthing cul-de-sac, appealed for non-determination. Dismissed. The extra bulk above ground-floor level would overshadow the neighbour's only dining-room window, conflicting with DM5 and Framework P3. Under S4, the personal benefits were substantially outweighed (DL ¶15). No consultation on the new Framework was needed (DL ¶2). ## What made the difference The harm fell on a single side-facing window that was the room's only window. The permitted development fallback was less harmful, so it carried very limited weight (DL ¶10). ## Policy findings - **P3: fail.** hip-to-gable ridge extension overshadows and encloses the sole dining-room side window at No 5 (DL 6-9, 15) - **S4(1): fail.** personal benefits (space, energy performance) limited; substantially outweighed (DL 14-15) ## Key facts - Non-determination appeal; permitted development fallback (rear dormer) less harmful, so very limited weight ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010518 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/0571a1ac-8f3c-4a01-97d0-05d7fc48af32 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010518.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Grove Farm (Harefield Grove), Rickmansworth Road, Harefield - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: T Bennett - **Authority:** Hillingdon (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010520 - **Application reference:** 70328/APP/2023/1772 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective change of use of former chicken sheds and fields to a dog training and daycare centre (up to 60 dogs), with car park and post-and-mesh fencing - **Site context:** green-belt, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3, S5(1)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 2012 EM8, Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 2020 DME7, DMHB11, London Plan 2021 D14 - **Main issues:** living conditions (noise), Green Belt (raised by Inspector), S5 balance - **Tags:** not-inappropriate, gb7-1-f-outdoor-recreation, s5-1-b-rural-business, substantially-outweighed, noise, retrospective, inspector-raised-own-ground ## Summary A retrospective dog training and daycare use in former chicken sheds and fields in the Green Belt. The Council did not refuse on GB grounds, but the Inspector examined them. The building reuse fell within GB7(1)(b), and the field use, fencing and car park within GB7(1)(f)(iii)/(iv), so the scheme was not inappropriate. The appeal was nonetheless dismissed on noise at a nearby dwelling under P3: the benefits were "substantially outweighed" in the S5 balance. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties had the opportunity to consider the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL ¶6). - **GB7(1)(b): PASS** for reuse of the sheds (DL ¶29). - **GB7(1)(f)(iii)/(iv): PASS.** "the use of the field for dog training purposes has a negligible impact on spatial and visual openness" (DL ¶33). "the impact on the openness of the Green Belt has been minimised and neither the carpark, post and mesh fencing, nor the change of use of the field results in any significant conflict with the five Green Belt purposes" (DL ¶36). - **Noise / P3: FAIL.** "Given the close proximity of the outdoor training area to the boundary with Cottage House, I find that material noise disturbance is likely" (DL ¶22). "I cannot be satisfied that the level of attenuation suggested by the appellant would be achieved" (DL ¶24). ## Planning balance The Inspector applied S3 → S5 (not S5(5) expressly) and found an S5(1)(b) rural business category. Substantial weight was given to the economic benefits and to the P3 conflict. "the benefits of the proposed development would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects" (DL ¶51). ## What made the difference A single neighbour-amenity issue, backed by a credible technical rebuttal of the noise assessment (impulsive character of barking, over-optimistic barrier attenuation). Green Belt was not an obstacle. Better noise evidence, or no dwelling within 8 m, would likely have produced approval under the S5 balance. ## Transferable points - A dog training/daycare field can be a "material change in the use of land" for outdoor recreation under GB7(1)(f)(iii), with a small gravel car park as an appropriate facility under (f)(iv) (DL ¶¶31, 35–37). - Inspectors will examine GB inappropriateness even where it is not a refusal reason (DL ¶27). - After GB7 is passed, the Inspector ran the S5 "substantially outweighed" balance (cf. S5(5)), and one P3 conflict was enough (DL ¶¶46–51). - Economic benefits of commercial development were given "substantial weight" under the 2026 Framework (DL ¶49). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): pass.** reuse of the chicken sheds is not inappropriate; GB raised by the Inspector though not a refusal reason (DL 27-29) - **GB7(1)(f)(iii): pass.** material change of use of the fields to dog training is outdoor recreation; negligible openness impact (DL 31-37) - **GB7(1)(f)(iv): pass.** small gravel car park is an appropriate facility; openness impact minimised; no significant conflict with GB2 purposes (DL 35-37) - **S5(1)(b): pass.** rural business where a location outside settlements is necessary (DL 47) - **E1: benefit (substantial weight).** Framework directs substantial weight to economic benefits of commercial development; jobs (DL 49) - **P3: fail (substantial weight).** barking noise at Cottage House 8 m from the boundary; ANC draft impulsivity/intermittency corrections; 1.8 m fence gives ~5-6 dB, not 10 dB (DL 16-26, 50) - **HE6: neutral.** setting of Grade II Harefield Grove preserved (DL 43-44) ## Key facts - Up to 60 dogs on site, up to 30 outside at once; 7am-6pm weekdays and Saturday training - Cottage House (derelict, lawful residential, curtilage listed) is 8 m from the training field - Appellant's noise assessment used the South Holland SPD method; the objector's review applied ANC draft corrections of up to +12 dB - Acoustic fence introduced at appeal; whether it is itself inappropriate in the GB was left unresolved ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010520 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3e1c329e-206f-4ea4-b89c-103784ef7ae5 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010520.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Joiners Arms, Church Street, Carlisle - **Decision:** allowed, 21 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Gravett - **Authority:** Cumberland (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010523 - **Application reference:** 26/0177 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** New kitchen ventilation system with external stainless-steel flue - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Carlisle District Local Plan 2016 SP6, CM5 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, transitional-no-consultation, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary Extract flue on a former pub in a commercial setting. Allowed: no harm to character, no residential neighbours. There was "no substantive changes in the new Framework relevant to this appeal", so the parties were not consulted (DL ¶2). ## What made the difference Plans submitted at appeal only "more accurately show the ventilation system as originally proposed" and were accepted (DL ¶4). That cured the Council's sole, information-based reason for refusal. ## Policy findings - **DP3: pass.** flue below main ridge, seen against large factory buildings and existing flue in busy commercial junction (DL 6-9); decided on plan SP6 ## Key facts - Refused for insufficient or erroneous plans; clarified plans accepted at appeal as not a fundamental change (DL 3-4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/51bfd850-5ec9-40ea-84eb-21e9589cc57e - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010523 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010523.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Meadow Cottage, Brook Hill, Brook, Albury - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Bell-Williamson - **Authority:** Guildford (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010525 - **Application reference:** 26/P/00345 - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Detached oak-framed garage/carport (about 3.9 m high) - **Site context:** green-belt, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Guildford Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2019 P2 - **Main issues:** disproportionate extension, openness, VSC - **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, outbuilding-as-extension, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, householder, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A detached oak carport treated as an extension. With previous additions it would take the dwelling just over 73% above the original, which is disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). It was dismissed; nothing weighed in its favour. ## Issues and findings - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "an extension … could include an outbuilding that is used ancillary to the main dwelling … No case is made that the proposed development would not be inappropriate … for any other reason" (DL ¶6). "The Framework does not employ a mathematical calculation … However, when viewed cumulatively alongside previous extensions, due to the increase in floorspace in a separate building of significant height, the appeal scheme would result in a disproportionate increase" (DL ¶8). - **Openness:** "the introduction of a permanent building would inevitably lead to a loss of spatial openness … a demonstrable loss of openness, in both spatial and visual terms" (DL ¶11-12). - **Neutral factors:** "the absence of harm would be a neutral matter which would not carry weight in favour" (DL ¶13). ## Planning balance GB6(2). No considerations were advanced, so there was no VSC (DL ¶15). ## What made the difference Cumulative floorspace over the original, and the appellant arguing no alternative exception. The GB7(1)(e) garden-PDL route of PINS-6012162 was not raised (DL ¶6). ## Transferable points - Ancillary outbuildings are assessed as extensions under GB7(1)(b), cumulatively with past extensions (DL ¶6-8). - About 73% over the original was disproportionate (DL ¶7-8). - An open-sided lightweight carport still causes a spatial loss of openness (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** carport treated as extension; original 103 sqm, existing 145 sqm, proposed 178.5 sqm = just over 73% cumulative — disproportionate (DL 6-9) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** demonstrable spatial and visual openness loss; no other considerations; absence of other harm neutral (DL 11-15) ## Key facts - Cumulative increase just over 73% over the original building, including earlier extensions - Lightweight open-sided structure on existing hardstanding between buildings, still counted as a loss of openness - Grade II listed cottage; setting not assessed as appeal failed on Green Belt - Framework change - "relevant policy approach has not fundamentally changed", no consultation ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010525 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e198053b-0cda-4e8f-882c-d12a30f716b3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010525.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 108 The Avenue, Tottenham (C4 HMO to two flats) - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Clark - **Authority:** Haringey (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010529 - **Application reference:** HGY/2026/0542 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use from C4 small HMO to one 1-bed and one 3-bed flat - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** Haringey DPD DM16 - **Development plan policies:** Haringey DM DPD 2017 DM4, DM16, SP2, London Plan D6 - **Main issues:** family housing protection, refuse and cycle storage, living standards - **Tags:** family-housing-loss, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary Conversion of an HMO into two flats in Haringey's Family Housing Protection Zone was dismissed. The original house was below the 120 sq m threshold for conversion, and refuse and cycle storage were inadequate (DL ¶13, ¶17). ## What made the difference Local policy DM16's original-floorspace test. The modest benefit of one extra home carried only modest weight (DL ¶28). ## Policy findings - **HO5: conflict.** original house under 120 sq m, so too small for conversion in the Family Housing Protection Zone (DL 9-13) - **P3: fail.** inadequate accessible refuse and cycle storage (DL 14-17) ## Key facts - Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 5) - No net loss of family units, but the original floorspace test still failed (DL 11) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010529 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/cf16be21-3dc1-4ff7-9b05-5c74cc277381 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010529.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land to rear of 6-12 Long Lane, Newtown, South Staffordshire - **Decision:** allowed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Townend - **Authority:** South Staffordshire (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010537 - **Application reference:** 26/00161/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for residential development of 4 to 5 dwellings in rear gardens - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 0.87 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g), S5(5) - **Development plan policies:** South Staffordshire Core Strategy 2012 Core Policy 1, GB1, EQ2, emerging Publication Plan (Reg 19) 2024 NB3 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development in Green Belt, suitability incl. Cannock Chase SAC - **Tags:** PIP, grey-belt-accepted, not-inappropriate, s5-5-balance, village-not-large-built-up-area, garden-land, habitats-mitigation, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, old-balance-wording, old-wording-slip, drafting-slip, annex-a-weight-reduction, costs-application ## Summary Permission in principle for four to five houses in rear gardens at Newtown, a Green Belt village in South Staffordshire with 0.87 years' supply. Allowed under GB7(1)(g): gardens in a built-up area are not PDL, but the site itself (not the wider study parcel) was grey belt. An executed unilateral undertaking secured Cannock Chase SAC mitigation at PIP stage. The sustainable-location limb was passed in one sentence. ## Issues and findings - **Framework version.** "Any reference to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in this decision, unless otherwise specified, will be in relation to the August 2026 version" (DL ¶6). - **Infill and PDL: FAIL.** "the appeal site is not a gap within a built-up frontage" (DL ¶16); gardens in a built-up area are excluded from PDL, and "Contrary to the appellant's assertion, the site's location outside the development boundary does not preclude it from being considered part of the built-up area" (DL ¶17). - **Grey belt: PASS.** "The Council has not provided any compelling evidence that the contribution the appeal site makes to any of the purposes of the Green Belt has been assessed, separate to the wider parcel of land" (DL ¶21). "By reason of being a 'other village or hamlet', albeit a built-up area, it is not a large built-up area" (DL ¶22). - **(g)(iii): PASS.** "the appeal site is in a suitable location with convenient access to public transport and opportunities for walking to a range of services and facilities" (DL ¶28). No distances, route or bus facts. - **SAC.** "there is no legal reason why an obligation cannot be entered into at any time" (DL ¶36). ## Planning balance Plan conflict (Core Policy 1) given limited weight "given that Core Policy 1 seeks to restrict development and given the significant shortfall in housing land supply" (DL ¶44). Housing: "substantial weight to the moderate benefit" (DL ¶46). The conclusion first uses 2024 wording: "would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶47), then correctly applies S5(5) (DL ¶48). The slip is immaterial to the outcome because S5(5) was then applied. ## What made the difference Judging the site, not the study parcel: the council had no site-level Green Belt assessment. Combined with 0.87 years' supply, the principle followed. ## Transferable points - Grey belt is judged on the site; a high-level parcel rating does not settle it without site-specific assessment (DL ¶21–23). - A village is a built-up area for the PDL garden exclusion, but not a "large built-up area" for purpose (a) (DL ¶18, ¶22). - A SAC mitigation UU can be accepted at PIP stage where executed and Natural England agrees (DL ¶34–36). - Weak authority on (g)(iii): one-sentence finding with no route evidence (DL ¶28). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(c): fail.** letter calls it "(d) limited infilling in villages"; not a gap in a built-up frontage (DL 14, 16) - **GB7(1)(e): fail.** residential gardens in a built-up area are not PDL; Newtown is a built-up area even though site partly outside boundary; letter miscites "GB5:1(e)" (DL 17-18) - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** Green Belt Study parcel (strong for a, b, c) is high level; site judged on its own; village not a large built-up area; not next to listed towns; no historic town (DL 19-25) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** encroachment contained by housing and landscaping; would not fundamentally undermine purposes (DL 26-27) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** no 5YHLS (0.87 years) (DL 28, 42) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** one sentence - "convenient access to public transport and opportunities for walking to a range of services"; no route facts (DL 28) - **N6: pass.** Cannock Chase SAC; executed UU GBP 1,675.10 accepted at PIP stage; Natural England satisfied (DL 30-38) - **Transitional(2): neutral (limited weight).** CS GB1 "only partially consistent" (omits PDL and grey belt) (DL 15); Core Policy 1 conflict given limited weight because it restricts development and because of the "significant shortfall" (DL 44) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** letter gives "substantial weight to the moderate benefit" of 4-5 homes (DL 46) - **S5(5): pass.** conclusion first framed as harm would not "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" (2024 wording, DL 47), then S5(5) stated correctly (DL 48) ## Key facts - Supply 0.87 years (council officer report) (DL 42) - Site partly within Newtown development boundary and over half in Green Belt; assessed as Green Belt development (DL 11, 13) - PIP for minimum 4, maximum 5 dwellings (DL 5) - UU for SAC mitigation accepted at PIP stage despite PPG (DL 36) - Emerging plan examined but limited weight (DL 8) - Costs application decided separately (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010537 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c528a4c3-d8e8-448e-b0dd-bab1b077d74d --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010537.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Northolm Farm, Crowland Road, Eye Green, Peterborough (barn to B2/B8) - **Decision:** dismissed, 20 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Gee - **Authority:** Peterborough (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010542 - **Application reference:** 25/01330/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of agricultural barn to B2/B8 as storage and dispatch base for a mobile agricultural repair business - **Site context:** open-countryside, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4), S5(1)(c) - **Development plan policies:** Peterborough Local Plan 2019 LP13 - **Main issues:** highway safety - **Tags:** highway-safety-fail, rural-business-conversion, s5-1-c-reuse, transitional-no-consultation, old-wording-slip, red-line-grampian ## Summary An early (20 August 2026) decision under the new Framework, dismissing a farm-barn-to-B2/B8 conversion on highway safety at the access. The principle was accepted under S5(1)(c), but vehicles could not pass on the bend near the junction. The land needed to fix this was outside the red line, and not shown to be in the appellant's control. The concluding paragraph states the S5 test backwards. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "the relevant policy approach has not fundamentally changed … Therefore, the parties have not been invited to make further comments" (DL ¶3). - **Scheme changes at appeal.** Holborn Studios was applied to reject amended plans enlarging the red line (DL ¶2). - **Highway safety: FAIL (TR6(4)).** "In the absence of this [additional land], there is a potential for vehicles to have to reverse or wait onto the public highway" (DL ¶11). "a Grampian-style condition would not overcome my concerns" (DL ¶12). This conflicts with "criterion 4 of TR6 of the Framework" (DL ¶17). - **Heritage: preserved** (DL ¶18-20). - **S5.** "The proposal would re-use an existing building of permanent and substantial construction" (DL ¶23). The conclusion reads: "I am, therefore, not satisfied that the benefits of approving the development proposal would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects. The appeal is therefore dismissed" (DL ¶26). Read literally that would favour approval; from the context the intended finding is plainly the reverse. ## Planning balance Some economic and diversification benefit and moderate locational sustainability weight were set against unacceptable highway safety at the access. Other matters were neutral. ## What made the difference The application red line. Had the passing place been included in the application site, or had control of that land been shown, a Grampian condition could have secured it and the scheme would probably have succeeded. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(c) re-use schemes still fail under TR6(4) where safe access is not shown (DL ¶17, 25). - A Grampian condition is not available where there is no persuasive evidence that the land is in the appellant's control (DL ¶12). - Early decisions show some inspectors applying the Framework without consultation where they judge the policy "not fundamentally changed" (DL ¶3). The drafting of the S5 conclusion here shows the new "substantially outweighed" wording being misapplied (DL ¶26). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(c): pass.** re-use of an existing building of permanent and substantial construction; principle not in dispute (DL 23) - **TR6(4): fail.** sharp bend in access track means two vehicles (especially large) cannot pass near the junction; widening land outside red line and control not shown; Grampian condition not appropriate (DL 8-17) - **HE6: pass.** post-1948 steel barn not curtilage listed; setting of Grade II* Northolme Farm preserved (DL 18-20) - **S5(1): fail.** benefits (employment, farm diversification, moderate locational sustainability) did not justify approval given unresolved highway safety; DL 26 wording inverted (see body) ## Key facts - Revised plans enlarging the red line to add passing hardstanding refused under Holborn Studios principles (DL 2) - Inspector did not invite comments on the new Framework, finding the relevant approach "not fundamentally changed" (DL 3) - No robust evidence on frequency or type of vehicle movements; HGV exclusion unenforceable (DL 14) - Decided three days after the new Framework took effect ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010542 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2ca9968f-7585-4fe3-a761-89cbc9f055a9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010542.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Triangle, 5-17 Hammersmith Grove - **Decision:** allowed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Cleary - **Authority:** Hammersmith and Fulham (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010549 - **Application reference:** 2025/02533/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Glazed single storey entrance extension over existing steps with handrail and new side steps to office building (interim works before Phase 2 redevelopment) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D5, H&F Planning Guidance SPD DA1, DA6 - **Main issues:** safe and inclusive access - **Tags:** tier-2, non-determination, inclusive-access, transitional-no-consultation, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary A glazed entrance foyer over stepped access to an office building, pending a consented redevelopment. Allowed. An existing step-free rear entrance, a conditioned access-improvement package and the interim nature of the works made the lack of level access at the front acceptable. The Framework's "format has altered" but the considerations had "not fundamentally changed" (DL ¶3). ## What made the difference Proportionality. These were interim works, with an alternative level entrance secured by an access management plan condition. ## Policy findings - **D5 (London Plan): accord.** no level access at front but existing level rear entrance plus secured access-improvement package; interim works before Phase 2 (DL 7-12) - **DP3(2)(f): pass.** safe and inclusive access — no Framework policy cited; code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Non-determination appeal; council would have refused on inclusive access (DL 4) - Step-free rear entrance via barrier-controlled car park; access management plan, signage, disabled bay by condition (DL 8-9, 14) - Costs application decided separately (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010549 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d7690b2a-45a0-4089-afb7-e590e1712aaf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010549.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 5 St Marys Road, Garston, Liverpool - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Les Greenwood - **Authority:** Liverpool (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010552 - **Application reference:** 25F/1821 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Extension and change of use of vacant upper floors (consented as 2 flats) to 7-bed HMO above retained shop - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO9, L2(1)(d)(ii) - **Development plan policies:** Liverpool Local Plan 2013-2033 SP2, H10, SPG7 - **Main issues:** living conditions of future occupiers - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, fallback ## Summary Seven-bed HMO in long-vacant space above a shop in Garston district centre. The principle was supported, but the appeal was dismissed because the accommodation "would be cramped and awkward for occupation by 7 people" and had no external space (DL ¶¶11–13). HO9(c) and L2 were read as imposing living-standard requirements on HMOs (DL ¶10). Parties had commented on the new Framework (DL ¶6). ## What made the difference Meeting minimum room sizes "just" was not enough, given the combination of cramped internal space and no outdoor amenity (DL ¶¶11–12). The Inspector would not accept a yard introduced at appeal because it raised new issues (DL ¶5). ## Policy findings - **HO9: fail.** HO9(c) read as requiring HMOs to "provide adequate living and storage space and sufficient shared cooking, laundry and amenity areas" — cramped layout, no external space (DL 10-13) - **L2(1)(d)(ii): fail.** effective-use support conditional on acceptable living standards incl. external amenity space (DL 10, 13) ## Key facts - Headroom only just achieved by lowering floor levels; no external amenity space and no nearby public open space identified - Extant permission for 2 flats treated as a weak fallback because the HMO is significantly more intense (DL 14) - Appeal-stage amended plans adding an external yard rejected as procedurally unfair (DL 4-5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/88e6c673-dbe5-4171-8458-c72466d28211 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010552 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010552.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 15 Sextant Road (land fronting Thurncourt Road), Leicester - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Richard Snow - **Authority:** Leicester (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010557 - **Application reference:** 20251368 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** One 1-bed bungalow in rear garden with landscaping, parking and fencing - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), L2(1)(d)(ii) - **Development plan policies:** Leicester Local Plan 2020-2036 (adopted 9 June 2026) DQP01, DQP05, DQP06 - **Main issues:** living conditions of future occupiers, character and appearance - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, l2-1-d-curtilage, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, living-conditions, backland, garden-land, small-scheme, costs-application ## Summary A 1-bed bungalow in the rear garden of a Leicester house, fronting a side road. Dismissed. The inspector found it fitted the street scene, but its future occupiers would have poor outlook and light in every main habitable room and a shallow, walled-in garden. Because L2(1)(d)'s substantial weight is "contingent" on acceptable living standards, it did not apply, and the S4 presumption failed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The parties were invited to comment and the response received has been taken into account" (DL ¶5). A new Local Plan was adopted on 9 June 2026 and the parties commented on it (DL ¶4). - **Future occupiers — DQP05/DQP06, L2(1)(d)(ii): FAIL.** "for the majority of the time that the room was occupied, a vehicle would be parked in front of this window" (DL ¶8). The hedge "falls outside of the ownership and therefore control of the appellant, and its maintenance to any given height could not therefore be assured" (DL ¶9). "none of the main habitable rooms of the proposed dwelling would be provided with acceptable outlook" (DL ¶11); a daylight/sunlight assessment was not needed to reach that view (DL ¶11). The garden, enclosed by a retaining wall plus a 2 m fence, "would create an oppressive environment for occupiers" (DL ¶13). - **SPD fell away.** The 2008 SPD "was not saved as part of the adoption of the LP. Accordingly, its guidance on garden sizes is no longer extant", but the inspector still found the garden unacceptable (DL ¶14). - **Character — DQP01/DQP05: PASS.** "the proposed bungalow would not appear incongruous or unduly dominant in the street scene" (DL ¶18); acceptable even if the frontage hedge went (DL ¶20). ## Planning balance Conflict with DQP05/DQP06 given "significant weight" as the policies are consistent with the Framework (DL ¶22). S3 → S4 (DL ¶23). On L2: "this support is contingent on development providing acceptable living standards for residents in terms of access to daylight, sunlight and external amenity space … the proposal conflicts with Policy L2" (DL ¶24). "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶25). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶26). ## What made the difference The internal layout: every main habitable room was compromised (bedroom behind a parked car, living room facing a hedge the appellant did not control, obscure-glazed kitchen), and the garden was shallow and enclosed by a retaining wall with a fence on top. Because L2(1)(d)(ii) failed, the scheme lost the L2 "substantial weight". The benefits were not quantified and appear to have been small. A bungalow with clear-glazed outlook onto its own garden would probably have succeeded, since character was acceptable. ## Transferable points - L2(1)(d) substantial weight for additional units in residential curtilages is conditional; failing L2(1)(d)(ii) (daylight, sunlight, external amenity) removes it and becomes a conflict with L2 (DL ¶24). - A living-conditions failure alone for one dwelling can meet the S4 "substantially outweighed" threshold (DL ¶25). - Reliance on a hedge outside the appellant's control for outlook or screening is not accepted (DL ¶¶9, 20). - Lapsed SPD standards do not stop an inspector finding amenity space inadequate on its merits (DL ¶14). - A formal daylight/sunlight assessment is not needed where the harm is obvious from layout (DL ¶11). - Same inspector as PINS-6011373 (Selston), with the same S4 framing: plan conflict given "significant weight", then S4 "does not point to permission being granted" (DL ¶25). ## Policy findings - **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed by adverse effects (DL 23, 25) - **L2(1)(d)(ii): fail.** L2 substantial weight to additional units in residential curtilages is "contingent" on acceptable daylight, sunlight and external amenity; not achieved, so conflict with L2 (DL 24) - **L2(1)(d)(i): pass.** not cited by limb; bungalow reflects scale, design and alignment of street; hard-surfaced frontage common locally (DL 18-21) - **Leicester LP DQP05, DQP06: conflict (significant weight).** bedroom window behind parking space, living room facing third-party hedge, obscure-glazed kitchen, shallow garden enclosed by retaining wall plus 2 m fence; policies consistent with Framework (DL 8-15, 22) - **Leicester LP DQP01, DQP05 (character): accord.** character and appearance acceptable even if frontage hedge removed (DL 20-21) ## Key facts - 1-bed bungalow meeting NDSS in the rear garden of No 15, fronting Thurncourt Road - Bedroom window recessed behind a car-parking space; living room 'outlook' onto a third-party hedge above window height (DL 8-9) - Kitchen main window obscure-glazed; side door next to 2 m fence (DL 10) - Ground lowered; rear garden shallow and enclosed by retaining wall topped by 2 m fence (DL 13) - Residential Amenity SPD 2008 garden standards fell away on adoption of the new Local Plan in June 2026 (DL 14) - Supply position not stated; costs application made (separate decision) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010557 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d9baf685-3aaa-48f2-a872-91ae3937eec7 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2bcf4ec2-963d-4cb1-9201-86fb6e40ace3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010557.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Castleton, Days Lane, Doddinghurst - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P B Jarvis - **Authority:** Brentwood (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010567 - **Application reference:** 26/00233/HHA - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Detached outbuilding (home gym and shower) incidental to dwelling - **Site context:** green-belt, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Brentwood Local Plan 2016-2033 MG02, BE16 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, listed building setting, VSC - **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, outbuilding-as-extension, vsc-not-shown, householder, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A small detached gym outbuilding beside an already-doubled dwelling. The inspector treated it as an extension (Storer; Dawe). Cumulatively it was disproportionate under GB7(1)(b), so inappropriate. Openness was preserved and the listed farmhouse setting was unharmed, but it was dismissed for want of VSC. ## Issues and findings - **Transition:** the policies "have not materially changed therefore further comments have not been invited" (DL ¶2). - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** The outbuilding "would be a 'normal domestic adjunct' … Therefore, it can be considered to comprise an extension to the dwelling" (DL ¶8). "The proposal would add a further 30 sqm. resulting in a dwelling around 140% larger than the original … a disproportionate increase" (DL ¶9). - **Openness preserved:** "Green Belt openness would be preserved" (DL ¶14). - **VSC:** "The appellant also suggests that the harm arising from inappropriateness … would be limited. However, that conflicts with the Framework which directs that any Green Belt harm is to be given substantial weight" (DL ¶20). ## Planning balance GB6(2). Neutral factors (modest size, design, no openness harm) could not clearly outweigh the substantial definitional harm (DL ¶19-22). ## What made the difference Cumulative size against the original dwelling. The GB7(1)(e) garden-PDL route used in PINS-6012162 was not argued. ## Transferable points - A detached incidental outbuilding can be assessed as an "extension" under GB7(1)(b), and past extensions count cumulatively against the original (DL ¶7-9). - Inappropriateness alone attracts substantial weight even where openness is preserved (DL ¶14, 20). - Compare PINS-6012162, where a garden outbuilding outside a built-up area passed as PDL redevelopment under GB7(1)(e). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** detached outbuilding treated as an extension (normal domestic adjunct, close to house); original already doubled, +30 sqm gives about 140% over original — disproportionate (DL 6-10) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriate; openness preserved (very limited spatial effect) but no VSC; appellant's "limited harm" plea rejected (DL 11-14, 18-22) - **HE6: neutral.** Grade II Days Farmhouse setting preserved (DL 15-17) ## Key facts - Original dwelling already about doubled in floorspace; outbuilding adds 30 sqm (cumulative about 140%) - Permitted development rights removed by earlier condition - no fallback - Openness found preserved, yet appeal dismissed on inappropriateness alone - New Framework applied without re-consultation - "policies relevant … have not materially changed" ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010567 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2a8b971f-d0c3-4efe-90fe-ef892ed182ea --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010567.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 7 Caledonia Road, Stanwell (6-bed HMO to 8-bed HMO) - **Decision:** dismissed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Ellis - **Authority:** Spelthorne (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010568 - **Application reference:** 26/00172/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use from C4 HMO (6) to sui generis HMO (8) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Spelthorne Local Plan PS2, P2 - **Main issues:** living conditions, character, parking - **Tags:** hmo, design-refusal, transitional-no-consultation, tier-2 ## Summary Intensification of a Stanwell HMO from six to eight residents was dismissed. Communal space would be inadequate, and the front bin and cycle store would harm the open frontage character (DL ¶9, ¶11). ## What made the difference The communal-space deficiency. Suggested conditions could not cure it (DL ¶19). ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail.** deficient communal space for 8 occupiers, and a bulky front bin and cycle store out of keeping with an open frontage; SLP PS2 and the Framework's high-quality design (DL 7-11) - **L2: neutral.** the Framework seeks efficient use of buildings but only with acceptable living standards (DL 20) ## Key facts - Not re-consulted: changes "do not affect the merits of this case in a material way" (DL 2) - Existing C4 use not treated as a fallback because it would be no more harmful (DL 18) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010568 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/12ec3fa4-e956-433d-a6be-b71d4561eb56 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010568.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 17 Lyndon Mead, Sandridge - **Decision:** allowed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Bell-Williamson - **Authority:** St Albans (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010603 - **Application reference:** 5/2025/2222 - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Two-storey side extension replacing single-storey side extension, small rear infill, internal reconfiguration - **Site context:** green-belt, washed-over-village - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b) - **Development plan policies:** St Albans District Local Plan Review 1994 Policies 1, 13, emerging LP Policy LG9 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, VSC - **Tags:** extension-not-disproportionate, local-plan-gb-policy-out-of-date, openness-implicit-in-exception ## Summary Two-storey side extension to a detached house in a residential road washed over by the St Albans Green Belt. Allowed. The cumulative floorspace increase of about 39-42% was "not insignificant", but the extension was set down, set back and narrow, and sat largely on an existing single-storey footprint. It was therefore not disproportionate under GB7(1)(b), and openness did not need separate assessment. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The new Framework "does not alter my conclusion" (DL ¶2). - **Old local policy.** The 1994 policies and SPG "do not reflect the Framework's approach … the more recent national policy should be the principal basis" (DL ¶10-11). - **GB7(1)(b): PASS.** "the previous and proposed extensions result in a not insignificant change to the original building's size in quantitative terms … However, this must be balanced with the finding that the proposed extension would not alter the footprint or external dimensions of the dwelling to the extent that it would be disproportionate" (DL ¶14). - **Openness.** "impact on openness is implicitly taken into account in the Framework's exceptions unless there is a specific requirement to consider the actual effect on openness" (DL ¶16). ## Planning balance Not inappropriate, so no VSC balance. ## What made the difference Design subservience: the extension sat on the existing footprint, was set down and set back, and had a limited frontage width. That outweighed a roughly 40% cumulative floorspace uplift. ## Transferable points - A cumulative floorspace uplift of around 40% is not automatically disproportionate. Bulk and external dimensions carry the judgement (DL ¶12-15). - Where GB7(1)(b) is met, openness is not separately assessed, because it is built into the exception (DL ¶16). - Pre-Framework local Green Belt extension policies based on visual impact tests are given way to national policy (DL ¶10-11). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): pass.** cumulative uplift about 39-42% floorspace (176 m3) "not insignificant", but set-down, set-back, narrow extension on existing footprint adds little bulk; not disproportionate (DL 12-15) - **GB6(2): not-engaged.** not inappropriate; openness implicitly accounted for in the (b) exception so not separately assessed (DL 16) - **SADM/LP Policy 13 (1994): neutral.** 1994 policies and SPG assess scale and visual effect, do not reflect Framework approach; Framework the principal basis (DL 10-11) ## Key facts - Original floorspace about 149 m2; previous additions about 25 m2 plus proposed 37 m2 (DL 12) - Residential road of similar two-storey detached houses (DL 8) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010603 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e0c57f88-c698-4d8c-b257-0ed123c03088 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010603.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Vale View, West Bagborough - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Butcher - **Authority:** Somerset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010616 - **Application reference:** 45/26/0003 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Erection of four dwellings, garages and associated works - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.95 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N2, S5(1)(j), HO7 - **Development plan policies:** Taunton Deane Core Strategy 2012 DM1, CP8, SADMP 2016 ENV1 - **Main issues:** protected species, biodiversity net gain, S5 balance - **Tags:** s5-1-j, substantially-outweighed, housing-shortfall, protected-species-survey, national-landscape, non-determination, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme ## Summary Four dwellings on the edge of West Bagborough in the Quantock Hills National Landscape, where the council had 3.95 years' supply. Dismissed. The site passed S5(1)(j) and the four homes got HO7 substantial weight, but protected-species surveys were inadequate. The inspector held that the resulting N2 conflict "substantially outweigh[s]" the benefits (DL ¶18). ## Issues and findings - **Protected species — N2: FAIL.** Further surveys were needed for bats, reptiles, dormice and birds. "seeking additional surveys via a suitably worded condition would not be appropriate as the required level of certainty is needed prior to granting planning permission" (DL ¶9). - **Location — S5(1)(j): PASS.** "this part of the policy provides support for proposals where they would be well related to an existing settlement … Given the location of the site, these aspects of the policy would be met" (DL ¶17). - **HO7.** "the lack of information in relation to protected species means that significant harm cannot be ruled out. As a result of the conflict with the aims of Policy N2 of the Framework, I conclude that the harm would substantially outweigh the benefits, even when affording substantial weight in relation to Policy HO7" (DL ¶18). - **National Landscape — N4: no harm** (DL ¶14). **BNG: capable of delivery** (DL ¶13). ## Planning balance S5(1) "substantially outweighed" test. HO7 substantial weight for four homes against an N2 conflict from unresolved protected-species risk. There was no separate weight label for the harm. ## What made the difference Evidence, not merits. The location, landscape and BNG were all acceptable. A complete set of species surveys in season would very likely have produced an allowed appeal under S5(1)(j). ## Transferable points - A precautionary, unquantified protected-species risk can "substantially outweigh" HO7 substantial-weight housing benefits under S5(1) (DL ¶18). - An earlier council acceptance of a similar ecology report does not bind the inspector (DL ¶8). - An S5(1)(j) pass with a 3.95-year supply still needs a clean technical case. ## Policy findings - **N2: fail.** PEA inadequate — further surveys needed for bats (15 species nearby), reptiles, dormice, nesting birds (survey outside optimal period); cannot be conditioned; "significant harm cannot be ruled out" (DL 5-10, 18) - **S5(1)(j): pass.** just outside settlement; well related and appropriate scale; 3.95 years supply (DL 17) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to four homes in a shortfall, but harm "substantially outweigh[s]" (DL 16, 18) - **N4: neutral.** Quantock Hills NL — seen as part of settlement, scenic beauty maintained; LURA 2023 s245 duty met (DL 14) - **N2 (BNG): pass.** off-site gains on appellant land; obligation needed only at gain-plan discharge (DL 11-13) ## Key facts - Council supply 3.95 years (DL 17) - Similar PEA accepted by council for earlier six-dwelling application 45/25/0013 (DL 8) - Non-determination appeal; parties consulted on 2026 Framework (DL 2-3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010616 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2b1cf8da-68bb-4651-aeef-bfce90605763 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010616.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pavement outside 10 Bargate Street, Southampton - **Decision:** dismissed, 27 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Leonard - **Authority:** Southampton (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010617 - **Application reference:** 26/00357/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Multifunctional communication hub with defibrillator and digital advertisement (Appeal A 6010617 planning; Appeal B 6010618 advertisement) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3, TR4(1)(c)(iii) - **Development plan policies:** Southampton Core Strategy Partial Review 2015 CS13, CS14, City Centre Action Plan 2015 AP16, AP19, Local Plan Review saved HE1, HE3, Streets and Spaces Framework SPD 2015 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, heritage, advertisement amenity - **Tags:** street-hub, telecoms, advertisement, transitional-no-consultation, old-heritage-wording, previous-appeal-followed ## Summary Communication hub with a digital advert on Bargate Street, near the Grade I listed and scheduled Bar Gate. Both appeals were dismissed on street clutter and visual amenity, although no heritage harm was found. The letter includes an express comparison of the 2024 and 2026 heritage wording. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The revised Framework "does not differ significantly from the 2024 Framework in respect of the substance", so there was no consultation (DL ¶6). - **Heritage wording.** "the 2024 Framework required 'great' weight … In the 2026 revised Framework, 'great' is replaced by 'substantial'. There is still a requirement to balance any harm … against any public benefits" (DL ¶9). The conclusion nonetheless reverts: "I have given great weight to their conservation" (DL ¶23). - **Heritage: no harm.** The hub would interrupt views of the Bar Gate only "from a discrete section of the footway … fleeting and only experienced in one direction" (DL ¶22). - **Character and clutter: FAIL.** The structure "would interrupt the existing spacious line arrangement of trees … giving a cluttered appearance" (DL ¶17). - **Benefits.** Connectivity and defibrillator benefits are "localised", and "there is no firm evidence that the proposed location before me is the only means of securing such benefits … thereby moderating the weight" (DL ¶32). ## Planning balance Plan-led (s38(6)). Visual harm outweighed the moderated benefits. For the advertisement, benefits cannot count because control is limited to amenity and public safety (DL ¶34). ## What made the difference Placement between a regular row of street trees and right next to an existing ad unit. A near-identical scheme a few metres away had been dismissed in 2023, and nothing had changed (DL ¶¶28–30). ## Transferable points - Inspectors are expressly recognising the HE6(1) change from "great" to "substantial" weight while treating the balance as unchanged (DL ¶9). - Communications-hub benefits are moderated where there's no evidence the location is the only way to secure them (DL ¶32). ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail.** 2.63m bulky unit between regularly spaced street trees next to existing ad unit — cluttered, awkward, intrusive, also at night (DL 15-18, 24-25) - **HE6(1): neutral.** Inspector notes 2024 "great" weight now "substantial"; but then states "I have given great weight" (DL 9, 23) - **HE6: pass.** no harm to setting of Grade I listed and scheduled Bar Gate; negligible effect on Old Town CA (site just outside CA, so s72 not engaged) (DL 5, 19-23) - **CO1: benefit (moderate weight).** need not questioned; localised benefits, moderated because no evidence this is the only location; removal of other kiosks minimal weight (DL 31-33) ## Key facts - Almost identical scheme outside 14 Bargate Street dismissed in 2023 (APP/D1780/W/22/3299729 and H/22/3299730) - Bus-only city-centre street with two existing digital ad units nearby ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b978a933-af08-4d48-8361-b5e9c5d2e38e - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010617 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010617.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 86 Alexandra Road, Poole - **Decision:** dismissed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Leonard - **Authority:** Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010619 - **Application reference:** P/25/03787/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Plot severance and erection of a contemporary 3-bed self-build house in rear garden backing onto Alexandra Park - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.55 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(2)(a)(ii), L2(1)(d)(ii), DP3(3), HE7(2) - **Development plan policies:** Poole Local Plan 2018 PP27, PP28, PP30, PP37 - **Main issues:** character, non-designated heritage asset (park), living conditions, habitats mitigation - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, l2-residential-curtilage, design-refusal, ndha, self-build, housing-shortfall, old-wording-slip, fallback, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A contemporary flat-roofed self-build house on a severed rear-garden plot backing onto the locally listed Alexandra Park in Poole. Dismissed. The supply was only 2.55 years and L2(1)(d) gave substantial weight to a curtilage home. But the design was out of keeping and prominent from the park (DP3(3), HE7 harm to the NDHA setting). Living conditions for new and existing occupiers were also poor, which meant the scheme failed L2(1)(d)(ii) itself. The inspector relied on both S4(2)(a)(ii) (substantial adverse impact on L2(1)(d)) and S4(2)(c) (DP3 refusal policy). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties had the opportunity to comment (DL ¶2). - **Character: HARM.** The building "would stand out as a stark and incongruous addition to this edge of parkland environment" (DL ¶18). Its build-to-plot ratio was comparable, but its layout was "an unduly cramped form of development" (DL ¶23). - **NDHA (HE7): HARM.** "the park setting also comprises an integral part of the heritage asset's significance" (DL ¶32). The harm was less than substantial, so HE7(2) applied (DL ¶34). - **Living conditions.** No cross-sections were supplied, so the inspector could not be satisfied on overlooking from the higher neighbouring decks and windows (DL ¶38-39). Daylight was acceptable (DL ¶40). - **Balance wording.** DL ¶56 says "the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits", which is the pre-2026 tilted-balance formula. DL ¶58-59 then apply S4(2) correctly. - **S4(2).** "Framework Policy S4 also sets out … where there is a substantial adverse impact in relation to … development within residential curtilages (Policy L2:(1)(d)) and where there is failure to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused … The appeal scheme fails to comply with Policy L2:(1)(d)(ii) … [and] Framework Policies DP3:(1) and DP3:(3)" (DL ¶58-59). ## Planning balance S4(1)/(2). Substantial weight to one curtilage home, self-build, and a 2.55-year supply (DL ¶54), against cumulative character, NDHA and living-condition harms judged "substantial" (DL ¶55). S4(2)(a)(ii) and (c) were both engaged. ## What made the difference A contemporary, flat-roofed and elevated design on a visually exposed park edge, and a failure to supply levels information. Both the character harm and the living-conditions failure fed into specific S4(2) triggers, which overrode the heavy housing shortfall. ## Transferable points - S4(2)(a)(ii) is engaged by a "substantial adverse impact" on the L2(1)(d) residential-curtilage criteria, including L2(1)(d)(ii) living standards (DL ¶58-59). - In a garden-plot case, L2(1)(d) is both the source of the substantial weight and the test the scheme must meet (DL ¶54, 59). - The setting of a locally listed park is part of its significance for HE7 (DL ¶32). - Watch for old-formula slips ("significantly and demonstrably") in early post-August 2026 letters (DL ¶56). ## Policy findings - **L2(1)(d): benefit (substantial weight).** unit within residential curtilage; supply 2.55 years including 20% buffer (DL 52-54) - **L2(1)(d)(ii): fail.** cramped, oppressive outlook and uncertain overlooking for future occupiers; reduced outlook for host No 86; no level sections supplied (DL 35-44, 59) - **HE7(2): harm.** harm (less than substantial) to setting of locally listed Edwardian Alexandra Park; stark flat-roofed building elevated above the park footpath (DL 29-34) - **DP3(3): fail.** contemporary flat-roof grey brick and black timber design wholly out of keeping with Arts and Crafts park edge (DL 17-28, 59) - **S4(2)(a)(ii): fail.** substantial adverse impact on application of L2(1)(d) and DP3 refusal policy; benefits outweighed (DL 55-59) ## Key facts - Council supply 2.55 years (with 20% buffer) - Plot already severed once (No 86A built); lawful development certificate for a garden home office treated as a limited-weight fallback - DL 56 uses the old "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" formula before applying S4(2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010619 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/31ace494-1279-4364-aaa1-172438cc5c7d --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010619.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 197 Alderson Road, Liverpool (house to two flats) - **Decision:** allowed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Hatch - **Authority:** Liverpool (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010623 - **Application reference:** 25F/3107 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of dwelling to two flats with single-storey rear extension and rear dormer - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** Liverpool LP H10 - **Development plan policies:** Liverpool Local Plan H10, H7, H8, UD1, UD2, UD7, GI8 - **Main issues:** family housing, noise, privacy - **Tags:** transitional, old-wording-slip, tier-2 ## Summary Conversion of a Liverpool house into two flats was allowed. There was no loss of a family dwelling, sound insulation could be left to Building Regulations, and privacy was acceptable (DL ¶8, ¶12-13, ¶19). ## What made the difference Compliance with local policy H10. The letter is dated 17 Aug 2026 and still cites 2024 "Paragraph 58" for planning obligations (DL ¶20). ## Policy findings - **HO5: pass.** no loss of a family dwelling under H10 2(n) (DL 8) - **P3: pass.** sound insulation left to Building Regulations Part E; privacy acceptable (DL 12-19) - **DM6: pass.** £800 tree contribution meets the tests of "Paragraph 58" of the Framework (2024 numbering) (DL 20) ## Key facts - Dated 17 Aug 2026; cites 2024 paragraph 58 for obligation tests (DL 20) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010623 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2fa59f47-9b61-4f0b-9a9e-de8ddcc9fd6d --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010623.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Longbrook Pavillion, Hook Lane, Bognor Regis - **Decision:** allowed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Stewart Glassar - **Authority:** Arun (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010637 - **Application reference:** BR/51/26/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for a maximum net gain of 8 dwellings on the site of a former nursery school building - **Homes:** 8 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, PDL, flood-zone-3 - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.23 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5 - **Development plan policies:** Arun Local Plan W DM2 - **Main issues:** suitability of location for residential development - **Tags:** PIP, s5-1-j, s5-limb-not-identified, flood-risk, pdl, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, costs-application, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Permission in principle for up to eight homes on a former nursery-school site at the edge of Bognor Regis, just outside the settlement boundary in a strategic gap and in Flood Zone 3a. The Council accepted the location under its plan, and the Environment Agency withdrew its flood objection subject to floor levels. With a 3.23-year supply the inspector found the scheme accorded with S5 (the (j) wording). The letter does not mention the sequential test. Allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The 2026 Framework was taken into account (DL ¶5). No consultation. - **Location.** "even though the site is physically and visually well related to the nearby houses, it is not within the built-up area of Bognor Regis and is instead within the strategic gap" (DL ¶9). The plan allows development in the gap that does not undermine separation, and the Council did not object on location (DL ¶10). - **Flood risk.** "The Environment Agency has subsequently revised its position and withdrawn its objection to housing being located on the site. Subject to certain floor levels being achieved for the new houses, there would be no safety risk were the site to flood" (DL ¶11). No F5 sequential test is discussed. - **S5: PASS.** "As the site would be well-related to the existing settlement and be of a scale which can be accommodated taking into account the existing availability of infrastructure, it would accord with Framework Policy S5" (DL ¶14). ## Planning balance Plan accordance plus S5. No explicit S5 balance of benefits against adverse effects is set out (DL ¶13–14, ¶18). ## What made the difference The Environment Agency's change of position and the Council's acceptance of the location. The inspector treated the flood issue as settled by the floor-level safety answer. ## Transferable points - A previously developed site across a boundary path from houses can be "well-related to the existing settlement" for S5(1)(j) even though it is outside the plan boundary and in a strategic gap (DL ¶9, ¶14). - Caution: a Flood Zone 3a housing PIP allowed without any sequential-test reasoning. Contrast PINS-6009106, where a thin sequential test was fatal at PIP stage. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): pass.** letter cites "Framework Policy S5" without a limb; 3.23-year supply as unmet need, well related to the settlement, scale accommodated by infrastructure - the (j)(i) wording (DL 14) - **F7: pass.** Flood Zone 3a; Environment Agency withdrew objection subject to floor levels; no safety risk (DL 11, 13) - **F5: not-engaged.** sequential test not mentioned for a Flood Zone 3a housing site (DL 11-13) ## Key facts - Site is outside the settlement boundary (a foot/cycle path) and in the strategic gap between Bognor Regis and Felpham, but previously developed and physically and visually well related to houses (DL 9-10) - Costs application by the appellant against the Environment Agency, decided separately (DL 2) - Highway authority did not object in principle (DL 15) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010637 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/77c35548-fcdb-45fc-bddd-a0340ca917a3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010637.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent 10 Wren Avenue, Sproston, Crewe (PIP one self-build dwelling) - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Fulford - **Authority:** Cheshire West and Chester (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010642 - **Application reference:** 25/02664/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for one self-build dwelling on garden land at the corner of Wren Avenue and Brereton Lane, outside any settlement - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j)(i), S5(4), TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan Part One 2015 STRAT 1, STRAT 2, STRAT 9, Local Plan Part Two 2019 DM 19, R 1 - **Main issues:** suitable location and accessibility - **Tags:** PIP, s5-1-j, s5-4-exceptional, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, self-build, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Permission in principle for one self-build dwelling beside a small cul-de-sac of semis at Sproston, between Middlewich and Holmes Chapel. The site is 2 km from either town, so S5(1)(j)(i) failed. An hourly bus stops 400 m away, but reaching it means walking in the carriageway of an unrestricted lane and crossing the A54 with no formal crossing. The inspector gave significant weight to the TR3 conflict, and under S5(4) the limited benefits did not substantially outweigh it. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "parties have been provided with an opportunity to make further submissions" (DL ¶6). - **Bus route.** "Whilst the bus stop is within an acceptable walking distance, the first part of the route requires walking within the road along Brereton Lane given the lack of a pavement or grass verge" (DL ¶13). "this route would not be a realistic option for many future occupiers especially a parent with young children or those with mobility issues" (DL ¶13). - **Cycling.** "the routes include sections of unlit road where vehicles can travel at 40mph. This would be unattractive to all but the most confident cyclists" (DL ¶15). - **Not isolated is not the test.** "the presence of other nearby dwellings does not overcome the concerns raised over the unsustainability of the location" (DL ¶17). - **S5(1)(j)(i): FAIL.** "The development would thus not be physically well-related to any existing settlements" (DL ¶24). - **TR3: FAIL.** "The site is not located where it can support sustainable patterns of movement and would not enable good accessibility for different users and would therefore be contrary to Policy TR3 of the Framework. Significant weight is attached to this conflict" (DL ¶27). ## Planning balance S5(4) exceptional circumstances: housing, self-build and economic benefits (limited) against the TR3 conflict (significant). "The benefits would therefore not substantially outweigh the identified adverse effects" (DL ¶27). ## What made the difference The walk to the bus: short, but in the road on an unrestricted lane and across the A54 with no crossing. Proximity to a bus stop did not make the location accessible. ## Transferable points - A bus stop "within an acceptable walking distance" does not help where the route means walking in the carriageway and crossing an A road informally (DL ¶13). - TR3 is tested for all users, including a parent with young children or people with mobility issues (DL ¶13). - Not being isolated does not answer the TR3 question (DL ¶17). - A TR3 conflict can carry significant weight in the S5(4) balance for one dwelling (DL ¶27). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j)(i): fail.** about 2 km from Middlewich and Holmes Chapel, not physically well related to any settlement (DL 24) - **S5(4): fail.** benefits limited; do not substantially outweigh adverse effects (DL 25-27) - **TR3: fail (significant weight).** 400 m to an hourly bus, but first part walked in the carriageway of an unrestricted lane with no verge, then an uncontrolled crossing of the A54; cycling on unlit 40 mph roads; only a pub within walking distance (DL 12-16, 27) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** one self-build dwelling; self-build modest weight (DL 19, 26) ## Key facts - Brereton Lane has no footway or verge and no speed restriction (up to 60 mph) (DL 12) - Bus stop about 400 m on Holmes Chapel Road (A54), D&G route 42 hourly between Holmes Chapel and Middlewich; no formal crossing (DL 13) - Middlewich and Holmes Chapel about 2 km; routes include unlit 40 mph sections (DL 15) - Not isolated (cul-de-sac of five pairs of semis) but this does not answer the accessibility issue (DL 17) - Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 24) - Parties given an opportunity to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 6) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010642 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/23aa00a1-a266-4f18-a472-aa52098db09e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010642.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Ronbar North, 2 Crowther Road, Washington - **Decision:** allowed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Clark - **Authority:** Sunderland (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010644 - **Application reference:** 25/02487/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of B8 storage building to E(d) indoor padel courts in Key Employment Area - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** Sunderland Core Strategy and Development Plan 2015-2033 EG2, ST3 - **Main issues:** safeguarding employment land - **Tags:** tier-2, employment-land-loss, marketing-period, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary Padel courts in a surplus ancillary storage building on a Key Employment Area estate. Allowed as a departure from the plan. Only the 24-month marketing criterion of the release policy was failed, and the benefits "significantly outweigh" that conflict (DL ¶26). No Framework policy is cited on the merits, although the parties were consulted on the 2026 version (DL ¶3). ## What made the difference The building's functional tie to the adjoining factory made third-party B-use impractical. Insisting on more marketing would defeat the policy's aim of avoiding "long-term protection of employment land where there is no reasonable prospect" (DL ¶23). ## Policy findings - **EG2 (Sunderland CSDP): conflict.** criteria 2.i-iii met (surplus ancillary building, unsuitable for third-party B use, no harm to KEA) but 2.iv 24-month marketing not met (marketed since Oct 2025) (DL 9-20) - **HC1: benefit.** 10-12 FTE jobs, health/wellbeing leisure use; benefits "significantly outweigh" the conflict (DL 25-26); no Framework policy cited — code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - 2022 building ancillary to adjoining manufacturer; owner bought larger Ronbar South for expansion (DL 10-11) - Marketing feedback — restricted loading, no yard or office; only about 11 months marketed against 24 required (DL 13, 19) - Filebase House appeal 6006595 (Primary Employment Area) distinguished (DL 27) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010644 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/69206315-2ee4-4d99-ab95-6c55298ca13d --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010644.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Nunns, 60 Market Street, Old Harlow (listed building consent) - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Terceiro - **Authority:** Harlow (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010645 - **Application reference:** HW/LBC/26/00066 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Listed building consent for a single-storey rear and side extension to a Grade II listed house, replacing a rebuilt store - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE4(2) - **Development plan policies:** Harlow Local Development Plan 2020 PL1, PL12, WE5 - **Main issues:** special interest of Grade II listed building, character of Old Harlow Conservation Area - **Tags:** listed-building-consent, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, heritage-harm-decisive, private-benefit-not-public, conservation-area, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary Listed building consent for a wide single-storey extension to Nunns, a c.1700 Grade II house in Old Harlow, was refused on appeal. The extension would overwhelm the house's proportions and hide the base of its rear chimney stack, and it would replace a sympathetic rebuilt store. The moderate harm to the house and the conservation area was not outweighed by the modest benefits of more living and office space, which could be achieved less harmfully. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were invited to provide comments on the revised Framework" (DL ¶3). - **Harm.** "the proposal would cover over the base of the chimney stack, where it is at its widest and most interesting" (DL ¶9). "the proposal would result in moderate harm to the significance of the Grade II listed building and moderate harm to the CA. Any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶13). - **Reconstructed fabric.** Although rebuilt, the chimney "is not only significant visually, but also in terms of the building's plan form and it aids an understanding of how the building functioned historically" (DL ¶9). - **HE6(4): FAIL.** "there is nothing before me to suggest that this could not be achieved in another, less harmful manner" (DL ¶14). The benefits "attract modest weight and fall short of overcoming the substantial weight I give to the harm" (DL ¶14). ## Planning balance HE6(4), with HE6(1) and HE4(2) cited (DL ¶12–13). The letter calls the weight to the harm "substantial" at DL ¶14, after stating HE6(1) and HE6(3) correctly. ## What made the difference The chimney stack's base, which the extension would enclose, and the width and depth of the addition. The home-office and kitchen benefits were private and could be delivered another way. ## Transferable points - A faithfully reconstructed historic feature can still carry significance where it explains plan form and function (DL ¶9). - Private benefits such as more floorspace carry modest weight and fail where no less harmful alternative has been explored (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation stated; letter later says "the substantial weight I give to the harm" (DL 12, 14) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** moderate harm to the Grade II house (overwhelms proportions, covers base of rear chimney stack, loses rebuilt store) and moderate harm to Old Harlow CA (DL 9-11, 13) - **HE6(4): fail.** home office, larger kitchen and construction benefits "modest"; nothing to show they could not be achieved less harmfully (DL 14) - **HE4(2): fail.** clear and convincing justification required (DL 12) ## Key facts - House c.1700 (list entry 1111683), end of terrace, brick ground floor and tile-hung first floor; rebuilt external rear chimney stack (DL 5) - Rear elevation and chimney visible from Broadway Avenue (DL 8) - Plans and elevations not fully consistent; not pursued (DL 17) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010645 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010645.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Ashton Farm, Wedmore - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Butcher - **Authority:** Somerset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010649 - **Application reference:** 15/25/00014 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class Q prior approval, two agricultural barns to 7 dwellinghouses with building operations - **Homes:** 7 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3(2)(a) - **Main issues:** noise to future occupiers, reasonably necessary demolition - **Tags:** tier-2, prior-approval, class-q, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary Class Q conversion of two barns to 7 dwellings, dismissed on noise from retained farm buildings. The decision-maker "must have necessary certainty … prior to an award of prior approval", so noise could not be left to a condition (DL ¶11). Partial demolition was accepted as "reasonably necessary". The letter does not mention the Framework at all. ## What made the difference The noise review was "light on detail" and did not assess whether mitigation was needed or would work, including against intensified future agricultural use (DL ¶¶8–9). The EHO's suggestion of a condition was rejected (DL ¶¶10–11). ## Policy findings - **P3(2)(a): fail.** GPDO Q.2(1)(b) noise — review of retained farm buildings (telehandler, possible intensification) too thin; not deferred to condition (DL 4-11); Framework not cited - **DM9: pass.** partial demolition of barn 2 "reasonably necessary" under Q1(j)(ii) — reasonable-person test; conversion not rebuild (DL 13-17) ## Key facts - UU to demolish or cease agricultural use of barn 3 accepted as mitigating that noise source - Other farm buildings used for bedding storage with a telehandler 2-3 times a week; no assessment of the effect of mitigation ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/545f96f9-3129-4523-87ed-4d195a3cdd04 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010649 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010649.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pavement outside 43-47 Bethnal Green Road, Tower Hamlets (communication hub) - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F Leung - **Authority:** Tower Hamlets (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010661 - **Application reference:** PA/26/00088 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Removal of two advertised kiosks and installation of a 2.6 m multifunctional communication hub with defibrillator and digital advertisement display (Appeal A planning; Appeal B 6010662 advertisement consent PA/26/00089) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1), S4(2)(c), CO1, S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031 (2020) S.DH1, D.DH10, D.DH11, S.TR1, D.TR3, London Plan 2021 D3, T1, T2, T3, T5 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, public cycle infrastructure, visual amenity (advert) - **Tags:** tier-2, street-hub, telecoms, digital-advertising, co1-substantial-weight, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A 2.6 m communication hub with a digital advertising screen on a wide pavement outside Rich Mix, Bethnal Green Road, replacing two kiosks. The inspector found it prominent and cluttering, in conflict with DP3, and a "should be refused" policy under S4(2)(c). It would also displace three public cycle stands with no secured replacement. CO1 network benefits got substantial weight but were substantially outweighed. Both the planning and advertisement appeals were dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were given an opportunity to comment" (DL ¶4). - **Character, DP3: CONFLICT.** "its scale, height, bulk and location would result in a prominent and visually intrusive addition to the street scene, adding materially to the existing visual clutter" (DL ¶10). "Appeals A and B would conflict with Policy DP3 of the Framework" (DL ¶13). - **Cycle stands: HARM.** "there does not appear to be a reasonable prospect of the works being delivered because ownership, control and the delivery mechanism are uncertain" (DL ¶16). - **S4(2)(c).** "The appeal proposals would therefore fail to comply with a national decision-making policy that states that proposals should be refused in specified circumstances" (DL ¶23). - **CO1.** "Insofar as the proposed hub under Appeal A would provide those network benefits, I give them substantial weight" but "It would therefore fail to minimise its visual impact as required by Policy CO1" (DL ¶24). ## Planning balance S4(1) with S4(2)(c): CO1 substantial weight and positive weight to public services "would be substantially outweighed by the significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and the unacceptable loss of existing public cycle infrastructure" (DL ¶27). ## What made the difference Height and bulk at the kerb in an ordered line of low street furniture, plus the unsecured cycle stand relocation. ## Transferable points - A street hub's DP3 conflict engages S4(2)(c) and outweighs CO1 substantial weight (DL ¶23-27). - Replacement facilities on third-party land cannot be secured by a negative condition without a reasonable prospect of delivery (DL ¶15-16). - Public-service benefits of hubs (Wi-Fi, defibrillator) are discounted without evidence of need at the location (DL ¶25). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): conflict.** tall, solid hub at the kerb disrupts the spatial order of low, permeable street furniture; significant harm (DL 9-11, 13) - **S4(2)(c): fail.** DP3 conflict means failure to comply with a "should be refused" policy; clear justification not expressly addressed (DL 22-23) - **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** network benefits substantial weight to the extent provided; siting limb failed - does not minimise visual impact (DL 24, 27) - **TR3: harm.** mapped: loss of 3 of 17 public cycle stands; replacements on third-party land unsecured and not conditionable (DL 14-17) - **HE6: neutral.** setting of Grade II Knave of Clubs PH preserved; s66 applied (DL 18-19) - **S4(1): fail.** CO1 and other public benefits substantially outweighed (DL 25, 27) ## Key facts - Hub about 2.6 m high and 1.3 m wide, leaving 2.7 m of footway (DL 8) - Wi-Fi, phone, defibrillator and charging benefits given positive weight, but no evidence of need at this spot (DL 25) - Promised kiosk removal 300 m away unsecured; limited weight (DL 26) - Advert Appeal B (6010662) dismissed on visual amenity in the same letter (DL 12, 29) - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010661 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e612f9e4-75dc-4409-b7d7-d47e2ac24f98 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010661.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 103 Oxford Street, Soho, London (scaffold shroud advert) - **Decision:** allowed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Major - **Authority:** Westminster (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010668 - **Application reference:** 26/00918/ADV - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Temporary 1:1 decorative scaffold shroud with 13.5 x 7.2 m inset advertisement (external lighting refused by condition) - **Site context:** conservation-area, listed-building-setting, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3, HE9 - **Development plan policies:** Westminster City Plan 2019-2040 Policies 42, 44, 48, Streets and Spaces Public Realm Guidance SPD 2025 - **Main issues:** visual amenity - **Tags:** advertisement, scaffold-shroud, conservation-area, he-policies-as-amenity, non-determination ## Summary A temporary scaffold shroud advert on Oxford Street in the Soho Conservation Area was allowed for nine months. Proposed external lighting was refused by condition. Unlike Chelmsford and Newcastle, the inspector treated DP3 and HE5-HE9 of the new Framework as material "insofar as they relate to amenity" and found accordance. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were invited to comment; the revised Framework was applied "insofar as it is relevant in consideration of amenity and public safety" (DL ¶3). - **Amenity: no harm.** "the advertisement inset would cover approximately 15% of the shroud … it would not totally overwhelm or significantly detract from the 1:1 depiction" (DL ¶18). "the proposed shroud, with advertisement inset, would be preferable to the use of bland and intrusive scaffolding and netting … would therefore assist in better revealing the significance" (DL ¶20). - **Lighting.** Down-lights "would unacceptably increase the visual prominence … particularly in hours of darkness" and were excluded by condition (DL ¶22). - **Framework.** "Policies DP3, HE5, HE6, HE7 and HE9 of the Framework as material insofar as they relate to amenity … the proposal would not harm visual amenity, it accords with these policy objectives" (DL ¶24). ## Planning balance None. The decision was on amenity only. ## What made the difference The small inset share (about 15%) within a 1:1 facade image, the lively commercial context, and a genuine repair need. ## Transferable points - In advert appeals, DP3 and the HE policies can be treated as material to amenity (DL ¶24). Compare PINS-6009587 and PINS-6011428, which hold HE6's balancing limbs inapplicable. - A shroud with a modest inset can "better reveal" significance compared with bare scaffolding (DL ¶20). ## Policy findings - **DP3: accord.** material "insofar as they relate to amenity"; shroud preferable to bland scaffolding (DL 20, 24) - **HE7: pass.** host building a positive contributor / non-designated asset; 1:1 image preserves appreciation (DL 10, 16-18, 23) - **HE9: pass.** CA character preserved; commercial, animated Oxford Street context (DL 9, 19, 23) - **HE6: pass.** no harm to adjoining Grade II listed 105-109 Oxford Street (DL 11, 23) ## Key facts - Non-determination appeal; council's SPD resists "significant advertising" on shrouds - Advert inset about 15% of the shroud area (DL 18) - Condition survey shows repairs needed; consent limited to 9 months; no moving images; no external lighting ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010668 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/152aa8fa-c3ea-4281-bba2-6e4dc0dddd10 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010668.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Kensington Hall, 25-27 Kensington Street, Bradford (front retail extension) - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J D Westbrook - **Authority:** Bradford (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6010672 - **Application reference:** 25/02921/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Front extension for retail use - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** Bradford CS DS1, Bradford CS TR2 - **Development plan policies:** Bradford Core Strategy DS1, DS3, DS5, TR2 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, highway safety - **Tags:** design-refusal, highway-safety, retail, tier-2 ## Summary A front retail extension to a Bradford hall was dismissed. It harmed the façade and the street pattern, and it removed required parking, causing dangerous overspill (DL ¶10, ¶19). ## What made the difference Loss of the parking secured by a previous permission, together with extra trade. Decided on local plan policies only. ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail.** scale and design harm the original façade and the street pattern (DL 10) - **TR6: fail.** extra trade plus loss of parking required by an earlier permission causes overspill and danger (DL 19) ## Key facts - Loss of on-site parking secured by an earlier permission (DL 19) - Framework not cited ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010672 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c9c1db14-a5e5-4e83-8eaf-435d525b09ef --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010672.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land north east of 7 Redmoor Lane, Wisbech - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Gee - **Authority:** Fenland (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010682 - **Application reference:** F/YR26/0184/F - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective change of use of land to domestic purposes, siting of a static caravan and erection of a shed - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, flood-zone-3 - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** F5, S5(2), S5(1) - **Development plan policies:** Fenland Local Plan 2014 LP1, LP3, LP12, LP14, LP16, Cambridgeshire Flood and Water SPD 2016 - **Main issues:** suitable location, character and appearance, flood risk - **Tags:** retrospective, caravans, sequential-test-fail, flood-risk, s5-2-refusal-policy, rural-worker-dwelling, agricultural-need-not-shown, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme ## Summary Retrospective application for a static caravan, shed and change of use of land to domestic use on a smallholding in Flood Zone 3a outside Wisbech. Dismissed. No essential rural-worker need was evidenced, the domestication harmed rural character, and the proposal failed the F5 sequential test. The inspector used S5(2) to treat the flood-policy failure as decisive and did not go on to the S5(4) exceptional-circumstances balance. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "On 17 August 2026 a new Framework was published … the Council and the appellant were invited to make further comments. My decision reflects the latest version of the Framework, and the responses received on it" (DL ¶3). - **Evolving scheme.** Shift from "ancillary" to rural-worker justification considered because "'ancillary' was not included in the description of development and … the Council has commented" (DL ¶9). - **Location / rural worker: FAIL.** "in the absence of any robust evidence in respect of the holdings needs … it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that there is an essential need for a worker to live on-site" (DL ¶11). Conditions tying occupancy to the enterprise would not overcome the harm (DL ¶12). Not isolated, but "this does not overcome the conflict" with LP1, LP3, LP12 (DL ¶13). - **Character: harm.** "the introduction of a residential unit and associated activity into an undeveloped field would result in the domestication of the site" (DL ¶16); domestic paraphernalia would "impart a suburbanising influence" (DL ¶17). - **Flood — F5: FAIL.** Whole proposal, including the shed, assessed (DL ¶22). "as a mobile home intended for permeant residential use Annex F of the Framework classifies the development as 'highly vulnerable'" (DL ¶23). "there is evidence before me that sites with extant permissions exist within Flood Zones 1 and 2" (DL ¶25). No recorded flooding does not change Flood Zone 3 status (DL ¶26). "Reliance on advance warning and evacuation procedures does not avoid the exposure of future occupiers to flood risk" (DL ¶27). - **Exception test / F7.** Not reached, but EA residual-risk concerns "would weigh against a finding that the development would be safe for its lifetime" (DL ¶29). ## Planning balance S5 route: the proposal is not in any S5(1) category (DL ¶36). "I have found that the proposal fails the Sequential Test and therefore conflicts with the Framework's flood risk policies. As those policies provide a strong reason for refusal, I conclude that the proposal does not satisfy NDMP S5. In these circumstances, there is no need for me to undertake any further assessment as to whether exceptional circumstances exist under S5(4)" (DL ¶37). Personal/health circumstances limited weight for lack of evidence (DL ¶31). Plan-led s38(6) conclusion (DL ¶38). ## What made the difference Flood Zone 3a with an EA objection and no evidenced need to be on this specific site. Once the rural-worker case failed for lack of evidence about the holding, nothing tied the caravan to the location, so the sequential test could not be passed, given FZ1/2 sites with permissions elsewhere in the district. Robust functional-need evidence (stock numbers, labour requirement) and a better FRA addressing breach risk would have been needed even to get to the exception test. ## Transferable points - S5(2) lets an inspector dismiss on a failed "should be refused" national policy (here flood risk) without running the S5(4) exceptional-circumstances balance (DL ¶¶36-37). - A caravan for permanent residential use on land changed to residential use is "highly vulnerable" under Annex F and is not householder development, so the F5 householder exemption does not apply (DL ¶23). F5(2)(c)(iii) also expressly excludes changes of use to caravan/mobile home sites from the change-of-use exemption. - Having large parts of the district in Flood Zone 3 does not pass the sequential test where FZ1/2 sites with permission exist (DL ¶25). - Lack of recorded flooding does not displace the flood-zone designation (DL ¶26); Floodline warnings and a movable caravan do not make occupiers safe (DL ¶27). - Rural-worker justification needs robust evidence of the holding's needs; conditions offered by the appellant do not substitute for it (DL ¶¶11-12). - "Not isolated" (HO11) does not rescue a proposal that conflicts with the local spatial strategy (DL ¶13). ## Policy findings - **F5: fail.** FZ3a; no essential need to be on this site; extant permissions exist in FZ1/2; whole proposal incl. shed assessed (DL 19-28) - **F7: fail.** exception test not reached, but EA concerns on residual breach risk (0.25-0.5 m depth, "danger for some") weigh against safe-for-lifetime finding (DL 24, 29) - **Annex F: neutral.** permanent residential mobile home on land changed to residential use is "highly vulnerable", not "more vulnerable"; not householder development (DL 23) - **S5(1): fail.** not within any S5(1) category; rural-worker essential need not evidenced (DL 11-13, 36) - **S5(2): fail.** flood policy failure treated as S5(2) refusal circumstance; S5(4) exceptional circumstances then not assessed (DL 36-37) - **HO11: not-engaged.** proximate to existing built form so not isolated, but that does not overcome plan conflict (DL 13) - **DP3: harm.** not cited as DP3; domestication of undeveloped field and paraphernalia harm rural character, conflict with LP12/LP16 (DL 15-18) ## Key facts - Static caravan and shed already on site; some 106 m from the main residential area on a small livestock/orchard holding - Flood Zone 3a; nearest modelled breach point 470 m away; 0.25-0.5 m depth in 0.1% 2115 breach scenario - Environment Agency objected; FRA wrongly classed use as "more vulnerable" - Case re-framed on appeal from ancillary accommodation to rural worker's dwelling (accepted for consideration under Holborn Studios) - Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010682 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/12ee11a6-f9b3-4a29-a42f-8b7855db7ecb --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010682.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 96 Church Road, Blurton, Stoke-on-Trent - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Barton - **Authority:** Stoke-on-Trent (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010701 - **Application reference:** 25/OUT/00727 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline for three dwellings in the garden of 96 Church Road (access for approval) - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.73 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(2)(a)(ii), L2(1)(d), S4(2)(c), DP3(3), N2(1)(f) - **Development plan policies:** Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy 2006-2026 CSP1, CSP4 - **Main issues:** character, protected species, highway safety - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, l2-residential-curtilage, backland, design-refusal, housing-shortfall, non-determination, protected-species, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Three houses in a large, well-treed garden on a spacious stretch of Church Road, Blurton, including two in a backland position reached by a new access. Appeal against non-determination, dismissed. The supply was 3.73 years and housing had substantial weight. But the inspector found two S4(2) triggers: S4(2)(a)(ii), a "substantial adverse impact" under L2(1)(d) (visible, out of keeping, under 50% of undeveloped curtilage retained, more than double the footprint), and S4(2)(c) via DP3(3). Inconsistent bat surveys added an N2(1)(f) failure. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties commented (DL ¶2). - **Character: significant harm.** "the introduction of houses behind No. 96 would result in a level of development where there is currently nothing of that nature … Consequently, the development to the rear of the site would appear incongruous" (DL ¶10). - **Bats.** "I cannot conclude with reasonable certainty that the correct trees with a low potential for roosting bats have been appropriately surveyed" (DL ¶22). - **L2(1)(d) / S4(2)(a)(ii).** "the appeal scheme would be visible from the street frontage and would not be consistent with the overall street scene … less than 50% of the non-developed area would be retained … more than twice the footprint … it represents a substantial adverse impact" (DL ¶34). - **S4(2)(c).** "Policy S4(2)(c) applies as the proposal fails to comply with Policy DP3(3)" (DL ¶35). ## Planning balance S4. For the scheme: substantial weight to three homes with a 3.73-year supply, plus BNG and economic benefits (DL ¶31). Against: substantial weight to the DP3(1) and N2(1)(f) conflicts (DL ¶32), plus both S4(2) triggers. "the presumption … does not apply" (DL ¶36). ## What made the difference The L2(1)(d) numeric criteria (50% of undeveloped area, twice the footprint) gave the inspector an objective hook for a "substantial adverse impact" finding under S4(2)(a)(ii). Combined with DP3(3), this outweighed a significant shortfall. A single frontage plot keeping most of the garden open would have been far stronger. ## Transferable points - The L2(1)(d) criteria (street-frontage visibility, 50% undeveloped area retained, footprint doubling) are used to decide whether S4(2)(a)(ii) is triggered (DL ¶33-34). - S4(2)(a)(ii) and S4(2)(c) can be triggered together, and together they outweigh HO7 substantial weight even with a 3.73-year supply (DL ¶31-36). - Inconsistent ecology reports (surveyed trees that do not match the roost assessment) are a free-standing N2(1)(f) failure (DL ¶20-22). ## Policy findings - **L2(1)(d): fail.** visible from street, inconsistent with street scene, under 50% of undeveloped curtilage retained, more than twice existing footprint - a "substantial adverse impact" (DL 33-34) - **DP3(3): fail (substantial weight).** backland plots and wide access road incongruous in a spacious verdant stretch; S4(2)(c) engaged (DL 7-18, 35) - **N2(1)(f): fail (substantial weight).** bat survey inconsistencies (trees surveyed do not match PBRA); effect on roosting bats unknown (DL 19-23, 32) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** three homes, supply 3.73 years, sustainable location (DL 31) - **TR6(4): pass.** fire-tender swept paths show access acceptable (DL 24-26) ## Key facts - Council supply 3.73 years - 7 trees removed, 2 TPO (category C); moderate canopy harm - Non-determination appeal ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010701 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c5871765-0953-453f-a19b-67aae0c269e9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010701.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 28 Wychwood Close, Canons Park, Edgware - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer S Manson) - **Authority:** Harrow (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010702 - **Application reference:** PL/3354/25 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Extensions to create a new 3-bed dwelling attached to the existing house, with subdivision of the garden - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), P3, DP3, TR6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Harrow Local Plan 2021-2041 (adopted 2026) HO2, London Plan 2021 - **Main issues:** living conditions, highway safety/parking, character (refuse storage) - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, appeal-planning-officer, tr6-highway-safety, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Extending a house in Canons Park to form a second 3-bed dwelling. Dismissed on the recommendation of an Appeal Planning Officer, with no re-consultation on the new Framework (DL ¶4). Sub-standard ceiling heights (P3), overspill parking at PTAL 2 (TR6), and bin storage reachable only via a barriered footpath (DP3) were each given substantial weight. One net unit had moderate weight and was substantially outweighed under S4 (DL ¶23-24). ## What made the difference Several separate failures, each linked to a Framework decision-making policy. Notably, a TR6 highway-safety finding rested on *parking displacement* with no survey evidence, not on a specific access defect (DL ¶12-14). ## Policy findings - **P3: fail (substantial weight).** first floor 2.3 m ceilings; under 75% of GIA at 2.5 m in both dwellings (DL 6-8, 23) - **TR6(4): fail (substantial weight).** PTAL 2, head of cul-de-sac, no parking survey; overspill parking harms safety (DL 9-14) - **S4(1): fail.** one net unit in "apparent undersupply" given moderate weight; substantially outweighed (DL 22-24) ## Key facts - PTAL 2; local plan permits conversions only in PTAL 3-6 - Bins would have to be wheeled along a public footpath with staggered barriers ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010702 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9c5ac896-c33e-456b-93e9-20a03861cb10 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010702.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Sleepy Corner, Stibb Cross, Torrington (footway condition) - **Decision:** allowed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: O Marigold - **Authority:** Torridge (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010706 - **Application reference:** 1/0425/2025/OUT - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Appeal against condition 10 of an outline permission for one self-build dwelling, requiring a 1.2 m footway along the A388 verge to the Stibb Cross footway network before occupation - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM6, DM3, TR3(1)(e) - **Development plan policies:** North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2018 ST10 - **Main issues:** whether the footway condition is necessary and reasonable for access and highway safety - **Tags:** conditions-appeal, s73-variation, self-build, rural-lane-no-footway, psed, inclusive-access, existing-users-argument, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A condition appeal on an outline permission for one self-build house beside the A388 at Stibb Cross, Devon. The Council required a 1.2 m footway along the grass verge to the village footway before occupation. The inspector deleted the condition: the verge is wide and raised, existing houses rely on it without recorded pedestrian injuries, and a long footway would be a disproportionate burden for one dwelling. He accepted that access might then not be suitable for all people. Allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties had the opportunity to comment (DL ¶4). - **Policy.** TR3's rural limb is quoted correctly (opportunities to improve walking, wheeling and public transport should be taken where they exist and can be supported by the development). "Relevant to this appeal, policy ST10 is therefore consistent with the Framework." (DL ¶5). - **The route.** "There is no dispute that walking within the carriageway itself would not be safe, given the nature of the traffic and the width of the road." (DL ¶7). The verge "would not be suitable for some people, for example those who need to use a wheelchair" (DL ¶8), but is wide, flat and raised. - **Existing users.** "It is not uncommon in rural areas for sections of road serving houses to have no dedicated pavement." (DL ¶9). "The unchallenged evidence before me is that no pedestrian injury collisions have been recorded hereabouts in recent years, despite the reliance of these other properties on use of the verge." (DL ¶9). "Consequently, I am not persuaded that the footway is necessary." (DL ¶9). - **Proportionality (DM6).** "This would be disproportionate to the size of the proposal and therefore unreasonable, given the PPG advice." (DL ¶10). - **Equality.** "The removal of condition 10 may well result in access not being suitable for all people." (DL ¶13). Nonetheless, "I conclude that requiring provision of the footway would not be proportionate in the public interest" (DL ¶13). ## Planning balance Condition tests (DM6, PPG): condition 10 neither necessary nor reasonable; deleted, and the plans condition reimposed without the footway drawing. ## What made the difference The scale (one dwelling), the wide raised verge with good forward visibility, and a clean collision record for existing verge users. The larger 10-dwelling Stibb Cross appeal was distinguished on scale and on the lack of a verge there. ## Transferable points - Caution for TR3 arguments: this letter accepts a verge-only route that is unsuitable for wheelchair users and relies on existing residents' use and a nil collision record (DL ¶8-9, ¶13). Contrast Hatton Station PINS-6006637 ¶23-26, which gives such evidence limited weight. - TR3(1)(e) improvements are required only where they "can be supported by the development proposed"; for a single dwelling a long footway failed the DM6 reasonableness test (DL ¶5, ¶10). - An earlier refusal on the same road for a larger scheme with no refuge verge is distinguishable (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **TR3(1)(e): pass.** rural opportunities to improve walking etc. to be taken where they can be supported by the development; a footway for one dwelling not necessary or proportionate (DL 5, 9-12) - **DM6: fail.** condition 10 not necessary or reasonable; disproportionate cost for one dwelling (PPG 21a-005) (DL 6, 9-10, 12) - **DM3: neutral.** proportionate approach to scale and impact (DL 6) - **TR3: pass.** ST10 consistent with TR3; verge unsuitable for wheelchair users and muddy in bad weather, but wide, flat, raised with good visibility; existing A388 houses rely on it with no pedestrian injury collisions (DL 5, 7-9) ## Key facts - Walking in the A388 carriageway agreed to be unsafe given heavy traffic, large vehicles and road width (DL 7) - The Council's approval relied partly on proximity to Stibb Cross facilities (DL 7) - Earlier appeal for up to 10 dwellings on another A388 limb (APP/W1145/W/20/3249942) found harm where there was little or no verge; distinguished (DL 11) - PSED considered; removal of the footway may leave access unsuitable for all people (DL 13) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010706 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f4d5ec4f-02c5-4db8-b5bf-046ec5e5253e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010706.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Workshop, 20 Bury Lane, Bramfield - **Decision:** allowed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Felgate - **Authority:** East Hertfordshire (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010708 - **Application reference:** 3/25/1349/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Appeal against hours-of-use condition on replacement motor-repair workshop - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** s38(6), DM6 - **Development plan policies:** East Herts District Plan 2018 DES4, EQ2 - **Main issues:** hours-of-use condition, neighbour amenity - **Tags:** tier-2, conditions-appeal, no-framework-reference ## Summary An appeal against an hours-of-use condition on a replacement village motor-repair workshop. Allowed, with the hours aligned to a later variation the council itself granted. The letter never mentions the Framework, old or new. It is a short conditions decision resting on development plan noise policies and the later permission. ## What made the difference The council's own later, more generous permission made the disputed condition unreasonable. A narrow use restriction was refused because it would jeopardise financing (DL ¶8). ## Policy findings - **DM6: pass.** hours condition varied to match later council-granted VAR (06.00-21.00 weekdays); council's use-restriction condition rejected as threatening fundability/viability (DL 5-8); letter cites no Framework policy — code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Council had since granted 3/26/0359/VAR with wider hours, so old condition no longer reasonable (DL 4, 6) - Proposed restriction to MOT/repairs only would deter lenders (DL 8) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010708 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/aa473e87-d840-456a-9dc8-69a794759c29 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010708.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 3 Nursery, Hoe Lane, Nazeing (vehicle storage) - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Pattison - **Authority:** Epping Forest (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010709 - **Application reference:** EPF/0353/26 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective use of 1.3 ha of land for storage of up to 120 vehicles awaiting repair (B8 open storage) - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Epping Forest District Local Plan 2011-2033 (2023) DM4, E1, H3 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, VSC - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, unmet-need-type-specific, unmet-need-evidence-fail, non-housing-grey-belt, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, retrospective, infill-rejected, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Retrospective vehicle storage on 1.3 ha of Green Belt at Nazeing for a truck repair business. The land was accepted as grey belt, but GB7(1)(g)(ii) failed: the evidence showed only this operator's difficulty finding premises, not an unmet need for B8 storage in the area. As inappropriate development with moderate openness harm, very special circumstances were not shown. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "During the appeal the main parties were invited to comment on the relevance of the revised Framework" (DL ¶2). - **Infilling in a village: FAIL.** "when viewed 'from the ground' the nearest residential properties are significantly dispersed and there is not a discernible group of closely associated residential buildings" (DL ¶9). - **Grey belt: PASS** (DL ¶14). - **(g)(ii) unmet need: FAIL.** "In my view, Policy GB7.g.ii requires an assessment of the need for the specific type of development proposed, rather than whether it is required at this particular location" (DL ¶20). "there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the overall supply of B8 land is insufficient to meet current demand" (DL ¶22). - **Openness: moderate harm** (DL ¶25). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to inappropriateness and to openness harm; benefits "would be substantial overall"; "the other considerations in relation to the proposal do not clearly outweigh the harm" (DL ¶35). ## What made the difference Need evidence for the land-use type. Occupancy rates, vacancy data and the delivery status of B8 allocations (E2(2) market signals) were missing. An operator-specific search is not evidence of an area-wide unmet need. ## Transferable points - For non-housing grey belt, (g)(ii) needs evidence of unmet need for the type of use (market signals under E2(2)), not the applicant's own difficulty (DL ¶19–22). - Village status for GB7(1)(c) is judged on the ground, and a site near an industrial estate but away from grouped houses is not in a village (DL ¶8–9). - Openness harm from parked vehicles counts even where public views are filtered (DL ¶25). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(c): fail.** judged on the ground (Wood v SSCLG); no discernible group of houses, so not within a village; 1.3 ha / 120 vehicles not "limited infilling" (DL 7-12) - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** not PDL (previous appeal); council accepts no strong contribution to (a), (b), (d) (DL 13-14) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): fail.** need must be for the type of development (B8), not this operator at this place; no market signals, occupancy or allocation-delivery evidence per E2(2) (DL 15-23) - **E2(2): fail.** market signals of undersupply within catchment required to show unmet need (DL 19-22) - **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** inappropriate; moderate visual and spatial openness harm; benefits substantial overall but VSC not shown (DL 25, 34-35) - **E2: benefit (substantial weight).** 34 jobs; substantial weight to economic benefits noted, but location benefit limited (DL 27-29, 35) - **N6: not-engaged.** Epping Forest SAC appropriate assessment not needed as appeal dismissed (DL 31-32) ## Key facts - Previous appeal on the site dismissed (APP/J1535/W/25/3376265) finding not PDL and moderate openness harm (DL 13, 25) - Appellant's HQ at Hoddesdon too small; extensive site search, but discounted for operator-specific reasons (DL 16-18, 20) - Adjacent Birchwood Industrial Estate (DL 9) - Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010709 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a83b76c2-7806-4ced-a957-c2c84f85dcab --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010709.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 18 Georgia Road, Thornton Heath (6-person HMO) - **Decision:** allowed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Lynne Evans - **Authority:** Croydon (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010710 - **Application reference:** 26/00643/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use from a dwellinghouse (C3) to a six-person HMO (C4) in an Article 4 area - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4), TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Croydon Local Plan 2018 SP2, DM1.2, DM29, DM30, SP8, London Plan 2021 D12, T4, T5, T6 - **Main issues:** loss of a three-bedroom house, parking and highway safety, fire safety - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, article-4, parking, tr6-highway-safety, parking-stress-unevidenced, plan-conflict-overridden, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Change of use of an extended semi-detached house in Thornton Heath to a six-person HMO. The house was originally three-bedroom, so the proposal technically conflicts with DM1.2, but it is now a 5 to 6-bedroom, 213 m2 house, so refusal would not keep a family home. Without a parking survey there was some conflict with DM30, but the small scale, on-site spaces and nearby buses meant no unacceptable safety impact, and TR6(4) indicated no refusal on highway grounds. Allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The inspector sought views on the revised Framework and took them into account (DL ¶5). - **Loss of family home: limited CONFLICT.** "refusing planning permission for the proposal before me would not result in the retention of a 3 bedroom property" (DL ¶12). - **Parking.** "No parking survey has been provided and so there is no information before me to indicate whether the appeal property is situated in an area of parking stress" (DL ¶20). But "given the small scale of the proposal and its siting in a residential road with on-street parking available, it is unlikely to result in a significant adverse impact on highway operation and safety" (DL ¶21). - **TR6(4).** "While there would be some conflict with Policy DM30 of the Local Plan, Policy TR6 4. of the Framework indicates that the proposal should not be refused on highway grounds" (DL ¶23). ## Planning balance Plan-led: conflicts with DM1 and DM30 "would be outweighed by specific materials considerations" (DL ¶31). No S4 step. ## What made the difference The house's actual size and the small scale of the use. TR6(4) sets a high bar for refusing on highway grounds, and a missing parking survey did not meet it. ## Transferable points - TR6(4) (refuse only where the impact on highway safety is unacceptable, or residual cumulative impacts are severe) can outweigh a local parking-policy conflict for a small HMO (DL ¶23). - A policy protecting 3-bedroom houses "as originally built" carries little weight where the house has already been enlarged beyond a family home (DL ¶10, ¶12). ## Policy findings - **LP DM1.2 (local): conflict (limited weight).** house originally had 3 bedrooms but is now extended to 213 m2 and 5-6 bedrooms, so refusal would not keep a 3-bedroom home; limited harm (DL 8-12) - **TR6(4): pass.** no parking survey (some conflict with DM30 a), but small scale, on-street spaces in side streets, 2 driveway spaces and 8 cycle spaces; no severe or unacceptable impact, so the proposal "should not be refused on highway grounds" (DL 15-23) - **TR3: pass.** TR3(1)(c) highway safety; shops on Green Lane and a frequent bus to West Croydon noted despite PTAL 2 (DL 22-23) - **DM6: pass.** fire safety addressed by condition (London Plan D12) (DL 25-27) ## Key facts - Internal layout at the site visit did not match the plans, so treated as proposed rather than retrospective (DL 2) - PTAL 2 but convenience shops and a frequent bus nearby (DL 22) - Conditions cap occupancy at six and require parking, cycle and refuse details (Schedule 3, 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010710 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7a4de01f-d19c-4783-acb9-e465c62c9a19 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010710.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 66 Belbroughton Road, Blakedown - **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C McDonagh - **Authority:** Wyre Forest (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010714 - **Application reference:** 26/0005/HOU - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Two-storey side extension, replacement single-storey rear extensions, front garage and entrance canopy - **Site context:** green-belt - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Wyre Forest Local Plan 2016-2036 DM.22, DM.25, Design Amenity and Shopfronts SPD 2024 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, living conditions, VSC - **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, householder-gb, fallback, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Householder extensions to a semi-detached house in the Worcestershire Green Belt. The appeal was dismissed. The extensions were well beyond the SPD's 75% allowance and therefore disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). Permitted development and CLOPUD fallbacks got limited weight because they would be smaller and have no first floor at the side. ## Issues and findings - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "Guidance it may be, but the SPD is relatively recent, and I see no reason not to give it significant weight … the parties agree that with a total volume of 661m³ the proposals would exceed both figures by some way" (DL ¶7). The proposal "would significantly exceed the recommended 75% increase over the original dwelling and constitute inappropriate development" (DL ¶8). - **Openness.** Rear elements were neutral, but the forward two-storey side extension "would add significant bulk and mass … Spatially and visually, this would reduce openness" (DL ¶11). The overall loss was limited (DL ¶12). - **Fallback.** Schneck [2022] EWHC 3335 (Admin) sets a low threshold for a real prospect. But the fallback "would still be less than the proposal by a significant margin … there would seemingly be no first floor" (DL ¶19-22). ## Planning balance GB6(2). The benefits did not clearly outweigh substantial-weight Green Belt harm (DL ¶25). ## What made the difference The numbers. Both parties' calculations put the scheme well over 75%. A design within the allowance, for example a two-storey side element with a smaller rear extension, was flagged as a possible alternative (DL ¶20). ## Transferable points - A recent local SPD percentage allowance for Green Belt extensions gets significant weight in applying GB7(1)(b) (DL ¶7). - PD and CLOPUD fallbacks carry limited weight where they are materially smaller or avoid the harmful element, here the first floor at the side (DL ¶20-22). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** total 661 m³ significantly exceeds SPD 75% floor-area/volume allowance on either party's figure → disproportionate (DL 5-8) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** limited overall loss of openness — side extension forward and two-storey visible from road (DL 9-12, 25) - **L2: pass.** rear extension breaches 45-degree code but no serious adverse effect on No.64 (DL 13-16) ## Key facts - The SPD allows extensions up to 75% of the original (1948) floor area and volume, counting outbuildings within 5 m. It was given significant weight as recent guidance aligned with the Framework - Fallbacks were a prior approval larger home extension (26/0266PNH) and a CLOPUD for porch, side extension and hip-to-gable (26/0265/CLP). Limited weight, because they would be smaller and single-storey at the side - No consultation on the 2026 Framework — changes held "not material" (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010714 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/dfb6c34e-e9f9-47d2-8fdb-75b221ec2127 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010714.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 1 Boxley Oast, Street Farm, Boxley (garage roof alterations) - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Knight - **Authority:** Maidstone (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010727 - **Application reference:** 26/500136/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Raising and remodelling the roof of a detached garage to create a first-floor home office with two front dormers and three rear roof windows, in the curtilage of a converted oast (non-determination) - **Site context:** conservation-area, national-landscape, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Maidstone Borough Local Plan Review 2021-2038 (2024) LPRSP9, LPRSP15, LPRQD4, LPRHOU11, Kent Downs AONB Management Plan 2021-2026 SD8 - **Main issues:** conservation area, NDHA, character and appearance including the National Landscape - **Tags:** tier-2, householder, non-determination, conservation-area, ndha, ndha-harm, national-landscape, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, outbuilding ## Summary Converting a modest garage beside a converted oast at Boxley into a two-storey outbuilding with dormers. The oast is a non-designated heritage asset whose view marks the entrance to the village and the Boxley Conservation Area, in the Kent Downs National Landscape. The enlarged garage would undermine that view, causing "greater than moderate" harm to the CA (DL ¶16). The benefits were unevidenced and minimal. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties have been given the opportunity to comment on any implications for the appeal" (DL ¶4). - **Harm.** The scheme "would harmfully undermine the primacy of the NDHA in those views, and intrude upon the existing visual relationship between it and the fields beyond" (DL ¶14). - **Degree.** "With reference to Policy HE5 of the Framework, the scheme would result in a greater than moderate level of harm to the significance of the CA" (DL ¶16). - **Public benefits.** "I attribute little weight to these arguments, and consider them to comprise minimal public benefits that do not outweigh the harm to the significance of the CA" (DL ¶17). ## Planning balance HE6(4) against minimal benefits, then a plan-led conclusion (DL ¶19). No S4 or S5 step, and no DP3 step for the character and NL harm. ## What made the difference The garage sits in the foreground of a CA appraisal's significant view, so a small building's extra bulk mattered. ## Transferable points - An outbuilding can cause more than moderate CA harm where it sits in a key view of a non-designated asset (DL ¶9, ¶14-16). - Unevidenced claims that a scheme secures a building's upkeep or avoids a worse alternative earn little weight (DL ¶17). ## Policy findings - **HE5(2): harm.** degree identified - greater than moderate harm to the significance of the Boxley CA; bulk undermines the primacy of the NDHA oast in a key view (DL 13-16) - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation stated at DL 5; HE6(3) not named - **HE6(4): fail.** retention of the building and avoiding a larger building elsewhere unevidenced, little weight, minimal public benefits (DL 16-17) - **HE7: harm.** harm to the NDHA oast; no separate HE7(2) balance (DL 15, 18) - **N4: harm.** mapped - negative impact on views towards Boxley from the Kent Downs NL, contrary to management plan principle SD8 (DL 11, 15) ## Key facts - Non-determination; Council would have refused on CA, NDHA, character and NL grounds (DL 2) - Parties given the opportunity to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 4) - CA appraisal identifies the view along Forge Lane to the site as significant (DL 9) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010727 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/aba2653f-1350-409b-9c0f-65188c78a21a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010727.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Rosemellyn Fisheries, Roche Road, St Austell (holiday wagons and caravans) - **Decision:** dismissed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Harrington - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010729 - **Application reference:** PA25/05532 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Shower block, two disused railway wagons, a shepherd's hut and two caravans for holiday accommodation at a fishery (part retrospective) - **Site context:** open-countryside, flood-zone-3, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR3, F7, S5(1)(b), E4 - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan 2010-2030 Policies 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, 27, Climate Emergency DPD 2023 C1, CC3, T1 - **Main issues:** location and accessibility, flood risk safe access - **Tags:** sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, rural-tourism, flood-safe-access, retrospective, small-scheme ## Summary A part-retrospective scheme for holiday accommodation (railway wagons, a shepherd's hut, caravans and a shower block) at a rural fishery near St Austell was dismissed. There were two reasons: heavy car reliance, and flood risk to the access route. The units were in Flood Zone 1 but the only access crossed Flood Zone 2/3 and there was no formal emergency plan, so F7's safe-access requirement was not met. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties had the opportunity to comment on the revised Framework (DL ¶3). - **Location: FAIL.** The route to Bugle "would not be conducive to safe pedestrian use due to the distance involved, lack of pavements and safe refuge, as well as lack of street lighting" (DL ¶11). "future occupants would be heavily reliant on private vehicles" (DL ¶12). - **Flood safe access: FAIL (F7).** F7 requires refusal unless "any residual risk can be safely managed, and safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate, as part of an agreed emergency plan" (DL ¶16). "in the absence of a robust formal emergency plan, I cannot be sure that future occupants would be safe during a flood event" (DL ¶19). Overnight occupation changes the risk compared with daytime angling (DL ¶20). - **Rural economy.** S5 and E4 support rural tourism, but the benefit got "modest weight" given the small scale (DL ¶22). "whilst the Framework recognises development proposals to meet business needs in rural areas may need to be located outside settlements, and in locations that are not well served by public transport, the Framework at policy TR3 also seeks to locate development in sustainable locations" (DL ¶23). ## Planning balance This was a s38(6) plan-led decision. Modest economic weight was set against conflict with the development plan and substantial weight on flood-risk public safety (DL ¶22-25). The inspector did not run a formal S5 "substantially outweighed" balance. ## What made the difference The flood access issue was an independent and decisive reason. A site-specific emergency plan agreed with the authority, and a dry egress route, would have been needed. The car-dependence finding follows the same pattern as the other Cornwall tourism dismissals (PINS-6000903, PINS-6009443). ## Transferable points - F7 applies to access routes, not only the footprint of the units. A Flood Zone 1 plot reached only through Flood Zone 2/3 with no agreed emergency plan fails (DL ¶15-19). - Overnight holiday occupation raises flood safety risk compared with an existing daytime leisure use (DL ¶20). - E4's acknowledgement that rural businesses may be poorly served by public transport is balanced by TR3. It is not a trump card (DL ¶23). ## Policy findings - **TR3: fail.** facilities in Bugle reached along a fast road with no pavements, refuge or lighting; not well served by public transport; heavy car reliance (DL 10-13, 23) - **F7: fail (substantial weight).** units in FZ1 but access track in FZ2/3 floods to 0.68-0.69 m ("Danger for Most"); no robust formal emergency plan; public safety given substantial weight (DL 15-21, 23) - **S5(1)(b): neutral.** noted as supporting rural tourism where a location outside settlements is necessary; not applied as a formal gateway (DL 22) - **E4: benefit (moderate weight).** small-scale economic benefit to appellant and local economy, "modest weight"; E4's acceptance of poor public transport does not override TR3 (DL 22-23) ## Key facts - Extension of an existing fishery and smallholding; wagons had permission only as shelters, and holiday use had already been advertised - Holiday units treated as having the characteristics of dwellinghouses for local plan purposes (DL 6) - Access track 0.68 m deep in a 1-in-100-year fluvial event, rising to 0.69 m in a 1-in-1,000-year event - Council raised no character or amenity objection ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010729 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b4683567-f2ec-4196-b589-a1e9b55880eb --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010729.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # St Barnabas Church, St Barnabas Close, Hereford (church to 52-bed care home) - **Decision:** allowed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Jonathan Edwards - **Authority:** Herefordshire (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010739 - **Application reference:** 251696 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of redundant church and erection of 52-bed care facility on three floors with parking - **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.11 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HC6(1)(c), HC6(2), S4, S4(2)(a)(i), L2(1)(b), HO7, HO9(1)(a)(i) - **Development plan policies:** Herefordshire Core Strategy 2015 SC1, SD1, H3, LD1 - **Main issues:** loss of community facility, living conditions - **Tags:** community-facility, place-of-worship, hc6-alternative-provision, s4-approve, care-home, no-5yhls, amenity-harm-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Demolition of a redundant Hereford church and its replacement with a 52-bed care home. The appeal was allowed. The loss of a place of worship met HC6 through limb (c), sufficient alternative provision, and marketing was not required for a church. The inspector found significant harm to neighbours' privacy and outlook, in conflict with the development plan. Under S4 that harm did not substantially outweigh substantial weight for reuse of under-used land and for care-bed need where the council has 3.11 years' supply. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties' comments on the August 2026 Framework were considered (DL ¶4). - **HC6: PASS.** "Policy HC6 of the Framework also resists the loss of key community facilities including places of worship … However, the same policy allows their removal when there is no reasonable prospect of the community use being retained due to insufficient community support or there is sufficient alternative provision in the local area" (DL ¶7). "it is fair to envisage a broader range of community facilities exist in the city as a whole" (DL ¶10). - **Marketing not needed for a church.** "policy HC6 of the Framework only refers to marketing of shops and public houses where commercial viability is an issue. Therefore, neither CS policy SC1 nor policy HC6 of the Framework require the church to be marketed if there is sufficient alternative facilities in the local area" (DL ¶11). - **Living conditions: HARM.** "the development would have a harmful effect on living conditions at properties behind the site on Admirals Close in terms of loss of privacy and outlook" (DL ¶17). "I attach significant weight to the adverse effects" (DL ¶36). - **S4(2)(a)(i).** "There would be no adverse impact in relation to the safeguarding of buildings for particular uses as referred to in part 2(a)(i) of policy S4 of the Framework. This is a neutral factor" (DL ¶32). - **Benefits.** Better use of under-used land under L2(1)(b), "a factor of substantial weight" (DL ¶33). A 3.11-year supply "is a significant shortfall … a benefit that attracts substantial weight" (DL ¶34). Care-bed need attracts HO7 substantial weight; HO9(1)(a)(i) is met (DL ¶35). - **Conclusion.** "the benefits of the proposal would not be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects and so policy S4 of the Framework dictates that planning permission should be approved" (DL ¶37). ## Planning balance S4 against the development plan. Harm: overlooking and overbearing effect on the Admirals Close homes and The Vicarage, significant weight (P3, with L2 privacy as argued by the council). Benefits: L2 reuse (substantial), the housing shortfall and HO7 specialist need (substantial), and employment plus BNG (considerable). Not substantially outweighed, so allowed despite the plan conflict (DL ¶30-37, 44). ## What made the difference S4's "substantially outweighed" threshold. A real, significant amenity harm, which under a plain section 38(6) balance would probably have led to dismissal, was not enough against stacked substantial-weight benefits. On HC6, a church closed for years whose former users had relocated passed limb (c) without marketing. ## Transferable points - For places of worship, HC6(1)(c) alternative provision can be judged at city-wide scale, and HC6 marketing applies only to shops and pubs (DL ¶10-11). - A policy-compliant loss under HC6 is neutral under S4(2)(a)(i) (DL ¶32). - Under S4, significant amenity harm (P3) did not substantially outweigh L2(1)(b) reuse plus HO7 care-need benefits where supply is 3.11 years (DL ¶33-37). - A C2 care home engages HO7 substantial weight and HO9(1)(a)(i) (DL ¶35). ## Policy findings - **HC6(2): pass.** places of worship are key community facilities (DL 7) - **HC6(1)(c): pass.** church closed for worship since 2019; informal users left in July 2024 and moved elsewhere; sufficient alternative facilities across the city (DL 8-12) - **HC6(1)(a): not-engaged.** the marketing requirement applies to shops and pubs where commercial viability is at issue, not to a church where limb (c) is met (DL 11) - **S4(2)(a)(i): neutral.** no adverse impact on safeguarding buildings for particular uses (DL 32) - **L2(1)(b): benefit (substantial weight).** better use of under-used land (DL 33) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 3.11 years' supply and specific need for care beds (DL 34-35) - **HO9(1)(a)(i): pass.** acceptable living conditions, urban location with access to services (DL 35) - **P3: harm (significant weight).** overlooking and overbearing effect on Admirals Close and The Vicarage; council also relies on L2 privacy (DL 13-17, 36) - **HE6: neutral.** settings of Grade II Cox Cottage and Abbey Grange preserved (DL 25-28) - **S4: pass.** benefits not substantially outweighed by significant amenity harm (DL 37) ## Key facts - Diocese-owned church closed for regular worship in June 2019; an independent church used it informally until July 2024 - Only very limited marketing evidence - Council supply 3.11 years; Strategic Housing supported the scheme for care-bed need - River Wye SAC phosphate issue handled because occupation will post-date the WwTW upgrade (31 Dec 2026) - Amenity conflict with CS SD1 was the only plan conflict, but it meant conflict with the plan as a whole ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010739 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/adf864aa-df1b-4b18-baaa-d7408448478f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010739.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land off Carr Lane, Alderley Edge (agricultural barn in functional floodplain) - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Smith - **Authority:** Cheshire East (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010751 - **Application reference:** 25/1399/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Agricultural barn for machinery, hay and forage storage and workshop (retrospective) - **Site context:** open-countryside, flood-zone-3 - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** F5, F6(1)(a), AnnexF - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 PG6, SD2, SE13, SADPD 2022 RUR1, ENV16 - **Main issues:** agricultural need, flood risk - **Tags:** agricultural-building, flood-zone-3b, sequential-test-fail, agricultural-need-not-shown, retrospective, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A retrospective agricultural barn in the functional floodplain near Alderley Edge was dismissed on two grounds. Agricultural need was unproven. And under the new F5/F6 and Annex F, less vulnerable development is not permitted in Flood Zone 3b at all, whatever the sequential test result. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Although there have been significant amendments to its layout and formatting such that previously cited paragraph references are no longer relevant, other changes are not substantive or determinative" (DL ¶3). - **Need: NOT SHOWN.** "The proposal is not supported by a business plan, operational assessment, investment strategy … or any other substantive evidence" (DL ¶10). Generic UK yield figures were not site-specific (DL ¶8). There was no use of existing buildings (DL ¶12). - **Sequential test: FAIL (F5).** An owner-only search area depends on proving operational need: "I am not convinced that locating the development in an area of lower flood risk would prejudice an agricultural operation to the extent claimed" (DL ¶20). - **Flood Zone 3b: FAIL (F6).** "Even if the Sequential Test were considered to be satisfied, Policy F6 … states that development should be refused where the proposed use is incompatible with the level of flood risk … less vulnerable development within Flood Zone 3b should not be permitted" (DL ¶21). ## Planning balance No formal S5 balance. Conflict with the plan (RUR1, PG6, SE13, ENV16) and the Framework's flood policies was decisive. ## What made the difference The Flood Zone 3b location was an absolute bar under F6(1)(a) and Annex F Table 3. No amount of agricultural evidence would have overcome it at this spot. ## Transferable points - F6(1)(a) with Annex F Table 3 bars less vulnerable uses in Flood Zone 3b even if the sequential test is passed (DL ¶21). - Confining the sequential-test search to the appellant's own holding needs demonstrated operational necessity (DL ¶18-20). - Agricultural need requires site-specific evidence, not national average yields or future machinery (DL ¶8-10). ## Policy findings - **F5: fail.** search area confined to appellant's land justified only by operational need, which was not shown; sequential test not passed (DL 18-20) - **F6(1)(a): fail.** refuse where use incompatible with flood risk; Annex F Table 3 - less vulnerable development not permitted in Flood Zone 3b (DL 17, 21-22) - **S5(1)(a): neutral.** not expressly applied; agricultural need not evidenced under local RUR1 (no business plan, generic yield figures) (DL 5-16) ## Key facts - Barn built in Flood Zone 3b (functional floodplain), as the appellant's own FRA confirmed - Mixed small animals on site; building set up with almost no livestock provision - Hay yields based on UK averages, not site-specific; machinery partly not yet owned (DL 8) - Inspector did not consult on new Framework, finding changes "not substantive or determinative" (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010751 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/de9bd255-34f4-48f4-b57f-1783c81be1c9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010751.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Scrambling Field, Gaffer's Farm, Higher Halstock - **Decision:** dismissed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Cooper-Young - **Authority:** Dorset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010756 - **Application reference:** P/FUL/2025/07211 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective use of land as glamping site with adapted boat, bus, shepherd's hut and railway trucks - **Site context:** open-countryside, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N4 - **Development plan policies:** West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2015 ENV1, ENV10, ENV12, ECON7, SUS2 - **Main issues:** character and appearance of National Landscape - **Tags:** national-landscape, landscape-harm, rural-tourism, retrospective, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, dark-skies ## Summary Retrospective glamping site of converted vehicles on an elevated field in the Dorset National Landscape. Dismissed: the development is "an urbanising introduction of the built environment into a wider countryside setting that fails to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the NL" (DL ¶12). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Both parties were consulted on the revised Framework (DL ¶2). - **N4 / s85 CROW duty: FAIL.** Units carried "a distinctly residential appearance that sits uncomfortably within the surrounding rural landscape" (DL ¶9). Glazing and overnight occupation "erode the dark sky in the area at night" (DL ¶11). The Framework "places substantial weight on the importance of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty" (DL ¶15). - **Tourism support.** Plan support for diversification was acknowledged but did not prevail (DL ¶10). - **Fallback.** Scrambling use rejected: "no real prospect of these activities occurring" (DL ¶19). ## Planning balance Plan-led (s38(6)), with the Framework's N4 substantial weight reinforcing it. No express S5(1)(b) rural-business or tourism analysis. ## What made the difference Domestication (fences, curtilages, outbuildings, cars), light spill from glazing, and a hilltop position visible from elsewhere in the NL. The proposed planting was low-lying and slow to mature (DL ¶14). ## Transferable points - Glamping that reads as residential occupation will fail N4 in a National Landscape; dark skies are treated as a key characteristic (DL ¶¶9–11). - A former informal use is no fallback where later development has removed any real prospect of it resuming (DL ¶19). ## Policy findings - **N4: fail (substantial weight).** elevated hilltop site; domesticated curtilages, fencing, paraphernalia, cars and glazing light spill erode dark skies and natural beauty; visible from wider NL (DL 8-15) - **E4: neutral.** plan support for farm diversification and tourism acknowledged but outweighed (DL 10) ## Key facts - Units altered and extended beyond original form, with defined curtilages and domestic items, reading as residential rather than temporary holiday use - Motorcycle scrambling fallback rejected — no real prospect as land since developed (DL 19) - Parties consulted on the new Framework (DL 2); s85 CROW duty applied (DL 6) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/78b10095-3593-4f04-b75c-21cf59113843 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010756 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010756.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 14 Blundell Drive, Birkdale (s73A boundary treatment variation) - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Gravett - **Authority:** Sefton (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010758 - **Application reference:** DC/2026/00394 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73A variation of condition 2 to retain the as-built front boundary treatment on a new corner dwelling - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Sefton Local Plan EQ2 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** s4-substantially-outweighed, design-refusal, transitional-no-consultation, retrospective, tier-2 ## Summary A retrospective variation to keep an as-built front boundary treatment on a prominent Birkdale corner was dismissed. It caused significant harm to the area's open character of low brick walls and gardens (DL ¶14). ## What made the difference The prominent corner and the consistent local boundary pattern. The inspector ran the S4 test even for a boundary treatment, finding the harm substantially outweighed "the benefit afforded to development within a settlement" (DL ¶17). ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail (significant weight).** retained boundary treatment harms an open, verdant corner characterised by low red-brick walls (DL 7-14) - **S4: fail.** adverse effects "substantially outweigh the benefits … including the benefit afforded to development within a settlement" (DL 17) ## Key facts - Not re-consulted: "no substantive changes in the new Framework relevant to this appeal" (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010758 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fd560270-92b1-4bb5-a558-188f02bd5b72 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010758.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Old Rectory, Mill Lane, Gratwich (agricultural building) - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Barton - **Authority:** East Staffordshire (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010763 - **Application reference:** P/2024/00727 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Agricultural building (U-shaped timber barn) for hay, haylage and machinery storage - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(a), E4, E2, DP1 - **Development plan policies:** East Staffordshire Local Plan 2012-2031 SP8, SP14, SP29, DP1, East Staffordshire Design Guide SPD - **Main issues:** countryside strategy / fitness for purpose, BNG, character and appearance - **Tags:** agricultural-building, fit-for-purpose, s5-1-a, transitional-no-consultation, bng-deferred-to-condition ## Summary A traditional-style timber agricultural barn was dismissed at appeal, although the need for a building was accepted. The design was not fit for its stated purpose: doors and bays too small for modern machinery, too little ventilation for hay, and undersized machinery storage. So it was not "essential" to the business. The inspector read the local countryside policy as consistent with E2 and E4. Because the building was not a well-designed building supporting farm viability, the benefits were "substantially outweighed" under S5. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The policy emphasis of the parts of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have not changed. As a result, I have not sought comments on the new version" (DL ¶2). - **Fitness for purpose: FAIL.** The doors and internal floorspace were not "conducive to a reasonably efficient and practical arrangement for the storage of hay and haylage using many pieces of modern machinery" (DL ¶7). "the proposed building would not be essential to the support and viability of the agricultural business" (DL ¶12). - **BNG: adequate.** "There is no policy or statutory requirement for me to assess or settle issues such as the quality and extent of the minimum information provided, or the location of off-site gains at the appeal stage. These are matters to be resolved through the discharge of the BGC" (DL ¶17). - **Character: acceptable** (DL ¶20-21). - **National policy.** "There is consistency between LP Policies SP8, DP1 and SP14, and policies E2 and E4 of the Framework … it would not constitute a well-designed new building or maintain and enhance farm viability and sustainability. I attribute significant weight to this conflict. Consequently, the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶23). ## Planning balance The S5 presumption (agriculture is within S5(1)(a)) was displaced by a significant-weight conflict on functional design. The decision followed the plan under s38(6). ## What made the difference Evidence on functional design from the council's agricultural consultant, which the appellant did not rebut. An agricultural building of conventional portal-frame form with adequate door heights and ventilation would likely have been approved, since need, BNG and landscape were all resolved in the appellant's favour. ## Transferable points - Agriculture falls within S5(1)(a), but a building that is not fit for its agricultural purpose can still fail the "substantially outweighed" test via E4's "well-designed new buildings" wording (DL ¶23). - For BNG, an appeal need only show the statutory condition is capable of discharge. Detail is for the condition (DL ¶16-19). - Local plan policies requiring countryside buildings to be essential to a rural business are consistent with E2/E4 (DL ¶23). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(a): fail (significant weight).** agricultural development outside settlements, but the benefits were "substantially outweighed" because the building was functionally unfit for purpose (DL 23) - **E4: conflict (significant weight).** not a "well-designed new building" that maintains or enhances farm viability; local SP8/DP1/SP14 consistent with E2/E4 (DL 23) - **N2: pass.** BNG capable of delivery on appellant's other land; details are for the statutory biodiversity gain condition, not the appeal (DL 14-19) - **DP3: pass.** no harm to character and appearance; part of existing cluster, set back behind vegetation (DL 20-21) ## Key facts - Need for an agricultural building for a hay/haylage/silage business not disputed - Timber barn doors and bays too narrow and low for modern machinery including tractors with cabs; poor ventilation for hay storage (DL 7-10) - Machinery storage undersized per the council's countryside consultant (DL 9) - Inspector did not seek comments on the new Framework, finding the relevant emphasis unchanged (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010763 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6338609c-20ec-4059-ab65-ff181cb3c52f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010763.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Prestedge Barn, Whitefield Lane, Ashover - **Decision:** allowed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D J Barnes - **Authority:** North East Derbyshire (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010764 - **Application reference:** 26/00165/FL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of agricultural land to domestic garden (residential curtilage extension) for converted barn - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N2 - **Development plan policies:** North East Derbyshire Local Plan SS9, SDC3, SDC12, Ashover Neighbourhood Plan AP2, AP11, AP13 - **Main issues:** character and appearance of countryside - **Tags:** curtilage-extension, valued-landscape-removed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, pd-rights-removed, landscape-harm ## Summary Extension of a converted barn's garden into an adjoining field in a locally sensitive landscape near Ashover. Allowed, with permitted development and external lighting controlled by condition. The letter records that the 2026 Framework "no longer refers to valued landscapes" and that the parties were invited to comment on this (DL ¶2). It then treats N2, described as a "National Development Management (NDMP) Policy", as the relevant national test (DL ¶3, 16). ## Issues and findings - **Transition — valued landscapes.** "the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in August 2026 and no longer refers to valued landscapes. The parties were provided with the opportunity to comment on this change" (DL ¶2). "The NPPF has not altered the objective of limiting development away from settlements to help safeguard the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside" (DL ¶3). - **Landscape — N2: PASS.** "the degree of the change would not result in significant harm being caused to the character and appearance of the landscape … The intrinsic beauty of the countryside would be preserved" (DL ¶12). - **Strip-field heritage claim: not decisive.** A garden "would predominantly be private amenity space rather than built development" (DL ¶8). - **Conditions.** Removal of PD rights was "exceptionally justified and necessary in this case" (DL ¶15). ## Planning balance No balance was needed: no harm was found. The decision is a compliance finding against local policies and N2. ## What made the difference The host dwelling stays the dominant feature and the garden stays open. PD and lighting controls were what made the outcome acceptable: the inspector said outbuildings, hardstanding or fences "would" cause material harm (DL ¶14). ## Transferable points - The 2026 Framework drops "valued landscape"; landscape arguments now run through N2 (environmental qualities, landscape character, natural beauty) and local designations (DL ¶2-3). - The "intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside" objective survives the rewrite (DL ¶3). - A garden extension into countryside can be acceptable where PD rights and lighting are removed. That removal meets the "exceptionally justified" threshold (DL ¶14-15). ## Policy findings - **N2: pass.** "National Development Management (NDMP) Policy N2" — landscape character and natural beauty of countryside preserved; garden stays open amenity space; PD and lighting removed by condition (DL 3, 12-16) - **AnnexB:valued-landscape: not-engaged.** 2026 NPPF "no longer refers to valued landscapes"; parties invited to comment; local Area of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity designation and NP AP13 still weighed (DL 2, 7) - **DM10: pass.** removal of PD rights for structures/fences/hardstanding "exceptionally justified and necessary" (DL 15); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Site in an Area of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity; Historic Landscape Assessment says fossilised strip field (ground level already raised) (DL 7-8) - Visible mainly from adjoining public right of way; host dwelling is the dominant visual feature (DL 10-13) - Conditions — stock-proof post-and-wire fence and hedge, no buildings/hardstanding/fences, no external lighting (DL 1, 15) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010764 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3078b021-33fe-4c30-84b3-e127a6ff948b --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010764.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 8 High Street, Mayfield (planning - shopfront roller shutter) - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A James - **Authority:** Wealden (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010765 - **Application reference:** WD/2025/2300/F - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Replacement shopfront with external roller shutter and shutter box on a Grade II listed building - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Wealden Local Plan 1998 saved EN1, EN19, EN27, Wealden Core Strategy 2013 WCS14 - **Main issues:** listed building, conservation area, setting - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, shopfront, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary An external roller shutter and box on a replacement shopfront to a Grade II listed building on Mayfield's historic High Street. Appeal A (planning) dismissed alongside the LBC appeal. The heritage harm was low-end less than substantial but of considerable weight. The security justification was unevidenced, so under S4 the limited public benefits were substantially outweighed (DL ¶20-25). ## What made the difference There was no evidence of local crime and no evidence that an internal or open-mesh shutter would be inadequate, so there was no "clear and convincing justification" (DL ¶23). The extant consent for the shopfront without a shutter narrowed the case to the shutter alone. ## Policy findings - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** lower end of less than substantial harm to the Grade II building, Mayfield CA and setting of Grade I/II* buildings; no evidence of crime or that less intrusive security would not work (DL 15-23) - **S4(1): fail.** limited public benefits substantially outweighed (DL 24-25) ## Key facts - Extant consent for the same shopfront without the shutter; the appeal turned only on the shutter - Single decision letter covers the planning appeal (6010765) and the linked listed building consent appeal (6010767) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010765 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f57474f3-5d7c-4578-aad1-fbecdfd218f5 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010765.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Home Lea, 15 High Street, Alconbury Weston (listed building consent) - **Decision:** allowed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Bayliss - **Authority:** Huntingdonshire (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010766 - **Application reference:** 25/02284/LBC - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Listed building consent to demolish a modern outhouse, add a single-storey rear extension and a three-bay open barn to a timber outbuilding at a Grade II house (Appeal B; the householder Appeal A is 6011362) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, HE9 - **Development plan policies:** Huntingdonshire Local Plan 2019 LP12, LP34 - **Main issues:** special interest of the listed building, conservation area - **Tags:** tier-2, listed-building-consent, heritage-no-harm, transitional-no-consultation, linked-appeals ## Summary Listed building consent for replacing a crude 1980s outhouse with a single-storey painted-brick extension, and extending a modern timber outbuilding, at a Grade II house in Alconbury Weston. Allowed with the linked planning appeal. The outhouse contributed little if anything to significance, and the new work was sympathetic, so there was no harm. The inspector criticised the thin heritage assessment but found it enough to decide. ## Issues and findings - **Outhouse.** "given its approximate age, appearance and quality of construction, I consider that it makes little contribution, if any, to the building’s significance" (DL ¶11). - **Assessment quality.** "the appellant’s heritage assessment accompanying the original application and appeals is lacking in detail and depth" (DL ¶8), but "I am satisfied that I have enough information before me to make a meaningful assessment" (DL ¶16). - **Conclusion.** "It would comply with Policies HE6 and HE9 of the Framework which, amongst other things, state that substantial weight should be given to an asset’s conservation" (DL ¶17). ## Transferable points - A modern utilitarian outbuilding in the curtilage can be removed without harm where it adds nothing to the asset's significance (DL ¶10-13). - A thin heritage assessment is not fatal where the decision-maker can still reach a meaningful view from the evidence and the site visit (DL ¶8, 16). ## Policy findings - **HE5(2): neutral.** outhouse (probably 1983) makes little if any contribution; extension and barn cause no harm to the listed building or conservation area, subject to conditions (DL 10-15) - **HE5(1): pass.** heritage assessment "lacking in detail and depth" but enough to decide (DL 8, 16) - **HE6: pass.** complies with HE6 and HE9 (DL 17) ## Key facts - Same decision letter as the householder Appeal A (6011362), which was also allowed; no case file for Appeal A in this batch - [object Object] ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010766 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2f260d87-fc86-4c06-a2e0-ad3bcb284521 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010766.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 8 High Street, Mayfield (listed building consent - shopfront roller shutter) - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A James - **Authority:** Wealden (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010767 - **Application reference:** WD/2025/2299/LB - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Listed building consent for replacement shopfront with external roller shutter and shutter box - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6 - **Development plan policies:** Wealden Local Plan 1998 saved EN1, EN19, EN27 - **Main issues:** special interest of listed building - **Tags:** tier-2, listed-building-consent, heritage-harm-decisive, shopfront, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary The listed building consent half of the Mayfield roller-shutter appeals (see PINS-6010765). Dismissed. The shutter and box would harm the special interest of the Grade II 18th-century terrace. Reversibility "does not overcome the harm that would occur while it is in place" (DL ¶19). ## What made the difference Same as the planning appeal: the security need was unevidenced, and less intrusive alternatives had not been ruled out (DL ¶23). ## Policy findings - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** utilitarian shutter and permanent box harm the special interest of the Grade II building; reversibility given limited weight (DL 15-23) ## Key facts - Same decision letter as PINS-6010765 (Appeal B, s20 LBC appeal) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010767 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/90eac59b-b979-4dec-9fa6-f5b64143900a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010767.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 33 Western Avenue, Thorpe, Egham - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Ellis - **Authority:** Runnymede (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010772 - **Application reference:** RU.25/1146 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Subdivision of bungalow into 2 semi-detached dwellings with roof, front and side extensions and dropped kerb - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N2 - **Development plan policies:** Runnymede 2030 Local Plan SD7, EE9, EE11 - **Main issues:** biodiversity net gain - **Tags:** tier-2, bng-private-gardens, transitional-no-consultation, small-scheme ## Summary Bungalow-into-two scheme dismissed solely because the statutory BNG condition was not capable of being discharged. All the claimed gain sat in private gardens, and "BNG gains cannot be legally secured in private gardens" (DL ¶9). The Framework changes "do not affect the merits of this case" (DL ¶2). ## What made the difference The August 2026 DEFRA metric guide requires garden planting to be recorded as vegetated garden, and a 30-year maintenance obligation in private gardens "could not be effectively monitored and enforced" (DL ¶¶10–11). There was no fallback to off-site units or credits. "failure to comply is a fundamental flaw" (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **N2: fail.** statutory BNG (Sch 7A TCPA) — all gain in private gardens; DEFRA metric guide (Aug 2026) says garden gains cannot be legally secured; 30-year maintenance unenforceable; condition not capable of discharge (DL 5-14); Framework not relied on ## Key facts - Small Sites Metric claimed +14.14% (0.0110 units) from 8 trees and hedge in private gardens - BNG was the Council's only reason for refusal; no other harm found (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/52dd765b-42c1-4e0c-8495-01a0e3aaaa83 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010772 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010772.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 6 University Road, Leicester - **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Richard Snow - **Authority:** Leicester (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010783 - **Application reference:** 20251380 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use F1 offices to E offices and rear dormer (dormer built) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Leicester Local Plan 2020-2036 (adopted June 2026) HE01, CHA09 - **Main issues:** character and conservation area - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, retrospective, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Retention of a full-width flat-roofed rear dormer (with an acceptable office change of use) on a mid-19th-century building in Leicester's New Walk Conservation Area. Dismissed. The harm was low but of considerable weight. The economic benefits of the office use did not depend on the dormer, and "regularising harmful development is [not] a public benefit" (DL ¶15). The benefits were substantially outweighed under S4. ## What made the difference The public benefits were separable from the harmful element. Because the office use could go ahead without the dormer, its benefits did not count towards justifying the dormer (DL ¶15). ## Policy findings - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** low harm to New Walk CA from a full-width flat-roofed rear dormer with railings; benefits not contingent on the dormer; regularisation is not a public benefit (DL 11-15) - **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 23-24) ## Key facts - Change of use itself agreed acceptable; the dormer was determinative ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010783 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/63691933-7ff3-4a54-80ef-6d6703919b23 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010783.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 16-20 Banksfield Avenue, Yeadon (garden extension across PROW) - **Decision:** allowed, 1 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Ryan Cowley - **Authority:** Leeds (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6010787 - **Application reference:** 25/06990/FU - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of land to domestic garden and rear fencing alongside a public right of way - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR8 - **Development plan policies:** Leeds Core Strategy P10, Leeds UDP GP5, LD1 - **Main issues:** public right of way - **Tags:** prow, transitional-no-consultation, tier-2 ## Summary Enclosing land behind three houses as garden, with fencing near a public right of way, was allowed. The path's free and unobstructed use was unaffected (DL ¶13). ## What made the difference The fencing did not narrow or obstruct the route. The inspector mapped TR8 to old paragraph 105 (DL ¶13). ## Policy findings - **TR8: pass.** no harm to free and unobstructed use of the PROW; TR8 "formerly Paragraph 105" (DL 13) ## Key facts - Not re-consulted: relevant parts "have not substantively changed" (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010787 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7b466e83-9309-46ea-9ceb-f87d7f4872e4 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010787.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Field at Score Ray Lane, Whixley - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Chris Pipe - **Authority:** North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6010807 - **Application reference:** 26/01027/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Barn including stables, hardstanding and landscaping in open field - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1) - **Development plan policies:** Harrogate District Local Plan 2014-2035 HP3, HP7, NE4, Farm Buildings Design Guide 2020 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, equestrian, landscape-harm, design-refusal, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary An equestrian barn with hardstanding in an exposed, elevated open field. Dismissed as "incongruous and visually intrusive" (DL ¶9). Equestrian use "may, in principle, require a countryside location", but that does not excuse inappropriate scale and siting (DL ¶8). The Framework switch was noted without consultation, and the Framework was cited only generically for design. ## What made the difference Siting in an open field with no built context. The nearby cricket pavilion was separated by a road and hedges, so it could not assimilate the barn. ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): fail.** conflict with "design objectives of the Framework insofar as development should respond positively to local character and integrate successfully"; no DP3(3) refusal wording, no balance (DL 11); code mapped by harvester - **HP7 / NE4 (Harrogate LP): conflict.** large barn and hardstanding isolated on elevated open field; cricket pavilion across road does not assimilate it (DL 4-10) ## Key facts - Elevated triangular field between Score Ray Lane and B6265; no existing built form on site (DL 4, 8) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010807 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/87426fc0-545b-4619-a5f3-5173413470ed --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010807.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Footpath outside 1a Colman House, High Street, Penge (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** allowed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: David Wyborn - **Authority:** Bromley (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010808 - **Application reference:** 26/00372/FPA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub replacing phone kiosk, with two digital advertisement panels (Appeal A 6010808 planning; Appeal B 6010810 advertisement) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM6 - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D8, Bromley Local Plan 2019 Policies 37, 102 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, street-hub, telecoms, advertisement, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary BT Street Hub replacing a phone kiosk on Penge High Street, outside the CA. Both the planning and advertisement appeals were allowed: "would not add unacceptable street clutter to the public realm" (DL ¶14). The only express 2026 code applied was DM6, used to strike out a CCTV and off-site kiosk-removal condition (DL ¶19). ## What made the difference It was a like-for-like replacement of an existing kiosk in a busy, commercial, lit high street. Contrast PINS-6010617, where the hub was placed between a regular line of street trees next to an existing ad unit. ## Policy findings - **DP3: pass.** replaces tired kiosk on busy commercial high street; no unacceptable clutter even with hub 20m away (DL 8-14) - **DM6: fail.** Council's condition requiring integrated CCTV and removal of an off-site kiosk not reasonable or necessary — "would not meet with the requirements of Policy DM6" (DL 18-19) ## Key facts - Hub replaces an existing phone kiosk on the same footing; footway width marginally increased - Parties consulted on the revised Framework (DL 6) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/cb9b3fdf-03bf-4941-9e3f-44aae02ab13c - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010808 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010808.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Footpath outside 100 High Street, Bromley (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Heppell - **Authority:** Bromley (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010811 - **Application reference:** 26/00380/FPA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub with illuminated advertisement panels on the pedestrianised High Street (Appeal A planning; Appeal B 6010812 advertisement consent 26/00455/ADV) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), CO1, S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Bromley Local Plan 2019 Policies 37, 41, 102, London Plan 2021 D8, HC1 - **Main issues:** character and appearance and conservation area, amenity (advert) - **Tags:** tier-2, street-hub, bt-street-hub, telecoms, digital-advertising, co1-substantial-weight, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, conservation-area, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A BT Street Hub with illuminated advertising panels on Bromley's pedestrianised High Street in the town centre conservation area. The inspector found moderate harm to the conservation area from clutter and dominance, and that the public benefits did not outweigh it, partly because other hubs might duplicate them and no less harmful position had been explored. Under S4, with CO1 substantial weight, the benefits were still substantially outweighed. Both appeals were dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were afforded the opportunity to comment on the implications of the new Framework for the proposals" (DL ¶5). - **Heritage: HARM, moderate.** The hub "would contribute to a sense of clutter in an area where, despite the presence of lamp posts and litter bins, street furniture is not prevalent" (DL ¶10); "resulting in a moderate degree of harm to the CA’s significance, to which I attach considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶14). - **HE6(4): FAIL.** "it has not been explained why the hub could not be located in a different, less harmful position, whilst still delivering the same benefits. Overall, the harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset outweighs the public benefits" (DL ¶17). - **S4(2).** "There are no specific national policies directing refusal in this case" (DL ¶21); the S4(1) balance still applies (DL ¶22). - **CO1.** "The limited benefits resulting from the proposal attract substantial weight, but the harm I have identified is a matter of considerable importance and weight by reference to Policy HE6(3) of the Framework" (DL ¶25). ## Planning balance HE6(4) first (DL ¶17), then S4(1): "the benefits of approving Appeal A would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶25). ## What made the difference The pedestrianised, uncluttered historic street. Benefits that might be supplied by nearby hubs, and no search for a less harmful spot. ## Transferable points - Public benefits are discounted where they may duplicate other hubs and no less harmful location has been explored (DL ¶17). - Heritage harm under HE6 is not an S4(2) trigger, but can still substantially outweigh CO1 substantial weight in the S4(1) balance (DL ¶21-25). - Appeal decisions on hubs elsewhere carry limited weight unless the context is shown to be similar (DL ¶18-19). ## Policy findings - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** moderate harm to Bromley Town Centre CA - dominant, cluttering hub in a sensitively pedestrianised street; impinges on appraisal key view of locally listed Aberdeen Buildings (DL 10-11, 14, 20, 25) - **HE6(4): fail.** Wi-Fi, 999 button, sensors, 5% council screen time, renewable power, P5 safety; possible duplication with other hubs; no explanation why a less harmful position could not deliver the same benefits (DL 15-17) - **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** "limited benefits ... attract substantial weight"; minor coverage contribution; not sited to minimise visual impact (DL 23-25) - **P5: benefit.** emergency access, street illumination, less antisocial behaviour than kiosks (DL 16) - **S4(2): not-engaged.** "There are no specific national policies directing refusal in this case"; none of the S4(2) situations apply, but S4(1) still weighed (DL 21-22); DP3 not considered - **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed by the heritage harm (DL 25) ## Key facts - Removal of two telephone boxes outside the CA gives limited visual benefit (DL 12) - Hub outside 3 High Street permitted by the council (outside CA) distinguished; other hub appeals given limited weight for unknown context (DL 13, 18-19) - Advert Appeal B (6010812) dismissed on amenity in the same letter (DL 7, 26) - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010811 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fd429144-644b-4d79-a502-44419dea909a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010811.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Footway outside 171-173 High Street, Beckenham (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** allowed, 25 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Les Greenwood - **Authority:** Bromley (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010814 - **Application reference:** 26/00382/FPA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub with two 75-inch digital screens, replacing a kiosk (linked advert appeal 6010816) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, S4 - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D8, HC1, Bromley Local Plan 2019 policies 37, 41, 102 - **Main issues:** conservation area character and amenity - **Tags:** telecoms, street-hub, transitional-no-consultation, conservation-area, tier-2 ## Summary A BT Street Hub with digital screens in the Beckenham Town Centre Conservation Area was allowed. Removing the existing kiosk meant the proposals would enhance the street scene (DL ¶10). ## What made the difference A kiosk-removal condition and the town-centre context. The inspector invoked S4's support in principle for development within settlements (DL ¶10). Contrast PINS-6010846 and PINS-6010865. ## Policy findings - **HE6: pass.** with removal of the existing kiosk, the proposals would enhance the Beckenham Town Centre CA (DL 10) - **S4: pass.** "generally accord with Framework policy S4's support in principle for development within settlements" (DL 10) ## Key facts - Not re-consulted given the "comparatively minor scale and nature" of the proposals (DL 4) - Condition requires removal of the existing kiosk outside 179 High Street before installation ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010814 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/76a31579-bb90-48d2-b315-5b32c997c984 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010814.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Footpath outside 60 High Street, West Wickham - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Les Greenwood - **Authority:** Bromley (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010818 - **Application reference:** 26/00417/FPA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub unit with digital advertisement panels (replacing a remote phone kiosk) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Bromley Local Plan 2019 Policies 32, 33, 37, 102, London Plan 2021 D8, T2 - **Main issues:** amenity and street clutter, pedestrian safety - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, telecoms, street-hub, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A BT Street Hub with two 75-inch digital screens on a busy West Wickham high street pavement. Dismissed alongside the linked advertisement appeal (6010823). The inspector did not consult on the 2026 Framework given the minor scale (DL ¶5). Visual clutter and a pinch point of 1.2 m or less substantially outweighed the telecoms benefits under S4 (DL ¶18). ## What made the difference Footway width. The Manual for Streets and Inclusive Mobility 2 m benchmarks, cited by the appellant, reinforced the finding against it (DL ¶12). Removing a kiosk on another street gave no offsetting benefit (DL ¶16). ## Policy findings - **CO1: benefit.** telecoms, emergency calls and wifi benefits acknowledged (DL 18) - **S4(1): fail.** clutter and a 1.2 m effective footway (under 1 m when in use) on a busy high street; pedestrians forced towards the carriageway; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 8-18) ## Key facts - Effective public footway reduced to 1.2 m; Manual for Streets and Inclusive Mobility 2 m cited - Linked advertisement appeal 6010823 decided in the same letter (not in this slice) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010818 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/656202b3-3d99-4030-96ff-3c5348204314 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010818.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to 115 Loampit Vale, Lewisham - **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: David Wyborn - **Authority:** Lewisham (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010822 - **Application reference:** DC/25/141630 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Four-storey infill building with 9 purpose-built student bedrooms - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 65 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1), DP3(2)(g), N2, S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, D4, H15, T6, T6.1, Lewisham Local Plan 2025 HO2, HO7, QD1, QD7, QD8, QD10, SD11, TR4, Small Sites Design Guide SPD 2021 - **Main issues:** character, neighbour living conditions, PBSA policy, BNG, parking, contamination - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, design-refusal, student-accommodation, bng-exemption-not-shown, 5yhls-shown, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A four-storey, 9-bedroom purpose-built student block on an overgrown gap site on Loampit Vale, Lewisham. Dismissed. The height was acceptable in principle, but the design was poor (DP3(1), DP3(2)(g)). It would also overbear a neighbouring garden, left PBSA and car-free obligations unsecured, and had no BNG baseline. HO7 attracted substantial weight, but the overall benefits were moderate. The inspector read L3's density support as conditioned by DP3, and found the benefits substantially outweighed under S4 (DL ¶56-59). ## What made the difference Design quality in a detailed application, which the inspector said cannot be redesigned by condition (DL ¶16). Unsecured obligations and missing BNG evidence added to it. L3 intensification support does not apply where the DP3 character test is failed (DL ¶56). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): fail.** plain, austere, poorly related elevation; zinc top storey overemphasises height; cannot be fixed by condition (DL 12-17) - **L3: neutral.** density support qualified by character (L3 read with DP3), so no full L2/L3 compliance (DL 56) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to 9 rooms even though PBSA obligations unsecured; overall benefits moderate (DL 56-57) - **N2: fail.** exemption claim withdrawn at appeal; no baseline or small-sites metric (DL 32-40) - **S4(1): fail.** design, neighbour enclosure, unsecured PBSA and car-free obligations, BNG failure substantially outweigh benefits (DL 53-59) ## Key facts - HDT 32% previously, 65% for 2025; council now shows a Framework-compliant supply after the 2025 plan - Draft UU never completed; PBSA nomination, affordable student rooms and car-free not secured - Parking survey used a road largely in another CPZ ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010822 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4ce29b9e-a8b9-4f53-8546-05a6ba0ead62 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010822.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Shaws Lane Top Farm, Triangle, Sowerby Bridge - **Decision:** dismissed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M J Francis - **Authority:** Calderdale (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6010825 - **Application reference:** 26/00173/LBC - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Listed building consent for glazed rear porch extruding from approved rear utility extension of Grade II 17th-century farmhouse - **Site context:** open-countryside, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE6(1), HE6(3), HE4(2) - **Development plan policies:** Calderdale Local Plan 2023 HE1 - **Main issues:** special interest of listed building - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-substantial-weight, private-benefit-only, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, householder ## Summary Listed building consent for a small glazed rear porch on a Grade II 17th-century farmhouse. Dismissed. The letter is a clean application of the 2026 heritage policies: harm graded as "a low level of harm", HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation, HE6(3) considerable importance and weight, HE4(2) clear and convincing justification, and an HE6(4) public-benefits balance. The only benefit was private. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶3). - **Effect on significance: HARM.** Attaching the porch "would visually disrupt the natural evolution of the house and the clear legibility that currently exists at the rear" (DL ¶9). Building it close to the mullion window "would 'encroach' onto it and detract from its significance" (DL ¶11). - **Private views are irrelevant.** "listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of whether public views of the building can be gained" (DL ¶16). - **HE6 grading and weight.** "Policy HE6 of the Framework states that substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation … I find that the proposal would cause harm to the listed building and would be a low level of harm. Nevertheless, any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶15). - **Benefits.** "constructing another porch on the property would represent a private benefit only" (DL ¶18). ## Planning balance HE6(4): low-level harm against no public benefit. It is a one-sided balance, so the harm wins by default. ## What made the difference No public benefit at all. The asserted draught and weather protection was already provided by the existing utility room. ## Transferable points - A model 2026 heritage paragraph. After "less than substantial" was removed, harm is graded in free words ("a low level of harm"), then HE6(1), HE6(3) and HE6(4) are applied in sequence (DL ¶14-15). - Even low-level harm is decisive where the only benefits are private (DL ¶18-19). - Lack of public visibility does not reduce harm to a listed building's special interest (DL ¶16). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): harm (considerable weight).** grading — "would be a low level of harm"; HE6(1) "substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation" stated; HE6(3) "considerable importance and weight" stated; s16(2) duty cited; benefits (weather buffer to utility entrance) = "private benefit only", no public benefit (DL 4, 12, 15-19) - **HE4(2): fail.** harm should have "clear and convincing justification" — none shown (DL 14) ## Key facts - Grade II early/mid-17th-century farmhouse (list entry 1134470) (DL 5-6) - Porch would overlap onto two-storey range and crowd a four-light hoodmoulded mullion window (DL 9, 11) - Existing utility room and front porch already buffer principal rooms from draughts (DL 17-18) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010825 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1a816007-4931-40e3-b1e8-63e2a4ffcc27 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010825.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Main Street, Great Brington - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Harris-Watkins - **Authority:** West Northamptonshire (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010826 - **Application reference:** 2025/4825/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** One new two-storey dwelling on an undeveloped paddock with a stable at the village edge - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S3, S5(1)(j), S5(2), DP3 - **Development plan policies:** West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2014 R1, S10, Settlements and Countryside Local Plan (Part 2) for Daventry District 2020 RA3, RA6, ENV10, Bringtons and Nobottle Village Design Statement 2018 HS24 - **Main issues:** location of development, character and appearance - **Tags:** s5-1-j, dp3-refuse-trigger, s5-2-refusal-policy, design-refusal, substantially-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme, self-build-unsecured, housing-shortfall, drafting-slip ## Summary A single large two-storey house on a paddock at the western entrance to Great Brington, outside the village confines. The council had no five-year supply and the site passed S5(1)(j). The appeal was still dismissed. The house was sited close to the road on a site the Village Design Statement protects as a green space and significant view, so it failed DP3. DP3 is a "should be refused" policy, so S5(2) applied and the limited benefits of one dwelling were substantially outweighed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties have been invited to comment on the relevance of the Framework to the appeal … Consideration has been given to those comments received" (DL ¶3). - **Location — plan policies RA3/RA6/R1: CONFLICT.** Although the site's boundaries adjoin houses, "the site is predominantly surrounded by open space and not built form … it visually appears as part of the countryside" (DL ¶6). Under LP2 Table 3 it is not within the confines (DL ¶7). - **S4 not engaged.** "the appeal site is not within the settlement and therefore policy S4 does not apply" (DL ¶22). The settlement edge was taken from the local plan's confines test. - **S5(1)(j): PASS.** "It is agreed that the Council does not have a 5-year housing land supply. The site is physically well related to Great Brington … meeting the criteria (j)(i) and (j)(ii)" (DL ¶23). - **Character — DP3: FAIL.** "Due to the siting, massing and footprint of the development, this would result in the building being highly prominent from Main Street and create a sense of enclosure to the streetscape" (DL ¶12). Landscaping conditions could not mitigate the harm (DL ¶13). Matching materials and style "do not sufficiently mitigate the harm caused by its massing and physical placement" (DL ¶14). - **Self-build: little weight.** No demand/supply evidence and no means of securing self-build (DL ¶16). ## Planning balance S5(1) balance run with S5(2) ("The Framework outlines circumstances in which the benefits … are likely to be substantially outweighed", DL ¶25). Benefits: one dwelling "limited", modest economic, limited biodiversity, passive surveillance (DL ¶24). Harm: DP3 conflict, "significant harm … I give this harm significant weight" (DL ¶26). "Even taken together, I find the benefits of approving the development proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects. As such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply" (DL ¶26). The inspector then applied the plan-led s38(6) conclusion (DL ¶27). ## What made the difference The site was an open, verdant gateway to the village, protected as an open space and significant view in an adopted Village Design Statement. The scheme placed a wide, two-storey L-shaped house close to the road frontage. Failing DP3 triggered S5(2), and the benefits of one market house (not given substantial weight) could not survive that. A smaller building set back from Main Street, keeping the verdant approach, would have left only the spatial-strategy conflict, which S5(1)(j) would probably have overcome given the agreed supply shortfall. ## Transferable points - Passing S5(1)(j) does not carry the scheme where a DP3 "refuse without clear justification" failure engages S5(2) (DL ¶¶25–26). - Village Design Statement designations ("valued open green space", "significant view") carry real weight in the DP3 context assessment even where the site is outside conservation-area views (DL ¶¶6, 13). - Adjoining houses on two sides does not make a paddock "within" the settlement if it reads visually as countryside; local plan confines definitions were used to decide S4 v S5 (DL ¶¶6–7, 22). - Self-build claims attract little weight without demand/supply evidence and a securing mechanism (DL ¶16). - One dwelling's contribution was described as "limited" despite no five-year supply, with no reference to HO7 substantial weight (DL ¶24). This departs from other inspectors and is worth noting as an inconsistency. - Drafting slip: the inspector said both "(j)(i) and (j)(ii)" were met, but (j)(ii) is the freight and logistics limb (DL ¶23). ## Policy findings - **S4: not-engaged.** site outside village confines as defined by LP2 Table 3, so not within the settlement (DL 22) - **S5(1)(j): pass.** no 5-year supply agreed; physically well related to Great Brington; infrastructure can take one dwelling (DL 23). Inspector wrote "(j)(i) and (j)(ii)" though (j)(ii) is the freight limb - **DP3: fail (significant weight).** large L-shaped two-storey house close to Main Street, prominent from Kimbell's Field and a VDS significant view; "without clear justification" does not respond to context (DL 12-15, 26) - **S5(2): fail.** DP3 is a refuse-in-specific-circumstances policy; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 25-26) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** one dwelling's contribution "limited" even if self-build; HO7 not named and substantial weight not given (DL 24) - **TR3: neutral.** within walking distance of several services, per JCS S10 (DL 17); not weighed as a benefit - **RA3/RA6/R1/ENV10: conflict.** outside confines; spatial strategy undermined; conflict with plan as a whole (DL 9, 15, 21) ## Key facts - Council agreed it has no five-year housing land supply (figure not stated) - Site identified as a "valued open green space" and within a significant view in the 2018 Village Design Statement - Site bounded by a community open space (Kimbell's Field) to the north and fields to the west; stable on site - Self-build claimed but no demand/supply evidence and no securing mechanism — little weight (DL 16) - Emerging West Northamptonshire Local Plan R3 would support edge-of-village sites but carries limited weight and its design criteria were also failed (DL 19) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010826 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6efcd8f4-3fcc-464d-abf6-d2bbcab31042 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010826.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 18 The Dell, Kempston, Bedford - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Chris Couper - **Authority:** Bedford (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010828 - **Application reference:** 25/02172/COU - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of semi-detached house from C3 to C2 parents' home (up to 3 families with babies, 24-hour staff) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO9, P3 - **Development plan policies:** Bedford Local Plan 2030 Policies 32, 47S, 60 - **Main issues:** living conditions of future occupiers and neighbours - **Tags:** tier-2, specialist-housing, ho9-living-conditions ## Summary A family-assessment "parents' home" (C2) in a semi-detached house, dismissed. It would give cramped conditions for up to 10+ people, and noise through the party wall would harm the neighbour. The Inspector read HO9 as requiring "specialist forms of accommodation [to] provide living conditions appropriate to the needs of their residents" (DL ¶14). There were no material differences from the old Framework (DL ¶8). ## What made the difference Children's Social Care objected to the layout, and the Inspector shared those concerns (DL ¶¶15–16). The need was real but not quantified: "this scheme, at this intensity, is not the only way in which such accommodation could be provided" (DL ¶23). ## Policy findings - **HO9: fail.** specialist accommodation must provide living conditions appropriate to residents — cramped, 10+ occupants, no therapy or private space (Children's Services objection) (DL 14-16, 20) - **P3(2)(b): fail.** noise and disturbance through party wall to No 16 from intensified use and turnover (DL 17-19) - **HO7: benefit.** effective use of building and social role acknowledged; limited evidence of need; "not the only way" to provide it (DL 22-23) ## Key facts - Children's Social Care director objected; application pulled from committee the day before - Amended 2-bed drawing submitted on decision day, rejected as significant material amendment (DL 2-7) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a9c48f3d-35fe-4e64-8479-aeca7609db51 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010828 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010828.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 124 Bexley Road, Erith (7-person HMO) - **Decision:** dismissed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P D Sedgwick - **Authority:** Bexley (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010832 - **Application reference:** 26/00587/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Roof enlargement and change of use from dwelling to 7-person sui generis HMO - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** Bexley LP DP11 - **Development plan policies:** Bexley Local Plan 2023 DP11, London Plan D13, D14 - **Main issues:** neighbour noise and disturbance - **Tags:** hmo, fallback, tier-2 ## Summary A seven-person HMO in Erith was dismissed for noise and disturbance to neighbours, even against a real-prospect fallback of a six-person HMO (DL ¶8-10). ## What made the difference The inspector found the seventh occupant produced a cumulative increase "significantly over and above" the current position (DL ¶10). ## Policy findings - **P3: fail.** noise and disturbance from 7 occupants substantially exceeds a family household; the 6-person HMO fallback was given significant weight but the extra occupant tipped the balance (DL 5-10) ## Key facts - Extant permissions for a 6-person HMO given significant weight as a fallback (DL 10) - Framework not cited ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010832 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/efd25a2b-333d-4692-820c-8ca8686b694f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010832.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to Arcady, Coryates - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Cooper-Young - **Authority:** Dorset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010834 - **Application reference:** P/FUL/2026/01044 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Self-build single-storey dwelling in the garden of Arcady, with parking and amenity space - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, national-landscape, rural-lane, SSSI - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.53 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), S5(4), S3 - **Development plan policies:** West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan 2015 INT1, SUS2, ENV2 - **Main issues:** suitable location for housing, biodiversity net gain - **Tags:** self-build, self-build-unsecured, small-scheme, s5-1-j, s5-4-exceptional, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, hamlet, national-landscape, bng-exemption-not-shown, housing-shortfall, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip, habitats-regs ## Summary A self-build bungalow in a garden between two dwellings in the hamlet of Coryates (Dorset National Landscape), outside any development boundary, in a district with a 2.53-year supply. Dismissed. The hamlet has no services and is 2.5 km from Portesham along unlit lanes without footways, so S5(1)(j) failed on "well-related to an existing settlement". The very limited benefits of one house were substantially outweighed. A second reason: no s106 securing self-build status, so the BNG exemption and biodiversity measures could not be relied on. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "In the interest of natural justice … I consulted both parties on the changes to the Framework" (DL ¶2). A Council background paper "prepared with significant reference to the 2024 Framework rather than the current policy based version … attracts only very limited weight" (DL ¶13). - **Location: FAIL.** "Coryates is a small, loose‑knit hamlet" (DL ¶7). "Access to these facilities would involve walking along a narrow, unlit road, much of which is subject to the national speed limit … occupiers would be heavily reliant on the private car" (DL ¶11). - **S5(1)(j): FAIL.** "Even though the appeal site is close to a few other houses, I have already found it is not well-related to an existing settlement. It therefore does not fall within category 1.j." (DL ¶27). - **National Landscape: limited effect.** "contained within the existing built extent of the hamlet, positioned between established dwellings … would not materially diminish the natural beauty" (DL ¶21). - **BNG / self-build: FAIL.** "there was no robust mechanism proposed (such as a S106 legal agreement) to secure it" (DL ¶18); the 6 Aug 2026 small-site exemption applies only to applications made on or after that date (DL ¶17). - **Habitats.** Appropriate assessment not undertaken because appeal fails on other grounds (DL ¶4). ## Planning balance S5(4) balance. Benefits: one dwelling, "only a modest contribution towards addressing the shortfall" and limited construction/trade benefits (DL ¶29). Substantial weight to conflict with SUS2 as "broadly consistent with the strategic aims of the Framework" (DL ¶30). Benefits "do not, alone or cumulatively, amount to exceptional circumstances" (DL ¶30); "the very limited benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶31). ## What made the difference Coryates being a services-free, loose-knit hamlet reached only by unlit national-speed-limit lanes. That took the site outside S5(1)(j) despite a 2.53-year supply. The plot's garden-between-dwellings form, which looks like an S5(1)(e) infill case, was not argued or considered. A signed s106 for self-build would have removed the second reason but not the first. ## Transferable points - A hamlet with no services is not an "existing settlement" for S5(1)(j), even with a severe supply shortfall (2.53 yrs) (DL ¶¶11, 26-27). - A single dwelling gets "only a modest contribution" and very limited weight overall, and an S5(4) exceptional-circumstances case fails (DL ¶¶29-31). - Local evidence papers drafted against the 2024 Framework carry very limited weight under the 2026 Framework (DL ¶13). - A self-build BNG exemption needs the self-build status secured by a signed s106 submitted with the appeal; the 6 Aug 2026 small-site BNG exemption is not retrospective (DL ¶¶17-20). - No harm to a National Landscape from a plot contained between existing dwellings does not overcome a failed S5 location test (DL ¶21). - Drafting slips: DL ¶28 says the scheme "does benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development at Policy S3" (context shows "does not" was meant). DL ¶27 says "I have already found it is not well-related to an existing settlement", but the earlier reasoning (DL ¶¶7-15) addressed accessibility and the local strategy, not S5(1)(j) well-relatedness as such. S5(1)(e) is not considered even though the plot is garden between two dwellings (DL ¶7). HO7 is not mentioned. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): fail.** 2.53-yr supply = evidenced unmet need, but Coryates (loose-knit hamlet, no services) not an existing settlement the site is well-related to (DL 11, 26-27) - **S5(1): fail.** no other limb a-j met (DL 27); S5(1)(e) infill not discussed despite plot being garden between two dwellings (DL 7, 21) - **S5(4): fail.** benefits "very limited"; not exceptional circumstances; substantially outweighed (DL 29-31) - **TR3: harm.** not cited by code; 2.5 km to Portesham on narrow unlit national-speed-limit lanes with no footways; heavily car-reliant (DL 11) - **N4: neutral.** contained within hamlet between dwellings; limited effect on Dorset National Landscape; s85 CRoW duty applied (DL 3, 21) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** HO7 not named; one dwelling, modest contribution even as windfall/self-build; limited social/economic benefits (DL 29) - **SUS2: conflict (substantial weight).** broadly consistent with Framework's aim of directing housing to sustainable locations (DL 30) - **ENV2: conflict.** self-build BNG exemption claimed but self-build not secured by s106; no mechanism to secure biodiversity measures (DL 17-20) ## Key facts - Council supply 2.53 years (agreed) - Coryates has no services; Portesham about 2.5 km along narrow, unlit lanes without footways, mostly national speed limit - Plot is residential garden between two dwellings in a loose-knit hamlet, within Dorset National Landscape and near SSSI/SAC/SPA - No signed s106 to secure self-build; new small-site BNG exemption (6 Aug 2026) does not apply to earlier applications - Dorset Flexible Settlements Policy Background Paper (2025) very limited weight, partly because prepared against the 2024 Framework - Inspector consulted parties on the 2026 Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010834 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1aa4f9d4-09cd-4058-baa0-80e2578ebe17 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010834.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 19 St Michaels Road, Newquay - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Harrington - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010836 - **Application reference:** PA25/06466 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of commercial building and erection of mixed-use building with offices and 9 flats, parking and two accesses - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), S4(2)(c), DP3, L2(1)(d) - **Development plan policies:** Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 Policy 12, Newquay Neighbourhood Plan 2019-2030 D1 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions, infrastructure contributions, S4 balance - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, design-refusal, housing-shortfall, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme, pdl ## Summary The proposal replaced a villa-scale office building in Newquay with a larger contemporary block of offices and 9 flats. The appeal was dismissed. The inspector accepted the design worked from St Michaels Road but found it bulky and incongruous from the Ennors Road terrace, and harmful to neighbours' outlook and daylight. The site was within a settlement, so S4 applied. The council had no five-year supply, and housing, business and town-centre benefits each got substantial weight. The inspector still found them substantially outweighed, because DP3 and L2(1)(d) were failed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties commented on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶2). - **Character, DP3: FAIL.** The side elevation "would present as bulky, dominant and incongruous, failing to sufficiently integrate with the immediate surroundings of, and significantly diminishing the character of Ennors Road" (DL ¶11). "Whilst the proposal would optimise the site's potential, the increase in scale and density of built form within the site does not create a visually attractive, distinctive or characterful development" (DL ¶13). The Newquay Pattern Book got only modest weight because of its age and non-plan status (DL ¶9). - **Living conditions, P3(2): HARM.** P3(2) "does not differentiate between the type of occupiers ... I see no reason why even short-term occupiers should not be afforded adequate living conditions" (DL ¶19). This applied to holiday flats next door. - **L2(1)(d): FAIL.** "given the identified harm, whilst the proposal would redevelop and increase the scale and density within the site, I do not find that the proposal would result in an efficient use of land" (DL ¶33). - **Infrastructure.** The education and open space unilateral undertaking complied with the tests (DL ¶23-27). ## Planning balance This was the S4 balance. Substantial weight went to HO7 housing on PDL with no 5YHLS (DL ¶30), E2(1)(a) business growth (DL ¶31) and TC2(1)(a) town-centre vitality (DL ¶32). BNG got modest weight. Against those: "Due to these conflicts, the proposal fails to comply with a national decision-making policy which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances. Moreover, in view of the particular substantial adverse effects identified, I find in this instance the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶35). The Habitats Regulations appropriate assessment (Penhale Dunes SAC) was not needed because the appeal failed anyway (DL ¶36-39). ## What made the difference The DP3 failure opened the S4(2)(c) "should be refused" route. Once the inspector found "no clear overriding justification" for the design conflict (DL ¶34), three separate substantial-weight benefits could not carry the scheme. The failure came from one vantage point, the terrace end on Ennors Road. A building that stepped down or held the Ennors Road building line would probably have succeeded, given the inspector's acceptance of the St Michaels Road elevation. ## Transferable points - Within a settlement, a DP3 conflict "with no clear overriding justification" is treated as failing a "should be refused" policy, which engages S4(2)(c) (DL ¶34-35). - Harm from a single important viewpoint (a terrace end) is enough, even if the scheme suits the main frontage (DL ¶9-14). - L2(1)(d) densification counts as an "efficient use of land" only if it respects the street scene and neighbours' living conditions (DL ¶33). - P3(2) protects holiday-let occupiers as well as residents (DL ¶19). - HO7 substantial weight applies "despite the modest scale" of 9 units (DL ¶30). ## Policy findings - **S4(1): fail.** within the settlement of Newquay; benefits substantially outweighed by character and living-conditions harm (DL 29, 35) - **DP3: fail.** bulky side elevation dominant and incongruous at the end of the Ennors Road terrace; "no clear overriding justification" (DL 11-13, 34) - **L2(1)(d): fail.** redevelopment within an existing plot inconsistent with street scene and harmful to neighbours (L2(1)(d)(i) and (ii)), so not an efficient use of land (DL 33) - **P3(2): harm.** outlook and daylight loss to 2 Ennors Road and holiday flats at 21-23 St Michaels Road; P3(2) protects short-term occupiers too (DL 19-22) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 9 energy-efficient homes on PDL where no 5YHLS; substantial despite modest scale (DL 28, 30) - **E2(1)(a): benefit (substantial weight).** office floorspace, though existing building already offices (DL 31) - **TC2(1)(a): benefit (substantial weight).** support for Newquay town centre vitality (DL 32) ## Key facts - Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 28) - Replacement building significantly larger than the villa-scale building it replaces; side elevation protrudes beyond the Ennors Road building line (DL 8, 11) - Three substantial-weight benefits (HO7, E2, TC2) still substantially outweighed once DP3 and L2(1)(d) failed (DL 30-35) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010836 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2176eac8-1f03-4986-8b19-535a35815352 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010836.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Denmark Hill, outside No 124, Camberwell (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** allowed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Major - **Authority:** Lambeth (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010838 - **Application reference:** 26/00295/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Removal of an InLink unit and a replacement BT Street Hub 3 unit on the footway (appeal A; advertisement appeal B 6010837 for two 75-inch digital screens also allowed) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, TR6, TR4 - **Development plan policies:** Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035 Q17, T1, T2, T3, T9, London Plan 2021 T4 - **Main issues:** highway and pedestrian safety (A); public safety (B) - **Tags:** street-hub, bt-street-hub, telecoms, s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, inclusive-access, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary Replacing a BT InLink unit on Denmark Hill, outside King's College Hospital's Faraday Building, with a slightly larger Street Hub and digital screens. The 3.3 m clear footway met inclusive mobility guidance, and the Council's accident data did not show the existing unit distracted drivers. With no adverse effects, S3 and S4 indicated approval. Both appeals allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Footway.** "This gap of 3.3m would meet the required technical stipulations in respect of width clearance guidance contained within the inclusive mobility guidance document" (DL ¶15). - **Accidents.** "I do not find that the accident record data provided by the Council is evidence that the proposed, larger, unit would cause a distraction to road users" (DL ¶22). - **Framework.** "I find no conflict with Policy TR6 of the Framework. I also find no conflict with Policy TR4 of the Framework where it states that proposals should minimise the scope for conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles." (DL ¶26). ## Planning balance "I conclude that there are no adverse effects arising from the proposal when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework and consequently Policies S3 and S4 of the Framework indicate that the proposal should be approved." (DL ¶37). ## What made the difference A like-for-like replacement on the same footprint, with measured footway clearance and no causal link between the existing unit and the accident record. Contrast Turnpike Lane PINS-6003086, where a new hub added clutter. ## Transferable points - Collision data must be linked to the feature in question to support a distraction objection (DL ¶21-22). - Inclusive Mobility clearance is a material benchmark for footway obstruction (DL ¶15). ## Policy findings - **TR6: pass.** no unacceptable impact on highway safety; accident data for 2017-2025 not linked to the existing unit (DL 20-22, 26) - **TR4: pass.** 3.3 m clear footway meets Inclusive Mobility; pedestrians including wheelchair users not forced into the road (DL 14-19, 26) - **S4: pass.** no adverse effects, so S3 and S4 indicate approval (DL 36-37) ## Key facts - Replacement hub 346 mm wider and slightly taller than the InLink unit, same footprint (DL 12) - Bus lane used by cyclists beside a three-lane A215 (DL 8) - Advertisement consent for five years only; 10-year request refused (DL 33-35) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010838 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/588efbd3-3762-4d9c-ae5e-0f44693ce410 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010838.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 71 Finchley Lane, Hendon - **Decision:** allowed, 25 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Powys Jones - **Authority:** Barnet (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010839 - **Application reference:** 26/0451/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of dwelling (C3) to 5-bed C4 HMO for up to 6 people - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** Barnet Local Plan HOUS02, HOUS04, London Plan 2021 - **Main issues:** need for HMOs, location/accessibility - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, costs-application, limited-nppf-engagement, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A 5-bed house converted to a six-person HMO near Middlesex University. Allowed despite PTAL 2, as a justified slight departure from the plan's HMO policy. The only Framework reference is a closing remark that "Nothing in the newly published edition of the Framework … is of such strength or significance as to outweigh" the conclusions (DL ¶16). ## What made the difference Estate-agent evidence of HMO demand, walking and cycling distance to the university, and the low need for 5-bed houses. ## Policy findings - **HOUS04 (Barnet LP): conflict.** need for HMO shown by estate-agent evidence; PTAL 2 fails the accessibility criterion but a justified "slight departure" — university and shops about 800m, bus every 7.5 min (DL 4-13) - **HO5: benefit.** HMO meets need of students/low-income groups; no Framework policy cited — code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - PTAL 2; Middlesex University about 800m (DL 10) - Former licensed HMO before 2016 Article 4 direction (DL 9) - 5-bed houses have the lowest need rating in the plan's Table 7 (DL 12) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010839 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6be7d31a-fab3-409b-872b-374f01233ea8 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010839.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Footpath outside 366 Gray's Inn Road, Camden (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Skelly - **Authority:** Camden (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010844 - **Application reference:** 2025/5871/P - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub with digital advertisement panels (Appeal A 6010844 planning; Appeal B 6010845 advertisement) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), P5 - **Development plan policies:** Camden Local Plan 2017 D1, D2, D4, C5, T1, A1, C6, G1 - **Main issues:** heritage and character, community safety, pedestrian safety - **Tags:** street-hub, telecoms, advertisement, transitional, old-heritage-wording, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, public-benefits-unevidenced, crime-and-safety ## Summary BT Street Hub on Gray's Inn Road in the Kings Cross/St Pancras CA, beside Grade II Willing House. Both appeals were dismissed for heritage and clutter harm and for community-safety risk. The letter is a reissue under s56(2), dated 4 September 2026, of a decision first issued on 17 August 2026. It still applies the **December 2024 Framework** (¶¶212, 215) and the "less than substantial" vocabulary, with no mention of the 2026 Framework. ## Issues and findings - **Heritage, 2024 ¶¶212/215 (now HE6): HARM.** "I find the harm to be less than substantial in this instance, and at the lower end of the spectrum, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶14). - **Public benefits.** Wi-Fi, 5G, free calls and sensors "occupy only a small part of the structure, with the dominant element being the advertisements. Moreover, I have not been provided with any evidence that these benefits could not be provided in a way which does not result in the harm" (DL ¶15). - **Community safety: FAIL.** Met Police objection, a high-crime ward, and no site-specific ASB mitigation (DL ¶¶19–23). - **Pedestrian safety: PASS.** 5.83m clear footway (DL ¶24). ## Planning balance Heritage harm (considerable weight) against public benefits, under 2024 ¶215. Benefits insufficient. Also a plan-led refusal on design and safety. ## What made the difference A cluttered triangular pavement, a hub seen against the listed hotel in views from Kings Cross, and Met Police evidence of hub misuse. The benefits case did not show that the harm was necessary to deliver them. ## Transferable points - Decisions re-issued under s56(2) after 17 August 2026 can still carry 2024-Framework reasoning. The corrected version did not update the policy basis (preamble; DL ¶¶14, 16). - Communication-hub benefits are discounted where advertising is the dominant element and there's no evidence of a less harmful alternative (DL ¶15). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): fail.** applied as 2024 paras 212/215 — "less than substantial … lower end of the spectrum" harm to Kings Cross/St Pancras CA and setting of Grade II Willing House, "of considerable importance and weight"; benefits not shown to be deliverable without harm (DL 12-16) - **DP3: fail.** adds to cluttered pavement edge (plan D4) (DL 11) - **P5: fail.** Met Police evidence of hub-related drug dealing and phone theft; ASB plan not site-specific (plan C5) (DL 18-23) - **TR4: pass.** 5.83m clear footway retained; no pedestrian safety harm (DL 24-27) - **CO1: benefit.** connectivity, 999, sensors — but advertising is the dominant element (DL 15) ## Key facts - Decision re-issued under s56(2) PCPA 2004, superseding a decision issued on 17 August 2026 - Concurrent hub appeals by the same Inspector outside 297 Pentonville Road and the Standard Hotel ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1e68633d-0970-464b-a221-29abefd50973 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010844 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010844.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Footway outside 141 Camden High Street (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: David Troy - **Authority:** Camden (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010846 - **Application reference:** 2025/5872/P - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub with double-sided illuminated advertisement panels replacing kiosks (linked advert appeal 6010847) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), CO1, TR4 - **Development plan policies:** Camden Local Plan 2017 D1, D2, D4, G1, A1, C5, C6, T1 - **Main issues:** conservation area character, pedestrian safety, community safety - **Tags:** telecoms, street-hub, co1-substantial-weight, heritage-harm-decisive, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A BT Street Hub with illuminated digital adverts on Camden High Street was dismissed. It caused lower-level harm to the Camden Town Conservation Area and obstructed pedestrian flow. The letter shows how inspectors are reconciling CO1's "substantial weight" to telecoms with HE6(4). The weight is given, but the benefits are then characterised as "modest", and heritage harm still prevails. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties have been consulted … I have therefore considered the development against the relevant policies in the Framework" (DL ¶4). - **Character and heritage: HARM.** The hub would be "the most prominent feature within its immediate setting … resulting in an overly cluttered and visually incongruous street scene" (DL ¶9). "Whilst the degree of harm … on the significance of the CA would be at the lower level, in accordance with Policy HE6 (4) of the Framework, that harm should be weighed against any public benefits" (DL ¶12). - **CO1 benefits: substantial weight but modest.** "whilst given substantial weight in line with the Framework, given the limited scale of the proposals, these benefits would be modest. I therefore find insufficient public benefits arising from the proposals to offset the identified harm to which I attach substantial weight" (DL ¶14). - **Pedestrian movement: HARM.** It would "cause an undue obstruction to pedestrians and impede the free flow of pedestrian movements" (DL ¶20). - **Community safety: NO HARM.** There was "limited substantive evidence … including recent site-specific crime data" (DL ¶24). Contrast PINS-6010059, where site-level police evidence carried the issue. ## Planning balance An HE6(4) balance: lower-level harm to the conservation area (substantial weight) against telecoms and public benefits (substantial weight in principle, modest in substance). The benefits failed, and pedestrian harm was added. There was also "no indication that they could not be achieved in a less harmful manner" (DL ¶29). ## What made the difference A cluttered, busy footway in a conservation area, where a bigger, lit unit replaced smaller kiosks. CO1 weight did not rescue a scheme whose benefits were small and could be delivered elsewhere. ## Transferable points - CO1 "substantial weight" can coexist with a finding that the benefits are "modest" in scale, and does not outweigh lower-level conservation area harm (DL ¶13-14). - Community-safety objections to street furniture need site-specific crime evidence (DL ¶24-25). - An offer to reposition a structure at appeal is a material change and cannot be considered (DL ¶20). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): fail (substantial weight).** lower-level harm to Camden Town CA from a bulky, illuminated hub adding to clutter; harm given substantial weight (DL 9-14) - **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** telecoms benefits "given substantial weight in line with the Framework" but "modest" given the limited scale (DL 13-14) - **TR4: fail.** obstructs the pedestrian desire line on a busy, cluttered footway (DL 17-21) - **P5: pass.** no site-specific crime evidence; an ASB management plan condition would suffice (DL 22-25) ## Key facts - Parties consulted on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 4) - Offer to move the hub nearer the kerb rejected as a material change to the proposal (DL 20) - General council and police crime claims not site-specific, so no community-safety harm (DL 24-25) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010846 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9c3c75af-62b4-4c4a-b821-d3668d4b8973 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010846.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land off Cheddington Road, Pitstone - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Lewis Condé - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010848 - **Application reference:** PL/25/4416/FA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Erection of a dwelling and detached double garage - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.73 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N6, S5(1)(j)(i), TR3, S6 - **Development plan policies:** Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2013-2033 S1, S2, S3, D3, T1, NE1, Pitstone Neighbourhood Plan 2016 Policy 1 - **Main issues:** habitats site, location and spatial strategy - **Tags:** s5-1-j, sustainable-location-pass, habitats-mitigation-unsecured, self-build-unsecured, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, s6-neighbourhood-plan ## Summary A single dwelling on a field at the edge of Pitstone, outside the neighbourhood plan settlement boundary. The inspector found the location acceptable. With a 3.73-year supply the site was physically well-related to the village and passed TR3, so the scheme drew support from S5(1)(j)(i). The spatial-strategy conflict got only limited weight. The appeal was still dismissed, because no executed obligation secured Chilterns Beechwoods SAC mitigation. That meant N6 and the Habitats Regulations were determinative. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties had an opportunity to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶2). - **Habitats site, N6: FAIL.** "no executed planning obligation or other legally effective mechanism is before me ... I have no certainty that the necessary mitigation would be delivered" (DL ¶12). "Policy N6 of the Framework establishes that proposals affecting habitat sites should be refused unless an appropriate assessment concludes that the proposal would not adversely affect the integrity of the site" (DL ¶34). - **Location, local plan: CONFLICT, limited weight.** The site is outside the settlement boundary "despite adjoining residential development ... It is therefore located within the countryside for planning policy purposes" (DL ¶17). - **TR3: PASS.** "The surrounding area also benefits from extensive footway provision, street lighting and relatively gentle topography, making active travel a realistic option ... nearby bus services provide regular access to larger centres and local schools" (DL ¶20). The site "would therefore accord with ... Policy TR3 of the Framework" (DL ¶21). - **S5(1)(j)(i): supports.** "The appeal site is also physically well related to an existing settlement, whilst existing infrastructure is also likely to be able to accommodate the scale of development proposed. As such, the appeal scheme also draws support from Policy S5(j)(i)" (DL ¶33). - **S6.** It "does not weigh against the proposal due to the age of the Neighbourhood Plan" (made 2016) (DL ¶33). - **Heritage.** No harm to the Orchard Farm listed group; this follows appeal APP/J0405/W/21/3276552 (DL ¶24-28). ## Planning balance Limited weight went to the spatial-strategy conflict: "the Council's spatial strategy has not delivered a sufficient supply of housing, the site is well related to Pitstone, and the policies do not fully reflect the support in current national policy for meeting identified housing needs in locations physically well related to existing settlements" (DL ¶31). Significant weight went to the NE1 habitats conflict. HO7 got substantial weight (DL ¶33). But "The requirements of the Habitats Regulations are determinative ... the Framework's presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply" (DL ¶35). ## What made the difference A missing executed s106 for SAC mitigation. On every other issue the appellants won: S5(1)(j), TR3, heritage and character. Had the obligation been submitted with the appeal, as the procedural guide requires, this would very probably have been allowed. ## Transferable points - At the edge of a larger village, footways, lighting, gentle topography and regular buses satisfy TR3 (DL ¶20-21). - A settlement boundary drawn tightly in an older neighbourhood plan gets limited weight where there is a shortfall and the site is well related. The Framework's S5(1)(j) support for well-related sites is the reason given (DL ¶31, 33). - S6 cannot help a neighbourhood plan made more than five years ago (DL ¶33). - N6 and Habitats Regulations failures are determinative and override the presumption and substantial HO7 weight (DL ¶34-35). - Self-build status gets no extra weight without a securing mechanism (DL ¶29). ## Policy findings - **N6: fail.** Chilterns Beechwoods SAC recreational ZOI; willing to pay but no executed obligation, so integrity could not be ascertained; Habitats Regs determinative (DL 12-15, 34-35) - **S5(1)(j)(i): pass.** 3.73-year supply; site physically well related to Pitstone (larger village) and infrastructure can accommodate one dwelling (DL 33) - **TR3: pass.** footways, street lighting, gentle topography, services within walking/cycling distance, regular buses (DL 20-21) - **S6: not-engaged.** neighbourhood plan made 2016, more than five years old (DL 33) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** significant shortfall; self-build status given no additional weight without securing mechanism (DL 29, 32-33) - **HE6: neutral.** no harm to setting of three Grade II buildings at Orchard Farm (DL 24-28) ## Key facts - Supply about 3.73 years (DL 32) - Site outside Pitstone Neighbourhood Plan settlement boundary but adjoining housing; limited weight to spatial-strategy conflict (DL 17, 31) - Appellants willing to pay SAC mitigation but no executed s106 submitted with the WR appeal (DL 12) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010848 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/70905d0a-820b-4ac7-b816-23b15570feb8 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010848.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 12 Belfairs Drive, Chadwell Heath - **Decision:** allowed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Peter Eggleton - **Authority:** Redbridge (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010851 - **Application reference:** 3433/25 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of dwelling to C4 small HMO for up to six people, bin and cycle stores - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** S3 - **Development plan policies:** Redbridge Local Plan 2018 LP5, LP26, London Plan 2021 H9, Housing Design SPD 2019 - **Main issues:** housing mix and family homes - **Tags:** transitional, hmo, housing-shortfall, old-wording-slip, tilted-balance-2024 ## Summary A small HMO in a Redbridge family house. Allowed. The letter is dated 17 August 2026, the day the new Framework took effect, but it applies the December 2024 paragraph 11(d)(ii) tilted balance word for word ("key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes") (DL ¶14). It does not mention the new Framework. ## Issues and findings - **Housing mix.** LP5 "relates to housing mix on housing sites rather than changes of use such as this" (DL ¶5). HMO concentration was well below the SPD thresholds (DL ¶7-8). - **Tilted balance (2024).** "whilst there would be some harm from the loss of a single family dwelling, it would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits resulting from the provision of accommodation for up to six persons, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole" (DL ¶15). ## Planning balance The 2024 ¶11(d)(ii) tilted balance. The 2026 equivalent is S4(1) (within settlements: approve unless benefits "substantially outweighed"), which would favour the scheme at least as strongly. ## What made the difference The absence of a five-year supply and low HMO concentration. Same borough and outcome as PINS-6009905, which was decided under the 2026 Framework using HO7. ## Transferable points - Decisions issued on 17 August 2026 may still apply the 2024 Framework without comment. Check the date and wording before citing them (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **S3: pass.** 2024 ¶11(d)(ii) tilted balance quoted verbatim ("key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes"); loss of family house does not significantly and demonstrably outweigh benefits; council cannot show 5YHLS (figure not stated) (DL 14-16) - **LP5 (Redbridge LP): accord.** mix policy aimed at housing sites not changes of use; weighs in favour of retaining larger homes (DL 5) - **HO5: benefit.** HMO lower-cost accommodation; 2 HMOs in street, well below the SPD 20% and 1-in-5 thresholds (DL 7-8, 15); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Council accepted no five-year supply (DL 14) - SHMA says 68% of need is for 3+ bed homes, with no specific HMO need figure (DL 4) - Occupancy limited to six residents in four bedrooms by condition (DL 1, 17) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010851 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fae0dfa9-840b-4b2e-9a70-4f2a23fde476 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010851.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Giles House Farm, Bromsgrove Road, Stourbridge - **Decision:** allowed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Winnard - **Authority:** Bromsgrove (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010859 - **Application reference:** 25/01389/FUL - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Enlargement of an approved detached garage (approved under 22/01089/FUL and a 2020 permission) - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Bromsgrove District Plan BDP4 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, VSC - **Tags:** transitional, transitional-no-consultation, vsc-shown, fallback, domestic-outbuilding ## Summary Larger replacement design for an approved detached garage at a farmhouse in the Bromsgrove Green Belt. Allowed. The appellant conceded inappropriateness, but VSC was found on the strength of an extant garage permission (a fallback of no less harm) and the benefit of moving parking off open land. The decision is dated 17 August 2026 and is reasoned on 2024-Framework wording without reference to the new Framework. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** No mention of the 17 Aug 2026 Framework. The wording "the construction of new buildings is inappropriate development … unless the development falls within specified exceptions" (DL ¶4) tracks 2024 ¶154. - **Inappropriate: conceded.** "The list of exceptions does not include the construction of domestic outbuildings, including garages" (DL ¶4-5). - **Openness: modest spatial, very limited visual harm** (DL ¶7). - **Fallback: considerable weight.** "the proposal would be no more harmful than the fallback position" (DL ¶10). - **Parking off open land: significant weight** (DL ¶12). ## Planning balance GB6(2) (2024 ¶153) VSC. Substantial weight to Green Belt harm, against considerable and significant weights in favour. Clearly outweighed, so VSC exists (DL ¶13-14). ## What made the difference An extant, realistic fallback for a garage in almost the same place, and a practical benefit of getting cars off open land. Without the fallback the scheme would almost certainly have failed. ## Transferable points - A realistic fallback that is at least as harmful can carry considerable weight and, with other benefits, amount to VSC (DL ¶8-10, ¶14). - Detached domestic garages are not within any GB7 exception (DL ¶4). ## Policy findings - **GB6(2): pass (substantial weight).** detached domestic garage conceded inappropriate; modest spatial and very limited visual harm; VSC shown by fallback (considerable weight) plus taking parking off open land (significant weight) (DL 4-14) - **GB7(1)(b): not-engaged.** new outbuilding, not within the exceptions; inappropriateness conceded by appellant (DL 4-5) ## Key facts - Extant 2020 permission for extensions and a detached garage; real prospect of implementation (DL 8-9) - Proposed garage slightly larger and taller but more in keeping with farmhouse; openness harm relative to fallback negligible (DL 10) - Garage sized for 3 cars per Worcestershire design guide; approved garage practical for only 2, so cars would still park on open land (DL 11-12) - Decision dated 17 Aug 2026; letter cites only "the Framework" with 2024-style wording ("construction of new buildings is inappropriate") and no reference to the new Framework or GB6/GB7 codes, so treated as decided under the 2024 Framework (inference) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010859 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/23178db5-b056-4467-b6f0-0f9eeb77f8fe --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010859.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 59 Luncies Road, Basildon - **Decision:** allowed, 2 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Jonathan Price - **Authority:** Basildon (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010861 - **Application reference:** 26/00230/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of mid-terrace house (C3) to children's home (C2) for up to two children aged 10-17 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO7(1), HO9(1) - **Development plan policies:** Basildon District Local Plan saved policies (no conflict alleged) - **Main issues:** need for specialist accommodation vs loss of family housing - **Tags:** childrens-home, specialist-housing, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, ho7-substantial-weight, old-para-no-replacement ## Summary Two-bed children's home in a Basildon terrace, refused by the Council only on old NPPF ¶¶61/63 (lack of need and loss of a family house). Allowed. HO7(1) gives substantial weight to homes meeting evidenced needs of groups assessed under HO1, which includes looked-after children. The County sufficiency strategy supplied that evidence. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were consulted. The revised Framework "maintains the Government's policy thrust over boosting the supply of homes and meeting varying groups' housing needs" (DL ¶2). The refusal "rested on the proposal being contrary to previous Framework paragraphs 61 and 63. The current Framework does not provide direct replacements of these paragraphs" (DL ¶5). - **HO1(2)** is "a plan-making rather than a decision-making policy", but it carries forward the old fn 26 pointer to the Children's Social Care Sufficiency Strategy (DL ¶5). - **HO7(1): substantial weight.** "The additional specialist residential provision for CYP with highly complex needs would provide benefits to which Framework Policy HO7 requires substantial weight be given. This would outweigh any harm arising from a loss by change of use of a single C3 house" (DL ¶13). - **HO9(1): PASS** on living conditions and access to services (DL ¶8). - **Need.** "Neither the revised or previous Framework impose a ceiling on housing provision or require individual planning applications to demonstrate a need for the sort of housing proposed" (DL ¶12). ## Planning balance Informal: HO7 substantial weight against the small harm of losing one C3 dwelling, given the Housing Delivery Test shortfall. No plan conflict. ## What made the difference The County commissioning evidence identified a specific complex-needs placement shortage that the Council's raw count of permissions did not capture (DL ¶10). The Council also had no development-plan policy resisting the loss of C3 dwellings. ## Transferable points - HO7(1) substantial weight extends to specialist accommodation (children's homes) where the county sufficiency strategy evidences the need (DL ¶¶5–7, 13). - The old ¶¶61/63 grounds on need and loss of family housing have no direct 2026 replacement; a refusal resting on them alone is vulnerable (DL ¶¶5, 12). - Conditions requiring Ofsted registration or reversion to C3 fail the DM6 tests (DL ¶¶15–16). ## Policy findings - **HO7(1): benefit (substantial weight).** specialist provision for children with complex needs matching Essex sufficiency strategy — substantial weight outweighs loss of one C3 house (DL 7, 10-13) - **HO9(1): pass.** living conditions and access to services appropriate (DL 8) - **HO1(2): neutral.** plan-making policy; carries forward old fn26 (Children's Social Care Sufficiency Strategy as evidence of need) (DL 5) - **DM6: neutral.** conditions assessed against "revised tests" — Ofsted and reversion-to-C3 conditions rejected; use restricted to the specific C2 use (DL 15-16) ## Key facts - Council refused solely on old NPPF paras 61/63 (need and loss of family home) with no plan-policy conflict; "The current Framework does not provide direct replacements" (DL 5) - Council counted 63 children's home placements permitted in 5 years against a projected need of 10 by 2029; ECC said this scheme meets a specific complex-needs sufficiency need - Parties consulted on revised Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/70400d42-58ec-4974-adb3-57e2f170256a - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010861 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010861.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Footway adjacent to 85 Upper Richmond Road, Putney - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Les Greenwood - **Authority:** Wandsworth (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010864 - **Application reference:** 2026/0061 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub unit with two illuminated digital advertisement panels (planning appeal; linked advert appeal 6011686) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Wandsworth Local Plan 2023-2038 LP1, LP9, LP22, LP49, LP50, London Plan 2021 D8, T2 - **Main issues:** amenity, public safety - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, telecoms, bt-street-hub, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary This was a BT Street Hub with digital advertising panels on a busy Putney footway, replacing a removed phone kiosk. Planning permission and advertisement consent (6011686) were refused in one letter. The inspector did not consult on the new Framework because the proposal was minor (DL ¶6). The telecoms benefits were "substantially outweighed by the adverse effect on amenity of these poorly sited proposals, with reference to Framework policy S4" (DL ¶16). ## What made the difference Siting. A central, perpendicular position out of line with the kerbside furniture strip would force pedestrians to deflect around the unit. That was an amenity harm, not a safety harm (DL ¶12, 14). A kerb-aligned position like the old kiosk's might have passed. Here S4's "substantially outweighed" test was met by local visual and convenience harm alone, with no reference to a specific Framework refusal policy. ## Policy findings - **S4(1): fail.** telecoms benefits (emergency calls, wifi, monitoring) substantially outweighed by amenity harm from a centrally sited, perpendicular, illuminated unit adding clutter and obstructing pedestrians (DL 10-13, 16) - **CO1: benefit.** support for telecoms expansion noted, but not weighted (DL 16) ## Key facts - About 3m high by 1.2m wide unit placed centrally and perpendicular on a busy A205 local-centre footway, out of line with other street furniture (DL 9-10) - No highway safety harm found; the harm was to visual amenity and pedestrian convenience (DL 12-15) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010864 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/de09271c-d972-40a0-87cb-5cc493adfcaf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010864.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land in front of 25 Market Place, Cannock (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** dismissed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Townend - **Authority:** Cannock Chase (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010865 - **Application reference:** CH/26/070 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Global street hub with advertisements, replacing two kiosks (linked advert appeal 6010866) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Cannock Chase Local Plan SO1.1, SO1.2 - **Main issues:** conservation area character, advert amenity - **Tags:** telecoms, street-hub, transitional-no-consultation, heritage-harm-decisive, tier-2 ## Summary A street hub in Cannock Market Place Conservation Area was dismissed. It was a modern, unsympathetic addition, contrary to the appraisal's call for coordinated street furniture. Removing two kiosks and the community benefits were modest (DL ¶17-19). ## What made the difference The conservation area appraisal's specific street-furniture strategy (DL ¶12). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): fail (considerable weight).** modern, unsympathetic addition contrary to the CA appraisal's coordinated blue-and-gold street furniture; benefits (kiosk removal, wifi, emergency calls) modest (DL 12-19) - **CO1: benefit.** "support for modern communication developments set out in the Framework" noted but insufficient (DL 19) ## Key facts - Not re-consulted: details "not substantially changed" (DL 5) - CA appraisal identifies incremental clutter from utility cabinets and kiosks as harmful (DL 12) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010865 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a2d33946-c75c-4b4b-8671-cfab7a943e05 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010865.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 27 Rose Terrace, Woodford (light industrial and storage unit) - **Decision:** allowed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Hubbard - **Authority:** North Northamptonshire (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010877 - **Application reference:** 25/02122/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective erection of light industrial (E(g)(iii)) and storage business unit - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, E2(1)(a), DM8 - **Development plan policies:** North Northamptonshire JCS 2016 Policy 8, East Northamptonshire LP Part 2 2021 EN11, Northamptonshire Parking Standards 2016 - **Main issues:** parking and highway safety, living conditions, character and appearance - **Tags:** e2-substantial-weight, s4-approve, retrospective, intentional-unauthorised-development, business-expansion, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A retrospective appeal for a larger replacement light-industrial and storage building at an existing village business. The appeal was allowed despite a shortfall against parking standards and conflict with the development plan. E2 gave substantial weight to letting the business adapt. DM8's substantial weight against intentional unauthorised development did not apply, and S4 favoured approval. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were given an opportunity to comment, and "references to the Framework are to the August 2026 version" (DL ¶3). - **Parking.** The site conflicts with the parking standard but causes no highway-safety harm: "Whilst the lack of parking, coupled with on-road deliveries may cause an inconvenience at times to neighbouring residents, I do not consider the lack of parking to be creating an unacceptable impact on highway safety" (DL ¶13). - **DM8: not engaged.** "I have no compelling evidence that the development was undertaken with knowledge that planning permission was required. Accordingly, the provisions of Policy DM8 do not weigh" against the scheme (DL ¶22). - **E2(1)(a): substantial weight.** "In line with Policy E2 of the Framework, substantial weight is given to the benefits of the scheme in allowing the business to invest, expand and adapt. Although the development would not necessarily increase the number of employees, it would allow the business to adapt to become more resilient" (DL ¶32). - **S4.** "I have found no harms as a result of the development which would conflict with the national decision making policies in the Framework. As such the benefits of the development are not substantially outweighed" (DL ¶33). ## Planning balance S3/S4 as a material consideration outweighing development-plan conflict on parking (DL ¶34). Conflict with the local parking standard counted as a development-plan conflict, but not as harm under national decision-making policies. ## What made the difference E2's mandatory "substantial weight" for business investment and adaptation, combined with S4's framing, which counts only harms measured against national decision-making policies. A shortfall against a local parking standard with no safety harm scored nothing on the harm side. The appeal would have failed only with evidence of actual highway danger, or evidence that the owner knew permission was needed (DM8). ## Transferable points - E2(1)(a)'s substantial weight applies to adaptation and resilience of an existing business, not only to job creation (DL ¶32). - DM8's intentional-unauthorised-development weight requires evidence of knowledge. A mistaken belief that a replacement building needed no permission does not trigger it (DL ¶22). - Under S4, a development-plan conflict that causes no harm measured against national decision-making policies does not weigh against approval (DL ¶33-34). ## Policy findings - **E2(1)(a): benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to allowing the business to invest, expand and adapt, even without new jobs; it becomes more resilient (DL 32) - **DM8: not-engaged.** no compelling evidence that the unauthorised development was intentional (appellant thought it was a like-for-like replacement), so no substantial weight against (DL 22) - **Policy 8 (JCS) parking: conflict (limited weight).** 6 spaces against a standard of 8+; no highway-safety harm on a slow cul-de-sac; conflict outweighed (DL 6-14) - **S4: pass.** no harms against national decision-making policies, so benefits not substantially outweighed (DL 30-34) ## Key facts - Existing light-industrial business in a residential cul-de-sac in the village of Woodford; replacement building larger than the structure it replaced - Six employees, three living in the village; six parking spaces on site - Neighbours complained of on-street parking and double parking at the turning head - Hours restricted to 8am-6pm weekdays and 9am-1pm Saturdays by condition ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010877 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c0b7abe8-9e56-4256-9f69-55789c25844a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010877.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 28 Central Parade, New Addington, Croydon (KFC late hours) - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Heppell - **Authority:** Croydon (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010883 - **Application reference:** 26/00964/CONR - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Section 73 variation of hours condition on a restaurant/takeaway (KFC) to open until midnight Sunday-Thursday and 02:00 Friday-Saturday - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3 - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, Croydon Local Plan 2018 SP4.1, SP4.2, DM10.6 - **Main issues:** living conditions noise late at night - **Tags:** hot-food-takeaway, opening-hours, noise-night-time, s73-variation, old-para-mapping, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A KFC in New Addington district centre sought to extend its hours to midnight on weekdays and 2am at weekends. The appeal was dismissed. The acoustic assessment dealt with plant and car deliveries, but not with customers' voices or delivery bikes, beneath flats. The inspector mapped the council's 2024 paragraph references onto the new codes: HC5 was not engaged, and the proposal conflicted with P3. ## Issues and findings - **Transition and mapping.** "The Council's reason for refusal referred to paragraphs 97 and 135 of the Framework, which have been replaced by policies HC5 and P3 respectively of the updated Framework" (DL ¶15). - **HC5 not engaged.** HC5 "provides guidance on hot food takeaways near schools and proposals which would give rise to a concentration of such uses and, as it has not been put to me that either of these outcomes would result from the proposal, there is no conflict with this policy" (DL ¶15). - **Noise: FAIL (P3).** "their concerns related to the comings and goings of customers and to the use of delivery bikes, neither of which is explicitly addressed in the acoustic assessment" (DL ¶11). "Policy P3 requires proposals not to give rise to, or contribute to, unacceptable levels of noise for neighbouring residents … the proposal would conflict with the requirements of Policy P3" (DL ¶16). - **Local benchmark.** No nearby takeaway has permission to trade after midnight, "underscoring the need" for control (DL ¶14). ## Planning balance No balance was set out. Conflict with the development-plan amenity policies and P3 was decisive (DL ¶17-18). ## What made the difference The acoustic evidence left out the noise sources that mattered: people and delivery bikes, rather than plant. That gap, with flats directly above, decided it. Compare Norbury (PINS-6010189), where the assessment observed customer behaviour at comparable venues. ## Transferable points - 2024 NPPF para 97 (takeaways) maps to HC5, and para 135 (amenity) maps to P3 (DL ¶15). - HC5 is limited to school proximity and harmful concentration. It is not a general amenity policy for takeaways (DL ¶15). - For late-night hours, an acoustic assessment must address customer and delivery-rider noise, not just plant and vehicles (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **HC5: not-engaged.** the council's reason cited 2024 para 97, now HC5; no school proximity or over-concentration was alleged, so no conflict (DL 15) - **P3: fail.** 2024 para 135 is replaced by P3; the acoustic assessment covered plant and delivery cars but not customer voices or delivery bikes, with flats directly above (DL 10-16) ## Key facts - Main retail frontage of New Addington district centre, with duplex flats above the parade - Acoustic survey 11pm-2am on a weekday; extract silencer offered - Nearby Domino's must close by 11.30pm on weekdays; no nearby takeaway is permitted to trade after midnight - Police said anti-social behaviour is under-reported; residents complain of litter and delivery-bike behaviour - Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010883 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1dfb53f3-77b5-4700-a4d6-add6ad1faa15 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010883.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 1A Darwin Drive, Southall - **Decision:** allowed, 21 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Morrison (APO E Street) - **Authority:** Ealing (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010890 - **Application reference:** 261148FUL - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Single storey side/rear extension (5m deep) to ground-floor flat after demolition of shed - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, D4, Ealing DM DPD 2013 7.4, 7B, Ealing Design Guidance - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, householder, appeal-planning-officer, transitional-no-consultation, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary A rear extension 1.5m deeper than an extant approval on a spacious corner plot. Allowed. The extra depth was subordinate, and the design guide's 3.5m figure is "only guidance" (DL ¶8). The Framework changes did "not affect the substance of the main issue", so there was no consultation (DL ¶3). ## What made the difference The extant 3.5m fallback and the plot's spaciousness. ## Policy findings - **7B (Ealing DM DPD): accord.** extant 3.5m scheme; extra 1.5m depth subordinate on spacious corner plot; guidance 3.5m limit "only guidance" (DL 5-9) ## Key facts - Extant permission for same scheme at 3.5m depth (DL 5-6) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010890 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4376e77a-ef98-4844-a60c-060ae1953c5e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010890.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 158-160 High Street, Orpington - **Decision:** allowed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P D Sedgwick - **Authority:** Bromley (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010896 - **Application reference:** 22/04951/FULL1 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective first-floor rear infill extension and roof-mounted condenser units to supermarket - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3(2)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Bromley Local Plan 2019 Policy 37 - **Main issues:** outlook of neighbours - **Tags:** tier-2, retrospective, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary Retrospective storage infill and condenser units at the rear of a high-street supermarket. Allowed. Outlook from the flats above adjoining shops was not unduly harmed in a typical service-yard context. The letter does not refer to the Framework. ## What made the difference The rear-of-parade context: "The outlook from rear windows above shops … inevitably includes service yards, buildings and associated plant" (DL ¶7). The infill wall was no higher than an existing wall, and the 2005 approval had allowed a similar extent (DL ¶¶10–12). ## Policy findings - **P3(2)(b): pass.** condensers not oppressive to flats above neighbouring shops; infill wall no higher than existing; noise refusal reason withdrawn subject to BS4142 conditions (DL 4-13); Framework not cited ## Key facts - Council dropped the noise reason after a noise impact assessment; hours condition 08:00-22:00 and anti-vibration mounts within 3 months imposed ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/63866cca-6c77-40bb-ad56-8773b2ebd4f9 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010896 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010896.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Glebe Motors, Glebe Road, Finchley (9 flats) - **Decision:** allowed, 19 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B J Sims - **Authority:** Barnet (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010903 - **Application reference:** 26/1098/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of car repair garage and erection of a building with 9 flats (extant permission for 7) - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** Barnet LP CDH01 - **Development plan policies:** Barnet Local Plan CDH01, London Plan 2021 D3, D6 - **Main issues:** quality of accommodation - **Tags:** fallback, small-scheme, tier-2 ## Summary A nine-flat redevelopment of a Finchley car repair garage was allowed. The two additional ground and lower-ground flats, beyond an extant seven-unit permission, gave acceptable outlook, privacy and amenity space (DL ¶19, ¶25). ## What made the difference The extant appeal permission set the benchmark. The disputed units were judged against it and found acceptable. Decided on the development plan alone. ## Policy findings - **P3: pass.** outlook, privacy and outdoor space of the two extra ground and lower-ground units acceptable compared with the extant 7-unit scheme allowed on appeal 6000305 (DL 5, 14-19) ## Key facts - Extant appeal permission (6000305) for 7 units; the scheme adds two 1-bed units at ground and lower ground (DL 5) - Framework not cited ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010903 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/13f01342-90fa-44b1-b124-97903b1e1910 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010903.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 34 Coalport Road, Broseley - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Barton - **Authority:** Shropshire (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010905 - **Application reference:** 25/03794/FUL - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Erection of a high garden fence at the back of the pavement on a corner plot - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3, S4(2)(c) - **Development plan policies:** Shropshire Core Strategy 2011 CS6, SAMDev Plan 2015 MD2 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, design-refusal, householder, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary The proposal was a high garden fence at the back of the pavement that would enclose a grass strip at the entrance to an open-plan estate. The appeal was dismissed on character grounds. The inspector found the local plan design policies consistent with DP3, so the scheme "would fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances, as set out in policy S4(2)(c)" (DL ¶13). ## What made the difference The site's gateway position and the loss of an open verdant strip decided it. A shorter approved wall inside the estate was distinguished (DL ¶7). A 1 m permitted-development fence was a weaker fallback (DL ¶8). The case shows the S4(2)(c)-via-DP3 route being used even for householder fences. ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail.** fence enclosing a grass strip at the open-plan estate's gateway is visually intrusive; LP CS6/MD2 consistent with DP3 (DL 6, 13) - **S4(2)(c): fail.** DP3 conflict treated as failing a "should be refused" policy; presumption does not apply (DL 13) ## Key facts - Corner plot at a wide gateway into an open-plan estate; high fence would enclose a sizeable grass strip (DL 4-6) - Framework not consulted on because the "policy emphasis" had not changed (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010905 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/cbd8a1a6-b4e9-47cd-b8dd-26f3cfddd664 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010905.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 43 Woodgrange Drive, Southend-on-Sea (8-bed HMO) - **Decision:** allowed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Sylvester - **Authority:** Southend-on-Sea (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010908 - **Application reference:** 26/00378/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of dwellinghouse to 8-bed sui generis HMO with flat-roof dormer, rooflights, chimney removal and bin and cycle storage - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO9 - **Development plan policies:** Southend DM Document 2015 DM1, DM3, DM8, Southend Core Strategy 2007 CP4, KP2, Essex Approved Code of Practice for HMOs - **Main issues:** living conditions of future occupiers - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, living-conditions, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary An eight-bed HMO in a Southend terrace with a shared kitchen/diner but no living room. Allowed: the communal space met the Essex HMO code and would allow all occupants to use it at once, so living conditions were adequate under local policy DM8 and HO9. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "All references to the Framework are to the revised version" (DL ¶2). - **Communal space: PASS.** "the size and configuration of the kitchen/dining room, including its facilities, would be sufficient to allow future occupants to use it simultaneously and in comfort" (DL ¶12). - **HO9.** "I find no conflict with this Policy insofar as it requires such accommodation to provide living conditions appropriate to the needs of its residents, including adequate living and storage space" (DL ¶21). ## Planning balance None; complies with the development plan (DL ¶30). ## What made the difference Detailed, dimensioned floor plans showing dining space for all eight occupants, which distinguished earlier dismissals based on indicative plans. ## Transferable points - HO9's "adequate living and storage space" can be met by an open-plan kitchen/diner meeting the local HMO code, without a separate living room (DL ¶8, ¶21). ## Policy findings - **HO9: pass.** even if specialist accommodation, living and storage space adequate; open-plan kitchen/diner (14 + 10.6 sq m) meets Essex Code for HMO without living room (DL 6-16, 21) ## Key facts - Extant permission for 7-bed HMO (appeal 6003558) as fallback, not needed (DL 20) - Distinguished Honiton Road (indicative plans) and Ambleside 6002178 (inadequate dining space) (DL 9, 17) - Waste management plan condition refused as unjustified (DL 28) - Parties given opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010908 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7171bb0e-9611-492c-8dec-c4bde474bd0c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010908.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 58 Podsmead Road, Gloucester - **Decision:** allowed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S McIntyre - **Authority:** Gloucester (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010909 - **Application reference:** 25/00992/COU - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use from supported living home (up to five 16-18 year-olds) to children's home for four 8-18 year-olds - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), S3, HO7 - **Development plan policies:** Gloucester City Local Plan 2023 A5, Gloucester Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2017 SD11 - **Main issues:** need for children's home - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, childrens-home, specialist-housing, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, material-considerations-outweigh-plan ## Summary A supported-living house in Gloucester would change to a four-bed children's home serving out-of-area placements. The inspector found conflict with the local plan's local-need test (A5, SD11), using Framework HO1(2)(f) to read "need" as the authority's own sufficiency need. The appeal was nonetheless allowed under S4. The benefit of placing children nearer their families got significant weight. The only harm was limited service pressure, with no increase in occupants. That harm could not "substantially" outweigh the benefit. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶4). - **Local need: CONFLICT with the plan.** HO1(2)(f) "states that at the most appropriate level, evidence of need for looked after children can be found in the relevant local authority's Children's Social Care Sufficiency Strategy. This does not indicate that sufficiency strategies from outside the authority are relevant" (DL ¶10). - **HO7 is not a negative.** "I note the Council's view that where need within the community has not been demonstrated, that Policy HO7 of the Framework indicates that this should be considered as a substantial negative ... This is not explicitly stated in the Framework, and the proposal would nevertheless provide a form of residential accommodation" (DL ¶15). - **Harm.** Service pressure was limited because the proposal "would not result in more people living at the property than do so currently" (DL ¶16, 23). ## Planning balance This was the S4 balance (DL ¶21). Significant weight went to the benefit to children otherwise placed further from family (DL ¶22). Limited weight went to service pressure (DL ¶23). The conclusion: "It would also be compliant with Policy S4 of the Framework as the benefits identified would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶24). Material considerations outweighed the conflict with the development plan (DL ¶30). ## What made the difference Under S4 a plan conflict needs a Framework-grounded adverse effect to defeat a scheme. Here the only harm was unquantified service pressure from a use no more intensive than the existing one. The inspector refused to treat the absence of local need as a free-standing HO7 negative. ## Transferable points - HO1(2)(f) (plan-making) was used to interpret a local plan's "need" test as the home authority's sufficiency need (DL ¶10). - The absence of demonstrated local need is not a "substantial negative" under HO7 (DL ¶15). - Within settlements, S4 can override a development plan conflict where harm is limited, making S4 a material consideration (DL ¶24, 30). - A condition limiting referrals to local children was refused as unnecessary (DL ¶29). ## Policy findings - **S4(1): pass.** benefits not substantially outweighed; allowed despite conflict with the development plan as a whole (DL 21-24, 30) - **HO1(2)(f): neutral.** looked-after-children need evidenced by the relevant LA sufficiency strategy; read with LP A5 to require local need, which was not shown (DL 10-11) - **HO7: neutral.** council's argument that absence of local need is a "substantial negative" under HO7 rejected as "not explicitly stated in the Framework" (DL 15) - **HO9: benefit (significant weight).** out-of-area demand from neighbouring authorities; children placed closer to family networks (DL 14, 22) ## Key facts - All placements expected to come from out-of-area authorities (South Glos, Cardiff, Swindon interest) (DL 11, 14) - No increase in occupants over the existing supported-living use; about 50% of existing residents already out-of-area (DL 16) - Council's need position had reversed within 18 months, from 70% of placements out of county to claimed oversupply (DL 13) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010909 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4ddb63d4-f842-4d0a-b55c-b5f77ff1c3f6 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010909.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Beechwood House, Willoughby Road, West Willoughby - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Harris-Watkins - **Authority:** South Kesteven (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010911 - **Application reference:** S26/0178 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** One (claimed self-build) dwelling on a paddock between two houses in the 15-house hamlet of West Willoughby - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** BNG (Sch 7A TCPA) - **Development plan policies:** South Kesteven Local Plan 2020 SP2, SP3, SP4, SP5, SD1, ID2, DE1 - **Main issues:** biodiversity gain condition, location, character and appearance - **Tags:** s5-1-e-infill, hamlet, settlement-definition, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, bng-exemption-not-shown, bng-self-build-exemption, self-build-unsecured, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary One house on a paddock between two dwellings in West Willoughby, a hamlet of 15 houses in Lincolnshire. The inspector found the hamlet is not a settlement under Annex B, but the scheme is limited infilling within a group of houses under S5(1)(e). The plan policies restricting infill to named settlements got very limited weight under Annex A, and the S5 presumption applied. But the self-build BNG exemption was not secured and the 0.2 ha exemption did not apply to this application, so the statutory gain condition could not be shown capable of discharge. Dismissed on BNG alone. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties have been invited to comment on the relevance of the Framework to the appeal" (DL ¶2). - **BNG: FAIL.** "The appellant has highlighted that there is a BNG condition exemption for sites less than 0.2 Ha, however this applies only to applications made before 6th August 2026" (DL ¶7). "I find a condition requiring occupation of the dwelling by the person who built it would be unlikely to pass the tests" (DL ¶8). "I conclude the appeal fails to demonstrate the biodiversity gain condition is capable of being successfully discharged" (DL ¶11). - **Access.** The footway "is however unlit, such that it would not provide suitable access at all times of day and year" (DL ¶16). "Though the level of connection to services and facilities by walking, cycling and public transport may not be to the level expected in an urban area, the combination of those available to the site would meet some of the day-to-day needs of the future occupiers" (DL ¶17). - **Settlement.** "West Willoughby comprises 15 houses and no other facilities, accordingly I do not find it can be considered a predominantly built-up area" (DL ¶29). - **S5(1)(e): PASS.** The S5 list includes "limited infilling within groups of housing, which the proposal does comprise of" (DL ¶30). - **Annex A ¶2.** SP2, SP3 and SP5 "are materially inconsistent with Policy SP5 of the Framework with regards to its broader support for limited infilling outside of settlements. As a result, the conflict with these policies is given very limited weight" (DL ¶31). "SP5 of the Framework" is a slip for S5. - **S5(1) balance: PASS.** "Taken together the benefits would not be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects, and therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies" (DL ¶33). ## Planning balance S5(1) passed and the plan conflict was outweighed (DL ¶34), but the statutory BNG requirement is a separate bar: "it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would comply with Schedule 7A" (DL ¶34). ## What made the difference Paperwork. On planning merits the house would have been allowed. A signed unilateral undertaking securing self-build, or a biodiversity metric with the application, would probably have changed the outcome. ## Transferable points - A hamlet of 15 houses with no facilities is not a "settlement", but a gap between two of its houses can be S5(1)(e) infill (DL ¶29–30). - Plan policies confining infill to named settlements are materially inconsistent with S5(1)(e), so very limited weight under Annex A ¶2 (DL ¶31). - The 0.2 ha small-site BNG exemption does not apply to applications made before it came in (the letter's wording, "made before 6th August 2026", reads as a slip for on or after; either way the exemption did not help here) (DL ¶7). - A self-build BNG exemption needs a legal agreement; an occupation condition fails the tests (DL ¶8–9). - (j)(i) cannot be met by being well related to a hamlet that is not a settlement (DL ¶30). ## Policy findings - **BNG (Sch 7A TCPA): fail.** self-build exemption claimed but no unilateral undertaking; occupation condition would fail the tests; 0.2 ha small-site exemption rejected, the letter saying it "applies only to applications made before 6th August 2026" (DL 7) (apparently a slip for on or after; cf. PINS-6011131 DL 16); no Article 7 minimum information, so the gain condition cannot be shown to be capable of discharge (DL 6-11) - **AnnexB:settlement: fail.** 15 houses and no facilities, not a predominantly built-up area, so not a settlement; S4 does not apply (DL 29) - **S5(1)(e): pass.** paddock between two dwellings; limited infilling within a group of houses (DL 15, 30) - **S5(1)(j)(i): fail.** no five-year supply, but the hamlet is not a settlement, so the site cannot be well related to one (DL 30) - **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** SP2, SP3 and SP5 restrict infill to named settlements, so are materially inconsistent with S5 (letter says "Policy SP5 of the Framework") on limited infilling; very limited weight under Annex A (DL 31) - **S5(1): pass.** benefits not substantially outweighed; presumption applies (DL 33) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** HO7 substantial weight cited; with effective use of land and social and economic benefits (DL 32) - **TR3: not-engaged.** TR3 not cited; access judged under plan policies SD1 and ID2 and found acceptable despite an unlit footway and a considerable distance to services, with a bus and cycling available (DL 15-18) ## Key facts - Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply; figure not stated (DL 30) - After the new Framework, the Council accepted material considerations favour approval (DL 3) - Footway to a bar/restaurant and a 7-day service station is unlit; bus between Grantham and Sleaford (DL 15-16) - Appeal decided solely on the BNG gain condition (DL 34) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010911 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/aafdbcbb-eb6c-49d1-a5f3-967b2986947e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010911.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 979 Tyburn Road, Birmingham - **Decision:** allowed, 27 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Gary Deane - **Authority:** Birmingham (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010912 - **Application reference:** 2025/06515/PA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective glazed veranda to front of corner commercial building - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1), TR6 - **Development plan policies:** Birmingham Development Plan 2031 PG3, TP44, Birmingham Design Guide City Manual - **Main issues:** character and appearance, highway safety - **Tags:** tier-2, retrospective, design-innovation, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A retrospective glazed veranda on a corner restaurant building. Allowed. The lightweight contemporary contrast was accepted under DP3(1), which the inspector noted "expressly allow[s] for innovation or change where appropriate" (DL ¶10). Pedestrian circulation was unaffected, so there was no TR6 conflict even though the highway boundary was unresolved. ## What made the difference Transparency and the corner siting facing an open junction. The DP3(1) innovation clause was used positively. ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): pass.** "no conflict with Policy DP3 ... which requires development to respond to the context ... while expressly allowing for innovation or change where appropriate" — contemporary lightweight contrast accepted (DL 8-10) - **TR6: pass.** exact highway boundary unresolved but ample unobstructed footway remains (DL 11-14) ## Key facts - Corner building facing an open junction; established building line less influential (DL 6) - Land Registry plan given limited weight for highway boundary (DL 12) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010912 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/afe9a336-3b87-4ae8-b0c2-8fe152a506bd --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010912.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 2 Palma Close, Dunstable - **Decision:** allowed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C J Leigh - **Authority:** Central Bedfordshire (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6010929 - **Application reference:** CB/26/00075/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of 3-bed house (C3) to one-child children's care home (C2) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO9 - **Development plan policies:** Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2015-2035 HQ1 - **Main issues:** access to amenity space and services - **Tags:** tier-2, childrens-home, specialist-housing ## Summary One-child children's care home in a Dunstable house. The Council's sole issue, access to amenity and services, was rejected, and the appeal was allowed. The Inspector found the proposal consistent with HO9, which places accommodation for looked-after children where "residents will be able to access frequently-used services easily and safely" (DL ¶7). The letter makes no transitional comment. ## What made the difference An ordinary residential area with walkable schools, shops, open space and transport. The occupancy was no greater than a family's (DL ¶¶4–5). ## Policy findings - **HO9: pass.** accommodation for looked-after children should be located where residents can access frequently used services easily and safely — met; good walkable facilities (DL 3-7) - **P3: pass.** one child plus up to 3 staff no more intensive than a family house (DL 8) ## Key facts - One child, max 3 staff; driveway for 3 cars; conditions limit use to children's home and one child - Chiltern Beechwoods SAC zone of influence — no AA needed as occupancy equivalent to dwelling (DL 12) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/96b1fe5c-74f8-4746-93cd-d7e360b9b97d - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010929 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010929.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land off Pickworth Road, Great Casterton (HO11(e) earth-sheltered house) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Bayliss - **Authority:** Rutland (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010934 - **Application reference:** 2025/0400/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Isolated self-build earth-sheltered dwelling proposed as a Paragraph 84 (now HO11(e)) house, with solar array and landscaping, in an open field north of Great Casterton - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, isolated, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(3), HO11(1)(e), S5(4), TR6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Rutland Core Strategy 2011 CS4, CS19, CS21, CS22, Site Allocations and Policies DPD 2014 SP6, SP15, SP19, SP20 - **Main issues:** HO11(e) exceptional design, highway safety, ecology, archaeology - **Tags:** isolated-home, ho11, s5-4-exceptional, tr6-highway-safety, splay-third-party-land, evidence-gap, self-build, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, costs-application ## Summary An isolated earth-sheltered self-build house in an open field near Great Casterton, proposed as an exceptional-design home under HO11(e). It deliberately copied Field House, allowed on appeal in 2022. The inspector held that a transplanted design is not "truly outstanding" (DL ¶25), that concealing it in an artificial mound would not significantly enhance its setting, and that the access failed on highway safety, ecology and archaeology. Under S5(4) the adverse effects substantially outweighed the benefits. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "the wording of Paragraph 84 has been transferred and modified to become National Decision-Making Policy HO11" (DL ¶5). - **HO11(e) first limb.** "I understand the policy requirement to mean 'one of a kind' dwellings which reach the highest standards of architecture" (DL ¶18). The design "falls well short of being truly outstanding" (DL ¶25). - **Design review.** "It does not appear that the scheme has been submitted to an external design critique such as a Design Review Panel" (DL ¶23). - **HO11(e) second limb.** "The policy requirement is for the proposal to be seen, to some extent, in its surrounding context" (DL ¶28). "the proposal would harm rather than significantly enhance its immediate setting" (DL ¶30). - **Movement.** "the dwelling would still be separated from the nearby settlement, and occupants would be largely reliant on vehicle movements to access services and facilities" (DL ¶24). - **Highway safety: FAIL.** "Given the third-party ownership, it would not appear possible to secure the visibility splays through condition" (DL ¶35). ## Planning balance S5(3) isolated home fails HO11(e), so S5(4): "the adverse effects, including to the character of the countryside, substantially outweigh the benefits of the proposal" (DL ¶51). Harms together given "very substantial weight" (DL ¶50). ## What made the difference Copying a design allowed elsewhere. HO11(e) was read as requiring a site-specific, one-of-a-kind design, which a replica cannot be. The access problems were independent reasons. ## Transferable points - HO11(e) needs a site-specific "one of a kind" design; replicating a scheme allowed elsewhere does not qualify (DL ¶18-19). - Hiding the house is not the same as significantly enhancing its setting (DL ¶28, ¶30). - Lack of design review weakens an HO11(e) case (DL ¶23). - Splays over third-party land cannot be secured by condition (DL ¶35). ## Policy findings - **S5(3): fail.** agreed isolated home, so only HO11 applies (DL 8, 10) - **HO11(1)(e): fail.** both limbs fail - a replica of the 2022 Field House scheme is not truly outstanding or one of a kind, no design review, no evidence of raising rural standards; concealment in an artificial mound does not significantly enhance the setting (DL 16-31) - **DP3(5): fail.** environmental credentials, but not consistent with its surroundings and would not raise design standards, so no DP3 support; conflict with DP3 (DL 24, 31) - **TR6(4): fail.** northern splay needs third-party hedge removal; access width, fire appliance turning and delivery bay not shown (DL 33-39) - **N2: fail.** roadside verge Local Wildlife Site not assessed; harm from access widening and splays not ruled out (DL 40-41) - **HE5: fail.** potential Anglo-Saxon archaeology (NDHA); trial trenching not done before determination (DL 42-45) - **HO7: benefit.** one self-build dwelling, an important consideration given the supply position; weight word not given (DL 46) - **S5(4): fail (very-substantial weight).** combined harms very substantial weight; adverse effects substantially outweigh benefits; no exceptional circumstances (DL 32, 50-51) ## Key facts - Scheme deliberately replicates Field House, allowed on appeal in 2022 under the old outstanding-design paragraph (APP/A2470/W/21/3282349) (DL 16-18) - No Design Review Panel; few detailed elevations or imagery (DL 22-23) - Council lacks a Framework-compliant supply (figure not stated) (DL 46) - Occupants largely reliant on vehicles; no connecting footpath (DL 24, 47) - Parties given an opportunity to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework; paragraph 84 now HO11 (DL 5) - Costs application by the appellant, the subject of a separate decision (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010934 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c8716584-f36f-4fb2-b21b-37f80050f446 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010934.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 25 Elms Avenue, Eastbourne (guest house to HMO) - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L J Evans - **Authority:** Eastbourne (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010944 - **Application reference:** 250283 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use from C1 guest house to C4 HMO in a designated Tourist Accommodation Area - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, E2 - **Development plan policies:** Eastbourne Borough Plan TO1, TO2, HO14, HO20, Eastbourne Core Strategy 2013 B2, D3, Tourist Accommodation Retention SPD, HMO SPD - **Main issues:** tourist accommodation, HMO concentration, refuse and cycle storage - **Tags:** hmo, tourism, old-wording-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary Change of a guest house in Eastbourne's Tourist Accommodation Area to an HMO was dismissed. It would lose tourist accommodation and add to an HMO concentration well above the 10% threshold (DL ¶15-16). ## What made the difference Specific local protection of the tourist area and a quantified HMO concentration. The balance is expressed as "substantially and demonstrably outweigh", which blends the 2024 and 2026 tests (DL ¶24). ## Policy findings - **E2: harm.** loss of tourist accommodation harms Eastbourne's tourism economy; HO14 bars HMOs in the Tourist Accommodation Area (DL 10, 16) - **P3: harm.** HMO concentration within 100 m about 23.9% against a 10% SPD threshold, harming residential amenity (DL 15-16) - **S4: fail.** adverse impacts "would substantially and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" - a hybrid of the 2024 and 2026 wording (DL 24) ## Key facts - Parties consulted on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 2) - Refuse and cycle storage acceptable subject to condition (DL 19) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010944 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f6f170de-df48-43ff-b1bb-70f94c2a91ef --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010944.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 38 Highfield Road, Nottingham - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Fulford - **Authority:** Nottingham (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010946 - **Application reference:** 26/00156/PFUL3 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Rear extensions and change of use of dwelling (C3) to 7-bed HMO (sui generis) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), HO1 - **Development plan policies:** Aligned Core Strategies Part 1 2014 Policy 8, Policy 10, Land and Planning Policies DPD 2020 HO1, HO2, HO6, DE1, DE2, IN2 - **Main issues:** housing mix and balanced community, living conditions - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, hmo, balanced-community, plan-making-policy-as-harm, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary The appeal sought to convert a detached family house near the University of Nottingham to a 7-bed HMO. The output area was already 65% HMO or student housing. The appeal was dismissed on housing mix and balanced community grounds. The council's noise and parking objections failed for lack of site-specific evidence. In the S4 balance, the inspector treated the loss of a family dwelling as harm "contrary to Policy HO1 of the Framework". That harm got significant weight and substantially outweighed the limited benefits. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The relevant parts of the Framework were amended, so the parties were consulted (DL ¶2). - **Housing mix: CONFLICT with the plan.** "a concentration of 65% is very significantly beyond the 10% threshold ... over half of all dwellings in the area being HMO/student accommodation is strongly suggestive of an overconcentration" (DL ¶9). - **Living conditions: PASS.** "it does not follow from this that all HMOs are occupied by disruptive tenants ... Specific evidence of harm should be adduced" (DL ¶18). Tram, bus and cycle access meant parking demand would not be harmful (DL ¶22). ## Planning balance This was the S4 balance (DL ¶27-28). "The proposal would provide additional specialist residential accommodation in accordance with Policies HO7 and HO9 ... accords with Policy TR3 ... more effective use of the existing building in accordance with Policy L2 ... only limited weight is attached to these benefits" (DL ¶29). "The proposal would result in the loss of a family dwelling, for which there is an evidenced need. This is contrary to Policy HO1 of the Framework. Given the high level of need for family housing, I attach significant weight to this harm" (DL ¶30). "Overall, the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶31). ## What made the difference The very high existing HMO concentration (65%) and the evidence of family housing need. The Framework hook for the harm was HO1, a plan-making policy on assessing need, rather than one of the decision-making policies S4(1) refers to. Other inspectors have said plan-making policies cannot ground a refusal (PINS-6009486), so this reasoning is open to challenge. The case still shows HMO concentration policies surviving the S4 presumption. ## Transferable points - Local HMO concentration thresholds remain effective under S4 where the exceedance is large (65% against 10%) (DL ¶9, 31). - Loss of a family dwelling with evidenced need was given significant weight as harm, framed under HO1 (DL ¶30). The legitimacy of using a plan-making policy this way is contested; compare PINS-6009486. - A single HMO's HO7/HO9/L2/TR3 benefits get only limited weight (DL ¶29). - Generic HMO research does not prove amenity harm without site-specific evidence (DL ¶18-19). ## Policy findings - **S4(1): fail.** limited benefits of one HMO substantially outweighed by loss of a family dwelling in a 65% HMO/student output area (DL 27-31) - **HO1: harm (significant weight).** loss of a family dwelling for which there is evidenced need treated as contrary to Framework HO1 (DL 30) - **HO9: benefit (limited weight).** additional specialist accommodation (with HO7, TR3, L2); limited as only one HMO (DL 29) - **TR3: pass (limited weight).** adjacent to University, bus and tram stops; parking harm not shown (DL 22, 29) - **P3: pass.** no site-specific evidence of noise or parking harm; generalised HMO research not enough (DL 17-24) ## Key facts - 65% of dwellings in the output area are HMOs or student accommodation, against a 10% "significant concentration" threshold (DL 9) - Existing lawful use treated as C3; no Lawful Development Certificate for claimed historic C4 use (DL 3) - Detached 4-bed house found suitable for family occupation; agent's letter did not show a lack of C3 demand (DL 10-12) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010946 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6f5d471a-082e-470e-8aae-34a0e4b4ce27 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010946.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 101 Dalston Lane, Hackney - **Decision:** allowed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Caines - **Authority:** Hackney (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010972 - **Application reference:** 2025/2059 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of never-occupied basement youth club (and part ground floor) to drinking establishment with food, kitchen extract - **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** Hackney Local Plan 2020 LP8, London Plan 2021 S1, Dalston Plan - **Main issues:** loss of social and community infrastructure - **Tags:** tier-2, community-facility, framework-version-unstated, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary Change of use of a basement youth club, provided under a 2017 redevelopment but never used, to a bar and restaurant. Allowed. The conflict with community-facility policy carried much reduced weight because there was no realistic prospect of youth use (DL ¶12, 15). Decided on 17 August 2026. The Framework is mentioned only in the conditions paragraph, with no version identified. ## What made the difference The facility had never operated and no operator was interested. The inspector held that a lack of marketing was not determinative where the policy's purpose, protecting infrastructure with a realistic prospect of community benefit, was not served (DL ¶9). ## Policy findings - **LP8 (Hackney LP) / S1 (London Plan): conflict (limited weight).** loss of lawful youth club in principle, but weight "substantially reduced" — replacement facility never operated, no occupier interest; no marketing not determinative (DL 6-15) - **HC6: pass.** no Framework policy cited on merits — code mapped by harvester (loss of community facility) ## Key facts - Youth club floorspace re-provided under 2017 redevelopment, never occupied since completion (DL 4-6) - East India Dock Road appeal APP/E5900/W/25/3376318 distinguished (DL 14) - Cross costs applications decided separately (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010972 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2ac01b97-a828-4330-8658-6cbae984e870 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010972.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Cedars Farm, Broadwas - **Decision:** allowed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Townend - **Authority:** Malvern Hills (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010973 - **Application reference:** M/25/00216/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** One detached two-storey dwelling on a paddock between two houses - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(e), S3, TR3, HO7 - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR 03, 6, 19, 26, 37, Broadwas and Cotheridge NP 2019 P2 - **Main issues:** suitable location, accessibility, affordable housing contribution - **Tags:** s5-1-e-infill, small-scheme, sustainable-location-pass, settlement-definition, five-year-supply-met, plan-conflict-overridden, previous-appeal-consistency, unilateral-undertaking, old-balance-wording, drafting-slip, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary One house on a paddock between two existing houses just outside the Broadwas development boundary, in a district with a five-year supply and a plan adopted in March 2026. Allowed. The inspector held the plot to be "limited infilling within groups of houses" under S5(1)(e), found the location acceptable for one dwelling given walkable village facilities and buses, and treated S5(1)(e) as a material consideration outweighing conflict with the brand-new local plan's boundary policy. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Any reference to the National Planning Policy Framework … will be in relation to the August 2026 version" (DL ¶4). The letter records consultation on the newly adopted SWDPR policies (DL ¶3) but does not say parties were asked about the 2026 Framework. - **Settlement status.** "Broadwas is defined as a settlement in the SWDPR 2026 and is, therefore, a settlement when considered against the definition in Annex B" (DL ¶12). - **S5(1)(e): PASS.** "The appeal site is, therefore, within a group of houses, albeit that it is outside the development boundary. Moreover, as a proposal for a single dwelling between two existing properties, it would comprise limited infilling. It would not represent a standalone extension of residential built form into the open countryside" (DL ¶13). - **5YHLS irrelevant to S5(1)(e).** "That the Council can now show a five year housing land supply, with the required 20% buffer, would not reduce the weight of Policy S5:1(e) or mean that, under Policy HO7:1 of the Framework, that I should not support additional housing" (DL ¶15). - **Accessibility TR3: PASS.** "The reliance on the private car for access to other facilities and employment would be no different for the residents of the appeal site and the residents of existing housing in the village" (DL ¶18); "the addition of one further dwelling would not result in a significant amount of movement" (DL ¶20); "in a suitable and sustainable location for the scale of the development" (DL ¶20). - **Previous appeals.** Three Council-cited dismissals distinguished as "further from the development boundary" and services (DL ¶19). - **Plan conflict.** "although the proposal would conflict with Policy SWDPR 03 … there are other material considerations, specifically Policy S5:1(e) of the Framework, which supports the proposed development" (DL ¶22). - **Affordable housing — HO5: accord.** SWDPR 19 "is, therefore, consistent with Policy HO5:1(a)(i)"; UU accepted (DL ¶¶24-26). ## Planning balance Section 38(6) with S5(1)(e) as the material consideration; the inspector found no adverse effect that would "substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶23). The concluding paragraph, however, uses the superseded 2024 tilted-balance wording: "the harm from the conflict with the development plan would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits … when assessed against the policies in the Framework, taken as a whole" (DL ¶47). No weights are given to individual benefits. ## What made the difference Physical form: a single plot sandwiched between two houses and backed by a group of others, right by the development boundary of a plan-defined Category 2 village. That fitted S5(1)(e) regardless of the healthy housing supply, and the short distance to a pub, school, recreation ground and bus stops made the TR3 case. The Council's earlier appeal wins at Broadwas failed to carry over because those sites were further out. A plot on the outer edge of a group, or further from the village facilities, would probably have been dismissed. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(e) infilling can override a development-boundary policy in a plan adopted only months earlier, because that plan predates the 2026 Framework (DL ¶¶11, 14, 22). - A five-year supply (even with 20% buffer) does not reduce the weight of S5(1)(e) or HO7(1) support (DL ¶15). - A village defined as a settlement in the development plan is an Annex B "settlement" even if not a large built-up area (DL ¶12). - For one dwelling next to a plan-defined village, car reliance "no different" from existing residents plus walkable pub/school/bus stops passes TR3 (DL ¶¶17-20). - Earlier dismissals nearby are distinguished on distance from the boundary and facilities (DL ¶19). - Drafting slip: the conclusion uses 2024 NPPF para 11(d) "significantly and demonstrably outweigh … taken as a whole" wording instead of the S5 "substantially outweighed" test (DL ¶47). Policies cited in "S5:1(e)" style. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(e): pass.** paddock between Cedars Farm and Oaklands, behind a group of houses, close to Broadwas boundary = limited infilling within a group of houses (DL 13-14) - **AnnexB:settlement: pass.** Broadwas is a settlement because the development plan defines it as one (Category 2) (DL 12) - **TR3: pass.** pub, school, recreation field and bus stops walkable; GP cyclable; car reliance no worse than existing residents; one house generates little movement (DL 16-20) - **HO7: benefit.** HO7(1) support not reduced by Council now having 5YHLS with 20% buffer (DL 15); weight not stated - **S3: pass.** compliance with S5(1)(e) means compliance with S3(1) and sustainable development (DL 22) - **HO5: accord.** SWDPR 19 off-site affordable contribution for <5 dwellings in Designated Rural Areas consistent with HO5(1)(a)(i); UU accepted (DL 24-26) - **SWDPR 03: conflict.** outside development boundary of newly adopted plan (March 2026), outweighed by S5(1)(e) as material consideration (DL 10-14, 22) ## Key facts - SWDPR adopted 25 March 2026; plan found "broadly consistent" but predates the 2026 Framework - Council can show a five-year supply with 20% buffer (figure not stated) - Site is a paddock between two houses reached by a shared drive off a cul-de-sac off the A44 - Three earlier Broadwas-area dismissals (Tack Farm, A44, Brook Farm) distinguished as further from the boundary and services - Unilateral undertaking for affordable housing contribution ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010973 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fced0fea-0bbf-4ec3-900c-d18346af74f1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010973.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Ladywell, Kilkhampton, Bude - **Decision:** dismissed, 26 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: O Marigold - **Authority:** Cornwall (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6010975 - **Application reference:** PA25/08174 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class Q prior approval — part of timber portal-frame agricultural building to single dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM9 - **Main issues:** whether works amount to conversion - **Tags:** tier-2, prior-approval, class-q, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary Class Q conversion of part of an open-fronted timber barn, dismissed under Hibbitt. The works would "go well beyond a conversion and would amount in effect to a fresh build" (DL ¶11). The Framework is not referred to. ## What made the difference Individually permissible works added up cumulatively: three of the four walls of the dwelling would be new, two bays demolished, and the roof finishes replaced (DL ¶¶9–11). ## Policy findings - **DM9: fail.** GPDO Q.1(j)/Hibbitt — three of four dwelling walls new, two bays demolished, new roof finishes and floor; "in effect … a fresh build" (DL 4-11); Framework not cited ## Key facts - 8-bay open-fronted timber barn; 4 bays to dwelling, 2 retained agricultural, 2 demolished - Appellant's Sydenham appeal (APP/Q3115/W/25/3366845) distinguished ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f4fbaa82-3569-45e6-bea9-215298acb2b4 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010975 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010975.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Flat B, 35 Arvon Road, Islington (rear dormer) - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: David Troy - **Authority:** Islington (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6010980 - **Application reference:** P2026/0457/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Flat-roof dormer on rear outrigger roof and enlarged rear window - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3 - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, D4, Islington Local Plan 2023 PLAN1, Islington Urban Design Guide 2017 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** householder, design-refusal, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary A flat-roofed dormer on a rear outrigger in an Islington terrace was dismissed for harm to the host building and the terrace (DL ¶9). ## What made the difference Poor fit with the terrace's roofscape. The appellant's energy-efficiency and space benefits were modest (DL ¶13). ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail.** dormer harms host building and terrace; modest benefits (space, energy efficiency) insufficient (DL 9, 13) ## Key facts - Parties consulted on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010980 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4c4c81d4-6b4d-4746-8818-1c1edfa74fd3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010980.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Hillcott, Duffield Lane, Newborough - **Decision:** dismissed, 19 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Morrison (APO Kim Vo) - **Authority:** East Staffordshire (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010986 - **Application reference:** P/2025/00476 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Subdivision of planning unit and conversion of garage/outbuilding to separate 2-bed dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** TR3 - **Development plan policies:** East Staffordshire Local Plan 2015 SP1, SP8, SP35, Newborough NDP 2016 SP1, HE2, HE3, Re-use of Rural Buildings SPD - **Main issues:** sustainable location, highway safety - **Tags:** sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, small-scheme, appeal-planning-officer, framework-version-unstated, old-wording-slip ## Summary Conversion of a detached garage and outbuilding into a separate two-bed dwelling half a mile outside Newborough. Dismissed on sustainable location, because the only walking route is a 40mph unlit B-road with no footway. The letter, recommended by an appeal planning officer, cites "the Framework" generically. It never identifies the 2026 version or applies S5, HO7 or L2. The single home got "very limited" weight and the PDL re-use "limited" weight, below the 2026 "substantial weight" defaults. ## Issues and findings - **Location — TR3 (mapped): FAIL.** "walking and cycling between the appeal site and the village would be neither safe nor convenient, particularly during hours of darkness or inclement weather" (DL ¶7). "The fact that rural locations often rely on private vehicles does not justify additional development in unsustainable locations" (DL ¶10). - **No record of collisions is not proof of no harm.** "the absence of recorded incidents does not, in itself, demonstrate an absence of harm" (DL ¶9). - **Access visibility — TR4: PASS.** The access is an existing constraint and its function is unchanged (DL ¶17-19). - **Benefits.** The extra home carries "only very limited weight". PDL re-use gets "limited weight as … the proposal would not be sustainably located" (DL ¶26). ## Planning balance A s38(6) plan-led conclusion. Location conflict with local SP1, SP8 and NDP policies, with benefits of very limited or limited weight. No S5(1) "substantially outweighed" balance was run. ## What made the difference The walking route to the village. Under a full 2026 analysis, re-use of an existing building would engage S5(1)(c), and HO7 and L2 would call for substantial weight to the home and the PDL re-use. The outcome would then depend on whether the TR3 failure "substantially outweighs" those benefits. The letter does not test this. ## Transferable points - A no-footway, 40mph, unlit rural road makes a site car-dependent even for a small village half a mile away (DL ¶6-7). - Home working and deliveries do not remove the need to travel (DL ¶10). - Caution: letters dated after 17 August 2026 that do not name the Framework version may apply pre-2026 weightings. Here one home got "very limited" weight where HO7 now says "substantial" (DL ¶26). ## Policy findings - **TR3: fail.** half a mile to Newborough along 40mph B5234 with no footway, unlit, high hedges; peak-only buses; letter cites only "the Framework" — code mapped by harvester (DL 6-13) - **HO7: benefit (very-limited weight).** one smaller home gets "only very limited weight given the modest contribution" — not HO7 substantial weight (DL 26) - **L2: benefit (limited weight).** effective use of PDL given "limited weight" because unsustainably located — not L2 substantial weight (DL 26) - **S5(1)(c): not-engaged.** re-use of existing building outside settlement not assessed under S5 — letter applies local settlement-boundary policy (DL 11-14); code mapped by harvester - **TR4: pass.** substandard visibility towards Duffield Lane is an existing constraint on an established access; no material increase in risk (DL 15-21) ## Key facts - B5234 40mph, no footway, narrow, unlit; about 0.5 mile to village with school, pub, tearoom, church (DL 6-8) - Earlier dismissed appeal 3200932 on the same building (DL 22) - Appellant's health needs and SAC contribution noted; costs application decided separately (DL 3, 11, 25) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010986 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/cf0cdc7f-d631-42b8-8166-0b6f0504e31f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010986.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Loudon Way, Repton Park, Ashford (micro energy storage) - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Nicola Davies - **Authority:** Ashford (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6010987 - **Application reference:** PA/2025/2065 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Micro battery energy storage installation with acoustic fencing on a grassed landscape buffer at a road junction - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Ashford Local Plan 2030 SP1, SP6, ENV3a - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** battery-storage, renewable-energy, design-refusal, w3-not-applied, inconsistent-weighting ## Summary A micro battery storage unit with acoustic fencing, proposed on an open grassed buffer at a road junction in Repton Park, Ashford. The inspector found it would be "extremely prominent", utilitarian and out of character. Screen planting would itself create a "conspicuous rectangle" of vegetation. The renewable benefits carried "little weight" and did not outweigh the harm. Appeal dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Character: harm.** "Introducing a micro energy substation with its acoustic fencing within this green open space would be out of character … Given its location close to the highway the visual harm arising from the proposed development would be extremely prominent and highly visible in public views" (DL ¶7). - **Mitigation rejected.** Planting "would create a conspicuous rectangle area of vegetation within the open area. This would appear as an inconsistent out of keeping feature" (DL ¶8). - **Context.** The nearby substation "does not form a prominent feature within the immediate environs … it would not form part of the context of the appeal site" (DL ¶9). - **Benefits: little weight.** "I acknowledge that the proposal would bring about environmental renewable energy benefits … Such benefits would not outweigh the harm … This offers little weight in favour of the proposal" (DL ¶10). ## Planning balance The benefits were weighed against the visual harm, and the harm prevailed. The scheme conflicted with LP SP1, SP6 and ENV3a and with "the provisions of the revised Framework" (DL ¶11). There was no S4 analysis, and no W3 or DP3(3) "clear justification" reasoning. ## What made the difference The site. This was a clean, prominent landscape buffer with no visible engineered context, unlike Didcot's roundabout of pylons and gantries. But the weighting of benefits is also out of line. Didcot (PINS-6009340) applied W3(1) "substantial weight" to the same product, whereas here the benefits got "little weight" and W3 was not mentioned. That is an inconsistency worth flagging in any later representation. ## Transferable points - A prominent open landscape buffer can defeat even small energy infrastructure where there is no screening context, and planting that would look contrived does not overcome the harm (DL ¶7-8). - An engineered feature that is itself screened from public view does not form part of the site's visual context (DL ¶9). - **Caution.** Applicants can argue that ¶10 is inconsistent with W3(1)'s "substantial weight" instruction, and with PINS-6009340. ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail.** "extremely prominent and highly visible" utilitarian unit in an open verge that is a distinctive landscape buffer; landscaping would itself look out of keeping; conflict with "the provisions of the revised Framework" (no policy code given) (DL ¶5-8, ¶11) - **W3(1): benefit (limited weight).** W3 not cited; "environmental renewable energy benefits" given "little weight" (DL ¶10) - **SP1 / SP6 / ENV3a (Ashford LP 2030): conflict.** character, distinctiveness, sense of place (DL ¶11) ## Key facts - Operator AMP Clean Energy; same product as the allowed Didcot (6009340) and Great Dunmow (6010164) appeals - Open grass verges form landscape buffers along the A28 and are "a visually distinctive characteristic of the locality" (DL ¶5) - Nearest substation is screened behind a timber fence and so does not give an engineered context (DL ¶9) - Inspector "had regard to" the revised Framework without saying whether the parties were consulted (DL ¶2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010987 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8fb16f45-97c0-45d8-8747-9db93450bc65 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010987.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 9 Birkin Avenue, Ruddington - **Decision:** dismissed, 27 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Fulford - **Authority:** Rushcliffe (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010993 - **Application reference:** 26/00224/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Detached garage and garden room (non-determination; partly built) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3 - **Development plan policies:** Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1 2014 Policy 10, Part 2 2019 Policy 1 - **Main issues:** outlook of neighbours, character - **Tags:** tier-2, householder, non-determination, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Garden outbuilding, appealed for non-determination and dismissed because it would be "oppressive and overbearing" for the neighbouring garden at 13 Bradmore Avenue (DL ¶9). There was no character harm. ## What made the difference Length along the shared boundary. An earlier permitted outbuilding in the same corner was 4m shorter and was acceptable (DL ¶10). ## Policy findings - **P3: fail.** outbuilding along almost full side boundary of 13 Bradmore Avenue's garden, taller than fence — oppressive and overbearing (plan policies; Framework not cited on merits) (DL 9-12) - **DP3: pass.** subservient, set back, large plot (DL 13-16) ## Key facts - 2021 permission for a smaller outbuilding (4m shorter) in the same corner (21/01997/FUL) - Framework "not significantly amended" in relevant parts, so no consultation (DL 6) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8d48b747-8093-4ec8-9885-efef5a923755 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010993 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010993.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 8 Shepherd House, Shepherd House Farm, Luddenden (extension to listed farmhouse, Appeal A) - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M J Francis - **Authority:** Calderdale (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6011008 - **Application reference:** 26/00038/HSE - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Demolition of conservatory and two-storey side extension to a Grade II listed farmhouse in the Green Belt - **Site context:** green-belt, listed-building-setting, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), S5(5), S5(2) - **Development plan policies:** Calderdale Local Plan 2023 GN4, HE1 - **Main issues:** special interest of Grade II listed building, Special Landscape Area - **Tags:** householder, householder-gb, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, private-benefit-not-public, s5-5-balance, not-inappropriate, original-building-baseline, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip, tier-2 ## Summary A two-storey side extension to a Grade II listed 1745 farmhouse at Luddenden, in the Green Belt, was dismissed together with the linked listed building consent appeal. The extension was not inappropriate in the Green Belt, since historic maps showed the original building had been larger. But it would be too tall and prominent for a hillside farmhouse and would cut through the gable, causing medium harm. Beneficial repairs and removal of a poor conservatory did not outweigh that harm, and the extra space was a private benefit. Under S5(5) the heritage harm meant the benefits were substantially outweighed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "the main parties have been consulted on the implications of the revised Framework on the appeal" (DL ¶3). - **Green Belt: not inappropriate.** "evidence in the form of extracts of Ordnance Survey maps dated to 1933 and 1949 show that the building was originally larger" (DL ¶27). The letter cites "Policy GB7 1) a." for extensions; the extension category is GB7(1)(b). - **Heritage harm.** "the massing of the two-storey extension would result in it being too high and unduly prominent" (DL ¶13). "the proposed extension would cause a medium level of harm to the listed building, whilst the proposed works to the fabric of the building, subject to suitably worded conditions, would have a positive effect" (DL ¶21). - **Public benefits: insufficient.** "Whilst the extension and the internal works would rationalise and provide additional accommodation for the appellants, overall, this would be a private benefit" (DL ¶22). "in the absence of any defined public benefit that would outweigh the harm that would be caused" (DL ¶23). - **Special Landscape Area: no harm** (DL ¶19). ## Planning balance S5(5) applied correctly: GB7 first, then, as not inappropriate, the S5 "substantially outweighed" test applying S5(2) (DL ¶31–32). "This harm is of considerable importance and weight and is not outweighed by any public benefits. Therefore, the benefits of granting permission would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects" (DL ¶33). ## What made the difference The farmhouse's hillside setting, which the inspector said "dictate[s] that any extension requires a greater level of subservience" (DL ¶12). A lower, single-storey addition on the old extension's footprint might have been acceptable. The repairs were welcome but could have been done without the extension. ## Transferable points - For GB7(1)(b), historic OS maps showing a larger original building can support a finding that an extension is not disproportionate (DL ¶27). - Heritage harm that is not outweighed under HE6(4) feeds straight into the S5(5)/S5(2) balance for a Green Belt scheme that is not inappropriate (DL ¶33). - Conservation repairs bundled with a harmful extension do not count as public benefits if they could be done separately and their feasibility is uncertain (DL ¶22). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): pass.** letter cites "GB7 1) a." for extensions; about 25% increase after conservatory removal; OS maps of 1933 and 1949 and a photo show the original building was larger; not disproportionate (DL 25-27) - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation stated (DL 21) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** a "medium level of harm" - two-storey extension too high and prominent on a hillside farmhouse of 1745; new opening through the gable loses historic fabric (DL 12-16, 21) - **HE6(4): fail.** removing paint, cement render and soil pipe would benefit the building (positive effect) but deliverability of the render removal unclear; extra accommodation a private benefit; no defined public benefit outweighs the harm (DL 10, 21-23) - **HE4(2): fail.** clear and convincing justification required (DL 20) - **S5(5): fail.** not inappropriate, then S5(5) with S5(2); heritage harm not outweighed means benefits substantially outweighed (DL 30-33) - **N2(1)(a): pass.** mapped - no harm to Luddenden Dean Special Landscape Area (local GN4) (DL 17-19) ## Key facts - Joint letter with Appeal B (listed building consent, 6011013), also dismissed (DL 1-2) - Farmhouse dated 1745 with lintel inscribed to Thomas and Hanna Lister; clockmaking association; list entry 1134535 (DL 7-8) - Extension frontage 3.9 m but covers most of the side elevation (DL 12) - [object Object] ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011008 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011008.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 8 Shepherd House, Shepherd House Farm, Luddenden (listed building consent) - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M J Francis - **Authority:** Calderdale (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6011013 - **Application reference:** 26/00039/LBC - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Listed building consent to replace a conservatory with a two-storey side extension, remove paint and cement render, repoint in lime, apply lime harling and make internal alterations to a Grade II 1745 farmhouse (Appeal B; planning Appeal A is PINS-6011008) - **Site context:** green-belt, listed-building-setting, valued-landscape - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE6(3) - **Development plan policies:** Calderdale Local Plan 2023 HE1, GN4 - **Main issues:** special interest of the listed building - **Tags:** tier-2, listed-building-consent, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, private-benefit-not-public, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, linked-appeals ## Summary Listed building consent for a two-storey side extension and repairs to a Grade II 18th-century hillside farmhouse near Luddenden. Dismissed with the linked planning appeal. The repairs (removing paint and cement, relining in lime) would be positive. But the extension was too tall for the sloping site and meant cutting a new opening through the historic gable: a medium level of harm. The benefits were largely private or uncertain. ## Issues and findings - **Extension.** "the massing of the two-storey extension would result in it being too high and unduly prominent. This would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the existing house and would harm its significance" (DL ¶13). - **Degree of harm and positive effects.** "I find in this instance that the proposed extension would cause a medium level of harm to the listed building, whilst the proposed works to the fabric of the building, subject to suitably worded conditions, would have a positive effect" (DL ¶21). - **Benefits.** "Whilst the extension and the internal works would rationalise and provide additional accommodation for the appellants, overall, this would be a private benefit" (DL ¶22). - **HE6(4).** "in the absence of any defined public benefit that would outweigh the harm that would be caused, I conclude that, on balance, the proposal would fail to preserve the special historic interest of the Grade II listed building" (DL ¶23). ## Transferable points - Positive repair works in the same package do not offset harm from an over-scaled extension where the repairs are uncertain in extent (DL ¶21-23). - On a sloping site, the contours "dictate that any extension requires a greater level of subservience" (DL ¶12). ## Policy findings - **HE5(2)(c): harm.** the two-storey extension is too high and prominent for a hillside farmhouse, and the new opening loses historic fabric, so "a medium level of harm"; the fabric repairs would have "a positive effect" (DL 12-16, 21) - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation irrespective of the level of effect (DL 21) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** "any harm to a designated heritage asset is a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL 16, 21) - **HE6(4): fail.** removing the conservatory and paint and relining in lime benefit the building, but the lime works are uncertain and the extra accommodation is private; "absence of any defined public benefit" (DL 22-23) ## Key facts - Same decision letter as PINS-6011008 (Appeal A, householder), which applied GB7 (cited as "GB7 1) a.", really the extension limb) and S5(5) (DL 25-33) - Letter's banner says the LBC appeal was made under s20 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (a slip for the Listed Buildings Act) - Parties consulted on the August 2026 Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011013 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a388e660-4b4b-4039-ada0-a59f6b915f70 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011013.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 60 King Edward Road, Coventry (dwelling to 5-person HMO) - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Eleni Marshall - **Authority:** Coventry (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011023 - **Application reference:** PL/2026/0000340/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use to 5-person C4 HMO with rear dormer and single-storey infill extension (Article 4 area) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** Coventry HMO DPD HMO2 - **Development plan policies:** Coventry Local Plan 2017 H11, H5, DE1, Coventry HMO DPD HMO2, HMO3, HMO4, Householder Design Guide SPD - **Main issues:** HMO concentration, neighbour amenity, design - **Tags:** hmo, fallback, transitional-no-consultation, tier-2 ## Summary A five-person HMO conversion with extensions in Coventry was dismissed. It breached the 10% HMO concentration cap, and the extensions caused loss of light and enclosure to neighbours (DL ¶7-8, ¶15). ## What made the difference The quantified concentration, uncontested by the appellant. The prior-approval fallback for a 6 m extension could not cover the infill element (DL ¶17). ## Policy findings - **HO5: conflict.** HMO concentration 11.4% within 100 m, above the 10% cap; sandwiching (DL 7-8) - **P3: fail.** extensions cause loss of light and enclosure to Nos 58 and 62; about 19 sq m amenity space; prior approval fallback given weight but not decisive (DL 11-17) ## Key facts - Not re-consulted: new policies "do not substantially alter matters relating to the main issues" (DL 2) - Prior approval (not required) for a 6 m extension treated as a fallback material consideration (DL 16-17) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011023 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8a4eeb95-2308-4448-ad78-455a26c147b9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011023.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Rising Rest Home, Primrose Lane, Simmondley, Glossop - **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Buxton - **Authority:** High Peak (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011027 - **Application reference:** HPK/2025/0423 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Single storey side extension to residential care home (communal, sanitary and office space) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1) - **Development plan policies:** High Peak Local Plan 2016 S1, EQ6, High Peak Design Guide - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, design-refusal, dp3-3-not-applied-as-refusal, care-home, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A care-home side extension, dismissed on design grounds. The roof form and fenestration were awkward, and the extension would widen the building in public views. The inspector used DP3(1) language ("integrate with or enhance") without naming the policy. The harm was weighed in a balance: "substantial" adverse effects against "significant" weight for operational benefits (DL ¶9, 14, 17). DP3(3) "should be refused" was not used as a trump. ## What made the difference Poor architectural relationship to the host building. "the fact that a design may successfully fulfil a functional purpose does not necessarily mean that it represents good design" (DL ¶15). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): fail (substantial weight).** dual-pitched roof and fenestration do not relate to host; "does not integrate with or enhance either the host building or its surroundings" (DP3(1) language, policy not named); adverse effects "substantial"; balance run against significant-weight benefits — no DP3(3) "should be refused" wording (DL 7-9, 17); code mapped by harvester - **HO9: benefit (significant weight).** care-home operational, infection-control and accessibility improvements; "efficient use of the land" (DL 6, 14, 17); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Extension fills landscaped side buffer between large stone care home and bungalows (DL 5-6) - Near St James Conservation Area — preserved (DL 13) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011027 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9b82e36c-e137-453a-a8ac-bb5c2dddf4f3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011027.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Marton House, 31 West Street, Padiham - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Heron - **Authority:** Burnley (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6011037 - **Application reference:** PA/2026/0065 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Detached 1.5-storey (stated self-build) dwelling in the walled garden of a former chapel and burial ground - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE7(2), L2(1)(d), S4(2)(a)(ii), DP3(3), S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Burnley Local Plan SP4, SP5, HE2, HE3, HS4 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, conservation area and NDHA, living conditions - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, l2-1-d-curtilage, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, ndha, conservation-area, design-refusal, self-build, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A new dwelling built into the stone boundary wall of the garden of a former chapel and burial ground in the Padiham Conservation Area. The inspector found low harm to the conservation area, moderately high harm to the wall as a non-designated heritage asset, and moderate harm to the outlook of a facing terrace. The scheme failed L2(1)(d) and DP3(1) without clear justification, both routes to refusal under S4(2). The benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties have had the opportunity to provide comments on it in relation to these appeals" (DL ¶3). - **CA: HARM, low.** "would result in a low level of harm to the significance of the CA" (DL ¶13). - **NDHA: HARM, moderately high.** "The proposal would result in a moderately high scale of harm to the significance of the NDHA" (DL ¶14). - **Heritage balance: FAIL.** "Whilst the harm to the CA would be low, considerable importance and weight attaches to its conservation ... Taken together, these heritage harms outweigh the public benefits arising from the development" (DL ¶18). No clear and convincing justification under HE4 (DL ¶20). - **Outlook: moderate harm** (DL ¶23, ¶25). - **L2(1)(d) and DP3(3): FAIL.** "the proposal would fail to comply with Policy L2 (1) (d) of the Framework" (DL ¶30). "in the absence of clear justification, the development also fails to comply with paragraph 1 of this policy ... Paragraph 3 of Policy DP3 advises that in such circumstances, development proposals should be refused" (DL ¶30). ## Planning balance HE6(4) and HE7 run first (DL ¶15-18), then S4(1) with S4(2)(a)(ii) (L2(1)(d)) and S4(2)(c) (DP3(3)): "taken as a whole, these benefits are substantially outweighed by the identified heritage and amenity harms" (DL ¶31). ## What made the difference The wall. Building the dwelling into it destroyed the continuity that gives it and the conservation area their character. A detached dwelling set back from the wall and lower might have been different. ## Transferable points - L2(1)(d) garden development that is inconsistent with the street scene engages S4(2)(a)(ii) (DL ¶29-30). - DP3(1) conflict "in the absence of clear justification" engages DP3(3) (DL ¶30). - Combined low CA harm and "moderately high" NDHA harm outweigh one dwelling of moderate weight (DL ¶18). - A local privacy distance can be met yet outlook still be harmed (DL ¶22-23). ## Policy findings - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** low harm to Padiham CA - dwelling built into the boundary wall, conspicuous corner position, loss of burial-ground spaciousness (DL 9-13, 15, 18) - **HE7(2): harm.** "moderately high scale of harm" to the boundary wall as NDHA (DL 8, 14-15) - **HE6(4): fail.** CA and NDHA harms together outweigh moderate housing and limited other benefits (DL 16-18) - **HE4(2): fail.** no clear and convincing justification (DL 20) - **L2(1)(d): fail.** garden development not consistent with the street scene; routed through S4(2)(a)(ii) (DL 29-30) - **DP3(3): fail.** DP3(1) conflict "in the absence of clear justification", so should be refused; significant adverse factor (DL 30) - **P3: conflict (moderate weight).** mapped: gable under 15 m from terrace windows, moderate overbearing harm to outlook; daylight acceptable (25-degree test) (DL 21-25) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** one dwelling in a sustainable location in a Key Service Centre; self-build limited weight, no evidence of unmet need (DL 16-17) - **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed by heritage and amenity harms (DL 29-31) ## Key facts - Boundary wall treated as an NDHA reflecting the historic pattern and the burial ground (DL 7-8) - Local Plan 15 m privacy distance to blank gable preferred to the council's 20 m, but outlook still harmed (DL 21-23) - Self-build by condition argued; not pursued (DL 27) - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011037 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3697bc16-dcd0-4a4d-8d08-174740b02c69 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011037.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 23A Rowms Lane, Swinton, Rotherham (B2 to beauty/services) - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Hartley - **Authority:** Rotherham (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6011039 - **Application reference:** RB2025/1462 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of building from B2 (general industrial) to Class E(c)(iii) services (hair, beauty, nails, massage, tattoo; appointment only) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6 - **Development plan policies:** Rotherham Sites and Policies 2018 SP26, Core Strategy 2014 CS14 - **Main issues:** highway safety - **Tags:** tr6-highway-safety, fallback-not-proven, conditions-unenforceable, no-consultation-on-2026-framework, small-business ## Summary Change of use of a small industrial building in Swinton to hair and beauty services. The appeal was dismissed on highway safety under TR6. The access is 4.5 m wide close to a junction, with obstructed visibility. A claimed lawful B2 fallback was not proven, and there was in any case no comparative transport assessment. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The Framework is of "'critical importance' … In respect of the main issue, the Framework has not materially changed the national planning policy position. The relevant national decision-making policy in the Framework is policy TR6" (DL ¶2). - **Highway safety: FAIL.** "I do not find the width of the access road to be sufficient to allow two vehicles to pass each other safely … any use of the building has the potential for a vehicle(s) to have to reverses back into the B classified road" (DL ¶10). "This is not a safe arrangement" (DL ¶11). - **Fallback.** The lawful B2 use was not established on the balance of probability. "In any event … I do not have sufficient information before me of a relative assessment in intensity/traffic terms (i.e., a transport assessment)" (DL ¶13-14). - **Conditions.** The inspector had "concerns about their enforceability relating to appointments and/or the number of customers" (DL ¶16). - **Conclusion.** The proposal "fails to accord with the highway safety requirements of policy TR6 of the Framework" (DL ¶17). ## Planning balance Plan-led. Economic benefits and reuse of previously developed land did not outweigh the conflict (DL ¶19-20). No S4 balance was set out. ## What made the difference The absence of a comparative transport assessment. Even an arguable fallback needs a relative traffic comparison before it can offset a substandard access. This is the same evidential failure as Gosport (PINS-6011101). ## Transferable points - TR6 is applied as the national test for highway safety. A substandard access at an existing building can defeat even a low-intensity use (DL ¶10-17). - A fallback argument needs both proof of lawful use and a relative transport assessment (DL ¶13-15). - Conditions capping appointments or customers may be refused as unenforceable (DL ¶16). ## Policy findings - **TR6: fail.** 4.5 m access too narrow for two vehicles to pass, 10 m from a junction on a B road; exit visibility to the left obstructed; pedestrians and bus stops nearby; no comparative transport assessment (DL 10-17) - **SP26 (Rotherham S&P): conflict.** traffic circulation and management (DL 17) - **E2: benefit.** "some economic benefits" and reuse of previously developed land did not outweigh (DL 19) ## Key facts - Allocated industrial and business land; principle of the use not disputed - Claimed lawful B2 fallback not proven (aerial photos and one 2025 utility bill insufficient for 10 years' use) - Conditions limiting appointments or customer numbers held unenforceable - Parties not re-consulted; the Framework "has not materially changed the national planning policy position" (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011039 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/df45323a-30e4-4b03-a4bf-f8a9d2a08390 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011039.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 26 Stirling Avenue, Leigh-on-Sea - **Decision:** allowed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Jonathan Price - **Authority:** Southend-on-Sea (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6011040 - **Application reference:** 26/00052/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** New 3-bed chalet-bungalow dwelling in rear garden of corner plot fronting Bailey Road - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), HO7(1), L2(1)(d) - **Development plan policies:** Southend Core Strategy 2007 KP2, CP4, Development Management Document 2015 DM1, DM2, DM3, Design and Townscape Guide 2009 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, l2-curtilage-substantial-weight, previous-appeal-overcome ## Summary Garden-plot dwelling on a corner return frontage, where a two-storey house had been dismissed on appeal in 2019. Redesigned as a chalet bungalow and allowed. There was no character harm, and the S4 presumption applied with substantial weight to both HO7 housing benefit and L2(1)(d) curtilage development. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were consulted (DL ¶2). - **Character, DP3 and local policy: PASS.** "being cramped in a physical sense, in relation to occupying a large proportion of the plot, would not manifest itself in a visual sense in terms of street scene appearance" (DL ¶12). Local policies "remain consistent with those of the Framework over achieving well-designed places" (DL ¶14). - **S4 / HO7 / L2.** "development proposals within settlements should be approved unless the benefits … would be substantially outweighed … The Framework requires substantial weight be given to the benefits of providing homes … the Framework also requires substantial weight be given to the benefits of creating additional homes within existing plots … through additional units within residential curtilages, provided this is consistent with the overall street scene. Quite clearly, this proposal gains substantial support from the Framework" (DL ¶19). - **Conditions, DM6.** Applied as a filter. No pre-commencement construction management plan, because there was "no clear justification" for one; PD rights were removed, with justification from the small plot (DL ¶¶20–25). ## Planning balance Plan compliance plus S4(1) presumption. Two substantial-weight benefits (HO7(1) and L2(1)(d)), with no adverse effects found. ## What made the difference Cutting the scale from two storeys to a chalet answered the 2019 Inspector's bulk and openness concerns. Existing structures already limited the verdant views that had previously been protected (DL ¶11). ## Transferable points - L2(1)(d) gives substantial weight to additional units within residential curtilages "provided this is consistent with the overall street scene", on top of HO7(1) housing weight (DL ¶19). - Being physically tight on a plot is not the same as appearing cramped in the street scene (DL ¶12). - DM6 is used to strip unjustified pre-commencement conditions on small schemes (DL ¶25). ## Policy findings - **DP3: pass.** chalet form steps down from 2-storey neighbours; physically tight plot not "cramped" visually; reflects grain (DL 11-14) - **S4(1): pass.** within settlement — adverse effects do not substantially outweigh (DL 19) - **HO7(1): benefit (substantial weight).** evidenced housing need in Southend (DL 19) - **L2(1)(d): benefit (substantial weight).** additional unit within residential curtilage, consistent with street scene (DL 19) - **DM6: neutral.** conditions reviewed against DM6 — no pre-commencement CMP (no clear justification); PD rights removed with clear justification (small plot); M4(2) condition with plan justification (DL 20-25) ## Key facts - Previous two-storey house on the same garden plot dismissed on appeal in 2019 (APP/D1590/W/18/3208223) - Revised to chalet bungalow; existing garage and outbuilding already limit views of rear-garden greenery - Parties consulted on revised Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8099ce69-22b8-49f6-a56e-12c4f327d3a7 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011040 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011040.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Beech Dene, Kelsick, Abbeytown - **Decision:** dismissed, 1 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Gravett - **Authority:** Cumberland (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6011045 - **Application reference:** FUL/2025/0152 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Two-storey replacement dwelling sited in adjoining paddock, new access, garden extension, solar panels on storage barn - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(c), S5(4) - **Development plan policies:** Allerdale Local Plan Part 1 2014 S3, S4, S5, S31 (Policy 31), S35, DM14 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, protected species, suitable location in countryside - **Tags:** s5-1-c-reuse, s5-1-c-replacement, s5-4-exceptional, replacement-dwelling, fallback-rejected, bat-surveys, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary The proposal replaced a modest countryside bungalow near Kelsick with a two-storey house of about 572 sqm, moved about 40 m into an adjoining paddock. The appeal was dismissed. The replacement was disproportionately larger than the building it replaced, so it fell outside S5(1)(c). The S5(4) exceptional-circumstances test was then applied and failed: moderate-weight lifestyle benefits could not substantially outweigh the character harm and the unresolved bat-roost issue. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties had the opportunity to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶2). - **Not isolated.** "there is no dispute between the parties that the appeal site is not isolated, despite being outside of any defined settlement and in open countryside" (DL ¶20). So S5 applied, not S5(3)/HO11. - **S5(1)(c) replacement: FAIL.** "the footprint of the proposed dwelling would be over twice the size of the footprint of the bungalow, which is only around 150sqm ... Accordingly, I find that in addition to a substantial alteration to the existing footprint, the proposed dwelling would be disproportionally larger than the one it replaces; this is irrespective of the size of the host plot" (DL ¶25). - **S5(4): FAIL.** "I have very little persuasive evidence before me that the size and scale of the proposed dwelling is necessary, or that comfortable and flexible modern living could not be met in an alternative way ... I afford these benefits only moderate weight" (DL ¶27). "the benefits of the proposal would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects to protected species and to the character and appearance of the area, including the character of the countryside" (DL ¶28). - **Character.** The paddock was not PDL, with "no compelling evidence of the residential use of the paddock" (DL ¶6). The design's "unduly strong vertical emphasis" meant it would be prominent despite screening (DL ¶8-10). - **Bats.** With moderate roost suitability, surveys could not be left to condition (DL ¶16-17). - **Fallback.** The Class A PD rear extension was not a realistic prospect and was in any case less harmful (DL ¶30-31). ## Planning balance The inspector went straight to S5(4) once S5(1)(c) failed. The benefits (modern standards, homeworking, moving away from road noise) got moderate weight. They did not "substantially outweigh" the character and protected-species harm (DL ¶27-28). Conflict with the development plan followed (DL ¶35). ## What made the difference Size. S5(1)(c) compares the replacement with the existing building, not with the plot. More than doubling the footprint and moving into an undeveloped paddock put the scheme outside every S5(1) category. That triggered the reversed S5(4) test, which lifestyle benefits cannot meet. A replacement of similar footprint on the bungalow's position would have fallen within S5(1)(c) and the ordinary "substantially outweighed" test. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(c) proportionality is judged against the existing building, "irrespective of the size of the host plot" (DL ¶25). - Outside the S5(1) categories, S5(4) reverses the balance: benefits must *substantially outweigh* harm, including harm to countryside character (DL ¶26-28). - A site outside a defined settlement but not isolated goes through S5(1), not S5(3)/HO11 (DL ¶20). - Land used as a paddock and not proven to be curtilage is not PDL (DL ¶6). - A PD fallback is given significant weight only if realistic and at least as harmful (DL ¶31). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(c): fail.** replacement footprint more than twice the 150 sqm bungalow and about 572 sqm floor area; disproportionately larger "irrespective of the size of the host plot" (DL 23-25) - **S5(4): fail.** modern-living, homeworking and noise benefits given moderate weight; no evidence the size was necessary; do not substantially outweigh character and protected-species harm (DL 26-28) - **S5(3): not-engaged.** agreed the site is not isolated, though outside any defined settlement; HO11 argument not needed (DL 20) - **DP3: harm.** 9.5m twin gables and extensive glazing, spread into paddock that is not PDL (DL 6-12) - **N6: harm.** bungalow of moderate bat-roost suitability; presence/absence surveys needed before permission, not by condition (Circular 06/2005) (DL 15-19) ## Key facts - Existing bungalow about 150 sqm footprint; replacement about 572 sqm floor area, sited about 40m away partly in a paddock (DL 5, 25) - Paddock not shown to be residential curtilage, so not PDL (DL 6) - Class A PD fallback rejected - no realistic prospect and less harmful than the scheme (DL 29-31) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011045 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7b103e5d-38ad-441c-93e3-a3ea603c71cb --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011045.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 25 Gloucester Circus, Greenwich (LBC) - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L J O'Brien - **Authority:** Greenwich (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6011050 - **Application reference:** 25/0326/L - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Listed building consent for a first and second floor side extension over the single-storey link, internal reconfiguration, enlarged rear lightwell and other works to a house in a Grade II crescent (appeal B; planning appeal A is 6010332) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(3), HE6(4), HE4(2) - **Development plan policies:** Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy 2014 DH1, DH3, DH(h), DH(i), London Plan 2021 D3, HC1, Royal Greenwich Urban Design Guide SPD 2023 - **Main issues:** special interest of Grade II crescent, West Greenwich Conservation Area - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, listed-building-consent, conservation-area, world-heritage-site, fallback, fallback-rejected, overturned-officer-rec, evidence-gap, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A two-storey side extension filling the gap above the single-storey entrance link between two houses in Gloucester Circus, a symmetrical c.1800 Grade II crescent in West Greenwich, plus extensive internal works. The inspector found moderate harm to the listed building and low harm to the conservation area. The repair and layout benefits were limited and largely achievable without the extension. Details of several works were too vague to assess. Both appeals dismissed, upholding the Committee's overturn of the officer recommendation. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties invited to comment: "However, no comments were received." (DL ¶6). - **Effect.** The extension "would modify the appearance of the building in such a way that its architectural interest would be unacceptably eroded" (DL ¶19). Earlier infills elsewhere in the crescent did not help: "In my view, the previous alterations increase the sensitivity of the building to further change." (DL ¶24). - **Insufficient detail.** For damp works, window repairs and services: "Without evidence to the contrary I must take a precautionary approach in the interests of preserving the listed building" (DL ¶35). - **Degree (HE5(2)(c)).** "I find that the scheme would result in a moderate level of harm to the significance of the listed building and a low level of harm to the significance of the CA" (DL ¶41). - **Benefits.** Repairs "could be made through alternative schemes which would not cause the degree of harm I have outlined above" (DL ¶44). "I find that the weight to be afforded to the benefits of the scheme is limited" (DL ¶45). - **HE4(2).** "Clear and convincing justification has not been provided for the identified harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets." (DL ¶47). - **Fallback.** A June 2026 consent for the other works has a real prospect, but "were the approved scheme to be implemented I consider that it would cause markedly less harm to the heritage assets than the proposals" (DL ¶54), so its weight is minimal. ## Planning balance HE6(4): limited benefits against moderate (LB) and low (CA) harm, each of considerable importance and weight (DL ¶46-47). ## What made the difference The single-storey links between pairs of houses are a designed feature of the crescent's rhythm. Filling one side broke the pair's symmetry, and the benefits could largely be had from the already-consented scheme. ## Transferable points - Previous harmful alterations to a terrace can increase, not reduce, the importance of surviving features (DL ¶24). - Where drawings and specifications are vague, the inspector cannot find no harm and conditions are not a safe substitute (DL ¶32-35). - Benefits achievable through a less harmful consented scheme carry little weight, and a less harmful fallback carries minimal weight (DL ¶44, ¶54). ## Policy findings - **HE5(2)(c): harm.** degree identified - moderate harm to the listed building, low harm to West Greenwich CA; negligible contribution to WHS OUV, no WHS harm (DL 15-16, 40-41) - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation (DL 34, 46) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** infilling above the single-storey link erodes symmetry, rhythm and cill band; loss of landing windows and some historic fabric; details of other works too vague to assess (DL 18-35, 38-39, 46) - **HE6(4): fail (limited weight).** economic, housing-stock and repair benefits limited; repairs achievable by less harmful schemes; not needed to keep residential use (DL 43-47) - **HE4(2): fail.** no clear and convincing justification (DL 47) ## Key facts - Planning Committee overturned the officer recommendation to approve (DL 4) - June 2026 permission and LBC (26/1362/HD, 26/1363/L) for the works without the side extension - real prospect but far less harmful, so minimal fallback weight (DL 5, 54) - Similar extension at No 29 (2025) distinguished; earlier losses of the gap elsewhere increase sensitivity (DL 22-24) - Joint letter with planning appeal A 6010332 (not written up); both dismissed ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011050 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fb8845f0-edb5-4454-8019-afaf8fab0f92 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011050.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 31a Roman Road, Linthorpe, Middlesbrough (flat to 5-bed HMO) - **Decision:** dismissed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: F Harrison - **Authority:** Middlesbrough (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011052 - **Application reference:** 26/0033/COU - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective change of use from 2-bed flat to 5-bed HMO - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3, Middlesbrough CS DC1 - **Development plan policies:** Middlesbrough Core Strategy 2008 DC1, CS5, emerging Publication Local Plan 2025 HO7, HO8, HO9 (limited weight) - **Main issues:** living conditions, parking - **Tags:** hmo, dp3-social-interaction, retrospective, transitional-no-consultation, tier-2 ## Summary A retrospective five-bed student HMO in Middlesbrough was dismissed for poor internal living conditions: a cramped shared kitchen and no outdoor space. Parking was acceptable (DL ¶12, ¶16). ## What made the difference The inspector used DP3's liveability requirement for "features that promote social interaction" to fill a gap in local policy, which had no explicit communal-space standard (DL ¶6). Licensing standards did not carry over to planning (DL ¶10). ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail.** cramped shared kitchen and no amenity space; "Framework Policy DP3 requires proposals to employ features that promote social interaction" (DL 6, 12) - **TR6: pass.** student occupiers in an accessible location; no unacceptable parking impact (DL 15-16) ## Key facts - No re-consultation: "no material changes in policy emphasis" (DL 3) - HMO licensing standards given limited weight for planning purposes (DL 10) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011052 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/950d8512-d7d2-4642-b901-9d358ad53a3f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011052.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Victoria Vaults, 47-49 Nunnery Lane, York (pub/music venue to café) - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: M Clowes - **Authority:** York (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6011055 - **Application reference:** 25/01793/FUL - **Procedure:** hearing - **Development:** Change of use of ground floor from public house (sui generis) to café (Class E) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HC6(1)(a), HC6(1)(c), HC6(2), S4(2)(a)(i), S4 - **Development plan policies:** City of York Local Plan 2025 HW1, D3, D4, D5 - **Main issues:** loss of community facility, loss of cultural venue, viability and marketing, S4 balance - **Tags:** pub-loss, cultural-venue, hc6-marketing-12-months, community-facility, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-a-i, asset-of-community-value, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A proposal to turn the ground floor of the Victoria Vaults in York, a pub and grassroots live-music venue, into a café. It was dismissed after a hearing held jointly with a companion appeal for three houses (PINS-6010035). The inspector found that the premises were a community facility and a cultural venue under HC6. The viability and marketing evidence did not show there was no reasonable prospect of retaining the use. The unjustified loss was a "substantial adverse impact" under S4(2)(a)(i), and it substantially outweighed the moderate benefits. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were given the chance to comment on the Framework published on 17 August 2026 (DL ¶6). - **Weight of the local policy.** HW1's "objectives … are therefore consistent with Policy HC6 of the revised Framework … Consequently, I afford substantial weight to Policy HW1" (DL ¶10). - **Pub and cultural venue both protected.** "Policy HC6 of the Framework expressly identifies both public houses and cultural venues as examples of key community facilities. The dual function of the appeal site therefore reinforces, rather than undermines" the case for protection (DL ¶21). The inspector rejected the council's argument that the premises stopped being a "public house" for HC6 purposes because they were also a cultural venue (DL ¶39). - **A café is not automatically a replacement.** "the mere fact that a commercial premises is open to the public does not necessarily mean that it should be regarded as a community facility" (DL ¶23). The Bay Horse and Murton Arms decisions were distinguished (DL ¶26-27). - **HC6 marketing is evidence, not a clock.** "Policy HC6 of the Framework treats marketing as evidence relevant as to whether there is a reasonable prospect of retention, rather than establishing a determinative test based solely upon the passage of a specified period of time" (DL ¶39). Because "in both policies, the marketing periods are evidential rather than determinative", it was unnecessary to decide whether HC6's 12 months displaces the plan's 2-year expectation (DL ¶40). The marketing was flawed: it partly reflected redevelopment value (DL ¶33) and excluded the upstairs accommodation (DL ¶34-35). Enquiries from hospitality and music operators showed continuing interest (DL ¶37). - **Viability.** The evidence showed that the last business failed, not that the use "could not reasonably be made viable"; the £250,000 refurbishment figure was unsupported (DL ¶31-32). - **S4 balance: FAIL.** "the proposal would give rise to the type of substantial adverse impact referred to in Policy S4(2)(a)(i) of the Framework. I therefore attach substantial weight to the adverse effects" (DL ¶63). "the substantial adverse impact of the proposal would substantially outweigh the moderate benefits" (DL ¶64). ## Planning balance The inspector ran S4 herself, even though the council's Framework comments focused on HC6 (DL ¶59). Benefits: a sustainable location, efficient reuse, and café jobs, together moderate weight (DL ¶61). Heritage: neutral (DL ¶62). Harm: unjustified loss of a community facility and cultural venue, substantial weight via S4(2)(a)(i) (DL ¶63). Result: substantially outweighed, so S4 does not support approval, and the section 38(6) plan conflict stands (DL ¶64-65). ## What made the difference The site's specific cultural role, as one of only two dedicated grassroots music venues in the city centre, meant HC6(1)(c) could not be met. The marketing was also contaminated: it pitched a redevelopment opportunity and excluded the flat. Whole-property marketing at an existing-use valuation, open-book viability, and a café with a real community function might have changed the result. ## Transferable points - HC6(2) lists pubs and cultural venues as key community facilities; a venue that is both gets reinforced protection (DL ¶21). - HC6's 12-month marketing period is "evidential rather than determinative". Marketing must be for the existing use, of the whole premises, at an existing-use value (DL ¶33-41). - Failure of HC6 is a "substantial adverse impact" under S4(2)(a)(i) that can on its own substantially outweigh moderate benefits inside a settlement (DL ¶63-64). - A café replaces a community facility only if there is evidence it would perform a community role beyond being open to the public (DL ¶23-27). - A local plan policy consistent with HC6 carries substantial weight even where its supporting text asks for longer marketing (DL ¶10, 38-40). ## Policy findings - **HC6(2): pass.** HC6 names both public houses and cultural venues as key community facilities; the venue's dual role "reinforces" protection (DL 21) - **HC6(1)(a): fail (substantial weight).** 12-month marketing is "evidential rather than determinative"; marketing mixed in redevelopment value and excluded the upstairs flat; no open-book viability; ongoing hospitality interest (DL 30-41, 63) - **HC6(1)(c): fail.** of c.40 York venues with live music, only The Crescent (300 capacity) is a comparable dedicated grassroots venue in the city centre (DL 17-19) - **HW1 (York LP): conflict (substantial weight).** substantial weight because it is consistent with HC6; its 2-year marketing expectation (supporting text) versus HC6's 12 months left unresolved as unnecessary (DL 10, 38-44) - **S4(2)(a)(i): fail (substantial weight).** unjustified loss under HC6 is "the type of substantial adverse impact referred to in Policy S4(2)(a)(i)" (DL 63) - **S4: fail.** moderate benefits (reuse, jobs, sustainable location) substantially outweighed (DL 59-64) - **HE6: neutral.** no harm to the Grade I City Walls/Victoria Bar SAM, the Grade II Moat House or the Central Historic Core CA (DL 45-50, 62) ## Key facts - Pub and dedicated live-music venue (ticketed gigs 3 nights a week, stage, sound and lighting); upstairs flat now a holiday let - Relisted as an Asset of Community Value on 11 Aug 2026 after delisting in Nov 2025 - Supported by the Cultural Recovery Fund and council grassroots-venue grants - First marketing (Carter Towler) pitched it partly as a "redevelopment opportunity"; second (Barry Crux) marketed the ground floor only - Council's own consultant retracted at the hearing their view that the loss would not be a major cultural loss - Proposed café operator (Rockello) withdrew; no evidence of any community role for the café ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011055 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5a92c4dc-2c29-49c7-99b4-6d46d600cf23 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011055.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 41 Springfield Road, Sheffield - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Hartley - **Authority:** Sheffield (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6011059 - **Application reference:** 25/02046/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of dwelling to day nursery/family centre (E(f)) for up to 55 children at a time, side extension and canopy - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Sheffield UDP 1998 H14(c) - **Main issues:** highway safety - **Tags:** tier-2, highway-safety, parking, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Conversion of a house into a 55-child nursery with no off-street parking. Dismissed under TR6 and the local plan because drop-off parking on a congested road would worsen pavement parking. The inspector preferred national car-mode-share data (60-70%) to a small parent survey (26%) (DL ¶14-15). On transition: the Framework is "of 'critical importance'" but "has not materially changed the national planning policy position" on this issue, so there was no consultation (DL ¶2). ## What made the difference Parents park as close as possible, whatever the spare capacity further away (DL ¶16). The proposed parking-management measures were unenforceable. ## Policy findings - **TR6(4): fail.** "significantly adverse effect upon highway safety" — no off-street parking; drop-off parking on congested Springfield Road with pavement parking; area-wide parking surplus not decisive; national 60-70% car mode share preferred to small parent survey (26%) (DL 11-20) - **HC4: benefit.** childcare incl. SEND provision, economic benefits, PDL — not sufficient (DL 21-22); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - 63 capacity, max 55 at a time, 12 staff, no off-street parking; shuttle bus proposed (DL 10-11) - Parking stress survey 17-37% occupancy across wider area (DL 13) - Traffic marshalling/booking system not enforceable by condition (DL 19) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011059 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/45738d64-a471-424b-9f11-4eb58ea5d0e1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011059.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Rykneld, Main Road, Old Brampton - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Graham Wraight - **Authority:** North East Derbyshire (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011065 - **Application reference:** 25/00930/FLH - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Extension over existing garage with rear balcony - **Site context:** green-belt - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), GB7(1)(b) - **Development plan policies:** North East Derbyshire Local Plan 2021 SS10 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness and purposes, VSC - **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, solar-benefit-substantial, cumulative-extensions ## Summary First-floor extension over a garage at a much-extended house in the North East Derbyshire Green Belt. Dismissed. The cumulative volume increase of about 143% over the original was disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). Substantial weight to enabling rooftop solar did not clearly outweigh substantial Green Belt harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Not referred back to the parties: "The relevant Green Belt policy test has not materially changed" (DL ¶3). - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "An increase in volume of approximately 143% firmly supports a conclusion that what is proposed would be a disproportionate increase … both the Framework and the LP are clear that the comparison is with the original building, not the existing one" (DL ¶6-7). The "technical conflict" framing was rejected: "This however downplays the significance of a proposed development being found to be inappropriate" (DL ¶8). - **Openness: limited visual harm; no conflict with purposes** (DL ¶11-12). - **Solar: substantial weight** (DL ¶13). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Substantial and limited weights in favour did not "cross the high threshold of clearly outweighing the harm to the Green Belt" (DL ¶18). ## What made the difference Previous extensions had already used up the allowance, so even a no-footprint addition was disproportionate. Notably, even a benefit given substantial weight (solar) did not produce VSC against definitional harm plus limited openness harm. ## Transferable points - Disproportionality is cumulative against the original building (DL ¶7). - A benefit given substantial weight (renewables) does not automatically "clearly outweigh" substantial Green Belt harm (DL ¶13, ¶18). - Inappropriateness is not a "technical" conflict (DL ¶8). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** undisputed cumulative volume increase about 143% over original (124% already); comparison is with original not existing building (DL 6-9) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** limited visual openness harm above flat-roofed garage; no conflict with GB2 purposes; "technical conflict" framing rejected (DL 8, 11-12, 17-18) - **CC2: benefit (substantial weight).** south-facing roof plane offers the only realistic solar PV opportunity (DL 13) ## Key facts - Earlier extensions 1978 and 2017 (DL 6) - No increase in footprint; matching style and materials (DL 6) - Not referred back to parties because relevant GB test "not materially changed" (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011065 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a445c319-00c8-4044-889b-0cdef1fabed8 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011065.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 2a Parkhurst Road, Islington - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: David Troy - **Authority:** Islington (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6011071 - **Application reference:** P2025/2863/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retention of four stacked shipping containers at taxi fleet depot - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE7(2) - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, D4, HC1, Islington Local Plan 2023 PLAN1, DH1, DH2, H1, Hillmarton CA Design Guidelines 2002 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, conservation area, listed building setting - **Tags:** conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, retrospective, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, harm-lower-level, ndha ## Summary Retrospective stacked shipping containers on a taxi depot at a prominent junction in the Hillmarton Conservation Area, next to a Grade II listed cottage and a locally listed church. Dismissed. The harm is described as being "at the lower level", with no "less than substantial" label, and was weighed under HE6(4) and HE7(2) against employment and brownfield-reuse benefits. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were consulted, and the scheme was assessed against the 2026 policies (DL ¶3). - **Heritage, HE6(4) and HE7(2).** "Whilst the degree of harm resulting from the storage containers on the significance of the CA and the setting of the listed building is at the lower level, in accordance with Policy HE6 (4) of the Framework, that harm should be weighed against any public benefits … Similarly, a balanced approach is required to assess the harm on the adjacent locally listed building … in accordance with Policy HE7 (2)" (DL ¶11). - **Public benefits.** Jobs, local economic activity and "optimising the efficient use of a sustainable brownfield site". The Inspector treated absence of harm on amenity and highways as neutral. "I find insufficient public benefits arising from the development to offset the identified harm to which I attach substantial weight" (DL ¶12). - **Low-quality existing site.** Poor existing quality "does not set a precedent for such an inappropriate development" (DL ¶13). ## Planning balance HE6(4): lower-level harm, given substantial weight (echoing HE6(1)), against modest private and public benefits. Also s38(6) plan conflict. ## What made the difference The containers are industrial, prominent at the pavement edge, and seen with the listed and locally listed buildings. Only public benefits could weigh, and the ones offered were generic. ## Transferable points - Under HE6 the harm is now graded in plain terms (e.g. "at the lower level"), but that low-end harm still attracts substantial weight in the balance (DL ¶¶11–12). - Effective use of brownfield land is treated as a public benefit, but a modest one against heritage harm (DL ¶12). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): fail (substantial weight).** harm to Hillmarton CA and setting of Grade II Verger's Cottage "at the lower level"; public benefits (jobs, reuse of vacant brownfield site, security) insufficient; harm given substantial weight (DL 8-12, 16) - **HE7(2): harm.** harm to setting of locally listed former Camden Road Church — balanced judgement (DL 8, 11) - **DP3: fail.** stark utilitarian industrial features at pavement edge contrast with spacious, verdant junction (DL 6-7) ## Key facts - Four black containers stacked in pairs, fronted by graffitied white boards, on a prominent triangular junction plot - Depot use has a temporary permission (January 2026, P2025/2250/FUL); temporary consent for containers not considered as it would change the scheme - Parties consulted on revised Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/de88e0dd-483f-4d1d-a7c4-d5ba886d6710 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011071 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011071.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Moonshine Meadow, Cuckfield Road, Ansty - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Wright - **Authority:** Mid Sussex (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011079 - **Application reference:** DM/25/3108 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Five-pitch settled Gypsy site (mobile homes, utility buildings, driveway) on a paddock; resubmission after a 2025 appeal dismissal - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(g), S5(4), HO12, F7, F4, TR4 - **Development plan policies:** Mid Sussex District Plan 2014-2031 DP21, DP33, DP41 - **Main issues:** access to services, flood risk - **Tags:** travellers, traveller-supply-shortfall, s5-1-g-travellers, s5-4-exceptional, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, flood-safe-access, flood-fra-missing, temporary-permission, psed, previous-appeal-followed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A five-pitch Gypsy site on a paddock in open countryside between Ansty and Hurstpierpoint. It was a resubmission after a 2025 appeal dismissal. The council accepted it could not show a five-year supply of pitches. The appeal was dismissed anyway. The site failed HO12 on access to services because the only route was an unlit, national-speed-limit road with no footway, so it fell outside S5(1)(g) and into S5(4). A new flood-risk failure (F4/F7: no assessment of safe access along a road with a history of flooding) was also decisive, and it ruled out a temporary permission. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The new Framework "replaces the previous version and the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites"; parties were invited to comment (DL ¶2). HO12 now carries the old PPTS locational criteria. - **Access to services — HO12 / TR4: FAIL.** The inspector followed the previous inspector: "the route would be unappealing for most people and that the public highway does not therefore offer safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists. Thus, future occupiers … would be heavily reliant on private vehicles" (DL ¶10). On HO12's lifestyle flexibility: "there is no evidence that the lifestyle of future occupants would contribute to sustainability" (DL ¶11). - **Flood risk — F4 / F7: FAIL.** "the appellant's FRA fails to consider historic fluvial and surface water flooding" (DL ¶19); "I cannot be satisfied that safe access and escape routes would be available for occupants in a flood event or that the development would be safe for its lifetime. This would conflict with … Policy F7" (DL ¶20). Drainage could not be left to conditions "without further evidence on the detailed arrangements" (DL ¶23). The previous appeal had not raised flood risk; the inspector said the council's updated validation checklist justified the new objection (DL ¶24). - **Need and equality.** Pitch shortfall is a benefit carrying HO7 substantial weight (DL ¶29). Under the PSED, "the equality implications of the proposal weigh notably in favour" (DL ¶30). Overall benefits "carry weight of a high order" (DL ¶32). ## Planning balance S5 route. With an unmet pitch need, S5 says development "should be approved provided it meets the criteria in Policy HO12" (DL ¶26). HO12 was failed, so S5(4) applied: "the benefits of the proposal would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects. Accordingly, the exceptional circumstances required by Policy S5(4) of the Framework do not exist" (DL ¶35). F7 was also treated as a should-be-refused policy (DL ¶34). Temporary permission: "the danger of flood risk is currently present and will not abate in the future" (DL ¶36). Material considerations did not clearly outweigh the harm (DL ¶37). ## What made the difference Two failures on the same road. First, Cuckfield Road's character (national speed limit, undulating, no footway or lighting) made the site fail HO12 access, so the S5(1)(g) route was closed even though need was accepted, and the reversed S5(4) test applied. Second, the appellant's FRA did not deal with the road's flooding history or safe escape. A mobile-home use is highly vulnerable, so F7 was failed. Flood risk is permanent, so it also defeated the usual temporary-permission fallback for traveller sites. A proper FRA would have removed the second failure, but the access finding would still have required benefits to substantially outweigh harm under S5(4). ## Transferable points - For traveller sites, S5(1)(g) needs both evidenced unmet need and compliance with HO12. If HO12 access fails, the case falls into S5(4), where benefits must substantially outweigh harm (DL ¶¶26, 35). - HO12's lifestyle flexibility (sites "not well-related to existing settlements may be appropriate") needs evidence that the occupants' lifestyle contributes to sustainability (DL ¶11). - A highway authority's "no objection" and "viable for confident cyclists" does not stop a finding that an unlit, footway-less national-speed-limit road is unsafe and unsuitable for most walkers and cyclists (DL ¶¶9–10). - A Flood Zone 1 site can still fail F7 where the only access road floods; an FRA must address historic flooding and safe access and escape (DL ¶¶18–20). - Missing drainage and foul details cannot be left to pre-commencement conditions where there is no evidence that a workable solution exists (DL ¶23). - A permanent constraint such as flood risk rules out temporary permission even with an unmet pitch need and no alternatives (DL ¶¶36–37). - Benefits "of a high order", including substantial HO7 weight and PSED, were still not enough to meet the S5(4) exceptional circumstances test (DL ¶¶32, 35). ## Policy findings - **HO12: fail.** 1.9 km to Ansty (petrol station shop), 4.7 km to Burgess Hill; unlit national-speed-limit road with no footway; no evidence traditional lifestyle contributes to sustainability (DL 7-11, 13) - **TR4: conflict.** cited as the consistent national policy for DP21's walking/cycling/public transport priority (DL 6) - **F4: fail.** FRA did not consider historic fluvial and surface water flooding of Cuckfield Road (DL 15, 19, 25) - **F7: fail.** no assessment of flood depth/velocity on the only access road or of safe access and escape; highly vulnerable mobile homes; F7 says refuse (DL 16, 20, 34) - **S5(1)(g): fail.** unmet Gypsy need accepted but HO12 criteria not met, so outside the S5(1) categories (DL 26, 35) - **S5(4): fail.** benefits "of a high order" do not substantially outweigh the adverse effects; no exceptional circumstances (DL 35) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** contribution to pitch supply shortfall, securable by occupancy condition (DL 29) - **PSED: benefit.** lack of pitches shows inequality of housing opportunity; "weigh notably in favour" (DL 30) - **DP21/DP33/DP41: conflict.** conflict with development plan as a whole (DL 34) ## Key facts - Council cannot show a five-year supply of Gypsy sites (as at 1 April 2025); GTAA 2024 need 21 permanent pitches, at least 3 in 2024-2028; existing commitments come after year five - Cuckfield Road is undulating, national speed limit, no footways, cycle paths or lighting; nearest bus stop about 1.2 km away - Highway authority raised no objection and said cycling was viable for confident cyclists; inspector did not accept this - Site in fluvial Flood Zone 1, but road and land beside it have historic fluvial and surface water flooding - No surface water or foul drainage details; inspector refused to leave these to pre-commencement conditions (DL 23) - Temporary permission considered and refused because flood risk will not go away (DL 36-37) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011079 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/52f0dab4-1dc7-4d0b-90b8-07216225fda8 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011079.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 12 Sladefield Road, Ward End, Birmingham - **Decision:** dismissed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S McIntyre - **Authority:** Birmingham (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011088 - **Application reference:** 2026/00761/PA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of dwellinghouse (C3) to small HMO (C4) for up to 5 occupants - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), HO7, DP3(3) - **Development plan policies:** Birmingham Development Plan 2017 PG3, TP30, TP35, Development Management DPD 2021 DM2, DM11, HMO SPD 2022 - **Main issues:** loss of family housing, living conditions of occupiers, neighbour amenity - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, hmo, ho7-loss-as-harm, dp3-3-plan-compliance, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary The appeal was for a change of a Birmingham family house to a 5-person C4 HMO. It was dismissed. Neighbour amenity was acceptable, but there was no marketing evidence of a lack of family-housing demand and no adequate communal living space. In the S4 balance the inspector ran two Framework policies "in reverse". HO7's substantial weight was applied to the loss of a family home the needs assessment says is needed. DP3(3)'s substantial weight for complying with design policy became substantial weight against for breaching the local HMO space standard. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶4). - **Loss of family housing: CONFLICT (DM11, TP35).** "no marketing evidence has been provided with the appeal, and I cannot therefore reasonably conclude that in this case there is a lack of demand for family housing in the area" (DL ¶10). - **Occupiers' living conditions: FAIL.** "There is no single internal communal space sufficient to accommodate all occupants" (DL ¶12). - **Neighbour amenity: PASS.** The street was mixed and near Alum Rock Road's commercial uses (DL ¶14-15). ## Planning balance This was the S4 balance (DL ¶19). The HMO would provide "a form of affordable housing for 5 people ... an efficient use of land", but with little evidence of meeting need, so limited weight (DL ¶20). Against it: "Policy HO7 ... includes ... homes needed for different groups assessed under policy HO1 which includes families with children. The Council has produced a housing needs assessment that indicates a need for family housing and in the absence of any other evidence regarding need I afford the loss of family housing substantial weight" (DL ¶21). And: "Policy DP3 3 states that substantial weight should be given to compliance with relevant development plan policies when assessing the design quality ... the proposal is contrary to Policy DM11 ... and I afford this adverse effect substantial weight" (DL ¶22). "the benefits of the proposal are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶23). ## What made the difference The missing marketing evidence and the undersized communal space. The inspector turned both local shortcomings into substantial-weight Framework harms: HO7 applied to the lost family home, and DP3(3) applied to non-compliance. That is a notable reading. Both policies are drafted as benefit-side weights. Six months' marketing and a larger combined lounge/kitchen would likely have tipped the balance. ## Transferable points - HO7's substantial weight can be applied to the *loss* of a type of home an up-to-date needs assessment identifies (families with children via HO1) (DL ¶21). Compare PINS-6010946, which used HO1 directly. - DP3(3)'s "substantial weight to compliance" with plan design policies was treated as substantial weight *against* non-compliance, including internal space standards (DL ¶22). - An HMO serving undefined need gets limited weight in S4 (DL ¶20). - An HMO licence under the Housing Act 2004 does not bear on the planning merits (DL ¶18). ## Policy findings - **S4(1): fail.** HMO benefits (limited) substantially outweighed by loss of family housing and inadequate communal space (DL 19-23) - **HO7: harm (substantial weight).** HO7 read in reverse - council HNA shows family-housing need, so LOSS of a family home given substantial weight against; no 6-month marketing evidence (DL 8-11, 21) - **DP3(3): harm (substantial weight).** non-compliance with LP DM11 communal-space standard given substantial weight via DP3(3) (with DP3(2)(a) social interaction) (DL 12-13, 22) - **P3: pass.** mixed commercial street; modest activity increase not harmful (DL 14-16) ## Key facts - No marketing evidence (SPD requires 6 months city-wide) to show lack of family-housing demand (DL 9-10) - Kitchen/diner too small and remote from communal room; no single space for 5 occupants (DL 12) - HMO licence already granted under the Housing Act - a separate regime (DL 18) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011088 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5af54454-c929-4191-ad9c-1cf3d1c3a8cf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011088.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to 7 & 8 Slade Close, Etwall - **Decision:** allowed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Buxton - **Authority:** South Derbyshire (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011093 - **Application reference:** DMPA/2025/0530 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Erection of 10 dwellings (four 3-bed, one 4-bed, five 5-bed) on side gardens with private drive - **Homes:** 10 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, HO7 - **Development plan policies:** South Derbyshire Local Plan H20, BNE1, Etwall Housing Needs Assessment (material consideration) - **Main issues:** housing mix, over-intensive development - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, five-year-supply-met, ho7-substantial-weight, large-scheme, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Ten houses on wooded side gardens inside Etwall, refused on housing mix and over-intensive development. Allowed: four 3-bed homes gave an appropriate balance against a local needs assessment favouring smaller homes, and the layout was shaped by the site's trees and constraints. HO7 substantial weight was given even though the council has a five-year supply. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were provided with an opportunity to comment. I have had regard to the 2026 version of the Framework" (DL ¶3). - **Housing mix: PASS.** "Policy H20 of the SDLP does not require every development proposal to accommodate all identified groups or deliver a prescribed housing mix" (DL ¶13). - **Density: PASS.** "whether a development amounts to an over-intensive form of development cannot be determined solely by reference to density figures" (DL ¶14). - **HO7.** "I therefore attach substantial weight to the delivery of 10 additional dwellings in this sustainable settlement location" (DL ¶26). ## Planning balance S4(1): "the benefits of the proposal, would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶28). Tree loss neutral (DL ¶27). Plan-compliant (DL ¶42). ## What made the difference The revised mix (40% 3-bed) and a layout visibly driven by trees and access constraints. With no harm found, S4 required approval. ## Transferable points - HO7 substantial weight applied where the council has a five-year supply; contrast PINS-6010035 (DL ¶6, ¶26). - A local housing needs assessment informs mix but does not prescribe it for each site (DL ¶11–13). - Density figures alone do not show over-intensive development (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **HO5: pass.** 40% 3-bed homes responds to EHNA need for smaller homes while reflecting detached character; H20 does not require every need met (DL 10-13); code mapped by harvester - **L3: pass.** 10 dwellings on about 0.6 ha not over-intensive given trees, access and drainage constraints (DL 14-17); code mapped by harvester - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to 10 homes although council can demonstrate a five-year supply (DL 6, 26) - **N2(1)(d): neutral.** some tree loss offset by retention, replacement planting and conditions (DL 27) - **S4: pass.** benefits not substantially outweighed (DL 24, 28) ## Key facts - Common ground that the council can demonstrate a five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 6) - Scheme raised from 9 to 10 dwellings during the application (DL 4) - Some TPO trees on site; BNG secured on and off site (DL 8, 21) - Costs application decided separately (DL 2) - Parties given opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011093 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/56aa87c7-4f65-4164-989f-49db11bc0189 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011093.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent Crowcastle Lane, Kirtlington (retained storage container) - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Somers - **Authority:** Cherwell (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011095 - **Application reference:** 25/03350/F - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective retention and relocation of a timber-clad storage container and hardstanding on a paddock - **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** Cherwell saved C8, DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Cherwell Local Plan 2015 ESD15, Cherwell Local Plan 1996 saved C8, Kirtlington Neighbourhood Plan PD5 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, rural need - **Tags:** retrospective, transitional-no-consultation, shipping-container, tier-2 ## Summary A timber-clad shipping container on a Kirtlington paddock was dismissed. It harmed the rural lane's character, and no agricultural or rural need was shown (DL ¶14, ¶18). ## What made the difference Lack of evidence that the paddock use or the stable permission had been implemented, so no need for storage was shown (DL ¶4, ¶18). The inspector also noted that the council's report had not discharged the s66 duty on a nearby listed cottage, but found no harm (DL ¶19). ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail.** container "experienced in a negative way" in a tranquil rural lane; cladding and screening cannot overcome it (DL 9-14) - **Cherwell saved C8: conflict.** no evidenced agricultural or rural need, so sporadic development in the countryside (C8) (DL 15-18) - **HE6: neutral.** setting of Grade II Winter Cottage already much reduced; no harm (DL 19) ## Key facts - Appeal documents cited a "National Planning Policy Framework 2025"; the inspector applied the 2026 version without re-consultation as wording "largely unchanged" (DL 6) - 2024 permission for horse keeping and stable - implementation unproven (DL 4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011095 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a025a391-4453-4c15-b110-2842d2caace9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011095.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 7 Churchfields Road, Bromsgrove - **Decision:** allowed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Somers - **Authority:** Bromsgrove (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011097 - **Application reference:** 25/00803/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 3 dwellings with 6 frontage parking spaces - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4), TR3, TR4 - **Development plan policies:** Bromsgrove District Plan BDP16, BDP19 - **Main issues:** highway safety for pedestrians - **Tags:** tier-2, tr6-severe-test, transitional-no-consultation, small-scheme ## Summary Three houses replaced existing buildings at the end of a narrow Bromsgrove cul-de-sac where pedestrians walk in the road. The only refusal reason was pedestrian safety. The appeal was allowed: the extra traffic from 3 dwellings would not reach the Framework's "severe adverse impacts" threshold (DL ¶12). The inspector did not consult on the 2026 Framework, saying the relevant policies were "largely unchanged" (DL ¶4). ## What made the difference The highway authority supported the scheme, which the inspector gave substantial weight, against only anecdotal objection (DL ¶12). Very low vehicle speeds also counted. A lack of footways on the final stretch did not make the scheme unsafe where traffic is local and slow. The S4 presumption was not mentioned. The letter also applies the TR6 "severe" test to pedestrian-safety concerns without separately considering TR6(4)'s "unacceptable impact on highway safety" limb. ## Policy findings - **TR6(4): pass.** no "severe adverse impacts"; slow local traffic on a 30 mph cul-de-sac; highway officer support given substantial weight over anecdotal objections (DL 9-14) - **TR3: pass.** complies; described as a "highly sustainable location" (DL 14, 17) ## Key facts - Churchfields Road narrows to a cul-de-sac with no footways near the site, so pedestrians walk in the carriageway; street lit; vehicles well below 30 mph (DL 7) - Only reason for refusal was pedestrian safety; no transport evidence from objectors (DL 3, 12) - Costs application by appellant decided separately (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011097 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/feb0e0be-079c-474c-980e-621f47e03649 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011097.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 76 Roberts Road, High Wycombe - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A M Nilsson (APO Elizabeth Davies) - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011100 - **Application reference:** PL/26/02347/FA - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** 4.6m dropped kerb for frontage parking - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Wycombe District Local Plan 2019 DM33, Buckinghamshire Countywide Parking Guidance 2015 - **Main issues:** highway and pedestrian safety - **Tags:** tier-2, householder, highway-safety, ev-charging, appeal-planning-officer, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A dropped kerb for a shallow frontage parking space. Dismissed because a parked car would overhang a narrow pavement. The TR6(4) "should be refused … unacceptable impact on highway safety" wording was invoked (DL ¶10). The benefit of home EV charging did not outweigh this. ## What made the difference The frontage was shallower than the county parking-guidance dimension. Angled parking could not be enforced (DL ¶7). ## Policy findings - **TR6(4): fail.** "the Framework ... sets out that development should be refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety" — frontage too shallow, car would overhang narrow pavement (DL 7, 10) - **TR4: benefit (limited weight).** home EV charging benefit of one vehicle does not outweigh (DL 11); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - Frontage depth below county parking-guidance dimension for perpendicular parking (DL 7) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011100 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2d4f8102-45cb-4f9c-ad70-149c605f0bfc --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011100.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Former Gas Holder Site, Cranbourne Road, Gosport (open storage) - **Decision:** dismissed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Cahalane - **Authority:** Gosport (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011101 - **Application reference:** 26/00104/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use from former gas holder land (sui generis) to open storage (Class B8), speculative, no end user - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6, S4(2), E2(1)(a) - **Development plan policies:** Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 LP22, LP23 - **Main issues:** highway safety - **Tags:** e2-substantial-weight, tr6-highway-safety, s4-substantially-outweighed, speculative-b8, open-storage, transport-evidence, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A speculative change of use of a former gas-works site in Gosport to open storage (B8). The appeal was dismissed for lack of transport evidence. The inspector gave E2 substantial weight to the economic benefits, but held that failing TR6, a "should be refused" policy on unacceptable highway safety impact, meant the benefits were substantially outweighed under S4. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "As these revisions could affect the issues in this case, the Council and the appellant were invited to make further comments" (DL ¶2). - **Transport evidence.** The appellant argued that quantifying traffic for an unknown occupier was "an impossible burden of proof". The inspector disagreed: "transport assessments undertaken by suitably qualified professionals could quantify the above matters in a robust, focussed and non-arbitrary manner. For example, by utilising … TRICS" (DL ¶8). - **Highway safety: FAIL.** "there are real non-hypothetical risks in highway safety terms, in respect of larger vehicle reversing manoeuvres and associated visibility obstructions" (DL ¶13). - **A condition would not cure it.** A condition restricting the use to Class B8, or requiring a fresh application for a change of operator, "would not be reasonable" given the unresolved risk (DL ¶14). - **S4 mechanics.** S4's listed circumstances include where a proposal would "fail to comply with one of the NDMPs which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances" (DL ¶17). "even when giving substantial weight to the economic benefits that would inevitably arise from the proposal, NDMP TR6 sets out that development proposals should be refused if they would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety" (DL ¶18). "the benefits of approving the appeal development are substantially outweighed by adverse effects" (DL ¶19). ## Planning balance S4. Benefits: economic, with E2 substantial weight. Adverse: failure of TR6, which feeds the S4(2) "should be refused" circumstance. Result: substantially outweighed, and the plan conflict stands. ## What made the difference The absence of a transport statement. The inspector said a TRICS-based range for open-storage users, compared with the former gas-works traffic, together with tracking plans and a condition tailored to the result, could have resolved the issue. Speculative B8 schemes need a worst-case transport case. ## Transferable points - E2's substantial weight applies even to speculative commercial schemes, but it cannot overcome failure of a national policy that says "should be refused" (TR6 unacceptable highway safety) (DL ¶18-19). - S4(2): failing a "should be refused" national decision-making policy is a recognised route to "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶17). - Uncertainty about the end user is not an excuse for missing transport evidence. TRICS ranges can bracket open-storage traffic (DL ¶8-9). ## Policy findings - **E2(1)(a): benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight given even though the speculative benefits are hard to quantify (DL 18) - **TR6: fail.** no transport statement, TRICS comparison with the gas-works use, or tracking; sharp bend, on-street parking, residential approach roads; "real non-hypothetical risks" (DL 5-13, 18-19) - **S4(2): fail.** failure of a "should be refused" policy (TR6 unacceptable highway safety) is a circumstance in which benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed (DL 17-19) - **LP22, LP23 (Gosport LP): conflict.** fundamental conflict; plan as a whole breached (DL 13, 16) ## Key facts - Large fenced hardstanding, former gas works with three gasometers from 1909; holders demolished under 2022 prior approval - Appellant said traffic could range from builders' materials storage to a rapid-turnover logistics yard - Sharp right-hand turn immediately before the entrance; access via terraced streets with no off-street parking and cars parked on footways - No Transport Statement or Assessment, no vehicle tracking - Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011101 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/92de148b-f04b-4e51-b64e-f5d184baf054 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011101.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land between Rudyard Road and Hot Lane, Biddulph Moor - **Decision:** allowed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Barton - **Authority:** Staffordshire Moorlands (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011103 - **Application reference:** SMD/2025/0537 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for up to 9 dwellings - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** AnnexB:grey-belt, GB2(a), GB7(1)(g)(i), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, S5, HO7 - **Development plan policies:** Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan 2020 SS1, SS2, SS8, SS10, H1, DC3, Biddulph Neighbourhood Plan 2023 DES1, HOU2 - **Main issues:** grey belt, large built-up area, sustainable location, character, spatial strategy - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, PIP, sustainable-location-pass, village-not-large-built-up-area, substantially-outweighed, housing-shortfall, committee-overturn, costs-refused, small-scheme ## Summary Permission in principle for up to nine dwellings on a field at the edge of the Green Belt village of Biddulph Moor. The appeal was allowed. The dispute was purpose (a): the inspector held that a "larger village" separate from Biddulph town is not a "large built-up area", so the site is grey belt. All the GB7(1)(g) limbs were met, including sustainable location, despite a short stretch of lane with no footway. The remaining conflict with the local plan's spatial strategy did not substantially outweigh the benefits under S5. A separate costs decision (local copy PINS-6011103-costs.pdf) refused costs. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶4). - **Grey belt: ACCEPTED.** "No definition of a large built-up area is provided by the Framework, though Annex E is clear that villages should not be considered as such" (DL ¶12). "I found Biddulph Moor to be distinctly separate from, and not an offshoot of, Biddulph" (DL ¶15). "whilst it is a built-up area, I do not consider that Biddulph Moor constitutes a large built-up area" (DL ¶16). - **GB7(1)(g)(i): PASS.** "modest size of the site, degree of containment by existing development" (DL ¶17). - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): PASS.** The lack of a five-year supply is evidenced unmet need (DL ¶18). - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): PASS.** "Routes … have footpaths and street lighting, except for a stretch along Hot Lane, which I saw had no footpath. Nevertheless, I observed that this stretch was of a modest distance, the road was relatively flat and straight with good visibility … this location should limit the need to travel, particularly by private car, and offer a genuine choice of transport modes" (DL ¶19). - **Openness.** Not assessed, because the scheme was not inappropriate (DL ¶23). - **Spatial strategy: CONFLICT.** The site is outside the settlement boundary and "does not constitute limited infill" (DL ¶28-29). ## Planning balance S5 / S3 presumption. Up to nine homes got substantial weight, plus economic benefits and BNG (DL ¶31). "Due to the current housing supply shortfall, I have found the harm arising from the conflict with the development plan to be moderate … the adverse effects of the development would not substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶32). The presumption justified a decision contrary to the plan (DL ¶34). ## What made the difference Two findings of fact. Biddulph Moor is a village visibly separate from Biddulph, so purpose (a) is not strongly served. And the walking route to village services mostly had footways and lighting. The short gap in footway was on a flat, straight road with good visibility, which is the kind of gap inspectors will tolerate. A longer unlit stretch, a bend, or a 40 mph limit, as at Branford Wells (6010313) and Chedworth (6009966), would have put limb (iii) at risk. ## Transferable points - A village, even a local plan "larger village" with a good range of services, is not a "large built-up area" for purpose (a) (DL ¶12-16; costs DL ¶7). - A short stretch without footway does not fail GB7(1)(g)(iii) if it is modest in length, flat, straight and has good visibility, and the rest of the route has footways and lighting (DL ¶19). - Once GB7(1)(g) is met, openness and VSC are not considered (DL ¶23). - The residual spatial-strategy conflict goes into the S5 "substantially outweighed" balance, and the supply shortfall reduces its weight to moderate (DL ¶32). - Costs: a committee overturning its officers on the "large built-up area" question was not unreasonable, because it is a matter of judgement (costs DL ¶7). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** Biddulph Moor ("larger village" in LP) is not a "large built-up area" — distinctly separate from Biddulph town; (b), (d) agreed not strong (DL 12-16) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** modest size, contained by development, position relative to settlements (DL 17) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** undisputed lack of five-year supply (DL 18) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** services, school, shop, pharmacy, bus stops within walking distance via footways and lighting; a modest stretch of Hot Lane without footway accepted as flat, straight, good visibility (DL 19-20) - **GB7(1)(g)(iv): not-engaged.** not major (DL 21) - **DP3: pass.** logical, proportionate extension to settlement edge; localised effects (DL 24-26) - **LP SS1/SS10/H1, NP HOU2: conflict (moderate weight).** outside settlement boundary; too long to be "limited infill"; harm moderated by supply shortfall (DL 27-32) - **S5: pass.** adverse effects would not substantially outweigh benefits; presumption applies (DL 32-34) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** up to 9 homes in a sustainable location, plus economic benefits and BNG (DL 31) - **S6: neutral.** no evidence to assess; even if engaged benefits outweigh (DL 33) ## Key facts - Undeveloped field bounded by housing to the south and west, a house to the east and the village hall to the north - Biddulph Moor has a pub, post office/store, pharmacy, school, village hall and bus stop - Footways and lighting on Rudyard Road and most of Hot Lane; a short unfootwayed stretch was flat and straight with good visibility - Council refused against its officers' recommendation. The appellants' costs application was refused (a separate costs decision) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011103 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a0bfb4e0-6338-4e76-9db1-9d9393c46f4a - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3403e024-3251-4991-a1f3-61df5fcd67cf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011103.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Fairhaven, Bellwether Lane, Outwood - **Decision:** dismissed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Miles - **Authority:** Tandridge (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011106 - **Application reference:** TA/2026/245 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Pitched roof over single-storey side addition, garage conversion to home hair salon, front porch - **Site context:** green-belt - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Tandridge Local Plan Part 2 2014 DP13 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, VSC balance - **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, openness-harm, vsc-not-shown, original-building-baseline, householder ## Summary Roof alterations, a porch and a garage-to-salon conversion at a much-extended 1959 bungalow in the Tandridge Green Belt. Dismissed. Measured against the original building, the cumulative increase was disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). The bulk at roof level also harmed openness, and the private benefits carried only limited weight. ## Issues and findings - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "Green Belt policy requires consideration of the original building, which in this case is not the same as the existing building … Together with the existing extensions, the proposed additions would result in a marked increase in bulk and massing … a disproportionate addition" (DL ¶7). - **Openness: harm.** "the increased bulk at roof level and the proposed porch would be likely to be visible through this, moreover, it would be clearly apparent from the road" (DL ¶9). - **Purposes: neutral.** "the lack of an effect on Green Belt purposes would be a neutral matter" (DL ¶10). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to GB harm against limited private benefits. VSC not shown (DL ¶¶15–16). ## What made the difference Earlier extensions had already added over 70% to the original building, so even modest roof and porch additions tipped the scheme into being disproportionate. The GB7(1)(b) baseline remains the original building (fn 40: as at 1 July 1948 or as originally built). ## Transferable points - Under GB7(1)(b) the comparison is with the original building, so earlier extensions count cumulatively (DL ¶7). - A lack of conflict with Green Belt purposes is neutral and does not offset harm to openness or inappropriateness (DL ¶10). - Adding roof bulk over an existing single-storey element counts as a loss of openness above ground floor (DL ¶9). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** 1959 bungalow already extended by 72% volume / 77% footprint; added roof bulk across full width plus porch = disproportionate over the original building (DL 5-8) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriateness plus harm to openness from roof-level bulk visible from road (DL 9, 15) - **GB2: neutral.** no conflict with GB purposes, but this is neutral (DL 10) - **DP3: neutral.** no design harm (DL 12) ## Key facts - Original 1959 bungalow; 1973 and 1989 extensions already added 72% volume and 77% footprint - New pitched roof over flat-roof side addition across full width, plus front porch - Benefits (home salon, better accommodation) mainly private → limited weight ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011106 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/0885564f-b797-4f7d-bf20-6bfd22588ff9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011106.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 46 The Finches, Weymouth - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Cooper-Young - **Authority:** Dorset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6011131 - **Application reference:** P/FUL/2026/01270 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Sever plot and erect one dwelling as a new end of terrace beside 46 The Finches - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, DP3 - **Development plan policies:** West Dorset and Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2015 ENV2, ENV10, ENV12, ENV16, Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan 2026 W44 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, neighbours' living conditions, future occupiers' outlook, BNG - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, design-refusal, living-conditions, fallback, bng-self-build-exemption, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, plan-policy-consistent-full-weight, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A new end-of-terrace house beside 46 The Finches, Weymouth. The deliberately subordinate, squat form would look contrived against the stepped terrace; the blank two-storey flank wall would overbear the neighbour's garden; and no mechanism secured self-build or biodiversity measures. Under S4 the modest benefit of one home was substantially outweighed. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I consulted both parties on the changes to the Framework" (DL ¶2). - **Character: significant HARM.** "the design of the new dwelling, with squat and purposefully narrowed proportions, would appear incongruous, and somewhat contrived" (DL ¶8). It would be contrary to plan policies "and Policy DP3 of the Framework, which, amongst other things requires that the siting, design and scale of development should integrate with and enhance their surroundings" (DL ¶9). DP3(3) is not mentioned. - **Neighbour: HARM.** "the two-storey blank flank wall would present as a tall, dominant and oppressive elevation" (DL ¶11). - **BNG.** "Planning Practice Guidance outlines that this exemption applies only where the application for planning permission was made on or after 6 August 2026" (DL ¶16). Self-build was then exempt, "However, there was no robust mechanism proposed (such as a S106 legal agreement) to secure it" (DL ¶17). - **Fallback.** Real, but "the fallback scheme cannot be afforded significant weight" because the appeal scheme is more harmful (DL ¶27). - **Plan weight.** "Policies ENV10 and 12 of the LP are broadly consistent with the design aims of the Framework" (DL ¶28). ## Planning balance S4. Modest housing benefit against design, amenity and biodiversity conflicts, each with substantial weight: "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶30). ## What made the difference The flank wall and the contrived form. An attempt to make the unit subordinate made it discordant in a terrace whose character comes from consistent stepped ridgelines. ## Transferable points - Subordination can itself be the design fault where the terrace's character depends on a consistent rhythm (DL ¶7–8). - A fallback carries significant weight only if it is at least as harmful as the appeal scheme (DL ¶26–27). - Small-site 0.2 ha BNG exemption: only for applications made on or after 6 August 2026, per PPG (DL ¶16). - Design conflict with DP3 weighed in S4 without the DP3(3) clear-justification step (DL ¶9, ¶28–30). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): conflict (substantial weight).** squat, narrowed end-of-terrace unit "incongruous, and somewhat contrived" against the stepped ridgelines; significant character harm; weighed in S4, no DP3(3) or clear-justification step (DL 7-9, 28) - **P3: fail (substantial weight).** mapped: two-storey blank flank wall overbearing on the garden of No 27 (ENV16) (DL 10-12, 29) - **BNG (Sch 7A TCPA): fail (substantial weight).** self-build exemption applied at the date of the application, but no mechanism secured self-build or the biodiversity measures; conflict with ENV2 (DL 15-18, 29) - **Transitional(2): accord (substantial weight).** ENV10, ENV12 and ENV16 "broadly consistent" with the Framework's design and amenity aims (DL 28-29) - **S4: fail.** modest housing benefit (no five-year supply) substantially outweighed (DL 23, 30) ## Key facts - Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply; figure not stated (DL 23) - Real fallback of extant householder permission and LDCs, but less harmful than the appeal scheme, so not significant weight (DL 24-27) - Earlier appeal (APP/D1265/W/21/3288630) found no character harm, but details not before the inspector (DL 5) - No dual-aspect windows is not itself harmful (DL 13-14) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011131 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6eb96c09-a4e1-43c8-8a7c-10f1eb9db657 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011131.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Seventh-day Adventist Church, 17 Jersey Gardens, Wickford - **Decision:** dismissed, 2 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Jonathan Price - **Authority:** Basildon (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6011137 - **Application reference:** 26/00207/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** 5.5m x 4m cabin behind a church for classroom and children/youth recreation - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), S4(2)(c), DP3(3), L2(1)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Basildon saved Local Plan - not relied upon - **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, framework-only-decision, community-facility, design-refusal, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A second timber cabin behind a Wickford church for children's classes was dismissed. The decision is unusual because it was taken entirely on the 2026 Framework. The council had refused only by reference to the Framework, and Basildon's saved Local Plan was not relied on. The inspector worked through S4, L2(1)(b), L3(1) and DP3. The cabin failed DP3(3) and impinged on neighbours' weekend enjoyment of their gardens. ## Issues and findings - **Framework as the decision basis.** "The revised Framework establishes itself to be of critical importance for making decisions on development proposals. Although this does not supplant the statutory plan-led system, Basildon's Saved Local Plan is not relied upon in this case. The Framework now contains procedural and thematic decision-making policies, which should be considered in the round" (DL ¶10). - **S4 non-exhaustive.** S4(2) "provides some examples of where such benefits might be substantially outweighed, but this is not a closed list. One example is where these policies require refusal in specific circumstances" (DL ¶11). - **L2(1)(b) conditional.** Substantial weight for better use of land "depends on acceptable living standards in terms of privacy and external amenity space. Because the proposal would impinge on neighbours' quiet enjoyment of their back gardens, there is conflict" (DL ¶12). - **DP3(3): FAIL.** "The proposal is without clear justification and fails to integrate with and enhance its surroundings, whereby Framework national decision-making policy DP3.3 would require it be refused" (DL ¶13). ## Planning balance Community and social benefits of supporting the church (DL ¶7, 14) were set against harm to rear visual amenity and noise at weekends, "when many surrounding occupiers would be making most active use of their back gardens" (DL ¶9). The scheme was "contrary to the revised Framework when read as a whole" (DL ¶14). ## What made the difference The site was confined and close to back gardens, with a cabin already there, so a second structure pushed the use beyond what the plot could absorb. The DP3(3) refusal trigger did the work. The street scene was unharmed (DL ¶14), so the harm was all to rear outlook and garden amenity. ## Transferable points - Where the local plan is not relied on, an inspector may decide an appeal on the Framework's decision-making policies alone, "considered in the round" (DL ¶10). - The S4(2) list is illustrative, not closed (DL ¶11). - L2(1)(b) substantial weight is conditional on acceptable living standards for neighbours (DL ¶12). - DP3(3) requires refusal where a scheme lacks clear justification and fails to integrate and enhance, even for small outbuildings (DL ¶13). ## Policy findings - **S4(1): fail.** S4(2) list "not a closed list"; one example is where policies require refusal (DL 11) - **L2(1)(b): conflict.** substantial weight to better use of underused land "depends on acceptable living standards"; neighbours' garden enjoyment harmed (DL 12) - **DP3(3): fail.** shed-like second cabin in confined rear space does not integrate or enhance and has no clear justification, so DP3(3) requires refusal (DL 13) - **P3: harm.** weekend noise and activity next to back gardens (DL 7-9) ## Key facts - Council refused solely by reference to the Framework; saved Local Plan not relied upon, so the decision was made on the Framework alone (DL 3, 10) - Second timber cabin on concrete footings already laid; used Saturdays 10-5 and one Sunday a month (DL 6, 8) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011137 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2fc79766-2b19-43e9-adde-e78b0ecff5ad --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011137.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Rear garden of 148 Longdon Road, Knowle - **Decision:** allowed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S McIntyre - **Authority:** Solihull (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011148 - **Application reference:** PL/2026/00023/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for one dwelling in a rear garden, fronting Shortland Close - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), HO7, L2(1)(d) - **Development plan policies:** Solihull Local Plan 2013 P7, P15 - **Main issues:** suitability - character and appearance - **Tags:** PIP, s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, garden-land, l2-1-d-substantial-weight, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary This PiP for one dwelling in the rear garden of a Knowle house, fronting the head of a cul-de-sac, was allowed. The inspector found a house could in principle respect Shortland Close's character. There was no 5YHLS. Under S4 there were two substantial-weight benefits: HO7 housing, and L2(1)(d) additional homes within existing plots. There were no substantial adverse effects. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶6). - **Character: PASS.** "I am satisfied that, in principle, a single dwelling could be developed on the site that would be setback from the highway and respect the scale, massing, density, layout, materials and landscape of Shortland Close" (DL ¶11). The varied rear gardens on Longdon Road meant a shorter garden was not harmful (DL ¶12). - **Location.** Within the settlement, walkable to the local centre and buses; the station was more than 800 m away (DL ¶16). ## Planning balance This was the S4 balance (DL ¶21). HO7 got substantial weight because there was no 5YHLS (DL ¶22). "Policy L2 of the Framework states that substantial weight should be given to the benefits where a development would create additional homes within existing plots, providing they are consistent with the overall street scene, maintain safe access, provide acceptable living standards ... not occupy more than twice the footprint of the existing building and retain at least 50% of the non-developed area. While matters relating to living standards outlined in Policy L2 relate to TDC matters, the proposal otherwise accords with this policy, and I therefore afford it substantial weight" (DL ¶23). "There are substantial benefits of the proposal, and I have not concluded that there would be any substantial adverse effects" (DL ¶24). ## What made the difference The plot fronts an existing cul-de-sac head and reads as a continuation of Shortland Close, not as backland. It passed the L2(1)(d) street-scene criterion, so L2 became a benefit worth substantial weight rather than a harm. Compare PINS-6010701 and PINS-6010619, where garden plots failed L2(1)(d) and S4(2)(a)(ii) became a refusal route. ## Transferable points - At PiP stage, L2(1)(d) substantial weight can be given where the in-principle criteria are met, with living-standards limbs deferred to TDC (DL ¶23). - S4 approval follows where there are "substantial benefits" and no "substantial adverse effects" (DL ¶24). The inspector framed the test as looking for substantial adverse effects. - A precedent objection needs identified comparable sites (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **S4(1): pass.** substantial benefits; no substantial adverse effects under Framework decision-making policies (DL 21, 24) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** council cannot show 5YHLS, "significant shortfall" uncontested (DL 19, 22) - **L2(1)(d): benefit (substantial weight).** additional home within existing plot; street-scene, footprint and 50% undeveloped-area criteria met; living-standards limbs left to TDC (DL 23) - **TR3: pass.** within Knowle, walkable to local centre and bus stop; not within 800m of a station but meets LP P7 otherwise (DL 16) ## Key facts - Site is the end of a long rear garden abutting the head of Shortland Close cul-de-sac; would front the Close (DL 8-11) - Supply shortfall "significant" and uncontested; no figure given (DL 19) - Precedent argument rejected without examples of comparable sites (DL 14) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011148 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/15e3776a-c428-41e0-b192-03af3476796c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011148.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land off Welshpool Road, adjacent to Southerly, Chavel - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Barton - **Authority:** Shropshire (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011150 - **Application reference:** 25/04311/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 7 to 8 dwellings - **Homes:** 8 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j)(i), S5(4), AnnexB:settlement, DP3(3), TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Shropshire Core Strategy 2011 CS1, CS5, CS6, CS11, CS17, SAMDev Plan 2015 MD1, MD2, MD7a - **Main issues:** spatial strategy and accessibility, character and appearance - **Tags:** PIP, s5-1-j, s5-4-exceptional, settlement-definition, hamlet, sustainable-location-fail, dp3-3-refusal, annex-a-weight-reduction, housing-shortfall, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, footway-quality, small-scheme, drafting-slip ## Summary Permission in principle for seven to eight houses on part of a field beside the A458 at Chavel, a roadside group with a petrol-station shop, restaurant and takeaway. Dismissed. The inspector held Chavel is not a "settlement" under the 2026 definition (not a predominantly built-up area), so S5(1)(j) failed despite no five-year supply. Under S5(4) the site's car dependence and urbanising effect on the countryside (a DP3(3) refusal trigger) were not substantially outweighed by the housing benefits. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were given the opportunity to comment, and the comments received have been taken into account" (DL ¶2). - **Is Chavel a settlement? — Annex B: NO.** "Due to the modest area covered by development and the prevailing sense of openness between the buildings with views of the surrounding countryside, I found that Chavel did not comprise a predominantly built-up area and therefore does not constitute a settlement for the purposes of my assessment" (DL ¶11). - **Accessibility — TR3 / CS6: FAIL.** Despite a lit footway and services 400–450 m away, "the footpath is narrow in places and positions pedestrians in close proximity to the busy traffic flow … a noticeable proportion of large commercial vehicles that create a distinctive wind blast as they pass" (DL ¶13); "due to a lack of genuinely sustainable travel choices, the occupants … would be heavily reliant on private motor vehicles" (DL ¶14). - **Character — DP3: FAIL.** "a significant urbanising intrusion into the countryside, eroding the rural character and appearance of the area" (DL ¶24); not rounding off (DL ¶23). - **S5 route.** "irrespective of the scale of the housing land supply shortfall, the proposed development does not fall within any of the forms of development given in policy S5(1) … including S5(1)(j) as … the appeal site is not physically well-related to an existing settlement. Consequently, the appeal scheme falls to be considered under policy S5(4)" (DL ¶32). - **Local plan weight — Annex A.** Plan policies not reduced "simply because they were adopted prior to the publication of the Framework"; spatial strategy consistent, but "considering the lack of a 5-year housing land supply, I attribute moderate weight to this conflict" (DL ¶33). - **PIP scope.** Affordable housing "could not be secured since planning conditions or obligations cannot be included" (DL ¶30). ## Planning balance S5(4) exceptional-circumstances balance. Against: spatial strategy conflict (moderate), character conflict (significant), DP3(3) refusal direction (DL ¶¶33–34). For: 7–8 homes with "substantial weight", potential affordable housing, economic benefits, BNG (DL ¶35). "Having regard to the scale and permanence of the development, the benefits would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects, and exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated" (DL ¶36). ## What made the difference The settlement finding. With Chavel ruled out as a settlement, the scheme dropped from the S5(1)(j) presumption (approve unless substantially outweighed) to S5(4) (refuse unless benefits substantially outweigh). Services within 450 m on a lit footway were not enough because the footway ran along a busy HGV route and was unpleasant to use. If Chavel had been a settlement, or the site adjoined Ford, the outcome might have differed; the inspector distinguished comparator cases on exactly these points (bus stop 250 m; allocation adjoining Ford). ## Transferable points - A roadside ribbon with a shop, pub/restaurant and takeaway can still fail the Annex B "settlement" definition where openness between buildings dominates (DL ¶11). - If the place is not a settlement, S5(1)(j) fails regardless of the scale of the supply shortfall, and S5(4) applies (DL ¶32). - Distance alone does not settle accessibility: a lit footway 400–450 m to services failed on quality (narrow, beside a busy HGV route) (DL ¶13). - Unlit, unmade field PROWs do not provide a genuine walking alternative (DL ¶13). - Council decisions made before the 2026 settlement definition carry little weight as comparators (DL ¶16). - Emerging-plan connectivity scoring (draft Community Hierarchy) gets limited weight at scoping stage (DL ¶19). - Pre-2026 spatial-strategy policies stay consistent with the Framework under Annex A para 2, but their conflict may be moderated where there is no five-year supply (DL ¶33). - Drafting slip: DP3(3) described as "advises" refusal where it conflicts with DP3(1) (DL ¶34); the policy says "should be refused". ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:settlement: fail.** Chavel (ribbon of houses, restaurant, takeaway, petrol station shop; sporadic cluster opposite) not a "predominantly built-up area" so not a settlement (DL 10-11) - **S5(1)(j)(i): fail.** no 5YHLS undisputed but site not physically well-related to an existing settlement (DL 32) - **S5(4): fail.** benefits do not substantially outweigh adverse effects; no exceptional circumstances (DL 32, 36) - **TR3: fail.** lit footway 400-450 m to shop/food, 700-800 m to bus and school, but narrow beside busy 40 mph A458 with HGV wind blast; heavy car reliance (DL 12-14) - **DP3(3): fail (significant weight).** significant urbanising intrusion into countryside; conflict with DP3(1) without clear justification so refuse (DL 24, 34) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** Framework instructs substantial weight; affordable housing cannot be secured at PIP stage (DL 30, 35) - **CS1, CS5, CS6, MD1, MD7a: conflict (moderate weight).** spatial strategy consistent with Framework (Annex A para 2) but weight reduced to moderate by lack of 5YHLS (DL 33) - **CS5, CS6, CS17, MD2: conflict (significant weight).** character policies consistent with Framework (DL 34) ## Key facts - Supply agreed below five years; Council 4.61 years, appellant cites 3.81 years from another appeal (DL 32) - Distances 400 m restaurant, 440 m takeaway, 450 m convenience store; bus stop about 700 m, primary school about 800 m; lit footpath with central refuge crossing (DL 12) - Footpath narrow in places beside busy A458 (40 mph) with large commercial vehicles; PROWs to Ford unlit and unmade across fields (DL 13) - [object Object] - Emerging plan "Community Hierarchy" connectivity score given limited weight (DL 19) - 7-8 dwellings under PIP not major development; floorspace refusal reason rejected (DL 27) - Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011150 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ae55f0f4-7a3b-47ea-8771-795f4dd1abdb --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011150.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Stables, Underriver House Road, Underriver, Sevenoaks - **Decision:** allowed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: John Pearce - **Authority:** Sevenoaks (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011192 - **Application reference:** 26/00135/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Two-stable block in a field (building only; no change of use of land) - **Site context:** green-belt, national-landscape, open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N4, GB7(1)(f)(iv) - **Development plan policies:** Sevenoaks Allocations and Development Management Plan 2015 EN5, LT2 - **Main issues:** landscape and scenic beauty of the Kent Downs National Landscape - **Tags:** equestrian, national-landscape, not-inappropriate, non-determination, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip, tier-2 ## Summary A small two-stable block in a field at Underriver, in the Kent Downs National Landscape and the Green Belt, was allowed on a non-determination appeal. The inspector found the low, dark-stained building, tucked by the access and hedges, would conserve the landscape and scenic beauty under N4. It was an outdoor recreation facility with minimised openness impact under GB7(1)(f)(iv). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "the parties have been provided with an opportunity to comment on the revised Framework" (DL ¶5). - **National Landscape, N4: PASS.** "visibility is not analogous to harm and whilst the building would be detached from other development in the area, the stables would be of a scale and design that would be sensitive to the rural setting of the site" (DL ¶10). "the proposal would conserve landscape and scenic beauty in the NL" (DL ¶12). - **Green Belt, GB7(1)(f)(iv): PASS.** "given the limited scale of the building and its discreet position, the impact on the openness of the Green Belt would be minimised and there would not be a significant conflict with the Green Belt purposes" (DL ¶14). - **Earlier dismissal distinguished.** The earlier stable "would be a sizeable structure" set back from the road; this one is smaller and in the corner (DL ¶11). ## Planning balance None expressly. N4 and GB7(1)(f)(iv) met, no other harm (flooding, contamination, highways dealt with by conditions), so allowed (DL ¶15–16, ¶26). ## What made the difference Scale and siting: two stables with a low ridge by the existing access and hedgerow, rather than the larger isolated building dismissed in 2015. Conditions on private use, no lighting and no paraphernalia kept the effect small. ## Transferable points - Under N4, visibility is not the same as harm; a small, sensitively sited and finished building can conserve a National Landscape (DL ¶10). - A small private stable is an outdoor recreation facility under GB7(1)(f)(iv) where openness impact is minimised (DL ¶13–14). - A condition limiting stables to ponies fails the tests where the land can support horses (DL ¶25). ## Policy findings - **N4: pass.** small, low, black-stained timber stable near the access and hedgerows; visible from the lane but "visibility is not analogous to harm"; conserves landscape and scenic beauty of Kent Downs NL; LURA s245 duty (DL 7-12) - **GB7(1)(f)(iv): pass.** outdoor recreation facility; openness impact minimised; no significant conflict with purposes, including encroachment; Council agreed (DL 13-14) - **TR6(4): pass.** existing lawful access; insignificant vehicle movements (DL 16) - **BNG (Sch 7A TCPA): not-engaged.** de minimis exemption agreed (under 25 sq m, no priority habitat); letter says "there is reason for me to disagree" (evidently meaning no reason) (DL 20) - **DM6: pass.** ponies-only condition not reasonable or necessary; private-use, no-lighting and no-paraphernalia conditions imposed (DL 24-25) ## Key facts - Non-determination appeal; Council's statement argued for refusal (DL 3) - Earlier stables appeal on the site dismissed (APP/G2245/W/15/3031307, larger and set back) and a dog-walking field appeal (APP/G2245/W/23/3314956) distinguished (DL 11) - Enforcement notice on removed hardstanding remains in force for its own matters (DL 18) - Costs application made; separate decision (DL 2) - No S5(5) balance expressly run after the GB7 pass ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011192 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011192.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Banbh Farm, Breinton Common - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Jonathan Edwards - **Authority:** Herefordshire (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011206 - **Application reference:** 253587 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Part 6 Class A agricultural prior approval — general-purpose agricultural building for feed, machinery and emergency livestock housing - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Herefordshire Core Strategy 2015 SS6, SD1, LD1, Breinton Neighbourhood Development Plan B6, B7, B14 - **Main issues:** siting, design and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, prior-approval, agricultural-building, landscape-harm, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary Agricultural building prior approval, refused on siting and appearance. The barn "would stand out starkly against the natural landscape given its isolated position within an open field" (DL ¶10). Dismissed. The letter is dated 17 August 2026 and does not mention either Framework. ## What made the difference Isolation from other buildings and visibility through gaps and the gate in winter. Screening offers were unsecured, because the "obligation" letter was not a deed, and planting "cannot be relied upon" long term (DL ¶¶6, 11). ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail.** GPDO siting/design/appearance — isolated large barn in open field sloping to River Wye; stark and visually dominant; planting not reliable screening (DL 8-12); Framework not cited ## Key facts - Unsigned, undated "planning obligation" letter not a valid s106 deed (DL 5-6) - Decision dated 17 August 2026 — publication day of the new Framework; letter silent on it ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/0c39327f-dcef-480b-aa62-9e17dbda229b - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011206 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011206.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land east of Lichfield Road, Little Haywood (dog walking field) - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Barton - **Authority:** Stafford (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011209 - **Application reference:** 25/41603/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use to a bookable dog walking field with parking and associated works (partly retrospective) - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6, S5(2) - **Development plan policies:** Plan for Stafford Borough 2011-2031 T2 - **Main issues:** highway safety - **Tags:** highway-safety-fail, s5-2-refusal-policy, rural-diversification, old-wording-slip, transitional-no-consultation, small-scheme ## Summary A dog walking field off the A51 was dismissed on highway safety at the access. The inspector applied S5 and treated TR6's refusal instruction as an S5(2) circumstance. The conclusion, though, uses the old "significantly outweighed" formula rather than the Framework's "substantially outweighed". ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** No consultation; "policy emphasis … not changed" (DL ¶2). - **Access: FAIL.** "a lack of an on-site presence to actively enforce the arrangements means that I am not persuaded that there would not be occasions where an overlap between visitors … would occur" (DL ¶9). There would be vehicles "waiting on the A51 or overriding the adjoining highway verge" (DL ¶11). - **S5(2).** "Policy S5 applies as the type of development proposed would be located outside of a settlement. However, policy TR6 of the Framework is clear that development proposals should be refused if they would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Applying policy S5 (2), the moderate benefits listed above are significantly outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶18). ## Planning balance Moderate benefits (a service, rural diversification) against significant-weight highway harm. S5(2) was applied. ## What made the difference The access geometry, combined with reliance on a booking system nobody on site would police. Widened radii kerbs would probably have resolved it. The claim that they were unviable was unsubstantiated (DL ¶17). ## Transferable points - TR6 unacceptable highway safety is an S5(2) trigger for refusal outside settlements (DL ¶18). - Booking systems and buffers do not secure highway safety without on-site management (DL ¶7-9). - Inspectors are still slipping into the 2024 "significantly outweighed" wording (DL ¶18). ## Policy findings - **TR6: fail (significant weight).** A51 access too tight for simultaneous entry/exit; booking buffer unenforceable without on-site presence; vehicles would wait on A51 or overrun verge (DL 5-15) - **S5(2): fail.** TR6 "clear that development proposals should be refused" on unacceptable highway safety impact; moderate benefits (service, diversification) outweighed (DL 18) ## Key facts - Existing field access off the A51, a straight road where traffic travels at the limit - 15-minute booking buffer and CCTV proposed; no on-site staff - Inspector did not consult on new Framework (DL 2) - Conclusion says benefits "significantly outweighed" - 2024 wording, not S5's "substantially outweighed" (DL 18) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011209 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1e74b138-9f4e-4e8d-928d-69164483426e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011209.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Four Winds, The Common, Melbourne - **Decision:** allowed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Buxton - **Authority:** South Derbyshire (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011217 - **Application reference:** DMPA/2026/0030 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for one dwelling (applied for as self-build) in the side garden of an existing house - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S3, S5(1)(d), AnnexB:previously-developed-land, HO7 - **Development plan policies:** South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 1 H1, South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 2 SDT1, BNE5, Melbourne Neighbourhood Plan DP1 - **Main issues:** suitable location - **Tags:** PIP, s5-1-d-pdl-route, garden-pdl-outside-built-up-area, residential-curtilage-pdl, self-build-unsecured, sustainable-location-pass, settlement-boundary-conflict-outweighed, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, annex-a-weight-reduction ## Summary Permission in principle for one dwelling in the side garden of a house on The Common, just outside Melbourne's settlement boundary. Allowed. The inspector held that a residential garden outside a built-up area is previously developed land under the Annex B definition, because the garden exclusion applies only within built-up areas. That brought the scheme within S5(1)(d). With good walking and bus access to Melbourne and a contained plot, the limited conflict with the spatial strategy did not substantially outweigh substantial HO7 weight. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties had an opportunity to comment; "references hereafter relate to the new version" (DL ¶2). - **Spatial strategy — H1/SDT1/BNE5/DP1: CONFLICT (limited harm).** Not BNE5(iv) infill given the site's position in a side garden (DL ¶10). But "the proposal would be contained within an existing residential plot and would not extend into the wider countryside" (DL ¶11). - **PDL — Annex B: PASS.** "Whilst the site forms part of a residential garden, the exclusion relating to residential gardens applies only within built-up areas. As the site lies outside the defined settlement boundary and there is no evidence before me that it forms part of a built-up area, that exclusion is not engaged. Accordingly, I find that the site comprises previously developed land" (DL ¶17). - **HO7: substantial weight** to one dwelling as "a meaningful contribution towards the Framework's objective to support the delivery of a substantial increase in the supply of homes" (DL ¶18). The supply position was not given. - **Self-build: limited weight.** PiP "does not secure the identity of the future developer, the method of delivery or occupation" (DL ¶19). - **Accessibility.** "future occupiers would have opportunities to access services and facilities by a combination of walking and public transport … I do not find that the site is isolated" (DL ¶20). - **Annex A.** Local policies "are not materially inconsistent with national decision-making policies … I do not consider that Annex A reduces the weight" (DL ¶22). They were still outweighed. ## Planning balance S3 → S5(1)(d) balance. Benefits: HO7 substantial; self-build limited; accessibility in favour; limited economic (DL ¶¶18–21). Harm: plan conflict, but "given the site's accessibility, its relationship with Melbourne, its previously developed status and the limited effect on rural character, I find that the harm arising from this conflict would be limited" (DL ¶23). "the benefits of the proposal would not be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects. Accordingly, the proposal satisfies the requirements of Policy S5(1)(d)" (DL ¶24). Material considerations justified departing from the plan (DL ¶26). ## What made the difference The Annex B reading. Treating a rural garden as PDL placed the site in the S5(1)(d) category without needing a five-year supply shortfall (S5(1)(j)) or an infill argument (S5(1)(e), BNE5). After that, the site facts (enclosed curtilage, established walking route to a Key Service Village, bus stop at the gate) kept the harm "limited". A garden in a remote or poorly connected location, or one inside a built-up area, would not get the same treatment. ## Transferable points - Residential gardens outside built-up areas can count as PDL: the Annex B garden exclusion applies only "within built-up areas", and a defined settlement boundary was used to show the site was outside one (DL ¶17). This is a significant route for rural garden plots under S5(1)(d). - S5(1)(d) does not need a housing-supply shortfall; HO7 substantial weight was given to one dwelling without any supply figure (DL ¶18). - Plan policies can be consistent with the Framework under Annex A and still be outweighed through the S5 balance (DL ¶¶22–24). - Self-build cannot be secured at PiP stage, so it attracts limited weight (DL ¶¶5, 19). - A bus stop outside the site and established pedestrian links to a service village support the location even where some car use is expected (DL ¶20). - For reviewers: this reading of the garden exclusion departs from cases that treat rural gardens as not PDL (compare tags garden-not-pdl, residential-garden-pdl). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:previously-developed-land: pass.** residential garden outside the settlement boundary is PDL because the garden exclusion applies only within built-up areas (DL 17) - **S5(1)(d): pass.** redevelopment of PDL; benefits not substantially outweighed (DL 16-17, 24) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** one dwelling "meaningful contribution" to substantial increase in supply; supply position not stated (DL 18) - **HO5: benefit (limited weight).** self-build cannot be secured at PiP stage; appellant cited HO1/HO7 and a self-build shortfall (DL 5, 19) - **TR3: benefit.** well related to Melbourne; established pedestrian links; bus stop outside site; not isolated (DL 20) - **Annex A: neutral.** H1, SDT1, BNE5, DP1 not materially inconsistent with the Framework; weight not reduced (DL 22) - **H1/SDT1/BNE5/DP1: conflict (limited weight).** outside Melbourne settlement boundary and not BNE5 infill, but harm limited given accessibility, PDL status, contained plot (DL 9-12, 23) ## Key facts - Site is part of the side garden and curtilage of Four Winds, outside Melbourne's settlement boundary, enclosed by garden, vegetation and woodland - Melbourne is a Key Service Village; established pedestrian connections to the village centre; bus stop directly outside - Self-build description dropped because a PiP cannot secure it (DL 5) - Council's reason for refusal was spatial strategy only; land use and amount not disputed - Housing land supply position not stated in the letter ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011217 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/aca5ad75-9603-4826-802c-030f691322a0 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011217.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Elms, Woodperry Road, Beckley (self-build dwelling) - **Decision:** allowed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Nicholls - **Authority:** South Oxfordshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011224 - **Application reference:** P26/S0547/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** 1.5-storey 2-bed self-build detached house - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** L2(1)(ii) - **Development plan policies:** South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 DES6, HO1, HO8, Beckley and Stowood Neighbourhood Plan 2024 DG1, VB1 - **Main issues:** neighbour outlook and light - **Tags:** self-build, l2-efficient-use, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme, tier-2 ## Summary A self-build house in Beckley was allowed. There was no harmful loss of outlook or light to the neighbour, meeting the local plan, the neighbourhood plan and the new L2(1)(ii) living-standards proviso (DL ¶11). ## What made the difference The neighbour relationship was acceptable on the detail. Notably, the self-build label was not secured by obligation because the principle did not depend on it (DL ¶12). Contrast PINS-6009942, where the missing obligation was fatal on BNG. ## Policy findings - **L2(1)(ii): pass.** efficient use of land "provided it maintains acceptable living standards" - no harmful loss of outlook or light to Honeybear (DL 11) - **HO5: neutral.** self-build not secured by obligation; not necessary as the principle was accepted under HO1 and HO8 (DL 12) ## Key facts - Parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011224 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ec590a09-c979-4f38-8f13-94dd5cd21b84 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011224.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land west of The Charters, Greatford Road, Uffington (Stamford) - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Harris-Watkins - **Authority:** South Kesteven (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011227 - **Application reference:** S25/1912 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline residential development (access only; indicative layout for six dwellings) on a long narrow garden and paddock plot in the Uffington Conservation Area - **Homes:** 6 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), DP3(3), S4, S5(1)(j) - **Development plan policies:** South Kesteven Local Plan 2020 SP2, SP3, EN6, DE1 - **Main issues:** character and appearance and the conservation area, location - **Tags:** s3-2-split-site, s5-1-j, s4-within-settlement, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, dp3-refuse-trigger, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, overturned-officer-rec, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Outline housing (six indicated) on a long, narrow garden and paddock plot behind Main Road in the Uffington Conservation Area, refused by committee against officer advice. Dismissed. The inspector split the site under S3(2): the garden section is inside the settlement (S4) and the paddock outside it (S5), where S5(1)(j) was met. But developing the open plot would erode the legible historic linear plan form: low-end harm, of considerable importance and weight, not outweighed by public benefits. With the DP3 context conflict, the benefits were substantially outweighed. ## Issues and findings - **Heritage.** "the undeveloped nature of the site contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CA and the wider area" (DL ¶11). "the harm would be at the lower end of the spectrum, but nonetheless of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶16). "Even taken together, the public benefits would not outweigh the substantial weight to be attached to the conservation of the designated heritage asset" (DL ¶18). - **Plan weight.** "the conflict with this part of the policy is given very limited weight in accordance with the Annexe A of the Framework. Notwithstanding this, the identified character and appearance harm remains, and the requirement for development to have an acceptable impact on the character of the area is consistent with the Framework" (DL ¶24). - **S3(2) split.** "Where a development proposal falls partly within and partly outside a settlement, policies S4 and S5 of the Framework should be applied to the relevant parts" (DL ¶25). The northern section appears "visually and physically as outside the settlement" (DL ¶26). - **S5(1)(j).** "Consequently, I find the proposal accords with criteria (j)(i) and (j)(ii) of policy S5 of the Framework" (DL ¶29). The Framework has no (j)(ii); the scale and infrastructure test is part of (j)(i). - **DP3(3).** The Framework says proposals "should be refused if, without clear justification, they do not respond to their context" (DL ¶31), quoted in full. The letter does not say separately that there is no clear justification. ## Planning balance S4 for the southern part and S5(1)(j) for the northern part, with the should-be-refused carve-out (DL ¶30). HE6 harm and the DP3 conflict weighed against housing and economic and social benefits: "Even taken together, I find the benefits of approving the development proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶32). ## What made the difference The site's role in showing the historic linear plan form of the conservation area. Earlier backland consents were single dwellings set close to Main Road (DL ¶14). Members' refusal was upheld on heritage grounds, despite the officers' recommendation and the Council accepting six homes as reasonable in scale. ## Transferable points - S3(2) can split a single plot: a walled garden section inside the settlement and a paddock section outside it (DL ¶25-26). - Restrictive local infill criteria are materially inconsistent with S4, but the same policy's character requirement keeps its weight (DL ¶24). - Open rear plots that show a village's historic linear form contribute to a conservation area's significance even with limited public views (DL ¶11-14). ## Policy findings - **S3(2): pass.** split site; the garden-like southern section reads as within the settlement (S4), the paddock northern section as outside it (S5) (DL 25-26) - **S5(1)(j)(i): pass.** physically well related; six homes acceptable in scale; private treatment possible despite Anglian Water objection; letter also cites "(j)(ii)" for the scale and infrastructure clause, which is part of (j)(i) (DL 28-29) - **S5(1)(e): fail.** northern section not infilling within a group (no built form to the north and west) (DL 29) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** loss of open plot that shows the historic linear plan form; harm "at the lower end of the spectrum" but of considerable importance and weight (DL 11-16) - **HE6(4): fail.** housing, economic and social benefits do not outweigh; affordable homes and design not secured, so no weight (DL 17-18) - **DP3(3): fail.** DP3(3) quoted (arrangement of plots); conflict found; clear justification not separately reasoned (DL 31-32) - **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** SP3's infill location criteria more restrictive than S4, so very limited weight; its character requirement is consistent and keeps weight (DL 24) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 27, 32) ## Key facts - Refused by the planning committee against the officers' recommendation (DL 4) - Uffington is a Smaller Village (fourth tier of SP2); SP2's text generally allows up to three dwellings, but the Council accepted six (DL 20, 29) - Southern section is a former tennis court and vegetable garden inside stone walls; northern section a paddock (DL 10) - The Council lacks a five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 28) - Lawful residential use of the land claimed but not determinable in a s78 appeal (DL 5) - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 6) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011227 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ea0a2950-cde4-4e0c-87bf-36fb13129941 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011227.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Gravel Farm, 250 Gravel Lane, Banks - **Decision:** allowed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Gravett - **Authority:** West Lancashire (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6011231 - **Application reference:** 2026/0042/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of Barn A to a dwelling (self-build) and Barn B to an ancillary garage - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(5), HO7, L2(1), HO11, TR3 - **Development plan policies:** West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 SP1, GN1, GN3, RS1 - **Main issues:** suitable location for housing - **Tags:** s5-5-balance, substantially-outweighed, not-inappropriate, conversion, self-build, car-dependence-moderate, isolated-home-not, l2-substantial-weight, costs-award, bng-self-build-exemption, old-framework-para-cited ## Summary Conversion of two former agricultural barns in a small roadside group in the West Lancashire Green Belt into one self-build dwelling and a garage. Allowed. The Council accepted the scheme was not inappropriate, citing the 2024 para 154 exceptions. The only harm was car reliance for daily needs, and under S5(5) that did not substantially outweigh the substantial weight given to housing (HO7) and to reusing buildings (L2(1)). The Council paid partial costs for failing to disclose the appeal decisions it had relied on. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The Framework is "a material consideration of critical importance which should be taken into account from the day of publication"; the parties commented (DL ¶4). - **Green Belt.** The Council's finding under "paragraph 154 of the 2024 version" was accepted: "the proposal would not be inappropriate development" (DL ¶6). This maps to GB7(1)(b) reuse. The letter does not re-test the scheme under the 2026 wording. - **HO11 / S5(3): not isolated.** It forms part of a small group of dwellings, and "the pavement is nonetheless continuous, mainly flat … The proposed new dwelling would not therefore be remote" (DL ¶9-10). - **Accessibility.** "the pavements are well-lit and wide enough to ensure safe and comfortable movement for most pedestrians to both bus stops" (DL ¶12). But "future occupiers … would be largely reliant on the private car to meet their day-to-day needs" (DL ¶14). No conflict with TR3's rural-opportunities limb (DL ¶31). ## Planning balance S5(5): "in locations outside settlements, where development would not be inappropriate in the Green Belt … proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶29). HO7 and L2(1) each carried substantial weight. "these benefits would not be substantially outweighed by the adverse effect identified" (DL ¶32). Material considerations outweighed the development plan conflict (DL ¶33). ## What made the difference Two things. The Council conceded that the scheme was not inappropriate, which moved the case out of the VSC test and into the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance. And the walk to Banks and the bus stops was on lit, continuous pavement, so car reliance counted only as a moderate harm. Compare Branford Wells (PINS-6010313), where there was no footway and no lighting. ## Transferable points - Where Green Belt development is not inappropriate and outside a settlement, S5(5) applies the "substantially outweighed" test (DL ¶29). - L2(1) requires substantial weight to reusing vacant or underused buildings (DL ¶32). - A dwelling in a small roadside group about 1 km from a village, on continuous lit pavement, is not "isolated" under HO11/S5(3) (DL ¶9-10). - Lit, continuous pavements to bus stops count even where facilities are mostly reached by car (DL ¶12, 14). - A council that relies on unnamed appeal decisions and refuses to identify them risks a procedural costs award (costs DL ¶11-13). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): pass.** Council accepted an exception under 2024 NPPF para 154 (reuse of buildings); Inspector agreed without detailed reasoning (DL 6) - **HO11: not-engaged.** not isolated; part of a small group of dwellings ~1 km from Banks (Key Sustainable Village) via continuous, mainly flat, lit pavement (DL 7-10) - **TR3: harm.** bus every 2 hours nearby and half-hourly further away via lit pavements, but daily needs likely by car; conflict with LP SP1/GN3, no conflict with TR3(1)(e) (DL 11-15, 31) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** contribution to supply (DL 32) - **L2(1): benefit (substantial weight).** reuse of vacant, underused former agricultural buildings (DL 32) - **S5(5): pass.** not inappropriate in the GB outside settlements → approve unless substantially outweighed; locational harm did not substantially outweigh (DL 29-33) ## Key facts - Two former agricultural barns behind an existing dwelling in a small roadside group on Gravel Lane - About 1 km to Banks via continuous, flat, lit pavement; nearby bus every 2 hours (Mon-Sat); half-hourly service at Guinea Hall Lane - Self-build secured by UU, giving the BNG exemption - Partial costs award against the Council for failing to disclose the appeal decisions it relied on ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011231 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d829f11b-17ec-4bb3-8e43-bed78152afb1 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d993afbc-8fc3-457b-92bb-83f6a5188520 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011231.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 132 Cock Bank, Turves (barn to self-build bungalow) - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Marriott - **Authority:** Fenland (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6011235 - **Application reference:** F/YR25/0968/F - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of a barn used for domestic equestrian stabling and erection of a self-build bungalow linked to the equine use - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane, flood-zone-3, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** F5, S5(1)(d), S5(2), DP3(1), TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Fenland Local Plan 2014 LP3, LP12, LP14, LP16 - **Main issues:** suitable location, flood risk sequential and exception tests, character and appearance - **Tags:** s5-2-refusal-policy, flood-risk, sequential-test-fail, rural-worker-dwelling, rural-lane-no-footway, sustainable-location-fail, self-build, self-build-unsecured, five-year-supply-met, design-refusal, small-scheme, old-wording-slip, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A self-build bungalow replacing an equestrian barn on Cock Bank, Turves, in Flood Zone 3. Redeveloping the previously developed barn site fell within S5(1)(d). But no essential need for a worker to live on site was shown, so the sequential test could not be limited to the site and failed. The bungalow also harmed the rural character, and the site is car-dependent. With conflict with "should be refused" policies, the modest benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "It is effective from the day of publication. The main parties were given the opportunity to comment on the revised Framework" (DL ¶2). - **Location.** Not isolated, but "it occupies a remote position on Cock Bank, a rural road without footways and street lighting, with access to services and facilities largely reliant on private vehicles" (DL ¶5). - **Essential need: NOT SHOWN.** "it is therefore unclear as to why a permanent on-site residential presence is now necessary" (DL ¶8). - **Sequential test, F5: FAIL.** "Although the Environment Agency raises no objection, responsibility for applying the sequential and exceptions tests rests ultimately rests with the decision-maker" (DL ¶14). "Accordingly, the proposal fails the sequential test" (DL ¶14). - **Character, DP3: HARM.** "it would introduce a suburban style bungalow in a location where such a form of development would not ordinarily be expected" (DL ¶19). - **S5(1)(d): PASS.** "it falls within one of the forms of development identified by Policy S5 as being acceptable in the countryside" (DL ¶23), subject to the S5 balance. ## Planning balance S5(1) balance with S5(2). F5/F6 conflict, plus TR3 and DP3 conflict of "considerable weight"; "Overall, there is conflict with national decision-making policies which state that development proposal should be refused in specific circumstances" (DL ¶30). Benefits "modest and attract only limited weight" (DL ¶24) and were "substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶31). The letter's phrase that flood policies "can provide a strong reason for refusing the development" (DL ¶30) echoes 2024 ¶11(d)(i) footnote 7; incidental, since the S5 test is applied. ## What made the difference The sequential test. Without an essential functional need to live on site, the search area was the wider area, and the appellant offered no search. Even a pass on S5(1)(d) could not survive that. ## Transferable points - An S5(1)(d) PDL pass is only the start; F5 sequential test failure engages S5(2) (DL ¶23, ¶30-31). - The sequential-test search area can only be confined to the site where a site-specific need is shown (DL ¶13). - Environment Agency non-objection does not discharge the sequential test; that is for the decision-maker (DL ¶14). - A road without footways or lighting leaves occupiers "largely reliant on private vehicles" even if the site is not isolated (DL ¶5). - Beware: the letter lists TR3 among "should be refused" policies (DL ¶30); TR3 contains no refusal wording. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(d): pass.** undisputed redevelopment of PDL (barn with past B2/B8 and equestrian use); not S5(1)(e) infill (DL 23) - **HO11: not-engaged.** adjoins other dwellings so not isolated (DL 5); rural-worker need under local LP12 not shown - domestic equestrian use, two horses, unlawful mobile home, security alternatives (DL 6-11) - **F5: fail.** Flood Zone 3; search area not limited to the site as no essential need shown; EA no objection but test is for the decision-maker; exception test unlikely to be met (DL 12-16, 30) - **F6: fail.** conflict with F5 and F6 recorded (DL 30) - **TR3: fail (considerable weight).** remote position on Cock Bank, no footways or lighting, reliance on private vehicles (DL 5, 30) - **DP3(1): conflict (considerable weight).** U-shaped suburban bungalow replaces simple agricultural barn; fourth dwelling erodes agricultural character (DL 17-21, 30) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** five-year supply; no specific need or secured self-build; benefits "modest and attract only limited weight" (DL 24) - **S5(2): fail.** conflict with "should be refused" policies found (DL 30); benefits substantially outweighed (DL 31) ## Key facts - Council can demonstrate a five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 24) - Equestrian use restricted to domestic purposes by 2022 permission F/YR22/0029/F; horses kept since at least 2022 without residence (DL 7-8) - Self-build offered but no legal agreement (DL 10) - Local 'Elsewhere' policy (LP3/LP12) applied in full though S5(1)(d) is met; Annex A(2) not discussed (DL 4-11, 29) - Letter says flood policies "can provide a strong reason for refusing the development", citing S1 and footnote 24 (DL 30) - 2024-style phrasing - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011235 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/60ce2a36-338e-4b7d-a93b-1c7b68cc6f5f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011235.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent 8 Bedford Road, Cople - **Decision:** allowed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Allen - **Authority:** Bedford (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6011253 - **Application reference:** 26/00830/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 1-9 self-build/custom dwellings - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** open-countryside, agricultural-land-BMV - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.35 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(4), HO7, DP3, N2, TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Bedford Local Plan 2030 3S, 4S, 7S, 28S, 29, 30, 59S, Cople NP 2024-2035 RC1, NE1, SD1 - **Main issues:** suitability of location, land use and amount for PIP - **Tags:** PIP, self-build, s5-4-exceptional, s5-1-j, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, countryside-harm-outweighed ## Summary PIP for 1–9 self-build dwellings on a backland countryside plot near Cople. Allowed. The inspector found conflict with S5 (not physically well-related) and N2 (harm to rural character), but that the benefits — housing against a 3.35-year supply and an acknowledged self-build deficit — "substantially outweigh" the adverse effects, i.e. the S5(4) exceptional-circumstances test was met. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties had opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶2). - **Character — N2 / DP3: HARM.** "the proposal would extend the existing built form to the south, encroaching on open countryside, diminishing the contribution that the appeal site makes to the area's dispersed, low-density appearance and harming the rural character of the area" (DL ¶9). - **S5: CONFLICT.** "The proposal would be contrary to … Framework Policies S5 and N2 where they require development to be of a high-quality design, considering landscape setting and physically well related to an existing settlement" (DL ¶12). - **Accessibility — TR3: ACCORD.** "a sufficient range of services and facilities, including a garden centre, café and convenience store would be within walking and cycling distance. Moreover, a regular bus service between Bedford and Biggleswade would be available" (DL ¶11). - **Self-build at PIP.** "Section 2A of the 2015 Act defines development permission as either planning permission or permission in principle … Given the applicant sought permission for 'Self-build/Custom Dwellings', it would be necessary for any technical details consent application to demonstrate that the dwellings would be secured as self and custom build" (DL ¶¶17–18). ## Planning balance Benefits (up to 9 homes, 3.35-yr supply, self-build deficit, economic) given "substantial weight" (DL ¶25). Harm to character tempered: "the harm resulting from a single dwelling would be considerably less than that of nine dwellings" (DL ¶26). "Overall, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework, the benefits of the proposal would substantially outweigh the adverse effects" (DL ¶27). Conflict with the plan as a whole outweighed (DL ¶29). The letter does not name S5(4) expressly, but the wording tracks S5(4). ## What made the difference Good accessibility (walkable local shops/cafe, regular bus) meant no TR3 harm; the only harm was local character, discounted because PIP could be for as little as one dwelling. The self-build deficit plus a 3.35-year supply gave heavy weight to benefits. Contrast Findon (PINS-6006900): National Park, no footway, car-reliant — S5(4) failed. ## Transferable points - A countryside site that fails S5(1)(j)'s "physically well-related" limb can still be allowed where benefits substantially outweigh harm (S5(4)) (DL ¶27). - PIP range (1–9) lets the inspector weigh harm at the low end: "harm resulting from a single dwelling would be considerably less than that of nine" (DL ¶26). - Self-build can be effectively secured via PIP description and TDC (DL ¶¶17–18) — contrary to Findon PINS-6006900 ¶20. - A council-acknowledged self-build deficit shows the spatial strategy is not delivering (DL ¶16). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): fail.** site "physically relates most closely to the open countryside" despite Cople/Willington nearby; backland to roadside group (DL 8-9, 12) - **N2: conflict.** urbanises plot, encroaches on countryside, harms rural low-density character (DL 9, 12) - **DP3: harm.** backland position at odds with road-fronting pattern; harm from one dwelling considerably less than nine (DL 26) - **TR3: accord.** garden centre, cafe, convenience store within walking/cycling distance; regular Bedford-Biggleswade bus (DL 11, 14) - **F5: accord.** surface water risk area outside red line; FRA at TDC (DL 10, 14) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 3.35-yr supply; self-build deficit acknowledged by council; economic benefits (DL 16, 24-25) - **S5(4): pass.** "benefits of the proposal would substantially outweigh the adverse effects" (DL 27) ## Key facts - Bedford 3.35-year supply - Council accepted deficit of self-build permissions against demand - Backland scrub field behind a small roadside group, between Cople and Willington - Earlier appeal (APP/K0235/W/18/3216849) for more dwellings dismissed — numbers now substantially lower ## Sources - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Final-Decision-6011253-LAND-ADJACENT-8-BEDFORD-ROAD-COPLE-Bedford-MK44-3TP.pdf - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/2026/bedford-self-build-pip/ --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011253.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Barn at Poplar Farm, Harps Hall Road, Walton Highway - **Decision:** dismissed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Marriott - **Authority:** King's Lynn and West Norfolk (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6011256 - **Application reference:** 25/01774/CU - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of agricultural barn to repair, sale and storage of camper vans and caravans - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6, S5(1)(c), S5(2), E2 - **Development plan policies:** King's Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan 2021-2040 (2025) LP13, LP18 - **Main issues:** highway safety and road network suitability - **Tags:** highway-safety-fail, rural-business-conversion, s5-1-c-reuse, s5-2-refusal-policy, e2-substantial-weight, fallback-rejected, small-scheme ## Summary Converting a disused farm barn to a small camper-van repair and sales business fell within S5(1)(c) (re-use of an existing building), and its economic benefits got substantial weight under E2. It was nevertheless dismissed. The inspector treated failure to comply with TR6 as an S5(2) circumstance and found the benefits "substantially outweighed". The objection was highway safety on a narrow, peat-damaged lane carrying towed vehicles and low-loaders. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were invited to comment on the revised Framework (DL ¶2). - **Highway safety: FAIL (TR6).** "The nature of the vehicles associated with the proposed use would be likely to increase occasions where two-way traffic flow is impeded, requiring vehicles to wait or reverse … increase the risk of collisions" (DL ¶10). An absence of accident data "is only one indicator of highway safety" (DL ¶10). - **Fallback rejected.** "I am not persuaded that the agricultural fallback identified in the TS represents a realistic prospect" (DL ¶8). - **Conditions.** A cap on vehicles would not "directly control the frequency or nature of those movements" (DL ¶11). - **S5 balance.** S5(1)(c) applies, and "Policy E2 … states that substantial weight should be given to the economic benefits" (DL ¶19). But "the circumstances in which the benefits … are likely to be outweighed by adverse effects include situations where the development proposals would fail to comply with Policy TR6 of the Framework, a matter which attracts considerable weight" (DL ¶20). "the benefits … would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶21). ## Planning balance Under S5(1)(c)/S5(2), E2 substantial economic weight was set against considerable-weight TR6 non-compliance, conflict with TR3, and conflict with the plan as a whole. The benefits were substantially outweighed. ## What made the difference The highway authority's objection, backed by site-specific evidence (peat subsidence, narrow width, bends), and the appellant's failure to show a realistic fallback. Mitigation such as passing places, as secured for the nearby solar farm, might have changed the outcome. ## Transferable points - The inspector treated failure to comply with TR6 as an S5(2) circumstance where benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed, even for a listed S5(1) category and even with E2 substantial weight (DL ¶20-21). - A historic agricultural traffic fallback carries no weight where the building has been unused for years and the land is in other ownership (DL ¶8). - A cap on the number of vehicles stored does not control the character of movements, so it cannot cure the road-network objection (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(c): pass.** reuse of an existing building is a listed category (DL 19) - **E2: benefit (substantial weight).** E2 requires substantial weight to economic benefits of businesses investing/expanding/adapting; modest rural employment (DL 19) - **TR6: fail (considerable weight).** narrow national-speed-limit lane on peat, cracked and undulating; towing/low-loader traffic would force reversing on bends; LHA objection given significant weight (DL 4-13, 20) - **TR3: conflict.** conflict with the Framework's sustainable transport policies (DL 13, 20) - **S5(2): fail.** failure to comply with TR6 is a circumstance where benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 20-21) ## Key facts - Portal-frame barn unused c.15 years; surrounding farmland in separate ownership, so agricultural traffic fallback not realistic (DL 8) - One part-time employee, around five vans on site, c.25 sales a year, appointment-only - Harps Hall Road narrow, unlit, no footways, peat-deformed surface, restricted junction visibility - A nearby solar farm appeal (APP/V2635/W/23/3323065) distinguished because its construction traffic was temporary and mitigated (DL 15) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011256 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/0126cfd3-5ef5-4641-a501-1b97dbf8dbcc --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011256.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south of 18 Thompson Street, Chesterfield - **Decision:** allowed, 24 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Graham Wraight - **Authority:** Chesterfield (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011274 - **Application reference:** CHE/25/00866/VCON - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Appeal against obscure-glazing/restrictor condition on north-facing office windows (s73 variation of 2017 light industrial/office scheme) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM6 - **Development plan policies:** Chesterfield Borough Local Plan 2020 CLP14, CLP20 - **Main issues:** necessity of condition, overlooking - **Tags:** tier-2, conditions-appeal, living-conditions, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary An appeal against a blanket obscure-glazing condition on office windows facing a house. Allowed in effect as a split: the condition was lifted for the as-built windows, which matched an unrestricted 2017 approval, and kept for the new wide windows at the boundary. The DM6 condition tests were applied by name (DL ¶5, 8). ## What made the difference Window-by-window assessment against the 2017 baseline. ## Policy findings - **DM6: pass.** condition varied — unnecessary for as-built Office 7 windows (offset, oblique views, matched 2017 approval) but retained for wide windows next to boundary (DL 5-9) - **P3: fail.** unobscured wide windows at boundary would cause "significant harm" by overlooking (DL 8); code mapped by harvester ## Key facts - 2017 permission allowed three unrestricted full-size windows to Office 7 (DL 6) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011274 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b9457f45-90ba-4d0e-bb71-86e4187b7a58 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011274.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 115 North Road, Darlington (roller shutters) - **Decision:** allowed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Armstrong - **Authority:** Darlington (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011290 - **Application reference:** 25/01388/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective external roller shutters to two windows and a replacement shutter to the entrance door of a hot food takeaway - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1) - **Development plan policies:** Darlington Local Plan 2016-2036 DC1 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, retrospective, shopfront, limited-nppf-engagement, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Retrospective roller shutters on a Darlington takeaway were allowed. They covered only the openings, were muted in colour and were typical of the street. ## Issues and findings - **Character.** "Whilst other external roller shutters may not have been granted planning permission, nonetheless, they are prevalent and form part of the established character of the area." (DL ¶8). The shutters accord with DC1, and "the development does not conflict with the Framework and its aims for development proposals to respond to their context" (DL ¶11). ## Transferable points - Unauthorised but prevalent features can form part of the established character against which a proposal is judged (DL ¶8). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): accord.** muted shutters over openings only, common in the area; no conflict with the Framework aims for proposals to respond to context (DL 8-11) ## Key facts - External shutters prevalent in the area, whether or not permitted (DL 8) - No conditions imposed as the works are complete (DL 12) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011290 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7ba2c266-baff-44b0-8ea1-224c79422b35 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011290.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Doctors Hill, Bournheath - **Decision:** allowed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C McDonagh - **Authority:** Bromsgrove (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011301 - **Application reference:** 26/00226/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 3 to 5 bungalows and houses - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.24 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(i), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, S5(1) - **Development plan policies:** Bromsgrove District Plan 2011-2030 BDP1, BDP2, BDP4 - **Main issues:** grey belt, sustainable location, highway safety, spatial strategy - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-pass, PIP, connectivity-tool, on-demand-bus, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, substantially-outweighed, costs-refused, settlement-boundary-conflict-outweighed ## Summary Permission in principle for 3 to 5 dwellings on grey belt land outside the Bournheath settlement boundary, in the Bromsgrove Green Belt. Allowed. All the GB7(1)(g) limbs passed. Limb (iii) passed despite a twice-weekly scheduled bus and car dependence for higher-order services, on the strength of walkable village facilities, lit 30 mph lanes to Fairfield's school and shop, a county on-demand bus serving the site, and a Connectivity Tool score of 43/100 (90th percentile nationally). S5 then applied, and conflict with the settlement boundary did not substantially outweigh the benefits. The appellant's costs application was refused (local copy PINS-6011301-costs.pdf). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties commented on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL ¶5). - **GB7(1)(g)(i)/(ii): PASS** (DL ¶7-8). - **GB7(1)(g)(iii) / TR3: PASS.** "set against the size of Bournheath up to 5 dwellings would be a significant amount of movement" (DL ¶10). "Walking or cycling to Fairfield would be along a number of narrow roads although many of these have a 30 miles per hour speed limit and have street lighting with stretches of footpath. As such, some people may choose to walk or cycle this route which could be done safely" (DL ¶11). The scheduled bus "would clearly not offer a reasonable alternative to the private vehicle" (DL ¶13), but on the on-demand bus: "the proposal would utilise an existing transport option and while doubts are raised as to its longevity, with additional residents using it this would offer increased support to this existing transport infrastructure" (DL ¶15). "the Connectivity Tool … scores the location 43 out of 100 … this is in the 90th percentile nationally … in the context of the location the proposal would score relatively highly for connectivity" (DL ¶17). - **Openness not assessed.** Once a scheme is not inappropriate, "it is not necessary to consider its impact on the openness of the Green Belt, nor does the proposal need to demonstrate very special circumstances" (DL ¶18, citing *Lee Valley* [2016] EWCA Civ 404). - **Highway safety in a PIP.** Pedestrian conflict "given the locational aspect of the in-principle matter … can be considered at this stage" (DL ¶19). No harm found (DL ¶21). - **S5 in the Green Belt.** "policy S5 … does not apply to development proposals in the Green Belt except where development would not be inappropriate … In those cases, proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶24). "there are no relevant national decision making policies which state that the development should be refused" (DL ¶25). - **Settlement boundaries.** The Annex B definition of settlement adopts plan boundaries, so the site is outside the settlement (DL ¶23). Costs DL ¶7: "the new Framework has confirmed this is still a valid approach." ## Planning balance S5 "substantially outweighed" balance, applied to non-inappropriate Green Belt development. Limited positive weight to 3 to 5 dwellings, "given the scale", and limited weight to social and economic benefits. The only harm was conflict with BDP2, so the benefits were not substantially outweighed (DL ¶26-27, ¶31-32). ## What made the difference Evidence of a real, if unconventional, public transport option (on-demand bus with photographic proof of trips), together with some walkable and cyclable local facilities on lit 30 mph lanes, and a Connectivity Tool score that was high in relative terms. Compare Branford Wells (PINS-6010313), Chedworth and Henhurst Lodge (PINS-6008528, tool score 25/100), where there was no footway, no lighting and no usable bus. ## Transferable points - Five dwellings can be "significant movement" in the context of a small village, which brings TR3(1)(a) into play (DL ¶10). - A demand-responsive bus serving the site can supply the "genuine choice of transport modes", and extra users are said to support it under TR3(1)(e) (DL ¶15-16). - The Connectivity Tool score can be read against the national percentile distribution as well as in absolute terms (DL ¶17). - Grey belt schemes that are not inappropriate go into S5's "substantially outweighed" balance, and openness is then irrelevant (DL ¶18, ¶24). - Pedestrian safety on access lanes can be a locational issue at the PIP stage (DL ¶19; Costs DL ¶9). - Costs: settlement-boundary reasoning and the weight given to 3 to 5 homes against a 2.24-year supply are matters of judgement, not unreasonable behaviour (Costs DL ¶5-7). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** undisputed grey belt; no strong contribution to (a), (b) or (d); small scale does not undermine purposes across the plan area (DL 7-8) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** Council accepts supply deficient (2.24 years per costs decision) (DL 8; Costs DL 4) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** up to 5 dwellings is significant movement for Bournheath; 3 pubs and hall walkable; Fairfield school/shop reachable on 30 mph lit roads with some footway; twice-weekly bus is no alternative but county on-demand bus serves the site; Connectivity Tool 43/100 (90th percentile nationally) (DL 9-18) - **TR3: pass.** 1(b) and 1(e) met by utilising and supporting the on-demand bus; 1(c)/(d) deferred to TDC (DL 16) - **GB7(1)(g)(iv): not-engaged.** not major development (DL 8) - **S5(1): pass.** S5 applies to GB development that is not inappropriate; no S5(2) refusal policy engaged; limited-weight benefits not substantially outweighed by conflict with BDP2 settlement boundary (DL 24-27, 31-32) - **TR4: neutral.** pedestrian conflict on lanes is a locational matter considered in principle; low vehicle speeds; details for TDC (DL 19-21) ## Key facts - Supply 2.24 years; net shortfall about 2,300 homes a year to 2030 (Costs DL 4-5) - Bournheath is a "small settlement" in BDP2; site outside the settlement boundary - Scheduled bus only once a day on Tuesdays and Fridays (DL 13) - County-run app-based on-demand bus can pick up outside the site and reach Bromsgrove (DL 14-15) - Connectivity Tool 43/100, reported as the 90th percentile nationally (DL 17) - Route to Catshill is national speed limit, largely unlit, few footways; those trips would be by car (DL 12) - Costs application by appellant refused; the Council's failure to assess the on-demand bus was unreasonable but caused no wasted expense (Costs DL 8) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011301 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/643f2b0e-f950-43a5-bc10-5b2b20d174ef - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b1a87df9-7205-4072-ac93-69895578e514 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011301.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Hill House Farm (Hillhouse), Bosbury, Ledbury (extension and alterations, FUL and LBC) - **Decision:** dismissed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Hannah Guest - **Authority:** Herefordshire (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011314 - **Application reference:** P253605/L - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Internal and external alterations including single-storey west-gable extension to a Grade II c.1600 timber-framed farmhouse (linked s78 appeal 6011319, P253604/FH) - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(4), HE4(2), S5 - **Development plan policies:** Herefordshire Core Strategy 2015 LD4 - **Main issues:** special interest of listed building, public benefits, S5 balance - **Tags:** listed-building-consent, heritage-harm-decisive, cc2-not-engaged, s5-1-c-reuse, s5-2-refusal-policy, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, substantially-outweighed ## Summary These were linked planning and listed building consent appeals for a single-storey extension and internal alterations to a Grade II c.1600 Herefordshire farmhouse. Both were dismissed for moderate harm to significance, compounded by inconsistent plans. The letter is useful for two readings. CC2(2)'s substantial weight covers only works that improve the *existing* building's energy efficiency, not an efficient new extension. And a listed building extension that passes S5(1)(c) still fails the S5 "substantially outweighed" test on heritage. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Parts of the Framework relevant to the appeals were amended. The Council and the appellants were given an opportunity to comment" (DL ¶3). - **Heritage: MODERATE HARM.** The harm arose from the extension's depth and projection competing with the later additions, and from the loss of legibility of the historic entrance hall. "I find that it would result in a moderate level of harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset. I afford this matter considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶33). - **Energy efficiency: CC2(2) NOT ENGAGED.** "Policy CC2 (2) of the Framework affords substantial weight to the benefits of improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings. However, while the proposed extension may incorporate an energy efficient specification … this would not improve the energy efficiency of the existing building. Consequently, I afford this benefit limited weight" (DL ¶36). - **Private benefit.** "the desire to secure a more convenient or desirable arrangement of accommodation does not, in itself, justify development" (DL ¶39). There was no clear and convincing justification (DL ¶40). - **S5(1)(c): PASS but S5 balance FAIL.** The extension "would not result in a disproportionate increase in size compared to the existing building as a whole" (DL ¶45). But "the benefits of approving the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the identified adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework" (DL ¶49), relying on the HE6 weights and the DP3(3) refusal limb (DL ¶48). ## Planning balance Two balances were run: HE6(4) for the listed building consent, and S3(1)/S5 for the planning appeal. Harm: moderate, with substantial weight to conservation and considerable importance and weight to the harm. Benefits: modest (construction, housing stock, reversibility, energy efficiency limited). Both failed. ## What made the difference The harm to the plan form and to the later additions, and the applicant's inconsistent drawings (DL ¶30: "The onus rests with the appellants"). CC2(2) could have helped only if the works improved the existing fabric's performance, as the roof solar did at PINS-6006240. ## Transferable points - CC2(2) substantial weight is confined to improving the energy efficiency of the *existing* building. A well-insulated new extension gets limited weight (DL ¶36; same reading at PINS-6007221 ¶38). - Passing S5(1)(c) (not disproportionate) does not secure approval. Heritage harm plus DP3(3) can "substantially outweigh" under S5 (DL ¶44-49). - Private convenience carries very limited weight as a heritage public benefit (DL ¶39). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): fail (considerable weight).** moderate harm (extension competing with later western additions; loss of legibility of historic entrance-hall plan; inconsistent plans preventing assessment) not outweighed by modest benefits (DL 31-33, 41) - **CC2(2): not-engaged (limited weight).** an energy-efficient new extension "would not improve the energy efficiency of the existing building", so limited weight; window renewal unevidenced (DL 36) - **HE4(2): fail.** no clear and convincing justification; no evidence that the works are needed to keep the building in use (DL 40) - **S5(1)(c): pass.** extension not disproportionate to the existing building as a whole (DL 45) - **S5: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed by adverse effects assessed against the Framework, relying on HE6(1)/(3) and DP3(3) (DL 44-49) - **DP3(3): conflict.** cited in the S5 balance as the "should be refused … without clear justification" limb (DL 48) ## Key facts - Grade II farmhouse c.1600, timber-framed L-shaped core with later western additions of heritage interest (DL 8-13) - Two sets of plans with the same drawing numbers and discrepancies between floor plans and elevations; the inspector could not assess several elements (DL 16-19, 29-30) - Parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 3) - Great crested newt survey issue left unresolved (DL 43) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011314 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/dd365b4f-352e-46f3-9e6b-bdaddcdf01e2 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011314.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land and buildings south of Cowley Lane, Dronfield - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Graham Wraight - **Authority:** North East Derbyshire (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011330 - **Application reference:** 25/01050/OL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline (appearance, scale, layout) — demolition of equestrian buildings and replacement with one custom/self-build dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, PDL, valued-landscape - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(e), GB7(1)(f)(iii), GB6(2), AnnexB:previously-developed-land - **Development plan policies:** North East Derbyshire Local Plan 2021 SS9, SS10, SDC3, SDC12, Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan 2019 ENV1, EN2 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, PDL extent, Green Belt purposes, landscape, VSC - **Tags:** pdl-e-limb, pdl-curtilage, self-build, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, small-scheme, annex-a-inconsistent-policy, valued-landscape-removed, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary An outline scheme to replace stables with one self-build house in the North East Derbyshire Green Belt. The appeal was dismissed. The house sat on previously developed land, but its necessary garden took in paddock outside the stables' curtilage. So the site was not wholly PDL and the GB7(1)(e) exception failed. A garden is not a "material change in the use of land" under GB7(1)(f)(iii). Moderate self-build and ecology benefits did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The inspector did not seek comments because the relevant parts "have not substantively changed". Valued landscape "has been removed from the new Framework", so that part of the Council's case was not addressed (DL ¶2). - **Local plan weight.** LP SS10 is inconsistent with the Framework on Green Belt PDL. Under Annex A ¶2, materially inconsistent policies get very limited weight, so Green Belt was assessed on the Framework alone (DL ¶5). - **GB7(1)(e): FAIL.** "the Framework draws a limit on whether a site was previously developed land by reference to the curtilage of the building, as opposed to simply allowing for the inclusion of any area of land around a building" (DL ¶7). "It is logical to require that all of the appeal site must be PDL to qualify for the exception set out under Policy GB7e of the Framework, and that requirement is not met" (DL ¶9). - **GB7(1)(f)(iii): FAIL.** "caselaw has established that residential uses do not fall within this exception, and that the category is not an open ended one" (DL ¶8, citing Kingston v SSLUHC [2023] EWHC 2055 (Admin)). - **Openness.** There would be harm, "but substantial harm is a high threshold" and it was not reached (DL ¶10). - **Purposes.** There would be minor encroachment only (DL ¶13). - **Landscape.** Localised harm in the Area of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity, below the "significant harm" bar in SDC3 (DL ¶17). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Self-build and housing supply got moderate weight: "Whilst I am mindful of the weighting set out in Policy HO7 … in the absence of evidenced accommodation needs of the community being provided" (DL ¶19). Ecology also got moderate weight. Visual consolidation, traffic reduction, good design and amenity were neutral or given no weight (DL ¶20-21). The benefits "do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt" (DL ¶24). ## What made the difference The garden. Had the red line been confined to the squared-off stable curtilage, or had that curtilage been big enough for adequate amenity space, the scheme would probably have passed GB7(1)(e). Openness harm was expressly found to be below the substantial threshold. The mixed PDL/non-PDL site made it inappropriate, and moderate benefits cannot outweigh substantial Green Belt harm. ## Transferable points - PDL stops at the curtilage of the building. Functionally linked grazing land beyond is not PDL (DL ¶7). - To use GB7(1)(e), the whole site must be PDL. Essential non-PDL garden land defeats the exception (DL ¶9). - A residential garden is not a GB7(1)(f)(iii) material change of use (Kingston) (DL ¶8). - Local Green Belt PDL policies inconsistent with the 2026 Framework get very limited weight under Annex A ¶2 (DL ¶5). - HO7's "substantial weight" is not automatic. Without evidence of the needs being met, a single self-build dwelling got moderate weight (DL ¶19). - Valued landscape arguments fall away under the 2026 Framework (DL ¶2). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(e): fail.** only the stables' squared-off curtilage is PDL; garden land beyond is not; the whole site must be PDL to qualify (DL 6-9) - **GB7(1)(f)(iii): fail.** residential garden is not a "material change in the use of land" under the exception — Kingston v SSLUHC [2023] EWHC 2055 (Admin) (DL 8) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** harm to openness but below "substantial harm" threshold; minor encroachment (purpose c), potentially offset if polytunnel/hay store/glasshouse removed (DL 10, 13, 23) - **GB2: neutral.** no conflict with purposes (a), (b), (d); no fundamental conflict with (e); minor (c) encroachment (DL 13) - **LP SDC3: accord.** localised landscape harm in AMES, below "significant harm" bar; nearby approved similar stables-to-dwelling scheme (DL 14-18) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** self-build secured by UU, but little evidence on self-build supply; boost to housing; moderate not substantial weight (DL 19) - **AnnexA(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** LP SS10 (Green Belt PDL) materially inconsistent with the 2026 Framework so given very limited weight (DL 5) ## Key facts - The Framework says PDL extends only to the curtilage of a building. The fenced, squared-off area around the stables was that curtilage; the paddock beyond was not - The dwelling was sited on the PDL, but its essential garden was on non-PDL land and "could not be severed" - A neighbouring stables-to-dwelling scheme (25/00547/FL) was approved because the Council treated all of that site as PDL - Valued landscape arguments dropped because the 2026 Framework no longer refers to valued landscapes (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011330 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8c8d6ffa-194f-447a-bc3d-0eed8d967155 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011330.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 1A Hawkins Lane, Burton upon Trent - **Decision:** allowed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D J Barnes - **Authority:** East Staffordshire (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011347 - **Application reference:** P/2026/00097 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** 2.4m V-mesh security fence and gates around car sales display area - **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3 - **Development plan policies:** East Staffordshire Local Plan SP24, DP1, Design Guide SPD - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary Mesh security fence around a car sales forecourt at a busy junction. Allowed. The Inspector found "some harm" to the streetscene, but "not so significant to justify this appeal failing" in a mixed commercial area (DL ¶11). ## What made the difference Mesh construction kept views through the fence. The brewery's palisade fence opposite already set the tone of the street (DL ¶¶9–10). ## Policy findings - **DP3: pass.** some harm to streetscene but lightweight see-through mesh in mixed commercial context; brewery palisade more prominent (DL 6-12) - **HE6: pass.** no harm to nearby listed 127 Horninglow Road (DL 4-5) ## Key facts - Revised Framework "does not raise any new matters which affect the assessment" (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6fb19a6b-4c93-4cd4-a033-c75c8f1509cf - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011347 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011347.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 202 Mansfield Road, Selston - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Richard Snow - **Authority:** Ashfield (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011373 - **Application reference:** V/2026/0010 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Dormer bungalow in the garden of 202 Mansfield Road (corner of Portland Road) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), S4(2)(c), DP3(1), DP3(3) - **Development plan policies:** Ashfield Local Plan Review 2002 ST1(a)(b), HG5, Jacksdale Underwood Selston (JUS-t) Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2032 NP2 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, dp3-refuse-trigger, dp3-3-refusal, design-refusal, garden-land, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme, costs-application ## Summary A dormer bungalow in the garden of a corner-plot bungalow in Selston, Nottinghamshire. Dismissed on character grounds alone. It would sit forward of the established building lines at an open junction and cut the Portland Road sight line that the neighbourhood plan singles out. The inspector used the DP3(1) → DP3(3) → S4(2) chain to hold that the S4 benefits were substantially outweighed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The parties were invited to comment and the comments received have been taken into account" (DL ¶3). - **Character — NP2, ST1, HG5; DP3(1): FAIL.** "its prominence on the corner would detract from the open character around the junction" (DL ¶10). "the proposal would extend beyond the established building line, interrupting the line of sight along the road and would be an obtrusive incursion into the street scene" (DL ¶11). - **Hedge screening rejected.** "the long-term retention and maintenance of this hedgerow could not be assured with any certainty … it is likely that future occupiers would seek to reduce its height" (DL ¶13). That the dwelling could go nowhere else on the plot was not "a convincing reason to allow the appeal" (DL ¶13). - **Neutral matters.** No neighbour amenity, parking, tree or technical objections: "all neutral factors" (DL ¶14). ## Planning balance Plan conflict given "significant weight" as the policies are "generally consistent with the Framework in so far as it seeks well-designed places which are visually attractive and sympathetic to local character" (DL ¶19). S4 stated (DL ¶20). "Policy DP3.3 confirms that development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 of Policy DP3 and that substantial weight should be given to compliance with relevant development plan policies when assessing the design quality of proposals. In these circumstances, Policy S4.2 of the Framework confirms that the benefits of approving development are likely to be substantially outweighed by adverse effects" (DL ¶21). "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶22). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶23). ## What made the difference A site-specific townscape harm with neighbourhood-plan backing: the NP expressly names Portland Road's sight lines as defining character, and the dwelling would sit forward of the building line on a prominent, open corner. Once DP3(1) failed without clear justification, DP3(3) made it a "should be refused" policy, and S4(2)(c) turned that into a presumptive S4 failure. The benefits of one family home were not weighed as substantial. A dwelling set back in line with No 202 would have avoided the DP3(1) failure. ## Transferable points - A DP3(1) conflict without clear justification engages DP3(3) ("should be refused"), which via S4(2) makes the benefits "likely to be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶21). A clean template for design refusals within settlements. - Neighbourhood-plan character descriptions (sight lines, building lines) carry significant weight as Framework-consistent design policy (DL ¶¶8, 16, 19). - Screening by existing hedges on a small plot is discounted, as future occupiers will cut them back (DL ¶13). - "Nowhere else on the plot to put it" is not a justification (DL ¶13). - Unevidenced council precedents get no positive weight (DL ¶15). - Drafting note: the S4 "benefits" are only said to "attract weight" (DL ¶17); HO7 and L2(1)(d) substantial weight are not mentioned. ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): fail.** siting forward of building lines on a prominent corner breaks the NP-identified sight line along Portland Road and the open junction character (DL 10-12, 21) - **DP3(3): fail.** conflict with DP3(1) without clear justification → refuse; substantial weight to compliance with plan design policies (DL 21) - **S4(2)(c): fail.** not cited by limb; DL 21 says "In these circumstances, Policy S4.2 … confirms that the benefits … are likely to be substantially outweighed" — i.e. DP3(3) is a 'should be refused' policy (DL 21) - **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 22) - **ALPR ST1, HG5; JUS-t NP2: conflict (significant weight).** plan policies consistent with Framework aim of well-designed places sympathetic to local character (DL 16, 19) - **HO7: benefit.** not cited by code; family dwelling on a small site in a settlement plus construction jobs "attract weight", weight unquantified (DL 17) ## Key facts - Garden of a set-back bungalow at a prominent junction; open space opposite on Portland Road (DL 5-7) - Neighbourhood plan names Portland Road as an example of long sight lines and says bungalows do not reflect Selston character (DL 8) - Split-level 3-level dwelling sited forward of No 202, closer to both frontages; garden to front, parking to rear (DL 9) - Appellant relied on boundary hedge screening, part of which would be removed; retention not assured (DL 13) - Council precedents given no weight for lack of detail (DL 15); costs application made (separate decision) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011373 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/0febe950-2178-4d5e-8cde-cfe84e722f29 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/73b78f23-7d6d-4050-add6-b31bfed60387 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011373.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land to rear of 34-40 Hillcrest Road, Walthamstow - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Whitfield - **Authority:** Waltham Forest (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6011375 - **Application reference:** 260010 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Single-storey backland bungalow (2-bed, car-free) with cycle and bin storage - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4), S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D4, D5, T4, Waltham Forest Local Plan Part 1 2024 Policies 6, 8, 53, 60, 61, 66 - **Main issues:** highway safety, BNG, character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, bng-metric-missing, obligation-unsecured, backland, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary This was a resubmitted backland bungalow behind Walthamstow maisonettes. It was acceptable on character, following the 2025 appeal, but dismissed on highway safety and BNG. Nothing could stop occupiers parking in the private alley turning head. That would force cars to reverse onto a congested street, conflicting with TR6's "unacceptable impact on highway safety" test (DL ¶19). The statutory biodiversity metric was never submitted either (DL ¶25). Under S4, one home's limited benefit was "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶44). ## What made the difference Missing paperwork. There was no completed UU (car-free, SAMM, other obligations), and conditions requiring one were refused as not exceptional (DL ¶16, 41). There was also no metric spreadsheet (DL ¶24-25). The design had already been accepted. With a UU and the metric, the only remaining issue would have been parking in the alley, which the inspector found could not be controlled because it was outside the red line (DL ¶15). ## Policy findings - **TR6(4): fail (significant weight).** no mechanism to stop parking in the private alley turning head, or to secure car-free status; reversing onto a parked-up street "unacceptable impact on highway safety" (DL 12-19) - **S4(1): fail.** one dwelling's limited benefits substantially outweighed by highway harm and missing BNG metric (DL 42-44) - **DP3: pass.** backland bungalow acceptable for consistency with 2025 appeal APP/U5930/W/25/3365385 (DL 29-34) ## Key facts - PTAL 1b-2, CPZ with high parking stress; no completed s106 or UU for car-free, SAMM or other obligations (DL 7, 16, 40) - No statutory biodiversity metric spreadsheet submitted; DMPO Art 7(1A) minimum information missing, which cannot be cured by condition (DL 23-25) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011375 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9faee6ba-14e9-46cf-a706-0045f7b7ffc0 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011375.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 238 Caulfield Road, East Ham (two children's homes) - **Decision:** allowed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Whitfield - **Authority:** Newham (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6011381 - **Application reference:** 26/00254/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of family house to C2 children's home for 3 and conversion of garage to separate solo children's home - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO1, Newham LP H3, Newham LP H4 - **Development plan policies:** Newham Local Plan 2018 S1, H1, H3, H4, SP1, SP3, SP8, London Plan H8, H12, D3, D4 - **Main issues:** family housing, specialist need, living conditions, noise, character - **Tags:** childrens-home, family-housing-loss, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary Conversion of an East Ham family house, and its garage, into two children's homes was allowed. The loss of a family dwelling conflicted with policy H4 but was equally balanced by meeting an identified need for specialist placements (DL ¶11, ¶39-40). ## What made the difference Evidence from the council's own commissioner that the homes met local placement priorities (DL ¶14). The inspector treated HO1's recognition of "different groups", including looked-after children, as supporting both sides of the balance (DL ¶8, ¶21, ¶40). ## Policy findings - **HO1: benefit.** specialist C2 homes meet the commissioner-confirmed need for looked-after children; the inspector aligns this with HO1 (DL 14, 21, 40) - **HO1: harm.** loss of a family-sized dwelling contrary to H4 (DL 11) - **P3: pass.** acceptable facilities for occupants and no noise harm to neighbours (DL 24, 31) - **DP3: pass.** no harm to character (DL 37) ## Key facts - Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 4) - Council's own children's commissioner supported the need (DL 14) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011381 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/068bab25-aaec-4393-a6f4-a873d37a1925 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011381.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 1 Broomwood Road, Orpington - **Decision:** allowed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P D Sedgwick - **Authority:** Bromley (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6011388 - **Application reference:** 25/03584/FPA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use to 8-bedroom HMO (sui generis) from existing 6-person shared house, hardstanding, cycle and refuse storage - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** Bromley Local Plan 2019 Policies 4, 9, 37, London Plan 2021 D3, D14 - **Main issues:** character of area, neighbour noise and disturbance - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, living-conditions, no-framework-reference ## Summary A 6-person shared house enlarged to an 8-person HMO. Allowed. Two more occupants in a detached end-of-street house next to a McDonald's would not harm character or neighbours. The letter never mentions the National Planning Policy Framework. It is decided wholly on the development plan, with no reason given. ## What made the difference The existing activity context and the detached building. An occupancy cap and a management plan were imposed by condition. ## Policy findings - **Policy 9 / 37 (Bromley LP): accord.** two extra occupants; end-of-street detached house next to a McDonald's drive-through; no HMO overconcentration evidence (DL 8-16) ## Key facts - Earlier certificate of lawfulness for 6-person HMO refused (22/03431/ELUD), not appealed (DL 2) - Occupancy capped at 8 by condition (DL 1) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011388 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/efc0ba62-ea59-4bcb-91c1-40b924cd8c64 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011388.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 1 Rothbury, Sunderland - **Decision:** dismissed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Clark - **Authority:** Sunderland (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011401 - **Application reference:** 25/02619/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use from dwelling (C3) to children's home (C2) for up to three children - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3(2)(b), TR4(1)(e) - **Development plan policies:** Sunderland UDP 1998 EN10, Core Strategy 2015-2033 H1, BH1, HS1, SP7, ST2, ST3 - **Main issues:** noise and disturbance, parking and highway safety - **Tags:** tier-2, childrens-home, specialist-housing, best-interests-of-children, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Three-child children's home in a semi-detached house on a quiet estate. Dismissed for noise and disturbance from uncapped staffing, and for parking with no independently accessible spaces. Parties were consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶6), but the reasoning is entirely plan-based, and no HO7 or HO9 weight is recorded for the specialist provision. Contrast PINS-6010861, where HO7 substantial weight carried a children's home. ## What made the difference Staffing "subject to change depending on … the needs of the children" could not be capped by condition (DL ¶¶11–13). Parking displaced near a junction would be "an unsafe environment for the children in care" (DL ¶25). ## Policy findings - **P3(2)(b): fail.** uncapped staffing linked to children's needs → comings and goings beyond a large family on quiet estate (plan policies; no Framework policy named) (DL 9-15) - **TR4(1)(e): fail.** 5 tandem/overlapping spaces without independent access; displacement to on-street near junction (plan ST2/ST3) (DL 16-20) - **HO7: neutral.** no weight expressly given to specialist housing benefit despite consulting on 2026 Framework; PSED and best interests of the child applied (DL 24-26) ## Key facts - Management plan says staffing varies with children's needs, so a "typically 2 staff" limit was not enforceable (DL 11-13) - Three appellant comparators (APP/X1735/W/25/3367889, APP/P4605/W/25/3371002, APP/A1530/W/25/3374737) distinguished on staffing and public transport ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e7dbd0f6-06fb-4188-b45d-1ae4e2db323f - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011401 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011401.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 236 Hawkes Mill Lane, Coventry - **Decision:** allowed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Sibley - **Authority:** Coventry (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011410 - **Application reference:** PL/2025/0001991/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle (stage 1) for a single dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g), TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Coventry Local Plan 2017 GB1, emerging Coventry Local Plan Review GB1 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development in Green Belt, sustainable location - **Tags:** PIP, grey-belt-accepted, not-inappropriate, sustainable-location-pass, hdt-below-75, small-scheme, psed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Permission in principle for one house on an enclosed plot at Hawkes End, Coventry Green Belt. Allowed as not inappropriate under GB7(1)(g): grey belt, unmet need via the Housing Delivery Test, and a TR3-compliant location. The reasoning mirrors PINS-6009837 and the location finding is similarly brief. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were given the opportunity to comment on the implications of the new Framework" (DL ¶3). - **Grey belt: PASS.** "These features enclose the site and create hard boundaries" (DL ¶8); "I consider that the appeal site is grey belt land" (DL ¶10). - **(g)(ii): PASS** via the published HDT (DL ¶11–12). - **(g)(iii) / TR3: PASS.** "I recognise that the section closest to the appeal site is not fully street lit. Even so, much of the route is lit and it would provide a realistic pedestrian option for future occupiers" (DL ¶14). "day-to-day travel would not be wholly dependent on the private car" (DL ¶15). - **Earlier decision.** The 1979 appeal "was made under a different national policy context and before the current grey belt provisions" (DL ¶17). ## Planning balance None. Not inappropriate; complies with the development plan (DL ¶18, ¶22). S5(5) not mentioned. ## What made the difference Hard boundaries (houses and a lane) made the plot grey belt, and the published HDT result supplied fn41 need. The location limb passed without measured distances or bus data. ## Transferable points - A plot enclosed by houses and a lane, with open land beyond the lane, does not strongly contribute to purpose (a) (DL ¶8). - Pre-grey-belt appeal decisions on the same land carry limited weight (DL ¶17). - Weak authority on (g)(iii): "not be wholly dependent on the private car" accepted without distances or bus frequencies (DL ¶14–15). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** plot enclosed by row of houses and Ted Pitts Lane; no strong contribution to (a), (b), (d) (DL 7-10) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** not fundamentally undermine; letter also considers encroachment (c) and urban regeneration (e) within this limb (DL 10) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** fn41 via published HDT below 75% (figure not stated) despite council's ONS challenge (DL 11-12) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** footpath to Allesley, closest section not fully lit, "much of the route is lit"; cycling practicable; "Nearby bus services"; no distances or frequencies; "not be wholly dependent on the private car" (DL 13-15) - **TR3: pass.** accords (DL 15) - **GB7(1)(c): not-engaged.** limited infilling / ribbon development not decided as (g) already met (DL 16) - **DM4: neutral (limited weight).** emerging plan review at examination, limited weight (DL 4) - **HE9: neutral.** Brownshill Green CA setting preserved (DL 19) ## Key facts - Near-identical reasoning to PINS-6009837 (same inspector, same lane, previous day) - 1979 appeal decision on the site given limited weight as pre-grey-belt policy (DL 17) - Appellant's accessible-accommodation needs noted under PSED but not needed (DL 20) - Parties given the opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011410 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/07895ffa-acef-4a10-bd2a-e6e13059420f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011410.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to Salisbury Cottages, Hadfield, Glossop - **Decision:** dismissed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Buxton - **Authority:** High Peak (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011421 - **Application reference:** HPK/2026/0021 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Detached dwelling on sloping land in the rear curtilage of 124-126 Station Road - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** L2(1)(d)(ii), DP3 - **Development plan policies:** High Peak Local Plan 2016 S1, EQ5, EQ6 - **Main issues:** neighbour privacy, future occupier amenity, biodiversity net gain, character and appearance - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, l2-1-d-curtilage, l2-substantial-weight, living-conditions, backland, bng-exemption-not-shown, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme, drafting-slip ## Summary A detached house on a sloping piece of rear curtilage behind frontage houses in Hadfield, inside the settlement boundary. Dismissed. The raised siting would overlook neighbours despite 2 m fences, the new garden would itself be overlooked, and the claimed BNG exemption was not shown. Character was acceptable. The inspector gave L2(1)(d)/S4/L3 substantial weight but found the scheme failed L2(1)(d)(ii) and DP3. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The parties were given the opportunity to comment on the implications of the revised Framework for the appeal; however, no comments were received" (DL ¶2). - **Neighbour privacy — EQ6, L2(1)(d)(ii), DP3: FAIL.** "the site's higher position relative to neighbouring properties would increase the opportunities for overlooking beyond those typically associated with the separation distances involved" (DL ¶7). A 2 m fence's "effectiveness would be diminished by the difference in ground levels" (DL ¶8). Conflict with "Policy L2(1)(d)(ii) of the Framework, which requires development of this nature to maintain living standards for neighbours" (DL ¶10). - **Future occupiers — EQ6, L2(1)(d)(ii), DP3: FAIL.** The garden "would be subject to a significant degree of actual and perceived overlooking … would fail to provide the quality of private amenity reasonably expected to serve a dwelling" (DL ¶11). - **BNG — S1, EQ5: FAIL.** "a material proportion of the site comprises modified grassland" (DL ¶13). "No biodiversity metric, habitat assessment or other ecological evidence has been submitted … Nor has sufficient evidence been provided to substantiate the claimed exemption" (DL ¶14). - **Character — EQ6, L2(1)(d)(i), DP3: PASS.** "experienced principally within the lane itself rather than the wider street scene … any adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area would be limited" (DL ¶17); "no conflict with Policy L2(1)(d)(i) or Policy DP3" (DL ¶18). ## Planning balance "the proposal attracts support in principle from Policies S4 and L3 of the Framework. These are benefits to which Policy L2(1)(d) requires substantial weight to be given" (DL ¶21). "Nevertheless, I attach greater weight to the identified conflict with the development plan … It would also conflict with the Framework when read as a whole, including Policies L2(1)(d)(ii) and DP3" (DL ¶25). "the support provided by Policies S4, L3 and L2(1)(d) does not indicate that planning permission should be granted" (DL ¶26). ## What made the difference Topography. The plot sits above its neighbours, so standard separation distances and 2 m fences did not protect privacy in either direction. That is a direct L2(1)(d)(ii) failure, and it is also the qualifying condition for the L2(1)(d) weight in the first place. The unsupported BNG exemption claim (grassland, not hardstanding) was a separate, freestanding failure. A single-storey design with no rear first-floor windows, plus a BNG metric, might have succeeded, since character was accepted. ## Transferable points - L2(1)(d)(ii) is applied both to neighbours and to the future occupiers' own external amenity and privacy (DL ¶¶10, 12). - Level differences can defeat boundary fencing as privacy mitigation; separation distances are not determinative on sloping sites (DL ¶¶7–9). - A backland dwelling not visible from the principal street frontage can satisfy L2(1)(d)(i) even though it departs from the frontage pattern (DL ¶¶17–18). - A claimed BNG de minimis/hardstanding exemption needs evidence; modified grassland on site defeats it, and the lack of a metric is a standalone reason (DL ¶¶13–14). - Drafting slip: the S4 "substantially outweighed" test is never expressly applied. The inspector "attach[es] greater weight" to the conflicts (DL ¶25), which is ordinary-balance language, and then concludes S4 support does not indicate permission (DL ¶26). An appellant could argue the wrong threshold was used. ## Policy findings - **L2(1)(d)(ii): fail.** elevated siting overlooks neighbours' gardens and windows despite 2 m fences; the new garden is overlooked from higher and lower ground (DL 10, 12) - **DP3: conflict.** cited alongside L2(1)(d)(ii) for both amenity issues; no conflict on character (DL 10, 12, 18) - **L2(1)(d)(i): pass.** largely screened from principal street frontage; limited character harm (DL 17-18) - **L2(1)(d): benefit (substantial weight).** additional dwelling and effective use of residential plot; with S4 and L3 (DL 21, 25) - **S4(1): fail.** S4 support "does not indicate that planning permission should be granted"; substantially-outweighed test not expressly stated (DL 25-26) - **HPLP EQ6: conflict.** neighbour and future-occupier amenity (DL 10, 12) - **HPLP S1, EQ5: conflict.** BNG exemption claimed (hardstanding) not shown; modified grassland, no metric or baseline (DL 13-14) ## Key facts - Sloping rear-curtilage plot, accessed by a lane off Salisbury Street, inside Hadfield settlement boundary (DL 5, 15) - Proposed 2 m fences ineffective because of level differences; first-floor rear windows give oblique views into gardens of 28-30 Salisbury Street (DL 8-9) - Appellant claimed BNG exemption as hardstanding; the site was materially modified grassland and no metric was submitted (DL 13-14) - No comments received from the parties on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) - Earlier refusal HPK/2018/0353; a 2006 precedent at 19 Curtis Grove given limited weight (DL 19-20) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011421 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c860886d-1968-4f02-87e1-76f75e42a95f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011421.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 36-40 Clayton Street, Newcastle upon Tyne (scaffold shroud advert) - **Decision:** allowed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Hartley - **Authority:** Newcastle upon Tyne (North East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011428 - **Application reference:** 2024/1319/01/ADV - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Temporary scaffold-mounted 1:1 montage shroud with central advertising banner on a Grade II listed terrace (retrospective) - **Site context:** conservation-area, listed-building-setting, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6 - **Development plan policies:** Newcastle and Gateshead Core Strategy and Urban Core Plan 2015 DM22 - **Main issues:** amenity - **Tags:** advertisement, amenity-only-regulations, he6-not-applied-to-adverts, scaffold-shroud, listed-building, transitional-no-consultation, retrospective ## Summary A temporary scaffold shroud advert on a Grade II listed Regency terrace in central Newcastle was allowed for 12 months. The inspector expressly did not apply HE6(4)-(6) or s66 to advertisement consent. Heritage was dealt with only as part of amenity, assessed against the scaffolded building as the baseline. ## Issues and findings - **Framework and plan.** Under the Regulations, "although I have taken the development plan into account and the National Planning Policy Framework … they have not been decisive" (DL ¶4). "for the avoidance of doubt, I have not applied Policy HE6 (4)-(6) of the Framework as these are not relevant in the context of the Regulations" (DL ¶5). - **Transition.** "While the referencing has changed, the substance of the Framework in relation to the issues in this appeal are not affected" (the second paragraph numbered 2 in the letter). - **Baseline.** Case law supports "the baseline for assessing the impact of an advertisement on a listed building to be not the unfettered façade of the building, but the existing condition and scaffold shroud" (DL ¶6). - **Amenity: no harm.** "Due to the temporary nature of the advertisement, I am satisfied that it does not cause harm to the Grade II listed building … nor does it cause irreversible change to the townscape" (DL ¶12). ## Planning balance None. The decision was on amenity and public safety only. ## What made the difference The ongoing, evidenced need for repair scaffolding, and a 1:1 image of the facade on the shroud. Without active works, Historic England's view that the advert would harm the terrace would have prevailed (DL ¶11). ## Transferable points - HE6(4)-(6) and the s66 duty are not applied to advertisement consent. Heritage enters only through "amenity" (DL ¶5). - For shroud adverts, the baseline is the scaffolded building (Southwark v SSHCLG & Blow Up Media [2025] EWHC 1556) (DL ¶6). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): not-engaged.** HE6(4)-(6) "not relevant in the context of the Regulations"; s66 LBCA duty also not applied to advert consent; listed status considered within amenity (DL 5, preliminary para 1) - **HE9: pass.** temporary shroud during necessary repairs preserves CA and listed terrace significance; baseline is the scaffolded building, not the clean facade (DL 6, 11-13) ## Key facts - Shroud already displayed beyond a previous 12-month temporary consent; repairs complex (structural report) - Southwark LBC v SSHCLG & Blow Up Media [2025] EWHC 1556 relied on for the scaffold baseline (DL 6) - Consent limited to 12 months or scaffold removal, per DM22 (DL 10) - No consultation on new Framework - referencing has changed, the substance not affected (preliminary para 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011428 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/bc80be5e-7a3e-46fc-923b-2a733786cc04 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011428.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to Waterloo Court Health and Wellbeing Hub, Waterloo Cross, Uffculme - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Cooper-Young - **Authority:** Mid Devon (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6011431 - **Application reference:** 26/00151/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for up to 3 dwellings - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.4 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1), TR3, CC2 - **Development plan policies:** Mid Devon Local Plan 2020 S1, S2, S3, S13, S14 - **Main issues:** suitability of location - **Tags:** PIP, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, housing-shortfall, not-isolated, substantially-outweighed, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, s5-limb-not-identified ## Summary This was a PiP for up to three homes on a field beside a rural health hub at Waterloo Cross, about 2 km from Uffculme. The council could show only 2.4 years' supply. The site was not isolated, but it was outside any settlement. The inspector applied S5's "substantially outweighed" test without identifying which S5(1) category, if any, applied. Car dependence under TR3 and CC2 was given substantial weight and outweighed the limited housing benefit. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were consulted "in the interest of natural justice" (DL ¶4). - **Not isolated.** The site is next to a health hub, pub, residential caravan park, dwellings, farm buildings and a garden centre café, "Accordingly, I find the appeal site is not isolated" (DL ¶8), despite LP S14 text treating anywhere outside a boundary as isolated (DL ¶7). - **Station, S5(1)(h): FAIL.** "Tiverton Railway Station is not within a reasonable walking distance ... there are no pedestrian footways between the appeal site and the station. The proposal is therefore not physically well-related to the station" (DL ¶10). - **Walking, TR3: FAIL.** The PROW "provides more of a recreational pedestrian link through unlit and unpaved fields and country lanes, rather than a direct or formalised route" (DL ¶11). "Although there is a footway along the B3181 to Uffculme, much of this is unlit and vehicular traffic subject to the national speed limit ... I am unconvinced that a walk of approximately 2km ... would be a realistic or attractive alternative" (DL ¶12). - **Buses.** "I have no substantive evidence relating to the timetables, or frequency ... I cannot be certain that public transport would be a realistic alternative" (DL ¶13). - **Cycling, short car trips and lifestyle.** Cycling got limited weight (DL ¶15). "Whilst services and facilities may be reached by relatively short car journeys, this does not negate the fact that future occupiers would remain heavily dependent on the private car" (DL ¶16). EVs and homeworking "are not persuasive factors" (DL ¶17). ## Planning balance This was the S5 balance (DL ¶22). The benefits were up to 3 homes against a 2.4-year supply, with small economic and social gains, "at most attract limited weight" given "a potential only one dwelling may be provided" (DL ¶23). "future occupiers would be reliant on the private motor vehicle ... contrary to Framework policy TR3 and CC2 to which I attribute substantial weight. As a result, the adverse effects ... substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶24). ## What made the difference The quality of the walking route and the absence of bus evidence. A 2 km walk was not in itself decisive. Unlit national-speed road footway, a field-path alternative and no timetable data together meant no genuine choice. The inspector did not test S5(1)(j), although supply was 2.4 years. Being physically well-related to an existing settlement was plainly not arguable at 2 km from Uffculme. An appellant here would need timetable evidence and a lit, continuous route. ## Transferable points - "Not isolated" (S5(3)) does not mean sustainable. A cluster of non-residential uses can defeat isolation without supplying day-to-day services (DL ¶8-9). - A footway that is unlit beside national-speed traffic, over about 2 km, is not a realistic walking route (DL ¶12). A PROW across fields is recreational, not a service route (DL ¶11). - Without timetable and frequency evidence, nearby bus stops carry no weight (DL ¶13). - Short car journeys still count as car dependence (DL ¶16). EVs and homeworking do not make a location sustainable (DL ¶17). - TR3 and CC2 conflict got *substantial* weight and, against a 2.4-year supply, substantially outweighed three homes (DL ¶24). - In PiP appeals where "up to" a number of homes is proposed, the inspector may weigh the minimum (one) (DL ¶23). ## Policy findings - **S5(1): fail.** outside any settlement; no S5(1) limb identified; adverse effects under TR3/CC2 substantially outweigh limited benefits (DL 22-24) - **TR3: fail (substantial weight).** Uffculme about 2km via unlit PROW across fields or unlit B3181 footway at national speed limit; no bus timetable evidence; heavy car reliance (DL 9-16, 24) - **CC2: fail (substantial weight).** sustainable patterns of movement not prioritised (DL 24) - **S5(1)(h): fail.** Tiverton Parkway station not within reasonable walking distance, no footways, not physically well related (DL 10) - **S5(3): not-engaged.** not isolated - next to health hub, pub, caravan park, dwellings, garden centre; LP text treating everything outside boundaries as isolated not followed (DL 7-8) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** at most limited weight - up to 3 homes, possibly only one (DL 23) ## Key facts - Council supply 2.4 years (DL 21) - Uffculme about 2km; B3181 footway largely unlit with traffic at national speed limit; PROW alternative across unlit, unpaved fields (DL 11-12) - No bus timetable or frequency evidence despite nearby stops (DL 13) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011431 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9aa08ddf-ad70-4950-a0de-ab76c0db4d73 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011431.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 7 Grayling Close, Canning Town (solo children's home) - **Decision:** allowed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Whitfield - **Authority:** Newham (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6011432 - **Application reference:** 26/00517/COU - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of dwelling to C2 children's home for a single child with staff overnight - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO1, Newham LP H3 - **Development plan policies:** Newham Local Plan 2018 S1, H3, H4, INF2, London Plan H10, H12, T1-T6 - **Main issues:** family housing, specialist accommodation strategy, sustainable travel - **Tags:** childrens-home, fallback, family-housing-loss, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary A solo children's home in Canning Town was allowed. The loss of a family home was neutralised by an LDC fallback for C3(b) care use, and the scheme met identified need (DL ¶24, ¶37-40). ## What made the difference The LDC fallback, given substantial weight (DL ¶39). It is the same inspector and the same reasoning as PINS-6011381, two days earlier. ## Policy findings - **HO1: benefit.** solo home meets commissioning priorities; aligns with HO1 on the needs of looked-after children (DL 15, 24) - **HO1: harm.** loss of family dwelling contrary to H4, but no greater than the LDC fallback (C3(b)), which attracts substantial weight (DL 12, 37-39) - **TR3: pass.** no parking objection; cycle storage by condition; travel plan unnecessary (DL 28-32) ## Key facts - LDC for C3(b) care use is a genuine fallback that would equally remove the family home (DL 37-39) - Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011432 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fcc2cbf3-925e-4596-87e2-d21364e5b650 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011432.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 2B Minehead Avenue, Withington, Manchester - **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Mee - **Authority:** Manchester (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6011458 - **Application reference:** 143665/FO/2025 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of a semi-detached pair and replacement with 7 apartments - **Homes:** 7 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 7.5 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), S4(2) - **Development plan policies:** Places for Everyone Joint DPD 2022-2039 JP-H1, JP-H3, Manchester Core Strategy 2012 SP1, DM1, Manchester Residential Quality Guidance SPD 2017 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, neighbour noise and disturbance, outlook and light to No 2, amenity space for future occupiers - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, five-year-supply-met, design-refusal, living-conditions, amenity-noise, small-scheme, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary Demolition of a run-down semi-detached pair in an inter-war Manchester suburb and replacement with a block of 7 flats with a rear parking court. Dismissed. The block would harm the street's character, bring parking-court and communal-garden noise to the back of neighbouring gardens, overshadow the corner house next door, and give future occupiers no private outdoor space. Under S4 those harms "substantially outweigh" 7 homes, even though the inspector noted S4 applies whatever the supply position (7.5 years here). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were provided with an opportunity to comment. I have had regard to the 2026 version of the Framework" (DL ¶3). - **Character — plan policies (DP3 by substance): HARM.** "The proposed front gable, incorporating a window, together with the two front dormers give the building the clear appearance of a 3-storey structure, at odds with the prevailing character of the area" (DL ¶8). Removing the poor-condition houses "does not justify redevelopment with a scheme that is inconsistent with the street scene" (DL ¶10). Flatted precedents at Minehead Court were in "materially different contexts" (DL ¶9). - **Neighbour noise: HARM.** Garden activity "would differ materially from the more frequent vehicle movements, arrivals and departures associated with the proposed parking area" (DL ¶12); combined with a communal space for "up to 22 people" this "would lead to an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance" (DL ¶13). Off-street parking benefit did not outweigh it (DL ¶14). - **Outlook and light to No 2: HARM.** Appellant's shadow study showed "all of the rear garden remaining in shadow around the equinox" (DL ¶17). - **Future occupiers' amenity: HARM.** "no apartment would benefit from private external amenity space, and the proposed communal areas would be fragmented and limited in size" (DL ¶19). "the use of public and private open space differs. Private outdoor space serves a distinct function" (DL ¶20). - **Neutral factors.** No flood, heritage or privacy harm: "an absence of harm in these respects is a neutral factor" (DL ¶24). ## Planning balance S4 balance. Harms given "considerable weight"; plan policies "broadly align with the objectives of the Framework" (DL ¶25). "irrespective of the Council's housing land supply position, the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out within Policy S4 of the Framework is engaged given the appeal site's location within a settlement" (DL ¶26). Benefits (7 homes, efficient use of land, energy efficiency, asbestos removal, adaptable design) "significant weight" given "the modest scale of the development" (DL ¶27). "mindful of Framework Policy S4(2), the adverse effects of the development would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶28). Plan-led conclusion under s38(6) (DL ¶29). ## What made the difference Accumulation of four distinct harms on a single plot: a block that read as three storeys and broke the building line in a very uniform inter-war street; a new parking court behind neighbours' quiet gardens; the appellant's own shadow study proving the corner neighbour's garden would be in full shade at equinox; and no private outdoor space for flats likely to house families. Benefits were capped at "significant" (not "substantial") weight in a council with 7.5 years' supply. A scheme that held the building line, kept a two-storey read and put parking to the front would likely have passed S4. ## Transferable points - S4 is engaged within settlements regardless of the five-year supply position (DL ¶26). - Benefits of a small flatted scheme can be weighted at "significant" rather than "substantial" where supply is healthy (7.5 yrs) and the scale modest (DL ¶¶26–27); HO7 is not named. - Several amenity/design harms together, each under compliant local policy, can meet the "substantially outweighed" S4 threshold (DL ¶¶25, 28). - An appellant's own daylight/shadow study can supply the evidence of harm (DL ¶17). - Nearby parks do not substitute for private amenity space for family-sized flats (DL ¶20). - Poor condition of existing buildings is not a reason to accept a harmful replacement (DL ¶10). - Drafting note: S4(2) is invoked (DL ¶28) without identifying which limb applies; DP3/L2(1)(d)(ii) are not cited by code — the harms were run through development plan policies. ## Policy findings - **S4(1): fail.** presumption engaged "irrespective of" 7.5-yr supply because site is within a settlement; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 26, 28) - **DP3: conflict (considerable weight).** not cited by code; forward of building line, apparent 3 storeys, excessive depth, cramped; plan policies JP-H1/SP1/DM1 "broadly align" with Framework (DL 8, 11, 25) - **L2(1)(d)(ii): conflict (considerable weight).** not cited by code; noise from rear parking court and communal garden, overshadowing/outlook to No 2, no private amenity space for flats (DL 13, 17, 20, 25) - **HO7: benefit (significant weight).** 7 dwellings, effective use of underused land, energy efficiency, asbestos removal; "significant" (not substantial) weight given modest scale (DL 27) - **Manchester CS SP1, DM1; PfE JP-H1: conflict (considerable weight).** character, neighbour amenity, future-occupier amenity (DL 11, 15, 18, 22) ## Key facts - Agreed 5-year supply; confirmed current supply 7.5 years (DL 26) - Inter-war semi-detached street with strong rhythm; replacement block projecting forward of building line with front gable and dormers reading as 3 storeys (DL 5, 7-8) - Rear parking court and communal garden for up to 22 occupiers next to spacious private rear gardens (DL 12-13) - Appellant's own shadow study showed all of No 2's rear garden in shadow around the equinox (DL 17) - ~120 sqm fragmented communal landscaping, no private amenity for any flat; proximity of public parks did not compensate (DL 19-20) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011458 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1dc140da-038e-4944-ba53-e4b8f5990027 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011458.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land rear of Walsgrave Club, 146 Woodway Lane, Coventry - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Somers - **Authority:** Coventry (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011467 - **Application reference:** PL/2025/0002077/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of club car park to car wash with canopies, container and external works (part retrospective) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3(2) - **Development plan policies:** Coventry Local Plan DE1, JE5 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions (noise) - **Tags:** tier-2, living-conditions, retrospective, wheatcroft, p3-as-primary-test, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A retrospective car wash behind a social club, surrounded by housing. Dismissed on character and noise grounds. Because the council's cited local policies (design DE1, industrial JE5) did not fit a sui generis car wash, the inspector used "national decision making policy P3 Paragraph 2" as the operative noise test (DL ¶11, 14). The parties were not consulted on the new Framework; the letter does not discuss the transition. ## What made the difference Noise observed on site, with a late noise assessment excluded under Wheatcroft. Framework decision-making policies, here P3(2), can fill gaps where local plan policies do not fit the use. ## Policy findings - **P3(2): fail.** local plan design/industrial policies did not fit a sui generis car wash, so "more appropriate to assess the use in accordance with ... national decision making policy P3 Paragraph 2"; significant adverse noise effects on Elizabeth Way homes observed on site (DL 11-14) - **DE1 (Coventry LP): conflict.** uPVC/PVC acoustic cladding, industrial aesthetic, clutter in residential area (DL 8-10) ## Key facts - Appeal-stage noise assessment rejected under Wheatcroft — mitigation (roller door, barriers) not on plans or consulted on (DL 4) - Car wash operating at time of visit; noise dominant over road noise at nearest homes (DL 3, 13) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011467 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/adf12ef5-2479-4b83-ae37-af0bb796cb9c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011467.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 3 High Street, South Norwood, Croydon - **Decision:** dismissed, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P D Sedgwick - **Authority:** Croydon (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6011471 - **Application reference:** 25/02346/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** First and second floor rear extension with rear dormer to create 2 one-bed flats, plus detached pharmacy storage outbuilding - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), P3(2)(b), TR6(4) - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, D4, HC1, T4, T6, Croydon Local Plan 2018 SP4, SP8, DM10, DM18, DM29, DM30, South Norwood CAAMP SPD 2022 - **Main issues:** conservation area, living conditions, parking and highway safety - **Tags:** conservation-area, old-heritage-wording, old-wording-slip, transitional-no-consultation, small-scheme, heritage-harm-decisive ## Summary Upward and rear extension to create two flats above a pharmacy in the South Norwood CA. Dismissed on three grounds: CA appearance, the neighbour's light and outlook, and parking in the absence of a signed car-free obligation. The letter treats the 2026 Framework as materially the same as 2024 and uses 2024 language throughout: "less than substantial" and "significantly and demonstrably outweigh". ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The wording of the relevant paragraphs of the new Framework are similar to that of the 2024 version", so no consultation (DL ¶2). - **Heritage.** "The harm would be localised and less than substantial" (DL ¶7). "Any harm to a designated heritage asset is a matter of considerable weight requiring justification and, in accordance with the Framework, I must weigh the harm against the public benefits" (DL ¶14). The "considerable" weight matches HE6(3). - **Living conditions: FAIL.** "tunnelling effect and sense of enclosure … overbearing presence" to the neighbour's kitchen window (DL ¶9). - **Parking: FAIL.** No signed car-free UU despite PTAL 5 (DL ¶¶12–13). ## Planning balance Benefits of two flats, effective use of land, jobs and pharmacy storage were collectively given "considerable weight". But the harms "would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole" (DL ¶15). That is the 2024 ¶11(d) formula, not S4's "substantially outweighed". ## What made the difference A roof form that broke the uniformity of a positive terrace, harm to a specific neighbouring window, and the lack of a signed car-free deed. Any one of these might have been curable. ## Transferable points - Inspectors are still using "less than substantial" for CA harm after 17 August 2026 (DL ¶7), paired with HE6(3)-style "considerable weight" (DL ¶14). - Old tilted-balance wording persists in within-settlement cases where S4(1) should apply (DL ¶15). - Car-free development in a high-PTAL area still needs a signed obligation at appeal (DL ¶12). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): fail (considerable weight).** crown-roofed extension above eaves breaks terrace uniformity — "localised and less than substantial" harm to CA appearance; "considerable weight requiring justification" (DL 5-7, 14) - **P3(2)(b): fail.** 5m-deep first-floor projection 1.5m from neighbour's kitchen window — tunnelling, loss of afternoon light (DL 8-10) - **TR6(4): fail.** no signed car-free s106 in PTAL 5 area with saturated parking — congestion and highway harm (DL 11-13) - **HO7: benefit (considerable weight).** collective benefits (2 flats, effective use of land, jobs, pharmacy storage, sedum roof) given considerable weight (DL 15) - **S4(1): fail.** balance expressed in 2024 words — harms "would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL 15) ## Key facts - Terrace identified as a positive contributor in the 2022 CAAMP; guidance limits rear extensions to one storey lower and 3m deep - Appellant willing to sign a car-free s106 but no signed deed provided ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/17e3ae88-40f4-4666-9186-c9f80d15ee98 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011471 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011471.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 14 Clayton Road, Bradford (single-storey front extension) - **Decision:** allowed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J D Westbrook - **Authority:** Bradford (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6011472 - **Application reference:** 26/01002/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Single-storey front extension (shopfront context) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** Bradford CS DS1 - **Development plan policies:** Bradford Core Strategy DS1, Shopfront Design Guide - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** householder, tier-2 ## Summary A single-storey front extension on Clayton Road, Bradford, was allowed as it would not harm the street's character (DL ¶11). ## What made the difference The existing mixed frontage context. Decided on local policy only. ## Policy findings - **DP3: pass.** no harm to Clayton Road character; DS1 and shopfront guidance met (DL 11) ## Key facts - Framework not cited ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011472 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a6c1f3c6-1b5c-4c87-8962-4b36ef56de6b --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011472.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Woodstock House, Mole Street, Ockley - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Bowyer - **Authority:** Mole Valley (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011498 - **Application reference:** MO/2026/00517 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective s73/s73A variation of conditions 2-5 and 9-11 on a 2021 permission for 2 replacement dwellings (as-built changes to siting, large flat-roof dormers, synthetic slate, new access track) - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3, DM6, S5(1), S5(2) - **Development plan policies:** Mole Valley Local Plan 2024 EN2, EN4, EN8, EN13, INF2, INF3 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, conditions tests - **Tags:** s73-variation, retrospective, non-determination, design-refusal, dp3-refuse-trigger, s5-limb-not-identified, condition-appeal, roof-materials, landscape-harm, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A retrospective s73 appeal (against non-determination) seeking to swap the approved plans for two replacement dwellings in the Surrey countryside for the as-built scheme, and to "vary" six details conditions. The as-built scheme had large flat-roof dormers, shiny synthetic slate and a long new access track. The appeal was dismissed. The as-built changes failed DP3 and harmed an Area of Great Landscape Value. The details conditions still met DM6 and could not be discharged through s73. Under S5 the inspector held that, even if a category applied, the benefits (no more homes than already approved) were substantially outweighed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties had the opportunity to address the updated Framework in writing (DL ¶3). - **Procedure.** "there is no power under s73/s73A of the Act to approve details reserved by conditions" (DL ¶8). The DM6 tests were applied to each condition (DL ¶9). Whether the original permission lapsed under s73(4) is not for the s78 appeal (DL ¶12). - **Character — DP3 / EN2, EN4, EN8: FAIL.** The access route is "significantly more urbanising than the short connection to the existing driveway approved" (DL ¶18). The dormers "cause the dwellings to appear top-heavy and unbalanced … a notably suburban quality" (DL ¶19). Built-up-area dormer examples were not comparable (DL ¶21). The synthetic slate "has a somewhat shiny quality and a flatness which results in a clearly artificial appearance" and conflicts with DP3's "coherent palette of materials" (DL ¶¶27–28). - **Conditions — DM6: PASS (conditions retained).** Materials, hard surfacing, drainage (no calculations or ditch capacity), 10% carbon reduction (Part L report incomplete), boundary treatment (inconsistent tree details) and EV charging are all still necessary (DL ¶¶26–50). ## Planning balance The plan-led conflict (policies "broadly consistent with the Framework", DL ¶52) was followed by the S5 test. "Even if I were to find that the proposal would be a form of development listed at Policy S5(1.), the adverse effects … would be contrary to national decision-making policies … In particular, requirements within Policy DP3" (DL ¶54). The benefits were only family homes already permitted, and access safety claims were unevidenced (DL ¶55). Neutral factors included highway safety, living conditions and heritage (DL ¶56). "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶57). ## What made the difference The comparison was with the extant 2021 permission, not with an empty field. The proposal added no homes and no other benefit, so any DP3 harm from the as-built changes was enough. Oversized flat-roof dormers, artificial-looking slate and a long new track in AGLV countryside were visible from footpaths. A scheme closer to the approved design, with clay tiles, small pitched dormers and the approved short access, would probably have been approved as a minor material amendment. ## Transferable points - In a s73 variation the benefits are measured against the existing permission; where no extra homes or public benefit result, modest DP3 harm substantially outweighs the benefits (DL ¶¶55, 57). - Inspectors may skip identifying the S5(1) category and apply the S5(2)/DP3 route "even if" a category applies (DL ¶54). This is a pragmatic but loose use of S5. - DP3's "coherent palette of materials" was used to reject a synthetic slate that looked artificial (DL ¶28). - s73/s73A cannot discharge details conditions; appellants need a s78(1)(b) appeal (DL ¶8). - Unconfirmed National Landscape boundary extensions carry no N4 weight; local AGLV policy did the work (DL ¶14). - Drainage conditions are not satisfied by evidence that the as-built system has coped with heavy rain, without design-storm calculations (DL ¶35). ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail.** large flat-roof dormers "top-heavy", suburban; new access track outside the red line urbanising; shiny synthetic slate out of place in the AGLV (DL 17-20, 27-28, 54) - **DM6: pass.** disputed conditions 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11 still necessary, reasonable and serving a useful purpose; no power under s73 to approve details (DL 8-9, 23-50) - **S5(1): not-engaged.** inspector said that even if the scheme fell within an S5(1) category, benefits would be substantially outweighed; category not identified (DL 53-54, 57) - **S5(2): fail.** adverse effects contrary to DP3; no meaningful benefits beyond the original permission (DL 54, 57) - **N4: not-engaged.** proposed Surrey Hills National Landscape extension would include the site but is not confirmed; treated as outside (DL 14) - **EN2/EN4/EN8: conflict.** Countryside Beyond the Green Belt and AGLV; policies broadly consistent with the Framework and given full weight (DL 22, 52) ## Key facts - Site designated Countryside Beyond the Green Belt and Area of Great Landscape Value; proposed Surrey Hills NL extension not yet confirmed - Dwellings built and occupied without discharging pre-commencement or pre-occupation conditions - Council says as-built development differs materially, so the 2021 permission may have lapsed (s73(4)); inspector did not decide lawfulness (DL 11-12) - Access track mostly outside the original red line; appellant said it followed an occasional historic farm route - Appeal against non-determination; council would have refused ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011498 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ba1ed3e9-1730-4d2f-925a-bf80e6a7f588 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011498.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 73 High Street, Ruislip (bingo hall) - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Powys Jones - **Authority:** Hillingdon (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6011516 - **Application reference:** 14252/APP/2025/2753 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of ground floor Class E (former bank) to sui generis 24-hour bingo hall, with fenestration amendments - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TC2, Transitional(2), P3 - **Development plan policies:** Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 DMP 2020 DMTC2, DMTC4, DMHB11 - **Main issues:** town centre vitality and viability, living conditions noise at night - **Tags:** town-centre, class-e-frontage-policy, annex-a-weight-reduction, main-town-centre-use, noise-night-time, 24-hour-use, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Change of use of a vacant former bank in Ruislip town centre to a 24-hour bingo hall. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant won on vitality and viability: TC2 was applied, and frontage policies written before Class E were given very limited weight under Annex A para 2. It lost on night-time noise and disturbance to flats nearby, because there was no site-specific acoustic evidence and the usage forecasts were implausible. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were provided with and have taken the opportunity to comment on the relevance of the 2026 edition of the National Planning Policy Framework" (DL ¶4). The council then accepted that bingo is a main town centre use (DL ¶6). - **Annex A para 2: pre-Class E frontage policy.** "in the absence of an Article 4 Direction, the level of management control implicitly sought by the Council in parts of DMP policy DMTC4 is no longer available in most cases … those parts of these two policies are attributed very limited weight. However, DMTC2 section B (iii) is not reduced in weight since … the objective of supporting the vitality and viability of the Town Centre is consistent with the Framework's national decision-making policy TC2" (DL ¶8-9). - **TC2: PASS.** "the Framework's policy TC2 does not suggest that the health of a town centre is entirely dependent on retail uses. On the contrary, a diversification in uses can assist in supporting vitality and viability" (DL ¶10). - **Living conditions: FAIL.** "Ruislip strikes me as a suburban town centre where there would normally be very little activity in the early hours" (DL ¶15). The inspector asked "why 35 terminals are to be provided if the degree of predicted usage is so significantly lower" (DL ¶16). "I intend to adopt a precautionary approach" (DL ¶17). An hours condition "would clearly go against the grain of the proposal … and no such condition has been suggested by the appellant" (DL ¶19). - **Earlier appeals.** "some are of limited relevance given the recent publication of a new Framework" (DL ¶18). The Finchley hours appeal (APP/N5090/W/24/3339159) was followed on living conditions. ## Planning balance No tilted or S4 balance was run expressly. The one main-issue failure on living conditions (DMHB11) was "sufficient reason to dismiss the appeal" (DL ¶23). ## What made the difference The evidence on night-time noise. In the Norbury adult gaming centre appeal (PINS-6010189, decided four days earlier), a 24/7 gaming use in a district centre was allowed. There the appellant had a site-specific noise impact assessment with a 2–3am baseline survey, patron observations and an operational management plan. At Ruislip there was no site-specific evidence, the forecasts were inconsistent, and no hours limit was offered. The policy point on town centres went the appellant's way. ## Transferable points - Annex A para 2 can cut the weight of parts of a pre-2020 frontage policy that seek control over changes now permitted within Class E to "very limited", while the vitality-and-viability objective keeps full weight because it is consistent with TC2 (DL ¶8-9). - TC2 supports diversification, and a town centre's health does not depend only on retail (DL ¶10). - Bingo halls are main town centre uses under the 2026 Annex B definition (DL ¶6, 10). - A 24-hour use near flats in a quiet suburban centre needs site-specific acoustic evidence. An inspector will not impose an hours condition that defeats the purpose of the proposal (DL ¶15-19). ## Policy findings - **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** Annex A para 2 — parts of DMTC4 and DMTC2 B(i)/(ii) seek control over changes now permitted within Class E; "attributed very limited weight"; DMTC2 B(iii) keeps full weight as consistent with TC2 (DL 8-9) - **TC2: pass.** former bank not retail so no loss of retail floorspace; TC2 "does not suggest that the health of a town centre is entirely dependent on retail uses"; bingo is a main town centre use (DL 10-11) - **DMHB11: conflict.** 24/7 operation, no site-specific noise assessment, flats above neighbouring unit; precautionary approach to night-time comings and goings (DL 12-20) - **P3: harm.** living-conditions harm not framed under P3 expressly; decision rests on DMHB11 (DL 20) ## Key facts - Secondary shopping area of Ruislip Town Centre, Ruislip Conservation Area; flats above 75-79 High Street next door - 35 gaming terminals, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; appellant predicted 8 patrons/hour noon-8pm, 3/hour otherwise - No site-specific noise or acoustic assessment; appellant relied on studies from other London venues - Council conceded after consultation on the 2026 Framework that bingo is a main town centre use (Annex B) - No hours condition offered; inspector held one would "go against the grain" of the proposal ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011516 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3ebf5c5f-417b-45e3-9ed3-abd30f189b64 - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/2026/ruislip-bingo-appeal/ --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011516.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Greensleeves, School Lane, Bricket Wood - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Bowden - **Authority:** St Albans (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6011520 - **Application reference:** 5/2026/0202 - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Full-width single-storey rear extension, garage conversion, front extensions, Dutch gables and rear dormers to a bungalow - **Site context:** green-belt, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N2, GB7(1)(b), HE9 - **Development plan policies:** St Albans District Local Plan Review 1994 Policies 1, 13, 69, 72, 85, 106, Residential Extensions and Replacement Dwellings in the Green Belt SPG - **Main issues:** protected species, inappropriate development, conservation area - **Tags:** householder-gb, gb7-pass-still-dismissed, protected-species-surveys, detached-garage-counts-as-extension ## Summary Extensions to a bungalow in the Metropolitan Green Belt and Old Bricket Wood conservation area. The appeal was dismissed on bats alone. The extensions were found not disproportionate under GB7(1)(b) and the conservation area was preserved, but no bat roost assessment was before the inspector. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were consulted because the changes "could be considered material" (DL ¶2). - **GB7(1)(b): PASS.** A later detached garage counts as an extension to the original building (Warwick DC v SSLUHC [2022] EWHC 2145 (Admin)) (DL ¶11). "I have judged the proposal, ultimately, on the visual and spatial effects of the extensions … they are not disproportionate to the original building" (DL ¶14). - **Conservation area.** Preserved (DL ¶21). - **Bats: FAIL.** "in the absence of any evidence to indicate that bats are not present, the proposal conflicts with policy 106 … and Framework" (DL ¶7). ## Planning balance None needed. The failure on protected species was determinative (DL ¶24). ## What made the difference The missing Preliminary Roost Assessment. The Green Belt and heritage cases were won. ## Transferable points - Detached outbuildings added after the original dwelling count as extensions in the GB7(1)(b) proportionality test (DL ¶11). - Disproportion is judged in the end on visual and spatial effect, not only on disputed volume figures (DL ¶14). - Missing bat surveys can defeat even a householder scheme that passes the Green Belt tests (DL ¶24). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): pass.** rear extension at or marginally above SPG limits; roof alterations within footprint, no raised eaves/ridge; not disproportionate judged on visual and spatial effects; detached garage counted as an extension (Warwick DC v SSLUHC [2022]) (DL 8-14) - **GB6(2): not-engaged.** not inappropriate so openness not assessed (DL 15) - **HE9: pass.** Old Bricket Wood CA preserved; rear dormers/flat roof unsympathetic but rear, similar to neighbours (DL 16-21) - **N2: fail.** no Preliminary Roost Assessment; bats likely given semi-natural setting → cannot conclude no harm (DL 5-7, 24) ## Key facts - A detached bungalow in a small row in woodland at Old Bricket Wood conservation area - A PRA was commissioned but not submitted, and new evidence at appeal would not be accepted under the Procedural Guide (DL 5) - The emerging replacement local plan's policies were not given significant weight (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011520 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c1853b7e-825b-440f-a95c-4659a780786d --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011520.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Top Flat, 27 Alma Square, St John's Wood - **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Dryden - **Authority:** Westminster (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6011521 - **Application reference:** 25/08827/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Mansard roof extension to top-floor flat (2-bed to 3-bed) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, S4(1), L2(1)(d)(i), DP3(1) - **Development plan policies:** Westminster City Plan 2019-2040 (2026) Policies 42, 44, 45, Roofs SPD 2004, St John's Wood Conservation Area Audit 2008 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, conservation area - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, mansard, airspace-l2, ho1-plan-making-only, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A mansard on a stucco terrace in the St John's Wood Conservation Area, enlarging a top flat from two to three bedrooms, was dismissed. The inspector found low less-than-substantial harm to the CA. The family-home benefit did not outweigh it. L2's airspace support failed its own street-scene/character limb, so the benefits were substantially outweighed under S4. The appellant invoked HO1. The inspector rejected that because HO1 is a plan-making policy. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties commented on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶3). - **Heritage, HE6/HE9: HARM (low).** "the introduction of mansard cheeks, increased roof height, and the raising of the parapet walls and associated chimney stacks would appear discordant ... prominent and incongruous" (DL ¶10). "even a low level of harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset carries considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶17). The benefits were "comfortably outweighed" (DL ¶18). The appellant had also not shown the benefits could not be achieved in a less harmful way (DL ¶19). - **L2 airspace: FAIL.** "the Framework Policy L2 1.d)i. requires such development to be consistent with the overall street scene, or that building upwards would not cause substantial harm to the character of a building and its surroundings" (DL ¶26). - **Glossary definition is not permission.** "whilst the appellant has set out that the proposal meets the definition of a 'mansard roof extension' within the glossary of the Framework, this does not imply that the proposed development is acceptable" (DL ¶27). - **HO1 not a decision-making policy.** "the appellant draws my attention to Policy HO1 of the Framework, where this policy relates to plan-making and not decision making policies" (DL ¶28). ## Planning balance This was the S4 balance (DL ¶25). The benefits were HO7 family accommodation and efficient use of the building. Against them were HE6 harm and conflict with L2(1)(d)(i) and DP3(1). "Taken together, I find the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects ... Policy S4 of the Framework does not point to permission being granted" (DL ¶29). ## What made the difference The unaltered roofscape on this part of the terrace, and the CA audit singling it out as unsuitable for roof extensions. Mansards at the far end of the terrace predated the current plan. The heritage balance (HE6) decided the S4 balance. ## Transferable points - The new Framework's mansard definition and L2 airspace support do not override heritage harm. L2(1)(d)(i) has its own character test (DL ¶26-27). - HO1 is a plan-making policy and gives no decision-making support (DL ¶28). This contrasts with PINS-6010946, which used HO1 as a source of harm. - Low less-than-substantial harm still carries "considerable importance and weight" and can outweigh a family-home benefit (DL ¶17-19). - Older neighbouring roof extensions granted under previous plans are not comparable (DL ¶13). ## Policy findings - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** low harm to St John's Wood CA from mansard on largely unaltered butterfly-roof terrace; benefits "comfortably outweighed" (DL 16-19) - **L2(1)(d)(i): fail.** substantial weight to upward extension depends on consistency with street scene or no substantial harm to building's character; not met (DL 26) - **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed; S4 "does not point to permission being granted" (DL 29) - **HO1: not-engaged.** appellant's reliance rejected - HO1 "relates to plan-making and not decision making policies" (DL 28) - **HO7: benefit.** larger family-sized unit; does not outweigh heritage harm (DL 28) ## Key facts - Terrace identified in the CA audit (Fig 56) where roof extensions would not normally be acceptable; older mansards at the east end not comparable (DL 13) - Meeting the Framework glossary definition of "mansard roof extension" does not imply acceptability (DL 27) - Amended plans submitted at appeal were not accepted (Wheatcroft/procedure guide) (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011521 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ef00b68b-755f-446e-906e-07964368396f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011521.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 108-114 Red Lane, Coventry - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Somers - **Authority:** Coventry (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011522 - **Application reference:** PL/2024/0002558/FULM - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition and erection of a two and three storey community centre, education facility and place of worship (sui generis) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4), TR4, TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Coventry Local Plan AC1, AC2, AC3, Appendix 5 parking standards - **Main issues:** parking and highway safety - **Tags:** tier-2, tr6-severe-test, parking, place-of-worship, community-facility, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A replacement mosque, education and community building on Red Lane, Coventry, was dismissed on parking and highway safety. The site already runs over capacity. Friday worshippers park on footways and double yellow lines. The proposal would cut on-site spaces to 29 against a standard of 56, so the "severe adverse impacts" would continue (DL ¶11-13). The Framework was not consulted on because the relevant wording was "largely unchanged" (DL ¶3). ## What made the difference Existing observed overspill onto footways and the unenforceable overflow-parking arrangement. A legal agreement securing the 82-space overflow car park would probably have changed the result (DL ¶12). This is the same inspector as PINS-6011097, applying the same TR3/TR4/TR6 formula to the opposite outcome. Neither letter engages S3 or S4. ## Policy findings - **TR6(4): fail.** 29 spaces against 56 required; existing footway and yellow-line parking at peaks already causes "severe adverse" safety impacts; staggered Friday sessions and unenforceable overflow letter insufficient (DL 10-13) - **TR4: fail.** pedestrian and mobility-impaired conflicts from footway parking (DL 11, 13) ## Key facts - About 300 Friday attendees, to be staggered over three sessions of 100; 29 on-site spaces against 56 required (DL 10, 12) - 82-space overflow at Coventry Resource Centre offered only by informal letter, given limited weight (DL 12) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011522 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4ae87f3f-74ba-40e8-a287-5a56260e1fd2 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011522.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Leys, 63 Booth Rise, Northampton - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Eleni Marshall - **Authority:** West Northamptonshire (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011524 - **Application reference:** 2025/5109/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of C2 care home to sui generis HMO for up to 32 persons - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3 - **Development plan policies:** West Northamptonshire JCS 2014 H5, Northampton Local Plan Part 2 2023 Q2, HMO SPD 2019 - **Main issues:** neighbour living conditions and character, occupier amenity - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, living-conditions, substantially-outweighed, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Conversion of a single-storey care home into a 32-person HMO in a residential area. Dismissed because of the intensity of independent comings and goings. The housing benefit was "limited", since the building is already residential (C2) and an HMO counts as one unit, and the harms "substantially outweigh" it (DL ¶15). This is S4-style wording, though S4 was not named. DM7 was cited to leave fire safety to other regimes (DL ¶18). ## What made the difference Scale of occupation, compared with the managed care-home baseline. Compliance with the SPD's site-count concentration test did not help, because one 32-person HMO is itself a concentration (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **P3: fail.** 32 independent occupants' comings and goings far exceed coordinated care-home activity; harms neighbours and residential character (DL 7-8, 12); no Framework policy named — code mapped by harvester - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** care home already counts in supply and HMO counts as one unit — "limited" weight; adverse impacts "substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL 15) - **L2: neutral.** effective use of underused buildings "should not be pursued in a manner which would fail to provide acceptable living standards for neighbours" (DL 16) - **DM7: neutral.** fire safety left to HMO licensing/building regulations (DL 18) ## Key facts - Maximum 32 occupants; below SPD 10%-in-50m concentration test by site count but itself a concentration (DL 13-14) - Parking survey showed ample on-street capacity; amenity space adequate (DL 9, 11) - Costs application decided separately (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011524 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6ba98aca-6b83-40f7-8508-ddb6fd286b0d --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011524.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 15 Churchill Close, Sturminster Marshall (chalet bungalow s73) - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Cooper-Young - **Authority:** Dorset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6011565 - **Application reference:** P/VOC/2026/01105 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73 variation of the approved-plans condition on P/FUL/2024/01770 (backland bungalow) to build a taller chalet bungalow with rooflights - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, L2(1)(d)(i), L2(1)(d)(ii) - **Development plan policies:** Christchurch and East Dorset Core Strategy 2014 HE2, Sturminster Marshall Neighbourhood Plan 2024 SMNP9, SMNP13 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, neighbours' privacy - **Tags:** tier-2, non-determination, s73-variation, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, l2-1-d-curtilage, backland, design-refusal, living-conditions, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A non-determination s73 appeal to swap an approved backland bungalow for a taller chalet bungalow with rooflights in a 1950s estate in Sturminster Marshall. The inspector found the roof-heavy form discordant and the rooflights overlooking neighbours' gardens. Since permission for one dwelling already exists, the housing benefit was limited. Under S4, with L2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) cited, the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I consulted both parties on the changes to the Framework" (DL ¶4). - **Character: HARM.** "the development would represent a discordant and incongruous addition that would fail to respect the established character, scale and appearance of the surrounding built environment" (DL ¶10). - **Privacy: HARM.** "the proposal would give rise to an unacceptable level of actual and perceived overlooking" (DL ¶16). - **Housing weight.** "The proposal would not increase the number of dwellings delivered ... Consequently, only limited weight is afforded to the proposal's housing delivery benefits" (DL ¶20). - **S4 with L2(1)(d).** "Where a development proposal is within a residential curtilage, Framework Policy L2(1)(d) (i) and (ii) require that proposals should be consistent with the overall street scene and character and maintain acceptable living standards for residents in terms of privacy" (DL ¶21). ## Planning balance S4. "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶22). DP3 is not cited; L2(1)(d) carries the design and amenity limbs. ## What made the difference The extant consent. With a dwelling already permitted, the only thing to weigh was the extra harm of the taller form, against almost no extra benefit. ## Transferable points - In an s73 variation, housing benefit is limited to what the change adds over the extant permission (DL ¶20). - L2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) supply Framework tests for character and privacy in residential curtilages, in the S4 balance (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **L2(1)(d)(i): fail.** top-heavy chalet bungalow, visible above the frontage and from public viewpoints; discordant with the 1950s estate; SMNP9 and HE2 conflict (DL 10-12, 21) - **L2(1)(d)(ii): fail.** new rooflights overlook the gardens of Nos 14, 16 and 91A High Street (DL 13-17, 21) - **S4: fail.** extant consent already gives one dwelling, so limited housing weight; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 20-22) ## Key facts - Non-determination appeal; Council would have refused on character and privacy (DL 3) - Costs application by the appellant against the Council, decided separately (DL 2) - Earlier NMA changed the operative description from bungalow to dwelling, so Finney does not bar the s73 (DL 18) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011565 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d262c886-476c-4f30-abc9-66787b3feddd --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011565.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Wayside Farm, Lower Road, Hough-on-the-Hill (three dwellings, outline) - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Harris-Watkins - **Authority:** South Kesteven (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011585 - **Application reference:** S25/1903 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline permission (access only) for three dwellings on a paddock identified as an Important Open Space in the Hough-on-the-Hill Conservation Area - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** conservation-area, settlement-edge, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), DP3(3), S5(2), S5 - **Development plan policies:** South Kesteven Local Plan 2020 EN6, DE1, SP2, SP3, SP4, Hough on the Hill Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2026 HoH3, HoH6, HoH10, Hough-on-the-Hill CA Appraisal and Management Plan 2014 - **Main issues:** character and appearance and the CA, location against the spatial strategy - **Tags:** conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, dp3-refuse-trigger, s5-2-refusal-policy, substantially-outweighed, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Three dwellings on a paddock that the conservation area appraisal names as an Important Open Space in Hough-on-the-Hill, a village of dispersed farmsteads. The inspector found harm at the lower end of the spectrum but of considerable importance and weight, not outweighed by moderate housing benefits. The design conflict was treated as a DP3(3) refusal circumstance under S5(2), and the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties have been invited to comment on the relevance of the Framework to the appeal" (DL ¶5). - **Harm.** The scheme "would consolidate the dispersed pattern of development. This would harmfully reduce the legibility of the historic settlement pattern of the village, which forms part of the CA's significance" (DL ¶11). - **Degree and weight.** "the harm would be towards the lower end of the spectrum of harm, but nonetheless of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶16). - **HE6: FAIL.** "Consequently, the proposal fails to accord with policy HE6 of the Framework" (DL ¶20). - **Settlement.** "The appeal site is primarily surrounded by grass paddocks and open space, as a result I do not find it is located within the settlement" (DL ¶35). - **DP3(3).** "Proposals that fail to do this without clear justification must be refused" (DL ¶38). No separate finding on justification. ## Planning balance S5 (outside a settlement), with S5(2) set out (DL ¶37). "Even when taken together, I find the benefits of approving the development proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶38). The letter does not decide whether S5(1)(j) was met, though it notes the lack of a five-year supply (DL ¶36). ## What made the difference The site's listing as an Important Open Space, and a village whose significance lies in the gaps between farmsteads. ## Transferable points - Loss of an appraisal-identified open space in a dispersed village is harm to CA significance even with gaps retained (DL ¶10-11). - Harm "towards the lower end of the spectrum" still carries considerable importance and weight and outweighed three homes (DL ¶16-20). - A site ringed by paddocks at the edge of a village can be outside the settlement (DL ¶35). ## Policy findings - **HE5(2): harm.** degree identified - harm towards the lower end of the spectrum; loss of an Important Open Space consolidates the dispersed historic settlement pattern (DL 11-16) - **HE6(4): fail.** considerable importance and weight to harm, substantial weight to conservation; housing moderate, other benefits limited (DL 16-20) - **DP3(3): fail.** fails to respond to context; "without clear justification must be refused" quoted, no separate justification finding; routed through S5(2) (DL 37-38) - **S5: fail.** site outside the settlement; (j) unmet need noted (no five-year supply) but not resolved; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 35-38) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** moderate weight for three homes given scale; HO7 not named, 2024-style "significantly boosting" framing (DL 17) - **LP SP2, SP3, SP4 (local): conflict.** not infill in a built-up frontage, mostly not PDL, no substantial community support; counted in the plan-led conclusion with no Annex A(2) check (DL 22-29, 34) ## Key facts - Site agreed to be an Important Open Space in the CA appraisal (DL 10) - Only a small corrugated building and rubble on site; mostly paddock, so not PDL (DL 24) - Nine supporters at a parish meeting; Parish Council neutral (DL 25-26) - Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 27, 36) - Parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011585 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f23c32f4-6632-494a-9c80-6e3e71c0fd55 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011585.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 1A Ellis Street, Kirkby in Ashfield - **Decision:** allowed, 25 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Richard Snow - **Authority:** Ashfield (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011598 - **Application reference:** V/2025/0437 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of restaurant (Class E) to drinking establishment with expanded food (sui generis), later opening hours - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM6 - **Development plan policies:** Ashfield Local Plan Review 2002 ST1 - **Main issues:** noise and disturbance - **Tags:** tier-2, transitional-no-consultation, noise ## Summary Town-centre restaurant to late-night bar. Allowed with conditions on hours, closed doors and windows during music, and a staff-only first-floor flat. The Inspector held that an occupancy restriction on the flat "would meet the tests in the new Framework, including its enforceability" (DL ¶11). The Framework changes were "not material" (DL ¶4). ## What made the difference A town-centre location with other late venues, an acoustic report the EHO accepted, and a staff tie on the only directly affected dwelling. Licensing and noise abatement remain available for poor management (DL ¶15). ## Policy findings - **P3(2)(b): pass.** town-centre context, acoustic report, EHO no objection; hours aligned with other venues (DL 7-16) - **DM6: pass.** condition restricting first-floor flat to staff meets the "tests in the new Framework, including its enforceability" (DL 11, 17-20) ## Key facts - Opening to 01:00 weekdays and 02:00 weekends; doors closed during music; flat tied to staff - Police incident data not linked to the site given little weight (DL 13) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/16a437c7-ea62-4bbf-86ce-c871b5cdc8f7 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011598 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011598.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land north-west of Sackville Cottage, High Street, Riseley (static caravan) - **Decision:** dismissed, 1 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Chris Couper - **Authority:** Bedford (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6011645 - **Application reference:** 26/00199/S73A - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective temporary (18-month) siting of a static caravan for non-residential purposes in a field - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Bedford Local Plan 2030 28S, 29, 30, Riseley Neighbourhood Plan 2022-2030 RC1, D1 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** retrospective, transitional-no-consultation, countryside-character, tier-2 ## Summary A retrospective static caravan in a Riseley field was dismissed for significant harm to rural character (DL ¶14). ## What made the difference The caravan's utilitarian form in an open field (DL ¶6). The inspector cites the Framework by "Section" (14 design, 4 countryside) rather than by policy code (DL ¶12). ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail (significant weight).** utilitarian caravan in an open field causes significant harm to rural character; the Framework's "Section 14" design and "Section 4" countryside character cited (DL 6-14) ## Key facts - Not re-consulted: relevant policies "not significantly different" (DL 3) - Temporary 18-month period did not overcome harm ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011645 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/846593bb-0146-437e-9f78-c9d44e3d0916 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011645.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 13 Temperance Hill, Woolley Moor (rear first-floor extension) - **Decision:** dismissed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Richard Gilbert - **Authority:** North East Derbyshire (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011648 - **Application reference:** 26/00145/FLH - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Rear first-floor pitched-roof extension to a semi-detached house in the countryside - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(c), fn25, DP3(3), S5(2) - **Development plan policies:** North East Derbyshire Local Plan 2021 SS9, LC5, SDC3, SDC12 - **Main issues:** character and appearance in the countryside - **Tags:** householder, s5-1-c-reuse, fn25-baseline-2026, dp3-3-refusal, s5-2-refusal-policy, local-policy-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, disproportionate-extension ## Summary A householder appeal in the countryside that sets out two important readings of the new Framework. First, under S5(1)(c) and footnote 25, proportionality is measured against the building as it stood on 17 August 2026. Earlier extensions are therefore excluded, and a 22.4% addition was not disproportionate even though the cumulative increase was 70.6%. Second, a DP3 design conflict engages DP3(3) and S5(2), and that alone was enough to dismiss. ## Issues and findings - **Character: HARM.** "a large new area of blank wall would be created at height … the proposal would cumulatively increase the original volume of the host dwelling by approximately 70.6% … disproportionate … unsympathetic to its simple form and modest scale" (DL ¶7). - **Local plan vs Framework.** "Whilst the proposal is required to be assessed as a new dwelling by the development plan, this does not apply to the Framework" (DL ¶15). - **S5(1)(c) and the 2026 baseline: PASS.** "any extension or alteration would not result in a disproportionate increase in size to the existing building as of 17 August 2026" (DL ¶15). "Although the proposed extension would increase the overall additions to the property to approximately 70.6% of its original volume, independently it represents an increase of approximately 22.4% as of 17 August 2026. This is not considered to be a disproportionate increase when existing extensions are excluded … This material consideration limits the weight to be attached to the proposal's conflict with Policy SS9" (DL ¶16). - **DP3(3) and S5(2): FAIL.** "Policy DP3(3) … states that development should be refused if, without clear justification, it conflicts with Policy DP3(1) … This conflict amounts to a substantial adverse effect in the planning balance in accordance with Policies DP3(3) and S5(2)" (DL ¶18). ## Planning balance The S5(1)(c) route was engaged. Benefits (construction jobs and private living space) got limited weight. Against them: substantial adverse effect from design conflict under DP3(3)/S5(2). The benefits were "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶19). ## What made the difference Design, not size. The new footnote 25 baseline saved the scheme on proportionality, but the tall blank rear gable conflicted with DP3(1) context, and DP3(3) turned that into a refusal policy. A lower, subordinate design (e.g. dormer-style, as at No. 8) would likely have passed. ## Transferable points - For S5(1)(c) (and by analogy GB7), footnote 25 fixes the "existing building" at 17 August 2026. Pre-2026 extensions fall out of the proportionality calculation (DL ¶15-16). - Local policies that assess large countryside extensions as new dwellings have diminished weight where S5(1)(c) is met (DL ¶16, 18). - DP3(3) conflict counts as an S5(2) circumstance and can be decisive even for a householder extension within a listed S5(1) category (DL ¶18-19). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(c): pass.** extension of an existing lawful, permanent building; proportionality measured against the building as at 17 Aug 2026 (fn25) - 22.4% increase, not disproportionate, though 70.6% over the original (DL 15-16) - **fn25: pass.** the existing-building baseline is the property as at 17 Aug 2026, so earlier extensions are excluded (DL 15-16) - **DP3(3): fail (substantial weight).** conflict with LC5 character and appearance; DP3(3) says refuse without clear justification; "substantial adverse effect" in balance (DL 7, 18) - **S5(2): fail.** DP3(3) is a refusal-in-specific-circumstances policy; benefits (limited) substantially outweighed (DL 18-19) - **Transitional(2): conflict (limited weight).** SS9 (assess large countryside extensions as new dwellings) has "diminished weight" because of S5(1)(c) (DL 15-16, 18) ## Key facts - Stone semi at end of a rural row, gable exposed to public views across open land - Cumulative volume increase over the original 70.6%; this extension alone 22.4% - Local plan LC5 treats significant countryside extensions as new dwellings under SS9 - Parties consulted on the new Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011648 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/98702e1c-d19b-4e22-8f7b-51de506edbfa --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011648.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 27 Lansdowne Street, Coventry - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Somers - **Authority:** Coventry (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011661 - **Application reference:** PL/2025/0002120/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of terraced dwelling (C3) to C4 HMO - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** Coventry HMO DPD HMO1, HMO2, HMO3, HMO4, Coventry Local Plan AC3, Coventry Connect SPD - **Main issues:** HMO concentration, occupier living conditions, parking - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, hmo-concentration, living-conditions, no-framework-reference ## Summary A terraced house converted to an HMO in a Coventry street already at 30% HMO concentration. Dismissed on concentration, sandwiching, an undersized attic bedroom and missing parking evidence. The letter never mentions the National Planning Policy Framework. It is decided entirely on the recently adopted HMO DPD. ## What made the difference A recent, specific HMO development plan document with numeric thresholds. The inspector rejected the argument that concentration limits should not be applied "mechanically" (DL ¶6). ## Policy findings - **HMO2 / HMO3 (Coventry HMO DPD): conflict.** 30.1% HMO concentration in 100m (threshold 10%); sandwiching of 21-25 between HMOs at 19 and 29 (DL 4-8) - **HMO4 (Coventry HMO DPD): conflict.** attic bedroom 6 fails usable-area standard below 1.5m head height (DL 9-11) ## Key facts - Council records show 25 HMOs among 83 houses within 100m (DL 5) - No independent parking survey; photographs insufficient (DL 12-14) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011661 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c5563adc-c036-4cbf-94a9-9822377f9698 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011661.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Church Cottage, 10 East Lane, West Horsley - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Ellis - **Authority:** Guildford (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011691 - **Application reference:** 26/P/00241 - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Single-storey rear orangery (25 sqm) - **Site context:** green-belt - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Guildford Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2019 P2, Guildford Green Belt SPD - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, VSC - **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, original-building-baseline, openness-harm, vsc-not-shown, transitional-no-consultation, householder ## Summary A 25 sqm glazed orangery at a heavily extended Green Belt house. Dismissed. Cumulative additions of about 120% over the 197 sqm original building were disproportionate under GB7(1)(b), and a barn relocated to the site in the 1990s could not be added into the "original building" baseline. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Relevant policies "have not substantively changed"; no further submissions sought (DL ¶2). - **Baseline.** The barn "was not part of the first building on site, nor was it there in 1948. Consequently, it does not form part of the original building" (DL ¶9). - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "the proposed orangery itself would be a relatively modest addition of 25sqm. Nonetheless, cumulatively with the other extensions, even without the barn, the scale of development cannot be considered anything other than a disproportionate addition" (DL ¶14). - **Openness.** Limited spatial and minimal visual harm (DL ¶17). ## Planning balance GB6(2). The only benefits were modest temporary economic ones; a lack of neighbour or design harm is not a benefit (DL ¶20). VSC not shown (DL ¶21). ## What made the difference Cumulative history. A small addition fails where earlier extensions have already more than doubled the original building. ## Transferable points - Buildings brought onto a site after 1948 are not part of the "original building" under fn 40, even if they are old structures relocated (DL ¶9). - Even a small extension is disproportionate where cumulative additions are about 120% (DL ¶14). - Good design and no neighbour harm are policy requirements, not benefits (DL ¶20). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** original building 197 sqm; relocated 1990s barn is not part of the original building; cumulative extensions c.120% (208% with barn) → disproportionate even though orangery is only 25 sqm (DL 7-15) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriateness plus limited spatial and minimal visual harm (DL 17-18) ## Key facts - Original floorspace 197 sqm; total with proposal c.607 sqm (Council) including a 173 sqm barn relocated to the site in the 1990s - Appellant tried to include the barn in the baseline to get a 61% figure; rejected - Orangery not visible from the road ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011691 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f04b1c1c-9311-47a2-b1ee-29125615bb9b --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011691.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Little Paddock, Lycrome Road, Chesham - **Decision:** dismissed, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Lewis Condé - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011692 - **Application reference:** PL/26/02342/FA - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Single-storey front extension (garage linked by covered canopy) - **Site context:** green-belt - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (consolidated 2011) GB2, GB13, GB15 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, VSC - **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, householder, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, transitional-no-consultation, absence-of-harm-neutral ## Summary Front garage extension to an already-extended Green Belt dwelling. Dismissed. The cumulative increase of more than 80% over the original building was disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). There was limited openness harm and no VSC. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "there have not been any fundamental changes to national policy that have necessitated re-consultation" (DL ¶2). - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "Viewed in isolation, the proposed single-storey extension would not be excessive … However, the original dwelling has already been enlarged … the cumulative floor area exceeding 80% of that of the original building. Although percentage increases are not determinative in themselves, an enlargement of this scale is a significant material consideration" (DL ¶9). - **Openness.** "Whilst the loss of openness would be limited, the Framework requires substantial weight to be given to any harm to the Green Belt" (DL ¶12). - The absence of other harm "is a neutral consideration rather than a benefit" (DL ¶14). ## Planning balance GB6(2): considerations "do not clearly outweigh that harm" (DL ¶15). ## What made the difference Earlier extensions used up the headroom for further additions. ## Transferable points - Proportionality is judged cumulatively against the original building; a cumulative increase above 80% weighs heavily toward "disproportionate" (DL ¶9). - An absence of harm on other matters is neutral (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** after earlier side and rear extensions, cumulative floor area would exceed 80% over the original; disproportionate (DL 7-11) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** limited loss of openness; no VSC; absence of other harm is neutral (DL 12-15) ## Key facts - Dwelling in a small cluster of houses, already extended to the side and rear - Even on the appellant's lower figures, cumulative increase over the original exceeds 80% - Local Plan Green Belt policies given less weight than the Framework because they are not wholly consistent with it ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011692 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/229be156-8842-40c2-adf0-3b03ddaccf64 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011692.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Honeysuckle Bottom Sawmill, East Horsley - **Decision:** allowed, 21 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Walker - **Authority:** Guildford (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011694 - **Application reference:** 25/P/00759 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of sawmill buildings, conversion of barn to a dwelling and erection of two dwellings - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** open-countryside, isolated, national-landscape, ancient-woodland, PDL, rural-lane, green-belt - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(c), S5(1)(d), S5(3), HO11(c), S5(4), N6 - **Development plan policies:** Guildford Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2019 ID3, Development Management Policies 2023 P6, P7 - **Main issues:** suitable location and accessibility, ancient woodland and SNCI - **Tags:** s5-1-c-reuse, s5-1-d-pdl, s5-4-exceptional, isolated-home, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, fallback, ancient-woodland-buffer, drafting-slip, old-wording-slip, green-belt-policy-not-applied, national-landscape, non-determination, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary This was a non-determination appeal to replace a working sawmill in woodland near East Horsley, in the Surrey Hills National Landscape, with three homes: one barn conversion and two new builds. The appeal was allowed. The inspector accepted the site was car-dependent and conflicted with the spatial strategy. The scheme qualified under S5(1)(c) and (d), but the two new-build homes were isolated and did not meet HO11. The inspector therefore ran S5(4) and found exceptional circumstances. The main reasons were PDL redevelopment, 20% BNG, the removal of HGV traffic and disturbance, and the housing shortfall. The letter has serious drafting problems. It cites S5's sub-paragraphs as "S3(2)", "S3(3)" and "S3 Part 4", and uses the old "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" formula. It also records a Green Belt openness benefit but never applies GB6/GB7, even though S5(5) excludes Green Belt land from S5. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties made representations on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶4). - **Location and TR3: FAIL.** The rural roads, "none of which are lit or provided with footways" (DL ¶7), and the bridleways "would not provide safe or practical access to local services and facilities" (DL ¶8). "future occupiers would be likely to rely heavily, if not entirely, on the private car" (DL ¶9). - **Ancient woodland (N6): PASS despite a policy conflict.** The worst-case buffer was 10 m against the 15 m Standing Advice (DL ¶16). But "the baseline ... is therefore not one of an undeveloped or undisturbed site, but of a functioning commercial operation" (DL ¶17). Domestic gardens would cause "a markedly lower level of activity and disturbance" (DL ¶22). Less weight went to P6 because there would be no "loss or deterioration of an irreplaceable habitat ... a key objective of Policy N6" (DL ¶24). - **S5 categories.** "As the development falls into these two categories [(c) reuse and (d) PDL], the proposal meets the initial qualifying criteria of Policy S5(1)" (DL ¶25). - **Isolated homes.** "Whilst one of the dwellings would meet the provisions of this exception [HO11(c)], two of the dwellings are new builds and therefore do not gain the support of policies HO11(c) nor S3(3)" (DL ¶27). The inspector then applied the S5(4) exceptional-circumstances test (DL ¶28). ## Planning balance The inspector ran S5(4) (miscited as S3 Part 4). On the benefit side: housing got significant weight (DL ¶29); economic benefits were moderate (DL ¶30); PDL reuse got considerable weight (DL ¶31). Green Belt openness improvement, National Landscape tranquillity and 20% BNG together got substantial weight (DL ¶32), and overall the benefits got substantial weight (DL ¶33). Against: the unsustainable location and spatial-strategy conflict (DL ¶34). That harm was "tempered by the fallback position and the likelihood of a reduction in overall traffic" (DL ¶35-36). "The harm from the site's unsustainable location, would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the collective substantial benefits ... these matters constitute exceptional circumstances, where the benefits substantially outweigh the harm as required by Policy S5(4)" (DL ¶37). ## What made the difference The active sawmill fallback. It neutralised the transport harm, because residential use would cut HGV trips on narrow lanes. It also neutralised the ancient woodland harm, because the existing yard was more disturbing than gardens would be. Together with PDL and 20% BNG, that let a car-dependent, isolated site pass the demanding S5(4) test. Without an active, noisy lawful use to replace, S5(4) would almost certainly have failed. The case carries real risk as a precedent. The letter's S3/S5 citations are wrong. It also applies the superseded tilted-balance wording and omits a Green Belt assessment the Framework requires (S5(5)), even though openness is said to improve. A council could argue the decision was reached on the wrong test. ## Transferable points - A site can qualify under S5(1)(c)/(d) and still hit S5(3). The S5(1) categories do not cure isolation for new-build homes, which need HO11 (DL ¶25-27). - Where an isolated-home element fails HO11, the inspector went to S5(4)'s reversed test (DL ¶28, 37). - A realistic, intensive commercial fallback can temper both TR3 car-dependence and ancient-woodland buffer shortfalls (DL ¶17, 22-24, 35-36). - An ancient woodland buffer below 15 m can be acceptable where it is a betterment over the existing use and secured by conditions, including removing PD rights (DL ¶18-24, 46). - DM6(2)(c): Green Belt openness was not "clear justification" to remove PD rights, but ancient woodland protection was (DL ¶46). - Caution: the letter miscites S5 as S3, uses "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" (DL ¶37), and applies S5 on a site it treats as Green Belt, contrary to S5(5). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(c): pass.** barn conversion is reuse of a lawful permanent building (DL 25) - **S5(1)(d): pass.** redevelopment of PDL (working sawmill) (DL 25) - **S5(3): conflict.** cited as "S3(3)"; isolated homes; conversion meets HO11(c) but the two new-build dwellings do not (DL 26-27) - **S5(4): pass.** cited as "Part 4 of ... Policy S3"; exceptional circumstances - benefits substantially outweigh car-dependence harm, tempered by sawmill traffic fallback (DL 28-37) - **TR3: fail.** unlit lanes without footways; villages "some distance"; bridleways not practical; no public transport; heavy car reliance (DL 7-11, 34) - **N6: pass.** 10m worst-case ancient woodland buffer below 15m Standing Advice, but betterment over active sawmill yard; no loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitat (DL 16-24) - **HO7: benefit (significant weight).** 3 homes in a borough with an "urgent and pressing shortfall" (DL 29) - **L1: benefit (considerable weight).** PDL redevelopment and reuse (DL 31) - **DM6(2)(c): neutral.** removal of PD rights justified by ancient woodland, not by Green Belt openness (DL 46) ## Key facts - Working sawmill (PDL) in a clearing in the Surrey Hills National Landscape, surrounded by ancient woodland/SNCI; lanes unlit with no footways (DL 3, 6-7, 17) - Letter records that the scheme "would improve the openness of the Green Belt" but applies S5, not GB6/GB7 - S5(5) says S5 does not apply in the Green Belt (DL 32, 46) - Sawmill HGV and forklift traffic fallback used to temper both the ecology and transport harms (DL 17, 35-36) - 20% BNG secured by condition (DL 32, 40) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011694 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/947dcb82-4d63-403a-859c-94b1348122ba --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011694.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 4-6 Ashford Road, Tenterden (listed building consent, ground-floor sign) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Edward Dade - **Authority:** Ashford (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011714 - **Application reference:** PA/2025/2072 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective listed building consent for alterations to a shopfront including a light-green ground-floor sign on a Grade II terrace (Appeal A; the first-floor sign Appeal B is 6011717) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE6(3) - **Development plan policies:** Ashford Local Plan 2019 SP1, SP6, ENV13, Tenterden Neighbourhood Plan TEN NP4 - **Main issues:** special interest of Grade II listed building and character of Tenterden Conservation Area - **Tags:** listed-building-consent, advertisement, retrospective, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, transitional-no-consultation, tier-2 ## Summary Retrospective listed building consent for an estate agent's light-green ground-floor sign on a Grade II terrace in Tenterden was refused on appeal, together with the linked first-floor sign (6011717). The sign is the same size as the white one it replaced, but its bright corporate colour clashes with the brick and white weatherboarding. The moderate harm was not outweighed, as the business benefits could be had with sympathetic signage. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The Framework maintains the overarching objective to conserve and enhance the historic environment, and those provisions do not differ materially from the policy framework addressed in the parties' submissions" (DL ¶4). Not consulted. - **Significance.** "Although this building type may not be unusual locally, rarity is not the only measure of special interest" (DL ¶11). - **Harm from colour.** "by virtue of its colour, the Appeal A sign significantly differs in visual impact from the signage it replaces, and is visually prominent, detracting from the character, appearance and special interest of the listed building" (DL ¶17). - **Degree and weight.** "each sign gives rise to a moderate degree of harm. Nonetheless, I give these harms considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶24). - **HE6(4): FAIL.** "it is unclear why these benefits could not be achieved through signage which is sensitive to the building's special interest" (DL ¶25). ## Planning balance HE6(4), with HE6(1) stated (DL ¶24–25). Development plan policies treated only as material considerations, as s38(6) does not apply to listed building consent (DL ¶6). ## What made the difference Colour. The same-sized predecessor was white and kept the building's palette; the corporate green does not. A sign in a sympathetic colour would probably have been acceptable, as the Council had consented signage before. ## Transferable points - The colour of a sign alone can harm a listed building where it breaks the building's material palette (DL ¶16–17). - Common building types still have special interest; rarity is not the only measure (DL ¶11). - Business benefits of corporate branding fail HE6(4) where a sensitive design could deliver them (DL ¶21–22, ¶25). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation stated (DL 24) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** bright light-green corporate sign between the bow windows, replacing a white sign of the same size; out of keeping with the brick and white weatherboard palette; moderate harm to the listed terrace and the Tenterden CA (DL 16-17, 23-24) - **HE6(4): fail.** continued Class E use and support for the historic shopping centre claimed; unclear why these could not be achieved with sensitive signage (DL 22, 25) ## Key facts - Grade II terrace 2-22 Ashford Road (list entry 1374500), mid-19th century, listed 1950 (DL 9-10) - Retrospective; works complete (DL 7) - Parties not consulted on the 2026 Framework, as heritage provisions do not differ materially and s16(2) is the principal test (DL 4) - Corporate branding at other, unlisted branches no justification (DL 21) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011714 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011714.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 4-6 Ashford Road, Tenterden (listed building consent, first-floor sign) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Edward Dade - **Authority:** Ashford (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011717 - **Application reference:** PA/2025/2073 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective listed building consent for replacing a hanging sign with a large flat light-green sign on first-floor weatherboarding of a Grade II terrace (Appeal B; the ground-floor sign Appeal A is 6011714) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE6(3) - **Development plan policies:** Ashford Local Plan 2019 SP1, SP6, ENV13, Tenterden Neighbourhood Plan TEN NP4 - **Main issues:** special interest of the listed building, conservation area - **Tags:** tier-2, listed-building-consent, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, retrospective, alternative-scheme-not-explored, transitional-no-consultation, linked-appeals ## Summary Retrospective listed building consent for an estate agent's large, light-green flat sign fixed to the first-floor weatherboarding of a Grade II terrace in Tenterden. Dismissed, with the linked ground-floor sign appeal. Moderate harm, given considerable importance and weight, was not outweighed, because the claimed commercial benefits could be had with sensitive signage. ## Issues and findings - **Effect.** "the Appeal B sign appears as an incongruous and visually dominant feature" (DL ¶20). - **HE6.** "each sign gives rise to a moderate degree of harm. Nonetheless, I give these harms considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶24). - **Benefits.** "it is unclear why these benefits could not be achieved through signage which is sensitive to the building’s special interest" (DL ¶25). ## Transferable points - Corporate branding is not a public benefit that outweighs harm where a sensitive sign would serve the business equally (DL ¶21-22, 25). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation; each sign causes "a moderate degree of harm" (DL 24) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** "I give these harms considerable importance and weight" (DL 24) - **HE6(4): fail.** continued commercial use and tourism benefits achievable with sensitive signage, so not sufficient (DL 25) ## Key facts - Same decision letter as Appeal A (6011714, ground-floor sign), also dismissed - The sign covers weatherboarding at first floor, breaks its horizontal lines and projects forward; corporate colour out of keeping (DL 16, 18-20) - Previous consents for commercial signage show a suitable design is possible (DL 22) - [object Object] ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011717 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/245d4c90-8b7e-4731-af98-e434ab701aa9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011717.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Raynards Rest, Willis Lane, Four Marks - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Everitt - **Authority:** East Hampshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011719 - **Application reference:** EHDC-25-1438-PAQ3A - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class Q prior approval — former agricultural workshop building to dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DM9 - **Main issues:** whether permitted development - **Tags:** tier-2, prior-approval, class-q, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary Class Q appeal dismissed on evidence. The building had been in agricultural use, but there was no evidence defining "the location or extent of … the former established agricultural unit" or showing that the site formed part of it (DL ¶11). The Framework is not mentioned. ## What made the difference The statutory declarations proved use but not the unit. Land ownership or agricultural holding records were needed (DL ¶¶10–11). ## Policy findings - **DM9: fail.** GPDO Q.1(b)/W(3) — agricultural use before 20 March 2013 shown by statutory declarations, but not that the site formed part of an "established agricultural unit" (no extent or holding records) (DL 8-14); Framework not cited ## Key facts - Former calf-rearing smallholding broken up and sold off in 2015; building redundant since about 2018/19 ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/384e7e82-c1fd-4d44-9f13-83b08b31c072 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011719 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011719.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to Oaklands Drive, Copthorne Bank, Copthorne - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Miles - **Authority:** Tandridge (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011736 - **Application reference:** TA/2025/1318 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Seven two-storey dwellings with access, garaging and parking (Asprey Homes Southern) - **Homes:** 7 - **Site context:** green-belt, rural-lane, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.17 - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 38 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Tandridge Local Plan Part 2 Detailed Policies 2014 DP5, DP10, DP13 - **Main issues:** sustainable location, grey belt, openness, VSC balance - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-fail, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, connectivity-tool, rural-lane-no-footway, travel-vouchers-rejected ## Summary Seven houses on an open site off Copthorne Bank, about 1 km from Copthorne's shop, school and village hall. Grey belt, unmet need and the Golden Rules limb were undisputed. The appeal was **dismissed on GB7(1)(g)(iii)**. The walk is along a mainly unlit road with a stretch in the carriageway, so it is unattractive, and an hourly bus did not provide a "genuine choice" of modes. This was so despite a Connectivity Tool score of 52/100 and £250 travel vouchers. The scheme was therefore inappropriate, and moderate housing benefits did not clearly outweigh the harm. ## Issues and findings - **Walking and cycling:** "occupants would have around a 15 minute walk along a mainly unlit road. There are footpaths along the part of the road close to the site, however there is a section where pedestrians would need to walk in the road and, even though the route is straight, this would not be attractive to occupants walking from the site. Particularly in hours of darkness, for children and those with mobility issues" (DL ¶4). Cycling: "the road is mainly unlit and combined with the traffic flows it would not be an attractive cycling route for the majority of occupiers" (DL ¶4). - **Bus:** the hourly service plus demand-responsive bus "would enable certain journeys from the site to be taken by bus" (DL ¶5). - **Mitigation rejected:** "a financial incentive would not alter the features of the site … Nor would it apply to future occupiers if houses were sold". The 30 mph extension was unevidenced, so a Grampian condition was not reasonable (DL ¶6). - **Conclusion on (iii) / TR3:** "The Department for Transport Connectivity Tool rates give the site an overall score of 52 out of 100 … However … journeys on foot and bike would not be attractive to the majority of occupants. As such, there is not a genuine choice of transport modes for residents, the location would not limit the need to travel by private car and it would not be a sustainable location" (DL ¶7). - **Other decisions:** the council's approval at nearby Nyahlands Farm (2025/499) was noted but not followed. Woodside House (APP/M3645/W/24/3347328) and Antlands Lane were distinguished on scale (DL ¶8). - **Openness:** there would be "clear harm" from seven two-storey houses on an open site (DL ¶13). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Substantial weight to Green Belt harm, plus openness and transport harm, against moderate housing benefits (2.17 years, HDT 38%) (DL ¶16-18). VSC was not shown. S5(5) excluded S5, and the presumption did not apply (DL ¶19). ## What made the difference The gap in the footway (walking in the road), the lack of lighting on a 1 km route, and 30-40 mph traffic. A nearby hourly bus and a mid-range Connectivity Tool score did not rescue the site. The inspector treated walking and cycling attractiveness for "the majority of occupants", including children and people with mobility issues after dark, as the test. A continuous lit footway to the village would probably have changed the outcome. ## Transferable points - A Connectivity Tool score of 52/100 is not sufficient in itself. Route quality for walking and cycling decides (g)(iii) (DL ¶7). - A section with no footway where pedestrians must walk in the road, on an unlit route, makes walking unattractive, particularly for children, people with mobility issues and in darkness (DL ¶4). - One-off travel vouchers (£250) do not change a site's locational characteristics and do not bind later occupiers (DL ¶6). - Speed-limit changes offered by the appellant need highway authority evidence before a Grampian condition is reasonable (DL ¶6). - An hourly bus enables "certain journeys" but is not in itself a genuine choice of modes (DL ¶5, 7). - Seven homes against a 2.17-year supply and 38% HDT still attracted only moderate overall weight (DL ¶16). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** undisputed (DL 11) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** undisputed; 2.17-year supply (DL 11, 16) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): fail.** 1 km / 15-minute walk to shop, school, village hall along mainly unlit 30-40 mph road with a section walking in the carriageway; hourly bus; Connectivity Tool score 52/100; no genuine choice of modes (DL 4-7, 11) - **TR3: fail.** £250 travel vouchers don't change site features; unevidenced 30 mph extension not Grampian-able; TR3(1)(e) improvements not shown to exist (DL 6-7) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriate plus clear openness harm (DL 13-14, 17) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** substantial weight to homes in principle, moderate overall given scale; 2.17 yrs, HDT 38% (DL 16) - **S5(5): not-engaged.** S5 does not apply; determined under GB6/GB7; presumption not engaged (DL 19) ## Key facts - Shop, school and village hall about 1 km (15-minute walk) away along mainly unlit Copthorne Bank; part of route has no footway, so pedestrians walk in the road - Speed limits recently cut from 50 mph to 30-40 mph - Hourly Crawley-Redhill bus from stops close to site (no shelters), plus school services and Surrey Connect demand-responsive bus - DfT Connectivity Tool overall score 52 out of 100 — the site still failed (g)(iii) - Planning obligation offered £250 per household bus/cycle travel vouchers ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011736 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7b1767ed-69dd-431a-b1b5-e5357bb9f91e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011736.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 26 and 28 Milton Road, Bournemouth (HMO and flat to 6 flats) - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Rachael Pipkin - **Authority:** Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6011775 - **Application reference:** 7-2024-6309-M - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion of a C4 HMO and a flat into 6 flats - **Homes:** 6 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** Habitats Regs reg 63(5) - **Development plan policies:** Bournemouth Core Strategy 2012 CS33, Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework SPD 2020-2025 - **Main issues:** habitats site integrity - **Tags:** habitats, missing-obligation, tier-2 ## Summary Conversion into six flats in Bournemouth was dismissed solely because heathland mitigation (SAMM and HIP contributions) was not secured, so an adverse effect on the Dorset Heathlands and New Forest could not be ruled out (DL ¶12). ## What made the difference The missing planning obligation. Regulation 63(5) precluded consent. ## Policy findings - **N6: fail.** no secured SAMM or heathland contribution, so adverse effect on Dorset Heathlands and New Forest sites cannot be excluded (DL 8-12) ## Key facts - No planning obligation for the heathland mitigation contribution (DL 8, 12) - Framework not cited ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011775 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f01765e6-10c7-4c7c-a011-f04877efa033 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011775.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Tylers Croft, Abbotswood Close, Guildford - **Decision:** allowed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Walker - **Authority:** Guildford (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011786 - **Application reference:** 25/P/01230 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Self-build detached dwelling and garage in side garden, following demolition of existing garage - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), HE6(4), HE9, N6 - **Development plan policies:** Guildford Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2019 D1, P5, Development Management Policies 2023 D4, D8, D18, D20, Burpham Neighbourhood Plan 2016 B-FD1, South East Plan saved NRM6 - **Main issues:** character and appearance including CA setting, Thames Basin Heaths SPA - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, conservation-area, self-build, housing-shortfall, garden-land, habitats-mitigation-secured, non-determination, drafting-slip, small-scheme ## Summary A non-determination appeal for a self-build house in the side garden of a Guildford cul-de-sac plot next to the Abbotswood Conservation Area. It was allowed. Spacing kept the close's open character. There was "very low" harm to the CA's setting, which a single home's public benefit clearly outweighed. Thames Basin Heaths SPA mitigation was secured by a UU. Under S4 there were no substantial adverse effects. The letter does not say whether the parties were consulted on the new Framework. ## Issues and findings - **Character: PASS.** "the proposed spacing between buildings would be sufficiently generous to maintain the spacious character of the cul-de-sac" (DL ¶12). Contemporary materials suited the "varied architectural style" (DL ¶13). - **CA setting, HE6(4) (letter mis-cites "HE7(4)"): very low harm.** The slacker rear roof pitch "would be visible from the gardens of a limited number of dwellings within the CA ... it would not be readily visible from the public realm. I find that this would cause a very low level of harm to the setting of the CA" (DL ¶16). "the public benefits of providing an additional modest sized home within a sustainable location, in an area where there is an urgent and pressing need for housing, would clearly outweigh the very limited harm" (DL ¶18). - **SPA, N6.** The UU had been completed and payment made, and Natural England's agreement was given substantial weight (DL ¶24). ## Planning balance This was the S4 balance (DL ¶27). "I have identified no substantial adverse effects, nor a failure to comply with any one of the national decision-making policies which expect the refusal of planning permission in specific circumstances" (DL ¶28). With no 5YHLS, "the provision of even a single dwelling carries considerable positive weight". Self-build, secured by deed of variation, added moderate weight (DL ¶29). "the adverse effects would not substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶30). ## What made the difference The corner-type plot gave enough spacing to avoid cramming. That distinguished an earlier dismissed appeal at 8 Abbotswood Close (DL ¶15). The appellant also had all the legal paperwork in place: a SPA UU with payment, and a deed of variation for self-build. Compare PINS-6010848, lost for want of exactly that. ## Transferable points - Within settlements, S4 approval turns on the absence of "substantial adverse effects" or a refusal-type policy failure (DL ¶28). - Very low less-than-substantial harm to a CA setting is outweighed by a single home where supply is short (DL ¶18). - Self-build status is best secured through a planning obligation, not a condition (DL ¶36). Once secured, it attracts moderate additional weight (DL ¶29). ## Policy findings - **S4(1): pass.** no substantial adverse effects and no failure of a "should be refused" policy (DL 27-30) - **HE6(4): harm (considerable weight).** letter cites "policy HE7(4)" (sic; HE7 has no para 4 and a CA is designated, so HE6(4) is meant); very low harm to setting of Abbotswood CA from slacker rear roof pitch glimpsed from a few CA gardens; clearly outweighed by public benefit of a home (DL 16-18) - **HE9: pass.** retains spacing and important boundary trees contributing to CA setting (DL 17) - **N6: pass.** Thames Basin Heaths SPA - UU secures SANG/SAMM, payment made; NE agrees (DL 20-25) - **HO7: benefit (considerable weight).** no 5YHLS - "even a single dwelling carries considerable positive weight"; self-build secured by deed of variation, moderate extra weight (DL 29) ## Key facts - About 6.2m to host dwelling and 7.5m to Thistledown boundary; spacing comparable to others in the close (DL 10-11) - Self-build secured by deed of variation to the UU, not by condition (enforceability) (DL 3, 36) - Letter refers to "a net gain of four dwellings" in the SPA section - a slip for one (DL 22) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011786 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/661dbf49-9091-4a10-b931-6c8439c79775 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011786.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 126 Toms Lane, Kings Langley - **Decision:** dismissed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: N Bowden - **Authority:** Three Rivers (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6011803 - **Application reference:** 25/2202/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of existing building and construction of replacement and two tandem (backland) self-build dwellings - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** green-belt, washed-over-village - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), DP3(1), S5(5), S5(2) - **Development plan policies:** Three Rivers Core Strategy CP1, CP12, Development Management Policies LDD DM1 and Appendix 2, Abbots Langley Neighbourhood Plan AL1-AL5, AL10 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, neighbour living conditions, future occupiers' living conditions - **Tags:** not-inappropriate, washed-over-village, s5-5-balance, s5-2-refusal-policy, design-refusal, backland, self-build, housing-shortfall, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, s4-vs-s5-built-up-area ## Summary A replacement dwelling plus two tandem self-build houses in a deep rear garden on Toms Lane, a linear road washed over by the Green Belt. The parties agreed the scheme was not inappropriate under GB7, so the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance applied. The tandem layout was alien to the linear pattern and in clear conflict with the local backland policy. That engaged DP3(3), a "should be refused" policy and so an S5(2) trigger, and the appeal was dismissed despite substantial weight to the housing. ## Issues and findings - **Green Belt.** "the parties are in agreement that the proposal is not inappropriate development having regard to policy GB7" (DL ¶4). - **S4 or S5.** The council said S4 applied. The inspector disagreed: "the site is designated in the Local Plan as being washed over by the Green Belt … homes frequently back onto open fields … the area's character is, whilst transitional in nature, not one that places it into a built-up area" (DL ¶18). Even under S4, "the site is not previously developed land" (DL ¶19). - **Character: FAIL.** "This tandem layout would not follow the pattern of development in the area which is almost exclusively in a linear format" (DL ¶7). - **Living conditions:** acceptable (DL ¶11–16). ## Planning balance S5(5) with S5(2). Substantial weight to two homes and self-build with no five-year supply, but "the proposal would fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies, namely paragraph 3 of policy DP3 … This policy of the Framework directs that the proposal should be refused" (DL ¶20). ## What made the difference The layout. Clear conflict with an up-to-date local backland design policy fed through DP3(3) and made refusal the default under S5(2), whatever the housing benefits. A frontage infill plot following the linear pattern would likely have passed. ## Transferable points - A washed-over linear road with gardens backing onto fields is not a "built-up area" for S4, so S5 applies (DL ¶18). - DP3(3) can make a local design policy conflict an S5(2) "should be refused" trigger that overrides substantial weight to housing (DL ¶17, 20). - A not-inappropriate Green Belt scheme still faces the S5(5) balance (DL ¶17). ## Policy findings - **GB7: pass.** parties agreed not inappropriate; limb not specified (DL 4) - **S4: not-engaged.** washed-over linear development with gardens backing onto fields is not a built-up area, so S5 not S4 applies; even under S4 the garden would not be PDL (DL 18-19) - **DP3(1): fail.** tandem layout alien to linear Toms Lane pattern (DL 7-10) - **DP3(3): fail.** clear conflict with local backland policy DM1 engages DP3(3) "should be refused" — S5(2) trigger (DL 20) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** two homes, no 5YHLS, self-build (DL 20) ## Key facts - Toms Lane is a long linear road washed over by Green Belt between Kings Langley and Bedmond - Two tandem houses in a deep rear garden adjoining other gardens and fields - Council accepts no five-year supply; self-build offered - Parties consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011803 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/63c01be5-5483-47df-aba5-ec0f6a77ba73 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011803.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 21 Grace Hill, Folkestone (ground floor) - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Gardner - **Authority:** Folkestone and Hythe (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011807 - **Application reference:** 26/0398/FH/PA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class MA prior approval — change of use of ground-floor hair and beauty unit (Class E) to one flat in a conservation area - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE6(1), HE4(1) - **Main issues:** impact on character or sustainability of conservation area - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-ungraded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-substantial-weight, conservation-area, class-ma-prior-approval, housing-shortfall, loss-of-active-frontage ## Summary Class MA prior approval to convert a vacant ground-floor salon to a flat on a commercial terrace in the Folkestone Leas and Bayle conservation area. Dismissed. With no physical change at all, the loss of commercial function was found to harm the conservation area's significance, which derives partly from its role as a historic town-centre street. The HE6 balance went against the proposal even though the council had no five-year supply. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The inspector applied the 2026 Framework, which the appellant's final comments had referred to (DL ¶4). Section W of the GPDO applies the Framework "as if the application were a planning application" (DL ¶3). - **Harm from change of use alone: HARM (ungraded).** "despite no external alterations being proposed, the loss of a commercial unit is still capable of harming the character or sustainability of the CA, even without a specific CA Appraisal requiring the retention of commercial units" (DL ¶11). "It would … diminish the scope for human activity and interaction … In this respect it would impose harm to the significance of the CA" (DL ¶12). - **HE6.** "Policy HE6 … states that … substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation" (DL ¶16). Harm "should be weighed against any public benefits" (DL ¶17). - **Balance.** "public benefits to which I have given a good deal of weight. However, the adverse impact on the CA is a matter of considerable importance and weight. In this case, I consider that the harm to the designated heritage asset outweighs the benefits" (DL ¶19). ## Planning balance HE6(4) harm against public benefits. The harm was not graded at all, neither "less than substantial" nor any 2026-style grade. The benefits, including housing with no five-year supply, got "a good deal of weight", not HO7 "substantial weight". ## What made the difference The conservation area's significance was tied to its commercial ground-floor function, and there was no evidence that the unit could not be let. Marketing evidence of long-term vacancy would have been needed for the other outcome (DL ¶13-14). ## Transferable points - Under Class MA, heritage "character or sustainability" harm can arise from loss of use alone, with no external change and no appraisal requirement (DL ¶11-12). - Short-term vacancy carries limited weight without evidence that commercial reuse is unlikely (DL ¶13-14). - Another 2026 heritage balance with ungraded harm: HE6(1) substantial weight and HE6(3) considerable importance and weight are stated, and the harm is not graded (DL ¶16-19). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): harm (considerable weight).** harm ungraded — "would impose harm to the significance of the CA"; HE6(1) "substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation" stated; adverse impact "a matter of considerable importance and weight" (HE6(3) wording); public benefits (one dwelling, efficient land use, no 5YHLS) given "a good deal of weight" — outweighed; s72 not cited (prior-approval context) (DL 11-19) - **HE4(1): harm.** heritage assets "an irreplaceable resource ... conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance" (DL 16) - **HO7: benefit.** housing contribution "particularly important" with no 5YHLS (figure not stated) but weighed as "a good deal of weight", not HO7 "substantial" (DL 18-19) ## Key facts - Class MA.2(2)(e) — ground-floor change of use in a conservation area; only the CA character/sustainability condition disputed (DL 5-7) - Three-storey terrace with commercial ground floors on a historic town-centre street in Folkestone Leas and Bayle CA; no external alterations (DL 8-11) - Unit recently vacant; vacancy given limited weight; no evidence commercial reuse unlikely (DL 13-14) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011807 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5db1ff3b-83ea-4fe6-887c-227f7ad35a1a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011807.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 56 Woodstock Road, Worcester - **Decision:** dismissed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Fulford - **Authority:** Worcester (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011840 - **Application reference:** 24/00959/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Enlargement of 6-bed HMO to 8-bed HMO with a second dropped kerb - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), N2 - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR 06, SWDPR 29 - **Main issues:** street tree, highway safety - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, hmo, street-tree, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary This appeal to enlarge a Worcester HMO from 6 to 8 bedrooms, with a second dropped kerb for a third parking space, was dismissed. The kerb works would damage the roots of a mature street verge tree, probably leading to its loss. That was contrary to N2 and was given significant weight. The highway safety objection failed. Under S4, the limited benefit of two extra rooms was "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶29). ## What made the difference The tree. An unprotected street tree was enough, via N2 ("conserve or enhance an existing natural feature"), to carry a substantial-weight S4 refusal against a small HMO scheme. The appellant's radar survey was undermined because it could not detect small roots (DL ¶10). The inspector also refused a split decision, because the extra parking was integral to the larger HMO (DL ¶24). ## Policy findings - **N2: fail (significant weight).** dropped kerb excavation about 385mm deep into the root protection area of a mature, unprotected street tree; likely loss (DL 8-13, 28) - **S4(1): fail.** two extra HMO bedrooms (HO7/HO9/TR3/L2) limited weight, substantially outweighed by tree harm (DL 25-29) - **TR6(4): pass.** 3.2m effective access on a quiet, slow street; no unacceptable highway safety impact (DL 19-21) ## Key facts - Street tree has no statutory protection; ground radar survey does not detect roots under 20mm (DL 8, 10) - Split decision (HMO without the kerb) refused because extra parking is integral to the scheme (DL 24) - Tree called whitebeam at DL 8 and hornbeam at DL 28 - drafting slip; costs application decided separately (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011840 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/21939b30-039d-40a1-953f-45e945c9a34e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011840.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to 16 Mill Road, Fen Drayton - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Simms - **Authority:** South Cambridgeshire (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6011872 - **Application reference:** 26/01273/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Self-build bungalow on subdivided smallholding plot in the Fen Drayton Former Land Settlement Association Estate - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 5.5 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), CC2, DP3, HO7 - **Development plan policies:** South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 S/2, S/7, H/5, HQ/1, TI/2, CC/1, CC/3, CC/4 - **Main issues:** accessibility of services, sustainable living, character and appearance - **Tags:** s5-1-j, self-build, self-build-shortfall-as-need, sustainable-location-fail, 5yhls-shown, design-refusal, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary The proposal was a self-build bungalow on a subdivided smallholding plot in the Fen Drayton former LSA estate, west of the village. The appeal was dismissed. Greater Cambridge had a 5.5-5.6-year supply, but the inspector treated the 456-plot self-build shortfall as the "evidenced unmet need" route into S5(1)(j). The scheme then failed (j)'s locational limbs. Most services were reachable only by car or bike, and plot subdivision harmed the estate's spacious smallholding character. CC2 conflict got significant weight, design conflict substantial weight, and the uncertain self-build benefit moderate weight. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework and the 2025 HDT (DL ¶3). - **Accessibility: FAIL.** "A school, village hall and recreation ground are near the village boundary about 600m away, with a pub and church about 1.0km and 1.2km away ... The nearest shops are a mile or so away in ... Fenstanton" (DL ¶6). "The road fronting the site has footways as far as both villages, but the cycleway to Fen Drayton and lighting to Fenstanton are discontinuous. Village bus stops are realistically accessible only by cycle, and I have no evidence as to frequencies" (DL ¶7). "future residents would be likely to depend on the car for access to most services and facilities" (DL ¶8). - **Character, DP3: FAIL.** The scheme "would not be in open countryside, nor would it read as rounding off a village or cluster of buildings. Rather, it would subdivide plots, reduce spacing and intensify both built form and residential use" (DL ¶15). - **Housing supply.** "Greater Cambridge has 5.5-5.6 years' supply" (DL ¶18). Self-build: "There is a shortfall of 456 serviced self-build or custom build plots against demand for 843 ... This is an important material consideration" (DL ¶19). ## Planning balance The inspector framed S5 as requiring approval of development "which would address an evidenced unmet need ... if it is physically well-related to a settlement and of a scale that can be accommodated" (DL ¶22). Against the scheme: CC2 conflict, significant weight (DL ¶23), and DP3 conflict, substantial weight (DL ¶24). For it: HO7 self-build, moderate weight, because a one-year marketing obligation "offers no certainty it would be delivered" (DL ¶21, 25). "The unsuitable location and harm to character and appearance would substantially outweigh the benefits ... Furthermore, I have also found that the proposal would not be suitably related to a settlement and that its need for access to services and facilities could not be accommodated by available infrastructure" (DL ¶26). The local policies were not materially inconsistent with the Framework and kept significant weight (DL ¶27). ## What made the difference With a five-year supply shown, the only "unmet need" was self-build. That need carried only moderate weight because the UU gave weak assurance of delivery. The site sits about 600 m to 1.2 km from limited village services, with gaps in cycleway and lighting. It was not "physically well-related", and the inspector folded access to services into the (j)(i) infrastructure test. A plot within the village framework, or a stronger self-build obligation, would have been needed. ## Transferable points - A self-build shortfall can be an "evidenced unmet need" for S5(1)(j) even where 5YHLS is shown (DL ¶19, 22). - A one-year marketing-to-register UU gives only moderate HO7 weight for self-build (DL ¶20-21, 25). - The (j)(i) "infrastructure" limb was read to include access to services and facilities (DL ¶26). PINS-6009303 (South Cambridgeshire) reads it the same way. - Footways alone do not make a location sustainable where the cycleway and lighting are discontinuous and bus frequency is unevidenced (DL ¶7-8). - DP3 conflict from subdividing a sparsely developed plot, not "rounding off", attracted substantial weight (DL ¶15, 24). - Local spatial policies restricting countryside housing were "not materially inconsistent" with the 2026 Framework (DL ¶27). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): fail.** self-build shortfall (456 plots) treated as evidenced unmet need, but site not "suitably related to a settlement" and access-to-services need "could not be accommodated by available infrastructure" (DL 19, 22, 26) - **CC2: fail (significant weight).** school about 600m, pub 1.0km, church 1.2km, shops about a mile in Fenstanton; footways but discontinuous cycleway and lighting; no bus frequency evidence; car dependent (DL 6-8, 23) - **DP3: fail (substantial weight).** subdivision of LSA smallholding plot intensifies built form, not rounding off; conflicts with design policies (DL 13-17, 24) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** self-build benefit uncertain - UU only requires one year's marketing to the register, and single plot (DL 20-21, 25) ## Key facts - Greater Cambridge supply 5.5-5.6 years; no evidence of under-delivery (DL 18) - Self-build shortfall of 456 serviced plots against demand for 843 (DL 19) - UU submitted only at final comments and missing its plan; still accepted as enforceable (DL 4, 20) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011872 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6c105e72-d140-40ab-9739-6bc5efcce1d7 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011872.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Merienda, Greenhill Road, Elton (replacement dwelling) - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Gee - **Authority:** Huntingdonshire (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6011882 - **Application reference:** 26/00660/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of a single-storey dwelling and erection of a larger Georgian-style self-build replacement dwelling with garaging - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** F4(2)(c), F7, DP3(1), DP3(3), S4(2)(c), S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Huntingdonshire Local Plan LP5, LP11, LP12, LP15, Huntingdonshire Design Guide 2017 - **Main issues:** flood risk, character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, design-refusal, flood-risk, evidence-gap, self-build, psed, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A larger Georgian-style replacement house on the edge of Elton. The site is in Flood Zone 1 but at 1-in-30 surface water risk and susceptible to groundwater, so F4(2)(c) required a site-specific flood risk assessment; none was provided. The formal design was also discordant with the informal street. Both F7 and DP3 were treated as "should be refused" policies under S4(2)(c), and the limited benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "My decision reflects the latest version of the Framework, and the responses received on it" (DL ¶2). - **Flood, F4(2)(c): FAIL.** "Conflict also arises with the Framework F4 2c) which requires the submission of a site Specific flood risk assessment for sites in Flood Zone 1 where land has been identified in a SFRA or the Flood Map for Planning as being at risk of flooding from any source" (DL ¶7). "regardless of whether a FRA was required for validation purposes, it remains necessary to provide adequate evidence addressing these matters" (DL ¶6). - **Design, DP3(1): CONFLICT.** "the proposal would appear discordant within its immediate context and would fail to respond positively to the prevailing character and appearance of this part of the settlement" (DL ¶10). - **Triggers.** F7 (DL ¶27) and DP3, "which states that development should be refused where, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 of the policy" (DL ¶28). ## Planning balance S4(1) with S4(2)(c) (DL ¶22, ¶26). Limited benefits (no net housing gain, unevidenced energy and biodiversity claims) were "substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶30). ## What made the difference No FRA on a site mapped at surface water and groundwater risk, and a design style foreign to the street. ## Transferable points - F4(2)(c) requires an FRA in Flood Zone 1 where the SFRA or flood map shows risk from any source, whatever the validation list says (DL ¶6-7). - A replacement dwelling adds no net supply, so the five-year shortfall adds little weight (DL ¶24). - Personal needs under the PSED do not outweigh harm where a less harmful scheme could meet them (DL ¶17). ## Policy findings - **F4(2)(c): fail.** Flood Zone 1 but 1-in-30 surface water risk and SFRA groundwater susceptibility; no site-specific FRA; cannot be conditioned (DL 4-7, 29) - **F7: fail.** safety from flooding not demonstrated; treated as a policy directing refusal (DL 26-27) - **DP3(1): conflict.** formal Georgian design discordant with varied, informal Greenhill Road; scale and forward garage otherwise acceptable (DL 8-15) - **DP3(3): fail.** DP3(3) wording set out with S4(2)(c); clear justification not separately assessed (DL 26, 28) - **HO7: benefit.** no net gain despite no five-year supply; modest benefit from improved housing choice; energy, BNG, EV limited (DL 23-24) - **PSED: neutral.** adaptable home for disabled daughter; not shown needs cannot be met by a less harmful scheme (DL 16-17) - **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 30) ## Key facts - Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply (figure not stated), but replacement gives no net gain (DL 24) - Appellant argued an FRA was not a validation requirement; inspector says F4(2) requires assessment before permission (DL 6) - Letter calls Framework policies NDMPs and says S4(2)(c) itself provides that proposals should be refused (DL 21, 26) - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011882 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/11c70c28-7166-4959-958d-73b53cf8989d --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011882.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south of The Rancher, Manor Farm Lane, Tidmarsh - **Decision:** allowed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Alexander O'Doherty - **Authority:** West Berkshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011886 - **Application reference:** 26/00191/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73 variation of approved plans for agricultural barn — revised layout (office, welfare, kitchen), external stair, glazing - **Site context:** open-countryside, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N4(1) - **Development plan policies:** West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2023-2041 SP2, SP7, SP8, DM35 - **Main issues:** agricultural need, character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, s73-variation, national-landscape, agricultural-building ## Summary Revised plans for an approved barn in the North Wessex Downs National Landscape, adding office, kitchen, a stair and glazing. Allowed. The Inspector gave "substantial weight" to NL conservation under N4(1) and found the effect neutral (DL ¶17). The Framework raised no new determinative matters (DL ¶4). ## What made the difference The Council did not rebut the agricultural consultant's addendum on need (DL ¶9). The additions were set back, so the barn kept its utilitarian look (DL ¶¶13–14). ## Policy findings - **N4(1): neutral (substantial weight).** substantial weight given to conserving North Wessex Downs NL; alterations only experienced locally, tree-screened — neutral effect, natural beauty conserved (DL 17-18) - **DP3: pass.** set-back glazing and stair keep utilitarian form; not domesticated (DL 12-14) - **E4: pass.** unrebutted agricultural appraisal addendum — revised layout still meets agricultural need (plan DM35) (DL 7-10) ## Key facts - No-residential-use condition retained; portacabin removal condition tightened - Separate costs decision issued ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/567bcb1c-814c-4844-a895-33e282b225ab - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011886 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011886.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Heather Lodge, 2 Old Acre Lane, Brocton, Stafford - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Stephens - **Authority:** Stafford (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011888 - **Application reference:** 25/40867/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Replacement of a single-storey dwelling with a two-storey, double-gabled, timber-clad dwelling (self-build declared) in Cannock Chase National Landscape - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), DP3(1), S4(2)(c) - **Development plan policies:** Plan for Stafford Borough C5, N1, N7 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** replacement-dwelling, self-build, design-refusal, dp3-refuse-trigger, s4-within-settlement, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, national-landscape, drafting-slip, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Replacing a modest bungalow on Old Acre Lane, Brocton, on the edge of Cannock Chase National Landscape, with a much larger two-storey timber-clad house. The National Landscape would be conserved, but the house would dominate the lane's low-lying side and fail DP3(1). With no clear justification, DP3(3) and S4(2)(c) applied. The replacement added no net dwelling. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Scale.** "As a result there would be a significant increase in the height, volume and massing of the dwelling compared to what is currently there." (DL ¶11). "This would create the impression of a cramped and over developed form of development" (DL ¶13). - **National Landscape, N4(1): PASS.** "I am satisfied that the landscape and scenic beauty of the Cannock Chase National Landscape would be conserved" (DL ¶19). - **Benefits.** "as the proposal is for a replacement dwelling there would not be any net gain in the number of dwellings" (DL ¶22). - **S4, not S5.** "the Council has already described the site as being within the village, and I saw this to be the case, and so Framework policy S4 would be more relevant as it deals with development within settlements" (DL ¶23). The letter paraphrases S4(2)(c) loosely: "This directs that development that fails to comply with one of the decision-making policies in the Framework should be refused." (DL ¶23). - **DP3(3): FAIL.** "I have not been provided with any clear justification for the proposal that would outweigh conflict with design policies in the Framework. Therefore the proposal would not accord with the Framework and should be refused." (DL ¶24). ## Planning balance S4 via S4(2)(c) and DP3(3); benefits very modest (no net dwelling, short-term construction) (DL ¶22-26). ## What made the difference The jump from a low bungalow to a two-storey house filling the plot width, beside a village hall and a stepped neighbour, on the lower side of the lane. Landscape-scale effects were acceptable; street-scale effects were not. ## Transferable points - DP3(3) clear justification framed as benefits outweighing the conflict (the Didcot reading), with DP3(3)'s substantial weight to compliance with plan design policies (DL ¶24). - A National Landscape pass (N4(1)) does not answer local character harm under DP3(1) (DL ¶19-20). - A replacement dwelling adds no net housing, so HO7 weight is minimal (DL ¶22). - Drafting slip: S4(2)(c) paraphrased as a direction to refuse, rather than making it likely that the benefits are substantially outweighed (DL ¶23). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): conflict.** doubled floor area and much greater height and massing, tight to boundaries, dark vertical cladding; dominant and incongruous among low-lying properties (DL 11-15, 20) - **DP3(3): fail.** explicit - no clear justification that would outweigh conflict with design policies; also cites substantial weight to compliance with plan design policies (C5, N1) (DL 24) - **N4(1): pass.** natural beauty of Cannock Chase NL conserved; house not discernible from the Chase slopes (DL 16-19) - **S4(2)(c): fail.** letter reads S4(2)(c) as directing refusal where a decision-making policy is not complied with (DL 23) - **S4: fail.** S4 rather than S5 because the site is within the village (DL 23) ## Key facts - Replacement, so no net gain in dwellings; self-build shortfall not quantified (DL 22) - Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 22) - No street-scene drawings; artist's impression reinforced concerns (DL 15) - Costs application by the appellant decided separately (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011888 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/53f72854-b47e-4618-b4a4-303c23e47e6a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011888.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 25 Essex Road, Dartford (Class MA, nursery to house) - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Heppell - **Authority:** Dartford (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011893 - **Application reference:** DA/26/00001/PMA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Prior approval under GPDO Class MA for change of use of a closed day nursery (Class E) to one 4/5-bedroom house - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Class MA MA.2(2)(h), HC6(1) - **Development plan policies:** Dartford Local Plan 2024 M2, M17 (as evidence only) - **Main issues:** noise from commercial premises, loss of registered nursery - **Tags:** tier-2, prior-approval, class-ma, community-facility, evidence-gap, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A Class MA prior approval to turn a closed day nursery back into a house. Noise was resolved by glazing, but the appeal failed because there was no evidence on local nursery provision, so the loss could not be shown to be acceptable under MA.2(2)(h) or HC6(1). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Framework applies under GPDO para W(10)(b); "The main parties were afforded the opportunity to comment" (DL ¶3). - **Noise: PASS.** "The proposal would moreover satisfy the requirement of Policy P3(2)(a) of the Framework" (DL ¶9). - **Nursery loss: FAIL.** "In the absence of such data, I cannot conclude that the loss of the facility would not impact adversely on nursery provision in the area" (DL ¶14). "It would conflict with Policy HC6(1) of the Framework for the same reasons" (DL ¶15). - **Housing benefits out of scope.** "the benefits of additional housing do not fall within the scope of the limitations and conditions set out in paragraphs MA.1 and MA.2 of the GPDO" (DL ¶16). ## Planning balance None; prior-approval conditions are pass/fail. ## What made the difference A missing nursery-provision audit. Data showing sufficient alternative places locally would likely have secured approval. ## Transferable points - HC6(1) applied to a registered nursery via MA.2(2)(h); the applicant must evidence local provision (DL ¶11–15). - In prior approvals, HO7-type housing benefits are outside the matters to be weighed (DL ¶16). ## Policy findings - **P3(2)(a): pass.** noise from working men's club and offices mitigated by BS 8233 glazing and trickle vents; MA.2(2)(d) met (DL 6-9) - **GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Class MA MA.2(2)(h): fail.** no evidence of local nursery provision, so impact of loss cannot be judged (DL 11-15) - **HC6(1): fail.** nursery treated as key community facility; conflict "for the same reasons" (DL 11, 15) - **HO7: not-engaged.** housing benefits outside the scope of prior approval under para W(10)(b) (DL 16) ## Key facts - Nursery closed March 2025 on owner's retirement (DL 14) - Class E fallback to other commercial uses acknowledged but prior approval to C3 still requires MA.2(2)(h) assessment (DL 12) - Framework applies under GPDO para W(10)(b) only so far as relevant to the prior approval matters (DL 3, 16) - Parties afforded the opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011893 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7e515d9f-3c19-4876-be49-e380a5e666c4 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011893.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to 3 School Cottages, Worcester Park (1 dwelling) - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Powys Jones - **Authority:** Kingston upon Thames (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6011901 - **Application reference:** 24/03049/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Two-storey detached house on a side plot - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** Kingston CS DM8, Kingston CS DM10 - **Development plan policies:** Kingston Core Strategy DM6, DM8, DM10, London Plan D3, G6 - **Main issues:** character, living conditions, BNG - **Tags:** bng, design-refusal, small-scheme, tier-2 ## Summary A detached house on a side plot in Worcester Park was dismissed for harm to character, poor privacy and visual intrusion, and missing BNG information (DL ¶7, ¶12, ¶16). ## What made the difference Cumulative design and amenity failings. The inspector added two amenity harms the council had not raised (DL ¶12). The new Framework did not alter the plan-led outcome (DL ¶18). ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail.** harm to local character (DL 7) - **P3: fail.** privacy for future occupiers and visual intrusion - issues raised by the inspector, not the council (DL 9-12) - **N2: fail.** no BNG information; conflict with "national policy and local policies relating to BNG" (DL 16) ## Key facts - Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework; none did (DL 17) - Inspector raised living-conditions harms the council had not cited (DL 12) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011901 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f17069ee-aa28-496f-a6c6-f839b6c6ce6b --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011901.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Semper Fidelis, Wire Mill Lane, Newchapel - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Miles - **Authority:** Tandridge (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6011972 - **Application reference:** TA/2026/347 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion of equestrian site to residential use, erection of eight detached dwellings - **Homes:** 8 - **Site context:** green-belt, PDL, rural-lane, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.92 - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 38 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(e), GB6(2), TR3, S5(5) - **Development plan policies:** Tandridge Local Plan Part 2 2014 DP10, DP13, Tandridge Core Strategy 2008 CSP1 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development / openness, sustainable transport, VSC - **Tags:** pdl-e-limb, openness-harm, substantial-openness-harm, volume-reduction-not-enough, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, vsc-not-shown, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, grey-belt-not-argued ## Summary Eight detached houses replacing equestrian buildings at Newchapel, the same area as Branford Wells (PINS-6010313). Dismissed. The site was agreed PDL, but eight two-storey houses would be taller, bulkier and more conspicuous than the low stables, so they would cause substantial harm to openness and fail GB7(1)(e). The site was also car-dependent under TR3. Moderate overall benefits against 1.92 years' supply did not clearly outweigh the harm. Grey belt (GB7(1)(g)) was not argued or considered. ## Issues and findings - **GB7(1)(e): FAIL.** "although the number of buildings and volume would reduce, the proposed dwellings would be taller, bulkier and more conspicuous … there would be harm to spatial and visual openness and taken together the harm would be substantial" (DL ¶9). - **TR3 / sustainable transport: FAIL.** "Wire Mill Lane … is a narrow rural road with no lighting or pavements … bus stops at Wembury Park with three-four services in each direction on Monday-Friday only" (DL ¶12). "Particularly in hours of darkness, for children and those with mobility issues" (DL ¶13). "even taking into account the existing situation, this would not promote sustainable transport modes" (DL ¶14). - **S5(5).** S5 "does not apply to development proposals in the Green Belt which, in these circumstances, should be determined in accordance with policies GB6 and GB7" (DL ¶19). ## Planning balance GB6(2): substantial weight to Green Belt harm, plus harm on transport. Housing had "substantial weight" in principle but the benefits were "moderate in this case" given the scale (DL ¶16). "do not clearly outweigh the totality of the harm" (DL ¶18). ## What made the difference Built form. Swapping low, scattered equestrian buildings for eight two-storey houses with gardens and an access road raised height and visual presence, even though volume and footprint fell. The location was as car-dependent as Branford Wells. Grey belt was never run, and on these facts (g)(iii) would likely have failed too. ## Transferable points - Under GB7(1)(e), reductions in volume and footprint do not avoid substantial openness harm where height, bulk and conspicuousness increase (DL ¶9). - Credit for reduced trips from an existing use does not make a car-dependent location sustainable (DL ¶14). - An unlit lane without pavements is unattractive "particularly in hours of darkness, for children and those with mobility issues" (DL ¶13). - S5(5): for inappropriate Green Belt development, the S5 presumption does not apply and the case is decided under GB6/GB7 (DL ¶19). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(e): fail.** agreed PDL; footprint and volume fall, but eight taller (8.6 m), bulkier two-storey houses with curtilages and roads → substantial harm to openness (DL 6-11) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriate plus spatial and visual openness harm; VSC not shown (DL 17-18) - **TR3: fail.** narrow lane with no lighting or pavements; bus 3-4 a day each way weekdays only; A22 unattractive for cycling; car-dependent even allowing for reduced trips from the equestrian use (DL 12-15) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** substantial weight to homes given 1.92 yrs and HDT 38%, tempered by scale → moderate overall (DL 16) - **S5(5): not-engaged.** S5 does not apply to Green Belt proposals that are inappropriate; decide under GB6/GB7; presumption does not apply (DL 19) ## Key facts - Existing equestrian barn, stables and sand school, 6,130-7,270 m3 and ~1,780 m2 footprint, 2.9-5.6 m high - Proposed eight houses at 6,260 m3, 990-1,090 m2 footprint, up to 8.6 m high - Visible from a public footpath to the west and nearby properties - Resubmission after an earlier dismissed appeal - Tandridge supply 1.92 years, HDT 38% ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011972 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e5480714-437c-4161-9f69-5f3c8d4a49c9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011972.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Wilwyn, Chelmsford Road, Blackmore - **Decision:** dismissed, 26 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Pattison - **Authority:** Brentwood (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6012008 - **Application reference:** 26/00225/HHA - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Rear extension, loft conversion, internal alterations; replacement garage - **Site context:** green-belt - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB6(2), P3 - **Development plan policies:** Brentwood Local Plan 2022 MG02, BE14 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, living conditions, character, VSC - **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, householder, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, neighbour-context-irrelevant, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary Large rear extension and new first floor to a modest dwelling among larger houses. Dismissed. A cumulative increase of 239.4% was disproportionate under GB7(1)(b), with limited openness harm and loss of light to a neighbour. No VSC. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The changes "are not fundamental to matters which are determinative" (DL ¶2). - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "Wilwyn is currently notably smaller than other nearby properties. However, the Framework requires proposals to be assessed against the size of the original building" (DL ¶8). The garage demolition did not avoid disproportion (DL ¶9). - **Openness: limited harm**, reflecting the context of large residential properties (DL ¶14). - **Living conditions:** a marginal 45-degree breach was still harmful (DL ¶19). - Improved living conditions for the occupiers had only limited weight (DL ¶25). ## Planning balance GB6(2): the considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm (DL ¶28). ## What made the difference The size of the cumulative increase (239%). Local context of larger homes is irrelevant to the (b) test. ## Transferable points - Neighbouring larger houses do not affect the proportionality test, which compares with the original building (DL ¶8). - Demolishing an outbuilding does not offset a disproportionate enlargement of the dwelling (DL ¶9). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** undisputed cumulative floor area increase of 239.4%; comparison is with the original building, not with larger neighbours (DL 5-10) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** limited spatial and visual openness harm in a context of large dwellings (DL 13-15) - **P3: conflict.** marginal breach of the Essex Design Guide 45-degree plan line; loss of light to a neighbour's habitable room (DL 16-21) ## Key facts - Cumulative increase over the original of 239.4%; 7.5 m deep rear extension plus a new first floor - Host dwelling notably smaller than neighbouring two-storey houses - Removing the detached garage did not offset the increase ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012008 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/897d8a75-6eaa-4049-9f96-ece85e19cb77 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012008.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 290 Prince Avenue, Westcliff-on-Sea - **Decision:** split, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Jonathan Price - **Authority:** Southend-on-Sea (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6012017 - **Application reference:** 26/00269/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** s73 variation of convenience store opening hours (to 07.00-22.30) and retrospective external roller shutters - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** s38(6) - **Development plan policies:** Southend Core Strategy 2007 KP2, CP4, DM Document 2015 DM1, DM3, Design and Townscape Guide 2009 - **Main issues:** neighbour noise and disturbance, character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, conditions-appeal, retrospective, transitional-no-consultation, limited-nppf-engagement ## Summary A split decision. Extended convenience-store hours were allowed, having been scaled back from an earlier refused request. Retained solid roller shutters were dismissed, following a previous appeal. The 2026 Framework "makes substantial amendments" but its "policies over design and noise remain generally consistent", so there was no consultation (DL ¶2). ## What made the difference Previous appeal decisions were given significant weight. The hours were cut back enough to avoid unsociable times. ## Policy findings - **DM1 / DM3 (Southend DMD): accord.** reduced hours extension avoids unsociable hours; store viability benefits "tip the balance" (DL 6-8) - **KP2 (Southend CS): conflict.** solid roller shutters on Rochester Drive frontage — dead frontage; previous appeal decision given significant weight (DL 9-10) ## Key facts - Earlier appeals dismissed on 06.00-23.00 hours (APP/D1590/W/25/3374767) and on shutters (APP/D1590/W/25/3369669) (DL 3-4) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012017 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f6ad946d-5a46-4ec7-8bbf-076d39d29789 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012017.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 13 Howard Avenue, Bedford - **Decision:** allowed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Fulford - **Authority:** Bedford (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6012021 - **Application reference:** 26/00578/CPNMA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class MA prior approval — ground-floor shop (Class E) to one-bed dwelling (C3) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, near-station - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR4(1)(e) - **Main issues:** transport impacts — safe site access - **Tags:** tier-2, prior-approval, class-ma, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, parking ## Summary Class MA shop-to-flat conversion refused over parking. Allowed. Parking provision was found "appropriate … reflecting the location and nature of development in accordance with Policy TR4 of the Framework" (DL ¶16). Unusually, the Inspector said the relevant parts of the Framework had changed and consulted the parties (DL ¶3). ## What made the difference Residential use would generate less parking demand than the retail use it replaced. There was unrestricted on-street parking and a walkable station and bus (DL ¶¶11–13). ## Policy findings - **TR4(1)(e): pass.** MA.2(2)(a) transport — zero on-site parking acceptable; residential demand lower than retail; unrestricted on-street parking; walkable to Bedford station; "appropriate parking provision … reflecting the location and nature of development in accordance with Policy TR4" (DL 11-16) ## Key facts - Council refused solely on overnight parking demand; Inspector parked outside on the site visit; no parking survey needed for 1 unit - Parties consulted because relevant parts of the Framework "have been amended" (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3be5d291-c5ca-4920-b968-7ac4e9950de2 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012021 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012021.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 43 Endcliffe Rise Road, Sheffield (side dormers) - **Decision:** dismissed, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Hartley - **Authority:** Sheffield (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6012025 - **Application reference:** 26/00417/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Two side dormer windows to a terraced dwelling - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Sheffield UDP 1998 BE5, H14, Sheffield Core Strategy 2009 CS74, SPG Designing House Extensions 1996 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** householder, design-refusal, transitional-no-consultation, tier-2 ## Summary Two side dormers on a Sheffield terrace were dismissed as dominant additions, unlike the area's small dormers (DL ¶6, ¶14). ## What made the difference The scale of the dormers relative to the local pattern. DP3 was cited alongside 1990s local guidance (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail.** dormers out of scale with the small front dormers characteristic of the area; conflict with DP3 and local design policies (DL 6-14) ## Key facts - Not re-consulted: revisions "do not significantly change the assessment" (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012025 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5b489d58-8a8b-4be3-8701-70d158b6bed3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012025.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 297 Frankby Road, Frankby - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Les Greenwood - **Authority:** Wirral (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6012026 - **Application reference:** APPH/26/00073 - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Retrospective first-floor side extension above a PD ground-floor extension - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Wirral Local Plan WS1, Householder Extensions SPD 2026 - **Main issues:** disproportionate extension, openness, VSC - **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, householder, retrospective ## Summary A retrospective first-floor side extension on a 1980s house at the fringe of Frankby. Together with other recent extensions it brought the cumulative increase to 73%, against a new SPD guide of 50%. It was dismissed as disproportionate under GB7(1)(b), with significant openness harm. ## Issues and findings - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "the SPD says that increases of more than 50% of the floorspace of the original dwelling … will be considered disproportionate … the overall floorspace increase is about 73% … strongly suggesting that the scale of extensions here has become disproportionate" (DL ¶9-10). - **Openness:** raising a low-profile PD extension to two storeys "makes this structure much taller and more prominent … significant harm is caused to the openness" (DL ¶13-14). - **Other considerations:** good design and the house's proportion to its plot were neutral. Improved family accommodation weighed in favour but was insufficient (DL ¶16-17). ## Planning balance GB6(2). Substantial weight to inappropriateness plus significant openness harm; no VSC (DL ¶17). ## What made the difference A cumulative increase well over the local percentage guide, and the vertical increase over a PD ground floor. ## Transferable points - Local SPD percentage thresholds (here 50%) are used as a strong indicator of "disproportionate" under GB7(1)(b) (DL ¶9-10). - Building upward over a PD extension increases visual openness harm even with no footprint increase (DL ¶13). - Good design is neutral in the VSC balance (DL ¶16). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** 73% cumulative increase over original house plus garage vs new SPD 50% guide; two-storey spread across plot width (DL 9-11) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** significant openness harm — raises a low PD extension to two storeys, prominent; design and family accommodation neutral/limited (DL 12-17) ## Key facts - New Wirral Householder Extensions SPD (2026) sets 50% cumulative floorspace guide; proposal 73% (undisputed) - Ground floor built under PD (LDC); first floor built without permission - Parties consulted on both the 2026 Framework and new SPD ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012026 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e52d990b-c4c6-4d8b-9c50-7d71e7802ace --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012026.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Granary, Colemans Farm, Toot Hill Road, Stanford Rivers - **Decision:** allowed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Reid - **Authority:** Epping Forest (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6012043 - **Application reference:** EPF/0128/26 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Erection of a three-bay cart lodge (two open parking bays, one storage bay) within the curtilage of a dwelling - **Site context:** green-belt, listed-building-setting, PDL, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(e), HE6 - **Development plan policies:** Epping Forest District Local Plan 2011-2033 DM4, DM7, DM9 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development and openness, setting of listed building - **Tags:** pdl-e-limb, not-inappropriate, residential-curtilage-pdl, openness-moderate-not-substantial, heritage-setting-preserved, householder ## Summary A three-bay cart lodge on the driveway of a modern house within a historic farmstead in the Epping Forest Green Belt. Allowed. Residential curtilage outside a built-up area counts as PDL, and a moderate loss of openness is not "substantial", so the building fell within GB7(1)(e). The setting of the Grade II farmhouse was preserved. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Both parties commented on the revised Framework (DL ¶2). - **PDL: yes.** "the proposed development would be positioned within the driveway which forms part of the curtilage of the developed land, and it would be located on an area of hard standing. Furthermore, the appeal site is not within a built-up area" (DL ¶9). - **GB7(1)(e): PASS.** The development "would result in a moderate degree of harm to the openness of the Green Belt" (DL ¶11), which is not substantial, so the exception applies (DL ¶12). Once not inappropriate, it "should not be regarded as harmful either to the openness of the Green Belt or to the purposes" (DL ¶13). - **Heritage: preserved.** "Whilst there is no longer the concept of less than substantial harm, Policy DM7 … adopts the same broad approach as Policy HE6" (DL ¶14). The site makes a "neutral contribution" to significance (DL ¶18). ## Planning balance No VSC balance was needed. Allowed with conditions, including ancillary use only. ## What made the difference Classing the driveway and curtilage as PDL (the Annex B exclusion for residential gardens applies only within built-up areas) moved the test from the new-building exceptions to GB7(1)(e). That limb tolerates up to (but not including) substantial openness harm, so a moderate harm finding was enough. The Council never addressed (e). ## Transferable points - Residential curtilage outside a built-up area is PDL, so outbuildings there can fall under GB7(1)(e) (DL ¶¶9–10). - Under GB7(1)(e), "moderate" openness harm is compatible with the exception, and once not inappropriate no GB harm is weighed (DL ¶¶11–13). - Inspectors will consider an exception the Council did not address (DL ¶7). - HE6 applied without the "less than substantial" label; local heritage policy using the old approach is still "consistent" and given full weight (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(e): pass.** driveway hardstanding within the curtilage of a dwelling outside a built-up area is PDL; moderate (not substantial) openness harm → not inappropriate; raised by the appellant though the Council was silent (DL 7-12) - **GB6(2): not-engaged.** not inappropriate, so not regarded as harmful to openness or purposes (DL 13) - **HE6: neutral.** setting of Grade II Colemans Farmhouse preserved; site is a later residential plot behind a wall making a neutral contribution (DL 14-22) - **HE4: accord.** (DL 23) ## Key facts - The Granary is a large modern detached house replacing an agricultural shed within a historic farmstead - Cart lodge sited on existing driveway hardstanding within the residential curtilage, outside any built-up area - Council itself assessed openness harm as moderate - Inspector notes "there is no longer the concept of less than substantial harm" but DM7 is consistent with HE6 ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012043 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9d17846a-0280-4498-9d37-b06dddb0ee1b --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012043.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 18 Myrtle Avenue, Thornton-Cleveleys (children's care home) - **Decision:** allowed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Lancaster - **Authority:** Wyre (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6012092 - **Application reference:** 26/00199/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of a detached dwelling (C3) to a children's residential care home (C2) for up to two children with up to two carers on shift - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S3(1)(c) - **Development plan policies:** Wyre Local Plan 2011-2031 (partial update 2022) CDMP3, CDMP6 - **Main issues:** neighbours' living conditions (noise and disturbance), highway safety and parking - **Tags:** tier-2, childrens-home, specialist-housing, s3-1-c-approve, costs-application, drafting-slip, limited-nppf-engagement, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A detached house in Thornton-Cleveleys to become a children's care home for two children. Activity and parking would be comparable to a family home, so there was no harm to neighbours or highway safety. With no harm and full plan accordance, the inspector applied S3(1)(c), which the letter cites as "S3(3)(c)": approve without delay. Allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "My decision reflects the latest version of the Framework, and the responses received on it" (DL ¶3). - **Noise: NO HARM.** "The proposal represents another type of residential use, albeit with a care element for the looked after children" (DL ¶8). - **Parking: NO HARM.** "there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the parking requirements of the proposed development would be materially different from its occupation as a family dwelling" (DL ¶15). - **S3(1)(c).** "Policy S3(3)(c) sets out that in all locations, development proposals that accord with both an up-to-date development plan and the decision-making policies in this Framework should be approved without delay" (DL ¶27). ## Planning balance None needed. Accords with the plan and the Framework (DL ¶28). ## What made the difference Small scale: two children and a care rota producing activity comparable to a family. ## Transferable points - S3(1)(c) (approve without delay where the scheme accords with an up-to-date plan and the Framework) used directly for a no-harm change of use (DL ¶27–28). S3(1)(c) is rarely cited. - A small children's home is a residential-type use; the character of the neighbourhood's current occupants is not a reason for refusal (DL ¶8, ¶10). ## Policy findings - **P3: pass.** mapped: residential-type use for two children; staff changeover comparable to a multi-car household; no unacceptable noise (CDMP3) (DL 7-11) - **TR6: pass.** mapped: four off-street spaces by extending the drive; demand comparable to a family house (CDMP6) (DL 12-17) - **S3(1)(c): pass.** letter says "Policy S3(3)(c)"; accords with the up-to-date plan and the Framework's decision-making policies, so approve without delay (DL 27-28) ## Key facts - Council's concerns about a quiet, largely retired neighbourhood rejected; the house could be occupied by a family with children (DL 8) - Costs application by the appellant against the Council, decided separately (DL 2) - Letter heading gives the appeal ref as "601209" (a truncation of 6012092) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012092 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c3a82bb5-29a0-4887-9e2f-527579fcbd5a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012092.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 2 Killy Hill, Chobham - **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Ellis - **Authority:** Surrey Heath (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6012106 - **Application reference:** 26/0127/FFU - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Two-storey side extension and single-storey rear extension following partial demolition - **Site context:** green-belt - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB6(2) - **Main issues:** openness, VSC balance incl. fallback - **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, openness-harm, vsc-not-shown, fallback, pd-fallback-not-reliable, transitional-no-consultation, householder ## Summary Side and rear extensions at an end-of-terrace house in the Green Belt, accepted as inappropriate. The appellant relied on a permitted development fallback backed by a lawful development certificate. The Inspector gave it only moderate weight, because parts of it could be built in addition to the appeal scheme. VSC was not shown and the appeal was dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The parts of the Framework relevant to this appeal have not substantively changed. I have therefore not sought further submissions" (DL ¶2). - **Inappropriateness** agreed (DL ¶4). **Openness:** "whilst localised, there would be harm to both the spatial and visual aspects" (DL ¶8). - **Fallback: moderate weight.** "the dormer and outbuilding are independent elements that could also be implemented alongside the appeal proposal" (DL ¶12). "a condition removing permitted development rights would take effect only upon implementation of the appeal scheme, leaving scope for elements of the fallback … to be undertaken beforehand" (DL ¶13). Mansell v Tonbridge & Malling [2017] EWCA Civ 1314 was considered (DL ¶15). ## Planning balance GB6(2): substantial weight to GB harm. Moderate weight to the fallback and limited weight to extra living space. VSC not shown (DL ¶¶18–20). ## What made the difference The fallback was not a genuine alternative: the elements were separable and could be combined with the appeal scheme, so it did not guarantee a net improvement. ## Transferable points - A PD fallback is weakened where its elements could be built in addition to the appeal scheme (DL ¶¶12–14). - A condition removing PD rights cannot stop fallback works being done before the permission is implemented (DL ¶13). - Design is not a Green Belt consideration when comparing a fallback (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** agreed inappropriate (disproportionate); very similar to scheme dismissed Aug 2025 (3365476) (DL 4) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** localised spatial and visual openness harm; side extension up to the boundary beside woodland footpath (DL 7-8, 18) - **fallback: benefit (moderate weight).** LDC-backed PD fallback (full-width dormer, side/rear extension, cabin) is realistic, but dormer and cabin could be built as well as the appeal scheme, and a PD-removal condition bites only on implementation (DL 9-14) ## Key facts - End-of-terrace house beside woodland and a public footpath - Previous similar appeal dismissed August 2025 (ref 3365476) - PD fallback supported by lawful development certificate 25/1208/CES; c.8 sqm more floor area than the proposal ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012106 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e3d6fec9-cd0d-4ef8-8ae4-b5ccd2e098e3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012106.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Outside 118 Mile End Road, Tower Hamlets (BT Street Hub replacing InLink) - **Decision:** allowed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: H Whitfield - **Authority:** Tower Hamlets (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6012153 - **Application reference:** PA/26/00601 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Removal of an InLink unit and installation of a BT Street Hub 3 with two 75-inch digital screens (linked advertisement appeal 6012151, ref PA/26/00602; 10-year advert consent) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3, HE4, HE6 - **Development plan policies:** Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031 S.DH1, S.DH3, D.DH10, S.TR1, London Plan 2021 D3, HC1, T2 - **Main issues:** character and appearance including heritage, highway and pedestrian safety - **Tags:** telecoms, street-hub, heritage-no-harm, need-not-required ## Summary A BT Street Hub with digital screens replacing an InLink unit on Mile End Road, in the Stepney Green Conservation Area and near Grade II listed buildings. The inspector found no harm to character, the CA, the listed settings or pedestrian safety on this very wide, commercial boulevard. Both the planning and advertisement appeals were allowed, with a 10-year advertisement consent. ## Issues and findings - **Context.** "This section of Mile End Road forms a wide, tree-lined boulevard with a busy, urban character … Street furniture, signage and advertising are frequent" (DL ¶15). - **Character: no harm.** "As it would be broadly in line with the avenue of trees and where most existing street furniture is clustered, it would not be an incongruous feature … the proposal would not lead to visual clutter or an unacceptable proliferation of street furniture" (DL ¶17). - **Heritage: preserved.** "The proposed hub and advertisement displays would not result in harm to the character or appearance of the CA, the significance of which would be preserved" (DL ¶20). Listed-building settings were preserved (DL ¶21). The scheme accords with "Policies DP3, HE4 and HE6 of the Framework" (DL ¶23). - **Need.** "The Council has referred to a lack of public benefits to demonstrate the proposed street furniture is necessary. However, I have not been directed to any policy where this is a specific requirement" (DL ¶22). - **Pedestrian safety.** 6.3 m remains to the building line, so pedestrians can "easily deviate and navigate around the proposed hub" (DL ¶27-28). ## Planning balance No harm was found, so there was no balance. Compliance with the development plan, and DP3, HE4 and HE6, meant both appeals were allowed (DL ¶23-24, ¶30-31, ¶39). CO1 is not mentioned. ## What made the difference Street width and context. A 20-50 m boulevard with trees and existing street furniture absorbed the hub. Compare Turnpike Lane (PINS-6003086), with a digital unit only 6.2 m away, and Barnsley (PINS-6009866), with a narrowing pavement at a station door. ## Transferable points - A modern pavement plot contributes neutrally to a CA and to nearby listed settings, so a hub can preserve significance in a commercial, well-furnished street (DL ¶12-14, ¶20-21). - There is no policy requirement to demonstrate need or public benefit for street furniture of this kind (DL ¶22, ¶33). - Benefits from removing other structures are not weighed unless they are part of the scheme or secured (DL ¶16). - Luminance limits can apply at all times, not only from dusk to dawn (DL ¶36). ## Policy findings - **DP3: pass.** sits in line with the tree avenue and other street furniture on a very wide boulevard; no clutter or proliferation (DL ¶17-18, ¶23) - **HE6: neutral.** preserves Stepney Green CA and settings of Grade II 90-126 Mile End Road and a Grade II drinking fountain; site makes a neutral contribution (DL ¶12-14, ¶20-23) - **HE4: pass.** cited with DP3 and HE6 as satisfied (DL ¶23) - **TR4: pass.** 6.3 m clear to the building line; about 0.5 m from the cycleway kerb; TfL clutter concern not evidenced (DL ¶26-30) - **DM6: neutral.** conditions tested against DM6; luminance of 600 cd/m2 at all times, not just dusk to dawn (DL ¶34-36) ## Key facts - Mile End Road is 20-50 m wide, a tree-lined boulevard; the CA appraisal treats its transport function as part of its historic character (DL ¶12, ¶15) - Removal of a phone kiosk and a cash machine was claimed but not in the description or secured, so not weighed (DL ¶16) - No policy requires a need for street furniture to be shown: "I have not been directed to any policy requirement for the appellant to demonstrate a need" (DL ¶22, ¶33) - Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶8) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012153 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/799fe93a-1f54-4cfd-b7f5-ed90d171e02f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012153.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Broom Farm, Dene Road, Norton Fitzwarren - **Decision:** allowed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Hills - **Authority:** Somerset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6012154 - **Application reference:** 06/25/0030/CQ - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class Q prior approval — agricultural building to dwellinghouse - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Class Q.1(j), GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Class Q.1(p) - **Main issues:** whether permitted development - **Tags:** tier-2, class-q, prior-approval, no-framework-reference ## Summary Class Q prior approval for a barn-to-dwelling conversion. Allowed. The internal floors and infill works were not "substantial rebuilding", and a suitable access track existed. The Framework is not mentioned. None of the Class Q matters in dispute (building operations, access) invoke it, which explains its absence. ## What made the difference Retained principal stone walls, a structural report, and the PPG's acceptance of internal floors. Phosphate/Ramsar was left to the separate regulation 77 route. ## Policy findings - **GPDO Class Q Q.1(j): pass.** new floor slab, first floor, gable wall within existing opening and infill between retained brick columns not substantial rebuilding (Hibbitt considered) (DL 8-12) - **GPDO Class Q Q.1(p): pass.** rubble track probably existed to barn at application date; suitable access (DL 13-15) ## Key facts - Ramsar phosphate issue deferred to separate reg 77 Habitats application (DL 16-18) - Biodiversity conditions refused — not related to prior approval matters; s40 NERC duty does not attach (DL 21) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012154 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/282e5109-7886-4425-a79a-461aeb795617 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012154.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Oakwood House, School Lane, West Kingsdown - **Decision:** allowed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Pattison - **Authority:** Sevenoaks (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6012162 - **Application reference:** 26/00681/HOUSE - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Detached outbuilding (storage/workshop) in the grounds of a large rural dwelling - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(e), AnnexB:previously-developed-land - **Development plan policies:** Sevenoaks ADMP 2015 GB3, Sevenoaks Green Belt SPD - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, PDL - **Tags:** pdl-e-limb, garden-pdl-outside-built-up-area, householder, local-plan-inconsistent-annex-a, openness-limited ## Summary A large detached outbuilding in the secluded grounds of a big rural house. It was allowed. The garden, not being in a built-up area, was PDL, so the building was assessed under GB7(1)(e). With limited effect on openness (not "substantial harm"), it was not inappropriate. The stricter local policy was given very limited weight as inconsistent with the Framework. ## Issues and findings - **PDL:** "residential gardens that are not in built-up areas are not excluded from the general definition of previously developed land … the appeal site is not in a built-up area and therefore represents previously developed land" (DL ¶8-9). - **Openness:** "moderate reduction in spatial openness" (DL ¶11). Visual effect "very minimal … the overall impact on the openness of the Green Belt would be limited" (DL ¶13). - **Local policy inconsistent:** "The wording used in Policy GB3, in relation to the impact on openness, is therefore not strictly consistent with the Framework" (DL ¶10). "Annex A of the Framework confirms that development plan policies … which are materially inconsistent … should be given very limited weight" (DL ¶16). - **Conclusion:** "The outbuilding would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, and therefore it meets the exception in GB7.1.e." (DL ¶17). ## Planning balance None needed. Not inappropriate. The s38(6) conflict with ADMP GB3 was outweighed by the Framework (DL ¶16). ## What made the difference Using GB7(1)(e) rather than (b). The garden-as-PDL analysis (Dartford) plus the high "substantial harm" threshold let a large outbuilding through that would probably have failed a proportionality test. ## Transferable points - Residential gardens outside built-up areas are PDL, so outbuildings there can be tested under GB7(1)(e) ("not substantial harm to openness") rather than GB7(1)(b) proportionality (DL ¶8-9, 17). - Local outbuilding policies using "materially harm openness" are inconsistent with GB7(1)(e) and get very limited weight via Annex A (DL ¶10, 16). - Size-guide SPD footprints (40 sqm) are guidance, not rules (DL ¶15). - DM6: no PD-removal condition without clear justification (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:previously-developed-land: pass.** residential garden not in a built-up area is PDL (Dartford BC v SSCLG [2017] EWCA Civ 141) (DL 8-9) - **GB7(1)(e): pass.** moderate spatial, very minimal visual effect — limited overall, not substantial harm to openness (DL 11-13, 17) - **Sevenoaks ADMP GB3: conflict (very-limited weight).** local "materially harm" openness test inconsistent with GB7(1)(e) "substantial harm"; Annex A — very limited weight; SPD 40 sqm guide not a rule (DL 10, 15-16) - **DM6: neutral.** no condition removing PD rights without clear justification (DL 21) ## Key facts - Outbuilding about 180 m from School Lane in large wooded grounds, well screened - Footprint exceeds Sevenoaks SPD 40 sqm guide - Local plan outbuilding policy test ("not materially harm openness") held inconsistent with GB7(1)(e) and given very limited weight ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012162 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/76a6baa0-007e-4d80-9b51-3d53e53c8302 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012162.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land to the rear of 3 Broad Lane, Downholland - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Gravett - **Authority:** West Lancashire (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6012188 - **Application reference:** 2024/0497/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Yoga facility with hardstanding (retrospective), wildflower meadow, pond and orchard; change of use for beekeeping and outdoor yoga and holistic therapies - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, agricultural-land-BMV - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), GB7(1)(f)(iv), GB7(1)(g)(ii), DP3(3) - **Development plan policies:** West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 GN1, GN3, IF3, EC2 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, character and appearance, accessibility, living conditions, BMV land, VSC - **Tags:** openness-harm, vsc-not-shown, outdoor-recreation-facilities, openness-minimised-test, unmet-need-not-evidenced, grey-belt-assumed, decision-vs-plan-making-policies, sustainable-location-pass ## Summary Retrospective yoga studio with parking in a field behind a house in the West Lancashire Green Belt. Dismissed. Outdoor yoga counts as outdoor recreation, but the building was an indoor studio rather than an "appropriate facility" and it did not minimise the impact on openness, so it failed GB7(1)(f). The grey belt route also failed on limb (ii), because no unmet need for yoga facilities was evidenced. Substantial weight went to health benefits (HC4) and significant weight to biodiversity, but these did not clearly outweigh substantial Green Belt harm and substantial DP3 character harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The Framework is "a material consideration of critical importance which should be taken into account from the day of publication"; the parties commented (DL ¶2). - **GB7(1)(f)(iii)/(iv): FAIL.** "I am satisfied that outdoor yoga is a recreational activity" (DL ¶8), but "the building cannot reasonably be considered an appropriate and proportionate facility … It appears and functions as an indoor yoga studio with separate treatment room" (DL ¶10). Separately, it "fails to minimise the impact on the openness of the Green Belt" (DL ¶13). - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): FAIL.** "I have very little evidence before me that there is an absence of existing outdoor recreation provision locally, or a particular or unmet need for yoga facilities" (DL ¶15). The other limbs were not considered (DL ¶16). - **Character, DP3(3): substantial weight.** "Policy DP3(3) states that proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with (1). Accordingly, I afford substantial weight to the harm" (DL ¶38). - **Location, TR3-type: PASS.** "the proximity of the bus stops, and the availability of bus services offers a choice of transport mode" (DL ¶22). - **GB5 not usable in decisions.** "this is a plan-making policy and paragraph 8 of the Framework is clear that these should not be used when making decisions" (DL ¶36). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Against the scheme: substantial weight to Green Belt harm and substantial weight to character harm. For it: HC4 substantial weight and significant weight to biodiversity (DL ¶33-34, ¶39). Not clearly outweighed, so no VSC (DL ¶39-40). ## What made the difference The building was too large and too indoor-focused to be a facility ancillary to outdoor recreation. Separately, the grey belt route needs evidence of unmet need for the specific use, and for non-housing uses footnote 41 gives no automatic answer. Even substantial HC4 health weight could not overcome two sets of harm that each carried substantial weight. ## Transferable points - For non-housing development, GB7(1)(g)(ii) "evidenced unmet need" must be shown with evidence about the specific use. Testimonials of popularity are not enough (DL ¶15-16). - A building that functions as an indoor facility is not an "appropriate facility" for outdoor recreation under GB7(1)(f)(iv) (DL ¶10). - DP3(3) can lift character harm to substantial weight (DL ¶38). - GB5 is plan-making only and cannot be relied on in decisions (DL ¶36). - HC4 gives substantial weight to demonstrable health and social benefits (DL ¶33). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(f)(iii): pass.** outdoor yoga is outdoor recreation; the change of use of the land falls within (f)(iii) (DL 8) - **GB7(1)(f)(iv): fail.** studio is an indoor yoga studio with a treatment room, not an appropriate facility; even if it were, it does not minimise impact on openness (domed roof conspicuous, gravel parking) (DL 9-13) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): fail.** no evidence of absence of local outdoor recreation provision or unmet need for yoga facilities; grey belt assumed arguendo; other limbs not considered (DL 15-16) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** inappropriate development, spatial and visual openness loss (DL 12-13, 38) - **DP3(3): harm (substantial weight).** urbanising hardstanding encroaching into countryside; DP3(3) says refuse without clear justification, so substantial weight to character harm (DL 19-20, 38) - **TR3: pass.** lit continuous footway to half-hourly Southport–Liverpool bus stop offers a choice of mode despite no evening service (DL 21-23) - **N2(1)(b): neutral.** grade 2 BMV land but not significant development of agricultural land (DL 29-32) - **HC4: benefit (substantial weight).** demonstrable contribution to health and social interaction (DL 33) - **GB5: not-engaged.** plan-making policy, cannot be used in decisions per Framework para 8 (DL 36) ## Key facts - Studio built with central pentagon yoga room, kitchen, toilets, lounge and therapy room; used for yoga, Reiki and breathwork by multiple practitioners (DL 9) - Site was free of buildings in 2020 satellite imagery (DL 12) - BNG assessment showed about +42% habitat units and +70% hedgerow units (DL 34) - Bus stop within short walk on lit footway, 30-minute service Mon-Sat, none in evening (DL 21-22) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012188 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/10f344bf-d74b-417d-9ffa-3171c61d24a7 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012188.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 10 Broomfield Ride, Oxshott (side and rear extensions) - **Decision:** allowed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Megan Thomas KC - **Authority:** Elmbridge (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6012221 - **Application reference:** 2026/0334 - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Single-storey side extension with rooms in roof and garage, first floor/roof rear extension, garage conversion and fenestration changes to a large detached house - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** L2(1)(d), DP3(3), S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Elmbridge Core Strategy 2011 CS17, Development Management Plan 2015 DM2, Elmbridge Design Code 2024 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** householder, l2-effective-use, l2-1-d-curtilage, dp3-3-compliance-weight, s4-approve ## Summary Substantial extensions to a large house in Oxshott were allowed. The decision works through the new Framework's householder machinery. L2(1)(d) gives substantial weight to extra floorspace within existing plots in settlements. DP3(2)(g) protects the host building's character even from private viewpoints. DP3(3) gives substantial weight to compliance with local design policy. S4(1) then favours approval. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were invited to comment (DL ¶2). - **Character: acceptable, subject to a materials condition** (DL ¶9-16). - **Private views count.** "It remains important … that proposed development does not unduly detract from the appearance or character of a host building even if the building would normally only be viewed from private viewpoints … This is reflected in NPPF policy DP3(2)(g)" (DL ¶15). - **L2(1)(d): substantial weight.** "The proposal creates additional floorspace within an existing plot within a settlement. It falls within the terms of NPPF L2(1)(d) including (i) (ii) & (iii) of (d) … I have given substantial weight to the benefits of making effective use of land" (DL ¶17). - **DP3(3).** "substantial weight should be given to compliance with relevant development plan policies when assessing the design quality … I have accorded those compliances with substantial weight" (DL ¶18). - **S4.** "the proposed development should be approved because the benefits of doing so would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶18). ## Planning balance S4(1): L2 benefits (substantial) and DP3(3) compliance (substantial), with no residual harm. Approve. ## What made the difference Well-screened rear additions, and a design the inspector found capable of accommodating contemporary elements once materials were controlled. The new L2 weight tilted any marginal judgement. ## Transferable points - Householder extensions adding floorspace in settlements attract "substantial weight" under L2(1)(d) (DL ¶17). - DP3(2)(g) protects host-building character from private as well as public views (DL ¶15). - DP3(3) gives substantial weight to compliance with local design policies, which can itself support approval (DL ¶18). - A local Design Code's floor-area-ratio principle aimed at new development does not apply to householder extensions (DL ¶16). ## Policy findings - **L2(1)(d): benefit (substantial weight).** additional floorspace within an existing plot in a settlement meets L2(1)(d)(i)-(iii); consistent with street scene; substantial weight to effective use of land (DL 17) - **DP3(2)(g): pass.** additions must not unduly harm host building character even from private views; met with materials condition (DL 13-15) - **DP3(3): accord (substantial weight).** substantial weight to compliance with development plan design policies CS17/DM2 (DL 18) - **DP3(5): not-engaged.** inspector's view that DP3(5) did not apply (DL 17) - **S4(1): pass.** benefits not substantially outweighed; approve (DL 18) ## Key facts - Very large detached house in the gated Crown Estate, Oxshott; low density, spacious plots - Plot ratio "modestly outside" the Design Code range; the Code's Floor Area Ratio principle held not to apply to householder development (DL 16) - Council concerns on materials (dark timber, zinc, stark render, tall glass screens) resolved by condition (DL 14) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012221 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/95479245-f1a8-452b-9427-40dc4183f7c6 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012221.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 111-117 Sunbridge Road, Bradford - **Decision:** allowed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Buxton - **Authority:** Bradford (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6012239 - **Application reference:** 25/01696/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion of vacant ground-floor shop to 2 apartments with new shopfront glazing - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3(2)(a) - **Development plan policies:** Bradford Core Strategy 2017 DS5, HO9 - **Main issues:** living conditions — outlook and privacy - **Tags:** tier-2, conservation-area, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Ground-floor city-centre shop converted to two flats behind a shopfront with obscured lower glazing. Allowed. City-centre occupiers "could reasonably expect a more active street environment", and outlook over the manifestation was meaningful (DL ¶¶11–12). Heritage assets were preserved. ## What made the difference The Inspector saw the installed glazing on site and judged it a balance "between securing privacy … and maintaining a meaningful outlook" (DL ¶11). The context was a busy city centre at the foot of a sloping street. ## Policy findings - **P3(2)(a): pass.** street-facing outlook with manifestation to lower glazing — acceptable privacy/outlook in city-centre context; NDSS met (DL 9-12) - **HE9: pass.** City Centre CA and adjacent Goitside CA preserved; setting of Grade II Sunwin House preserved (DL 13-16) - **L2(1)(b): benefit.** long-vacant unit brought back into use in highly sustainable location (weight not stated) (DL 7) ## Key facts - The "HO9" in the corpus index is Bradford Core Strategy HO9 (housing quality), not NPPF HO9 - Works already started; replacement glazing and manifestations inspected in situ ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/84cd8589-9791-4604-8dc6-b846a031286d - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012239 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012239.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land outside 81 Fishergate, Preston (communications kiosk with digital advert) - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: E Heron - **Authority:** Preston (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6012248 - **Application reference:** 06/2026/0424 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Freestanding communications kiosk with defibrillator and illuminated digital advertising display on the pavement (Appeal A planning; Appeal B 6012249 advertisement consent) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), DP3(1) - **Development plan policies:** Central Lancashire Core Strategy 2012 Policy 16, Preston Local Plan 2015 EN8, EN9, EP7, Preston City Centre Plan 2016 SP1 - **Main issues:** character and appearance including heritage assets (A), amenity (B) - **Tags:** street-hub, telecoms, digital-advertising, advertisement, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, conservation-area-setting, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary A pavement communications kiosk with a defibrillator and an illuminated digital advertising screen on Fishergate, Preston's main shopping street, was refused on appeal with its linked advertisement consent (6012249). The kiosk would stand out of line with the street's carefully aligned furniture, add clutter and draw the eye away from the nearby conservation area and a Grade II landmark church. The low heritage harm was not outweighed by modest public benefits. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The parties have had the opportunity to provide comments on it in relation to these appeals" (DL ¶4). - **Character.** "Despite its heritage style canopy and integrated functions, its size, form and siting, would make it a highly conspicuous and incongruous addition" (DL ¶10). - **Heritage settings.** The advert "would compete for visual attention and detract from the appreciation of their architectural and historic qualities" (DL ¶12). "The degree of harm to both designated heritage assets would be low" (DL ¶14). - **Public benefits: modest.** Benefits are "modest, given the small scale of the proposal, and the availability of similar facilities and defibrillators within the locality" (DL ¶15). Tree planting and 4G could not be secured (DL ¶16). "these modest public benefits would not outweigh the identified harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets, to which substantial weight must be given" (DL ¶17). - **Temporary consent.** "the structure and advertisement are integral to one another and their presence would be harmful, even for a specified timescale" (DL ¶13). ## Planning balance HE6(4) (DL ¶14, ¶17), then plan-led for Appeal A (DL ¶24). No S4 step, and no CO1 weight to telecoms. The letter gives "substantial weight" to the harm itself rather than stating the HE6(3) formula (considerable importance and weight). ## What made the difference Siting on an uncluttered, formally laid-out street in views towards a listed landmark, and benefits already available nearby. A site in line with existing street furniture, away from heritage views, might have fared better. ## Transferable points - Street hub benefits (free calls, defibrillator, wayfinding) are modest where similar facilities exist nearby (DL ¶15). - Unsecured offers such as tree planting or future 4G carry limited weight (DL ¶16). - A five-year advertisement consent does not reduce harm where the kiosk structure depends on the advert (DL ¶13). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): conflict.** mapped (DP3 not cited) - tall kiosk out of line with the aligned street furniture, conspicuous and incongruous, adds clutter and disrupts perspective views along Fishergate (DL 7, 10-11, 14) - **HE6(3): harm.** low harm to setting of Winckley Square CA and Grade II former Fishergate Baptist Church (clock-tower landmark) from illuminated changing images; HE6(3) wording on the weight of harm not stated (DL 12, 14) - **HE6(4): fail.** free calls, defibrillator, wayfinding and messaging modest (similar facilities nearby); tree planting and 4G unsecured, limited weight; not outweigh harm "to which substantial weight must be given" (DL 14-17) - **HE6: neutral.** no effect on Grade II Preston station or 95-99 Fishergate and 1 Lune Street (DL 21-22) - **P5: pass.** mapped - narrower footway raises no public safety issue (DL 23) ## Key facts - Joint letter with Appeal B 6012249 (advertisement consent, Reg 17), also dismissed on amenity (DL 1, 20) - Operator NWP Street Ltd; heritage-style canopy (DL 10) - Five-year advert consent and claimed reversibility do not answer harm as structure and advert are integral (DL 13) - Luminance and transition conditions would not overcome the harm (DL 12) - Appeals APP/R5510/Z/16/3157043, APP/K5600/W/17/3190377 and 22/0734/FUL cited but not comparable (DL 18) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012248 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012248.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 4 Denton Road, Eastbourne (garage conversion to studio dwelling) - **Decision:** allowed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L J Evans - **Authority:** Eastbourne (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6012252 - **Application reference:** 250499 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Garage conversion with single-storey rear extension to form 1 studio dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3, HE6 - **Development plan policies:** Eastbourne Core Strategy 2013 D10, D10a, B2, Eastbourne Borough Plan 2003 UHT1, UHT15, HO20 - **Main issues:** conservation area character, neighbour privacy, future occupier living conditions - **Tags:** conservation-area, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary Converting a garage in the Meads Conservation Area into a studio dwelling was allowed. It preserved the conservation area and gave acceptable living conditions (DL ¶10, ¶17). ## What made the difference A modest conversion of an existing building, rather than the new-build dwelling dismissed in 2025 (DL ¶18). ## Policy findings - **HE6: pass.** preserves the Meads Conservation Area; no conflict with DP3, HE4, HE5, HE6 or HE9 (DL 10) - **P3: pass.** no overlooking harm subject to conditions; acceptable amenity space for occupiers (DL 14, 17) ## Key facts - Parties invited to comment on the new Framework; none did (DL 2) - Earlier dismissed scheme (APP/T1410/W/24/3349103) had a different siting and form (DL 18) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012252 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/22910fbc-5920-4a02-858a-5a8cc02b97a3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012252.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pavement at East Road, Cambridge (BT Street Hub, planning) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: T Bennett - **Authority:** Cambridge (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6012279 - **Application reference:** 26/01377/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Installation of a BT Street Hub and removal of associated BT payphones (Appeal B, planning; the advertisement Appeal A is 6012281) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), CO1, S4 - **Development plan policies:** Cambridge Local Plan 2018 Policies 55, 61, 65 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, visual amenity - **Tags:** tier-2, telecoms, street-hub, bt-street-hub, co1-substantial-weight, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, transitional-no-consultation, linked-appeals ## Summary A BT Street Hub on a cluttered pavement in Cambridge's Kite Conservation Area, facing Petersfield. Dismissed, as was the linked advertisement appeal. Harm to the conservation area and to the settings of listed buildings was limited, but still of considerable importance and weight. It was not outweighed by connectivity benefits carrying substantial CO1 weight, because there was no evidence the hub could not go somewhere less harmful. ## Issues and findings - **Harm.** "Given the small scale of the proposal, the level of harm would be limited and at the lower end of a spectrum of harm" (DL ¶18). - **CO1.** "These public benefits are afforded substantial weight in line with Policy CO1 of the Framework" (DL ¶20). "there is limited evidence before me that these telecommunication benefits in the form of the street hub, could not be provided in a less harmful location, whilst still delivering the same benefits" (DL ¶21). - **HE6(4).** "Overall, when taken together, I find that the public benefits do not outweigh the considerable importance and weight I must attach to the harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset" (DL ¶22). - **Plan weight.** "Policies 55 and 65 are consistent with section 14 of the Framework in seeking to achieve well-designed places, in particular Policy DP3" (DL ¶33). - **CO1 siting.** "the street hub would not be sited so as to minimise the visual impact of the new structure" (DL ¶35). ## Transferable points - Substantial CO1 weight to connectivity benefits can still lose the HE6(4) balance where no evidence shows a less harmful site is unavailable (DL ¶20-22). - Kiosk removals outside the red line, and not secured, carry minimal weight (DL ¶29). ## Policy findings - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** added clutter and illuminated screens intrude on an important positive view towards Petersfield and Grade II buildings in the Kite CA; limited harm "at the lower end of a spectrum of harm" (DL 13-19) - **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** Wi-Fi, 5G, charging; but no evidence the benefits could not be delivered in a less harmful location, and the hub is not sited to minimise visual impact (DL 20-21, 35) - **HE6(4): fail.** public benefits do not outweigh the considerable importance and weight given to the harm (DL 22) - **DP3(1): conflict.** fails to respond to, integrate with or enhance its surroundings; weighed as harm; no DP3(3) clear-justification step (DL 34) - **Transitional(2): accord (significant weight).** LP Policies 55, 65 (design) and 61 (heritage) consistent with the Framework; conflict given significant weight (DL 33) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 31, 37) ## Key facts - Same decision letter as the advertisement Appeal A (6012281), also dismissed; no case file for Appeal A in this batch - Removal of three kiosks elsewhere is outside the red line and unsecured, so minimal weight (DL 29) - Grade I Church of Our Lady and the English Martyrs unaffected (DL 23) - Framework switch without consultation (DL 8) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012279 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/a23fe854-8970-4535-bd52-4d923b0dd9ce --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012279.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pavement outside 144 Hills Road, Cambridge (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: T Bennett - **Authority:** Cambridge (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6012284 - **Application reference:** 26/01379/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub with two digital display screens and removal of payphones (Appeal B planning; Appeal A 6012288 advertisement consent 26/01380/ADV) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1), CO1, S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Cambridge Local Plan 2018 Policies 55, 65 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, visual amenity (advert) - **Tags:** tier-2, street-hub, bt-street-hub, telecoms, digital-advertising, co1-substantial-weight, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, design-refusal, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A BT Street Hub with two digital screens on the wide Hills Road pavement in Cambridge. The inspector found it "stark, highly prominent and discordant" in an open streetscape, in conflict with the local plan and DP3, and not sited to minimise visual impact under CO1. CO1 substantial weight did not prevent the benefits being substantially outweighed under S4. Both appeals were dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I am satisfied that it does not affect the substantive matters of the appeal and that proceeding without further consultation with the main parties would not be prejudicial to their respective cases" (DL ¶5). - **Character: HARM.** "the street hub with its illuminated digital advertisements would appear as a stark, highly prominent and discordant addition to the street scene" (DL ¶9). - **CO1.** Benefits "are afforded substantial weight in line with Policy CO1" (DL ¶17), but "the street hub would not be sited so as to minimise the visual impact of the new structure" (DL ¶19). - **DP3.** "The proposal would also conflict with Policy DP3 of the Framework by failing to respond, integrate with or enhance the surroundings" (DL ¶20). ## Planning balance S4(1), with S4(2)(c) described (DL ¶16) but not expressly applied to DP3: "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶22). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶24). ## What made the difference An uncluttered stretch of pavement with little bulky street furniture. ## Transferable points - In an open streetscape a hub perpendicular to the kerb is prominent however slim (DL ¶8-9). - Luminance and static-image conditions do not cure prominence harm (DL ¶10). - Kiosk removals elsewhere do not mitigate harm at the hub site (DL ¶13). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): conflict.** tall, solid, illuminated hub perpendicular to the kerb in an open streetscape - "stark, highly prominent and discordant"; DP3(3) substantial weight to plan compliance noted; no clear-justification step (DL 8-11, 20) - **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** Wi-Fi, 5G capability, calls, USB charging; not sited to minimise visual impact (DL 17, 19) - **S4(1): fail.** S4(2)(c) framing set out; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 16, 22) ## Key facts - Kiosk removal at St Margarets Square elsewhere and unsecured; minimal weight (DL 13) - Local Plan design conflict given significant weight (DL 15) - Advert Appeal A (6012288) dismissed on visual amenity in the same letter (DL 23) - New Framework applied without consultation; "does not affect the substantive matters" (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012284 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2728f4c8-4939-4584-8a6f-3d0dfbed2923 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012284.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # South Barn, Elworthy Farm, Greenham, Wellington - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Hills - **Authority:** Somerset (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6012293 - **Application reference:** 35/25/0005 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion of a stone barn (a non-designated heritage asset with a late medieval jointed cruck roof) with single-storey extensions to a dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.9 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE7, DP3(3) - **Development plan policies:** Taunton Dean Core Strategy SP1, CP1, CP8, DM1, DM2, Site Allocations and Development Management Plan SB1, D7, I4 - **Main issues:** character and NDHA significance, whether a conversion, drainage and water supply - **Tags:** ndha, ndha-harm, heritage-harm-decisive, dp3-refuse-trigger, barn-conversion, s5-limb-not-identified, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Converting a stone barn at Elworthy Farm, a vestige of a medieval house with a jointed cruck roof, into a dwelling with extensions. The works would be a genuine conversion, and drainage and water supply were acceptable. But heavily domestic fenestration and cladding would cause moderate harm to the non-designated heritage asset. Under HE7, and with no clear justification under DP3(3), that outweighed substantial weight to one home on a 3.9-year supply. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Significance.** "A key feature that remains is the late medieval jointed cruck roof." (DL ¶5). - **Harm.** "Collectively, these alterations would harmfully compete with the architectural and historic qualities of the building." (DL ¶6). - **Conversion: yes.** "That is not to say such works, including new load-bearing elements would necessarily amount to a major rebuild." (DL ¶10). - **Drainage.** "the Framework says that it should be assumed separate regulatory regimes will operate effectively unless there is clear evidence to the contrary" (DL ¶15). - **Self-build and BNG.** Even if secured, "as it would exempt the proposal from providing any biodiversity net gain, it could not be considered a benefit of the proposal" (DL ¶18). - **Lapsed permission.** "national policy has changed in the fairly lengthy intervening period" (DL ¶19); "I attach very little weight to the previous permission" (DL ¶19). - **Housing.** The latest evidence shows "a supply of 3.9 years. In accordance with the Framework, I give substantial weight to the provision of one additional dwelling." (DL ¶21). - **HE7 and DP3(3).** "I attach significant weight to the identified heritage harm." That harm also conflicts with "Framework Policy DP3, which indicates that development should be refused where, without clear justification, it fails to respond appropriately to its context" (DL ¶23). Retaining the structure "does not clearly justify the presented design. Moreover, any such benefits could conceivably be achieved through a less harmful" scheme (DL ¶24). ## Planning balance HE7 balanced judgement plus DP3(3): "the benefits of the proposal, including the substantial weight I give to the provision of one dwelling, do not outweigh the harm to the NDHA and the conflict with the development plan" (DL ¶25). No S5 category is named and the S5 substantially-outweighed formula is not used. ## What made the difference The design, not the principle. The conversion itself was accepted, but domestic-style openings on both long elevations were the harm, and conditions could not fix them. ## Transferable points - DP3(3)'s clear-justification step, applied to heritage-led design: a viable use and retention of historic fabric do not clearly justify a harmful design when a less harmful scheme could deliver them (DL ¶23-24). - A self-build exemption that removes the BNG requirement is not a benefit (DL ¶18). - A lapsed permission for a similar scheme carries very little weight after a policy change and deterioration (DL ¶19). - Caution: the balance is a plain HE7/level balance, not the S5 test (DL ¶25). ## Policy findings - **HE7: harm (significant weight).** moderate harm to NDHA - domestic fenestration and heavy cladding compete with simple stonework; exposed cruck roof a positive (DL 5-8, 22-23) - **DP3(3): fail.** explicit - retention and viable use of the historic structure do not clearly justify the design; benefits achievable by a less harmful scheme (DL 23-24) - **DM7: pass.** septic tank near a private water supply left to EA permitting; separate regimes assumed to operate effectively (DL 15-17) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** one dwelling on a 3.9-year supply (DL 21) - **S5(1)(c): pass.** mapped; letter finds a genuine conversion under local DM2 but does not name an S5 category or run the S5 test (DL 9-12) ## Key facts - 2017 permission for a similar conversion expired; very little weight as policy changed, 2021 design guidance adopted and building deteriorated (DL 19) - Self-build claimed but not secured; even if secured it would remove BNG, so not a benefit (DL 18) - Conversion accepted despite new roof, floor, wall repairs and lintels (DL 9-12) - Costs application by the appellant decided separately (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012293 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/11909f34-cae1-45a8-948b-6c9f71d35b36 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012293.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Hillberry, Dalefords Lane, Marton, Winsford - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Fulford - **Authority:** Cheshire West and Chester (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6012304 - **Application reference:** 25/01259/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Two four-bedroom detached dwellings on a field at the end of ribbon development - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.6 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j)(i), S5(4), TR3, N2 - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan Part 1 2015 STRAT 1, STRAT 2, STRAT 9, Local Plan Part 2 2019 DM 3, DM 19, DM 45, Whitegate and Marton Neighbourhood Plan Policies 1, 4 - **Main issues:** suitable location and accessibility, trees, housing mix, character and appearance - **Tags:** s5-1-j, s5-4-exceptional, settlement-definition, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, footway-quality, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, tree-loss, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Two large houses on a field at the end of ribbon development on a rural lane about 1 km from Cuddington and Sandiway, with 1.6 years' supply. Dismissed: the ribbon is not a settlement, so S5(1)(j)(i) failed and S5(4) applied. The walking routes (a 40 mph lane with no footway and unlit sections, or secluded unlit footpaths) were not realistic. Unassessed harm to three mature trees and a mix of 4-bed homes against neighbourhood plan need added to the harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Those parts of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have been amended. As a result, parties have been provided with an opportunity to make further submissions" (DL ¶2). - **Route: FAIL.** "There is a 40mph speed limit along Dalefords Lane meaning there would be relatively fast-moving traffic. Taking all these factors account it is considered that this route would not be a realistic for many future residents especially a parent with young children or those with mobility issues" (DL ¶9). Footpaths: "The absence of lighting combined with the isolated nature of the routes would deter regular use by future occupiers" (DL ¶10). - **Not isolated, but not sustainable.** "the proximity of other built form is not a measure of sustainability" (DL ¶11). - **Settlement / (j)(i): FAIL.** The ribbon "is no more than a scattered group of houses outside a predominantly built-up area. Consequently, this does not meet the Framework's definition of a settlement" (DL ¶29). - **Trees: FAIL** for lack of an arboricultural assessment (DL ¶17). ## Planning balance S5(4): limited housing and economic benefits, very limited BNG, against TR3 and N2 conflicts given significant weight. "The benefits would therefore not substantially outweigh the identified adverse effects and there are therefore no exceptional circumstances in this case" (DL ¶33). ## What made the difference The route to the village: 1 km of fast, unlit lane with no footway, and footpath alternatives that are dark and secluded. The site being next to houses did not make it a settlement or a sustainable location. ## Transferable points - A 40 mph lane with no footway and unlit sections is not a realistic walking route "for many future residents especially a parent with young children or those with mobility issues" (DL ¶9). - Unlit, secluded public footpaths deter regular use, especially in winter darkness and for people travelling alone (DL ¶10). - Proximity to other houses is not a measure of sustainability (DL ¶11). - A ribbon of scattered houses is not an Annex B settlement, so (j)(i) fails if the nearest real settlement is 1 km away (DL ¶29). - A station 3.5 km away with no evidenced sustainable access does not help (DL ¶12). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:settlement: fail.** adjacent ribbon development is "no more than a scattered group of houses outside a predominantly built-up area", not a settlement (DL 29) - **S5(1)(j)(i): fail.** supply 1.6 years engages (j), but nearest settlement Cuddington and Sandiway about 1 km away, so not physically well related (DL 29) - **S5(4): fail.** no exceptional circumstances; benefits do not substantially outweigh (DL 30, 33) - **TR3: fail (significant weight).** 1 km along 40 mph lane with no footway and long unlit sections; alternative public footpaths unlit, undulating and secluded; station 3.5 km; not realistic for parents with young children or those with mobility issues (DL 9-12, 33) - **N2: fail (significant weight).** no arboricultural assessment; new accesses and hardstanding in RPAs of three mature frontage trees; cannot be left to condition (DL 15-18, 33) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** tempered because no evidenced need for 4-bed homes (NP Policy 1 seeks 1-3 beds) (DL 19-22, 31) - **DP3: pass.** rounds off ribbon, fits street scene; limited localised openness harm (DL 24-26) - **Transitional(2): neutral.** STRAT 1 accessibility policy "broadly aligns" with the Framework (DL 8) ## Key facts - Supply 1.6 years (DL 29) - Dalefords Lane 40 mph, no designated footway, significant unlit sections; about 1 km to Cuddington and Sandiway (DL 5, 9) - Public footpath alternatives similar distance, unlit, undulating, secluded (DL 10) - Cuddington station about 3.5 km, no evidence of sustainable access (DL 12) - Adjacent garage conversions approved (24/00896/FUL, 24/00897/FUL) not comparable (DL 13) - BNG over 10% claimed but relies on trees surviving; very limited weight (DL 32) - Parties given opportunity to make further submissions on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012304 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e1656dd5-5f1b-4a78-91e5-976b595279d7 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012304.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pavement outside 137 Chiswick High Road (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Dryden - **Authority:** Hounslow (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6012328 - **Application reference:** P/2026/0937 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub with two 75-inch digital advert screens and removal of a BT kiosk, on the footway in the Chiswick High Road Conservation Area (Appeal A; linked advertisement Appeal B 6012330 also dismissed) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), TR4, S4 - **Development plan policies:** Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 CC1, CC2, CC4, CC5, EC2, London Plan 2021 HC1, D8, T2 - **Main issues:** amenity and conservation area, public safety - **Tags:** tier-2, bt-street-hub, street-hub, telecoms, digital-advertising, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, alternatives-not-explored, inclusive-access, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A BT Street Hub with two large digital screens on the busy Chiswick High Road footway in a conservation area, dismissed with its linked advertisement appeal. The inspector found a low level of harm to the conservation area, given considerable importance and weight, which the connectivity benefits did not outweigh because less harmful siting had not been ruled out. The hub would also obstruct a busy footway near bus stops and a crossing, contrary to TR4. Under S4 the benefits were substantially outweighed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Both parties "were given the opportunity to comment on any changes relevant to the main issues in these appeals. No further comments were received" (DL ¶4). - **Heritage: low HARM, HE6(4) FAIL.** "It is noteworthy that even a low level of harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset carries considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶17). "I do not dispute that meaningful public benefits would arise from the proposal. However, I have been provided with insufficient evidence to demonstrate that these benefits could not be provided in a less harmful manner and/or in a less sensitive location" (DL ¶19). - **Public safety: TR4 FAIL.** "the proposal would fail to provide a street arrangement that is safe, inclusive and attractive for all users, contrary to Policy TR4 of the Framework" (DL ¶26). Inclusive Mobility compliance "remains guidance only" (DL ¶27). - **CO1.** "Policy CO1 of the Framework requires such proposals to be sited and designed to minimise their visual impact" (DL ¶37). - **S4: FAIL.** "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶38). ## Planning balance HE6(4) first (harm not outweighed, DL ¶22), then S4 with heritage, TR4 and CO1 conflicts against connectivity benefits (DL ¶36–38). ## What made the difference The size and siting of the large lit screens in a conservation area whose appraisal prizes its wide pavements and street trees. The appellant had no evidence that the benefits needed this spot. ## Transferable points - Low harm to a conservation area still carries considerable importance and weight under HE6(3) (DL ¶17). - Street-hub public benefits are discounted where no alternative, less harmful siting has been examined (DL ¶19). - TR4 (safe, inclusive streets) can be a free-standing refusal ground for footway clutter, and meeting Inclusive Mobility widths is not conclusive (DL ¶26–27). ## Policy findings - **HE5: harm.** HE5 and HE9 cited; hub erodes the contribution of the wide footway and mature street trees identified in the CA appraisal (DL 16) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** "a low level of harm" to the significance of the CA; "even a low level of harm ... carries considerable importance and weight" (DL 17) - **HE6(4): fail.** free wi-fi, 5G small cell, charging, wayfinding, emergency button and sensors are "meaningful public benefits", but not shown unachievable in a less harmful way or place; kiosk removals elsewhere do not relate to the site (DL 18-22) - **TR4: fail.** obstruction on a busy footway beside cycle stands, bus stops and a crossing, particularly for disabled and visually impaired people; Inclusive Mobility widths met but "guidance only" (DL 25-27) - **CO1: fail.** telecoms should be sited and designed to minimise visual impact (DL 37) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 36-38) ## Key facts - Linked Appeal B (6012330) under the Advertisements Regulations, dismissed on amenity and public safety in the same letter; no separate case file - No distraction harm to drivers found (DL 28) - Bristol street-hub allowals in conservation areas (APP/Z0116/W/25/3366474, APP/Z0116/W/25/3369235) not followed (DL 32) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012328 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/af3b0e61-0a8f-4270-886d-9bdd3acf3c3c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012328.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 33 Stainecross Avenue, Crosland Moor, Huddersfield - **Decision:** allowed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Dale - **Authority:** Kirklees (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6012370 - **Application reference:** 2026/62/90573/W - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of dwelling (C3) to children's care home (C2) for one child - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), DM7, P5 - **Development plan policies:** Kirklees Local Plan 2019 LP1 - **Main issues:** suitable location - safeguarding of children - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, childrens-home, specialist-housing, dm7-separate-regimes, consistency, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A one-child children's home in a Huddersfield semi, refused on police "safeguarding" concerns about the area, was allowed. The inspector found the objection vague and unevidenced. He applied the new DM7, which says to assume separate regulatory regimes (Ofsted and the Children's Homes Regulations) will operate effectively. The identical approval next door in 2025 was an important consistency consideration. With no substantial adverse impacts, S4 required approval. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties were invited to comment but did not (DL ¶2). - **Framework frame.** No specific local policy covered children's homes. The inspector noted HO1's plan-making reference to looked-after children, and applied S4 (DL ¶5). - **Safeguarding objection: REJECTED.** "I find the concerns raised to be rather vague. The threat factors are not identified" (DL ¶6). - **P5.** P5 "expects development proposals to anticipate and address possible malicious threats ... especially where particular groups may be vulnerable" (DL ¶7). The management plan and Ofsted Location Risk Assessment answer this (DL ¶8). - **DM7.** "Decision-makers should assume, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, that those separate regimes will operate effectively. Planning decisions should not seek to duplicate or extend controls imposed by separate regulatory regimes" (DL ¶9). - **Consistency.** The approval at 92 Balmoral Avenue "is sufficiently closely related to the issues, timeline and location at hand that regard should be had to it as an important material consideration in the appellant's favour" (DL ¶10). ## Planning balance "Having found no substantial adverse impacts, I find that it would not depart from the approach of the Framework when it is read as a whole" (DL ¶13). ## What made the difference The council produced no evidence of the "threat factors", while the appellant produced crime data. The adjoining house had just been approved for the same use. DM7 gave the inspector a clear textual basis to leave child safeguarding to Ofsted. ## Transferable points - DM7: planning should not duplicate Ofsted and the Children's Homes Regulations on safeguarding. Assume they operate effectively absent clear contrary evidence (DL ¶9). - A police safeguarding objection must identify actual threat factors. Vague objections carry little weight against local crime data (DL ¶6, 12). - Council approvals of the same use next door are an important material consideration for consistency (DL ¶10). - The inspector noted in passing that 1-3 child homes may not even be a material change of use (DL ¶17). ## Policy findings - **S4(1): pass.** no substantial adverse impacts; safeguarding objection unsubstantiated (DL 5, 13) - **DM7: pass.** Ofsted registration, Location Risk Assessment and Children's Homes Regulations 2015 deal with safeguarding; assume separate regimes operate effectively (DL 8-9) - **P5: pass.** malicious threats to vulnerable occupiers addressed by the management plan; police "threat factors" unidentified (DL 6-8, 12) - **HO1: neutral.** plan-making reference to looked-after-children needs; unclear whether reflected in the Kirklees plan (DL 5) ## Key facts - Neighbouring semi (92 Balmoral Avenue) granted the identical one-child home in November 2025, and council gave no explanation for the different outcome (DL 10) - Police objection was vague with no written evidence; appellant's 12-month crime data within about 200m unremarkable and unchallenged (DL 6, 12) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012370 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/dfc04f05-8830-4b29-9614-d26d4e49e9c1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012370.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Washdyke Farm, Long Lane, Stathern - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Snow - **Authority:** Melton (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6012411 - **Application reference:** 25/00803/GDOCOU - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Class Q prior approval — open-sided portal-frame agricultural building to 7 dwellings - **Homes:** 7 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** No Framework version cited - **Determinative policies:** GPDO Sch2 Pt3 Class Q.1(j) - **Main issues:** whether permitted development - **Tags:** tier-2, class-q, prior-approval, no-framework-reference ## Summary Class Q prior approval for 7 dwellings from a largely open-sided portal-frame barn. Dismissed as a rebuild, not a conversion: 28 new walls and 7 roofs around parts of a retained frame (DL ¶10-11). The Framework is not mentioned because the Class Q scope question does not engage it. ## What made the difference The extent of new fabric. Contrast PINS-6012154, where the principal stone walls were retained. ## Policy findings - **GPDO Class Q Q.1(j): fail.** building stripped to part of frame; 28 new external walls and 7 roofs — rebuild not conversion (Hibbitt) (DL 6-12) ## Key facts - Only concrete floor and parts of the steel portal frame retained (DL 6) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012411 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/12564b21-0fd5-4715-836c-98bc087bd7b7 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012411.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 131-133 St Helens Street, Ipswich - **Decision:** allowed, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Terrence Kemmann-Lane - **Authority:** Ipswich (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6012437 - **Application reference:** IP/26/00145/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of two vacant shops (Class E) to one 16-bed, 16-person HMO with extensions, dormers and external alterations - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3 - **Development plan policies:** Ipswich Core Strategy and Policies DPD Review 2022 CS7, DM20 (and para 9.198) - **Main issues:** HMO over-concentration - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, conservation-area, limited-nppf-engagement, committee-overturn ## Summary A 16-bed HMO in two derelict corner shops in St Helen's CA. Allowed. The Inspector was "not persuaded that the appeal proposal would be in breach of Policy DM20" on over-concentration (DL ¶10), and found the external works would enhance the CA (DL ¶6). The decision cites no Framework policy. ## What made the difference The DM20(iii) "run of twenty properties" count depended on whether plots or addresses were counted, and HMOs on the other side of the road were irrelevant to that test (DL ¶¶9–10). Concerns about parking, waste and noise were unevidenced (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **HE9: benefit.** external works to neglected corner buildings would enhance St Helen's CA (DL 6) - **P3: pass.** HMO over-concentration test DM20(iii) depends on reading "properties" as plots or addresses; not breached; no evidence of amenity harm (DL 8-12); Framework not cited ## Key facts - Committee overturned officer recommendation to approve; Article 4 (C3 to C4) area - 20 conditions imposed (management plan, max 16 persons, non-subdivision, sound insulation); several phased so outbuilding demolition can precede surveys - Published letter PDF also contains the appellant's final comments appended after the decision ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/78524489-2c4f-48c7-871e-cc08f98d5e75 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012437 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012437.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Well Hill Nursery, Fountain Farm, Firmingers Road, Orpington - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Pattison - **Authority:** Sevenoaks (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6012481 - **Application reference:** 26/00213/OUT - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline (all matters reserved), residential development of up to six dwellings (claimed self-build), offset by removing adjoining commercial buildings - **Homes:** 6 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.96 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, GB6(2), N2, P3, TR6 - **Development plan policies:** Sevenoaks Core Strategy 2011 SP11, Sevenoaks ADMP 2015 EN1, EN2, EN7 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, protected species, highway safety, noise, VSC - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-fail, connectivity-tool-used, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, pdl-e-limb, protected-species-surveys-missing, self-build-unsecured, rural-lane-no-footway ## Summary Outline proposal for up to six dwellings on an open field next to the M25, offset by removing nearby commercial buildings. Dismissed. Grey belt and unmet need were agreed, but the site failed GB7(1)(g)(iii): it scored poorly on the Connectivity Tool, had no public transport, and was reached by unlit rural roads without footways. The scheme was therefore inappropriate development, and no very special circumstances were shown. Missing protected-species surveys, M25 noise and poor access visibility added to the harm. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL ¶2). - **GB7(1)(e) PDL: FAIL.** "The existence of PDL adjacent to the appeal site does not automatically make the whole site PDL" (DL ¶9). - **Grey belt, (g)(i) and (g)(ii): agreed** (DL ¶11-12). - **GB7(1)(g)(iii) / TR3: FAIL.** "the appeal site scores poorly on the Connectivity Tool as a result of its low accessibility and connectivity to surrounding services and transport routes" (DL ¶14). "The absence of street lighting, dedicated footpaths, and cycle lanes on the surrounding local, rural roads significantly reduces their suitability for walking or cycling, particularly outside daylight hours or in poor weather conditions" (DL ¶15). Existing commercial trip generation was unevidenced and did not help (DL ¶16). "although the appeal site is grey belt land, the proposal conflicts with criteria GB7.g.iii … Consequently, the proposal is inappropriate development" (DL ¶17). - **Openness: substantial harm.** "significant built form into a space where currently there is no development … a substantial harmful effect on spatial openness" (DL ¶19). Demolishing the adjoining buildings was not a net openness benefit, because the new dwellings would be "more visible in views from the public domain than the existing buildings" (DL ¶40-41). - **Protected species (N2): conflict.** Surveys for GCN, reptiles and bats were outstanding and could not be left to conditions (DL ¶26-30). - **Noise (P3) and access (TR6): conflict** (DL ¶34, 38). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC balance. Substantial weight to inappropriateness and to openness harm. Housing (2.96 years' supply) had only limited weight: "the lack of realistic alternatives to travel by car moderates the benefit arising from additional housing in this particular location" (DL ¶42). Removing lorry noise had moderate weight; economic, CIL and energy benefits limited. The constraint argument (Green Belt, National Landscape, flood) carried no weight once the scheme was found inappropriate (DL ¶43). "the considerations advanced … do not clearly outweigh the totality of the harm" (DL ¶52). ## What made the difference Location. It is one of the first letters to record a Connectivity Tool score: the poor score was undisputed and, together with no buses and unlit, footway-less lanes, it decided limb (iii). The same car-dependence was then used to cut the weight given to the housing benefit. A site with a walkable route to a served settlement would have passed limb (iii) and avoided the VSC test. Even so, the missing ecology surveys, noise evidence and access visibility would have made approval unlikely. ## Transferable points - A poor Connectivity Tool score, left unrebutted, supports failure of GB7(1)(g)(iii) and TR3 (DL ¶13-14). - Unlit rural roads without footways or cycle lanes are unsuitable for walking or cycling "particularly outside daylight hours or in poor weather" (DL ¶15). - The weight given to the housing benefit can be moderated where occupiers would have no realistic alternative to the car (DL ¶42). - Land next to PDL is not PDL (DL ¶9). - Offsetting demolition does not help openness where the new built form would be more visible (DL ¶40-41). - District-wide constraints carry no weight once a proposal is found inappropriate (DL ¶43). - Unsecured self-build is treated as market housing (DL ¶50). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(e): fail.** open grass field with no built form is not PDL; adjacent PDL (found in earlier enforcement appeal) does not make the whole site PDL (DL 8-10) - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** agreed between parties (DL 11) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** agreed (DL 12) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** agreed; 2.96 yrs supply (DL 12, 42) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): fail.** undisputed poor Connectivity Tool score; nearest settlement (Well Hill) has few services; no accessible public transport; no lighting, footways or cycle lanes (DL 13-17) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** substantial harm to spatial and visual openness from up to six dwellings (1,600 m3) on an open field; VSC not shown (DL 19-21, 51-52) - **N2: fail (substantial weight).** no GCN, reptile or bat surveys; cannot be conditioned (Circular 06/2005 para 99) (DL 22-30, 53) - **P3: conflict.** M25 noise; external areas above BS8233; noise assessment lacked equipment, data, author credentials (DL 31-34) - **TR6: fail.** narrow access near junction, poor visibility, splays may need third-party land (DL 35-38) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** small contribution; benefit moderated by lack of realistic alternatives to the car (DL 42); self-build not secured, so assessed as market housing (DL 49-50) ## Key facts - Open grass field beside M25 and a commercial yard in the appellant's ownership; nearest settlement Well Hill has few services - Site "scores poorly" on the government Connectivity Tool — not disputed by the appellant - No accessible public transport; surrounding rural roads have no street lighting, footways or cycle lanes - Sevenoaks supply 2.96 years - Offer to demolish 1,600 m3 of existing buildings and remove 600 m2 hardstanding did not register as an openness benefit, because the new houses would be more visible - Self-build claimed but no s106 to secure it ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012481 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/eb73f144-6f93-43fd-ad20-9f9eb66b30c0 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012481.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 132 Chiswick High Road, Chiswick - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Dryden - **Authority:** Hounslow (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6012542 - **Application reference:** P/2025/3419 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permanent timber enclosure to front outdoor seating area of a Class E premises, with shopfront door alterations - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, TR4, S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 CC1, CC2, CC4, EC2, London Plan 2021 HC1, D4, T2 - **Main issues:** conservation area, pedestrian safety - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, e2-substantial-weight, pedestrian-safety, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary The appeal was for a permanent timber enclosure around outdoor dining in front of a Chiswick High Road restaurant, in a conservation area. It was dismissed. The inspector found low harm to the CA, which unquantified business benefits did not outweigh. The enclosure was also a TR4 pedestrian-safety failure on a busy footway. The E2 and TC2 substantial-weight benefits were "substantially outweighed" under S4 (DL ¶31). ## What made the difference The mature street tree right in front of the premises. It left only a 2 m pinch-point on a busy shopping and bus-stop footway. The inspector used Active Travel England guidance to require more than 2 m there (DL ¶20). Together with harm to the wide-pavement character the CA appraisal values, heritage harm (HE6) and TR4 outweighed two substantial-weight economic policies. This is the same inspector and reasoning pattern as PINS-6011521. ## Policy findings - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** low harm to Chiswick High Road CA - bulky enclosure erodes the wide footway and street trees the appraisal identifies as important; unquantified economic benefits do not outweigh (DL 9-16) - **TR4: fail.** 2m clear width retained next to a mature tree, but Active Travel England guidance seeks wider footways on busy shopping streets near bus stops; unsafe for disabled and visually impaired pedestrians (DL 18-21) - **S4(1): fail.** E2 and TC2 substantial-weight benefits substantially outweighed by heritage and pedestrian-safety harm (DL 29-31) ## Key facts - Enclosure projects into a busy footway beside a mature street tree; 2m kept past the tree trunk, about 2.8m beyond it (DL 18-19) - Temporary street-trading licence for tables gives limited weight - it is a different regime from a permanent structure (DL 22) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012542 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/74479b3a-9a48-44ff-bba0-54a61125d988 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012542.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Lukes, Radley Green Road, Willingale - **Decision:** dismissed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K E Down - **Authority:** Epping Forest (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6012591 - **Application reference:** EPF/0385/26 - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Two-storey side extension incorporating garage, and large detached garage/domestic and smallholding store - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB7(1)(e), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Epping Forest District Local Plan 2011-2033 (2023) DM4, DM9 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, openness, character, VSC - **Tags:** disproportionate-extension, householder-gb, outbuilding-not-extension, vsc-not-shown, openness-harm ## Summary A two-storey side extension and a large detached garage/store at a rural house in the Epping Forest Green Belt. The appeal was dismissed. The extension was disproportionate. The outbuilding was too remote, large and functionally separate to count as an extension, so it was a new building. The PDL route under GB7(1)(e) also failed on substantial harm to openness. ## Issues and findings - **Extension: disproportionate.** "The proposed extension would overwhelm the existing dwelling … a very large and incongruous addition" (DL ¶6). "the extension must be judged against the size of the original dwelling as it existed on 1 July 1948", not the size of the plot (DL ¶8). - **GB7(1)(e).** "the detrimental effect on the openness of the Green Belt would be sufficient that this category would not apply" (DL ¶7). - **Outbuilding.** "owing to the distance of separation from the host dwelling, the scale of the building and its proposed use … it would lack the degree of physical and functional association with and subordination to the host dwelling to be considered as an extension" (DL ¶9). - **Openness.** "significant harm to both the spatial and visual openness" (DL ¶13). ## Planning balance GB6(2). The need for space got modest weight and did not clearly outweigh (DL ¶18-19). ## What made the difference Scale. A two-storey addition at full ridge height, together with a very long outbuilding serving a smallholding, went well beyond domestic proportionality. ## Transferable points - Outbuildings count as extensions only where they are a normal domestic adjunct, physically and functionally associated with and subordinate to the house (DL ¶9). - Plot size is irrelevant to GB7(1)(b). The comparison is with the 1948 original (DL ¶8). - The GB7(1)(e) PDL route will not rescue a disproportionate householder scheme that causes substantial openness harm (DL ¶7). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** two-storey side extension at full ridge height, projecting beyond rear, "overwhelm the existing dwelling" → disproportionate vs 1948 original; plot size irrelevant (DL 6, 8) - **GB7(1)(e): fail.** Council-raised PDL route rejected because effect on openness would be substantial (DL 7) - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** detached outbuilding too distant, large and functionally separate (smallholding machinery) to be an "extension" → new building, inappropriate (DL 9) - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** substantial / significant spatial and visual loss of openness (DL 11-13) - **DP3: harm.** bulky incongruous extension, dominant outbuilding (LP DM9) (DL 14-16) ## Key facts - Older double-fronted house on a large plot in open countryside, with an existing porch, garage, store and rear extensions - Future family and multigenerational needs were speculative. Security needs after a burglary were unexplained. Modest weight only ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012591 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/0dfabacf-edd1-4734-a57a-fc0ac96fc205 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012591.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 75-79 New Road, Peterborough (23 apartments) - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Gee - **Authority:** Peterborough (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6012642 - **Application reference:** 25/01341/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of three detached dwellings and erection of a 2.5-storey L-shaped block of 23 car-free apartments - **Homes:** 23 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4), S4 - **Development plan policies:** Peterborough Local Plan LP6, LP8, LP13, LP16, LP17, LP28, LP32, LP47 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions, highway safety and servicing, protected species, BNG, drainage - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, design-refusal, tr6-highway-safety, protected-species-surveys-missing, bng-exemption, viability, living-conditions, large-scheme, housing-shortfall, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Replacing three houses on New Road, Peterborough, with 23 car-free flats. The inspector found significant harm to the character of the small-scale residential edge, overlooking and overbearing to a bungalow, no noise evidence against college plant, missing bat surveys, and an unacceptable highway safety impact because all servicing would be from a busy road. Substantial weight to housing was substantially outweighed under S4. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "My decision reflects the latest version of the Framework, and the responses received on it" (DL ¶2). - **Character.** "the resulting density would fail to respond appropriately to the scale and character of the buildings that form the site's immediate context" (DL ¶7). "the proposal would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area" (DL ¶11). - **Internal noise (DM7, PM13).** "I am satisfied that internal noise mitigation can be secured through the building control process" (DL ¶21). - **Servicing: FAIL.** "delivery, maintenance and refuse collection vehicles would be required to stop on the public highway" (DL ¶25), in "conflict with TR6 4) of the Framework" (DL ¶47). - **Bats.** "it is not a matter that could be dealt with through the imposition of a planning condition" (DL ¶32). - **BNG exemption.** The August 2026 amendments "apply only to new planning applications submitted from 6 August 2026" (DL ¶35). - **Density.** "the benefits associated with the increased density of development attract reduced weight" (DL ¶49). ## Planning balance S4 within a settlement. Adverse effects (significant) against housing (substantial) and economic benefits. "the benefits of granting permission would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶50). The character harm is weighed as ordinary harm; DP3(3) is not applied. ## What made the difference Several independent failures, with TR6(4) servicing from a busy classified road the only Framework "should be refused" policy engaged (DL ¶47). ## Transferable points - Car-free flats with no on-site servicing can fail TR6(4) on refuse and delivery stops on a busy road (DL ¶25, ¶47). - The August 2026 BNG small-site exemption does not apply to applications made before 6 August 2026 (DL ¶35). - L2/L3 density weight is reduced where character harm is found (DL ¶49). - DM7 and PM13: internal sound insulation is for Building Regulations (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): harm (significant weight).** mapped - bulk, height and massing at odds with small neighbouring dwellings; refuse storage undersized; DP3 mentioned only via L2/L3 (DL 6-11, 49) - **P3: harm.** mapped - overlooking and overbearing to No 73's garden; no noise assessment for College air-handling units (DL 13-22) - **DM7: neutral.** with PM13, internal sound transfer between flats left to Building Regulations (DL 21) - **TR6(4): fail.** no on-site servicing; refuse, delivery and maintenance vehicles would stop on a busy double-yellow-lined road near Boongate roundabout (DL 23-28, 47) - **N2: fail.** mapped - bat surveys recommended by the PEA not done; Circular 06/2005 bars leaving to condition (DL 29-33) - **BNG (Sch 7A TCPA): pass.** August 2026 small-site exemption applies only to applications submitted from 6 Aug 2026; left to the gain condition (DL 34-36) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 23 homes against an evidenced unmet need (DL 48) - **L3: benefit.** density benefits attract reduced weight given character harm (DL 49) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 50) ## Key facts - Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 42) - No affordable housing or obligations; independent review agreed the scheme unviable with them (DL 43) - No parking; city-centre policies LP13 and LP47 presume against parking (DL 23-24) - Parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012642 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b9b6ccf1-dbd8-494c-85a3-a2e91ff92c7b --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012642.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Barn, Bridle Stile Lane, Queensbury (Bradford) - **Decision:** allowed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J D Westbrook - **Authority:** Bradford (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6012648 - **Application reference:** 26/01097/HOU - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Raised decking (reduced, part-retrospective) to a converted barn dwelling - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3, GB7(1)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Bradford Core Strategy DS1, Householder SPD - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** householder, disproportionate-extension, gb-incidental, not-inappropriate ## Summary Raised decking to a converted barn in the Bradford Green Belt. Refused on character; allowed because removing the modesty panels makes it unobtrusive. Green Belt was incidental: the extension was accepted as not disproportionate, so not inappropriate. ## Issues and findings - **Character: PASS.** "The overall appearance of the decking, without the composite modesty panels, would be light and unobtrusive" (DL ¶8). - **Green Belt (Other Matters).** "the Council accepts that the proposed extension would not result in a disproportionate addition … I concur with that view … the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt" (DL ¶10). ## Planning balance No balance was needed: no harm on the main issue and not inappropriate. ## What made the difference Detailing: open sides and slim railings instead of solid panels. ## Transferable points - Raised decking is assessed as an extension under the GB7(1)(b) proportionality test (DL ¶10). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): pass.** Council accepted, and inspector concurred, that it is not a disproportionate addition; not a refusal reason (DL 10) - **DP3: pass.** removing composite modesty panels makes the decking "light and unobtrusive" (DL 8-9) ## Key facts - About 4 m x 5 m decking, 1-1.4 m above ground on a sloping site, with slim metal railings - Green Belt was not a refusal reason ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012648 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/75bd7dc6-e104-4b00-b1f4-e9e24125c947 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012648.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Fourays, Horsham Road, Capel - **Decision:** allowed, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Stewart Glassar - **Authority:** Mole Valley (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6012763 - **Application reference:** MO/2026/00653 - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Detached garage (c. 36.5 sq m) and extended driveway in the front garden - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, PDL - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(e) - **Development plan policies:** Mole Valley Local Plan 2024 EN1 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development - **Tags:** householder, pdl-e-limb, residential-garden-pdl, not-inappropriate, openness-harm-not-substantial ## Summary A garage and drive in the grassed front garden of a Green Belt house. Allowed under GB7(1)(e). The site is PDL (Council concession from a previous appeal), and the spatial and visual loss of openness was real but "not substantial". The 2026 Framework raised "no new considerations" (DL ¶3). ## Issues and findings - **GB7(1)(e): PASS.** "as there is currently no built form in this part of the site there would inevitably be a spatial loss of openness" (DL ¶8). "even if this resulted in some harm to the openness of the Green Belt, given the amount and type of development proposed as well as where it would be positioned, I do not find that this would result in substantial harm" (DL ¶10). - No need to consider other exceptions or VSC (DL ¶12). ## Planning balance None needed. Allowed with tree, ecology and lighting conditions. ## What made the difference The PDL concession. Once that was given, GB7(1)(e)'s "substantial harm" threshold is a low bar for a single garage in a screened garden. ## Transferable points - For householder outbuildings on rural residential curtilage accepted as PDL, GB7(1)(e) provides a route with a "not substantial harm to openness" threshold, rather than the (b) proportionality test (DL ¶6–11). - Some loss of openness on an undeveloped part of a PDL site is compatible with (e) (DL ¶8, ¶10). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(e): pass.** Council accepted the site as PDL (per earlier appeal); some spatial openness loss in the grassed front garden (about 20% of it) but not substantial; well screened (DL 6-11) - **GB6(2): not-engaged.** not inappropriate, so no VSC (DL 12) ## Key facts - Garage and drive would occupy just over 20% of the front garden, which currently has no built form - Mature trees and vegetation largely conceal the site; outbuildings forward of dwellings are common locally - PDL status accepted by the Council from a previous appeal on the site ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012763 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/66054856-ae20-4b97-aee9-e87d028cfb5e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012763.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Flat 3, 49 Madeira Park, Royal Tunbridge Wells (uPVC replacement windows) - **Decision:** split, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L McKay - **Authority:** Tunbridge Wells (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6012775 - **Application reference:** 26/00832/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective replacement of two first-floor timber windows with uPVC double glazing in a flat in a conservation area - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, CC2(2) - **Development plan policies:** Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan 2025 STR8, H11, EN1, EN4 - **Main issues:** conservation area character - **Tags:** split-decision, energy-efficiency, cc2-substantial-weight, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, retrospective, substantially-outweighed ## Summary Two first-floor timber windows in a Victorian villa flat in the Madeira Park and Warwick Park Conservation Area had been replaced with uPVC. The inspector issued a split decision: the visible front oriel window was dismissed, and the unseen rear window allowed. It is a useful counterpoint to PINS-6006240. CC2(2)'s "substantial weight" to energy efficiency is acknowledged but cut to "limited" where the saving is unquantified and could be had in a less harmful way. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties have provided comments on this change in policy and I have had regard to these" (DL ¶4). - **Front window: HARM.** The uPVC frames "lack the recessed inner frame and projecting transom detail … This difference detracts from the appearance of the host building, and diminishes its contribution to the CA" (DL ¶12). "The degree of harm to the CA as a whole would be slight, however having regard to Policy HE6 of the Framework, any harm to a designated heritage asset is a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶16). - **Energy efficiency: substantial weight in principle, limited in fact.** "improvements to energy efficiency help to deal with the impacts of climate change. This is therefore a public benefit and a matter which the Framework affords substantial weight" (DL ¶17). But "there is no information before me to quantify the energy and thermal efficiency improvements … it has not been demonstrated that equivalent improvements were not achievable through more sympathetic windows" (DL ¶18). Hence "only limited weight" (DL ¶19). - **Rear window: NO HARM.** Not publicly visible and "seen together with the similarly designed rear door below", so allowed (DL ¶13, ¶15). ## Planning balance An HE6 harm-versus-public-benefit balance: slight harm (considerable importance and weight) against energy efficiency (limited weight) and private security. "the combination of the public and private benefits are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶19). ## What made the difference Visibility, and the availability of a sympathetic alternative. The evidence of nearby double-glazed timber windows showed the benefit did not require the harm (DL ¶18). With quantified savings and a timber-look product, the CC2(2) weight might have held. ## Transferable points - CC2(2) substantial weight is not automatic. It can be reduced to limited where the saving is unquantified or obtainable by less harmful means (DL ¶17-19). - "Slight" harm to a conservation area still carries considerable importance and weight under HE6 (DL ¶16). - Where parts are severable, split decisions can retain part of the energy benefit while refusing the harmful element (DL ¶15, ¶18). ## Policy findings - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** front oriel window: "slight" harm to the Madeira Park and Warwick Park CA from frame profile, trickle vents and lost transom detail; any harm is of considerable importance and weight (DL 12, 16) - **CC2(2): benefit (limited weight).** energy efficiency is a public benefit the Framework gives substantial weight, reduced to limited because it is unquantified, achievable with sympathetic timber double glazing, and partly retained via the rear window (DL 17-19) - **HE6: pass.** rear window not publicly visible and seen with similar openings - no harm, so allowed (DL 13, 15) ## Key facts - Parties commented on the August 2026 Framework (DL 4) - Other double-glazed timber windows seen nearby showed a less harmful alternative (DL 18) - Split decision: front window dismissed, rear window allowed (DL 1-2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012775 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/3e6abe94-0949-458d-8033-36eea1ab8bfb --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012775.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 79 Rushdene Crescent, Northolt (vehicle crossover across green) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R C Shrimplin - **Authority:** Ealing (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6012788 - **Application reference:** 254364FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** New vehicle crossover and ECOGrid driveway across a grassed open space in front of a terraced house - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3 - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, D4, D8, T4, Ealing Development Management DPD 2013 7.4, 7B - **Main issues:** character and appearance, highway safety - **Tags:** householder, design-refusal, limited-nppf-engagement, transitional-no-consultation, drafting-slip, tier-2 ## Summary A vehicle crossover and driveway across a grassed open space in front of a Northolt terrace was refused on appeal. The route was safe, but the regular use of a drive across the green would scar it and damage the suburb's character. The private benefit of off-street parking and EV charging did not outweigh that harm. The Framework is cited only generally, and TR3 is cited for highway safety. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "the issues most relevant to the appeal remain unaffected by the revisions that have been made to it. I am therefore satisfied that there is no requirement to seek further submissions on the revised Framework" (DL ¶2). - **Character: HARM.** "the grassy nature of the space would be significantly eroded by the drive, which would scar the open grass" (DL ¶11). - **Highway safety: no harm.** "it would not be materially harmful to pedestrian or vehicular safety by comparison with a more typical crossover" (DL ¶13). The letter says "Policy TR3 in the revised version of the 'National Planning Policy Framework' is also concerned with highway safety" (DL ¶9); the safety test is TR6(4). - **Balance.** "the harm that would be done to the character and appearance of the surroundings would very clearly outweigh the benefits of the project" (DL ¶14). ## Planning balance Plan-led with a simple harm-benefit comparison (DL ¶14–15). No S4 or DP3(3) step. ## What made the difference The communal green in front of the house is part of the estate's open character. Houses nearer the road already had access, but that did not justify cutting across the open space. ## Transferable points - A driveway across a communal grass verge or green can be refused for character harm even where it is safe and spares the tree (DL ¶11, ¶13). - Private convenience, including EV charging, is a limited benefit against townscape harm (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **DP3: conflict.** mapped - Framework cited only generically ("achieving well-designed places"); drive would scar the grassed open space and significantly damage the area's attractiveness; harm "very clearly" outweighs private EV-charging convenience (DL 8, 11, 14-15) - **TR6(4): pass.** letter cites TR3 as "concerned with highway safety"; good intervisibility, no material harm despite non-standard dimensions (DL 9, 13) ## Key facts - Open space with a mature tree in front of a set-back terrace; nearest houses already have car access (DL 5) - Council's 2021 Dropped Kerb pack given less weight than the plan (DL 10) - Tree would not be harmed (DL 11) - Parties not consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012788 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012788.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Crestway, 246 Dover House Road, Wandsworth (porch canopy) - **Decision:** dismissed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Cleary - **Authority:** Wandsworth (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6012827 - **Application reference:** 2025/3444 - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Alterations to front portico (smaller replacement of an unauthorised open-sided hipped canopy) - **Site context:** conservation-area, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Wandsworth Local Plan 2023-2038 LP1, LP3, LP5 - **Main issues:** character and appearance of CA - **Tags:** householder, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, private-benefit-not-public, he6-substantial-weight ## Summary A reduced porch canopy on a house in the Westmead Conservation Area, Wandsworth, was dismissed. It sets out the new HE6 sequence plainly: substantial weight to conservation (HE6(1)), any harm of considerable importance and weight (HE6(3)), then the weighing of harm against public benefits (HE6(4)). Private weather-protection benefits carried limited weight. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "While the format has altered, the considerations material to this decision have not fundamentally changed" (DL ¶3). - **CA: HARM.** "Notwithstanding the reduction in size, the proposed canopy would still introduce a modern, visually assertive feature … a prominent and incongruous addition that undermines the visual cohesiveness of this part of the WCA" (DL ¶9). - **HE6 sequence.** "The Framework confirms that substantial weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets (HE6(1)), and that any harm to such an asset is a matter of considerable importance and weight (HE6(3)). HE6(4) requires that harm … must be weighed against any public benefits … such benefits are private in nature and carry limited weight" (DL ¶11). ## Planning balance HE6(4): limited private benefit against considerable-weight harm to the conservation area. ## What made the difference Reducing the size did not change the design logic the previous inspector had found harmful. Only a change of form (for example, removing the canopy or matching the original porch detailing) would have altered the outcome. ## Transferable points - The new HE6 sequence is HE6(1) substantial weight, then HE6(3) harm of considerable importance and weight, then the HE6(4) public-benefit balance. Note that the 2026 wording no longer grades harm as "less than substantial" (DL ¶11). - Shrinking a feature previously found harmful does not overcome the objection where its form and relationship to the host building stay the same (DL ¶8-9). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** substantial weight to conservation of designated heritage assets (DL 11) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** canopy remains prominent, incongruous modern feature undermining cohesive group of four houses in Westmead CA (DL 8-9, 11) - **HE6(4): fail.** weather protection is a private benefit of limited weight; does not outweigh harm (DL 11) ## Key facts - Previous appeal against the larger existing unauthorised canopy dismissed (ref 3360192, 23 May 2025) - Reduced width and projection but same form and relationship to the facade - Early 20th-century suburban estate CA; group of four largely unaltered detached houses ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012827 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2dad7266-0743-4685-b423-1c8bea30cc5a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012827.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Wheel Inn, 13 Main Street, Branston (retained marquee) - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Richard Snow - **Authority:** Melton (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6012885 - **Application reference:** 24/00722/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retention until July 2029 of a large PVC marquee in a pub paddock for up to 20 events a year - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), P3, TR6(4), S4 - **Development plan policies:** Melton Local Plan D1, EN1, EN6, EN13, IN2 - **Main issues:** character and appearance including heritage, noise and disturbance, highway safety - **Tags:** tier-2, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, tr6-highway-safety, noise, living-conditions, fallback-rejected, retrospective, temporary-permission, old-wording-slip, costs-application, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Temporary retention of a large white PVC events marquee in a pub paddock in the Branston Conservation Area. Dismissed on three grounds: harm to the conservation area not outweighed by unevidenced viability benefits; noise from events near homes; and parking overspill onto narrow village streets (TR6). The S4 balance failed. ## Issues and findings - **Heritage.** "Taking account of the temporary nature of the proposal, the harm to the CA would be at a low level, but for the reasons outlined above, harm caused to a CA and its significance should be afforded substantial weight" (DL ¶13). The letter had just stated HE6(3) correctly: "any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶13). - **Viability.** "there is no substantive evidence before me, such as viability or financial information, demonstrating that the business would face significant financial difficulty or closure without the marquee" (DL ¶15). - **Noise.** "the use would give rise to significant noise and disturbance, particularly during hours when residents would reasonably expect quiet enjoyment of their homes" (DL ¶20). - **Highways.** "the proposal is likely to result in unacceptable harm to highway safety caused by the overspill of attendee’s cars onto the public highway" (DL ¶25). - **Fallback.** Harm "would be continuous for the period up to July 2029 and therefore differs materially to the impact associated with the sporadic and temporary use of land for 28 days per year" (DL ¶27). ## Planning balance S4. HE6 failed (DL ¶32), P3 (DL ¶33) and TR6 "should be refused" (DL ¶34). "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶35). ## Transferable points - A temporary permission reduces the level of heritage harm but does not remove it (DL ¶12-13). - Business-viability benefits need financial evidence (DL ¶15). - The 28-day temporary-use permitted development right is not a like-for-like fallback for a structure retained for years (DL ¶27). - Overspill parking on land outside the appellant's control, and not secured, carries limited weight (DL ¶23). ## Policy findings - **HE6(3): harm (substantial weight).** harm to the Branston CA "at a low level" because temporary, but the letter says harm to a CA "should be afforded substantial weight" (not the HE6(3) wording it quoted just before) and later calls it "significant harm" (DL 7-13, 32) - **HE6(4): fail.** pub viability unevidenced (limited weight); economy and tourism low to moderate weight (DL 14-15) - **P3: harm.** up to 125 guests, amplified music until midnight, homes close by; no noise assessment; limits unenforceable (DL 16-21, 33) - **TR6(4): fail.** parking demand beyond about 30 spaces; overspill field leased from a third party and unsecured; obstruction of narrow Main Street (DL 22-25, 34) - **Transitional(2): accord (significant weight).** D1, IN2, EN1, EN6, EN13 consistent with the Framework; conflict given significant weight (DL 30) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 31, 35) ## Key facts - Marquee already in situ; temporary retention to July 2029; up to 20 events a year, 12 with live music, some until midnight (DL 4, 9, 16) - [object Object] - Grade II* Church of St Guthlac's setting preserved (DL 26) - No evidence on public transport; attendees likely to arrive by car (DL 22) - Costs application decided separately (DL 2) - Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012885 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/fb2c5895-ea74-4984-9de8-4e5e7b4c7f9b --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012885.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 40 Gladstone Street, Scarborough (house to 7-bed HMO) - **Decision:** dismissed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Caines - **Authority:** North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6012886 - **Application reference:** 26/00313/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of a mid-terrace house (C3) to a 7-bedroom HMO (revised to 7 persons at appeal) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** P3, S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Scarborough Local Plan 2017 DEC1, DEC4, Scarborough HMO SPD 2015 - **Main issues:** living conditions of neighbours, parking - **Tags:** tier-2, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, hmo, hmo-concentration, fallback, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A seven-bedroom HMO in a Scarborough mid-terrace would leave the neighbouring house sandwiched between two HMOs and add to heavy parking stress. The inspector found that the extra external activity of seven unrelated occupants could not be controlled by conditions, and gave the six-person permitted development fallback limited weight. Under S4 the moderate benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The appellant has provided additional comments concerning the relevance of the revised Framework" (DL ¶3). - **Plan weight.** DEC4 "is broadly consistent with the Framework’s policies relating to the provision of healthy living conditions and quality of life, and I therefore afford the policy full weight" (DL ¶6); DEC1 likewise (DL ¶20). - **Living conditions: HARM.** "the concern is not that future occupiers would behave unreasonably, but that occupation by seven unrelated individuals within a constrained terraced property would be likely to result in a materially greater level of day-to-day activity" (DL ¶10). An occupancy cap "would be difficult to monitor and enforce effectively in practice" (DL ¶13). - **Parking: HARM.** "there is no planning mechanism before me that would prevent future occupiers from using private vehicles and obtaining parking permits" (DL ¶17). - **Fallback.** A six-person HMO is realistic but less intensive, so limited weight (DL ¶21). ## Planning balance S4(1): benefits moderate weight; living-conditions harm significant and parking harm moderate; "the adverse effects of the proposal would substantially outweigh its benefits. Consequently, the proposal fails to satisfy Policy S4 of the Framework" (DL ¶24-25). ## What made the difference The sandwiching of No 42 and a constrained yard. A smaller HMO within the fallback, or a site without a neighbouring HMO, would have faced a different test. ## Transferable points - HMO harm can arise from ordinary external activity, which management plans cannot prevent (DL ¶10-13). - Occupancy caps are hard to enforce where rooms can take more than one person (DL ¶13). - A permitted development fallback of a smaller HMO gets limited weight if the scheme is more intensive (DL ¶21, ¶23). - Local amenity and parking policies consistent with the Framework keep full weight (DL ¶6, ¶20). ## Policy findings - **P3: fail (significant weight).** mapped: seven unrelated occupants in a small terrace; No 42 sandwiched between HMOs; external activity not controllable by insulation, management plan or an unenforceable occupancy cap (DL 7-14, 24) - **TR4: fail (moderate weight).** mapped: no off-street parking in a controlled, heavily parked area; only 5 cycle spaces for 7 bedrooms, detail lacking; low car ownership unevidenced (DL 15-20, 24) - **S4(1): fail.** moderate-weight benefits (reuse, supply, choice, accessible location) substantially outweighed (DL 22-25) ## Key facts - SPD 10% threshold within 100 m not exceeded, but four HMOs in a 200 m street length and sandwiching of No 42 (DL 9) - Six-person HMO fallback (C4 permitted development) realistic but less intensive; limited weight (DL 21, 23) - DEC1 and DEC4 "broadly consistent" with the Framework and given full weight (DL 6, 20) - Appellant commented on the August 2026 Framework (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012886 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b5a04e25-d00b-446e-bec3-65cc43ef15ca --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012886.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pavement outside Old Town Market, 7 Dear Hay Lane (Chapel Lane), Poole - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Leonard - **Authority:** Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6012915 - **Application reference:** P/26/01806/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub replacing a payphone (Appeal A) and two 75-inch digital advert screens (Appeal B 6012919, P/26/01805/ADV) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE6(1), HE6(3) - **Development plan policies:** Poole Local Plan 2012 PP6, PP27, PP30, Poole Town Centre SPD 2015, Our Streets and Spaces SPD 2012 - **Main issues:** conservation area and listed building setting, visual amenity (advert) - **Tags:** street-hub, digital-advertising, telecoms, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, he6-harm-ungraded, he6-substantial-weight, alternative-sites, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary BT Street Hub replacing a kiosk on Chapel Lane in Poole's town-centre conservation area, in views of a Grade II listed Art Deco shopfront. Both appeals dismissed. This is one of the clearest post-2026 heritage balances in this slice. Harm is characterised only as not "substantial", with no "less than substantial" label. HE6(3) considerable importance and weight and HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation are both stated, and single-hub telecoms benefits got moderate weight. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The revised Framework "does not differ significantly from the 2024 Framework in respect of the substance of the matters before me" (DL ¶9). - **Conservation area.** "The combined bulk, mass and solidity of the street hub … would result in a significant visual intrusion into the streetscape" and would "erode the perceived spacious streetscape of the lane" (DL ¶21-22). - **Listed setting.** The hub "would introduce an incongruous structure which would draw the eye and detract from the appreciation of the attractive shopfront of the listed building" (DL ¶25). - **Harm grading.** "Having regard to the scale of the proposal, I do not find the harm to the TCHCA and the setting of the Listed Building to be substantial" (DL ¶34). - **Balance.** "any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶35). "I give moderate weight to the aforesaid benefits of the provision of a single street hub" (DL ¶37). "the new Framework requires substantial weight to be given to the asset's conservation, with the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. I am not persuaded that the moderate benefits of the proposal outweigh the harm" (DL ¶38). - **Alternatives.** "insufficient substantive evidence … that the aforesaid benefits of the proposal could not be achieved in a less harmful way by locating the proposal in a less sensitive location" (DL ¶39). ## Planning balance HE6(4) harm against public benefits, framed by HE6(1) and HE6(3). The harm was treated as a single "not substantial" category with no sub-grade. ## What made the difference A spacious, uncluttered lane forming a visual link in the conservation area, plus a listed shopfront in view. Benefits that could be delivered elsewhere carried only moderate weight. ## Transferable points - The 2026 heritage sequence in full: check whether harm is substantial (HE6(5)); if not, apply HE6(3) considerable importance and weight and HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation, then weigh against public benefits under HE6(4) (DL ¶34-38). - Location-independent public benefits lose force where the applicant has not shown a less sensitive site is unavailable (DL ¶39). - Removing off-site kiosks is a real heritage enhancement elsewhere, but it does not offset harm at the appeal site (DL ¶40-42). ## Policy findings - **HE6(5): not-engaged.** "Having regard to the scale of the proposal, I do not find the harm ... to be substantial" — binary substantial / not-substantial framing, no "less than substantial" label and no further grade (DL 34) - **HE6(4): harm (considerable weight).** HE6(3) "considerable importance and weight" and HE6(1) "substantial weight ... the more important the asset, the greater the weight" both stated; s66/s72 cited; harm to Town Centre Heritage CA (spacious lane, views) and setting of Grade II 34 Hill Street (Art Deco shopfront) (DL 10, 20-26, 35, 38) - **CO1: benefit (moderate weight).** Wi-Fi, charging, 4G/5G, emergency access, wayfinding, carbon-free, sensors — moderate weight for a single hub; no CO1 substantial-weight language; no evidence benefits could not be had in a less sensitive location (DL 32, 36-39) ## Key facts - 3m hub next to Jobcentre on open, uncluttered Chapel Lane linking High Street with car park trees (DL 13-20) - Removal of two High Street kiosks would enhance the CA but is off-site and does not offset (DL 40-42) - Framework "does not differ significantly from the 2024 Framework in respect of the substance"; no consultation (DL 8-9) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012915 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7b524be0-33c3-4813-99c5-31672d8f2627 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012915.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land on road from Frost Cross to Oldborough Cross, Morchard Bishop - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Hills - **Authority:** Mid Devon (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6012985 - **Application reference:** 26/00300/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for one dwelling (intended self-build) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(e), S5(1)(j), S5(3), HO11, S5(4) - **Development plan policies:** Mid Devon Local Plan 2020 S1, S3, S13, S14, DM6 - **Main issues:** suitability of location - **Tags:** PIP, s5-1-e-infill, s5-1-j, s5-4-exceptional, isolated-home, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, housing-shortfall, self-build, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A PiP for one dwelling on a lane about 400 m from Morchard Bishop, near a scattered linear group. It was dismissed. The council lacked a 5YHLS. The site was neither limited infilling (S5(1)(e)) nor physically well-related to the settlement (S5(1)(j)), and no HO11 circumstance applied. The inspector therefore used S5(4)'s reversed test. Substantial weight to housing (HO7) did not substantially outweigh the substantial-weight harm to sustainable movement. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Both parties had the opportunity to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶5). - **Well-related? NO.** The site "is said to be about 400m away from Morchard Bishop ... While near a scattered group of dwellings that extends in a linear form away from the settlement, there are notable verdant gaps along this route ... Such characteristics lead to a physical separation" (DL ¶9). "the physical and functional separation means the appeal site is not well-related to Morchard Bishop" (DL ¶12). - **Infill? NO.** "Although properties line the lane adjacent to the appeal site, there are no nearby houses either side of it. Therefore, a new dwelling here could not reasonably be considered a natural infilling" (DL ¶10). - **Isolation.** "the proximity of other nearby properties means that there is no overriding sense of isolation. That is not to say however that the appeal site is not isolated from Morchard Bishop in the terms set out in the LP and Framework" (DL ¶10). The LP definition of isolated as anywhere outside a settlement was found "consistent with the Framework" (DL ¶7). Compare PINS-6011431 (same council), where a similar LP gloss was not followed. - **Access: FAIL.** "There is a bus stop ... that I am told provides a service every other hour ... future occupiers would still need to navigate a narrow lane that lacks any pavement. During my visit I had to move to the grass verge on several occasions ... I did observe some street lighting" (DL ¶11). "It took me over 10 minutes to walk from the appeal site to the village pub ... given the steep hill, be a challenge for some" (DL ¶12). ## Planning balance S5(4): "Part 4 of S5 says that proposals that do not fall into such categories should only be approved in exceptional circumstances ... I attach substantial weight to the harm identified in respect of patterns of movement" (DL ¶18). Benefits: HO7 substantial weight given the evidenced unmet need (DL ¶19), self-build moderate because it could not be secured at PiP stage (DL ¶20), and economic benefits limited (DL ¶21). "the benefits of the proposal do not substantially outweigh the adverse effects" (DL ¶22). ## What made the difference Physical separation. Green gaps along the lane and a steep hill broke the link to the village. The lack of houses on either side of the plot defeated infill. That moved the case from the benefits-favouring S5(1) test to the harm-favouring S5(4) test. There, even substantial HO7 weight could not win against substantial weight on movement. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(e) needs houses on both sides of the plot along the frontage. Being near a scattered linear group is not enough (DL ¶10). - Verdant gaps in a ribbon of houses and a steep gradient break the "physically well-related" link for S5(1)(j), even at about 400 m (DL ¶9, 12). - A site can lack an "overriding sense of isolation" yet still be isolated from the settlement for S5(3)/HO11 purposes (DL ¶10). Inspectors differ here; compare PINS-6011431. - A bus every other hour does not overcome a pavement-less lane and a steep hill (DL ¶11-12). - Under S5(4), substantial HO7 weight versus substantial movement harm is not "substantially outweighing" (DL ¶18-22). - Self-build cannot be secured at PiP stage, so it gets moderate weight only (DL ¶8, 20). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(e): fail.** no houses immediately either side along the lane - "could not reasonably be considered a natural infilling" (DL 10, 18) - **S5(1)(j): fail.** no 5YHLS, but about 400m from Morchard Bishop with verdant gaps and a steep hill - physically and functionally separated, not well related (DL 9, 12, 17-18) - **S5(3): conflict.** no overriding sense of isolation, but isolated from Morchard Bishop in LP and Framework terms; no HO11 circumstance applies (DL 7, 10, 18) - **S5(4): fail.** benefits do not substantially outweigh harm to sustainable patterns of movement (substantial weight) (DL 18-22) - **TR3: fail (substantial weight).** narrow lane without pavement, some lighting, steep hill; walk to pub over 10 minutes; bus every other hour at mid-point (DL 11-12) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** evidenced unmet need, no 5YHLS; self-build given only moderate weight as not secured at PiP stage (DL 19-20) ## Key facts - About 400m from Morchard Bishop settlement edge, near a scattered linear group with verdant gaps (DL 9) - Lane has no pavement; inspector stepped onto verge several times to avoid vehicles; bus every other hour (DL 11) - Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply (figure not given) (DL 17) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012985 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9e656bf1-7dfb-48f1-acee-d17cc3702078 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012985.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 39 Cowling Brow, Chorley (5-bedroom HMO) - **Decision:** allowed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Walker - **Authority:** Chorley (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6013087 - **Application reference:** 25/01250/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Retrospective change of use of a two-bedroom dwelling to a five-bedroom HMO - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4 - **Development plan policies:** Chorley Local Plan 2015 ST4, BNE1, Central Lancashire Core Strategy Policy 6 - **Main issues:** highway and pedestrian safety (parking), neighbours' noise and disturbance, future occupiers' living conditions - **Tags:** tier-2, hmo, s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, retrospective, parking, noise, plan-policy-consistent-full-weight, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A retrospective change of use of a small Chorley terrace house to a five-bedroom HMO. On-street parking had spare capacity, noise could be controlled by a management plan and sound insulation, and there was no overconcentration. With no harm and no conflict with the Framework's decision-making policies, S4 pointed to approval. Allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The main parties "had opportunities to comment on any implications for the appeal of this change as part of the normal appeal process" (DL ¶2). - **Parking: NO HARM.** "even with an increase in parking demand I do not consider that this would lead to a significant adverse effect on highway or pedestrian safety" (DL ¶9). - **Noise: NO HARM with conditions.** "I accept that there can be no cast iron guarantee that problems of noise and disturbance will not arise from the HMO use, as this will depend on the particular group of occupiers. However, such an argument would also apply to a C3 dwelling" (DL ¶14). - **Space standards.** NDSS "does not provide guidance for HMOs" (DL ¶18). - **S4: APPROVE.** "I have not identified any unacceptable harm in the main issues or conflicts with national decision-making policies in the Framework" (DL ¶24). ## Planning balance S4 with no harm, and accords with the development plan (DL ¶24, ¶29). ## What made the difference No overconcentration and street capacity for parking. Contrast the same inspector's Preston decision, PINS-6009669, dismissed where five HMOs were clustered nearby. ## Transferable points - Uncertainty about future HMO occupiers' behaviour is not a reason for refusal, since the same applies to a C3 house; management and insulation conditions address it (DL ¶14–15). - NDSS does not apply to HMOs; room adequacy is a planning judgement (DL ¶18–19). ## Policy findings - **TR3: pass.** TR3(1)(c) highway safety; ST4/BNE1 "broadly consistent"; modest extra parking demand on streets with spare capacity; no safety harm (DL 5-10) - **DP3(2)(a): pass.** CS Policy 6 and BNE1 consistent with DP3 liveability; noise controlled by management plan and sound insulation conditions; no overconcentration shown (DL 13-16, 21-22) - **DM4: neutral (limited weight).** emerging Central Lancashire Local Plan "little weight" (DL 3) - **S4: pass.** no unacceptable harm or conflict with the Framework's decision-making policies, so approve (DL 23-24) ## Key facts - Corner terrace; bedrooms one to three small and irregular but overall not cramped; NDSS not applicable to HMOs (DL 18-19) - Retrospective use; conditions require a management plan and sound insulation within 3 months, cycle parking, and max 5 occupiers (Schedule 2-5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6013087 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/553ef4e1-4c82-4e3c-b629-70177a280d20 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6013087.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 72-74 High Street, Beckenham (upward roof extension to flats) - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: L Francis - **Authority:** Bromley (London) - **Appeal reference:** 6013151 - **Application reference:** 26/01563/FPA - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Single-storey upward extension to enlarge two existing second-floor flats above a restaurant in Beckenham Town Centre Conservation Area - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** London Plan 2021 D3, HC1, Bromley Local Plan 2019 Policies 6, 37, 41 - **Main issues:** conservation area - **Tags:** tier-2, upward-extension, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-ungraded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, private-benefit-not-public, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A roof extension to enlarge two flats above a Beckenham High Street restaurant would obscure the rear roof slope, visible from Church Avenue, and erode the conservation area's traditional roofscape. The benefits went only to the two flats' occupiers. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Harm.** "an overly dominant and bulky addition to the rear of the buildings which would obscure the original roof form" (DL ¶8). - **HE5 / HE6(4).** "Under the terms of Framework Policy HE5, I consider there would be harm to the significance of the CA through the scale and bulk of the roof extension" (DL ¶9). No degree is given, and HE6(1) and HE6(3) weight are not stated. - **Public benefits.** "they would be confined to the occupiers of the flats and in my view would be very limited as a public benefit" (DL ¶10). ## Planning balance HE6(4) and a plan-led conclusion: "The harm I have identified to the CA would outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶17). No S4 step. ## What made the difference Public visibility of the rear roof through a gap in the street, unlike the Council's comparator approvals. ## Transferable points - Enlarging existing flats is a private benefit of very limited public weight (DL ¶10). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): fail.** bulky rear roof addition erodes the traditional roofscape; harm under HE5 not graded; public benefits confined to occupiers of two flats, very limited (DL 8-10) - **L2: benefit (limited weight).** mapped - improved accommodation and efficient use of land, limited weight given scale (DL 17) ## Key facts - Rear elevation visible from Church Avenue through a gap in the streetscape (DL 7) - Other upward extensions in the CA distinguished on visibility (DL 12-14) - Parties given the opportunity to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6013151 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9df3ddaa-98e5-44b1-bef1-58c3b0f62b67 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6013151.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 1 Bronington Avenue, Eastham, Wirral (first-floor side extension) - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Les Greenwood - **Authority:** Wirral (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6013310 - **Application reference:** APPH/26/00185 - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** First-floor side extension (two-storey gable to boundary) - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** L2, P3, S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Wirral Local Plan WD5, WD23, Householder Extensions SPD 2026 - **Main issues:** living conditions - outlook - **Tags:** householder, l2-effective-use, living-conditions-outlook, s4-substantially-outweighed ## Summary A first-floor side extension in Wirral was dismissed on loss of outlook to the neighbour behind. The appellant relied on L2 and S4. The inspector accepted that the L2 effective-use benefit weighed in favour, but held that L2 itself requires acceptable living standards for neighbours. Under S4 the outlook harm "would substantially outweigh the benefits". ## Issues and findings - **Outlook: HARM.** The 10 m separation was well short of the SPD's 14 m norm. The gable "would loom over and dominate close range views from the rear windows and garden of No 25" (DL ¶8). - **L2 cuts both ways.** "The appellant aptly refers to policies L2 and S4 of the new Framework … the proposal would make efficient use of an existing site within a settlement to provide improved family accommodation. This weighs in favour" (DL ¶10). "Framework policy L2 also says that developments should maintain acceptable living standards for neighbours … In the terms of Framework policy S4, this harm would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶11). ## Planning balance S4(1): the L2 benefit was substantially outweighed by the neighbour outlook harm and the conflict with WD5/WD23. ## What made the difference The separation distance to the rear windows behind. The hipped-roof alternative might have helped, but it was not formally submitted. ## Transferable points - L2's support for extra floorspace is conditional on maintaining acceptable living standards for neighbours. Harm to outlook can substantially outweigh the L2 benefit under S4 (DL ¶10-11). - Amendments offered informally at application stage are not considered at appeal (DL ¶5). ## Policy findings - **L2: benefit.** efficient use of an existing site within a settlement for improved family accommodation "weighs in favour" (DL 10) - **L2: fail.** L2 also requires acceptable living standards for neighbours; gable 10 m from rear windows of 25 Bettisfield Avenue against a 14 m SPD norm (DL 8, 11) - **S4(1): fail.** outlook harm "would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL 11) ## Key facts - Two-storey blank gable would sit about 10 m from neighbour's main rear windows (SPD norm 14 m) - New SPD adopted after refusal; parties consulted on it and the Framework (DL 4) - Offer of hipped roof not formally submitted, so not considered (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6013310 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/d7ca0a29-7955-4d7f-ac97-c0e0c95a13d9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6013310.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 69 Wellingborough Road, Rushden (HMO frontage parking, s73) - **Decision:** allowed, 30 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Richard Snow - **Authority:** North Northamptonshire (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6013651 - **Application reference:** 26/00189/VAR - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Section 73 variation of the plans condition on a 9-person HMO permission to add two frontage parking spaces and revised boundary treatment - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4), S4 - **Development plan policies:** North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031 (2016) Policy 8 - **Main issues:** highway safety and sustainable travel, character and appearance of the street scene - **Tags:** hmo, s73-variation, parking, s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, local-policy-consistency, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2 ## Summary A section 73 appeal to add two parking spaces to the frontage of an approved nine-person HMO in Rushden was allowed. The existing dropped kerb near a roundabout had long been used safely, and two spaces would keep traffic at the level of the former house. Cycle storage and nearby buses meant sustainable travel was not undermined, and parked cars on the frontage matched the street. With no conflict with any Framework decision policy, S4 pointed to approval. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Both parties have had the opportunity to address the policies of the revised Framework in submissions" (DL ¶3). - **Highway safety, TR6(4): PASS.** "Despite its proximity to the roundabout, I have no evidence before me to indicate that the continued use of the access would be inherently unsafe" (DL ¶8). "the provision of only two parking spaces would limit vehicle movements associated with the site" (DL ¶9). - **Sustainable travel.** "I am satisfied that the proposal would not diminish opportunities for travel by sustainable modes" (DL ¶11). - **Character: acceptable.** "the resulting appearance would reflect the established character of the site and its surroundings" (DL ¶15). - **Plan consistency.** JCS Policy 8 "is consistent with the Framework in that it seeks to deliver well-designed, well-connected places" (DL ¶25). ## Planning balance S4: "The proposal would not conflict with any of the decision-making policies in the Framework. As such, Policy S4 points to permission being granted" (DL ¶25). In accordance with the development plan (DL ¶26). ## What made the difference Evidence that the frontage had been used for parking for years without incident, and a cap of two spaces. The Council's worry about intensification did not follow when on-site parking was limited. ## Transferable points - Limiting on-site spaces can prevent intensification of an access even where occupancy rises (DL ¶9). - Adding a little on-site parking to an HMO does not undermine sustainable travel where cycle storage is secured and services and buses are walkable (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **TR6(4): pass.** long-standing lawful dropped kerb near an A5001 roundabout; clear visibility; no accident record; two spaces keep use comparable to the former dwelling (DL 6-9, 12) - **TR3: pass.** mapped - cycle store secured; walking distance of Rushden services and buses; sustainable travel not diminished (DL 11-12) - **DP3: accord.** hard-surfaced frontages with low walls typical of the street; site used for parking for years (DL 13-16) - **S4: pass.** no conflict with any decision-making policy; JCS Policy 8 consistent with the Framework (DL 24-26) - **DM6: pass.** conditions 4, 6 and 7 of the original permission removed; new condition caps parking at two spaces (DL 19-23) ## Key facts - Former church later used as a house; double yellow lines outside (DL 6) - Original HMO permission (NE/24/01169/FUL, 15 Aug 2025) had no on-site parking and required the dropped kerb to be reinstated (DL 4, 22) - Whether the original permission was implemented is disputed; conditions restated (DL 2, 19) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6013651 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6013651.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pavement outside Clarendon House, 3 Heavitree Road, Exeter (BT Street Hub) - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Hills - **Authority:** Exeter (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6013695 - **Application reference:** 26/0641/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** BT Street Hub with two 75-inch digital advertisement screens, replacing payphones (Appeal A 6013695 planning; Appeal B 6013697 advertisement) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(1), HE6(4), CO1 - **Development plan policies:** Exeter Core Strategy CP17, Exeter Local Plan First Review C1, C2, C3, DG1, DG8 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, setting of listed buildings, visual amenity - **Tags:** street-hub, telecoms, advertisement, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, heritage-harm-decisive, co1-substantial-weight, harm-moderate ## Summary BT Street Hub on a wide Exeter pavement about 10m from a listed 1840s terrace. Both appeals were dismissed. The Inspector found "a moderate degree of harm to the setting and significance of No 5". Applying HE6(1) substantial weight, that harm outweighed telecoms benefits that themselves carried substantial weight under CO1. This is the cleanest 2026-vocabulary heritage balance in this batch. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Both parties commented on the new Framework (DL ¶6). - **HE6(1).** "when considering the potential effect of a development proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset, substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation" (DL ¶8). - **Harm, HE5/HE6.** "it would generate a moderate degree of harm to the setting and significance of No 5. In these circumstances it is necessary to weigh this harm against the public benefits" (DL ¶11). The harm is graded by degree; there is no "less than substantial" category. - **CO1 balance.** "The obligation to provide telephony services is understood, as is the substantial weight the Framework attaches to the benefits of improving network coverage. However, Framework Policy CO1 also recognises that proposals should be sited and designed to minimise their visual impact. In these particular circumstances, the substantial weight given to the harm to the setting of the listed building outweighs any such public benefits" (DL ¶12). - **CA: neutral** given separation (DL ¶11). ## Planning balance HE6(4): moderate harm, with substantial weight under HE6(1), against substantial-weight CO1 benefits. Harm prevailed because CO1's own siting-and-design limb pointed the same way. ## What made the difference Isolation on the pavement meant the hub "would draw the eye, rather than blend in". It would stand as a foreground feature on the approach to the listed gable end (DL ¶10). ## Transferable points - Where both sides carry "substantial" weight (HE6(1) vs CO1), the Inspector resolves it through CO1's internal requirement to minimise visual impact (DL ¶12). - Heritage harm is now expressed as a plain degree ("moderate") and fed straight into the HE6(4) weighing (DL ¶11). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): fail (substantial weight).** "moderate degree of harm" to setting and significance of listed No 5 Eaton's Place (1840s terrace ~10m away); HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation (DL 8, 10-12) - **CO1: benefit (substantial weight).** substantial weight to network coverage acknowledged, but CO1 also requires siting and design to minimise visual impact; outweighed (DL 12) - **HE9: neutral.** neutral effect on Lower Summerlands CA given separation (DL 11) - **DP3: fail.** ~3m hub isolated on wide pavement draws the eye, adds clutter (DL 9-10) ## Key facts - Hub nearly 3m tall and 1.23m wide; 876 hours a year of free council advertising offered - Parties consulted on the new Framework (DL 6) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ec4cf3a3-7d61-490b-abb3-a3f72764ee8b - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6013695 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6013695.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 3 Booth Terrace, Dean House Lane, Luddenden - **Decision:** dismissed, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Hartley - **Authority:** Calderdale (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6014250 - **Application reference:** 26/00306/HSE - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Single-storey full-width front extension - **Site context:** green-belt, valued-landscape, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Calderdale Local Plan 2018/19-2032/33 BT1, GN4, Calderdale Placemaking and Design Guide SPD 2024 - **Main issues:** Green Belt, character and appearance, Special Landscape Area, heritage - **Tags:** not-inappropriate, proportionate-extension, design-refusal, transitional-no-consultation, householder ## Summary A small full-width front extension to a stone terraced cottage in the Calderdale Green Belt. It was not inappropriate: an increase of about one fifth on an unextended original is not disproportionate under GB7(1)(b). It was dismissed on design (DP3) and minor harm to the Special Landscape Area. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The Framework is of "critical importance", but it "has not materially changed the assessment in this appeal", so the parties were not consulted (DL ¶2). - **GB7(1)(b): PASS.** "I find that the proposal would not constitute a disproportionate addition to the original building" (DL ¶10). - **Design / DP3: FAIL.** "it would have a significantly harmful effect upon the pleasing rhythm of the terrace, and would interrupt its building line" (DL ¶13). - **Heritage: neutral.** No objective evidence that the terrace is a non-designated heritage asset (DL ¶¶23–24). ## Planning balance Development plan conflict on design and SLA was "of overriding concern" (DL ¶25). ## What made the difference Green Belt passed easily. Design against a uniform terrace decided the case. ## Transferable points - An increase of about 20% on an unextended original building is not disproportionate (DL ¶¶9–10). - A Council's claim of non-designated heritage asset status needs objective evidence (DL ¶23). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): pass.** 7.2 sqm on c.34 sqm unextended original (about one fifth) → not disproportionate (DL 5-11) - **DP3: fail.** full-width front extension breaks rhythm and building line of uniform stone terrace (DL 12-15) - **Calderdale GN4 (Special Landscape Area): harm.** minor adverse impact on Luddenden Dean SLA (DL 16-19) - **HE5: neutral.** no effect on Grade II Broadfold Hall or Lower Holme House; terrace not shown to be a non-designated heritage asset (DL 20-24) ## Key facts - Original dwelling c.34 sqm GEA over two floors, never extended; extension 7.2 sqm - Uniform stone terrace; neighbours have small porches, not full-width additions ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6014250 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1e6a1420-999a-4bd2-a842-e1d785177a7a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6014250.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 65A Bedford Road, Reading (rear dormer) - **Decision:** dismissed, 25 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Alexander O’Doherty - **Authority:** Reading (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6014625 - **Application reference:** PL/26/0588 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Rear elevation dormer extension and internal alterations on a prominent corner building - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(1) - **Development plan policies:** Reading Borough Local Plan 2019 CC7, Design Guide to House Extensions SPD 2021 - **Main issues:** character and appearance - **Tags:** tier-2, householder, design-refusal, plan-led, transitional-no-consultation ## Summary A full-width rear dormer on a prominent corner property in Reading. Dismissed on character grounds under Local Plan CC7 and the SPD. The letter names DP3(1) as "the overriding consideration" (DL ¶8) but does not apply the DP3(3) clear-justification step. ## Issues and findings - **Character.** "Due to the site’s prominent corner location, the proposed rear dormer extension would appear as an overly-large and incongruous feature in the street scene" (DL ¶6). - **Balance.** "As these benefits would mainly be private in nature, they merit little weight in support of the proposed development. On the other hand, the proposed development would not integrate with and enhance its surroundings, contrary to policy DP3(1) of the Framework, which is the overriding consideration in this case" (DL ¶8). ## Transferable points - A DP3(1) conflict can outweigh private householder benefits in a plan-led decision (DL ¶8). ## Policy findings - **DP3(1): conflict.** large, bulky dormer across almost the whole roof, incongruous on a prominent corner; conflict with DP3(1) called "the overriding consideration"; no DP3(3) or clear-justification step (DL 5-8) ## Key facts - Dormer set only marginally below the ridge and spans almost the full width of the rear roof, against SPD guidance (DL 5) - Enlarged accommodation is a mainly private benefit, given little weight (DL 8) - [object Object] ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6014625 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/0fa33863-fa0f-4f88-9f0e-1629475812e7 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6014625.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Higher Collybeer Farm, Spreyton (B8 storage units) - **Decision:** allowed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Hills - **Authority:** West Devon (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6014952 - **Application reference:** 1315/26/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Erection of four B8 storage units beside an existing storage business - **Site context:** open-countryside, isolated - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(b), E4, TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2019 SPT1, SPT2, TTV1, TTV2, TTV26, DEV15 - **Main issues:** suitable location for rural business - **Tags:** rural-business-expansion, s5-1-b-necessity, sustainable-location-pass, car-dependent-accepted, small-scheme ## Summary Four B8 storage units in open countryside in West Devon were allowed on appeal. The site is car-dependent and isolated from any settlement, but the inspector found S5(1)(b)'s "location shown to be necessary" requirement met. The reason was the functional relationship with the established storage business next door: the location was "a logical consequence" of that business expanding. E4's recognition that rural businesses may be poorly served by public transport carried the transport issue. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties commented on the updated Framework (DL ¶2). - **Relationship to the existing business.** "Although such development is not inherently dependent upon a countryside location, the proposal seeks to expand an established business operating by the appeal site. In that context, the proposed location is a logical consequence of that expansion" (DL ¶8). - **S5(1)(b): PASS.** "Framework Policy S5 identifies that rural business development may be supported outside settlements where such a location is shown to be necessary. Given the functional relationship between the proposal and the existing business, I am satisfied that this requirement is met … S5 does not require a separate demonstration of unmet demand" (DL ¶11). - **Transport: acceptable.** The inspector acknowledged "it is very unlikely future occupiers would use transport modes other than private vehicles" (DL ¶5). However, "the development would generate a modest level of activity that would be unlikely to result in a significant increase in trips" (DL ¶12). E4 "expressly recognises that development meeting business needs may need to be located outside settlements and in locations that are not well served by public transport … any such small-scale increase in activity would not conflict with the objectives of Framework Policy TR3" (DL ¶13). ## Planning balance The scheme complied with the plan: no overall conflict with TTV26, and support from DEV15 and TTV2 (DL ¶10, 14). The established business attracted significant weight. The small loss of Grade 3 land was justified. ## What made the difference The existing lawful business next door. The inspector accepted that storage units are not inherently rural, but read S5(1)(b) necessity as satisfied by the need to expand an established enterprise in place. Compare the Shropshire wigwams (PINS-6008804) and the Cornwall holiday schemes, where there was no established enterprise and necessity failed. A standalone new storage yard at this site would probably have failed. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(b) necessity can be met by functional dependence on an adjacent established rural business, even where the use itself could go in a settlement (DL ¶8, 11). - S5(1)(b) does not require a separate E2 demonstration of unmet demand (DL ¶11). - For low-intensity rural business uses, car-only access is not a TR3 conflict where extra trips are modest (DL ¶12-13). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(b): pass.** necessity of a location outside a settlement met by the functional relationship with the existing established storage business next door (DL 8, 11) - **E2: neutral (limited weight).** council's E2 unmet-demand objection given limited weight; S5 does not require a separate demonstration of unmet demand here (DL 11) - **E4: accord.** supports sustainable growth of rural businesses and recognises they may need locations outside settlements not well served by public transport (DL 13) - **TR3: pass.** car-only access accepted; modest activity and local catchment mean no significant increase in trips (DL 5, 12-13) ## Key facts - Site isolated from settlements but physically well-related to an adjacent B8 unit and shared access off an A road - Existing storage business said to be oversubscribed; inspector accepted units could in principle be in a settlement - Small loss of Grade 3 land already disturbed by an access track (DL 10) - Council's suggested use-restriction, hours and CEMP conditions not imposed (DL 16-18) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6014952 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/065ab2ea-e7e4-49f5-9d95-f37ae31772d3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6014952.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 550 Topsham Road, Exeter (linked annexe) - **Decision:** allowed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: J Hills - **Authority:** Exeter (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6015017 - **Application reference:** 26/0700/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of a single-storey rear extension and erection of a linked single-storey annexe - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Exeter Core Strategy CP17, Objective 9, Exeter Local Plan First Review DG1, DG4 - **Main issues:** character and appearance, living conditions of No 548 - **Tags:** tier-2, annexe, limited-nppf-engagement, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary A linked single-storey annexe replacing a lean-to at a semi-detached house in Exeter. The inspector found it subservient and in keeping with a varied estate, consistent with DP3, and acceptable for the neighbour's light and outlook. Allowed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Both parties have had the opportunity to comment on its implications for their respective cases" (DL ¶2). - **Design: accord.** "The scheme would reinforce local distinctiveness which is consistent with Objective 9 of the Exeter City Council Core Strategy (CS), as well as Framework Policy DP3" (DL ¶8). - **Neighbour: acceptable.** "whilst the outlook from both would be altered, it would be maintained to an acceptable standard" (DL ¶11). ## What made the difference The narrow link broke up the length, and the annexe body sat away from the neighbour's windows. ## Transferable points - Exceeding informal depth guidance or permitted development limits is not harm in itself (DL ¶7). ## Policy findings - **DP3: accord.** subservient, well-proportioned extension behind a fence; grey painted link breaks up massing; reinforces local distinctiveness (DL 5-9) - **P3: pass.** mapped: set away from No 548 near its windows; light likely to improve near the house; outlook maintained (DL 10-12) ## Key facts - Depth may exceed informal guidance and permitted development limits, but harm not found (DL 7) - "dependant relative's" removed from the description as it describes occupation, not development; no occupancy condition imposed (DL 1, 3) - Parties had the opportunity to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6015017 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/057dfc75-c9c5-4338-9c71-64da4ba45d6c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6015017.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Beacon Fen Energy Park, near Heckington, Lincolnshire (DCO) - **Decision:** approved, 21 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Secretary of State: Minister Curran for SoS DESNZ; ExA A Pinto - **Authority:** North Kesteven / Boston (Lincolnshire) (East Midlands) - **Application reference:** EN010151 - **Procedure:** inquiry - **Development:** DCO for 400 MW ground-mounted solar PV with up to 600 MVA battery storage, access corridor and cable connection to Bicker Fen substation - **Site context:** open-countryside, agricultural-land-BMV, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** NPS EN-1 5.9.32, NPS EN-1 5.11.34 - **Main issues:** need for renewable energy, BMV agricultural land, heritage setting, landscape, compulsory acquisition - **Tags:** secretary-of-state, nsip-dco, transitional, transitional-no-consultation, old-wording-slip, renewable-energy, bmv-land ## Summary This was a DCO for a 400 MW solar farm with up to 600 MVA of battery storage near Heckington, Lincolnshire. On 21 August 2026 the Energy Secretary (Minister Curran) granted consent, in line with the Examining Authority's recommendation. The decision is recorded for how it handled the Framework switch. Four days after the August 2026 NPPF took effect, the letter still treats the NPPF as a draft under consultation and applies the December 2024 paragraph 215 to the heritage balance. There is no reference to the published 2026 Framework. ## Issues and findings - **Which Framework: 2026 NPPF NOT RECOGNISED.** "A revised draft of the National Planning Policy Framework ("NPPF") was published in February 2025, followed by a subsequent consultation which closed on 10 March 2026. The Clean Power 2030 Action Plan … sets out a pathway to a clean power system. The Secretary of State had regard to these publications and finds that there is nothing contained within them which would lead her to reach a different decision on the Application" (DL ¶4.3). The 2025 NPSs (in effect from 6 Jan 2026) were treated as "important and relevant" but not having effect (DL ¶4.2). - **Heritage: HARM, moderate weight; 2024 ¶215 applied.** "The Secretary of State agrees with the ExA that there is less than substantial harm to heritage assets … the benefits of the Proposed Development are not outweighed by the adverse effects on heritage assets and that paragraph 5.9.32 of NPS EN-1 and NPPF paragraph 215 are satisfied" (DL ¶4.54). The letter uses "great weight" to conservation, from NPS EN-1 (DL ¶4.53). The Secretary of State raised the heritage weight from the ExA's little to moderate (DL ¶7.2). - **Land use / BMV: HARM, great weight.** 20.37 ha permanent and about 255 ha temporary (40-year) loss of BMV land. "matters relating to soil and BMV agricultural land should be afforded great negative weight" (ExA, DL ¶4.67), adopted by the Secretary of State (DL ¶7.1). - **Need: substantial positive weight.** The ExA's "very great" weight was treated as "equivalent to the 'substantial weight' cited in NPS EN-1" (DL ¶4.9, ¶4.6). ## Planning balance This was the PA 2008 s104 balance under the 2024 NPSs. On one side: need (substantial), plus socio-economic and biodiversity benefits (limited each). On the other: land use and BMV (great), landscape and visual (moderate), heritage (moderate), and cumulative effects (limited). "the benefits … outweigh the totality of its adverse impacts" (DL ¶7.3). ## What made the difference On the merits, NPS need weight carried the scheme despite great negative weight for BMV loss. On the Framework question, which is why this case is recorded, the letter shows a Secretary of State decision issued after 17 Aug 2026 that did not register the new NPPF at all. It is described as a draft and the old paragraph numbering is applied. Contrast SOS-EN020032 (14 Sep), where the same department expressly acknowledged the 17 Aug Framework and kept 2024 references deliberately. ## Transferable points - Early post-switch decisions, even at Secretary of State level, can apply the superseded 2024 NPPF. Check the Framework version cited before relying on any decision dated from mid to late August 2026 (DL ¶4.3, ¶4.54). - For NSIPs, the Framework is at most an "important and relevant" consideration. The Secretary of State's view that it would not change the outcome is the usual answer (DL ¶4.3; SOS-EN020032 DL ¶4.2). - Great negative weight to BMV loss (56% of the site, 40-year life) does not defeat substantial NPS need weight for a 400 MW solar scheme (DL ¶4.67, ¶7.1-7.3). ## Policy findings - **W3: benefit (substantial weight).** urgent need for renewable generation; ExA's "very great" equated to NPS "substantial" positive weight (DL 4.6, 4.9, 7.1) - assessed under NPS EN-1/EN-3, not W3 by name - **HE6: harm (moderate weight).** less than substantial harm (South Kyme Tower setting, Gashes Barn, non-designated farmsteads, Car Dyke); benefits outweigh; SoS raised ExA's little weight to moderate; applied as "NPPF paragraph 215" (2024) (DL 4.53-4.54, 7.2) - **NPS EN-1 5.11.34: harm (great weight).** land use - 20.37 ha permanent and c.255 ha temporary (40-yr) loss of BMV land; significant cumulative BMV loss across Lincolnshire - under NPS EN-1 5.11.34 and May 2024 WMS; no 2026 code cited (DL 4.59-4.69, 7.1) - **DP3: harm (moderate weight).** landscape and visual effects (DL 4.27, 7.1) ## Key facts - Decision letter dated 21 Aug 2026, four days after the 2026 NPPF took effect, but it describes the NPPF only as "A revised draft … published in February 2025, followed by a subsequent consultation which closed on 10 March 2026" (DL 4.3) - Applies "NPPF paragraph 215" (the December 2024 numbering) to the heritage balance (DL 4.54) - ExA recommended grant; SoS agreed but raised the heritage harm from little to moderate negative weight (DL 2.2, 7.2) - 493 ha agricultural land affected, c.56% BMV; Lincolnshire cumulative BMV loss about 7,044 ha according to LCC (DL 4.61-4.62) ## Sources - https://national-infrastructure-consenting.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/projects/EN010151 - https://nsip-documents.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/published-documents/EN010151-001059-Beacon%20Fen%20Energy%20Park%20-%20Secretary%20of%20State's%20Decision%20Letter.pdf - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/beacon-fen-energy-park-development-consent-decision-announced --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/SOS-EN010151.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Morgan and Morecambe Offshore Wind Farms Transmission Assets (DCO) - **Decision:** approved, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Secretary of State: Baroness Curran for SoS DESNZ; ExA D Cliff, J Gorst, R Morgan, M Rokicka - **Authority:** Fylde / South Ribble / Blackpool / Preston (Lancashire) (North West) - **Application reference:** EN020032 - **Procedure:** inquiry - **Development:** DCO for offshore and onshore transmission assets for two consented offshore wind farms - export cables, landfall, onshore cables, two onshore substations in the Green Belt and 400 kV connection to Penwortham - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** NPS EN-1 5.11.37, GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Fylde Local Plan to 2032 GD2, GD3, GD7, ENV5 - **Main issues:** Green Belt VSC, aviation safety, habitats, onshore ecology, compulsory acquisition - **Tags:** secretary-of-state, nsip-dco, renewable-energy, transitional, vsc-shown, green-belt-substation, examiner-overruled ## Summary This was a DCO for the onshore and offshore transmission assets of two consented Irish Sea wind farms. It included two new onshore substations in the Lancashire Green Belt, connecting to the National Grid at Penwortham. The Examining Authority recommended refusal. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero granted consent on 14 September 2026, after post-examination information resolved the bird-strike risk to BAE Warton and the habitats (SPA integrity) issue. It is the first Secretary of State planning decision found that expressly acknowledges the August 2026 NPPF. The letter says the new Framework changes nothing, and it applies the 2024 wording. ## Issues and findings - **Which Framework.** "The NPPF was recently updated on 17 August 2026. Where the Secretary of State refers to the NPPF in this letter, these are references to the 2024 version, which was the version in effect during the Examination and the majority of the determination period. However, the Secretary of State has considered the updated NPPF, and finds that there is nothing contained within the updated NPPF publications which would lead her to reach a different decision on the Application" (DL ¶4.2). - **Green Belt: HARM, substantial weight.** The two substations "would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, causing significant the harm to the openness of the Green Belt, and undermining the purposes of the Green Belt. In accordance with 5.11.37 of EN-1, the Secretary of State considers that the harm to the Green Belt should be given substantial negative weight" (DL ¶4.113). The letter does not mention grey belt or GB7. The ExA's balance was run under 2024 NPPF ¶¶153 and 160 (DL ¶4.112). - **Very special circumstances: SHOWN.** "the very special circumstances, in terms of the significant increase in production of renewable energy, now clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm resulting from the Proposed Development" (DL ¶7.16). This reversed the ExA, which had found no VSC once bird strike and SPA harm were added (DL ¶4.112). - **Aviation.** The weight fell from great to limited after BAE and DIO withdrew their objections under revised mitigation (DL ¶7.6, ¶7.15). - **Habitats and ecology.** The Secretary of State concluded there would be no adverse effect on integrity. Significant negative weight remained for onshore ecology and waders (DL ¶7.7, ¶7.15). - **Heritage.** Moderate harm to buried archaeology. "Preservation by record" is not mitigation. Benefits outweigh the harm, with "clear and convincing justification" (DL ¶7.8, ¶7.13). ## Planning balance The decision was under PA 2008 s104, on NPS EN-1, EN-3 and EN-5 (2024) with the NPPF as an "important and relevant" consideration. A Green Belt VSC balance under EN-1 ¶5.11.37 was run "against all harms". On one side: renewable energy need (substantial). On the other: Green Belt (substantial), onshore ecology (significant), heritage and landscape (moderate each), and several limited harms. The benefits "clearly outweigh" the harms, so the critical national priority presumption did not need to be relied on (DL ¶7.18). ## What made the difference The ExA's refusal rested on two harms that fell away after the examination: BAE's bird-strike objection and the SPA integrity finding. Once they were resolved, substantial renewable-energy weight carried the Green Belt VSC test for two substations that had no alternative site outside the Green Belt. The 2026 Framework made no difference, because the NPS governs and the Secretary of State expressly kept the 2024 references. For Framework-reading purposes the letter mainly shows that NSIP decisions in the transition are not engaging the new policy codes. ## Transferable points - A Secretary of State decision made after 17 Aug 2026 can lawfully keep 2024 NPPF references where the NPS governs and the new Framework "would [not] lead her to reach a different decision" (DL ¶4.2). This is useful evidence that decision-makers themselves see little change on Green Belt VSC. - Grid-connection constraints that leave no non-Green Belt site, plus substantial renewable weight, can amount to VSC even with significant ecological harm (DL ¶4.113, ¶7.14-7.16). - "Preservation by record" does not reduce heritage harm (DL ¶7.8). ## Policy findings - **GB6(2): harm (substantial weight).** two onshore substations are inappropriate development causing significant harm to openness and undermining purposes (a) and (c); assessed under 2024 NPPF paras 153/160 and NPS EN-1 5.11.37 (DL 4.111-4.113, 7.12, 7.14) - **W3: benefit (substantial weight).** urgent need for renewable generating capacity; VSC "now clearly outweigh" Green Belt and other harm (DL 7.4, 7.14-7.16) - assessed under NPS, not under W3 by name - **N6: harm (significant weight).** residual significant adverse effects on non-breeding waders and Mill Brook Valley BHS, limited BNG; SoS departs from ExA's great weight and AEoI conclusion on Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA (DL 7.7, 7.15) - **HE6: harm (moderate weight).** residual moderate adverse effects on buried archaeology; benefits outweigh with "clear and convincing justification" (DL 7.8, 7.13) - **DP3: harm (limited weight).** good design partially met (DL 7.11) ## Key facts - ExA recommended refusal (bird strike risk to BAE Warton, AEoI on Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA, onshore ecology); SoS granted after two post-examination information rounds resolved aviation and HRA (DL 2.2, 7.1, 7.15) - Decision letter dated 14 Sep 2026, four weeks after the 2026 NPPF took effect; SoS said NPPF references are to the 2024 version "which was the version in effect during the Examination" (DL 4.2) - No suitable substation sites outside the Green Belt given the fixed Penwortham connection point (DL 4.111, 4.113) - Compulsory acquisition powers refused for Morgan TA because the Morgan developer's parents withdrew from the Agreement for Lease; new Article 3(2) blocks Morgan TA works until a funded developer is in place (DL 7.5, 7.19-7.20) ## Sources - https://national-infrastructure-consenting.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/projects/EN020032 - https://nsip-documents.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/published-documents/EN020032-003072-MMTA%20Decision%20Letter%20SIGNED_Redacted.pdf - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/morgan-and-morecambe-offshore-wind-farms-transmission-assets-development-consent-order-planning-act-2008 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/SOS-EN020032.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to Blackthorn Stud, Kennel Lane, Billericay - **Decision:** refused, 19 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: Basildon Planning Committee (unanimous 7-0, in line with officer recommendation; non-determination appeal lodged) - **Authority:** Basildon (East of England) - **Application reference:** 24/01047/OUT - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Outline, up to 11 dwellings, no affordable housing - **Homes:** 11 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.05 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(iv), GB8(1)(a), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Basildon Saved Policies BAS GB1 - **Main issues:** Golden Rules for small-major scheme, VSC - **Tags:** golden-rules-failed, grey-belt-accepted, vsc-not-shown, housing-shortfall, non-determination, bng-unresolved, open-market ## Summary Eleven market houses on a grey belt paddock at Billericay's edge. Grey belt, need and location limbs all passed. The scheme failed only the Golden Rules limb because it offered no affordable housing and no viability case. That made it inappropriate, and the committee unanimously held that an 11-home market benefit did not amount to VSC. ## Issues and findings - **Grey belt: PASS.** "the site occupies a contained location immediately adjoining the settlement edge … moderately contributes to this purpose" (Report ¶5.1.16). Purpose (b) is moderate (¶5.1.18). - **Golden Rules: FAIL.** "the proposal constitutes major residential development within the Green Belt but fails to provide any affordable housing … with a default affordable housing requirement of 50% … unsupported by viability evidence" (¶1.4). "As all four criteria of paragraph 155 must be met … the proposal remains inappropriate development" (¶1.5). - **VSC: not shown.** "the contribution is considered limited and is further diminished by the absence of any affordable housing provision" (¶1.8). ## What made the difference The number of homes: 11 crosses the 10-dwelling major threshold, so GB8 applies. A 9-home version on the same land would have passed GB7(1)(g) without affordable housing. Unresolved BNG added to the refusal. ## Transferable points - For a major scheme on grey belt land, failing GB8 by offering no affordable housing and no viability case makes the scheme inappropriate. A small market scheme then struggles to show VSC, even at a 2.05-year supply (Report ¶1.4–1.8). - Contrast cheshireeast-25-2053-FUL, where GB8 failure for a care home was overcome by VSC. ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** paddock adjoining southern edge of Billericay; moderate on (a) and (b); 200-dwelling permission opposite - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** supply shortfall - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** immediately adjacent to settlement; school c.400 m - **GB7(1)(g)(iv): fail.** 11 dwellings = major; zero affordable vs 50% default; no viability evidence - **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** moderate harm to openness; 11 market homes 'limited' benefit, 'further diminished by the absence of any affordable housing' ## Key facts - 11 dwellings — just over the major threshold, triggering Golden Rules - No affordable housing and no viability assessment - BNG holding objection unresolved - Supply 2.05 years ## Sources - https://www.basildonmeetings.info/documents/s158835/ - https://www.basildonmeetings.info/documents/g9509/Public%20minutes%2019th-Aug-2026%2019.00%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=11 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/basildon-24-01047-OUT.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Magdalen Lodge, Potash Road, Billericay - **Decision:** refused, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: Basildon Planning Committee (minded to refuse 19 Aug 2026, 2 for / 5 against officer rec; refusal wording agreed 9 Sep 2026, 5-1) - **Authority:** Basildon (East of England) - **Application reference:** 25/00575/OUT - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Outline, up to 49 dwellings (50% affordable), new access from Potash Road - **Homes:** 49 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, ancient-woodland - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt rejected) - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.05 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), AnnexB:grey-belt, GB2(1)(a), GB7(1)(g)(i) - **Development plan policies:** Basildon District Local Plan Saved Policies BAS GB1, Pre-Submission Local Plan (Reg 19, Aug 2026) GB2 - **Main issues:** grey belt purpose (a), VSC, members vs officers, emerging plan - **Tags:** overturned-officer-rec, grey-belt-rejected, purpose-a-strong, vsc-not-shown, golden-rules, housing-shortfall, affordable-led, report-written-under-2024, emerging-plan-omission ## Summary 49 homes (50% affordable) on an edge-of-Billericay Green Belt site in a borough with a 2.05-year supply. Officers treated it as grey belt passing all four GB7(1)(g) limbs, with VSC as a fallback, and recommended approval. Members voted 5-2 against on 19 August 2026, two days after the new Framework took effect. On 9 September they adopted a refusal reason finding that the site makes a "strong contribution to Green Belt Purpose (a)" and so is not grey belt, that openness harm is substantial, and that VSC are not shown. ## Issues and findings - **Grey belt: officers PASS, members FAIL.** Officers: "the site is considered to make a moderate contribution to Green Belt purpose (a) and a weak/no contribution to purposes (b) and (d) … the parcel exhibits characteristics consistent with grey belt designation" (Report ¶5.1.23, ¶5.1.32). The tree belts "form a strong and defensible outer boundary". Adopted reason: "the application site made a strong contribution to Green Belt Purpose (a), as defined by Policy GB2(1) of the NPPF, and therefore does not meet the definition of Grey Belt land as set out in Policy GB7(g)(i)" (Minutes 9 Sep, item 7). - **Sustainable location (officers).** "The nearest bus stops are located on Stock Road, approximately 900 metres from the site, an 11-minute walk … 2–3 buses per hour"; station 2.5 km; town centre 2.1 km; "public transport accessibility is considered acceptable" (Report ¶5.9.5, ¶5.9.10–5.9.12). Members' reason does not rely on location. - **Highways.** Counsel reminded members "that, per the NPPF, a severe adverse impact on highway safety is the only justification to refuse an application on highways grounds" (Minutes 19 Aug, item 6). - **Transition.** Officers' addendum said the revised NPPF "does not materially alter the planning balance or officer recommendation". Report references are read as references to successor provisions (Addendum 18 Aug). ## Planning balance Officers: GB7(1)(g) compliant, so not inappropriate. Fallback: VSC through the 2.05-year supply, 50% affordable, BNG and contributions. Members: GB6(2), "not satisfied that the benefits of the scheme clearly outweighed the harm to the Green Belt and other harm". ## What made the difference The grey belt judgement on purpose (a). The officer and the Council's own 2025 Green Belt study said "moderate", with tree-belt containment. Members said "strong". Once the land is not grey belt, members only need to hold that VSC are not shown, even at a 2.05-year supply and 50% affordable. Local history mattered: earlier appeal dismissals nearby, and a neighbouring authority's view. An appeal will test whether "strong" on purpose (a) is sustainable against the Council's own study. ## Transferable points - Members can refuse by re-grading purpose (a) from moderate to strong, even against the Council's own Green Belt study. The adopted wording expressly ties GB2(1)(a) to GB7(1)(g)(i) (Minutes 9 Sep). - A walk of about 900 m to a bus stop with 2–3 buses an hour, and a town centre 2.1 km away, was accepted by officers as a sustainable location for GB7(1)(g)(iii) (Report ¶5.9.10–5.9.12). - Committee legal advice: "severe" is the only highway refusal threshold (TR6), so road-safety objections should be framed as TR3 location or GB harm, not highway safety. ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: fail.** officers: 'moderate' contribution to (a) — contained by tree belts, urbanising influences (2025 LUC study parcel BI1 'potential grey belt'); members: 'strong contribution to Green Belt Purpose (a)' - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** officers — 2.1 km to Billericay centre, bus stop 900 m (11 min) with 2-3 buses/hour, station 2.5 km; bus contribution; members did not contest in reasons - **GB8: pass (significant weight).** 50% affordable, infrastructure, green space; officers - **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** members — substantial harm to openness, conflict with purposes, VSC not shown - **TR6: neutral.** Counsel reminded members only severe highway impact justifies refusal; road safety not a reason - **DM4: neutral.** Reg 19 plan (Aug 2026) does not release site; officers gave emerging GB2 medium-strong weight ## Key facts - Supply 2.05 years; members told only 23% of housing target met (HDT) - Officer recommendation to approve (grey belt route, fallback VSC); first refusal vote 11 Mar 2026 re-run after procedural complaint - Neighbouring sites refused on appeal before grey belt; Chelmsford CC reached a different grey belt view of the site - 78 objections; Potash Road Action Group spoke - Norsey Woods (ancient woodland) c.270 m away ## Sources - https://www.basildonmeetings.info/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=709&MId=9477 - https://www.basildonmeetings.info/documents/s158852/Enc.%202%20for%202500575OUT.pdf - https://www.basildonmeetings.info/documents/s159220/ - https://www.basildonmeetings.info/documents/g9509/Public%20minutes%2019th-Aug-2026%2019.00%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=11 - https://www.basildonmeetings.info/documents/g9510/Public%20minutes%2009th-Sep-2026%2019.00%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=11 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/basildon-25-00575-OUT.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south of Woolshots Farm, London Road, Wickford/Billericay - **Decision:** refused, 19 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: Basildon Planning Committee (minded-to decision for non-determination appeal; 4-2) - **Authority:** Basildon (East of England) - **Application reference:** 25/01188/OUT - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Outline, up to 71 dwellings (50% affordable), SuDS basin, access from London Road - **Homes:** 71 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt rejected) - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.05 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), AnnexB:grey-belt, GB8 - **Development plan policies:** Basildon Saved Policies BAS GB1 - **Main issues:** grey belt, VSC, Golden Rules outside GB7(1)(g) - **Tags:** overturned-officer-rec, non-determination, grey-belt-rejected, vsc-not-shown, golden-rules, housing-shortfall, affordable-led, report-written-under-2024 ## Summary 71 homes (50% affordable) on the edge of Wickford. Officers accepted that the site is not grey belt, because it makes a strong contribution to purpose (a), but recommended approval on very special circumstances: a 2.05-year supply, 36 affordable homes, and BNG well above 10%. Members disagreed 4-2 and resolved that they would have refused. The non-determination appeal will now proceed. ## Issues and findings - **Grey belt: FAIL (agreed).** "as the site represents significantly more than half (61%) of Parcel WI31, and the majority of the undeveloped portion, it can reasonably be concluded that the application site contributes strongly to purpose (a) and would represent urban sprawl" (Report ¶5.3.6). - **Other GB7(1)(g) limbs: PASS.** Need, sustainable location and Golden Rules (¶5.3.7–5.3.8). "Although the development would assist in addressing the Borough's demonstrable unmet housing need, and although the proposal satisfies criteria (b), (c) and (d)" it remains inappropriate (¶5.3.10). - **VSC.** Officers: "Having regard to the acute housing need within the Borough, the significant affordable housing provision … officers conclude that Very Special Circumstances exist" (¶1.1.6). Members: not shown (Minutes item 4). ## Planning balance GB6(2). Officers put housing, affordable housing, BNG and contributions above substantial Green Belt harm. Members, discussing infrastructure pressure (roads, wastewater, health), did not. ## What made the difference When purpose (a) fails, meeting the other three limbs (including 50% affordable) counts only as benefits in a VSC balance, and members decide how heavily to weigh them. At appeal the inspector will weigh the same factors afresh. The 2.05-year supply and 50% affordable make this one of the stronger appellant cases. ## Transferable points - Meeting limbs (ii)–(iv) of GB7(1)(g) does not help if limb (i) fails. They become VSC benefits only (Report ¶5.3.10). - Officers assessed grey belt at site level against the strategic parcel: 61% of the parcel, including most of its undeveloped part, took the parcel's "strong" rating (¶5.3.5–5.3.6). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: fail.** officers and members agree — site is 61% of LUC parcel WI31 which makes a strong contribution to purpose (a) re Wickford - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** supply shortfall, persistent under-delivery - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** adjoins Wickford built-up area; London Road bus network; bus improvements - **GB8: pass.** 50% affordable, 2.5 ha (51%) public green space, infrastructure — but GB8 compliance cannot cure failure of limb (i) - **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** officers found VSC (acute need, 50% AH, BNG well above 10%); members did not ## Key facts - Non-determination appeal lodged; committee gave its "would have refused" decision - Officers conceded not grey belt (strong purpose (a)) but recommended approval on VSC - 36 affordable homes, c.£428k contributions; Golden Rules met - Supply 2.05 years ## Sources - https://www.basildonmeetings.info/documents/s158862/ - https://www.basildonmeetings.info/documents/g9509/Public%20minutes%2019th-Aug-2026%2019.00%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=11 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/basildon-25-01188-OUT.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south of London Road, Crays Hill, Billericay - **Decision:** refused, 19 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: Basildon Planning Committee (minded-to decision for non-determination appeal; 4-2) - **Authority:** Basildon (East of England) - **Application reference:** 25/01190/OUT - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Outline, up to 56 dwellings (50% affordable), SuDS, access from London Road (A129) - **Homes:** 56 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt rejected) - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.05 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), AnnexB:grey-belt - **Development plan policies:** Basildon Saved Policies BAS GB1 - **Main issues:** grey belt purposes (a)/(b), VSC, coalescence - **Tags:** overturned-officer-rec, non-determination, grey-belt-rejected, vsc-not-shown, coalescence, housing-shortfall, affordable-led, report-written-under-2024 ## Summary 56 homes (50% affordable) on farmland between Crays Hill and Wickford. Officers agreed it was not grey belt, as the parcel is strong on purposes (a) and (b), but recommended approval on VSC. Members resolved 4-2 that they would have refused, citing coalescence and the cumulative effect of London Road development. ## Issues and findings - **Grey belt: FAIL.** "The parcel is located within a moderate gap between the towns of Billericay and Wickford, which are separated by approximately 2.3km … the site forms a substantial component of the wider gap … Development of the parcel would be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the visual separation" (Report ¶5.2.19–5.2.20). On purpose (a), "the reduction or loss of separation between Wickford and Crays Hill would lead to Crays Hill becoming more closely integrated with the larger built-up area" (¶5.2.17–5.2.18). - **VSC.** Officers: "Very Special Circumstances exist and … clearly outweigh the identified Green Belt harm" (¶1.5). Members: not shown (Minutes item 7). ## What made the difference The parcel scored strongly on two grey belt purposes in the Council's own study, so the scheme had to rely on VSC, where members have broad discretion. A town-to-town gap under about 2.5 km with weak physical features is the classic purpose (b) "strong" profile. ## Transferable points - A roughly 2.3 km town-to-town gap without strong defining features, where the site is a "substantial component", was treated as a strong contribution to purpose (b) (Report ¶5.2.19). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: fail.** LUC 2025 parcel OA12 strong on (a) and (b) — Billericay–Wickford gap c.2.3 km, lacks strong features; Crays Hill would be absorbed into Wickford - **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** officers found VSC (1.96/2.05-year supply, 28 affordable, bus enhancements, speed limit reduction, c.£320k contributions); members did not ## Key facts - 6.9 ha agricultural land between Crays Hill and Wickford - Officers attached "significant" (not substantial) weight to Green Belt harm in the executive summary - Members discussed cumulative London Road development, coalescence, wastewater ## Sources - https://www.basildonmeetings.info/documents/s158854/2501190OUT.pdf - https://www.basildonmeetings.info/documents/g9509/Public%20minutes%2019th-Aug-2026%2019.00%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=11 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/basildon-25-01190-OUT.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Former Bath Press premises (western end), Lower Bristol Road, Bath - **Decision:** approved, 2 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: B&NES Planning Committee (unanimous 9-0) - **Authority:** Bath and North East Somerset (South West) - **Application reference:** 25/03592/FUL - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Residential-led redevelopment with flexible Class E floorspace (replacing 2016 permission for 103 homes) - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL, near-station, flood-zone-3 - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.5 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, HO7, L2, L3(2)(c), L3(3) - **Development plan policies:** B&NES Placemaking Plan allocation, B1, B3, B4, CP9 - **Main issues:** density, connectivity, affordable viability, employment loss - **Tags:** connectivity-tool, within-settlement-s4, density-l3, well-connected-station, brownfield, housing-shortfall ## Summary Urban brownfield housing on an allocated site, approved unanimously under S4. It is recorded here because it is one of the few committee reports found to quote Connectivity Tool scores (TR3(2)/L3(3)) and to apply the Annex B well-connected station definition to a specific station. ## Issues and findings - **Well-connected station.** "Oldfield Park is served by two trains per hour towards both Bath and Bristol and therefore meets the 'well-connected' definition" (Report item 3, Principle/density). - **Connectivity Tool.** "The site has a Department for Transport connectivity score of 80-82, categorised as 'very high' nationally, with a walking connectivity score of 83, placing it among the highest scoring locations nationwide" (same section). - **L3.** The 35 dph minimum "would significantly exceed" (same section). - **Harm.** Moderate weight to the loss of employment space, the only harm identified (Minutes item 3, answer 8). ## What made the difference A policy-compliant allocated site with a housing shortfall behind it. The scores give a benchmark: a scheme scoring 80+ on the Connectivity Tool is at the "very high" end, and rural sites can be compared against that. ## Transferable points - Connectivity Tool benchmark: urban brownfield next to a station scores 80–82, walking 83, "very high" (Report item 3). - Officers treated two trains per hour in each direction as meeting the Annex B well-connected station test. ## Policy findings - **S4: pass.** within settlement; benefits not substantially outweighed - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** housing in evidenced shortfall - **L3(2)(c): pass.** Oldfield Park station <400 m, 2 tph each way = well-connected; 35 dph minimum significantly exceeded - **L3(3): pass.** Connectivity Tool used — DfT connectivity score 80-82 ('very high'), walking score 83 - **E2: harm (moderate weight).** loss of employment floorspace (only harm identified) ## Key facts - Connectivity Tool score 80-82 overall, walking 83, quoted in the report - Oldfield Park station under 400 m; two trains per hour in each direction held to meet the well-connected definition - Affordable below 30% on viability; 34 affordable homes retained from 2016 scheme ## Sources - https://democracy.bathnes.gov.uk/documents/s93767/260902%20Main%20Agenda.pdf - https://democracy.bathnes.gov.uk/documents/g6762/Public%20minutes%2002nd-Sep-2026%2010.00%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=11 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/bathnes-25-03592-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Parcel 0014, Charlton Road, Keynsham - **Decision:** approved, 2 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: B&NES Planning Committee (vote 5-4; delegated to permit subject to S106) - **Authority:** Bath and North East Somerset (South West) - **Application reference:** 25/04952/EOUT - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Outline (EIA), up to 200 dwellings, Class E unit, open space, landscaping; access from Charlton Road - **Homes:** 200 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.5 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g), GB8, S5(5), TR3, DM4 - **Development plan policies:** B&NES Core Strategy CP8, CP9, Placemaking Plan DW1, KE1, RE5, NE2, emerging Local Plan Reg 18 West Keynsham option - **Main issues:** grey belt, sustainable location, Golden Rules, S5(5) balance, prematurity - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-pass, golden-rules, not-inappropriate, s5-5-balance, housing-shortfall, affordable-led, large-scheme, connectivity-tool, prematurity-rejected, consultation-direction-2026, split-vote ## Summary Outline permission for up to 200 homes (45% affordable) on a greenfield Green Belt parcel on the edge of Keynsham, in an authority with a 2.5-year supply. Officers treated the site as grey belt even though the strategic WECA assessment rated the wider parcel "significant" on purposes (a) and (b). They assessed the site on its own: contained, not an incongruous finger, and a small part of the Keynsham–Bristol gap. They passed every GB7(1)(g) limb, with the Golden Rules uplift taking affordable housing from 30% to 45%. They then ran the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance and recommended approval. Members agreed 5-4. ## Issues and findings - **Grey belt: PASS.** On purpose (a): "the proposed development site essentially adjoins the existing settlement and does not extend further west than the Lays Farm Trading Estate … This weakens the contribution of this land parcel to moderate" (Report, Principle, "Contribution to Purpose (a)"). On purpose (b): "The WECA Assessment concludes that Parcel 82 has a significant contribution to this purpose, but … this relates to a much wider parcel of which the development site is a small part … this area of land must be assessed on its own merits" ("Contribution to Purpose (b)"). Officers confirmed to members that Keynsham counts as a "large built-up area" (Minutes item 2, answer 1). - **Unmet need: PASS.** 2.5-year supply. - **Sustainable location (iii) / TR3: PASS.** The Highway Authority said: "The sustainability of the site is critical, given that this is one of the components that allows it to be considered to be acceptable within the Green Belt" (Report, Highways, "Active Travel and Strategic Connectivity"). It accepted "approximately 1 kilometre of upgraded walking and cycling infrastructure" and crossing works. In the balance: "The site is rated B (well connected)" on the DfT connectivity rating, and "Substantial weight is afforded to the location of the site" (Planning balance, benefit 3). Members were told it was "an approximate 25-minute walk to the town centre and served by buses" (Minutes item 2, answer 8). - **Golden Rules: PASS.** "The scheme is therefore required to deliver 45% affordable housing, 15 percentage points above the 30% requirement within Keynsham." Green space and infrastructure are also met. - **Prematurity DM4: rejected.** The plan is at Regulation 18 and so "not at an advanced stage". ## Planning balance S5(5). Harms: location outside the housing development boundary (limited weight, "given the lack of a five-year housing land supply"), landscape (moderate), heritage harm to Queen Charlton CA (limited). Benefits: housing (substantial), affordable housing (very substantial), sustainable location (substantial), off-site highway works (significant, "substantial-moderate"), economic (moderate), green infrastructure (moderate), emerging plan option (limited). "it is not considered that the identified adverse impacts … would substantially outweigh the benefits" (Report, Conclusion). ## What made the difference Officers assessed the grey belt question at site scale rather than strategic-parcel scale, and a site-specific pass on (a) and (b) carried the scheme into S5(5). There the 2.5-year supply and 45% affordable housing were decisive. Sustainable location did real work: the Highway Authority explicitly tied its acceptance to the grey belt test and extracted about 1 km of walking and cycling upgrades. The 5-4 vote shows members were uneasy about sprawl and the 25-minute walk. The new Consultation Direction referral risk was put to members before they voted. ## Transferable points - Officers held that a strategic Green Belt study rating a wide parcel "significant" does not decide grey belt status for a small site within it. The site "must be assessed on its own merits" (Report, Purpose (b)). - A Highway Authority can treat GB7(1)(g)(iii) as a reason to require off-site active travel works. Sustainability was "critical" to the Green Belt exception (Report, Highways). - A 25-minute walk to a town centre with buses and a DfT connectivity "B" rating was accepted as a sustainable location on a settlement edge. - Golden Rules uplift arithmetic: the authority-wide 30% requirement plus 15 points gives 45%. - Members were told that under the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2026 a refusal against a "delegate to permit" recommendation must be referred to the Secretary of State for 21 days (Report, "Secretary of State"). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** WECA 2022 parcel 82 'significant' to (a),(b) but site is small part; adjoins Keynsham, contained by Charlton Road/PRoW/vegetation, no further west than trading estate → (a) moderate; small part of Keynsham–Bristol gap → (b) not strong; Queen Charlton a village → (d) nil - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** 2.5-year supply - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass (substantial weight).** edge of Keynsham, c.25 min walk to town centre, buses, DfT connectivity rating B ('well connected'), c.1 km upgraded walking/cycling route and crossing secured; LHA said sustainability 'critical' - **GB8: pass (substantial weight).** 45% affordable (30% + 15 points), highway and education contributions, accessible green space; affordable given 'very substantial' weight - **S5(5): pass.** harms (limited/moderate/limited) do not substantially outweigh benefits; S5(2) not triggered - **DM4: pass.** plan at Reg 18, not advanced; prematurity refusal not justified - **HE6: harm (limited weight).** less-than-substantial harm to Queen Charlton Conservation Area, outweighed - **N2: neutral.** Grade 4 land, BMV loss not engaged ## Key facts - Supply 2.5 years - Greenfield Green Belt parcel on south-west edge of Keynsham, within WECA parcel judged 'significant' for (a) and (b) - 45% affordable (up to 90 homes) via Golden Rules uplift; 765 households on register with Keynsham first choice - About 25 min walk to Keynsham town centre; bus services; approx 1 km of upgraded walking/cycling works on Charlton Road - Committee told that a refusal against officer advice must be referred to the Secretary of State under the 2026 Consultation Direction - Approved 5-4 after member dissent on sprawl, distance to High Street, landscape and junction safety ## Sources - https://democracy.bathnes.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=638&MId=6762 - https://democracy.bathnes.gov.uk/documents/s93767/260902%20Main%20Agenda.pdf - https://democracy.bathnes.gov.uk/documents/g6762/Public%20minutes%2002nd-Sep-2026%2010.00%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=11 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/bathnes-25-04952-EOUT.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Site of Old Gas Works, Upper Bristol Road, Lower Weston, Bath (co-living) - **Decision:** refused, 2 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: B&NES Planning Committee (vote 5-4; delegated to refuse subject to referral to the Secretary of State) - **Authority:** Bath and North East Somerset (South West) - **Application reference:** 25/04961/FUL - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Up to 272 co-living studios (sui generis) with communal facilities, after demolition of commercial buildings - **Homes:** 151 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, PDL, conservation-area, flood-zone-2 - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.5 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4, DP3, HO9, L2 - **Development plan policies:** B&NES Core Strategy B1, B4, Placemaking Plan SB8, D1-D5, H7 - **Main issues:** design/height, co-living HO9, S4 balance, member overturn - **Tags:** overturned-officer-rec, co-living, within-settlement-s4, design-refusal, consultation-direction-2026, brownfield, housing-shortfall, split-vote ## Summary A 272-studio co-living block on the contaminated former gasworks in Bath's western riverside. Officers recommended approval under S4, the within-settlement presumption, finding HO9 met and giving substantial weight to remediation under L2. Members voted 5-4 to refuse on height, scale and massing alone. Because the 2026 Consultation Direction applies, the resolution was "delegate to refuse" subject to referral to the Secretary of State. ## Issues and findings - **S4 (officers).** "development proposals within settlements should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects … no significant harms have been identified" (Report item 4, Conclusion). - **HO9 co-living: PASS** on location, space and management plan (Report, Principle). - **L2:** "substantial weight should be given to development proposals which remediate contaminated land" (Benefits). - **Members:** concerned about "height, scale and massing", small rooms and no affordable housing. The Team Manager "advised against reasons for refusal relating to parking standards, size of rooms or affordable housing", so the refusal rests on a single design reason (Minutes item 4). ## What made the difference Design is the one lever S4 leaves members once the principle is settled and supply is short. The resolution names no NPPF design policy, so its defensibility will depend on the DP3 and local design wording in the final refusal notice. ## Transferable points - A "delegate to refuse" resolution, subject to Secretary of State referral under the 2026 Consultation Direction, is now the form used where members overturn an approval recommendation on a major scheme (Minutes item 4). - Co-living units counted towards supply at 1:1.8 (Report, Benefits). ## Policy findings - **S4: fail.** officers — within settlement, approve unless substantially outweighed, no significant harm; members refused on height, scale and massing - **HO9: pass.** co-living — access to services by walking/cycling/public transport, adequate space, management plan - **L2: benefit (substantial weight).** remediation of contaminated gasworks land - **DP3: fail.** members' sole reason — height, scale and massing ## Key facts - 272 studios counted as 151 dwellings for supply at 1:1.8 ratio; supply c.2.5 years - Allocated brownfield regeneration site in Bath Western Riverside - Officers advised against reasons on room size, parking and affordable housing; members refused on design only - Motion framed as "delegate to refuse" because the 2026 Consultation Direction requires referral to the Secretary of State ## Sources - https://democracy.bathnes.gov.uk/documents/s93767/260902%20Main%20Agenda.pdf - https://democracy.bathnes.gov.uk/documents/g6762/Public%20minutes%2002nd-Sep-2026%2010.00%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=11 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/bathnes-25-04961-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land next to Bathampton Junction, Station Road, Bathampton (padel centre) - **Decision:** approved, 2 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: B&NES Planning Committee (vote 5-4) - **Authority:** Bath and North East Somerset (South West) - **Application reference:** 26/00259/FUL - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Change of use of redundant commercial (former railway) site to sports facility; 5 padel courts with canopies, pavilion, 25 parking spaces - **Site context:** green-belt, national-landscape, PDL, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g), TR3, N4 - **Development plan policies:** B&NES Core Strategy CP8, CP6, B4, Placemaking Plan D1-D4, SCR7, LPPU D5 - **Main issues:** grey belt for non-housing use, unmet need evidence, sustainable location, amenity/noise - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, not-inappropriate, non-housing-grey-belt, unmet-need-from-representations, sustainable-location-pass, outdoor-recreation-facilities, split-vote ## Summary A five-court padel centre on redundant former railway land next to Bathampton village, in the Green Belt and the Cotswold National Landscape. Officers took the GB7(1)(g) grey belt route rather than the outdoor sport route in GB7(1)(f), and passed every limb. The "evidenced unmet need" limb was met for a leisure use from the absence of any padel facility in the district and the weight of supportive representations. Approved 5-4. ## Issues and findings - **Grey belt: PASS.** "the site sits within a clearly defined parcel of land which is well bound by the railway line, Tyning Lane and the existing settlement of Bathampton … Development of the site would not result in an incongruous pattern of development" (Report item 5, §2). On purpose (b): "As Bathampton is a village the site does not strongly contribute" (§2). - **Unmet need (ii) for a non-housing use: PASS.** "several of the third party representations received, highlight that at present there are no Padel facilities in the district … Accordingly, it is considered there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed" (§2). - **Sustainable location (iii): PASS.** "The site can be readily accessed on foot and by bicycle as well as from bus services which serve Bathampton and Batheaston" (§2). - **National Landscape:** the scheme preserves natural beauty and so furthers National Landscape purposes (§3). - **Balance:** a slight conflict with the local sports policy SCR7 is "clearly outweighed" by jobs and health benefits (§14). No S5(5) balance is set out expressly. ## What made the difference The land was previously developed and physically enclosed, next to a village rather than a town. Purposes (a) and (b) therefore fell away easily. The notable point is the low evidential bar applied to limb (ii) for a leisure use: support letters and the absence of existing provision were enough. ## Transferable points - For non-housing uses, officers accepted GB7(1)(g)(ii) "evidenced unmet need" from third-party representations and the absence of provision in the district (Report §2). Footnote 41's supply definition applies only to housing. - A former railway site next to a village is readily grey belt: purpose (b) is not engaged by villages, and physical enclosure defeats purpose (a). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** former railway land bounded by railway, Tyning Lane and village; (a) contained; (b) Bathampton a village so not engaged; (d) no historic town effect - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** confined, reuses formerly developed land - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** need for non-housing use evidenced from representations — no padel facility in the district, players travel to Wiltshire/Somerset/Bristol; earlier permissions unimplemented - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** accessible on foot, by bicycle (towpath/toll bridge) and by buses serving Bathampton/Batheaston - **N4: pass.** screened, preserves natural beauty of Cotswold National Landscape - **TR6: neutral.** 192 trips, not severe; member concern on private access road and school drop-off addressed by session-time restriction ## Key facts - Previously developed former railway land, enclosed by tree planting, within Cotswold National Landscape and Bath WHS setting - Grey belt "unmet need" limb satisfied for a sports use from third-party support and absence of any padel provision in the district - Approved 5-4; dissent on amenity and access junction near a school ## Sources - https://democracy.bathnes.gov.uk/documents/s93767/260902%20Main%20Agenda.pdf - https://democracy.bathnes.gov.uk/documents/g6762/Public%20minutes%2002nd-Sep-2026%2010.00%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=11 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/bathnes-26-00259-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Flourishing Fields Farm, Stonehouse Lane, Hopwood (SEND farm school and rural worker's dwelling) - **Decision:** approved, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Bromsgrove DC (delegated; notice signed by the Assistant Director) - **Authority:** Bromsgrove (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 25/00751/FUL - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Change of use from agriculture to mixed education/agriculture (SEND/AP for up to 36 pupils), temporary rural worker's dwelling, agricultural barn, three learning buildings, polytunnels, pods, containers, track and car park (part retrospective) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(i), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Bromsgrove District Plan 2017 BDP1, BDP2, BDP4, BDP15, BDP19, BDP21, Bromsgrove High Quality Design SPD - **Main issues:** grey belt for non-housing use, evidenced need for SEND, sustainable location for rural-dependent use, rural worker dwelling - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, not-inappropriate, sustainable-location-pass, rural-worker-dwelling, education, nature-of-development-requires-rural ## Summary A farm-based SEND school, with a temporary rural worker's cabin, barn, learning pods and polytunnels, on open Green Belt farmland near Hopwood. The officer used the GB7(1)(g) grey belt route for a non-housing use. Need was accepted on the applicant's uncontested evidence. GB7(1)(g)(iii) was passed although the site is car-dependent, because the Highway Authority accepted that the specialist use needs a rural setting and the minibus hub arrangement reduces trips. Permission was granted under delegated powers. ## Issues and findings - **Need, GB7(1)(g)(ii): PASS.** "The Local Planning Authority has not undertaken an independent assessment of educational need … However, there is no substantive evidence before the Council that contradicts the applicant's assessment … a demonstrable need for the proposed educational facility has been established" (Notice p.12). - **Location, GB7(1)(g)(iii): PASS on the nature of the development.** "Whilst acknowledging that the site is located in the countryside and would primarily be accessed by private vehicle and dedicated minibus transport, the Highway Authority accepts that the specialist educational and therapeutic nature of the development necessitates a rural agricultural setting and concludes that refusal on locational sustainability grounds would not be justified" (p.12). "The Highway Authority acknowledges that the proposal would generate relatively few opportunities for sustainable travel and would be predominantly car-based" (p.13). - **Grey belt, GB7(1)(g)(i): PASS.** "whilst the land makes some contribution towards checking unrestricted sprawl, it does not strongly contribute to Purpose (a), makes only a limited contribution to Purpose (b) and makes no contribution to Purpose (d). The site is therefore considered to constitute Grey Belt" (p.13). - **Rural worker dwelling.** "Officers are therefore satisfied that the proposal demonstrates both a functional and financial justification for temporary onsite accommodation" (p.10). ## Planning balance The officer found the scheme not inappropriate, then still ran a weighing exercise. "Moderate weight is afforded to the limited harm to openness", set against significant weight to the verified rural worker need, the viable farm enterprise, rural diversification, SEND provision and therapeutic learning. "officers conclude that the balance falls clearly in favour of the proposal" (p.14). ## What made the difference TR3(1)(a) allows sustainable-location requirements to give way "unless the nature of the development would make this impractical". A statutory highway authority accepted that a therapeutic farm school cannot be in a town. That, with the minibus hub, carried GB7(1)(g)(iii). An ordinary market housing scheme on the same site would have failed that limb. ## Transferable points - GB7(1)(g)(iii) can be passed for a car-based site where the nature of the use genuinely requires a rural location (compare TR3(1)(a) "unless the nature of the development would make this impractical"). This does not carry over to general housing. - "Evidenced unmet need" (GB7(1)(g)(ii)) for non-housing uses was accepted on the applicant's evidence alone, with no independent assessment, because nothing contradicted it. - Doctrinal wobble: having found the scheme not inappropriate under GB7, the officer still gave "moderate weight" to openness harm and balanced it. Under GB7(1) such development "should not be regarded as harmful to the Green Belt". ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** not PDL, but it "does not strongly contribute to Purpose (a)" (about 1.6 km east of Hopwood, not adjoining an urban edge), with a limited contribution to (b) and none to (d); some conflict with (c) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** need for specialist SEND provision accepted on the applicant's evidence; the LPA "has not undertaken an independent assessment" but has no contrary evidence - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** accepted although the site is car-based. The Highway Authority says the use "necessitates a rural agricultural setting", and remote drop-off hubs with a minibus shuttle mitigate trips. - **HO11: pass.** functional and financial need for a temporary rural worker's dwelling (278 standard man days; about £25k net profit by year 3), independently verified by Kernon Countryside ## Key facts - About 2.32 ha about 1.6 km east of Hopwood and 1 km north of the M42 Hopwood Park interchange; open fields all round - SEND and alternative provision for up to 36 pupils aged 6 to 18, 9am to 3pm in term time; alpacas, pigs, bees and polytunnel crops - Remote parking and drop-off hubs at two nearby sports clubs, with a minibus shuttle; eight on-site spaces - National Highways' objection withdrawn; Worcestershire Highways no objection subject to a Travel Plan - Alvechurch Parish Council objected on Green Belt precedent - Having found the scheme not inappropriate, the officer still weighed "moderate weight … to the limited harm to openness" against "substantial public benefits" ## Sources - https://publicaccess.bromsgroveandredditch.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=SYS1ROSEI5V00 - https://publicaccess.bromsgroveandredditch.gov.uk/online-applications/files/C34AF93AC9822E10C6FC91AE616CCD91/pdf/25_00751_FUL-DECISION_NOTICE-1220389.pdf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/bromsgrove-25-00751-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision notice. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Crowfields Farm, Fockbury Road, Dodford (new dwelling replacing barn and stables) - **Decision:** approved, 21 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Bromsgrove DC (delegated) - **Authority:** Bromsgrove (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 25/01429/FUL - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Demolition of stables and an agricultural building (the latter with Class Q approval) and construction of one four-bedroom dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB7(1)(e), GB7(1)(g)(iii), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Bromsgrove District Plan 2017 BDP1, BDP4, BDP16, BDP19 - **Main issues:** Green Belt exceptions, sustainable location, fallback as very special circumstances - **Tags:** class-q-fallback, fallback, vsc-shown, sustainable-location-fail, openness-improvement, small-scheme ## Summary A new dwelling in place of a barn (with Class Q consent) and stables in the Green Belt at Dodford. It fails GB7(1)(b), because a replacement must be for the same use. It fails GB7(1)(e), because agricultural land is not PDL. It fails GB7(1)(g)(iii): with a bus on two days a week, the site is not in a sustainable location. It was therefore inappropriate development. Very special circumstances were found in the Class Q fallback combined with a net reduction in built volume, and the application was approved four days into the new Framework. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Since the submission of the planning application the NPPF has been revised (17th August 2026) and as such the paragraphs referenced no longer exists. The exceptions to inappropriate development have been carried forward in the 2026 NPPF to Policy 'GB7…' and similar criteria apply" (Notice p.3). - **GB7(1)(b) and (e): FAIL.** "The existing building is in agricultural and equestrian use and the proposed development is for a residential dwelling. Therefore the proposal would not meet with policy GB7:1.b … the definition at Annexe B of the NPPF specifically excludes land that is or was last occupied by agricultural buildings … Therefore the proposal would not comply with policy GB7:1.e" (p.3 to 4). - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): FAIL.** "There is also a bus stop, however the service is extremely limited, with one bus in each direction to/from Bromsgrove on a Tuesday and Friday only. Otherwise there are no further facilities within proximity of the application site. It is therefore considered that the site does not lie within a sustainable location" (p.4). ## Planning balance GB6(2) very special circumstances. Against: substantial weight to inappropriateness, plus harm from the unsustainable location. For: the Class Q fallback (one dwelling either way, with only one extra bedroom compared with the fallback), and "125.4 cubic metres less volume and 19.1 square metres less footprint … an improvement to the openness of the Green Belt when compared with either the existing situation on site or the consented Class Q prior approval". "these factors, in combination, are sufficient to amount to the very special circumstances" (p.5). ## What made the difference The Class Q fallback, together with a smaller building. Without the prior approval, the location failure and inappropriateness would have been decisive. ## Transferable points - A bus on two days a week and a first school alone do not make a sustainable location for GB7(1)(g)(iii) (p.4). - A Class Q fallback combined with a net reduction in volume can amount to very special circumstances. The location harm is neutralised because the fallback would put a dwelling there anyway. - Applications framed under the 2024 ¶154 are simply re-mapped to GB7(1). Officers treat the exceptions as carried forward with "similar criteria". ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** a replacement must be "for the same use"; agricultural/equestrian to residential does not qualify - **GB7(1)(e): fail.** not PDL, because Annex B excludes land last occupied by agricultural buildings - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): fail.** rural site; first school 180 m away but no other facilities; bus one each way on Tuesdays and Fridays only - **GB6(2): pass (substantial weight).** very special circumstances shown by the Class Q fallback plus a reduction of 125.4 m³ in volume and 19.1 m² in footprint compared with the existing buildings ## Key facts - Class Q prior approval (2024) for conversion of the agricultural part to a three-bedroom dwelling - The new dwelling largely follows the existing footprint and height; 125.4 m³ less volume and 19.1 m² less footprint than the buildings removed - [object Object] - Bus service is one each way on Tuesday and Friday only; no facilities other than a first school 180 m away - No objections; the parish asked about bats and the right of way ## Sources - https://publicaccess.bromsgroveandredditch.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=T6T3BOSEFOI00 - https://publicaccess.bromsgroveandredditch.gov.uk/online-applications/files/5D729CCA7163091298F5683FE91DC952/pdf/25_01429_FUL-DECISION_NOTICE-1218506.pdf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/bromsgrove-25-01429-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision notice. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 88 Houndsfield Lane, Hollywood (replacement self-build dwelling) - **Decision:** approved, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Bromsgrove DC (delegated) - **Authority:** Bromsgrove (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/00434/FUL - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Demolition of a bungalow and erection of a part two-storey replacement self-build dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Bromsgrove District Plan 2017 BDP1, BDP2, BDP4, BDP7, BDP16, BDP19, BDP21, BDP23 - **Main issues:** replacement building materially larger, fallback, personal circumstances - **Tags:** fallback, vsc-shown, personal-circumstances, self-build, replacement-dwelling, openness-harm ## Summary A replacement dwelling in the Green Belt about 21% larger in floor area and 17% in volume than the bungalow it replaces. It was therefore "materially larger" and fails GB7(1)(b). Very special circumstances were found in a larger-home extension prior approval, which would give a bigger building than the proposal, together with the medical needs of the applicants' child. Permission was granted. ## Issues and findings - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** "the proposed dwelling would result in an increase in the floor area of approx. 21% above the existing dwelling and an increase in volume of approx. 17% … This level of increase is considered to be material. The proposal is therefore considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt" (Notice p.4 to 5). - **Openness.** "some limited harm to the spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt in this area when compared to the existing dwelling" (p.5). ## Planning balance GB6(2). "When comparing the size of the proposed dwelling against the existing dwelling with the addition of the approved larger homes extension, the proposal is shown to be slightly smaller … on balance the fall back position would be more harmful to the Green Belt than the proposed" (p.7). Personal circumstances: "a child's best interest to be a primary consideration" (p.7). "on balance the permitted development fall back and the personal circumstances … would outweigh the harm … in terms of inappropriateness and any other harm" (p.7). ## What made the difference The prior approval set a benchmark larger than the proposal, so the proposal's Green Belt harm counted for little against it. The child's needs added weight. ## Transferable points - Officers treat increases of about 17 to 21% as "material" for GB7(1)(b) replacement buildings. There is no fixed percentage. - A larger-home prior approval is a credible fallback for a replacement dwelling in the Green Belt when compared on volume and footprint. ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** about +21% floor area and +17% volume is "material", so not "not materially larger" - **GB6(2): pass (substantial weight).** very special circumstances from a larger-home extension prior approval fallback (25/00890/HHPRIO), under which the dwelling plus extension would be larger than the proposal, together with a child's medical needs (Article 8 and UNCRC art 3) ## Key facts - The replacement's ridge is 400 mm lower than the existing bungalow's - Existing plus approved larger-home extension is about 7 m² larger in floor area and 51 m³ larger in volume than the proposed dwelling - A purpose-built space for a disabled child's daily physiotherapy and care needs - Permitted development Classes A, B, D and E removed by condition - Self-build unilateral undertaking, so exempt from BNG ## Sources - https://publicaccess.bromsgroveandredditch.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=TDA9Z6SEJU500 - https://publicaccess.bromsgroveandredditch.gov.uk/online-applications/files/65FEADA1F8B6C12C36059D1FA7189AFF/pdf/26_00434_FUL--1221505.pdf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/bromsgrove-26-00434-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision notice. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Yew Tree Lane, Fairfield (two dwellings) - **Decision:** approved, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Ruth Bamford (Assistant Director, Planning, Leisure and Culture) - **Authority:** Bromsgrove (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/00744/FUL - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Two detached four-bedroom dwellings with access and landscaping on a 0.15 ha treed plot - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.24 - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** Transitional(1), GB7(1)(g) - **Development plan policies:** Bromsgrove District Plan 2017 BDP1, BDP2, BDP4, BDP7, BDP16, BDP19, BDP21, BDP23 - **Main issues:** grey belt, sustainable location, transition - **Tags:** transitional, grey-belt-accepted, not-inappropriate, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, decided-under-superseded-framework ## Summary Two houses on a treed Green Belt plot on Yew Tree Lane, Fairfield, approved under delegated powers on 17 August 2026, the day the new Framework took effect. The embedded report applies the December 2024 Framework throughout: the ¶11(d) tilted balance, ¶155 grey belt and footnote 7. The 2026 Framework is not mentioned. The outcome would probably have been the same under GB7(1)(g), but this is the clearest example harvested of a decision issued on or after 17 August under the superseded Framework. ## Issues and findings - **Framework applied.** Policy list: "National Planning Policy Framework (2024)" (Notice p.4). "Paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that where policies that are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, planning permission for new housing should be granted unless…" (p.5). - **Grey belt (2024 ¶155).** "the site only makes a moderate contribution to checking the unrestricted sprawl of a large built-up urban area … the site makes a weak contribution to [purpose b] … no contribution to purpose d)" (p.7). "it is considered that the site is Grey Belt and would meet the Paragraph 155 requirements" (p.8). - **Sustainable location.** The officer relies on the 2022 appeal: "the village of Fairfield clearly extends beyond the defined local plan village envelope, and the appeal site lies within the village of Fairfield" and facilities are "only some 400 metres, or about 5 minutes' walk … along pavements on both sides of Stourbridge Road" (p.7 to 8, quoting APP/P1805/W/21/3279054). ## Planning balance The ¶11(d) tilted balance under the 2024 Framework: "the application is deemed acceptable in accordance with policies within the Bromsgrove District Plan, the National Planning Policy Framework and the High Quality Design SPD" (Conclusion, p.10). ## What made the difference The 2022 appeal finding that the site is part of Fairfield village, 400 m along footways from facilities. That, with the 2.24-year supply, made grey belt, need and location straightforward under either Framework. ## Transferable points - Decisions issued on 17 Aug 2026 may be assessed under the 2024 Framework. Transitional(1) says the new Framework applies to all decisions from that date, so the reasoning is open to challenge. Check the policy list on any notice from that week. - An Inspector's finding that a site is "within the village" on the ground (Wood v SSCLG) carries over into the "sustainable location" limb. ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(g): pass.** assessed as 2024 ¶155 (a) to (d). Grey belt with (a) moderate, (b) weak, (d) none; unmet need (2.24-year supply); sustainable, relying on a 2022 appeal finding that the site is within Fairfield village and about 400 m (5 minutes' walk) from facilities - **Transitional(1): not-engaged.** decision dated 17 Aug 2026, the day the new Framework took effect, but the notice lists "National Planning Policy Framework (2024)" and applies ¶11(d), ¶143, ¶154, ¶155 and footnote 7 ## Key facts - Decision notice dated 17 Aug 2026, the Framework's day of effect, and assessed entirely under the December 2024 Framework - Supply 2.24 years at April 2025 - The site is outside the Fairfield settlement boundary but, per appeal APP/P1805/W/21/3279054 (Feb 2022), "lies within the village of Fairfield" on the ground - Ten neighbour objections (Green Belt precedent, narrow lane, gap between Bournheath and Fairfield); no parish response - A 2013 application for one dwelling on the site was refused ## Sources - https://publicaccess.bromsgroveandredditch.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=TH1GQOSELEZ00 - https://publicaccess.bromsgroveandredditch.gov.uk/online-applications/files/A9A67B286EE4B0FE55525275334EA98C/pdf/26_00744_FUL--1217487.pdf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/bromsgrove-26-00744-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision notice. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to 22 Alcester Road, Hollywood / Wythall (up to 6 dwellings PIP) - **Decision:** approved, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Ruth Bamford (Assistant Director, Planning, Leisure and Culture) - **Authority:** Bromsgrove (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/00845/PIP - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Permission in principle for up to six dwellings on a 0.17 ha greenfield plot - **Homes:** 6 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(i), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB7(1)(g)(iii), GB7(1)(g)(iv), S5(1)(j) - **Development plan policies:** Bromsgrove District Plan 2017 BDP1, BDP2, BDP4, BDP16, BDP23 - **Main issues:** grey belt, sustainable location, PIP scope, flood risk deferral - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, not-inappropriate, housing-shortfall, sustainable-location-pass, PIP, small-scheme, drafting-slip ## Summary PIP for up to six homes on a small greenfield plot 7 m outside the Hollywood/Wythall settlement boundary, in the Green Belt. Bromsgrove has no five-year supply. The officer ran all four GB7(1)(g) limbs and granted permission in principle. Grey belt was accepted because Hollywood is not a large built-up area and no towns would merge. Unmet need follows from fn41. The location is sustainable: lit footways both sides and a bus stop 60 m away with regular services. The drainage body's refusal recommendation on surface-water flooding was left to the technical details stage. ## Issues and findings - **Grey belt, GB7(1)(g)(i): PASS.** "Hollywood is not defined as a large built-up area (as defined in the Inspectors Report for Appeal 3356219). As such, the site makes a weak contribution to purpose A … The nearest town to the east of the site, Solihull, is too far away (7.53km) to be considered 'neighbouring'" (Notice p.3). "the comparatively small nature of the site itself, within an existing run of development is such that it does not fundamentally undermine purpose c)" (p.3). - **Need, GB7(1)(g)(ii): PASS.** "The NPPF at footnote 41 explains that evidenced unmet need would apply where there is a lack of five year supply … The Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year supply" (p.3). - **Location, GB7(1)(g)(iii): PASS.** "Alcester Road has footpaths on both sides of the road, along with street lighting. The combination of bus services, nearby district and retail centres would provide alternatives to using private vehicles" (p.4). Bus stops are "approximately 60 metres to the north, with regular services to Redditch and Birmingham City Centre" (p.4). - **Flood risk deferred.** "whilst the application site could have an impact upon flooding in the locality, it would not be warranted at the PIP stage to recommend refusal, as the matters for consideration under a PIP are location, land use and amount" (p.5). ## Planning balance "the Council does not have a 5YHLS, the site meets the definition of Grey Belt and therefore is an exception to development within the Green Belt. Permission in Principle should be granted" (p.6). No separate "substantially outweighed" balance under S5(5) is recorded. ## What made the difference The location. Lit footways on both sides, a bus stop 60 m away with frequent services, and a large settlement next door. Together with the missing supply, all three limbs passed easily. Compare wychavon-W-26-01639-PIP, where the same GB7(1)(g) route failed on an infrequent bus and narrow unlit lanes, and on a restored supply. ## Transferable points - GB7(1)(g)(iii) passes where there are lit footways on both sides and a regular bus within about 60 m. That is the kind of evidence that distinguishes a sustainable grey-belt site from a rural one. - A "large built-up area" for purpose (a) excludes a village or suburb such as Hollywood. Bromsgrove relied on an earlier Inspector's finding (appeal 3356219). - Flood risk objections are routinely deferred to technical details consent at the PIP stage (following appeal 6004489). - Drafting slip: the five purposes are attributed to "Policy GB1"; they are in GB2(1). The notice also frames the principle via S5(1)(j), which S5(5) disapplies in the Green Belt. ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** purpose (a) weak (Hollywood is not a large built-up area, citing appeal 3356219); (b) weak (Solihull 7.53 km away, no loss of separation from Birmingham); (d) none; (c) and (e) not fundamentally undermined - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** fn41, no five-year supply - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** 7 m outside the Hollywood/Wythall boundary (a large settlement under BDP2); footways and lighting on both sides of Alcester Road; bus stop 60 m away with regular services to Redditch and Birmingham - **GB7(1)(g)(iv): not-engaged.** not major development, so the Golden Rules do not apply - **S5(1)(j): pass.** cited as the lens for the principle despite S5(5) excluding Green Belt land. An S5(5)-style approval was the effective outcome. ## Key facts - The site is 7 m outside the Wythall/Hollywood settlement boundary, with development to the south and west and open fields to the north and east - Bromsgrove cannot demonstrate a five-year supply (2.24 years at April 2025, per the Yew Tree Lane notice) - North Worcestershire Water Management recommended refusal on surface-water flood risk (depths of 60 cm to over 1 m); the officer deferred this to technical details consent, citing PIP appeal 6004489 (9 Bromsgrove Road, Romsley, 15 Jun 2026) - Seven objections and a parish council objection (flooding, highways, density); ward councillor support - The notice cites "Policy GB1 … sets out that the Green Belt serves five purposes", although the purposes are in GB2 ## Sources - https://publicaccess.bromsgroveandredditch.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=TI9WGESE00V00 - https://publicaccess.bromsgroveandredditch.gov.uk/online-applications/files/92B3CF6EB7AD6621D53F9F1FEC2766D5/pdf/26_00845_PIP--1220564.pdf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/bromsgrove-26-00845-PIP.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision notice. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land of the former Knowle House, Sagars Road, Handforth (care home) - **Decision:** approved, 19 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: Cheshire East Northern Planning Committee - **Authority:** Cheshire East (North West) - **Application reference:** 25/2053/FUL - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** 68-bed care home (residential, nursing, dementia) on site of former nursing home destroyed by fire - **Homes:** 68 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, PDL, valued-landscape - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.3 - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 262 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), GB7(1)(g)(iv), GB8, GB7(1)(e), TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 PG3, SC4, SD2, SADPD HOU1, HOU2, GEN1, Handforth Neighbourhood Plan H11 - **Main issues:** grey belt, Golden Rules for C2, sustainable location, VSC - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, golden-rules-failed, care-home-golden-rules, vsc-shown, connectivity-tool, sustainable-location-pass, pdl-e-limb, specialist-housing, housing-shortfall, previous-appeal-superseded ## Summary A 68-bed care home on the enclosed, previously developed site of a burnt-out nursing home on the edge of Handforth, decided two days after the new Framework was published. Officers found the site grey belt, with unmet need met and a sustainable location. They also treated the care home as "major development involving the provision of housing", so it had to meet the Golden Rules. No affordable housing was offered, so it failed GB7(1)(g)(iv) and was inappropriate. Officers then found very special circumstances, and the committee approved. The update report added a Connectivity Tool score (59–62%) and said the 2026 NPPF made no material change. ## Issues and findings - **PDL limb (e): FAIL.** There would be "substantial harm to Green Belt openness", following the 2021 appeal (Report ¶10.1–10.8). - **Grey belt: PASS.** "The site is largely enclosed on all sides, with residential development to the east, woodland to the west and south" (¶10.21). "It would be a wedge shape of development alongside a built-up area and would not be considered an incongruous pattern of development" (¶10.24). The 2015 strategic assessment found a "major contribution" for the wider parcel. Officers distinguished it because the site "is a relatively small part of a gap" (¶10.29). - **Unmet need: PASS.** "there is a clear and demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed" (¶10.52). The Council's care commissioner "does not actively support the application … however at present there is not sufficient data to formally object" (¶10.49). - **Sustainable location: PASS.** "Sagars Road from the west side of the site entrance has pavements and street lighting. The site is clearly within an area that has walkable access to key services" (¶10.56). Update report ¶1.5: "This tool indicates a sustainability score of 59%-62% for the site. Nationally this is below average for public transport access and below average overall (excluding driving) … it is comparably well connected for a rural edge location." - **Golden Rules: FAIL.** "As a major housing proposal, these rules would therefore apply. No affordable housing contributions have been offered, as such the proposal does not meet the Golden Rules" (¶10.57). The update report (¶3.2) accepted that "It is not considered that the application of affordable housing contributions could in this case fully meet the CIL tests", because the Council has no model for care homes. Even so, the Green Belt conclusion stayed "inappropriate". ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC. Against: substantial weight to Green Belt harm, including loss of openness and harm to purposes (¶11.1). For: significant weight to specialist housing need, supply contribution and release of general-needs housing (¶11.3), plus employment and the PDL character. "It is what might be considered to be a very good example of a grey belt site" (¶11.4). "the harm to the Green Belt is considered to be clearly outweighed by the specific physical characteristics of the site, its grey belt status, the introduction of much needed specialist accommodation … Very special circumstances are therefore considered to exist" (¶11.5). ## What made the difference Failing the Golden Rules did not stop the scheme. It moved it from GB7(1)(g) into VSC, where grey belt status was then counted as a consideration in favour. The site's enclosure and PDL character, the previous nursing-home use and an undisputed care-bed needs assessment did the rest. An objector would have needed evidence that care-bed need was already met by the pipeline (the report mentions 414 beds in the pipeline) to weaken the key benefit. ## Transferable points - Cheshire East treats a C2 care home as "major development involving the provision of housing" for GB7(1)(g)(iv)/GB8 (¶10.57). Where GB8 affordable housing cannot lawfully be secured, the scheme still falls to VSC. - Grey belt status can itself count towards VSC when a GB7(1)(g) limb fails (¶11.5). - Connectivity Tool benchmark: 59–62% at a suburban/rural edge with lit footways and a station at 750 m, "below average" nationally but accepted as sustainable (Update ¶1.5). Compare Bath Press at 80–82 (bathnes-25-03592-FUL). - The officer update said the new S5 includes "redevelopment of previously developed land" as an approvable category outside settlements (Update ¶1.3), but S5(5) excludes Green Belt, so it was not relied on. ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(e): fail.** mostly PDL but substantial harm to openness (as found on 2021 appeal for 26 dwellings) - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** 2015 study parcel HF01 'major' contribution, but site enclosed by housing and woodland, wedge not finger → (a) moderate; small part of Handforth–Wilmslow gap → (b) moderate; Handforth not historic → (d) nil - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** 3.3-year supply plus applicant's care-bed needs assessment (569-bed undersupply by 2030) not disputed by commissioner - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** lit footway on Sagars Road; shops/bus 0.7 km, health centre 600 m, Handforth station 750 m; Connectivity Tool 59-62% (below national average, 'comparably well connected for a rural edge location') - **GB7(1)(g)(iv): fail.** care home treated as major development involving provision of housing; no affordable housing offered → Golden Rules failed → inappropriate - **GB8: fail.** update report — affordable contribution for care home could not meet CIL tests, so none required, yet GB8 non-compliance left scheme inappropriate - **GB6(2): pass (substantial weight).** VSC found — grey belt status, enclosed PDL site, specialist housing need (significant weight), employment - **HO9: benefit (significant weight).** specialist dementia care need, plus contribution to supply and release of general housing ## Key facts - Previously developed site of a former nursing home, largely enclosed by woodland and the Knowle Park estate - 2021 appeal for 26 dwellings dismissed as inappropriate (substantial harm to openness, sprawl) - Connectivity Tool score 59-62% cited in the update report as TR3(2) evidence - Supply 3.3 years; HDT 262% - Report written under the Dec 2024 NPPF; update report re-ran it under Aug 2026 NPPF the day after publication, with no change to the recommendation ## Sources - https://moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.uk/ecminutes/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=285&MId=11268 - https://moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.uk/ecminutes/documents/s135470/5%2025-2053%20FUL%20Report.pdf - https://moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.uk/ecminutes/documents/s135729/5%20Update%20Report%20-%20252053FUL.pdf - https://moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.uk/ecminutes/documents/g11268/Printed%20minutes%2019th-Aug-2026%2010.30%20Northern%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/cheshireeast-25-2053-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to Alfred King Close, Shavington - **Decision:** approved, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: Cheshire East Southern Planning Committee (unanimous) - **Authority:** Cheshire East (North West) - **Application reference:** 26/0640/FUL - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Demolition of storage buildings, 9 dwellings, access, parking and landscaping - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.3 - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 213 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j)(i), HO7, TR3, Transitional(2) - **Development plan policies:** Cheshire East LPS 2017 PG5 (Strategic Green Gap), PG6 (Open Countryside), SADPD HOU1, HOU16, Shavington NP HOU1, HOU2 - **Main issues:** S5(1)(j), open countryside/green gap policy conflict, sustainable location - **Tags:** s5-1-j, substantially-outweighed, open-countryside, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, sustainable-location-pass, connectivity-tool, local-plan-countryside-policy-departure, open-market ## Summary Nine market houses on a storage yard and field adjoining Shavington's settlement boundary, in open countryside and a Strategic Green Gap. The scheme conflicted with local plan and neighbourhood plan countryside policies. Officers put it through S5(1)(j): the 3.3-year supply is an evidenced unmet need and the site is physically well related to the village. Applying the "substantially outweighed" test, they recommended approval, and the committee approved unanimously. This is an early committee example of S5(1)(j) being used as a gateway for a small edge-of-village scheme outside the Green Belt. ## Issues and findings - **Plan conflict.** The scheme "would not comply with the requirements of policy PG6 of the CELPS or Policy HOU1 of the SNP … it constitutes a 'departure'" (Report ¶11.6–11.7). Officers quoted Annex A, that materially inconsistent plan policies get very limited weight (¶11.3), but relied on S5 as the material consideration. - **S5(1)(j): PASS.** "the proposal would meet one of the exceptions of Policy S5 … development where there is an unmet need … and where the development would be physically well-related to an existing settlement … and be of a scale which can be accommodated" (¶11.8). Supply is 3.3 years (¶11.26). - **Green Gap.** "the Shavington Bypass (A500) already forms a strong physical boundary … the impact on the strategic green gap would be very limited. Therefore, limited weight is given to any perceived conflict with policy PG 5" (¶11.13, ¶11.20). - **TR3: PASS.** "bus stops on Chestnut Avenue a short walk from the site with 2 buses per hour … and footways available to them" (¶11.38). "the site is rated at Local Authority Band B" on the Connectivity Tool (¶11.42). ## Planning balance S5(1) "substantially outweighed". For: substantial weight to new homes (HO7). The update report corrected the report, which had also claimed affordable homes (there are none). Economic benefits are counted. Against: loss of open countryside, called "an inevitable consequence given the Council's housing land supply position", and limited weight to the Green Gap conflict. Technical matters are neutral. "The benefits of this development would not be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (¶12.11). ## What made the difference The site is physically contained: rounding off an existing estate, no further north than the existing edge, with a bypass beyond. It also has real footway and bus access. With a 3.3-year supply, S5(1)(j) made countryside and gap policies subordinate. Refusal would have needed a genuine adverse effect assessed against national decision-making policies, which the report did not find. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(j) is being applied at committee to small (9-unit) market schemes adjoining a settlement boundary, overriding open countryside and green gap policies (¶11.8, ¶12.2). - Loss of open countryside is treated as an "inevitable consequence" of a supply shortfall and carries little weight in the S5 balance (¶12.3). - A Connectivity Tool "Local Authority Band B" rating, together with footways and a two-bus-an-hour service, was treated as enough for TR3 (¶11.42–11.43). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j)(i): pass.** 3.3-year supply = evidenced unmet need; adjoins settlement boundary, 'rounding off'; scale accommodated by infrastructure - **TR3: pass.** bus stops a short walk (2 buses/hour), footways, NCR 551, schools/medical centre/shop within walking distance; Connectivity Tool Local Authority Band B - **CELPS PG6: conflict.** departure from open countryside policy; officers note Annex A 'materially inconsistent' rule but resolve via S5 - **CELPS PG5: conflict (limited weight).** Strategic Green Gap impact 'very limited' — A500 bypass forms boundary 225 m north; no coalescence - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** homes; small sites built out quickly - **S5(1): pass.** benefits not substantially outweighed; technical matters neutral ## Key facts - Supply 3.3 years (LHN 2,632 dpa); HDT 213% (published 17 Aug 2026) - Adjoins Shavington settlement boundary; in open countryside and Strategic Green Gap - Nine market homes, so below affordable threshold (update report corrected a report error claiming affordable homes) - Bus 2/hour a short walk away; Connectivity Tool "Band B" ## Sources - https://moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.uk/ecminutes/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=286&MId=11262 - https://moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.uk/ecminutes/documents/s136035/26%200640%20FUL.pdf - https://moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.uk/ecminutes/documents/s136182/26-0640-FUL%20Update%20Report.pdf - https://moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.uk/ecminutes/documents/g11262/Printed%20minutes%2009th-Sep-2026%2010.00%20Southern%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/cheshireeast-26-0640-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land off Moor Road, Croston - **Decision:** refused, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: Chorley Planning Committee (minded-to decision for non-determination appeal; unanimous) - **Authority:** Chorley (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6014396 - **Application reference:** 25/01052/FULMAJ - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** 58 dwellings, all affordable, with open space, play area and access from Moor Road - **Homes:** 58 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, near-station - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.4 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g), TR3, S5(5) - **Development plan policies:** Central Lancashire Core Strategy 2012 Policy 1, Chorley Local Plan 2012-2026, emerging Central Lancashire Local Plan - **Main issues:** grey belt at a village edge, sustainable location, spatial strategy conflict vs NPPF - **Tags:** overturned-officer-rec, non-determination, grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-pass, village-not-large-built-up-area, affordable-led, housing-shortfall, spatial-strategy-refusal, golden-rules ## Summary 58 affordable homes on a Green Belt field at the edge of Croston, a village with a station. Officers found grey belt: a village is not a "large built-up area", so purpose (a) is weak. They passed all GB7(1)(g) limbs and recommended approval. The appeal against non-determination was already running. Members unanimously said they would have refused, but gave only the Core Strategy spatial strategy (Policy 1) and the emerging plan as the reason. They did not give a Green Belt reason. ## Issues and findings - **Grey belt: PASS.** "the NPPG states that villages should not be considered large built-up areas. The settlement of Croston is adjacent to the site, however, this is a village … The contribution of the site to purpose (a) is, therefore, considered to be weak" (Report ¶40). - **Sustainable location: PASS.** "Morrisons convenience store is approximately 0.5km which is a 7-minute walk. Croston Medical Centre is approximately 0.3km … Croston train station is 0.5km and a 7-minute walk" (¶65). "The pedestrian route to the bus stops and train station along Moor Road has consistent footways with streetlighting and the speed limit in this location is reduced to 20mph" (¶66). "Whilst it is likely that the private vehicle would still be utilised … sustainable transport options such as walking, the bus and the train offer genuine alternatives" (¶70). - **2026 NPPF update.** "The proposal would still be assessed as grey belt under the tests set out in Policy GB7 … the amendments do not result in any material change" (Update ¶8, ¶10). - **Members' reason:** "contrary to policy 1 of the Central Lancashire Core Strategy and the emerging Central Lancashire Local Plan" (Minutes 22a). ## What made the difference Officers' case was strong: a village edge, services and a station within about 500 m on lit 20 mph footways, and 100% affordable housing. Members fell back on spatial strategy. That reason is weak once GB7 makes the scheme not inappropriate and S5(5) applies the "substantially outweighed" test. Expect a costs risk at the written-representations appeal (6014396). ## Transferable points - At a village edge, purpose (a) is typically weak because villages are not "large built-up areas" (Report ¶40). Grey belt objections at villages have to rest on (b) and (d), or on limb (iii). - The benchmark for a PASS on limb (iii): shops, medical centre and station within about 500 m on continuous lit footways at 20 mph (¶65–66). That is the opposite of a rural lane without footways. - A refusal resting only on local plan spatial strategy is exposed where GB7(1)(g) is met, because S5(5) then applies the "substantially outweighed" test. ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** officers — Croston is a village, so not a 'large built-up area' (weak on (a)); LUC 2022 limited/no contribution; (b) and (d) not strong - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** 3.4-year supply - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** adjoins village; Morrisons 0.5 km (7 min), medical centre 0.3 km, station 0.5 km (hourly to Preston, 16 min); buses 337/347 Mon-Sat; lit footways, 20 mph; new 2 m footways, DDA bus stops, two crossings, £100k bus subsidy - **GB8: pass.** 100% affordable; contributions; open space - **Central Lancashire CS Policy 1: conflict.** members' sole refusal reason — spatial strategy (and emerging CLLP); no Green Belt reason given ## Key facts - Officers recommended approval (twice); deferred 4 Aug 2026 on drainage; appeal for non-determination lodged 10 Aug 2026 (written reps, LPA statement due 23 Sep 2026) - Members unanimously minded to refuse on Core Strategy Policy 1 spatial strategy only - Local MP spoke in objection - Croston station 0.5 km with hourly service (not "well-connected" under Annex B) ## Sources - https://democracy.chorley.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=975&MId=11972 - https://democracy.chorley.gov.uk/documents/s200350/3a%20-%202501052FULMAJ%20-%20Moor%20Road%20Croston.pdf - https://democracy.chorley.gov.uk/documents/g11972/Printed%20minutes%2008th-Sep-2026%2018.30%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/chorley-25-01052-FULMAJ.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Bourton Industrial Park, Bourton-on-the-Water (Aldi and drive-thru) - **Decision:** approved, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: Cotswold DC Planning and Licensing Committee (8-0, 1 abstention) - **Authority:** Cotswold (South West) - **Application reference:** 25/03800/FUL - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Aldi food store, Costa drive-thru, car parking and highway works on part of an allocated employment site - **Site context:** inside-settlement, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(2)(a)(i), N4(2), TC3, TC4, E2, E4 - **Development plan policies:** Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 S11, EC2, EC3, EC8, EN4, EN5, INF4, INF5 - **Main issues:** loss of allocated employment land, sequential test, National Landscape major development, highways - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, national-landscape, departure, fallback, e2-substantial-weight, officer-rec-followed ## Summary An Aldi and a Costa drive-thru on part of an allocated employment site inside Bourton-on-the-Water, in the Cotswolds National Landscape. Officers accepted the scheme was a departure from the allocation. They reasoned through S4(2)(a)(i): released allocations are a potential adverse effect, but here the safeguarding was "no longer appropriate". They also found the scheme was not "major development" for N4 and that it passed the TC3 sequential test. The committee permitted it 8-0 with one abstention. ## Issues and findings - **Allocation, S4(2)(a)(i): no substantial adverse impact.** "criterion 2 a i indicates that the impact of development on an allocation of land for a particular use in a development plan has the potential to represent an adverse effect which could substantially outweigh the benefits … it is considered that the safeguarding of this part of the allocated site is no longer appropriate in this particular instance given the nature of the proposed use … the scheme would not have a substantial adverse impact in relation to the allocation or safeguarding of land for employment purposes" (Report ¶10.22). - **National Landscape, N4(2): not major.** Following fn59: "it would not result in a significant encroachment of development into the open countryside or appear as a distinct, separate development unconnected to the village … the proposal would not constitute major development in the CNL for the purposes of Policy N4" (¶10.108). - **Sequential test, TC3.** "criterion 3 of NPPF Policy TC3 does not explicitly include a requirement for disaggregation to be taken into account", citing the government's August 2026 consultation response (¶10.43). No sequentially preferable sites (¶10.45). - **Accessibility, TR3/TC3.** "the site is located over 1 km from the village centre … However … it is also possible for pedestrians to access the site via a network of illuminated footways … the development would not be reliant solely on customers using motor vehicles" (¶10.45). ## Planning balance This was an s38(6) departure balance within the S4(1) framing (approve unless benefits substantially outweighed). Significant weight went to employment and the rural economy and to retail choice. Against that stood conflict with S11 and EC2. Allocated employment land would stay above the allocated quantum, and a retail PD fallback existed. "It is considered that there are significant material considerations that justify a departure from the Local Plan" (¶11.1). ## What made the difference Consented floorspace elsewhere on the estate already exceeds the allocation, so releasing this plot does not undermine the allocation's purpose. Officers used that to turn the S4(2)(a)(i) "allocation" adverse effect into a non-issue. Without the surplus and the PD fallback, S4(2)(a)(i) would have been a strong refusal route. ## Transferable points - S4(2)(a)(i) is applied as a real test. Loss of allocated land is an adverse effect unless "there is no reasonable prospect of an application coming forward for the allocated use, or there is evidence that the safeguarding is no longer appropriate" (¶10.21 to 10.22). - DMPO-major is not N4-major. Officers carry out a separate fn59 assessment of nature, scale, setting and effect on statutory purposes (¶10.106 to 10.108). - The 2026 TC3 removed the disaggregation wording. Officers cite the government response to the consultation as the reason (¶10.43). ## Policy findings - **S4(2)(a)(i): pass.** no "substantial adverse impact" on the employment allocation, because extant consents exceed the allocation, a PD fallback to retail exists and the scheme generates comparable jobs; "the safeguarding of this part of the allocated site is no longer appropriate in this particular instance" - **N4(2): not-engaged.** not "major development" for N4 purposes (fn59), despite being DMPO-major, because it adjoins the village and the industrial estate on an allocated site - **TC3: pass.** sequential test passed; officers cite the Aug 2026 government response that disaggregation wording was removed from TC3 - **TC4: pass.** no significant adverse impact on Bourton centre; retains leakage - **TR3: pass.** over 1 km from the village centre, but lit footways, flat routes and nearby bus stops; not reliant solely on the car - **E2: benefit (significant weight).** employment and rural economy benefits "significant material consideration" - **Local Plan S11 / EC2: conflict.** departure from the employment allocation ## Key facts - Allocated employment site (S11) within the development boundary of Bourton-on-the-Water, in the Cotswolds National Landscape - Consented employment floorspace elsewhere on the estate still exceeds the allocation if this site is released - Fallback of industrial units changing to retail under permitted development - Over 1 km from the village centre; bus stops nearby; proposed zebra crossing and A429 signals - Tesco made a late objection; the parish objected only to the drive-thru - Permitted 8-0 with 1 abstention as a departure ## Sources - https://meetings.cotswold.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1162&MId=2619&Ver=4 - https://meetings.cotswold.gov.uk/documents/s17005/25.03800.FUL%20-%20Case%20Officer%20Report.pdf - https://meetings.cotswold.gov.uk/documents/g2619/Printed%20minutes%2009th-Sep-2026%2014.00%20Planning%20and%20Licensing%20Committee.pdf?T=1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/cotswold-25-03800-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Dial House Hotel, High Street, Bourton-on-the-Water (garden pavilion) - **Decision:** approved, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: Cotswold DC Planning and Licensing Committee - **Authority:** Cotswold (South West) - **Application reference:** 26/01098/FUL - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Single-storey pavilion restaurant in the rear garden of a Grade II listed hotel, replacing temporary structures - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6, N4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-2031 EN1, EN2, EN4, EN5, EN10, EN11 - **Main issues:** setting of listed building, conservation area, noise and amenity - **Tags:** heritage-no-harm, conservation-area, national-landscape, officer-rec-followed, minutes-inconsistency ## Summary A redesigned garden pavilion restaurant behind the Grade II listed Dial House Hotel, in the Bourton-on-the-Water Conservation Area and the Cotswolds National Landscape. An earlier scheme had been refused for "considerable" less than substantial harm. Officers found the orangery-style redesign caused no harm, so the HE6(4) balance was not engaged. The committee permitted it after a motion to refuse found no seconder. ## Issues and findings - **Heritage, HE6: NO HARM.** "The earlier refused scheme was found to cause less than substantial harm, described as considerable, by virtue of development of the open historic rear garden and by virtue of the scale and uncharacteristic design" (Report ¶10.19). "No harm to designated heritage assets is identified, and subject to the recommended conditions, the proposal is considered to accord with … Chapter 20 of the NPPF and specifically Policy HE6" (¶10.22). - **National Landscape, N4(1): PASS.** Officers quote the new wording "Substantial weight should be placed on the importance of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of these areas" (¶10.25) and find the building would "conserve the natural beauty of the Cotswolds National Landscape" because it is in an enclosed garden in the built-up centre (¶10.26). ## Planning balance None was needed on heritage once no harm was found. Amenity (noise) was dealt with by conditions and a noise management plan. ## What made the difference The redesign closed the gap with the earlier refusal. The low height, the orangery idiom and the retained garden openness took the heritage finding from "considerable less than substantial harm" to "no harm", so no HE6(4) public-benefit balance was required. ## Transferable points - N4(1) now says "substantial weight" where the 2024 Framework said "great weight". Officers quote the new wording (¶10.25). - A heritage refusal can be overcome by design alone, without new public benefits, if the officer finding moves to "no harm" (¶10.19 to 10.22). - The draft minutes are internally inconsistent: the vote table says the motion was "Rejected" with no votes for, but the text says "RESOLVED: to PERMIT". Check the final minutes and the decision notice before relying on this case. ## Policy findings - **HE6: neutral.** no harm to the setting of Grade II Dial House or its listed wall, or to the conservation area; the earlier refused scheme had caused "less than substantial harm, described as considerable" - **N4(1): pass.** officers quote the new "Substantial weight should be placed on the importance of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty"; the scheme sits in an enclosed garden in the built-up centre ## Key facts - 17th-century Grade II listed house, a hotel since 1988; the pavilion is a contemporary orangery in Cotswold stone, metal glazing and copper - A previous scheme was refused for less than substantial ("considerable") harm; this one was redesigned after pre-application advice - Objections from the parish council and neighbours were about noise and repeated unauthorised temporary structures - [object Object] ## Sources - https://meetings.cotswold.gov.uk/documents/s17019/26.01098.FUL%20-%20Case%20Officer%20Repot.pdf - https://meetings.cotswold.gov.uk/documents/g2619/Printed%20minutes%2009th-Sep-2026%2014.00%20Planning%20and%20Licensing%20Committee.pdf?T=1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/cotswold-26-01098-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land East of Tring (Marshcroft) — appeal stance review - **Decision:** refused, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: Dacorum Development Management Committee (recorded vote 5 for / 6 against / 1 abstention on motion to concede) - **Authority:** Dacorum (East of England) - **Application reference:** 25/01880/MOA - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Hybrid, up to 1,400 dwellings incl. up to 140 C2 extra care, local centre, sports/community hub, primary and secondary schools, SANG (appeal pending; inquiry from 10 Nov 2026) - **Homes:** 1400 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, near-station, national-landscape, agricultural-land-BMV, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt rejected) - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.18 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), GB7(1)(h), L3(2)(c), L3(4), HC4 - **Development plan policies:** Dacorum Core Strategy 2013 CS5, emerging Local Plan allocation TR03 - **Main issues:** grey belt, station route GB7(1)(h), density L3, HC4 weight uplift, VSC, appeal stance and costs - **Tags:** appeal-stance-review, station-route-h, partial-site-800m, density-l3-conflict, hc4-substantial-weight, grey-belt-rejected, vsc-not-shown, housing-shortfall, golden-rules, large-scheme, costs-risk ## Summary This was not a fresh determination. The committee decided whether to keep defending Green Belt reason for refusal 1 at the forthcoming inquiry into its April 2026 refusal of 1,400 homes east of Tring, after the new Framework was published. Officers made no recommendation. Their report found three benefits moving from limited to substantial weight under HC4: schools, community facilities and recreation. It also found that the new station route GB7(1)(h) could cover the part of the site within about 800 m of Tring station, but that part would then breach the new L3 minimum density of 45 dph. On a recorded vote of 6-5, members refused to concede that very special circumstances now exist, so the Council will continue to defend RfR1. ## Issues and findings - **Grey belt:** unchanged. Members' finding that the site "strongly contributes to purpose (a)" stands. Officers: "there is no material change to this policy which alters Members' previous conclusion" (Report ¶4.11). - **GB7(1)(h) station route: partial PASS.** Tring meets the well-connected definition and the higher L3 threshold (4–5 direct Euston services an hour one way in all sampled periods) (¶4.17–4.18). "Only a limited part of the appeal site falls within this radius … Policy GB7(1)(h) applies only to that part of the site" (¶4.20). "Unlike Policy GB7(1)(g), GB7(1)(h) does not require the land to constitute Grey Belt" (¶4.13). - **L3 density: CONFLICT.** The parameter plan shows 25–40 dph against a 45 dph minimum (¶8.9). "the station relationship which potentially assists the proposal in Green Belt terms simultaneously gives rise to the requirement to achieve a materially higher residential density. Even if that part of the site were not inappropriate development, development on that part of the site is the kind which by L3(4) 'should' be refused … Such a conflict is the kind of policy conflict that could outweigh the S5 presumption" (¶8.12). - **HC4 uplift.** "Policy HC4 now expressly directs substantial weight to qualifying benefits" (¶11.6). Schools, community facilities and recreation/sport each move from limited to substantial weight (¶17.2). - **Heritage.** "The revised terminology does not materially alter the substantive weighting previously applied" (Table 1). Officers treat substantial weight as equal to great weight. - **Tilted balance.** Paragraph 11(d) has been replaced by S3–S5, and S5(5) excludes Green Belt, so the balance for inappropriate parts is GB6 VSC (¶3.3–3.5). - **Costs.** The appellant has signalled a full costs application. Members were told that maintaining a reason "which cannot subsequently be substantiated … could be found to have acted unreasonably" (¶15.4). ## Planning balance GB6(2) VSC for the parts that remain inappropriate. Harms: substantial weight each to inappropriateness, purposes and openness; great weight to the National Landscape; substantial (formerly great) weight to heritage; significant weight to BMV land and to predetermination of the plan; moderate weight to landscape character. Benefits: market housing, 50% affordable, extra care, self-build, socio-economic and 40% BNG all substantial, with schools, community and recreation now also substantial. Members held, 6-5, that the balance still did not clearly outweigh the harms. ## What made the difference Members kept their earlier finding that the land strongly serves purpose (a). Once that holds, the extra HC4 weight only feeds a VSC balance in which Green Belt harm already carries substantial weight three times over. GB7(1)(h) was no help: it reaches only the land within 800 m, and there it creates an L3 density conflict the parameter plan does not meet. This is the first recorded treatment of L3(4) as a reason that could defeat GB7(1)(h) land under S5. ## Transferable points - GB7(1)(h) applies only to the part of a site within reasonable walking distance (Annex B), and officers mapped an 800 m radius to apply it (Report ¶4.20). - A GB7(1)(h) site near a station that meets twice the well-connected frequency triggers the 45 dph minimum in L3(2)(c). Failing it engages L3(4) "should be refused", which officers treat as capable of outweighing the S5(5) presumption (¶8.11–8.12). - HC4 is being read as raising community, education and recreation benefits from limited to substantial weight (¶11.6, ¶17.2). Expect developers to use this in VSC balances. - Officers read HE6 "substantial weight" as equivalent to the old "great weight" (Table 1; ¶10.9). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: fail.** members' April 2026 finding (strong contribution to purpose (a)) maintained; officers advised 2026 NPPF and Annex E do not alter it - **GB7(1)(h): pass.** Tring station well-connected (4-5 London trains/hour in one direction); only the part of the site within c.800 m qualifies; GB8 capable of being met (50% affordable) - **L3(2)(c): conflict.** station-proximate part must reach 45 dph; parameter plan 25-40 dph; L3(4) says such proposals 'should be refused' — officers say this could outweigh the S5(5) presumption for that part - **HC4: benefit (substantial weight).** schools, community facilities, recreation/sports each raised from limited to substantial weight under 2026 NPPF - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** market housing; 1.18-year supply - **HE6: harm (substantial weight).** lower-end harm; officers say 'substantial' = previous 'great' weight, no material change - **N4: harm (great weight).** setting of Chilterns National Landscape; unchanged - **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** members declined to find VSC now exist even with HC4 uplift ## Key facts - Officers had recommended approval in April 2026; members refused (7 reasons); appeal lodged, inquiry 10 Nov 2026 - After the new NPPF, officers made no recommendation, but set out three benefits moving from limited to substantial weight under HC4 and warned of costs - Motion that VSC now exist and RfR1 no longer be contested failed 5-6 (1 abstention), recorded vote - Council supply 1.18 years; site is emerging allocation TR03 under examination, local plan inspectors raised concerns in July 2026 - Tring station 4-5 direct Euston trains/hour one way; only small part of site within 800 m radius ## Sources - https://democracy.dacorum.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=159&MId=4272 - https://democracy.dacorum.gov.uk/documents/s51235/Item_7_Land_East_of_Tring_Marshcroft_Update1.pdf - https://democracy.dacorum.gov.uk/documents/g4272/Printed%20minutes%2010th-Sep-2026%2019.00%20Development%20Management.pdf?T=1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/dacorum-25-01880-MOA.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south of London Road, Rockbeare (Cranbrook edge) - **Decision:** approved, 1 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: East Devon Planning Committee (in accordance with officer recommendation) - **Authority:** East Devon (South West) - **Application reference:** 26/0534/MOUT - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Outline, up to 105 dwellings (35% on-site + 15% off-site affordable), open space, allotments, SANGS - **Homes:** 105 - **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge, agricultural-land-BMV - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.5 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j)(i), S3, S6 - **Development plan policies:** East Devon Local Plan 2016 Strategy 3, 7, 8 (Green Wedge), Rockbeare Neighbourhood Plan 2018 Rock06, Rock07, emerging Local Plan SP06, OL05 - **Main issues:** S5(1)(j), neighbourhood plan conflict, green wedge, BMV - **Tags:** s5-1-j, substantially-outweighed, neighbourhood-plan-conflict, s6-not-engaged, green-wedge, open-countryside, housing-shortfall, large-scheme ## Summary Up to 105 homes on countryside and neighbourhood-plan Green Wedge land between Cranbrook and Rockbeare. The council has a 3.5-year supply. Officers approved under S5(1)(j), because the site adjoins the Cranbrook boundary and an allocated 800-home expansion area. They held that the 2018 Rockbeare Neighbourhood Plan no longer has S6 protection because it is more than five years old. The committee approved in line with the recommendation. ## Issues and findings - **S5(1)(j): PASS.** "The site is located adjacent to the Built-Up Area Boundary of Cranbrook and adjacent to the Grange Expansion Area which is allocated for around 800 dwellings. As such, the site is physically well-related to Cranbrook" (Report, Principle). - **S5(2) check.** "the development proposal would not fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which states that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances … the site is not Green Belt" (Report, Principle). - **Neighbourhood plan.** The NP "was made on 11 October 2018 … given its age and the Council's inability to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, the proposal must be assessed in the context of the presumption" (Report, Principle). The site had been dropped from the Cranbrook Plan in 2019 "to reflect the principles of localism that underpinned the Neighbourhood Plan … At present however, the Neighbourhood Plan is more than five years old and therefore out of date" (Land use). - **Location.** "around 1km from Cranbrook Town Centre, between 10m and 600m from existing bus stops … around 2.9km from Cranbrook Train Station" (Report, sustainability). ## Planning balance S5(1). The benefits carry significant weight: housing, affordable housing, SANGS, 20% BNG and the new pedestrian/cycle link. Against them: conflict with the Green Wedge and countryside policies, loss of BMV land, and harm to a non-designated heritage asset. "the adverse impacts of the proposed development would not substantially outweigh the benefits". ## What made the difference The neighbourhood plan's Green Wedge policy had kept the site out of the 2019 Cranbrook Plan. Seven years on, S6 no longer protects the plan, because it is over five years old and has no allocations. Its policies became ordinary development plan conflicts in an S5 balance. The relevant settlement was Cranbrook, the new town, not Rockbeare village. ## Transferable points - A neighbourhood plan made more than five years ago falls outside S6, so its protective policies carry no presumption-level shield. They are weighed as plan conflicts in the S5 balance (Report, Principle). - "Physically well-related" can be satisfied by adjacency to an allocated expansion area not yet built (Report, Principle). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j)(i): pass.** 3.5-year supply; adjoins Cranbrook BUAB and allocated Grange Expansion Area (c.800 homes) - **S6: not-engaged.** Rockbeare NP made Oct 2018 (more than five years old), so conflict with NP Green Wedge and development-limit policies does not trigger S6 - **TR3: pass.** c.1 km to Cranbrook town centre; bus stops 10-600 m (44/44A); station 2.9 km; new pedestrian/cycle link Rockbeare-Cranbrook - **HE7: harm.** harm to setting of The Grange (non-designated), outweighed - **N2: harm.** loss of Grade 3a BMV land - **Strategy 8 Green Wedge: conflict.** meaningful gap between Cranbrook and Rockbeare retained, so no harmful coalescence ## Key facts - Site previously removed from the Cranbrook Plan in 2019 in deference to the Rockbeare NP Green Wedge policy - NP more than five years old, so S6 protection is lost - 20% BNG; SANGS provided ## Sources - https://democracy.eastdevon.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=308&MId=2692 - https://democracy.eastdevon.gov.uk/documents/s31569/4.%2026.0534.MOUT.pdf - https://democracy.eastdevon.gov.uk/documents/g2692/Printed%20minutes%2001st-Sep-2026%2010.00%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/eastdevon-26-0534-MOUT.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Wilderness Sports Ground, Molesey Park Road, East Molesey (clubhouse) - **Decision:** approved, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: Elmbridge Planning Committee (case officer Graham Healey) - **Authority:** Elmbridge (South East) - **Application reference:** 2025/1444 - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Replacement clubhouse pavilion (c.680 sqm) for junior football club, replacing five scattered structures; bin and cycle stores - **Site context:** green-belt - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(f)(iv), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Elmbridge DM Plan 2015 DM17, DM18 - **Main issues:** outdoor sport exception, openness minimised test, VSC - **Tags:** outdoor-recreation-facilities, openness-minimised-test, vsc-shown, community-benefit, inappropriate-development ## Summary A new clubhouse for a junior football club, replacing five scattered, dilapidated structures with one building more than three times the footprint and about four times the volume. Officers held it failed the "impact on openness is minimised" condition of GB7(1)(f)(iv), so it was inappropriate. They found very special circumstances in community sports need and consolidation, and the committee approved. ## Issues and findings - **GB7(1)(f)(iv): FAIL.** "given the increase in size and height of the proposed development above the existing, the proposed clubhouse would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and so would not minimise the impact on the openness … and must be considered inappropriate development" (Report ¶48). Even the cycle store "would be additional built development that would fail to preserve the openness" (¶49). - **VSC: shown.** "VSCs have been identified related to the public and community benefits arising from provision of enhanced sporting facilities and the strategic need for the sporting infrastructure … Significant weight has been attributed" (¶182). BNG 10% gets limited weight (¶183). "the VSC are considered to sufficiently outweigh the definitional harm" (¶184). ## What made the difference A strict reading of "minimised": any increase over existing built form fails. Community sport need then carried VSC. The report does not use HC4's "substantial weight" to community facilities (compare dacorum-25-01880-MOA) and gives significant weight instead. ## Transferable points - Elmbridge reads GB7(1)(f)'s "impact on openness is minimised" as failed by a materially larger replacement building, even where it consolidates scattered structures (¶48, ¶180). - Community sports benefits can amount to VSC for inappropriate ancillary buildings (¶182–184). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(f)(iv): fail.** outdoor sport facility but footprint 227.7→734.4 sqm, volume 877.9→3,946 m3, height 4.4→7 m, so impact on openness 'not minimised' - **GB6(2): pass (substantial weight).** VSC — community sports need (girls' teams, dilapidated facilities), strategic need, consolidation of five structures, club finances; significant weight; BNG 10% limited weight - **Elmbridge DM18: conflict.** exceeds 10% volume/footprint and height tests for replacement buildings ## Key facts - Existing five structures 227.7 sqm / 877.9 m3; proposed 734.4 sqm / 3,946 m3, 7 m high - Sport England no objection; Council landowner - Approved in line with officer recommendation ## Sources - https://mygov.elmbridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=130&MId=5017 - https://mygov.elmbridge.gov.uk/documents/s63354/ - https://mygov.elmbridge.gov.uk/documents/g5020/Printed%20minutes%2015th-Sep-2026%2019.00%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/elmbridge-2025-1444.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Derry Farm Stables, Footherley Road, Shenstone (permanent rural worker's dwelling) - **Decision:** approved, 26 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Emily Ozwell (recommending officer) - **Authority:** Lichfield (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/00849/FUL - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Self-build permanent rural worker's dwelling replacing a temporary mobile home at an equestrian enterprise - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, isolated - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), HO11(1)(a) - **Development plan policies:** Lichfield Local Plan Strategy CP6, BE1, NR3, Rural Development SPD, Shenstone Neighbourhood Plan, Lichfield District Design Code 2024 - **Main issues:** rural worker need, Green Belt very special circumstances - **Tags:** rural-worker-dwelling, vsc-shown, self-build, old-wording-slip, ai-disclosure ## Summary A permanent rural worker's house replacing a temporary mobile home at an equestrian yard in the Green Belt near Shenstone. The officer held that a new rural worker's dwelling is not a GB7 exception and so is inappropriate. The established and continuing essential need under HO11(1)(a), removal of the mobile home and an occupancy condition together amounted to very special circumstances, and permission was granted. ## Issues and findings - **GB6/GB7.** "A new permanent rural worker's dwelling does not fall within any of the identified categories and therefore represents inappropriate development" (Report, Principle). - **HO11(1)(a).** "isolated homes in the countryside may be supported where there is an essential need for a rural worker … to live permanently at or near their place of work" (Principle). Later: "The proposal therefore accords with the rural worker principles of paragraph 84(a) of the NPPF" (Principle). That is 2024 numbering. - **Very special circumstances.** "the established and continuing essential need for a rural worker to live on the site, together with the replacement and removal of the existing temporary accommodation and the proposed occupancy restriction, are considered to amount to very special circumstances" (Principle). ## Planning balance GB6(2) very special circumstances: essential need plus the removal of the temporary structure, against substantial Green Belt harm. ## What made the difference The earlier temporary consent established the functional need, and the evidence showed the need continued. ## Transferable points - In the Green Belt, a rural worker's dwelling needs very special circumstances. HO11(1)(a) essential need is being accepted as those circumstances. Compare bromsgrove-25-00751-FUL, where a temporary worker's cabin went through GB7(1)(g) instead. ## Policy findings - **GB6(2): pass (substantial weight).** a new permanent rural worker's dwelling is not a GB7 category, so it is inappropriate. Very special circumstances were found in the continuing essential need, removal of the mobile home and an occupancy condition. - **HO11(1)(a): pass.** essential need for a rural worker to live on site; later cited as "paragraph 84(a)", which is the 2024 number ## Key facts - 12 ha grazing land 1.6 km south of Shenstone and 1.3 km north of Hill Hook (Sutton Coldfield) - A temporary mobile home was permitted (21/00104/FUL); the report also refers to consent on 13 Nov 2025; a resubmission of 24/00768/FUL - Agricultural occupancy restriction imposed; self-build exempt from BNG - AI drafting disclosure in the report ## Sources - https://planning.lichfielddc.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=THWV1CJEKBL00 - https://planning.lichfielddc.gov.uk/online-applications/files/63C418C01D22ED43EA368AD53D999103/pdf/26_00849_FUL-PLANNING_REPORT-1248175.pdf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/lichfield-26-00849-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land south of The Farm House, Church Road, Stonnall (up to 2 dwellings) - **Decision:** approved, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Tom Watts (recommending officer) - **Authority:** Lichfield (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/00855/OUT - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Outline, access only, for up to two dwellings on an undeveloped plot between houses - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.5 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(i), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB7(1)(g)(iii), S5(5), TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Lichfield Local Plan Strategy 2015 CP1, CP3, CP6, NR2, NR3, NR4, NR7, BE1, Stonnall Neighbourhood Plan 2025 D1, T1, LE1, LE4 - **Main issues:** grey belt via a council review, need, sustainable location, neighbourhood plan conflict - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, not-inappropriate, housing-shortfall, sustainable-location-pass, s5-5-balance, small-scheme, green-belt-review-evidence, reversal-of-prior-refusal, ai-disclosure ## Summary Up to two houses on a gap plot between dwellings on Church Road, Stonnall, just outside the settlement boundary in the Green Belt. The same proposal had been refused in June 2025 as inappropriate development. Since then Lichfield's 2026 Green Belt Review found the parcel makes no or only a weak contribution to purposes (a), (b) and (d). With a 3.5-year supply and a walkable village, all GB7(1)(g) limbs passed and the scheme was approved under delegated powers. S5(5)'s "substantially outweighed" test was then applied as the default. ## Issues and findings - **Grey belt, GB7(1)(g)(i): PASS.** "The relevant assessment of parcel STO06 concluded that the parcel makes no contribution to purpose (a), a weak contribution to purpose (b), and no contribution to purpose (d) … the application site does not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b) or (d) and therefore constitutes grey belt land" (Report, Principle). "the development would not project materially beyond the established pattern of development along Church Road … would not fundamentally undermine the purposes" (Principle). - **Need, GB7(1)(g)(ii): PASS.** "The Council's most recent published assessment identifies a housing land supply of 3.5 years. There is therefore an evidenced unmet need" (Principle). - **Location, GB7(1)(g)(iii): PASS.** "the site lies immediately adjacent to the built form of Stonnall and within walking and cycling distance of a range of services and facilities including a primary school, public house, village hall, medical facilities, sports provision and a convenience store. Public transport connections are also available within approximately 500 metres" (Principle). - **S5(5).** "National Policy S5 further provides that, where development within the Green Belt is not inappropriate through the application of Policy GB7, proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects" (Principle). ## Planning balance S5(5) "substantially outweighed". No technical objections (highways, trees, ecology, archaeology). The parish objection was not "supported by the technical evidence". Approved subject to a unilateral undertaking for the Cannock Chase SAC. ## What made the difference The Council's own 2026 Green Belt Review. The same scheme had been refused a year earlier as inappropriate. The new parcel assessment, together with the 3.5-year supply, turned it into grey belt with a presumption in favour under S5(5). ## Transferable points - A council's recent Green Belt review parcel scoring is being applied directly to individual sites to establish grey belt. Scrutinise the parcel scoring for any site. - Once GB7(1)(g) is met, officers apply S5(5) as a positive presumption ("should be approved unless … substantially outweighed"). - A 2025 neighbourhood plan opposing Green Belt development did not prevent approval. The report does not analyse S6, which applies only to plans with housing allocations made within five years. - An officer disclosed using AI (Copilot) as a drafting aid (¶12). This may become standard wording. ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** the Council's 2026 Green Belt Review parcel STO06 makes no contribution to (a), a weak one to (b) and none to (d); the site is contained by houses north and south, the road and woodland; a localised loss of openness does not fundamentally undermine the purposes - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** 3.5-year supply - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** adjoins the built form of Stonnall; primary school, pub, village hall, medical, sports and shop within walking and cycling distance; public transport within about 500 m - **S5(5): pass.** once not inappropriate under GB7, "should be approved unless the benefits … would be substantially outweighed" - **Stonnall NP (Green Belt stance): conflict.** the parish says the made 2025 NP opposes Green Belt development; the officer gives the up-to-date national policy and the Green Belt Review precedence. S6 is not discussed. ## Key facts - The same scheme (all matters reserved) was refused on 26 Jun 2025 for five reasons, including inappropriate development in the Green Belt - Staffordshire/Lichfield Green Belt Review, April 2026, now records the parcel as grey belt - The site is outside the Stonnall settlement boundary; houses north and south; Grade II Church of St Peter about 100 m south - The parish objection (Green Belt, speeding traffic, hedgerow loss, NP conflict) was not treated as a "significant objection", so the application was decided under delegated powers - The report discloses that Copilot Chat was used as a drafting aid only ## Sources - https://planning.lichfielddc.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=THYSI9JEKDG00 - https://planning.lichfielddc.gov.uk/online-applications/files/9760FB1CB992354EC250755B3D4180BA/pdf/26_00855_OUT-PLANNING_REPORT-1252981.pdf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/lichfield-26-00855-OUT.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Mobile home at Wierton Hill Farm, Boughton Monchelsea - **Decision:** refused, 20 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: Maidstone Planning Committee (12-1, contrary to officer recommendation) - **Authority:** Maidstone (South East) - **Application reference:** 26/501191/FULL - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Replacement of lawful residential mobile home (27 sqm) with permanent self-build dwelling (151 sqm footprint, c.650 m3) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, isolated - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.5 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(c), S5(1)(d), HO11 - **Development plan policies:** Maidstone Local Plan Review 2024 LPRSP9, LPRSP15, LPRQD4, LPRHOU11 - **Main issues:** replacement building disproportionate, PDL garden land, isolated homes, countryside character - **Tags:** overturned-officer-rec, replacement-dwelling, s5-1-c, disproportionate-extension, isolated-home, countryside-character, small-scheme ## Summary A lawful residential mobile home in open countryside, to be replaced by a self-build house more than five times its footprint. Officers recommended approval. Their urgent update re-framed the case under S5(1)(c), replacement of a building "not disproportionately larger", and S5(1)(d), with garden land counted as PDL. Members refused 12-1. They found the replacement disproportionate and suburbanising, and an isolated dwelling with no essential need. ## Issues and findings - **Officers (urgent update).** "Whilst the replacement building footprint and volume is larger than the existing mobile, the overall height of the mobile (2.34 metres) and the roof eaves of the replacement dwelling (2.33 metres) are comparable. Residential garden land such as that on the application site is in the definition of 'previously developed land'" (Update, p.116). The benefits were "not 'substantially outweighed'". - **Members' reasons.** "by way of its scale, massing, height and disproportionate enlargement would result in a domesticating, suburbanising addition … does not accord with … NPPF policy S5" (RfR 1). "The development would represent an isolated dwelling within the countryside. There is no essential need for a dwelling in this location, nor would the redevelopment of the building enhance the immediate setting" (RfR 2, citing S5 and "HR11", evidently HO11) (Minutes 78). ## What made the difference S5(1)(c) caps a replacement at "not disproportionately larger", measured against the building as it stood on the day the Framework was published (fn 25). Members judged a jump from 27 to 151 sqm disproportionate however the eaves compare. Officers' PDL route (garden land) would have bypassed the proportionality cap entirely. Members did not accept it and treated the house as a new isolated home under HO11. ## Transferable points - Members read S5(1)(c)'s "not disproportionately larger" by footprint and volume, not eaves height (RfR 1). - Officers argued that residential garden land is PDL, so S5(1)(d) can support a larger replacement dwelling (Update). This route is contested and untested. - Footnote 25: the existing building is assessed as it stood when the Framework was published. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(c): fail.** officers — replacement of lawful permanent dwelling, eaves height comparable; members — 'disproportionate enlargement' (27 sqm to 151 sqm footprint) - **S5(1)(d): fail.** officers — residential garden land is PDL under Annex B (2026); members did not accept - **HO11: fail.** members — isolated dwelling, no essential need, no enhancement of setting (minutes cite 'HR11', evidently HO11) ## Key facts - Existing lawful mobile home (LDC 25/501264/LDCEX), max height 2.34 m, footprint 27 sqm - Proposed dwelling footprint 151 sqm, ridge 5.42 m, c.650 m3 - 1.6 km from Boughton Monchelsea (smaller village), 2.2 km from Maidstone urban edge - Supply 4.5 years - Officer urgent update re-ran the report under S5 (replacement and PDL limbs) ## Sources - https://meetings.maidstone.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=112&MId=5854 - https://meetings.maidstone.gov.uk/documents/s106016/26501191FULL%20Committee%20Report.pdf - https://meetings.maidstone.gov.uk/documents/s106070/ - https://meetings.maidstone.gov.uk/documents/g5854/Printed%20minutes%2020th-Aug-2026%2018.00%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/maidstone-26-501191-FULL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land west of Edmond Street, Newman Drive and Benson Close, Burnham-on-Crouch - **Decision:** approved, 2 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: Maldon District Planning Committee - **Authority:** Maldon (East of England) - **Application reference:** 26/00018/FULM - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Hybrid — full permission for 170 dwellings, outline for up to 190 dwellings (40% affordable), retention of employment land, open space, bridleway - **Homes:** 360 - **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.1 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j)(i), S3, TR3, HO7 - **Development plan policies:** Maldon LDP 2017 S2, S6 (Burnham-on-Crouch strategic allocations), E1, H1 - **Main issues:** S5(1)(j), landscape, highways phasing - **Tags:** s5-1-j, substantially-outweighed, open-countryside, housing-shortfall, large-scheme, allocation-extension ## Summary Up to 360 homes as a westward extension of an allocated Burnham-on-Crouch strategic site that is under construction. Approved under S5(1)(j): 4.1-year supply, physically well related, infrastructure secured. Officers: "The identified adverse effects do not substantially outweigh the significant housing and affordable-housing benefits" (Report ¶3.1.17). ## Issues and findings - **S5(1)(j).** "The proposal relates directly to the existing strategic allocation and addresses an evidenced housing-supply shortfall in a location physically well related to Burnham-on-Crouch and capable of being supported by the necessary infrastructure" (¶3.1.11). - **Location.** The station is about 1.6 km away, a 20-minute walk (¶5.1.16). Some amenity routes are "towards the upper end of a convenient walking journey" (¶5.1.15). - **Deliverability** was treated as part of the benefit: Phase 1 from April 2027 "ensuring that this housing would be delivered within the 5-Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS) period" (¶3.1.12). ## Transferable points - An extension of an allocation under construction is a natural S5(1)(j) "well-related" case (¶3.1.11). - Delivery within the five-year period was used to add weight to the housing benefit (¶3.1.12). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j)(i): pass.** adjoins and is accessed through allocated Burnham-on-Crouch West scheme under construction; 4.1-year supply; infrastructure via S106/S278 - **TR3: pass.** Burnham station c.1.6 km (20 min walk); several amenities 'towards the upper end of a convenient walking journey'; railway crossing safety contribution - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** homes deliverable within five-year period (Phase 1 from April 2027); 40% affordable vs 30% policy ## Key facts - Extension of an allocated strategic site under construction by the same developer - Independent landscape consultant found harm acceptable because the site is enclosed to north and west - Highway works phased; members required Kitts Hill/B1012 works before first occupation ## Sources - https://democracy.maldon.gov.uk/documents/s42654/26-00018-FULM%20West%20of%20Burnham.pdf - https://democracy.maldon.gov.uk/documents/g4710/Printed%20minutes%2002nd-Sep-2026%2019.30%20District%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/maldon-26-00018-FULM.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land rear of 6-108 Mell Road, Tollesbury - **Decision:** approved, 2 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: Maldon District Planning Committee (minded-to decision for non-determination appeal; tied vote, chair's casting vote) - **Authority:** Maldon (East of England) - **Application reference:** 26/00066/OUTM - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Outline, up to 149 dwellings (40% affordable), 5.19 ha open space incl. 3 ha SANG, access from Mell Road - **Homes:** 149 - **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.1 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S3(2), S4, S5(1)(j)(i), TR3, HE6 - **Development plan policies:** Maldon LDP 2017 S1, S2, S8, D2, H1 - **Main issues:** S5(1)(j), part-inside/part-outside settlement S3(2), sustainable location of larger village, cumulative impact - **Tags:** s5-1-j, substantially-outweighed, open-countryside, housing-shortfall, large-scheme, non-determination, connectivity-tool, split-vote, s3-2-split-site, village-bus-no-evenings ## Summary A Gladman outline scheme for 149 homes (40% affordable) on fields behind Mell Road, Tollesbury, a "larger village" outside the Green Belt. The Council has a supply of about 4.1 years. Officers treated it as S5(1)(j) development: evidenced unmet need, physically well related to the village, and infrastructure capacity shown. On the "substantially outweighed" balance they recommended the committee say it would have approved. The vote tied and the chair's casting vote carried approval. The decision will be the Council's position at the non-determination appeal. ## Issues and findings - **S3(2) split site.** Only the access points lie inside the settlement boundary. "policies S4 and S5 should be applied to the relevant parts which are inside or outside of the settlement boundary" (Report ¶5.2.7–5.2.8). - **S5(1)(j): PASS.** "The Site is well-related to Tollesbury, as an edge of village development with existing development on two sides of the site … The Site would not have any break in between the proposed development and Tollesbury" (¶5.2.11). - **TR3: PASS, qualified.** Buses to Colchester, Witham and Maldon "generally run every 30 minutes as a total service … no services on Sundays … it lacks bus services in the evening" (¶5.2.19). Officers still found a sustainable location "however, acknowledge that there would be an element of reliance on private motor vehicle trips which cannot be fully addressed" (¶5.2.21). New footway connections were secured (¶5.2.16). - **Connectivity Tool.** Members questioned the site's score. "Members were advised that the sustainable location was largely established through appeals" (Minutes 214). ## Planning balance S5(1). For: 149 homes including 40% affordable (substantial); open space and SANG, construction, spend, BNG, energy (moderate); pedestrian links (limited). Against: spatial strategy conflict (limited, because policies are out of date); landscape and visual (moderate); agricultural land (limited); heritage (limited). "the benefits of the application would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (¶5.16.16). ## What made the difference Maldon's modest shortfall (4.1 years, disputed downwards) was enough to engage S5(1)(j). "Well-related" was read as physical adjacency without a gap. The TR3 test was met by village-level services and a daytime-only bus service. Members were split down the middle, and the Connectivity Tool question went unanswered on the numbers. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(j) is engaged by any supply shortfall, here 4.1 years, not only an acute one (¶5.2.5, ¶5.2.10). - "Physically well-related" was treated as adjoining existing development on two sides with "no break" (¶5.2.11). - A village with daytime-only buses (none in the evenings or on Sundays) and walkable village services was accepted under TR3, with car reliance acknowledged (¶5.2.19–5.2.21). - S3(2): where the access lies inside the settlement, S4 applies to that part and S5 to the rest (¶5.2.7). ## Policy findings - **S3(2): pass.** site part inside (access points) and part outside settlement boundary; S4 applied to access, S5 to the rest - **S5(1)(j)(i): pass.** 4.1-year supply (appellant says 3.6); edge of 'larger village', development on two sides, no gap; infrastructure can accommodate with contributions - **TR3: pass.** short walk to primary school, bus stops, shop, pharmacy, pub; buses roughly every 30 min combined 07:00-19:30 weekdays, none evenings/Sundays; officers accept 'an element of reliance on private motor vehicle trips'; £440k bus contribution - **HE6: harm (limited weight).** low less-than-substantial harm to Grade II Monks' House and Bohuns Hall; limited harm to Protected Lane (NDHA) - **N2: harm (limited weight).** loss of c.9.4 ha Grade 3 land - **S5(1): pass.** housing incl. 40% affordable substantial weight; landscape harm moderate; spatial-strategy conflict limited; not substantially outweighed ## Key facts - Earlier outline for 90 dwellings on same site refused 2019 - Non-determination appeal lodged 6 July 2026 while consultation still running - Supply 4.1 years (Council) / 3.6 (appellant at Spratts Farm appeal 6005664) - Members asked about the Connectivity Tool score; officers said sustainability of Tollesbury "largely established through appeals" - Equality of votes; chair's casting vote to approve ## Sources - https://democracy.maldon.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=277&MId=4710 - https://democracy.maldon.gov.uk/documents/s42646/2600066OUTM%20Land%20Rear%20Of%206%20To%20108%20Mell%20Road%20Tollesbury.pdf - https://democracy.maldon.gov.uk/documents/g4710/Printed%20minutes%2002nd-Sep-2026%2019.30%20District%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/maldon-26-00066-OUTM.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Grove Farm, Pendock (solar microgrid) - **Decision:** approved, 26 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: Malvern Hills Southern Area Planning Committee (6-5) - **Authority:** Malvern Hills (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** M/25/01044/FUL - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Change of use of 3.7 ha of agricultural land to a solar microgrid array with battery storage - **Site context:** open-countryside, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** CC2(2), N4, HE4(3), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR01, SWDPR03, SWDPR09, SWDPR28, SWDPR31, SWDPR33, SWDPR34, SWDPR37 - **Main issues:** setting of the National Landscape, landscape character, setting of a listed building, renewable energy benefit - **Tags:** renewable-energy, national-landscape, heritage-less-than-substantial, split-vote, update-sheet-code-mapping, officer-rec-followed ## Summary A 3.7 ha solar microgrid with battery storage on farmland beside the M50 near Pendock, in the setting of the Malvern Hills National Landscape and near the Grade II listed Longhouse. The report was written under the December 2024 Framework. Nine days after the new Framework was published, a same-day update sheet re-mapped every paragraph to its 2026 code and concluded that nothing changed. The committee approved 6-5 after a motion to refuse failed 5-6. ## Issues and findings - **National Landscape setting, N4: PASS.** Update sheet: "The revised NPPF National decision-making policies N4 4 states: Development proposals within the setting of Protected Landscapes should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts … The assessment within the Committee Report therefore remains unchanged" (Update, item 6, ¶7.2.2). The report found the impact would be "localised rather than having any more substantial effect on the setting of the National Landscape" (Report ¶7.12.2). - **Heritage, HE4/HE6: less than substantial harm.** "while there would be less than substantial harm, this would be at a slightly higher level for individual properties than is concluded within the applicant's heritage statement" (Report ¶7.4.9). "Vegetation cannot be relied upon through the seasons or across the course of time to mitigate views / changes to setting" (¶7.4.9). The update quotes HE4(3): "Any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" and says this "does not alter the assessment" (Update ¶7.4.4). - **Climate, CC2(2).** "the revised NPPF does refer to 'substantial weight should be given', on which the previous NPPF was otherwise silent. Notwithstanding this change … it is evident that substantial weight is afforded the renewable energy proposal" (Update ¶7.9). ## Planning balance The HE6(4) heritage balance and the overall balance were run together. On the benefit side: renewable generation, carrying significant (report) and then substantial (update) weight; farm diversification; biodiversity; and limited socio-economic weight. On the harm side: less than substantial harm to Longhouse's setting and localised landscape change. The report says the array "would provide supported renewable energy and be in place for a temporary period and be fully reversible" (¶7.12.12). ## What made the difference Officers raised the energy weight from "significant" to "substantial" under CC2(2). That, together with the temporary and reversible nature of the array, carried a narrow committee majority. The ward member's grounds (landscape officer objection, 47 residents) came within one vote of a refusal. A different landscape officer view in the report, or one vote, would have changed the result. ## Transferable points - Early committee practice was to add a "code-mapping" update sheet to reports drafted under the 2024 Framework rather than re-write them. Each 2024 paragraph was given a 2026 code and the officer declared the assessment "unchanged" (Update, items 6 to 8). - CC2(2) is read as lifting renewable energy benefits to **substantial** weight (Update ¶7.9). - Officers accepted that vegetation screening "cannot be relied upon through the seasons or across the course of time" when judging harm to a listed building's setting (¶7.4.9). This is useful in any setting argument. ## Policy findings - **N4: pass.** within the setting of the Malvern Hills National Landscape; the impact is judged "localised"; the update sheet maps old ¶189 to "N4 4" (setting) - **HE6(4): harm.** less than substantial harm to the setting of Grade II Longhouse (a cruck barn), put by officers "at a slightly higher level" than the applicant's heritage statement; outweighed by renewable energy benefits - **CC2(2): benefit (substantial weight).** the update sheet says the new CC2 "substantial weight" wording replaced the old Framework's silence, but "substantial weight is afforded the renewable energy proposal" in the balance anyway - **SWDPR 09 / SWDPR 33: conflict.** "it might be argued that the scheme would be contrary to the aims of" the heritage policies (Report ¶7.4.10) ## Key facts - 3.7 ha on the north side of the M50, up to 2,600 MWh a year, plus a battery container - Submitted alongside the applicant's pending outline for 31 dwellings (M/23/01712/OUT) that the array was originally described as serving - Referred by the ward member after 47 resident objections, a parish council objection and a Council landscape officer objection - The report was drafted under the December 2024 Framework; a same-day update sheet mapped each paragraph to a 2026 code and left the recommendation "unchanged" - A motion to refuse against officer advice failed 5-6; approval was then carried 6-5 ## Sources - https://moderngov.malvernhills.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=414&MId=3478&Ver=4 - https://moderngov.malvernhills.gov.uk/documents/s40167/Committee%20Report_M2501044FUL.pdf - https://moderngov.malvernhills.gov.uk/documents/b9114/Update%20Reports%2026th-Aug-2026%2018.00%20Southern%20Area%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=9 - https://moderngov.malvernhills.gov.uk/documents/g3478/Printed%20minutes%2026th-Aug-2026%2018.00%20Southern%20Area%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/malvern-M-25-01044-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Cales Farm, Broadlands Drive, Malvern (200 dwellings, reserved matters) - **Decision:** approved, 26 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: Malvern Hills Southern Area Planning Committee (6-5) - **Authority:** Malvern Hills (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** M/25/01235/RM - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Reserved matters (access, appearance, landscaping, layout, scale) for up to 200 dwellings under outline M/23/01777/OUT - **Homes:** 200 - **Site context:** settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** N4(4), DP3, TR6(4) - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR28, SWDPR31, SWDPR34 - **Main issues:** National Landscape setting, layout and landscape mitigation - **Tags:** national-landscape, reserved-matters, update-sheet-code-mapping, drafting-slip, split-vote, officer-rec-followed ## Summary Reserved matters for 200 Barratt homes at Cales Farm on the edge of Malvern, in views from the Malvern Hills National Landscape. The committee approved 6-5, in line with officers. The case is recorded mainly for how the switch to the new Framework was handled: a one-page update sheet converting paragraph numbers, which cited the wrong code for the Protected Landscape setting test. ## Issues and findings - **Protected Landscape setting.** Update sheet: "References to The National Landscape in the NPPF are now encapsulated within… Policy N5 Para 4 which states: '4. Development proposals within the setting of Protected Landscapes should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the Protected Landscape.'" (Update, item 7, ¶7.2.31 & 7.2.33). The quoted text is **N4(4)**. N5 is "Maintaining the character of the coast". The same evening's update for the Pendock solar item cited it correctly as N4 4. - **Framework change.** "Although the relevant references in the NPPF have been updated there are no significant changes in the NPPF policies relevant to consideration of this application for Reserved Matters which would lead your officers to change their recommendation" (Update, item 7). ## Planning balance This was a reserved-matters balance. Layout, landscape mitigation and phasing were set against residual landscape impact seen from the Hills, with the principle already fixed by the outline. ## What made the difference The outline permission settled the principle. The narrow 6-5 vote shows members' unease about views from the Hills, but a reserved-matters refusal would have needed a detailed-design reason. ## Transferable points - Check the code in an officer's update sheet against the Framework text. Here the setting test was attributed to N5(4) when it is N4(4). - "No significant changes" is the standard officer line for reserved matters decided in the first weeks after publication. ## Policy findings - **N4(4): pass.** in the setting of the Malvern Hills National Landscape (about 290 m to the west), with elevated views from the Hills; the update sheet mis-cites the setting policy as "Policy N5 Para 4" (N5 is the coast policy) - **DP3: pass.** update sheet maps old ¶¶131/135 to DP3 with no change to the conclusion - **TR6(4): pass.** old ¶116 mapped to TR6(4); no severe impact ## Key facts - Barratt West Midlands reserved matters for up to 200 homes; outline already granted - The site is visible in elevated views from the Malvern Hills National Landscape about 290 m away; ward member referral - The report was drafted pre-August; the update sheet converted paragraph references and said there were "no significant changes in the NPPF policies relevant to consideration of this application for Reserved Matters" - Approved 6-5 in line with the officer recommendation ## Sources - https://moderngov.malvernhills.gov.uk/documents/s40169/Committee%20Report_M2501235RM.pdf - https://moderngov.malvernhills.gov.uk/documents/b9114/Update%20Reports%2026th-Aug-2026%2018.00%20Southern%20Area%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=9 - https://moderngov.malvernhills.gov.uk/documents/g3478/Printed%20minutes%2026th-Aug-2026%2018.00%20Southern%20Area%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/malvern-M-25-01235-RM.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at OS 7833 5108, Leigh Sinton (community centre and pitches) - **Decision:** approved, 2 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: Malvern Hills Northern Area Planning Committee (11-0) - **Authority:** Malvern Hills (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** M/26/00885/FUL - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Community centre, 65-space car park, three grass football pitches, MUGA, outdoor gym and attenuation pond on 5.5 ha - **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(a) - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR01, SWDPR03, SWDPR11, SWDPR47, SWDPR48, Leigh and Bransford NDP LB/H/6 - **Main issues:** principle outside development boundary, recreation need, highways - **Tags:** community-facility, outdoor-recreation-facilities, old-wording-slip, council-own-application, officer-rec-followed ## Summary Malvern Hills DC's own scheme for a community centre and sports ground on 5.5 ha outside the Leigh Sinton development boundary. The land came to the Council through the s106 for the neighbouring housing allocation. It was approved 11-0. The report headlines the August 2026 Framework but reasons entirely through 2024 paragraph numbers and never applies S5, although outdoor sport and recreation is an S5(1)(a) category. ## Issues and findings - **Principle.** "The site lies outside of the development boundary for Leigh Sinton and in the open countryside wherein new development is strictly controlled" (Report ¶7.1.1). Support comes from SWDPR11 and NDP LB/H/6, which "expressly requires: 'approximately 5.5 hectares of sports and recreation land is provided.' The current application represents the delivery of this identified policy requirement" (¶7.1.7). "officers are satisfied that the principle of this development is supported by the SWDPR and National Planning Policy Framework" (¶7.1.8). - **Framework references.** "The NPPF at paragraphs 103 and 104 states that…" (¶7.1.6). Highways are assessed against "NPPF paragraphs 115" and archaeology against "NPPF 218". All of these are 2024 numbers with no 2026 equivalents given. ## Planning balance This was a simple plan-led approval with the principle supported by the NDP allocation. No S5 "substantially outweighed" balance was run. ## What made the difference The NDP made the sports land a specific requirement of the housing allocation. Whether S5 was applied made no difference to the result. ## Transferable points - Reports decided in the first weeks after publication can cite the "NPPF Aug 2026" in their policy lists while quoting 2024 paragraphs in the body. Where the Framework reasoning matters, treat this as an error of approach rather than a slip. - Community sport and recreation outside a boundary fits S5(1)(a) ("outdoor sport and recreation"), so the S5(1) test is approval unless substantially outweighed. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(a): not-engaged.** the site is outside the Leigh Sinton development boundary, but the report never applies S5. Principle rests on SWDPR11 and on NDP LB/H/6, which requires about 5.5 ha of sports land alongside the adjoining housing allocation. Outdoor sport and recreation would fall within S5(1)(a). - **HC7: pass.** assessed under "NPPF paragraphs 103 and 104" (the 2024 numbering) rather than HC1/HC4/HC7 ## Key facts - The land was transferred to Malvern Hills DC under the s106 for the adjoining 52-dwelling allocation; the Council is the applicant - The report lists "National Planning Policy Framework Aug 2026" but its assessment cites ¶¶103, 104, 115 and 218 of the December 2024 Framework - The NDP allocation policy requires "approximately 5.5 hectares of sports and recreation land" - Approved unanimously with two extra conditions, on boundary treatment and retention of trees and hedges ## Sources - https://moderngov.malvernhills.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=413&MId=3451&Ver=4 - https://moderngov.malvernhills.gov.uk/documents/s40200/Planning%20Report%20-%20M2600885FUL.pdf - https://moderngov.malvernhills.gov.uk/documents/g3451/Printed%20minutes%2002nd-Sep-2026%2018.00%20Northern%20Area%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/malvern-M-26-00885-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Greenhill Farm, Greenhill Lane, Hallow (former business buildings to self-build dwelling) - **Decision:** refused, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Joshua Evans (case officer); authorised Simon Jones - **Authority:** Malvern Hills (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** M/26/01131/FUL - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Demolition of existing office and storage buildings, removal of external storage and construction of one self-build dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(d), TR3(1), TR4(1)(a) - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR02, SWDPR03, SWDPR16, SWDPR28, SWDPR34, SWDPR35, Hallow NDP HAL3 - **Main issues:** PDL outside settlement, sustainable location, landscape character - **Tags:** pdl-outside-settlement, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, self-build, small-scheme, old-wording-slip, fallback ## Summary One self-build dwelling to replace former business buildings, part of which have lawful residential use, 500 m outside Hallow. The officer accepted the site is likely PDL, bringing it within S5(1)(d), and noted a Class MA fallback. The application was still refused. The officer ran an ordinary development-plan balance in which substantial weight went to an unsustainable location (a narrow, unlit sunken lane) and to landscape harm, rather than asking whether the benefits were "substantially outweighed". ## Issues and findings - **PDL, S5(1)(d).** "Policy S5 states that only certain forms of development should be approved outside settlements, including the redevelopment of previously developed land … the evidence indicates that the relevant building has not been solely occupied as an agricultural building and has previously accommodated uses falling within Class B and Class E … there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the site and building should be assessed having regard to the national policy provisions relating to previously developed land" (Report, Principle). - **Location, TR3: FAIL.** "the approximately 500-metre route between the application site and Hallow is served by an unlit and unpaved section of the local highway network … a narrow, sunken rural lane … results in an environment which is primarily suited to vehicular use rather than active travel" (Sustainability). "Whilst some local facilities may fall within a theoretical walking or cycling distance when measured in purely numerical terms, this does not necessarily mean that they are reasonably accessible by sustainable modes in practice" (Sustainability). - **Landscape: FAIL.** "The development would extend the domestic character of Hallow into the surrounding countryside, result in a suburbanising influence" (Landscape). ## Planning balance "the benefits associated with the reuse of previously developed land, the existing lawful residential use and potential fallback position attract material weight … However … the identified harm arising from the unsustainable location of the site and, in particular, the adverse impact upon landscape character … is considered to carry substantial weight. On balance, these adverse impacts would outweigh the benefits" (Conclusion). ## What made the difference The quality of the walking route, not its length. Facilities at 0.5 to 0.8 km would normally count as walkable. The sunken, unlit lane with no footway made them "theoretical". Note that S5(1) sets a presumption to approve an (d) proposal "unless … substantially outweighed". The report's simple "outweigh" balance applies a lower threshold and could be challenged on appeal. ## Transferable points - Distance is not enough. A route's lighting, footway, width and enclosure decide whether walking is "realistic". The officer's wording ("theoretical walking or cycling distance … not … reasonably accessible by sustainable modes in practice") is directly reusable. - A likely inconsistency: once a category in S5(1) is met, the test is "substantially outweighed". This report used plain "outweigh". - Old-wording slip: "Para 11d … is not engaged … paragraph 14 of the NPPF is not engaged" (Principle). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(d): pass.** probably PDL. The building's lawful uses have been Class B/E, and part has lawful residential use (CLEUD), so it is not solely agricultural; a Class MA fallback is noted. The officer does not then apply the S5(1) "substantially outweighed" test. - **TR3(1): fail (substantial weight).** about 500 m to Hallow along an unlit, unpaved, narrow sunken lane with no passing places; walking and cycling are theoretical, not realistic - **SWDPR28 / SWDPR34 / HAL3: conflict (substantial weight).** extends domestic character into the countryside and erodes the separation between settlement and landscape ## Key facts - Shop 0.5 km, primary school 0.6 km, bus stop 0.8 km (services to Worcester), all along a narrow sunken lane with no footway or lighting - Certificate of lawfulness for part residential use; historic B and E uses; potential Class MA fallback - The report says "Para 11d … is not engaged" and "paragraph 14 of the NPPF is not engaged", which is 2024 wording, while applying the 2026 S5 ## Sources - https://plan.malvernhills.gov.uk/Planning/Display/M/26/01131/FUL - https://plan.malvernhills.gov.uk/Document/Download?module=PLA&recordNumber=93858&planId=1358847&imageId=44&isPlan=False&fileName=delegated%20report_M2601131FUL.pdf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/malvern-M-26-01131-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at OS 8339 4949, Upton Road, Callow End (5-9 dwellings PIP) - **Decision:** refused, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Malvern Hills DC case officer (delegated) - **Authority:** Malvern Hills (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** M/26/01162/PIP - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Permission in principle for 5 to 9 dwellings on a 0.78 ha roadside field - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(e), S5(4), AnnexB:settlement - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR03, SWDPR06, SWDPR16, SWDPR28, SWDPR34, Powick NP 2025-2041 (consultation draft) - **Main issues:** S5 infill, settlement edge, character, spatial strategy - **Tags:** PIP, small-scheme, infill-rejected, s5-4-exceptional, sustainable-location-pass ## Summary PIP for up to nine homes on a field across Upton Road from the Callow End development boundary. The officer accepted that the location is accessible (Category 1 village) but held that the site is not limited infilling within a group of houses under S5(1)(e). It "would extend the limits of the village", so no S5 category was met. The application was refused under delegated powers. ## Issues and findings - **S5(1)(e): FAIL.** "the different locations are defined at this point by the main road where built form predominates on the eastern side of the road, while to the west it is the rural aspects of the surrounding countryside that clearly prevail … the proposal does represent a standalone extension of residential built form into the open countryside … The proposal would not amount to 'rounding off' the settlement but would extend the limits of the village … Policy S5:1(e) of the Framework does not support the proposal" (Report, Location). - **Accessibility: PASS.** "The location in terms of its sustainability is essentially well place for most key services and facilities provided in Callow End … future residents would arguably have a 'choice' and as such SWDPR 06 would be addressed" (Location). ## Planning balance Plan-led: conflict with SWDPR03 and SWDPR34, with no S5 category to set against it. Accessibility did not overcome the spatial-strategy conflict. ## What made the difference The road as a settlement edge. Built form on one side and open countryside on the other meant the site read as countryside, however close it was to the boundary. ## Transferable points - A road can mark the settlement edge for S5 purposes. Land on the countryside side is not infill even when it directly faces the village. - Good accessibility (TR3) does not create an S5 category. See also wychavon-W-26-01322-OUT. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(e): fail.** the site is across the road from the village boundary; countryside prevails on its side of Upton Road; "a standalone extension of residential built form into the open countryside", not infill and not "rounding off" - **TR3: pass.** Callow End is a Category 1 village with services and public transport within walking and cycling distance; residents "would arguably have a 'choice'" - **SWDPR03 / SWDPR34: conflict.** open countryside; roadside hedgerow and verdant frontage; spatial strategy conflict ## Key facts - The site is on the west side of Upton Road; the development boundary follows the east side of the road - An earlier 9-dwelling outline on the site was refused in 2016 (15/01392/OUT) - The applicant submitted a review challenging the South Worcestershire five-year supply; objectors pointed to the Council's five-year supply; the report excerpt read does not set out a supply figure - A Grade II listed building (Glebe Cottage) is to the north ## Sources - https://plan.malvernhills.gov.uk/Planning/Display/M/26/01162/PIP - https://plan.malvernhills.gov.uk/Document/Download?module=PLA&recordNumber=93889&planId=1358727&imageId=88&isPlan=False&fileName=delegated%20report_M2601162PIP.pdf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/malvern-M-26-01162-PIP.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to 10 Hambridge Way, Pirton - **Decision:** approved, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: North Hertfordshire Planning Control Committee (case officer Ben Glover) - **Authority:** North Hertfordshire (East of England) - **Application reference:** 25/02064/OP - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Outline, up to 50 dwellings (20 affordable, 40%), access only - **Homes:** 50 - **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.6 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j)(i), S5(2), HO7, TR6 - **Development plan policies:** North Herts Local Plan 2011-2031 SP2, SP5, CGB1 (Rural Area beyond Green Belt), HS2, Pirton Neighbourhood Plan PNP1 - **Main issues:** S5(1)(j), neighbourhood plan conflict, noise/agent of change - **Tags:** s5-1-j, substantially-outweighed, neighbourhood-plan-conflict, open-countryside, housing-shortfall, village-edge ## Summary 50 homes (40% affordable) on the edge of Pirton, a Category A village in North Hertfordshire's Rural Area beyond the Green Belt. The scheme conflicts with local plan and neighbourhood plan boundary policies. The report, written under the 2024 tilted balance, was re-run in a written update under S5(1)(j). With a 2.6-year supply and a site physically enclosed on three sides by the village, officers found the benefits "not substantially outweighed". The committee approved after debating noise from the neighbouring sports club. ## Issues and findings - **S5(1)(j): PASS.** "the site is considered to be physically well-related to the existing settlement. The northern and western boundaries are shared with existing residential development. The southern boundary is shared with the Pirton Recreation Ground and the site is contained to the east by a mature hedgerow" (Update). - **S5(2): not engaged.** "No such policy is engaged in this case. There would be no unacceptable impact on highway safety for the purposes of Policy TR6, the proposal would also not conflict with flood risk, heritage or biodiversity policies" (Update). - **Neighbourhood plan.** The scheme conflicts with PNP1: within the boundary only, and no more than 30 houses (Report ¶4.3.16–4.3.17). Neither the report nor the update discusses S6. - **Concordance table.** The update maps the 2024 paragraphs to 2026 policies (paragraph 11 → S3/S5/S6; paragraph 61 → HO7; paragraphs 110/115/116 → TR6). ## Planning balance S5(1). HO7 substantial weight to housing and affordable housing. Landscape, amenity and plan conflict weighed against. "it is not considered that the benefits are substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (Update). ## What made the difference Enclosure on three sides by the village, and a supply well below five years. Members looked for a noise reason from the adjacent sports club but were advised that any alternative recommendation "must be supported by a material planning reason" (Minutes). ## Transferable points - The officer update equates the 2024 highways paragraphs 110/115/116 with TR6 only (Update table). That omits TR3, the location test, and is worth challenging where location is in issue. - S5(2) was treated as a checklist of national "should be refused" policies. None was engaged, so the S5 presumption applied (Update). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j)(i): pass.** 2.6-year supply; north and west boundaries shared with housing, recreation ground to south, hedgerow east; no infrastructure objections - **S5(2): not-engaged.** no national 'should be refused' policy engaged (TR6, flood, heritage, biodiversity) - **Pirton NP PNP1: conflict.** outside village boundary and over the 30-dwelling cap; S6 not discussed - **N4: neutral.** site c.400 m from Chilterns National Landscape; LVIA - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 30 market + 20 affordable homes ## Key facts - Supply 2.6 years - Report written under Dec 2024 NPPF; written update re-ran it under S5 with a 2024→2026 concordance table - Members' main debate was noise from the adjacent sports club and events; noise was not accepted as a refusal reason - Category A village within the Rural Area beyond the Green Belt ## Sources - https://democracy.north-herts.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=151&MId=3987 - https://democracy.north-herts.gov.uk/documents/s31876/Report.pdf - https://democracy.north-herts.gov.uk/documents/s32012/ - https://democracy.north-herts.gov.uk/documents/g3987/Printed%20minutes%2003rd-Sep-2026%2019.00%20Planning%20Control%20Committee.pdf?T=1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/northherts-25-02064-OP.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Site 64c001, Golf Drive, Nuneaton (junction trigger variation) - **Decision:** refused, 1 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: NBBC Planning Applications Committee (Cllr K Wilson, Chair) - **Authority:** Nuneaton and Bedworth (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 041303 - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Variation of condition 33 of a 621-dwelling permission to move the junction signalisation trigger from the 150th to the 225th occupation - **Homes:** 621 - **Site context:** settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Plan Review 2021-2039 (adopted Dec 2025) DS1, DS2, DS3, DS4, BE3 - **Main issues:** highway capacity before mitigation, condition trigger - **Tags:** overturned-officer-rec, highways-severe, condition-variation, member-refusal, large-scheme, old-wording-slip ## Summary This was an application to vary a condition on a 621-home greenfield permission at Golf Drive, Nuneaton, so that 225 homes, not 150, could be occupied before the Lutterworth Road / Golf Drive junction was signalised. Officers relied on the County Highway Authority's acceptance of 225 and on TR6(4) to recommend approval. The committee refused against that recommendation, finding the extra 75 occupations "likely to cause a severe adverse impact on the highway network". Members made this TR6(4) finding against the technical advice, after asking for and hearing a presentation from County Highways at the meeting. ## Issues and findings - **Highway capacity, TR6(4): officers PASS, members FAIL.** Officers quoted TR6(4) in full and concluded: "Based on the response from the Highway Authority, the occupation of 225 dwellings would not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety and therefore, as per Policy TR6 Paragraph 4, the development should not be prevented or refused on highways grounds" (Report ¶1.8). The modelling showed 300 occupations would cause "an unacceptable increase in journey times and queue lengths, particularly along Lutterworth Road" (¶1.6), and that "pedestrian activity will increase, yet necessary pedestrian safety improvements at the junction will remain absent" (¶1.6). - **Committee decision:** "this application be refused due to the harm created by the occupation of 75 additional houses prior to the completion of the highway junction improvements which is likely to cause a severe adverse impact on the highway network" (Minutes, Schedule item 1). ## Planning balance There was no wider balance. The principle was fixed by the 2022 permission, and the only question was the TR6(4) "severe" threshold. Officers set the Highway Authority's no-objection against residents' objections, and members preferred their own reading of the cumulative position. ## What made the difference The Highway Authority's own evidence conceded that the network could not cope at 300 occupations without the junction and that pedestrian safety measures would be missing until it was built. Members took that as a basis for finding that an interim 225 would also be "severe". The County had been absent at the first hearing, which led to the deferral and to a letter of complaint from the Chair to the County portfolio holder, and that history coloured the debate. On appeal the Council would have to show a severe impact from 75 homes against a statutory consultee's no-objection. The minutes do not record any alternative technical evidence. ## Transferable points - Officers treat TR6(4) as a bar to refusal where the Highway Authority does not object ("the development should not be prevented or refused on highways grounds", ¶1.8). - The Highway Authority's own finding that a higher trigger (300) would be unacceptable can be used to argue that the network is already close to its limit before mitigation arrives. - Officers' "Reasons for approval" still cited "the National Planning Policy Framework (2024)" although the report body applied the 2026 Framework: an old-wording slip on the day's papers. ## Policy findings - **TR6(4): fail.** members found that occupying 75 more homes before the Golf Drive/B4112/B4114 junction works were built "is likely to cause a severe adverse impact on the highway network"; officers and the County Highway Authority had found no severe impact ## Key facts - Hybrid permission 037112 (2022) for 621 homes; condition 33 required the junction to be signalised before the 150th occupation - The application first sought a 300th-occupation trigger; County modelling showed 300 would be unacceptable (queues and journey times on Lutterworth Road), so it was cut to 225 - The Highway Authority accepted 225 as a "moderate increase" with no significant adverse impact; officers recommended approval - 87 legal completions by 12 Aug 2026; 150 occupations were expected by early 2027 while the s278 works were still being processed - Deferred on 21 Jul 2026 so a County Highways officer could attend and present the modelling; a WCC highways presentation was given on 1 Sep - Refused against the officer recommendation for one reason, severe adverse impact on the highway network ## Sources - https://www.nuneatonandbedworth.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/816/planning-applications-committee - https://www.nuneatonandbedworth.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/1750/Download%2520the%2520Agenda%252C%2520reports%2520and%2520appendices - https://www.nuneatonandbedworth.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/1762/Download%2520the%2520Minutes --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/nuneaton-041303.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Kenyons Lane / Millbank Lane, Lydiate (Maghull edge) - **Decision:** approved, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: Sefton Planning Committee (case officer Michael Coburn) - **Authority:** Sefton (North West) - **Application reference:** DC/2026/00141 - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Three two-storey detached dwellings (one 3-bed, two 4-bed) with parking and gardens - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.34 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g), TR3 - **Development plan policies:** Sefton Local Plan 2017 MN7, EQ2, NH2, Maghull Neighbourhood Plan - **Main issues:** grey belt, sustainable location, previous appeal dismissal - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-pass, not-inappropriate, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, previous-appeal-superseded, open-market, settlement-edge ## Summary Three open-market houses on a grassland corner plot in the Green Belt, on the suburban edge of Maghull. An appeal for four houses on the same land was dismissed as inappropriate development after a 2018 refusal. This time officers treated the land as grey belt under GB7(1)(g): it adjoins and is contained by the built-up area, the council has a 3.34-year supply, and there are bus stops and a primary school within walking distance. The committee approved it without dissent recorded in the minutes. ## Issues and findings - **Grey belt: PASS.** "It is physically contained by existing development and established boundaries and would represent a limited extension to the built-up area rather than an isolated or incongruous incursion" (Report ¶6.5). On purpose (b), "it comprises only a small portion of a substantially larger gap" (¶6.6). Purpose (d) is not relevant (¶6.7). - **Unmet need: PASS.** "supply position of approximately 3.34 years. Accordingly, substantial weight is attached to the provision of additional housing" (¶6.9). - **Sustainable location / TR3: PASS.** "The site is located adjacent to the existing built-up area of Maghull and is within walking distance of bus stops and a primary school … The site is considered to accord with Policy TR3" (¶6.9). The report gives no measured distances. Highways asked for a new crossing point, dropped kerbs, tactile paving and removal of guardrail, and these were added to the plans (¶6.37–6.38). "pedestrian visibility splays are not achieved to the north of the site access, this is considered acceptable as there is no footway at this location" (¶6.39). - **Golden Rules:** not engaged, minor development (¶6.10). - **VSC:** "such circumstances are not considered necessary" (¶6.13). ## Planning balance No GB6 balance, because the scheme was not inappropriate. The report does not run the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" test expressly. It concludes that the proposal "accords with the Development Plan when read as a whole" (¶7.4). The local plan Green Belt policy MN7 defers to national exceptions (¶6.2), so the grey belt finding also satisfied the plan. ## What made the difference Grey belt status turned a dismissed-appeal site into an acceptable one. The decisive facts were physical containment on a suburban edge and an existing crossing and footway network on the built-up side, improved by the scheme. The sustainable-location reasoning is thin: one sentence, no distances, no Connectivity Tool. Contrast Newchapel and South Nutfield (PINS-6010313, PINS-6009966), where the route to services had no footway. Here the dwellings adjoin a "relatively dense suburban edge". ## Transferable points - Officers treated a previous dismissal as superseded by the grey belt policy (Report ¶2.1–2.2). - A local plan Green Belt policy worded as "subject to the exceptions set out in national planning policy" lets GB7(1)(g) operate directly through the development plan (¶6.2). - Edge-of-suburb containment is treated as enough for grey belt even on greenfield land (¶6.5). - A one-line TR3 assessment (bus stops and a school within walking distance) was accepted at committee. At appeal a thin assessment like this is exposed if the route lacks footways. ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** small parcel adjoining Maghull built-up edge, 'physically contained by existing development and established boundaries'; small part of a larger gap; no historic town - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** modest scale of three dwellings, no strategic harm - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass (substantial weight).** 3.34-year supply = demonstrable need - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** adjacent to built-up area, walking distance of bus stops and primary school; new crossing point with dropped kerbs/tactile paving secured - **GB7(1)(g)(iv): not-engaged.** minor development - **Sefton LP MN7: accord.** MN7 defers to national exceptions, so compliance with GB7 satisfies it ## Key facts - 2018 refusal and dismissed appeal for 4 dwellings on the same site as inappropriate development; policy change (grey belt) cited as reason for different outcome - Supply c.3.34 years - No footway on site side to the north of the access; highways required new pedestrian crossing point, dropped kerbs, tactile paving and removal of guardrail on opposite side of Kenyons Lane - Called in by ward councillor on Green Belt grounds; three objections - Approved in accordance with officer recommendation, no recorded debate on Green Belt ## Sources - https://modgov.sefton.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=134&MId=12194 - https://modgov.sefton.gov.uk/documents/s138343/5C%20DC202600141%20Land%20at%20Kenyons%20Lane.pdf - https://modgov.sefton.gov.uk/documents/g12193/Printed%20minutes%2016th-Sep-2026%2018.30%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/sefton-DC-2026-00141.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Petrol Filling Station, 95 High Street, Bidford-on-Avon - **Decision:** approved, 27 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: SDC Planning Committee 26 Aug 2026 (7 for, 3 against); case officer Eleanor Bass - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 24/03145/FUL - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Replacement petrol station sales building with food-to-go and ATM, EV charging hub, two jet-wash bays, parking - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1) - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.9, CS.22, CS.25, CS.26, Bidford-on-Avon NDP - **Main issues:** commercial redevelopment, amenity, highways - **Tags:** limited-nppf-engagement, report-reanchored-by-update-sheet, commercial, s4-within-settlement, stratford-relevant ## Summary Redevelopment of a village-centre petrol station at Bidford-on-Avon with an EV hub and food-to-go. Committee granted it 7–3 on 26 August 2026, and the notice was issued on 27 August. The report was written under the 2024 Framework. The update sheet dealt with the switch in one paragraph. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Please note that a new NPPF was published on 17th August 2026 … Officers have reviewed the revised NPPF and are satisfied that it does not affect the substantive matters of the application, nor does it materially change the assessment of the proposals" (26 Aug update sheet, minutes pack p.12). - **Town-centre uses.** Under old para 91 (now TC3): "as the NDP identifies the site to be within the 'Village Centre' boundary, I do not consider that a sequential test would be required" (Report p.8). - **Heritage.** No harm to the Conservation Area 100 m away. ## Planning balance Development-plan compliant. Amenity issues handled by condition, including amended hours. ## What made the difference Existing commercial use within a defined village centre. ## Transferable points - This is SDC's minimal-transition template for non-housing committee items. The update sheet asserts there is no substantive change and does not map policies to the 2026 codes (minutes pack p.12). ## Policy findings - **S4(1): pass.** not analysed; the update sheet simply states the 2026 NPPF "does not affect the substantive matters" - **TC3: not-engaged.** report applied 2024 para 91 sequential test; not required as the site is within the NDP Village Centre boundary - **HE9: neutral.** no harm to Conservation Area about 100 m away ## Key facts - Report written under the NPPF 2024; the 26 Aug update sheet said the 2026 NPPF "does not affect the substantive matters of the application, nor does it materially change the assessment" - Parish Council objected; committee amended opening hours (06:00–23:00 Mon–Sat) - Decision notice 27 Aug 2026 ## Sources - https://democracy.stratford.gov.uk/documents/s78310/24-03145-FUL%20Bidford%20Petrol%20Station.pdf - https://democracy.stratford.gov.uk/documents/g6928/Public%20minutes%2026th-Aug-2026%2018.00%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=11 - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/c5ff475a-e15f-cc69-1231-08dd19ffb0de --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-24-03145-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Home Farm, Land off A423, Southam - **Decision:** approved, 26 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: SDC Planning Committee 26 Aug 2026 (5 for, 2 against, 1 abstention); case officer Stuart Flaherty - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 25/00346/OUT - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Outline, all matters reserved, up to 217 dwellings (35% affordable, up to 76) with public open space; resolution to grant subject to S106 - **Homes:** 217 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, flood-zone-2, flood-zone-3 - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.21 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), S3(2), HO7, HO13(4) - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.5, CS.8, CS.9, CS.15, CS.18, AS.10, Southam NDP 2023 Policy 01, 3 - **Main issues:** principle outside settlement, housing supply, landscape, archaeology, emerging allocation - **Tags:** s5-1-j, s3-2-split-site, large-scheme, housing-shortfall, emerging-allocation, ho13-strategic-consistency, report-reanchored-by-update-sheet, resolution-subject-to-s106, stratford-relevant ## Summary Outline permission for up to 217 homes (35% affordable) on farmland east of Southam, a Main Rural Centre, within the emerging SWLP allocation SOU.1. The committee report was written under the December 2024 Framework's tilted balance. The update sheet for the 26 August meeting re-ran the conclusion under S3, S4 and S5 and found the benefits not "substantially outweighed". Committee resolved to grant, 5–2 with 1 abstention, subject to a S106 to be signed within six months. At 23 September the S106 was still being negotiated, so no decision notice had been issued. ## Issues and findings - **Switch of Framework.** Update sheet: "Previous NPPF 2024 paragraph 11(d) has now been superseded and does not apply … the second part of previous NPPF paragraph 11(d) … 'would significantly and demonstrably' … has now been removed" (26 Aug update sheet, minutes pack p.10). "Officers have reviewed the revised NPPF and are satisfied that it does not affect the substantive matters of the application" (p.11). - **S3(2) split site.** "A very small part of the site is within the Built Up Area Boundary for Southam – namely the proposed cycle / footway that feeds into Stowe Drive only … NDMP S3.2 states 'where a development proposals falls partly within and partly outside a settlement, policies S4 and S5 should be applied to the relevant parts'" (update sheet p.10). - **S5(1)(j): PASS.** "This development would address an evidenced unmet need; namely where the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and would be physically well-related to an existing settlement, and of a scale which can be accommodated within Southam" (p.10). S5(2) was quoted, and no "should be refused" policy was engaged. - **HO7.** "I afford substantial weight to benefits of providing homes to an evidenced unmet need" (p.11). The report itself had said "significant" (Report p.34). - **HO13(4), emerging strategic site.** "This site is within a draft allocation in the South Warwickshire Local Plan … this scheme … would not be inconsistent with the proposed scale, location and phasing of this strategic site" (update sheet p.11). - **S6 / old para 14.** The Southam NDP was made in July 2023 and has allocations, but "they are considered to be out-of-date with regard to housing land supply. This has been recently confirmed in the Council's Interim Policy Position Statement (IPPS) dated June 2026" (Report p.12). The update sheet did not revisit this under S6. - **Harms.** Landscape and locational conflict: "no more than moderate weight" (Report p.33). BMV loss (5.2% Grade 3a): limited weight. Archaeology (NDHA): harm outweighed by housing (Report pp.34–35). ## Planning balance Report (old test): benefits significant (market and affordable housing), moderate (BNG, economy, open space, S106), limited (archaeology outreach). Adverse effects were no more than moderate, so "would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh" (Report p.35). Update sheet (new test): substantial weight to housing under HO7, and benefits "not substantially outweighed by any of the adverse effects" under S4 and S5. ## What made the difference A large, allocated-in-draft, 35%-affordable edge extension to a Main Rural Centre passes S5(1)(j) easily. The re-anchoring shows SDC's view that moving from 11(d) to S5 changes the label on the balance, not the outcome. It is a reference point for how SDC deals with reports caught mid-cycle by the new Framework. ## Transferable points - SDC's transitional practice: reports finalised before 17 Aug were re-anchored by an update sheet stating that the new NPPF "does not affect the substantive matters". Consultees and members were not re-consulted (update sheet p.11). - S3(2) is being applied to split sites where only an access link lies within the BUAB (p.10). - SDC treats a made NDP (2023) with allocations as "out of date" through the IPPS, which defeats the allocations limb of S6 (Report p.12). Check whether this survives the new S6 wording, "contains allocations to meet its identified housing requirement". - HO13(4) is used as a positive consistency test for sites inside emerging strategic allocations (p.11). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): pass.** adjoins Main Rural Centre Southam; well related and of a scale Southam can accommodate - **S3(2): pass.** only the footway and cycleway link to Stowe Drive is inside the BUAB, so S4 applied to that part and S5 to the rest - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** update sheet raised housing from "significant" (report) to "substantial" weight under HO7 - **HO13(4): pass.** site within draft SWLP strategic allocation SOU.1; scheme "not … inconsistent with the proposed scale, location and phasing" - **S6: not-engaged.** Southam NDP made 11 Jul 2023 with allocations, but allocations treated as out of date under the IPPS (June 2026), so the allocations limb failed (decided under the old para 14 wording) - **DP3: harm (moderate weight).** moderate landscape and character harm; conflict with CS.5, CS.9, CS.15, AS.10 "no more than moderate weight" - **HE7: harm.** loss of Iron Age / Roman archaeological remains (non-designated), outweighed by housing - **HO8: benefit (significant weight).** up to 76 affordable homes ## Key facts - Report drafted under the Dec 2024 NPPF (tilted balance 11(d), para 14); new Framework published after the agenda; update sheet said 11(d) "has now been superseded and does not apply" and applied S3/S4/S5 - Supply 2.21 years; gap to 5 years at least 3,261 homes, "may be in the region of 4,000-5,000 homes" - Draft SWLP allocation SOU.1 (Land to the East of Southam); SWLP at Reg 19, given very limited but positive weight - 94.8% Grade 3b, 5.2% Grade 3a (BMV); loss given limited weight - The linked full application for the A423 island and crossing (25/00347/FUL) was deferred the same night; back on the 23 Sep 2026 agenda with a grant recommendation ## Sources - https://democracy.stratford.gov.uk/documents/s78326/25_00346_OUT%20-%20Home%20Farm%20Southam.pdf - https://democracy.stratford.gov.uk/documents/g6928/Public%20minutes%2026th-Aug-2026%2018.00%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=11 - https://democracy.stratford.gov.uk/documents/g6930/Public%20reports%20pack%2023rd-Sep-2026%2018.00%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=10 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-25-00346-OUT.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjoining Coverwell Farm, Pillerton Hersey - **Decision:** refused, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Case officer Amy Flute (signed 17 Aug 2026) - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 25/01271/FUL - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Change of use of land to 7 travelling showpersons plots with hardstanding - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane, valued-landscape, conservation-area, listed-building-setting, TPO - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** TR3(1)(a), F5, HE6(4), HO12 - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.4, CS.5, CS.8, CS.9, CS.12, CS.15, CS.21, CS.26, AS.10 - **Main issues:** sustainable location, flood sequential test, heritage, landscape, traveller need - **Tags:** transitional, old-wording-slip, decided-on-commencement-day, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, travellers, heritage-harm, flood-sequential-test, stratford-relevant ## Summary Seven travelling showpeople yards on a greenfield ridge-and-furrow field between Pillerton Hersey and Pillerton Priors, refused under delegated powers on 17 August 2026 for seven reasons. The report and notice were signed on the day the 2026 Framework took effect. Both apply the December 2024 NPPF and its 11(d) tilted balance throughout. This is recorded as a transitional case. ## Issues and findings - **Framework applied.** The report lists "National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2024 (revised 2025)" (Report p.2) and concludes that the harm "would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal and the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply" (p.38). The notice's note refers to "paragraph 39 of the National Planning Policy Framework December 2024". - **Need.** The 2026 GTAA "identifies that there is a need for an additional 20 permanent Travelling Showpeople plots across Warwick and Stratford District" (p.13). "I afford the provision of 7 travelling showpeople yards very significant weight … due to the Council's inability to demonstrate a 5-year supply of plots" (p.36). - **Location (now TR3): fail, significant weight.** "Due to the location of this site there would be a complete reliance on the car. I consider that the level of harm due to the unsustainable location would be significant" (p.37). Refusal reason 1: no pavements on Kineton Road, and the bus "cannot be accessed safely on foot". - **Flood: fail**, "a strong reason for refusal in terms of NPPF 11(d)" (p.37). - **Heritage: significant weight**; public benefits do not outweigh (p.38). ## Planning balance Old 11(d)(ii): very significant weight to the plots against significant weight each to location, flood, highway, landscape and heritage harm. Refused. ## What made the difference Accumulated, individually significant harms: an unsafe walking route with total car dependence, a failed flood sequential test, and heritage and landscape harm. Under the 2026 Framework the case would run through S5(1)(g), which admits traveller need only where "it meets the criteria in policy HO12". The outcome would very likely be the same, but the reasoning has not been re-done. ## Transferable points - SDC issued at least one delegated decision dated 17 August 2026 that applied the superseded Framework. Any appeal will be decided under the 2026 Framework, and the parties will need to address S5(1)(g), HO12 and TR3 afresh. - Location facts that SDC treats as decisive for a rural site: no pavement on the connecting road, services only in villages further away, and a bus "limited" and unreachable safely on foot (refusal reason 1). ## Policy findings - **TR3(1)(a): fail (significant weight).** officer found "complete reliance on the car"; no pavements on Kineton Road; nearest services at Ettington or Kineton; decided as 2024 NPPF para 115 and PPTS para 25/26 - **F5: fail (significant weight).** sequential test inadequate; decided as 2024 NPPF paras 170–181 and treated as a "strong reason for refusal" under old 11(d)(i) - **HE6(4): harm (significant weight).** loss of ridge and furrow (non-designated) and less than substantial harm to Pillerton Hersey CA and Grade II* church setting; decided as 2024 NPPF 212–221 - **HO12: benefit (significant weight).** 7 yards given "very significant weight"; no 5-year supply of showperson plots; 2026 GTAA need 14 plots in Stratford 2025–50 (9 in 2025–30) - **DP3: harm (significant weight).** encroachment into Feldon SLA, reduced gap between the two Pillertons ## Key facts - Decision notice and report both dated 17 Aug 2026, the day the 2026 Framework took effect, but decided wholly under NPPF Dec 2024 (11(d) tilted balance) and PPTS Dec 2024 - No five-year supply of showperson plots; GTAA 2026 need for 20 plots across South Warwickshire, 14 in Stratford - Seven refusal reasons (location, flood, heritage, highway, landscape, amenity, PRoW) ## Sources - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/59e1e438-1a74-c6a3-fa97-08dda288eb6e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-25-01271-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at Banbury Road (B4100), Gaydon - **Decision:** approved, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Case officer Neil Hempstead - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 25/01765/FUL - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** About 11 ha of B2/B8/E(g)(iii) employment units on part of the Core Strategy GLH allocation reserved for JLR expansion, with S106 - **Site context:** open-countryside, agricultural-land-BMV - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(i), S5(1)(j), E2, E3 - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.22, Proposal GLH, AS.11 - **Main issues:** employment need, allocation restriction, landscape, BMV - **Tags:** s5-1-i-allocation, s5-1-j, e2-substantial-weight, settlement-definition-allocated-land, large-scheme, stratford-relevant ## Summary Speculative B2/B8 employment units on about 11 ha of the Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath allocation, which the Core Strategy reserves for JLR expansion. Granted under delegated powers on 17 September 2026 subject to a S106. The report applies S5(1)(i) and (j) and gives the economic benefits substantial weight under E2. ## Issues and findings - **Settlement status.** "The definition refers to … land which is allocated or has permission for development which will form part of the built-up area once development is complete … I could therefore reasonably conclude that the site is within a settlement. However … I have taken a precautionary approach and adopted the position that the site is located outside of a settlement" (Report p.20). - **S5 routes.** S5(1)(i), allocated land, applies even though the allocation is restricted to JLR-related uses. S5(1)(j), unmet need, is also met, including the freight and logistics limb (pp.19–20). - **Development plan consistency.** "NPPF Policy E2 now requires substantial weight to be given to the economic benefits … As CS.22 does not specifically plan for such development it needs to be considered as being not consistent in relation to these matters" (p.20). - **Weight.** "In light of the general aim of NPPF S5 and E2 and E3 … I give these matters substantial weight in the overall planning balance" (p.23). ## Planning balance Substantial weight to economic benefits; moderate weight to BNG; limited weight to open space, BREEAM and highway extras. Against: limited weight to landscape and very limited weight to BMV loss. Benefits "outweigh the specifically identified harm", and the report concludes accordance with the plan as a whole (p.57). ## What made the difference The site is allocated, if for a restricted occupier, and E2 now requires substantial weight to economic benefits. The S5(1)(i) and (j) routes made the JLR-only restriction a matter of weight, not principle. ## Transferable points - The Annex B "settlement" definition expressly includes allocated land that will form part of the built-up area. SDC considered but did not adopt the argument that an allocated edge site is therefore "within a settlement" (p.20). - A pre-2026 development plan policy (CS.22) was held "not consistent" with E2 because it does not plan for Industrial Strategy-type growth (p.20). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(i): pass.** land allocated for employment in the development plan, albeit restricted to JLR-related uses - **S5(1)(j): pass.** evidenced unmet need for employment land; well-related to Gaydon Lighthorne Heath; part (ii) freight and logistics also met - **E2: benefit (substantial weight).** 500–842 jobs, £38m capex, GVA about £21.9m a year; CS.22 held "not consistent" with E2 on Industrial Strategy-type needs - **DP3: harm (limited weight).** landscape and visual change on an allocated site - **N2(1)(b): harm (very-limited weight).** loss of some Grade 3a BMV, discounted because allocated ## Key facts - Officer considered the Annex B settlement definition (allocated or permitted land forming part of the built-up area) and could have treated the site as within a settlement, but took a "precautionary approach" and applied S5 - The applicant's earlier 11(d) argument became moot on the new Framework; CS.22 "not consistent" with E2 on strategic employment needs - Report dated 30 Jul 2026, decision 17 Sep 2026; the report cites NPPF 2026 throughout, so it was updated after 17 Aug ## Sources - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/8756d135-c153-c6e2-10f5-08ddc92b8e65 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-25-01765-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land off Jago Green, Snitterfield Lane, Snitterfield - **Decision:** approved, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: SDC Planning Committee 9 Sep 2026 (6 for, 3 abstentions); case officer Joshua Cooper - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/00617/PIP - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Permission in principle for 1 to 5 open-market dwellings with a pedestrian and cycle link to Park Lane - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** green-belt, washed-over-village, settlement-edge, valued-landscape, listed-building-setting, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.21 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g), S5(5), Transitional(2) - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.10, CS.15, CS.16, AS.10, CS.5, CS.8, CS.9, CS.12, CS.26, Snitterfield NDP 2018 H1, BE1, BE3, BE7, NE4 - **Main issues:** grey belt, sustainable location, character and landscape, heritage setting, previous appeal - **Tags:** PIP, grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-pass, not-inappropriate, s5-5-balance, housing-shortfall, washed-over-village-as-settlement, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, substantial-harm-still-approved, dp3-3-not-applied-as-refusal, previous-appeal-dismissed, small-scheme, stratford-relevant ## Summary Permission in principle for up to 5 market homes on a paddock behind linear frontage housing at the edge of Snitterfield. The village is washed over by Green Belt, and a 9-home scheme on the site was dismissed at appeal in 2019 on character grounds. The officer found the site grey belt, passed all of GB7(1)(g) and found "significant harm" to character, weighted substantial. The officer still concluded that the benefit of 5 homes was not "substantially outweighed". Committee granted 6–0, with 3 abstentions, on 9 September 2026. The notice is dated 10 September. ## Issues and findings - **Weight to the development plan.** CS.15, CS.16 and AS.10 were held "materially inconsistent with the relevant NDMPs" because S5(1)(j) allows development those policies would not (Report p.8). CS.10 was held materially inconsistent with GB7/GB8 (p.11). CS.8 and NDP BE7 were held materially inconsistent with HE5 because HE5 "provides a new set of criteria for assessments" (p.15). NDP H1 got very limited weight because S6 was not engaged: the plan was made in 2018 with no allocations (p.9). - **Grey belt, GB7(1)(g)(i): PASS.** "Snitterfield is a village, some distance from large built-up areas and towns. It therefore does not strongly contribute to purposes (a) or (b)" (p.12). For purpose (c), "the resultant harm would be limited and would not fundamentally undermine the Green Belt across the area of plan" (p.12). - **Sustainable location, GB7(1)(g)(iii) / TR3: PASS.** "0.5 miles from the centre of the Snitterfield village, equating to a 15 minute walk" (p.9). "Although I consider that there is some harm that pedestrians will have to walk on the public highway, I do not consider this to be substantial, especially as there is good visibility in both directions, the speed limit is 30mph and there are some soft verges … the other existing houses on Jago Green also have to make the same journey on foot in the roadway … I therefore afford this harm, limited weight" (pp.9–10). The Update Report for the 9 September committee corrected the route: "the application proposes a footpath onto Park Lane, therefore the centre of the village and services can be reached entirely on made footpath and do not require any pedestrians to walk in the public highway" (minutes and Update Report p.5). "Whilst noting that the majority of journeys to Stratford-upon-Avon are likely to be undertaken by private vehicle, the journey would take around 10 minutes and therefore such trips would be relatively short in duration" (p.10). - **Character: significant harm, substantial weight.** Relying on the 2019 appeal: "the arrangement of five dwellings within the application site would still result in a suburban form of development that would enclose existing residential development and weaken the existing relationship between those dwellings and the open countryside" (p.14). "I consider that the proposal would result in significant harm to the character of the area … In light of NDMP DP3 (3), I afford this harm substantial weight" (p.15). - **Heritage: no harm** to the Grade II Pigeon Green House, 25 m from the site edge, or to the Conservation Area (p.15). ## Planning balance S5(5) balance, reached through GB7. Against: very limited weight to the policy conflicts; substantial weight to character and landscape harm. For: substantial weight to up to 5 dwellings; limited weight to economic benefits. "The benefits of approving the scheme would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (p.20). Substantial harm against substantial benefit was therefore resolved in favour of approval. That is the arithmetic of the "substantially outweighed" test. ## What made the difference GB7 took the site out of the very special circumstances test. After that, the S5(5) tilt meant that harm and benefit of equal weight produced an approval. The report did not treat DP3(3) as a refusal trigger under S5(2). DP3(3) says proposals "should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 of this policy". S5(2) says benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed where a proposal fails "one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused in specific circumstances". The officer cited DP3(3) only as a source of weight. A different outcome needed either that S5(2) route or a failure at GB7(1)(g)(iii). On location, the report first accepted about 100 m of walking in the carriageway, but the Update Report corrected this: with the proposed footpath link to Park Lane the whole route is on made footpath. The report also did not ask whether a washed-over village is a "settlement" under Annex B. ## Transferable points - On SDC's reading, "significant" character harm given substantial weight does not "substantially outweigh" substantial housing benefit under S5(5) (pp.15, 20). An objector needs the S5(2) refusal-policy route (for example DP3(3), HE6 or F5) or a GB7 limb failure. - The report gave limited weight to about 100 m of walking in a 30 mph carriageway (pp.9–10), but the committee decided on the corrected basis in the Update Report: with the proposed Park Lane footpath, no walking in the highway is needed. This case is not authority for accepting walking in the carriageway. - The officer accepted car trips to the main town as "relatively short" in duration (about 10 minutes) as a mitigating factor under TR3 (p.10). - A 2019 appeal dismissal on character was followed on the harm finding but did not decide the outcome under the 2026 balance (p.14). - Heritage policies CS.8 and NDP BE7 were labelled "materially inconsistent" with HE5 (p.15). This extends the Transitional(2) reasoning beyond the locational policies. ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** undeveloped former Ecosite paddock held grey belt because Snitterfield is "a village, some distance from large built-up areas and towns"; (c) encroachment limited as the site is bordered by development on two sides - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** 2.21-year supply - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** 0.5 miles (15 min) to village centre; the report assumed the first 100 m was in the Snitterfield Lane carriageway (30 mph, no footway), but the committee Update Report corrected this, saying that with the proposed footpath link to Park Lane services "can be reached entirely on made footpath"; infrequent buses; car trips to Stratford "relatively short" - **GB7(1)(g)(iv): not-engaged.** 0.472 ha, minor development - **TR3(1)(a): harm (limited weight).** the report gave limited weight to about 100 m of walking in the carriageway (existing Jago Green residents already do so; WCC Highways did not object); the Update Report then corrected the route, saying the proposed Park Lane footpath means no pedestrian needs to walk in the public highway - **DP3(3): harm (substantial weight).** officer found "significant harm" to character; suburban cul-de-sac form behind linear frontage development, following the 2019 appeal inspector's reasoning - **HE6: neutral.** no harm to setting of Grade II Pigeon Green House (25 m away) or The Saddlers, or to the Conservation Area; CS.8 and NDP BE7 held "materially inconsistent" with HE5 - **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** CS.15, CS.16, AS.10, CS.10, CS.26, CS.8, NDP H1 and BE7 given very limited weight as materially inconsistent - **S6: not-engaged.** NDP made 2018 with no allocations - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** up to 5 dwellings to the district supply ## Key facts - Previous 9-dwelling full application refused 2018 and appeal dismissed 18 Jun 2019 (APP/J3720/W/18/3209676) on character; 9-dwelling PIP with 50% affordable (25/02708/PIP) refused 6 Mar 2026 - Officer found "significant harm" to character and gave it substantial weight, yet still recommended approval - Site is a local non-statutory Ecosite (Totley Paddock) with GCN records nearby; WCC Ecology deferred PEA and BNG to technical details stage - Village is Category 3 LSV, washed over by Green Belt; SWLP Green Belt topic paper proposes to inset it - Update sheet corrected the report — with the proposed Park Lane footpath, services "can be reached entirely on made footpath" ## Sources - https://democracy.stratford.gov.uk/documents/s78474/26.00617.PIP%20-%20Jago%20Green%20FINAL.pdf - https://democracy.stratford.gov.uk/documents/g6929/Public%20minutes%2009th-Sep-2026%2018.00%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=11 - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/aa9dde59-9cff-c42a-4559-08de7ebaa5be --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-26-00617-PIP.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land South of Elm Leys, Hunt Hall Lane, Welford-on-Avon - **Decision:** approved, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: SDC Planning Committee 9 Sep 2026 (unanimous); case officer Joseph Brooke - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/00772/PIP - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Permission in principle for 1 to 4 open-market dwellings off a private single-track lane - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.21 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), TR3(1)(a), Transitional(2) - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.15, CS.16, AS.10, CS.5, CS.9, CS.26, Welford-on-Avon NDP 2017 HLU1, HLU6, HE5 - **Main issues:** principle outside settlement, pedestrian access, landscape, highway - **Tags:** PIP, s5-1-j, sustainable-location-pass, rural-lane-no-footway, housing-shortfall, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, small-scheme, bmv-not-addressed, stratford-relevant ## Summary Permission in principle for up to 4 market homes on a paddock at the south-west edge of Welford-on-Avon (not Green Belt), reached along 200 m of private single-track lane with no footway. The officer ran S5(1)(j) on the 2.21-year supply. Pedestrian access was the main harm (moderate weight) and landscape harm was minor. Committee granted unanimously on 9 September 2026. The notice is dated 10 September. ## Issues and findings - **Principle, S5(1)(j): PASS.** "The Council can demonstrate 2.21 years of housing land supply and I am therefore satisfied that there is an evidenced unmet need" (Report p.6). The site "would read as a modest continuation of the existing settlement edge rather than a detached intrusion into the open countryside" (p.8). - **Development plan weight.** CS.15, CS.16 and AS.10 were held materially inconsistent "including where there is an evidenced unmet need (as long as the development is either physically well related to an existing settlement or comprises major freight and logistics development)". The NDP was "made in 2017", so S6 was not engaged, and NDP HLU1 and HE5 were also held "materially inconsistent" and given very limited weight (p.6). - **Sustainable location, TR3: moderate harm.** "Hunt Hall Lane is a private road … I acknowledge that it does not benefit from a pedestrian footway … noting that the lane is not suitable for all users, including those with mobility impairments, I find that the absence of dedicated pedestrian provision along this section would result in moderate harm, to which I afford moderate weight" (p.6). Mitigating factors: Category 2 LSV services at 700–900 m, buses 400 m away, and "access to the village by use of a private vehicle would take around 5 minutes" (p.7). - **Landscape: minor harm.** "In light of NDMP DP3 (2), I afford this harm limited weight" (p.8). - **Highways.** "Significant weight should be afforded to the fact that the Highway Authority has not objected to the principle", even though its requested conditions cannot attach to a PIP (p.10). ## Planning balance S5(1) "substantially outweighed" balance. Against: very limited weight to the plan and SWLP conflicts; limited weight to landscape; moderate weight to pedestrian access. For: substantial weight to 4 homes; limited weight to economic benefits. The benefits were "not … substantially outweighed" (p.13). ## What made the difference Outside the Green Belt, the S5(1)(j) gateway opened on the supply figure alone. A lane without a footway was treated as a weight in the balance (moderate), not as a gateway failure. S5(1)(j)(i) asks whether the site is "physically well-related" to a settlement, and TR3 is not a pass/fail limb there as it is in GB7(1)(g)(iii). Nothing short of a "should be refused" policy or a severe highway objection was likely to change the outcome. ## Transferable points - Outside the Green Belt, SDC treats absent pedestrian provision on the access lane as moderate harm in the S5 balance, not as a reason to refuse (p.6). - "Car journey is short" (5 minutes to the village) is again used to reduce sustainability harm (p.7). The Snitterfield report does the same. - NDP settlement-boundary policies in plans made more than five years ago (HLU1, HE5) are routinely labelled "materially inconsistent" and given very limited weight (p.6). - Objectors argued that the assessment on file "rests on a test that has since been revoked" (11(d)) and that every consultee response predated the new Framework. The committee report already applied S5, and the update sheet kept the recommendation without re-consulting (Update sheet pp.3–4, annexed to the 9 Sep minutes). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): pass.** 2.21-year supply = evidenced unmet need; edge of a Category 2 LSV, "physically contained by residential development on two sides" - **TR3(1)(a): harm (moderate weight).** 200 m along private single-track Hunt Hall Lane with no footway to Barton Road footway; "not suitable for all users, including those with mobility impairments"; then 700–900 m to school, shop, pub; buses 400 m (routes 27 and 247) - **DP3: harm (limited weight).** minor, localised landscape harm, contained site, not in a designated landscape or NDP important view - **TR6: pass.** WCC Highways no objection subject to conditions that cannot be imposed on a PIP; officer gave "significant weight" to the lack of objection - **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** CS.15, CS.16, AS.10 and NDP HLU1 and HE5 held materially inconsistent; CS.26 too - **S6: not-engaged.** NDP made 2017 - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** up to 4 dwellings ## Key facts - Access is a private, unadopted single-track lane (Hunt Hall Lane) with no footway for about 200 m - School and play area about 700 m, shop 800 m, pub and hall 900 m, bus stop 400 m on Barton Road - Parish Council said the land is Grade 2 (BMV); the report does not address agricultural land quality - A sister PIP on the adjoining parcel (26/01674/PIP) was pending, with objectors raising cumulative effects and priority-habitat evidence - Objectors said on the update sheet that the assessment on file "rests on a test that has since been revoked" (11(d)); consultee responses were not refreshed after 17 Aug ## Sources - https://democracy.stratford.gov.uk/documents/s78476/26_00772_PIP.pdf - https://democracy.stratford.gov.uk/documents/g6929/Public%20minutes%2009th-Sep-2026%2018.00%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=11 - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/cbbe2784-1658-c971-e424-08de8a86eb07 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-26-00772-PIP.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Hollow Meadow, Lower End, Priors Hardwick - **Decision:** approved, 1 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): SDC delegated (report with twin LBC 26/00899/LBC) - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/00898/FUL - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Subdivision of a Grade II listed dwelling into two dwellings with minor external alterations - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.21 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(c), S5(1)(j), Transitional(2) - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.15, CS.16, CS.20, AS.10 - **Main issues:** principle outside settlement, reuse of building - **Tags:** s5-1-c-reuse, s5-1-j, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, housing-shortfall, listed-building, small-scheme, stratford-relevant ## Summary Subdividing a listed house in Priors Hardwick, a small village with no settlement boundary, into two dwellings. It conflicted with the Core Strategy on location. Granted on 1 September 2026 under S5(1)(c) (reuse of an existing building) and S5(1)(j) (unmet need), with the Core Strategy locational policies given very limited weight. ## Issues and findings - **Development plan.** "Being in an unsustainable location, residential use is not acceptable in principle and as such the proposal would conflict with CS.20" (Report p.4). - **S5(1)(c).** "NDMP S5.1, Part C accepts the reuse of an existing building, provided that it is of permanent and substantial construction, is lawful in planning terms, and any extension or alteration will not result in a disproportionate increase in size … I consider the development proposed here complies" (p.5). - **S5(1)(j).** "The Council can demonstrate 2.21 years of housing land supply and I am therefore satisfied that there is an evidenced unmet need" (p.5). - **Balance.** "The development proposed here meets with NDMP S5.1, C (reuse of existing building) and J (evidenced unmet need)", and the benefits were not substantially outweighed (pp.8–9). ## Planning balance S5(1): substantial weight to one dwelling against very limited weight to the policy conflicts. ## What made the difference S5(1)(c) is a clean fit for subdivision of an existing dwelling. A location that the Core Strategy calls "unsustainable" does not prevent approval under S5 once the locational policies are given very limited weight. ## Transferable points - Subdividing existing rural dwellings is approved under S5(1)(c) regardless of settlement status (p.5). - SDC also ticks S5(1)(j) without testing whether a no-BUAB village is a "settlement" or whether the site is "physically well-related" to one (p.5). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(c): pass.** reuse of an existing lawful building of permanent and substantial construction with very modest additions - **S5(1)(j): pass.** 2.21-year supply = evidenced unmet need; "physically well-related to an existing settlement" limb not separately examined for a village with no BUAB - **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** CS.15, CS.16, CS.20 and AS.10 materially inconsistent; CS.20 conflicted only because the location was held "unsustainable" for residential use in principle - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** one net additional dwelling ## Key facts - Priors Hardwick has no BUAB ("All other settlements" tier); site treated as open countryside under AS.10 - Development plan conflict rests on location; the Framework's S5(1)(c) reuse category answers it - Decision notice dated 1 Sep 2026 ## Sources - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/213ea536-c404-cd01-a2c8-08de9bd1f4cd --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-26-00898-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land off Butts Lane, Tanworth-in-Arden - **Decision:** approved, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: SDC Planning Committee 9 Sep 2026 (9 for, 2 abstentions); case officer Ian Guffick - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/00918/PIP - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Permission in principle for 3 to 9 open-market dwellings on a 0.47 ha paddock - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** green-belt, washed-over-village, settlement-edge, valued-landscape - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.21 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g), S5(5), Transitional(2) - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.10, CS.15, CS.16, AS.10, CS.5, CS.9, CS.12, CS.26, Tanworth-in-Arden NDP 2022 H3, BE1, NE1 - **Main issues:** grey belt, sustainable location, weight to development plan, landscape - **Tags:** PIP, grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-pass, not-inappropriate, s5-5-balance, housing-shortfall, washed-over-village-as-settlement, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, ipps-parish-need-figure, small-scheme, stratford-relevant ## Summary Permission in principle for 3 to 9 market homes on a paddock at the edge of Tanworth-in-Arden, a Category 4 village washed over by the West Midlands Green Belt. The officer treated the site as grey belt, found all four limbs of GB7(1)(g) met, and ran the S5(5) balance: limited to moderate landscape harm against substantial weight to housing with a 2.21-year supply. Committee granted 9–0, with 2 abstentions, on 9 September 2026. The decision notice is dated 11 September. ## Issues and findings - **Weight to the development plan: Transitional(2), very limited weight.** Because the 2026 decision-making policies "allow for forms of development that would not be supported by Policies CS.15, CS.16 and AS.10 in principle, including where there is an evidenced unmet need, as highlighted in NDMP S5.1.j, I consider that these Core Strategy policies are materially inconsistent with the relevant NDMPs" (Report p.8). CS.10 (Green Belt) was also given very limited weight as "materially inconsistent" with GB7/GB8 (p.11), as was CS.26 because it lacks TR6's "severe" test (p.16). - **S6: not engaged.** The NDP was made in 2022 but "does not contain housing allocations to meet its identified housing requirement", so H3 was given very limited weight (p.8). - **Grey belt, GB7(1)(g)(i): PASS.** "Tanworth-in-Arden is a village, some distance from large built-up areas and towns. It therefore does not strongly contribute to purpose (a) or (b)" (p.12). For the "fundamentally undermine" limb the officer also tested purposes (c) and (e): encroachment was "minor" given the surrounding built form (p.13). - **Unmet need, GB7(1)(g)(ii): PASS**, on the 2.21-year figure (p.13). - **Sustainable location, GB7(1)(g)(iii) / TR3: PASS.** "Pavements exist directly in front of the site on Butts Lane … a walk of approximately 400m … some sections of that walk do not benefit from pavements … Villagers appear to cope with this existing situation without any great trouble" (p.9). "Future occupants would not be solely reliant on the use of private motor vehicles, having regard to NDMP Policy TR3" (p.13). - **Landscape: harm, limited to moderate weight** (Arden SLA; CS.5, CS.9, CS.12, NDP BE1) (p.15, p.20). ## Planning balance S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance, reached through GB7. Against: very limited weight to the conflicts with CS.15, CS.16, AS.10 and H3; very limited weight to the conflict with the SWLP; limited to moderate weight to landscape harm. For: substantial weight to up to 9 dwellings. The Interim Policy Position Statement's figure of "approximately 133 dwellings in the Tanworth neighbourhood area over the 5 year period" was cited as a further reason in favour (p.20). Limited weight to economic benefits. Conclusion: benefits "not … substantially outweighed" (p.20). ## What made the difference A continuous footway along the site frontage, a school next door and a 400 m walk to village services carried GB7(1)(g)(iii). The officer accepted short unfooted lengths through the historic core. Once the site passed GB7, labelling every locational policy "materially inconsistent" left only landscape harm to weigh against substantial housing weight. The report never asked whether a washed-over village is a "settlement" under Annex B, which excludes "villages which lie within and are defined as part of the Green Belt". Nothing in the result turned on that, because GB7 carried it. But the S5(1)(j) analysis the report ran first ("well-related to an existing settlement") is, on the definition, not available to a washed-over village. ## Transferable points - SDC officers treat a frontage footway plus roughly 400 m to village services as enough for GB7(1)(g)(iii). Short unfooted lengths on low-speed village roads were accepted because "villagers appear to cope" (p.9). - SDC's standard line is that CS.15, CS.16, AS.10 and CS.10 are "materially inconsistent" with S5 and GB7 and carry very limited weight (pp.8, 11). Design (CS.9), flood (CS.4), ecology (CS.6) and climate (CS.2) policies are said to be "materially consistent" (e.g. CS.4 and CS.6 at pp.17–18). The report found no heritage harm and does not address CS.8. - Grey belt: a village "some distance from large built-up areas and towns" was held not to contribute strongly to purposes (a) or (b) (p.12). - The IPPS parish housing-need figure (133 homes for Tanworth over five years) is being used as a positive in the balance (p.20). - Drafting slip: the GB7 conclusion refers to "the construction of 5 dwellings" on a 9-dwelling PIP (p.14). This looks like a template carried over from the Snitterfield report. ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** undeveloped paddock but Tanworth is "a village, some distance from large built-up areas and towns", so no strong contribution to (a), (b) or (d); officer also tested (c) and (e) for the "fundamentally undermine" limb and found only minor encroachment - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** 2.21-year supply treated as evidenced unmet need for market housing - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** footway along site frontage; village centre c.400 m, short unfooted sections in historic core; Category 4 LSV with primary school next door and a limited bus service; "not be solely reliant on the use of private motor vehicles" - **GB7(1)(g)(iv): not-engaged.** 0.47 ha, 9 dwellings max, under 1,000 sq m, not major, so no Golden Rules - **S5(1)(j): pass.** run first, before the officer turned to S5(5); site treated as well related to "the settlement of Tanworth-in-Arden" although the village is washed over by Green Belt - **S5(5): pass.** not inappropriate, so approve unless benefits substantially outweighed - **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** CS.15, CS.16, AS.10, CS.10, CS.26 and NDP H3 held "materially inconsistent" with the 2026 decision-making policies - **S6: not-engaged.** NDP made 2022 but has no allocations meeting its requirement - **DM4: neutral (very-limited weight).** emerging SWLP DS.8/DS.12 conflict given very limited weight at Reg 19 - **DP3: harm (limited weight).** limited to moderate landscape harm in the Arden Special Landscape Area; conflict with CS.5, CS.9, CS.12 and NDP BE1 - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** up to 9 dwellings against the district supply, and over 5% of the roughly 133 dwellings the Interim Policy Position Statement assigns to Tanworth over five years ## Key facts - Council supply 2.21 years at 31 Mar 2025 (LHN 1,112 dpa) - Footway along the whole site frontage on Butts Lane; about 400 m walk to the village centre, with short unfooted lengths in the historic core - Site next to the village primary school; limited bus service to Solihull, Hockley Heath and Redditch - Village is Category 4 LSV, washed over by Green Belt; SWLP Green Belt topic paper proposes to inset it - 44 objections plus Parish Council and Ward Member objection; WCC Highways no objection ## Sources - https://democracy.stratford.gov.uk/documents/s78472/26.00918.PIP%20%20Butts%20Lane%20Tanworth%20cttee.pdf - https://democracy.stratford.gov.uk/documents/g6929/Public%20minutes%2009th-Sep-2026%2018.00%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=11 - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/ac388915-f51c-c846-534c-08de96df9034 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-26-00918-PIP.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Manor Cottage, Upper Quinton - **Decision:** refused, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Case officer Lindsey Young - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/00922/FUL - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Replacement of modern timber windows with uPVC double-glazed units on a Grade II listed cottage (twin LBC 26/00924/LBC also refused) - **Site context:** listed-building-setting, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.8, CS.11 - **Main issues:** listed building, uPVC, public benefits - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, listed-building, upvc-windows, energy-efficiency-less-harmful-alternative, nppf-only-refusal-reason, householder, stratford-relevant ## Summary Planning permission (and, in a twin decision, listed building consent) refused on 17 September 2026 for uPVC double-glazed windows on a Grade II listed cottage in the Cotswold National Landscape. The refusal reason cites only NPPF HE6. The officer gave Core Strategy CS.8 limited weight as not aligning with the 2026 heritage policies. ## Issues and findings - **Plan weight.** "Policy CS.8 of the Core Strategy does not align with the HE policies in the NPPF 2026 and therefore only limited weight is given to this policy" (Report pp.2–3). - **Harm.** The existing windows "do not possess any inherent significance", so replacement is acceptable in principle, but "the change from timber to uPVC … will result in harm to the significance of the heritage asset and therefore be contrary to Policy HE6 (4) of the NPPF" (pp.3–4). - **Public benefits.** "The Local Planning Authority does not consider there to be any public benefits which would outweigh the harm" (Notice reason 1). The report does address energy efficiency: "it could also be possible to achieve energy efficiency improvements using slim line double glazing" (p.3). It does not name HE6(4)'s own example of "enabling energy efficiency … measures", or CC2(2), but the reasoning is that the benefit can be had with less harm. ## Planning balance HE6(4): harm of considerable importance and weight against no identified public benefit. Refused. ## What made the difference The material (uPVC), not the principle of replacement. The officer signposted that slimline double-glazed timber casements would be acceptable. ## Transferable points - SDC is refusing on NPPF HE6(4) alone, treating CS.8 as out of step with the new HE chapter (pp.2–3; Notice). - Energy-efficiency benefits of double glazing may be dismissed where a less harmful alternative (slimline timber) exists. That is explicit in the Trinity College LBC (stratford-26-01387-LBC) and stated more briefly here (p.3). An appellant could argue that CC2(2) requires substantial weight to be given. ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): fail (considerable weight).** timber to uPVC harms significance; "does not consider there to be any public benefits"; energy efficiency addressed briefly as "it could also be possible to achieve energy efficiency improvements using slim line double glazing" (p.3), i.e. a less harmful alternative exists; HE6(4)'s energy example and CC2(2) are not named - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** quoted verbatim; s16/s66 and Barnwell cited - **Transitional(2): conflict (limited weight).** CS.8 given only limited weight because "Core Strategy policy CS.8 does not align with the new NPPF HE policies" (p.4); refusal rests on HE6(4) alone - **CC2(2): not-engaged.** not named; the report deals with energy efficiency by pointing to slimline double glazing as a less harmful alternative (p.3) ## Key facts - The existing windows are modern and of no inherent significance; the officer would accept slimline double-glazed flush timber casements - Refusal reason cites only NPPF HE6(4); no development plan policy - Conservation Officer objected; no third-party or parish comments ## Sources - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/aefe2acf-711b-c143-f2ae-08de96fe52b2 - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/c0331bb2-fcd8-cfbc-6c81-08de97027ec3 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-26-00922-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Weavers Cottage, Church End, Priors Hardwick - **Decision:** approved, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Case officer Ian Guffick - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/01211/FUL - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Change of use of agricultural land to residential and single-storey pool extension partly on that land, plus rear extension and car port - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), S5(1)(c), S3(2) - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 AS.10, CS.8, CS.9, CS.12, CS.20 - **Main issues:** settlement boundary, residential curtilage extension into countryside - **Tags:** s3-2-split-site, s4-within-settlement, s5-1-c-reuse, householder, settlement-status-inconsistent, stratford-relevant ## Summary A householder scheme at the edge of Priors Hardwick that extended the house onto adjoining farmland. Granted under delegated powers on 7 September 2026. The officer split the site in substance as S3(2) requires: S4 for the curtilage, which was held "within the physical confines of the village", and S5(1)(c) for the part on agricultural land. ## Issues and findings - **Settlement status.** "The dwelling and its gardens are considered to be within the physical confines of the village. The applicant owns the agricultural land surrounding the property. This land is not within the physical confines of the village and is therefore open countryside" (Report p.4). - **S5(1)(c).** "The extension that would lie outside of the physical confines of the village would not be a disproportionate increase in size compared to the existing building" (p.5). - **Conclusion.** "I also consider the proposal accords with NDMPs S4 and S5, and therefore represents sustainable development" (p.9). ## Planning balance No harm identified, so the balance was not needed. ## What made the difference Small scale and a discreet location. ## Transferable points - In villages without a BUAB, SDC officers decide whether a site is within a "settlement" by judging "physical confines" case by case (p.4). Compare stratford-26-00898-FUL: another Priors Hardwick house was treated as countryside, and so went through S5(1)(c) and (j) rather than S4. - S3(2) splits are being applied at householder scale (pp.4–5). ## Policy findings - **S3(2): pass.** not cited by name, but applied in substance; extensions within the curtilage assessed under S4 and the part on agricultural land under S5 - **S4(1): pass.** dwelling and garden held "within the physical confines of the village" - **S5(1)(c): pass.** the extension onto agricultural land is "not … a disproportionate increase in size compared to the existing building" - **HE9: pass.** no harm to conservation area ## Key facts - Priors Hardwick has no BUAB; the officer used "physical confines" to find the house within a settlement - Six days earlier (stratford-26-00898-FUL) another officer treated a house at Lower End, Priors Hardwick, as open countryside "outside of any BUAB"; the two sites may genuinely differ in relation to the village's physical confines, and neither report maps them ## Sources - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/5005d75f-c1f1-c480-231d-08deb2596136 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-26-01211-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Tacna, Broad Lane, Tanworth-in-Arden - **Decision:** refused, 11 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Case officer Lindsey Young - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/01310/FUL - **Procedure:** householder - **Development:** Detached garage forward of the principal elevation and more than 5 m from the dwelling; conversion of existing garage - **Site context:** green-belt, washed-over-village, valued-landscape - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(1), GB6(2), GB7(1)(b), L2(1)(d) - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.9, CS.10, CS.12, CS.20, Tanworth-in-Arden NDP BE1 - **Main issues:** Green Belt inappropriateness, openness, character - **Tags:** householder, householder-gb, openness-harm, vsc-not-shown, materially-consistent-cs10, stratford-relevant ## Summary A householder refusal in the washed-over Green Belt at Tanworth-in-Arden. A detached garage in the front garden, more than 5 m from the house, was held to be inappropriate development: it is not an "extension or alteration" under GB7(1)(b). It harmed openness, and no very special circumstances were shown. It was also refused on streetscene character under L2(1)(d) and CS.9. Refused under delegated powers on 11 September 2026. ## Issues and findings - **GB6 and GB7: inappropriate.** "A detached garage positioned forward of the principal elevation does not fall within any of the exceptions set out in policies GB.6 and GB.7 of the NPPF, nor does it represent a proportionate extension or alteration to an existing building. Accordingly, the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt" (Report p.3). - **Appeal precedent.** Field Gate House, Broad Lane (6003555, 27 Apr 2026, garage dismissed) "is afforded significant weight". Spinney Cottage, Bearley (6001085, allowed) was distinguished on its site circumstances (pp.3–4). - **Openness.** "Spatial and visual harm to the openness of the Green Belt" (p.4). - **Plan weight.** CS.10 "broadly aligns" with GB6 and GB7 (p.2), and the refusal says CS.10 "aligns with the aforementioned national policies" (Notice reason 1). ## Planning balance GB6(2) very special circumstances test. Definitional and openness harm, with no weighing factors put forward. Refused. ## What made the difference The building was detached and forward of the house, so it could not be read as an extension under GB7(1)(b). A local appeal on the same road pointed the same way. ## Transferable points - SDC treats CS.10 as consistent with GB6 and GB7 for householder and outbuilding cases (p.2). Yet in housing cases SDC calls CS.10 "materially inconsistent" (stratford-26-00918-PIP p.11). CS.10's weight depends on the type of development. - Detached outbuildings in the Green Belt are assessed as new buildings, not as extensions, when separated from the dwelling. The 5 m guide under CS.10 is applied (p.3). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** a detached garage forward of the house is not an extension or alteration of the building; no GB7 category applies - **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** inappropriate development; spatial and visual harm to openness; no very special circumstances - **L2(1)(d): fail.** incongruous garage in spacious landscaped frontage; cited in refusal reason 2 with CS.9 - **Transitional(2): accord.** CS.10 said to "broadly align" with GB6/GB7 (contrast housing cases where CS.10 was called materially inconsistent) ## Key facts - Garage over 5 m from the dwelling and forward of the principal elevation; the CS.10 guidance expects curtilage buildings within 5 m - Followed appeal 6003555 (Field Gate House, Broad Lane, 27 Apr 2026, garage dismissed); distinguished appeal 6001085 (Spinney Cottage, Bearley, garage allowed) - No Class E fallback because the building is forward of the principal elevation ## Sources - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/ac0ff52b-e502-ca1c-a6c2-08deb813872f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-26-01310-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # 30 Hadrians Walk, Alcester - **Decision:** refused, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Case officer Sarah Leach - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/01376/FUL - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Erection of 2 dwellings in the garden of an existing house (resubmission of 25/02296/FUL) - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, flood-zone-2, flood-zone-3, TPO, valued-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.21 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(2)(c), F7, F5, F6 - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.4, CS.6, CS.15, AS.2 - **Main issues:** flood risk, sequential test, biodiversity - **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, flood-f7, flood-sequential-test, small-scheme, stratford-relevant ## Summary Two houses in a garden inside Alcester's settlement boundary, with the dwellings placed in Flood Zones 2 and 3. Refused under delegated powers on 17 September 2026. This is the clearest SDC example so far of the S4(2)(c) mechanism: failure of a national policy that says development "should be refused" (F7, with F5 and F6) makes the benefits "likely to be substantially outweighed", despite substantial weight to housing. ## Issues and findings - **S4(2)(c) framing.** "In regard to S4(2)(C) … the proposal would fail against NDMP F7, and the proposal would fall into one of the specific reasons to refuse an application with the framework … Therefore the presumption in favour of development would not apply" (Report p.3). - **F7: fail.** "NDMP F7 is explicit that development should be refused unless all of the requirements of NDMP F7 are addressed. This is a specific circumstance in which the Framework advises that a planning application should be refused" (p.9). The layout places the dwellings in FZ2/3 when FZ1 land is available within the site (p.10). The land-level changes "would as a matter of fact result in a worsening of flood risk off site" (p.11). - **F5: fail.** The applicant suggested the sequential test "should relate to other land designations … such as the Green Belt. This is a wholly incorrect approach to the sequential test as required under NDMP F5" (p.12). - **Ecology.** With no habitat baseline, BNG could not be assessed (N2, CS.6). Significant adverse weight. ## Planning balance S4 was run twice. First, S4(2)(c) is triggered by the F7 failure. Second, "notwithstanding", an express weighing: substantial adverse weight to flood harm and significant weight to ecology, against substantial weight to 2 homes and limited weight to the economy and climate measures. "The adverse effects of the development substantially outweigh the benefits" (pp.14–15). ## What made the difference F7 contains its own "should be refused" instruction. That converts a flood failure into a presumption-defeating matter under S4(2)(c), whatever the housing shortfall. ## Transferable points - SDC applies S4(2)(c) as a trigger. Once a "should be refused" policy (here F7) fails, the benefits are presumed "substantially outweighed" and the balance is confirmatory only (pp.3, 14). - The same logic is available under S5(2) and S5(5) for sites outside settlements, and for Green Belt sites found not inappropriate. SDC has not yet applied it to DP3(3) (see stratford-26-00617-PIP). - The sequential test is about flood-zone alternatives only. Other designations, such as the Green Belt, are irrelevant to it (p.12). ## Policy findings - **S4(2)(c): fail.** failure of F7, a "should be refused" policy, makes the benefits "likely to be substantially outweighed" - **F7: fail (substantial weight).** dwellings placed in FZ2/3 when parts of the site are FZ1 (F7(2)(a)); safe access, resilience and off-site risk requirements not met; ground-level changes would worsen flood risk for the host property - **F5: fail.** no sequential test evidence; applicant's attempt to run it against Green Belt and amenity rather than flood-zone alternatives called "wholly incorrect" - **F6: fail.** exception test not demonstrated - **N2: fail (significant weight).** no habitat baseline so BNG could not be assessed - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 2 dwellings - **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** CS.15 given very limited weight, but not relevant since the site is inside the BUAB ## Key facts - Site inside the BUAB of Alcester (Main Rural Centre); western half in Flood Zones 2 and 3 - Access strip off Evesham Road lies in the Green Belt but carries no built development; openness not affected - Applicant's flood report reasoned the site "meets the sequential test, as it is outside of the greenbelt" - Resubmission of a previous refusal (25/02296/FUL) ## Sources - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/17a0bc82-221b-c690-1c04-08debd514ecb --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-26-01376-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Trinity College, Church Street, Stratford-upon-Avon - **Decision:** refused, 27 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Case officer Heather Kenny - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/01387/LBC - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Listed building consent to replace single-glazed sashes and casements with slimline double-glazed units and replace nine sash box frames (Grade II) - **Site context:** listed-building-setting, conservation-area, inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.8 - **Main issues:** listed building, windows, energy efficiency as public benefit - **Tags:** heritage-harm-decisive, listed-building, energy-efficiency-benefit-discounted, stratford-relevant ## Summary Listed building consent refused on 27 August 2026 for replacing historic sashes with slimline double glazing at Trinity College, a Grade II building. This is an early SDC application of HE6(4)'s new wording, which names energy efficiency as an "important public benefit". The officer accepted there was some energy-efficiency benefit but held it did not outweigh "higher end" harm, because the same gain could be achieved in less harmful ways. ## Issues and findings - **Harm.** "It is considered that the proposals will lead to harm of the higher end to the significance of the designated heritage asset" (Report p.8). - **Energy efficiency as public benefit.** The officer quoted HE6(4) in full, including "enabling energy efficiency and low carbon heating measures to be employed", and noted "some benefit arising from the proposals for repair … and making energy efficiency improvements" (p.8). However, "national best practice guidance from Historic England outlines alternative ways that energy efficiency of historic windows is able to be improved without needing to resort to their replacement. As such it is not considered that there are public benefits that would outweigh the identified harm" (p.9). - **Condition.** Decay was "not … evidenced that the windows are in such an advanced state of decay that they are now incapable of being repaired" (p.8). ## Planning balance HE6(4) together with s16(2): the heritage harm outweighed a modest public benefit that could be obtained another way. ## What made the difference Historic fabric, not modern replacements, was being lost. The energy benefit was treated as achievable without that loss. ## Transferable points - The new HE6(4) example of energy efficiency as a public benefit does not override harm where less harmful alternatives exist (pp.8–9). Available alternatives reduce the weight of the benefit. - Contrast stratford-26-00922-FUL, where modern windows of no significance were replaced. There the officer did not mention energy benefit at all. ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): fail (considerable weight).** harm "of the higher end" (short of substantial) from loss of historic sashes and frames; energy efficiency acknowledged as a benefit named in HE6(4) but discounted because Historic England guidance shows less harmful ways to achieve it - **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** quoted; s16(2) and Barnwell cited ## Key facts - Grade II listed building (list entry 1204635) - Varying decay, including failed glazing bars, but not shown to be beyond repair - Officer cited Historic England HEAG321 and retrofit guidance; slimline double glazing previously approved elsewhere by the LPA was distinguished ## Sources - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/57e45501-6c98-ca71-c29a-08dec0828e92 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-26-01387-LBC.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Barn adjacent to Stonecroft House, Kineton Road, Oxhill - **Decision:** approved, 25 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Case officer Issy Howell - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/01393/FUL - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Demolition of agricultural barns and erection of 5 dwellings, in place of three Class Q prior approvals for 7 conversions - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.21 - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** Transitional(1) - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.15, CS.16, AS.10, CS.9, CS.20 - **Main issues:** fallback, principle outside settlement - **Tags:** transitional, report-reanchored-by-note, fallback, class-q-fallback, agricultural-building, small-scheme, stratford-relevant ## Summary Five new houses replacing a group of barns outside the physical confines of Oxhill, granted under delegated powers on 25 August 2026. The barns already had Class Q prior approvals for 7 conversions, and that fallback carried the decision. The report was written under the 2024 Framework's 11(d) and re-anchored with a one-paragraph note. ## Issues and findings - **Location.** The site conflicts with CS.15, CS.16 and AS.10. The officer found it "would still be considered an unsustainable location for housing development" (Report p.9). - **Fallback.** "The extant prior approval establishes the use of 7 dwellings on site, in an unsustainable location. Given that the principle of a dwelling has been established on site … and that the fallback is a realistic alternative, it is possible for the fallback position to outweigh the identified conflicts" (pp.9–10). - **Transitional note.** "This report was written prior to the introduction of the 2026 NPPF … the balancing exercise undertaken in this report remains generally consistent and … the decision remains one of GRANT" (p.10). ## Planning balance Old 11(d) tilted balance plus fallback. The unsustainable location and visual domestication were outweighed by a realistic fallback of 7 conversions, better design, better highway layout and 5 homes. ## What made the difference A realistic Class Q fallback. Under the 2026 Framework no S5(1) category is obvious. (c) needs a replacement "for the same use", and agricultural buildings are excluded from PDL, so (d) is unavailable. S5(1)(j) would require the site to be "physically well-related" to Oxhill. The fallback would probably have to justify an S5(4) "exceptional circumstances" approval. The one-paragraph note did not engage with this. ## Transferable points - SDC's standard closing note for pre-17 August reports ("remains generally consistent") was also used where the 2026 route is unclear (p.10). Weak reasoning to rely on in later cases. - Class Q fallbacks continue to justify rebuilds in locations the officer calls unsustainable (pp.9–10). ## Policy findings - **Transitional(1): neutral.** report written under 2024 11(d); a "Procedural Issue" paragraph says the balance "remains generally consistent" with the 2026 NPPF; no S5 analysis - **S5(1)(c): not-engaged.** not considered; agricultural-to-residential rebuild is not a replacement "for the same use", so (c) would not obviously apply; approval rests on the Class Q fallback - **TR3(1)(a): harm.** officer still regards the site as "an unsustainable location for housing development", outweighed by the fallback ## Key facts - Three extant Class Q prior approvals (24/03277, 25/01125, 26/00024/COUQ) for 7 dwellings; none started; the first expires Feb 2028 - Fallback held "greater than theoretical" (Gambone and Snowden cited) - New build of 589 sq m replaces 658 sq m of barns; WCC Highways saw a layout betterment over the Class Q scheme - Report written before 17 Aug, decision 25 Aug 2026 ## Sources - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/2083f40e-5098-c989-dbd0-08dec0ac7cc1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-26-01393-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Church View, Back Street, Ilmington - **Decision:** refused, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Case officer Catherine Gibbons - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/01399/PIP - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Permission in principle for one dwelling in the rear garden of a non-designated heritage asset, with access through a demolished garage - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.21 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), HE6(4), HE7 - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.8, CS.15, CS.16, AS.10, Ilmington NDP 2021 DC.1, HA.1 - **Main issues:** heritage, conservation area, backland development - **Tags:** PIP, s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, heritage-harm-decisive, conservation-area, materially-inconsistent-but-relied-on, old-wording-slip, national-landscape, small-scheme, stratford-relevant ## Summary A PIP for one house in a back garden inside Ilmington's BUAB and Conservation Area, next to Grade II listed barns. Principle was acceptable under the Core Strategy and S4. It was refused under delegated powers on 28 August 2026 on heritage grounds: harm to the Conservation Area, to the setting of the listed barns and to the host building (a non-designated heritage asset), not outweighed by the "modest" benefit of one home. ## Issues and findings - **Principle: S4, within settlement.** The site is in the Ilmington BUAB (Category 3 LSV), so CS.15, CS.16, AS.10 and NDP DC.1 were complied with (Report p.4). The IPPS "confirms that Ilmington NDP was adopted in the past 5 years (July 2021) and contains housing allocations, it is therefore considered to be 'in date' and significant weight can therefore be attributed to the NDP policies" (p.5). - **Heritage: HE6 harm, not outweighed.** "The introduction of a new/modern dwelling in this location would be at odds with the historic settlement pattern and traditional listed buildings in close proximity to the site and the listed barns historic relationship with the landscape would be eroded" (p.6). "I attribute great weight to this as required by the NPPF … the provision of one dwelling is considered to be a modest benefit in the scheme of things" (p.10). - **HE7.** Church View is a building of local importance, and the new dwelling "would dominate the site and erode the traditional rural character of the property" (pp.6–7). - **S4 conclusion.** "The benefits of approving a new dwelling within this settlement location would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects, namely the identified harm to heritage assets and non designated heritage assets, contrary to NDMP S4" (p.11). ## Planning balance The heritage balance under HE6(4) was run first and failed. That failure was then carried into the S4 "substantially outweighed" conclusion. The officer did not expressly invoke S4(2)(c), the route for failing a "should be refused" policy. The refusal reason cites CS.8, NDP HA.1 and "the provisions of the NPPF". ## What made the difference Designated heritage harm (Conservation Area plus listed building setting) against a single dwelling. The housing shortfall, although given "significant weight" in principle, was treated as a "modest" public benefit in the heritage balance. ## Transferable points - Inside a settlement, SDC treats designated heritage harm that fails the HE6(4) balance as enough to meet the S4(1) "substantially outweighed" threshold for a single dwelling (pp.10–11). - Internal inconsistency: the officer held CS.8 and HA.1 "materially inconsistent" with HE5 (p.5) but refused under them. The reasoning survives only because HE6 does the same work. An appellant may exploit this. - Old language persists: "great weight" and "(formerly 'less than substantial') harm" (p.6, p.10), although HE6(1) now says "substantial weight". - SDC's IPPS treats a post-2021 NDP with allocations as "in date" (p.5). Contrast Southam (stratford-25-00346-OUT), where a 2023 NDP with allocations was treated as out of date under the same IPPS. ## Policy findings - **S4(1): fail.** within Ilmington BUAB (Category 3 LSV); "benefits … would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects, namely the identified harm to heritage assets" - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** harm to character and appearance of Ilmington Conservation Area and to setting of Grade II Hill Farm Barns (1–3); officer also says "great weight" - **HE6(4): fail.** one dwelling "a modest benefit in the scheme of things"; public benefits do not outweigh - **HE7: harm.** Church View (building of local importance in the CA review) would be dominated by a dwelling set higher in its rear garden - **Transitional(2): conflict.** officer held CS.8 and NDP HA.1 "materially inconsistent" with HE5, yet still refused citing them - **S6: neutral.** IPPS treats Ilmington NDP (made July 2021, with allocations) as "in date"; significant weight to NDP - **HO7: benefit (significant weight).** single dwelling against the 2.21-year supply ("significant weight … at this time") but "modest" in the heritage balance ## Key facts - Backland plot within the Conservation Area, in the historic core with long rear gardens; dwelling set higher than the host - Adjoins three Grade II listed Hill Farm Barns; host is a non-designated heritage asset - Cotswold National Landscape washes over the village; site in NDP Valued Landscape 1 - WCC Highways no objection; 11 third-party and Parish Council objections ## Sources - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/0f2bca5c-ccca-cc73-9a29-08debfeff724 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-26-01399-PIP.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # The Barn, Tithe Barn Lane, Earlswood (Hockley Heath) - **Decision:** approved, 3 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Case officer Joshua Cooper (signed off Joe Brooke) - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/01458/FUL - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Demolition of an agricultural barn and erection of one self-build dwelling with detached garage (following PIP 25/02256/PIP) - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, washed-over-village, settlement-edge, valued-landscape - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.21 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g), S5(5) - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.5, CS.9, CS.10, CS.15, CS.16, AS.10, Tanworth-in-Arden NDP 2022 H3, BE1, NE1 - **Main issues:** grey belt, sustainable location, landscape, self-build - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-pass, not-inappropriate, s5-5-balance, self-build, buab-equals-sustainable, substantial-harm-still-approved, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, small-scheme, stratford-relevant ## Summary A replacement of a field barn with a self-build house behind a row of cottages at Earlswood, a Green Belt village in Tanworth parish. The officer routed it through GB7(1)(g) as grey belt. The report was scanned and read by OCR. The sustainable-location limb was passed because the footprint lies within the Built-Up Area Boundary. Moderate landscape harm, given substantial weight, was held not to substantially outweigh one home plus self-build benefits. Granted under delegated powers on 3 September 2026. ## Issues and findings - **Grey belt: PASS.** "Earlswood is a village, some distance from large built-up areas and towns. It therefore does not strongly contribute to purposes (a) or (b)" (Report p.8). Purpose (c) harm was "limited" as the site "is bordered by established development to the north and west" (p.9). - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): PASS without TR3 analysis.** "Considering the location of the dwelling, within the BUAB of an identified local service village, I am satisfied that the proposals would be in a sustainable location" (p.9). - **Landscape and character: moderate harm, substantial weight.** "The 'back land' nature of the development would not accord with the prevailing character … and the significant area of garden land would contribute to a domestic encroachment into the open countryside" (p.10). "The moderate harm to the visual amenities of the area and landscape and associated conflicts with CS.5 and CS.9 of the Core Strategy and NDP Policy BE1, is afforded substantial weight" (p.15). - **Weight to the plan.** The standard SDC paragraph: CS.15, CS.16 and AS.10 are "materially inconsistent", so very limited weight (p.6). The NDP "whilst made within the last 5 years, does not contain sufficient housing allocations to meet the housing need calculations", so S6 is not engaged (p.6). ## Planning balance S5(5). Against: very limited weight to the plan and SWLP conflicts; substantial weight to moderate landscape harm; limited weight to bin-carry distances. For: substantial weight to one dwelling; significant weight to self-build; limited weight to climate measures and the economy. "The benefits … would not be substantially outweighed" (p.15). ## What made the difference GB7(1)(g) was the gateway, and limb (iii) was treated as met by the BUAB designation alone. Once in S5(5), even substantial-weight harm did not tip the balance against substantial housing weight plus significant self-build weight. ## Transferable points - SDC delegated practice: a site within a Local Service Village BUAB is treated as a "sustainable location" for GB7(1)(g)(iii) without route-by-route TR3 analysis (p.9). Objectors should expect route quality to be examined only where the site is outside the BUAB. - A second SDC decision, with Snitterfield (stratford-26-00617-PIP), in which harm given substantial weight did not "substantially outweigh" substantial housing benefit (p.15). - The officer found that the scheme fell under none of GB7(1)(a)–(f) or (h) and went to GB7(1)(g) (p.8). This is consistent with Annex B, which excludes land last occupied by agricultural buildings from PDL; that is our inference, as the report does not say why (e) failed. ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** Earlswood "a village, some distance from large built-up areas and towns"; site bordered by development to north and west - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** 2.21-year supply - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** passed in one sentence because the dwelling footprint lies within the BUAB of a Category 3 LSV; no TR3 analysis of routes or services - **GB7(1)(g)(iv): not-engaged.** 0.49 ha, 1 dwelling - **DP3: harm (substantial weight).** officer found "moderate harm" to visual amenity and landscape (backland, garden encroachment, Arden SLA) given substantial weight - **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** CS.10, CS.15, CS.16, AS.10 and NDP H3 materially inconsistent - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** one dwelling towards the supply ## Key facts - The dwelling itself sits inside the Earlswood BUAB; the drive and garden extend into open countryside outside it - Existing agricultural barn; officer found none of GB7(1)(a)-(f) or (h) applied and used the grey-belt route - Self-build, with a surplus of 18 plots at 30 Oct 2024; self-build given significant weight - Officer gave moderate landscape harm "substantial weight" and still found benefits not substantially outweighed ## Sources - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/87b2c02e-9845-ccac-142a-08dec562c6ee --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-26-01458-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Hales Farm, Fosse Way, Moreton Morrell - **Decision:** approved, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Case officer Ian Guffick - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/01558/FUL - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Demolition of a 137 sq m dwelling and 58 sq m annexe; replacement self-build country house of 654 sq m - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, isolated, valued-landscape, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(d), S5(1)(c) - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.5, CS.9, CS.12, CS.20, AS.10(f) - **Main issues:** replacement dwelling size, PDL route, landscape - **Tags:** s5-1-d-pdl-route, s5-1-c-reuse, replacement-dwelling, fallback, self-build, rural-curtilage-pdl, stratford-relevant ## Summary A replacement dwelling in open countryside, more than three times the size of the house it replaces. It failed the "not disproportionately larger" test in S5(1)(c) and Core Strategy CS.20. The officer approved it anyway under S5(1)(d), treating the residential curtilage as previously developed land with no size limit, backed by an extant fallback permission. Granted under delegated powers on 7 September 2026. ## Issues and findings - **S5(1)(d): PASS.** "In this instance, the site can be considered to be previously developed land, in accordance with part D, which Officers note, contains no restrictions relating to the scale of a development" (Report p.5). - **S5(1)(c) and CS.20: conflict.** "The proposed replacement would therefore be significantly larger than the existing … the proposal is considered to conflict with Policy CS.20 … The proposal also conflicts with NDMP S5.C" (pp.5–6). - **Appeal support.** The officer relied on appeal 6004872 (25/01061/PIP): "Policy CS.20 allows for some flexibility with consideration of harm to character and amenity being the overarching consideration" (p.6). - **Landscape: no harm.** The design is of high quality, and the site is set back with an LVIA and landscaping. "No harm can be identified with the proposal" (p.13). ## Planning balance The conflict with CS.20 and S5(1)(c) on size and siting was held "outweighed by the overall benefits". "It is recommended that presumption in favour of sustainable development applies" (p.13). The fallback of the 2024 permission, which was also significantly larger than the existing house, carried much of the weight. ## What made the difference The Annex B definition of PDL includes the curtilage of developed land and excludes residential gardens only "in built-up areas". A rural house plot therefore counts as PDL, and S5(1)(d) has no proportionality limit. In practice this lets a large replacement house bypass the proportionality test in S5(1)(c). Without the (d) route and the fallback, the S5(1)(c) conflict would have needed "exceptional circumstances" under S5(4). ## Transferable points - SDC reads S5(1)(d) as available to replacement dwellings on rural residential curtilage, with "no restrictions relating to the scale of a development" (p.5). This is a significant gloss that can be used, or challenged, in other replacement-dwelling cases. - Where both (c) and (d) could apply, an officer may approve under (d) despite failing (c)'s proportionality test (pp.5–6, 13). That reading makes (c)'s limit on replacements largely redundant for residential sites outside built-up areas. - The balance was not expressly framed as S5(1) "substantially outweighed". The report reverts to the generic phrase "presumption in favour of sustainable development applies" (p.13). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(d): pass.** existing rural residential curtilage treated as previously developed land; officer notes (d) "contains no restrictions relating to the scale of a development" - **S5(1)(c): fail.** replacement "significantly larger" (about 3.4x floorspace) and partly outside curtilage, so conflicts with (c) and CS.20 - **DP3: pass.** high-quality classical design, well set back from Fosse Way; no harm to the Feldon Parkland SLA - **TR6: pass.** no intensification of access ## Key facts - Replacement is 654 sq m against 195 sq m demolished; an extant 2024 fallback permission (23/02737/FUL) for a larger contemporary replacement - Site about 500 m south-east of Moreton Morrell, over 150 m from the nearest neighbour - Officer cited the recent SDC PIP appeal 6004872 (25/01061/PIP), where a replacement "significantly larger" than the original was allowed because it caused no harm - Self-build exemptions from BNG and CIL (about £43.6k) claimed ## Sources - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/40ea1cc5-3105-c89b-b86a-08decd29757f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-26-01558-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land between Clunes and Sundial, Bordon Hill, Stratford-upon-Avon - **Decision:** approved, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Interim Head of Development (item withdrawn from 9 Sep 2026 committee as no registered speakers); case officer Abbey Morris - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/01588/PIP - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Permission in principle for 1 to 2 dwellings with associated works including a pedestrian crossing - **Homes:** 2 - **Site context:** open-countryside, valued-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.21 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), TR3(1)(a), Transitional(2) - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.5, CS.9, CS.15, CS.16, AS.10, Stratford-upon-Avon NDP 2018 H1, BE1, BE2, BE6 - **Main issues:** principle outside settlement, pedestrian access, landscape sensitivity - **Tags:** PIP, s5-1-j, sustainable-location-pass, pip-description-as-condition, planned-improvements-weighed, housing-shortfall, landscape-harm, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, small-scheme, stratford-relevant ## Summary Permission in principle for up to 2 houses on a steep roadside plot about 0.5 km beyond the Stratford-upon-Avon boundary, after a 9-dwelling PIP on a larger red line was refused in April 2026. The report was prepared for the 9 September committee. No speakers registered, so the Chair returned the decision to officers, and permission was granted the same day. The officer ran S5(1)(j) and scored the walking and bus shortcomings as moderate harm. A pedestrian crossing written into the description, and the prospect of bus improvements from an allowed 130-home appeal nearby, counted in its favour. ## Issues and findings - **Principle, S5(1)(j): PASS** on the 2.21-year supply. CS.15, CS.16, AS.10 and NDP H1 were given very limited weight as materially inconsistent. The NDP "was made in 2018", so S6 was not engaged (Report p.7). - **Pedestrian route: harm weighted in the balance.** WCC Highways noted "no footway on the northern side of Bordon Hill". Because conditions cannot be imposed on a PIP, "the description of development includes; associated works including a pedestrian crossing … I therefore afford significant weight to the fact that there is a reasonable prospect of the site connecting to the southern footpath" (p.7). "WCC Highways state that walking side by side is not possible and walking close to high-speed traffic is not considered suitable … I therefore give this minor disbenefit limited weight because the footpath can still be readily used" (pp.7–8). - **Planned improvements (TR3(1)(a) "or which can be made so").** The allowed Bordon Hill appeal (130 homes; condition 35 and the S106 provide bus stops and a bus service) was held to have a "real prospect" of delivery, giving "new bus infrastructure within 400m", which carried moderate weight (p.8). - **Landscape: moderate harm.** The site is in parcel St24, of high sensitivity to housing. Moderate weight was given after the site was reduced from about 0.58 ha to 0.095 ha (pp.10–11). ## Planning balance S5(1) balance. Against: very limited weight to the plan conflicts; limited, moderate and limited weights to the three walking and bus shortcomings; moderate weight to landscape. For: substantial weight to up to 2 dwellings; moderate weight to Bordon Hill connectivity; limited weight to economic benefits. The benefits were "not … substantially outweighed" (p.18). ## What made the difference Reducing the red line and unit numbers turned the April 2026 landscape refusal into moderate harm. Putting the crossing into the description of development gave the officer a way to secure it on a PIP. Unimplemented bus infrastructure from a neighbouring appeal scheme counted as a planned improvement. ## Transferable points - On a PIP, SDC accepts access or pedestrian works written into the description of development as enough certainty to weigh them (p.7). Without that, the absent footway would have been unmitigated. - Committed but unbuilt infrastructure from an allowed appeal can count under TR3(1)(a) "or which can be made so" if there is a "real prospect" of delivery (p.8). - Each walking and bus shortfall is weighted separately as limited or moderate. None was treated as decisive (p.18). - On SDC practice, a Town Council objection with no registered speaker is sent back to officers under the Constitution (minute 207). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): pass.** about 0.5 km beyond the Stratford-upon-Avon BUAB on the B439 Evesham Road; "well-related to an existing settlement" - **TR3(1)(a): harm (moderate weight).** no footway on site side, so a pedestrian crossing is written into the description; existing opposite footway too narrow to walk side by side next to fast traffic (limited weight); bus stop 720 m, 300 m beyond guidance (moderate weight); some car reliance (limited weight) - **TR3(1)(a): benefit (moderate weight).** real prospect of new bus stops within 400 m from the allowed 130-home Bordon Hill appeal scheme (APP/J3720/W/25/3358848), not yet implemented - **DP3: harm (moderate weight).** land in St24 parcel of high sensitivity to housing (Landscape Sensitivity Study); site reduced from 0.58 ha to 0.095 ha after a 9-dwelling PIP was refused on 10 Apr 2026 - **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** CS.15, CS.16, AS.10, NDP H1 materially inconsistent; CS.8 and NDP heritage policy likewise - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** up to 2 dwellings ## Key facts - Earlier PIP for 1–9 dwellings (25/03048/PIP) refused 10 Apr 2026 on landscape - No footway on the northern side of Bordon Hill; WCC Highways said walking close to high-speed traffic "is not considered suitable" - Nearest bus stop about 720 m (routes 27/28); town centre about 2.5 km, up a steep hill - Crossing written into the PIP description because a PIP cannot carry conditions or obligations - Town Council objection was the only reason for committee; with no speakers registered, the Chair returned the item to delegated decision ## Sources - https://democracy.stratford.gov.uk/documents/s78478/26-01588-PIP%20Land%20between%20Clunes.pdf - https://democracy.stratford.gov.uk/documents/g6929/Public%20minutes%2009th-Sep-2026%2018.00%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=11 - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/237ab943-a42a-c62a-9c09-08ded108a166 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-26-01588-PIP.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Fowlers Dairy, Small Lane, Earlswood - **Decision:** approved, 18 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): SDC delegated (case officer SL, 18 Aug 2026) - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/01608/FUL - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Replacement of a lawful light-industrial building (former cheese factory) with a new commercial building - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b) - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.10, CS.22, AS.10(l), Tanworth-in-Arden NDP E1 - **Main issues:** Green Belt replacement building - **Tags:** not-inappropriate, gb7-b-replacement, materially-larger-threshold, rural-business, stratford-relevant ## Summary A replacement commercial building in the Green Belt at Earlswood, granted under delegated powers on 18 August 2026. This is one of the first SDC decisions to quote GB7(1)(b). A 16% increase in volume with a smaller footprint was held "not materially larger". ## Issues and findings - **GB7(1)(b).** "The development falls within GB.7 (b) as the replacement building, would remain in the same use and is not materially larger than the building it replaces. The existing building has a footprint of 458sqm and volume of 1985 cubic metres … The proposed building would have a footprint of 414sqm and volume of 2307 cubic metres, with a height of 6.5 metres" (Report p.5). - **Development plan.** AS.10(l) supports redevelopment "at a similar scale of an existing building for business purposes". CS.22 and NDP E1 support it (pp.3–4). ## Planning balance Not inappropriate, so no very special circumstances needed. Policy-compliant and granted. ## What made the difference Same use and a near-identical envelope. ## Transferable points - SDC benchmark for GB7(1)(b) replacements: +16% volume, -10% footprint and +0.3 m height is "not materially larger" (p.5). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): pass.** same use; footprint 458 to 414 sq m (-10%), volume 1,985 to 2,307 m3 (+16%), height 6.2 to 6.5 m, held "not materially larger" - **Transitional(2): accord.** CS.10(d) "defers back" to the NPPF, so treated as consistent ## Key facts - Lawful use confirmed by LDC 23/03181/LDE (light industrial) - Existing building sub-standard (low eaves, asbestos roof) - Decided the day after the 2026 Framework took effect, citing GB7(b) verbatim ## Sources - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/dabddd9d-7a83-cfca-d4fa-08ded2a14b9a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-26-01608-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Pittern Hill Riding School, Pittern Hill, Kineton - **Decision:** approved, 25 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Case officer Sarah Flaherty (report 12 Aug; manager 15 Aug 2026) - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/01764/PIP - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Permission in principle for up to 6 dwellings on a former riding school (PDL) outside the Kineton BUAB - **Homes:** 6 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.21 - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** Transitional(1), S5(1)(d) - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.5, CS.9, CS.15, AS.10, Kineton NDP 2016 H1, H2 - **Main issues:** principle outside settlement, landscape, PDL - **Tags:** transitional, report-reanchored-by-note, PIP, pdl, s5-1-d-not-applied, housing-shortfall, landscape-harm, small-scheme, stratford-relevant ## Summary PIP for up to 6 homes on a former riding school at the edge of Kineton, granted under delegated powers on 25 August 2026. The report was written before 17 August and runs the December 2024 11(d) tilted balance. A single "Procedural Issue" paragraph states that the outcome is the same under the 2026 Framework. It is a transitional example of how SDC closed out reports written under the old Framework. ## Issues and findings - **Old-framework balance.** "The adverse impacts of the development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits … the presumption in favour of sustainable development would apply in line with NPPF paragraph 11(d)" (Report p.12). - **Transitional note.** "This report was written prior to the introduction of the 2026 NPPF … Having considered the contents of the 2026 NPPF, I consider that the balancing exercise undertaken in this report remains generally consistent and that when assessed against both the 2024 NPPF and 2026 NPPF, the decision remains one of GRANT" (pp.12–13). - **PDL.** "In line with the definition of PDL in the NPPF appendix, I would consider the application to constitute PDL/brownfield land" (p.5). The 2026 S5(1)(d) PDL route was not expressly used. - **Location and landscape.** "Only moderate weight should be given to the adverse impacts and policy conflicts in terms of locational suitability" (p.11). Moderate landscape harm on land of high/medium sensitivity (p.7). ## Planning balance Old 11(d)(ii): significant weight to housing against no more than moderate harms. Re-labelled, but not re-run, under the 2026 Framework. ## What made the difference PDL next to a Main Rural Centre with a severe supply shortfall. Under the 2026 Framework it would probably pass S5(1)(d) or S5(1)(j) anyway, which is why the officer felt able to rely on a one-paragraph cross-check. ## Transferable points - SDC closed out pre-17 August delegated reports with a single paragraph asserting consistency with the 2026 NPPF (pp.12–13). No re-consultation, and no S5 or TR3 analysis. This pattern is open to challenge where the new tests could bite, for example GB7(1)(g)(iii) or S5(2) refusal policies. ## Policy findings - **Transitional(1): neutral.** report written under NPPF 2024 11(d); a "Procedural Issue" paragraph added after 17 Aug says the balance "remains generally consistent" under the 2026 NPPF, with no S5 analysis - **S5(1)(d): not-engaged.** site accepted as PDL under the NPPF definition, but S5(1)(d) not expressly applied - **DP3: harm (moderate weight).** landscape sensitivity high/medium (2012 LSA); rising land at the settlement edge; moderate harm - **HO7: benefit (significant weight).** up to 6 dwellings against 2.21 years; decided as NPPF 2024 benefits ## Key facts - Former riding school with two buildings; officer accepts PDL "in line with the definition of PDL in the NPPF appendix" - Kineton is a Main Rural Centre; site outside the BUAB but within walking distance of services - Kineton NDP made 2016, treated as out of date - Report dated 12 Aug 2026, decision 25 Aug 2026 ## Sources - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/49ecd725-1646-cc3d-eae3-08dee313bf94 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-26-01764-PIP.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Forest Farm, Welford Road, Long Marston - **Decision:** approved, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Case officer Joshua Cooper - **Authority:** Stratford-on-Avon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/01906/PIP - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Permission in principle for one dwelling in the south garden of a Grade II listed farmhouse - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.21 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S4(1), HE6(3) - **Development plan policies:** Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2016 CS.8, CS.15, AS.10, Long Marston NDP DEV3, HA.1 - **Main issues:** heritage setting, principle within settlement - **Tags:** PIP, s4-within-settlement, s4-approve, heritage-harm-outweighed, inconsistent-with-other-sdc-decisions, no-he6-4-balance, small-scheme, stratford-relevant ## Summary A PIP for one house in the garden of a Grade II listed farmhouse inside the Long Marston BUAB, 20 m from a second listed cottage. The report records "highly detrimental" harm to setting and a Conservation Officer objection, and gives the harm substantial weight. It then grants under S4 because one home (also substantial weight) is not "substantially outweighed". Granted under delegated powers on 22 September 2026. ## Issues and findings - **Principle.** The site is within the BUAB and accords with CS.15, AS.10 and NDP DEV3. The officer considered S4(2)(a) and (b) and found them not engaged, and wrote (meaning S4(2)(c)) that "Point C of Policy S5(2) relates to specific reasons for refusing the application under the framework policies and therefore the presumption in favour of development as prescribed by NDMP S3 and S4 would apply" (Report p.5). - **Heritage.** "The cumulative impact will severely erode the character of the dwelling's landscape and its sense of isolation, the proposals will be highly detrimental to the dwelling's setting … the status of the designated heritage asset will be devalued" (p.7). The setting of Lyndon Cottage "will not be preserved" (pp.7–8). CS.8 was held "materially inconsistent" with HE5 (p.6). - **Balance.** "The harms of the development relates to the harm to the setting of the adjacent Listed Building, is afforded substantial adverse weight … The benefits … contribution of a singe dwelling … afforded substantial positive weight … the benefits of approving the scheme would not be substantially outweighed" (p.10). ## Planning balance S4 only. There is no separate HE6(4) harm-versus-public-benefits exercise, although the report does find that "the design would be contrary to the statutory requirements of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) 1990 Act" (p.8). Substantial weight against substantial weight produced a grant under the S4 tilt. ## What made the difference The officer treated heritage harm as one input into the S4 balance, not as a free-standing HE6(4) test that must be passed first. The Ilmington officer did the opposite and refused. ## Transferable points - Two SDC delegated decisions a month apart reached opposite results on materially similar facts: one dwelling within a BUAB, with harm to the setting of Grade II buildings. Ilmington was also in a Conservation Area. The difference was method. Ilmington ran HE6(4) first and then S4 (refused). Long Marston folded heritage into S4 (granted). The first method is the orthodox one, because HE6(3) and (4) and s66 require the heritage balance to be struck on its own terms. - Implicit here, though not stated: harm short of "substantial harm" does not trigger S4(2)(c). HE6(4) is framed as a weighing exercise. Only HE6(5), for substantial harm or total loss, says consent "should be refused unless". This is our reading of the Framework, not the officer's words. ## Policy findings - **S4(1): pass.** within BUAB; none of S4(2)(a)-(c) engaged; benefits not substantially outweighed - **HE6(3): harm (substantial weight).** harm to setting of Grade II Forest Farmhouse ("highly detrimental") and Grade II Lyndon Cottage (20 m); Conservation Officer objected; weighed only inside the S4 balance, with no separate HE6(4) public-benefits test - **Transitional(2): conflict.** CS.8 held "materially inconsistent" with HE5 - **S6: accord.** officer states Long Marston NDP is within 5 years and has sufficient allocations, so S6 would bite on any conflict; scheme accords with DEV3 (within BUAB) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** one dwelling ## Key facts - The officer's own findings describe the harm as "highly detrimental to the dwelling's setting"; the Conservation Officer objected - Lyndon Cottage (C17, Grade II) is about 20 m from the plot - Decision 22 Sep 2026; compare Ilmington (stratford-26-01399-PIP, 28 Aug), where one dwelling was refused on listed building and CA setting harm ## Sources - https://apps.stratford.gov.uk/Eplanningv2/AppDetail/Index/57492042-a67c-c119-4332-08deef0d708e --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/stratford-26-01906-PIP.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land adjacent to Woodlands Cottage, Oxhey Lane, Carpenders Park - **Decision:** refused, 20 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: Three Rivers Planning Committee (vote 5-4) - **Authority:** Three Rivers (East of England) - **Application reference:** 25/2168/OUT - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Outline, up to 70 dwellings (50% affordable, 7 self-build plots), access onto Oxhey Lane - **Homes:** 70 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt rejected) - **Housing land supply (years):** 1.2 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), GB7(1)(h)(i), GB7(1)(g)(i), HE6(4) - **Development plan policies:** Three Rivers Core Strategy 2011 CP11, CP4, DMP LDD 2013 DM2, emerging Reg 19 Site Allocations CFS13 - **Main issues:** grey belt, station route GB7(1)(h), heritage, VSC balance, members vs officers - **Tags:** overturned-officer-rec, station-route-h, grey-belt-rejected, golden-rules, housing-shortfall, heritage-harm-decisive, vsc-not-shown, reasonable-walking-distance, emerging-allocation, large-scheme ## Summary Outline scheme for up to 70 homes (50% affordable) on a Green Belt field at Oxhey Lane, on the edge of Watford Heath/Carpenders Park, in a district with a 1.2-year supply. Officers recommended approval. Three days after the new Framework was published, their addendum said the site was grey belt and also qualified under the new station route GB7(1)(h), treating Bushey station at about 1,100 m as "around 800m". Members refused 5-4. They held the site was not grey belt and that 1,100 m is not "around 800m". So the scheme was inappropriate, and the Golden Rules benefits did not amount to very special circumstances against Green Belt harm plus harm to a Grade II listed lodge. ## Issues and findings - **Station route GB7(1)(h)(i): officers PASS, members FAIL.** Officers: "Bushey Station is some 300m above the 800 meters but is considered to fall within a reasonable distance that would encourage people from the site to walk to the station. The station is easily accessible from the site by existing lit footpaths with safe crossing points" (Addendum ¶7.1.7). Members: "whilst Bushey was undoubtedly a well-connected station as defined by the new NPPF, its distance of c1100m from the site did not meet the test of 'around 800m'. Accordingly, there was a need for consideration to be given to GB(7)(1)(g)" (Minutes PC170/25). - **Grey belt: officers PASS, members FAIL.** Officers found only a weak contribution to purpose (a) because the site is "enclosed by residential development … along all three sides" (Report ¶7.2.16). They also said the former footnote 7 heritage carve-out "had been removed from the new NPPF" (Minutes). The member who moved refusal said "the site made a strong contribution to the prevention of the unrestricted sprawl of a large built-up area … there was a strong argument that the site was not Grey Belt" (Minutes). Cumulative closure of c.90% of the gap by nearby permissions was argued. Officers answered that unstarted permissions could not carry weight. - **Sustainable location (TR3).** Officers: lit footways, 30 mph road, hourly bus 346, contributions for evening and Sunday services (Report ¶7.2.37, ¶7.8.12). They conceded that "access to doctor's surgery would not be easily accessible on foot" (¶7.8.12). Several members said the station distance, the lack of a walkable GP, infrequent buses and few facilities within walking distance "meant that the site could not be considered sustainable" (Minutes). The final resolution still listed "sustainable location" among the benefits. - **Heritage HE6: harm.** Low-level harm to the setting of Grade II Oxhey Grange Lodge. The Conservation Officer objected. Officers gave the harm significant weight but found it outweighed (Report ¶7.21.12–13; Addendum ¶7.3.4). Members added it as a refusal reason. - **Density L3.** 41 dph against the 45 dph expected near a well-connected station. Accepted because of the pipeline buffer and the heritage set-back (Addendum ¶7.2.3). Objectors said the site could not be close enough to the station to use GB7(1)(h) and yet too constrained to reach that density. - **Prematurity / emerging allocation.** Officers said refusal for prematurity was "a high bar" that was not met, and that an appeal would be judged on the evidenced 1.2-year supply (Minutes). ## Planning balance Officers: not inappropriate, so S5(5) applies. The significant weight to low-level heritage harm did not substantially outweigh the benefits: market housing (substantial), affordable (substantial), Golden Rules (significant), sustainable location (moderate) (Report ¶7.21.7 table; Addendum ¶7.5.7, corrected orally to the "substantially outweighed" wording). Members: inappropriate, so GB6(2) applies, with "very substantial weight" to Green Belt harm including openness. Benefits: market housing substantial, affordable substantial, Golden Rules significant, self-build moderate, sustainable development limited, infrastructure none, green infrastructure none. Green Belt harm plus heritage harm plus the unsigned S106 outweighed them. ## What made the difference The officers' approval rested on two generous readings: that 1,100 m is "around 800m" for GB7(1)(h), and that a contained greenfield site on the edge of Watford makes only a weak contribution to purpose (a). Members rejected both. They did not have to break the 1.2-year shortfall or the 50% affordable offer; they only had to push the scheme back into the VSC test, where Green Belt harm carries substantial weight. A site within about 800 m of Bushey, or officers' grey belt reasoning accepted, would have put the scheme in the S5(5) balance, where officers found low-level heritage harm could not "substantially outweigh" the benefits. Expect an appeal. It will test the "around 800m" reading. ## Transferable points - Officer reading: a walk of about 1,100 m (16 min) on lit footways with safe crossings was treated as "reasonable walking distance" under Annex B (Addendum ¶7.1.7). Members rejected this, and the question is untested at appeal. - A new L3 density point can be used against a GB7(1)(h) claim: a site that relies on station proximity should reach the station-proximate density (Addendum ¶7.2.3; objector submissions). - Officers treat the removal of footnote 7 from the grey belt definition as ending "heritage makes it not grey belt" arguments (Minutes PC170/25). - Even with a 1.2-year supply and 50% affordable housing, members may find no VSC once they hold the land is not grey belt. The grey belt judgement is the pivot. ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(h)(i): fail.** Officers: Bushey (well-connected) c.1,100 m / 16 min walk via lit footways is 'around 800m'. Members: c.1,100 m does not meet 'around 800m' - **AnnexB:grey-belt: fail.** Officers: weak contribution to (a),(b),(d), site enclosed on three sides. Members: strong contribution to checking sprawl of Watford; last gap between Watford and Carpenders Park - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass (moderate weight).** Officers: lit footways, 30 mph road, hourly 346 bus, contributions; members still weighed 'sustainable location' as a (limited) benefit though several doubted it - **GB8: benefit (significant weight).** 50% affordable, infrastructure contributions, on-site green space; members gave compliance significant weight - **HE6(4): harm (significant weight).** low-level harm to setting of Grade II Oxhey Grange Lodge; members added it as a refusal reason - **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** members held inappropriate; VSC not shown despite substantial weight to market and affordable housing - **S5(5): not-engaged.** officers' route (not inappropriate → S5(5) 'substantially outweighed') rejected by members - **L3: neutral.** 41 dph vs 45 dph for station-proximate sites; officers accepted shortfall because of pipeline buffer and heritage set-back ## Key facts - Council supply 1.2 years - Bushey station c.1,100 m (16 min walk) from site; officers treated this as "around 800m" - Site 2.7 ha greenfield grazing, enclosed by housing on three sides and Oxhey Lane on the fourth - 50% affordable (71% rented), 7 self-build plots, Golden Rules met per officers - Allocated (CFS13) in emerging Reg 19 plan, consultation still open at time of meeting - Report written under Dec 2024 NPPF; addendum re-ran it under Aug 2026 Framework three days after publication - Vote 5-4 to refuse against officer recommendation ## Sources - https://moderngov.threerivers.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1137&MId=1972 - https://moderngov.threerivers.gov.uk/documents/s19343/ - https://moderngov.threerivers.gov.uk/documents/s19487/ - https://moderngov.threerivers.gov.uk/documents/g1972/Printed%20minutes%2020th-Aug-2026%2019.30%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/threerivers-25-2168-OUT.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Woodcock Hill Industrial Estate, Harefield Road, Rickmansworth - **Decision:** approved, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: Three Rivers Planning Committee (unanimous) - **Authority:** Three Rivers (East of England) - **Application reference:** 26/0520/FUL - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Three buildings comprising six small industrial units (B2/B8/E(g)(iii)) with parking and hardstanding - **Site context:** green-belt, PDL, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(e), E2, E4(2), TR6 - **Development plan policies:** Three Rivers Core Strategy CP6, CP11, DMP LDD DM2 - **Main issues:** PDL exception, openness, economic need, highway - **Tags:** pdl-e-limb, not-inappropriate, e2-substantial-weight, rural-business, employment, curtilage-pdl ## Summary Six small industrial units at the back of an existing Green Belt industrial estate, approved unanimously. Officers treated the land as previously developed: lawful long-term storage use plus enclosed grassland that is functionally part of the estate. They found no substantial harm to openness under GB7(1)(e). They gave the economic benefits substantial weight under the new E2 and found E4(2) met for a rural business location. ## Issues and findings - **PDL / GB7(1)(e): PASS.** "the application site is both visually and functionally related to the wider Industrial Estate" (Report ¶7.2.7), following the Chorleywood appeal on curtilage. "The new buildings would be viewed in relation to the existing built form … they would be no higher than the existing buildings … the site is visually contained" (¶7.2.10). "it is not considered that the development would result in substantial harm to openness" (¶7.2.11). - **E2: benefit, substantial weight.** "Policy E2.1 states that substantial weight should be given to the economic benefits of proposals for commercial development" (¶7.1.2, ¶7.1.8). - **E4(2): PASS.** Rural business needs "may need to be located outside settlements and in locations that are not well served by public transport". The site uses PDL related to existing development (¶7.1.3, ¶7.1.8). - **Highways TR6.** "whilst Harefield Road was a narrow road, policy TR6.4 of the NPPF emphasised that applications could only be refused on highways safety grounds where there would be a severe adverse impact" (Minutes PC177/26). ## What made the difference Enclosure and functional connection to the estate made the grassland part of the PDL. The new E2 "substantial weight" for business investment, together with an economic study showing a small-unit shortfall, answered members' doubts about need. ## Transferable points - E4(2) expressly tolerates rural business sites poorly served by public transport where they use PDL related to existing development. That contrasts with the TR3 approach to housing. - E2(1) gives "substantial weight" to economic benefits of business investment (¶7.1.2). It is the commercial counterpart of HO7. - Enclosed land "visually and functionally related" to an established industrial use was treated as curtilage PDL (¶7.2.7–7.2.8). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(e): pass.** rear of estate used 10+ years for container/boat storage (lawful by time) plus grassed land enclosed by vegetation, "visually and functionally related" to the estate → PDL; buildings no higher than existing; no substantial harm to openness - **E2: benefit (substantial weight).** 'substantial weight … to the economic benefits'; SW Herts Economic Study 2024 shows shortfall of small industrial land - **E4(2): pass.** rural business on PDL physically related to existing development; public transport poor accepted - **TR6: pass.** narrow Harefield Road, but HCC no objection; refusal only where severe ## Key facts - Part of site in lawful storage use by passage of time; remainder grassed but enclosed - Officers relied on Chorleywood appeal APP/P1940/W/25/3370028 for treating enclosed curtilage as PDL - Parking shortfall of up to 4 spaces accepted - Members queried need given conversions of commercial space to residential; officers cited economic study ## Sources - https://moderngov.threerivers.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1137&MId=1973 - https://moderngov.threerivers.gov.uk/documents/s19626/ - https://moderngov.threerivers.gov.uk/documents/g1973/Printed%20minutes%2010th-Sep-2026%2019.30%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/threerivers-26-0520-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Coblands Nursery, Trench Road, Tonbridge - **Decision:** approved, 19 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: Tonbridge and Malling Planning Committee (10 for, 1 against, 2 abstentions) - **Authority:** Tonbridge and Malling (South East) - **Application reference:** TM/25/01976/PA - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Outline (EIA), up to 350 dwellings (50% affordable), two accesses, open space, school parking, pedestrian/cycle link to sports ground - **Homes:** 350 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, PDL - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.96 - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 63 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g), GB8, TR3, TR6 - **Development plan policies:** TMBC Core Strategy 2007, emerging Local Plan Green Belt Assessment (TO-11, TO-13 'Provisional Grey Belt') - **Main issues:** grey belt, PDL openness, sustainable location, Golden Rules, highways capacity - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, golden-rules, not-inappropriate, sustainable-location-pass, housing-shortfall, affordable-led, large-scheme, pdl-e-limb, london-as-large-built-up-area, applicant-drafted-nppf-table, s5-5-misapplied ## Summary 350 homes (50% affordable) on a closed commercial plant nursery on the edge of Tonbridge, in the Metropolitan Green Belt. The site is mostly PDL, but the quantum would cause substantial harm to openness, so GB7(1)(e) failed. Officers instead found it grey belt and passed all four GB7(1)(g) limbs, with the Golden Rules met. The committee approved 10-1-2 two days after the new Framework took effect, on a supplementary report whose 2024→2026 comparison table was drafted by the applicant and endorsed by officers. ## Issues and findings - **PDL limb (e): FAIL.** "Whilst the majority of the site would be considered to constitute PDL, the extant and quantum of development proposed would cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt" (Supplementary table, GB7 row). - **Grey belt: PASS.** The Council's Green Belt Assessment puts both sub-areas as "Provisional Grey Belt" (Report ¶8.29). On purpose (a), officers adopted a recent appeal finding that in Tonbridge and Malling "London is the most relevant large built-up area and consequently the site does not contribute strongly to purpose (a)" (Report ¶8.30, citing APP/H2265/W/24/3347410). They also noted physical containment on three sides. - **Sustainable location: PASS.** "the town centre is approximately 2km from the proposal site [but] there is a parade of shops … a Sainsbury's Local … Trenchwood Medical Centre … primary schools … within walking distance" (Report ¶8.65). Buses 218/219 run "twice an hour and operate every day of the week" to the town centre and station (¶8.66). KCC: "The surrounding highway has existing, lit, footway/cycleway" (¶5.125). - **Golden Rules: PASS.** "Substantial weight should be given to the proposal's compliance with the Golden Rules as per GB8, part 2" (Supplementary). - **Highways.** Members were "significantly concerned" about congestion, but the independent consultant found no severe impact. A monitoring condition sets trigger points (Minutes PL 26/52). - **S5 muddle.** The supplementary table also says S5(1)(d) and (j) are satisfied. S5(5) disapplies S5 in the Green Belt, except as the balance once a scheme is not inappropriate. The error did not affect the outcome. ## Planning balance Not inappropriate, so the balance is the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" test. The supplementary report says: "It has been demonstrated that the benefits of the development would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects". ## What made the difference Treating London, rather than Tonbridge, as the relevant "large built-up area" removes purpose (a) from most outer-Metropolitan Green Belt edge sites. With the Council's own Green Belt Assessment labelling the land provisional grey belt, a 2.96-year supply and HDT at 63%, the remaining questions were technical. Members' infrastructure concerns could only be met by conditions. ## Transferable points - The large built-up area for purpose (a) can be read as London in outer Metropolitan Green Belt districts. Officers adopted this from the Wrotham appeal (Report ¶8.30). It is a strong argument for developers and one objectors should address head-on. - A site on a town edge with a local parade, medical centre and schools within walking distance, and a bus twice an hour, passes GB7(1)(g)(iii) even with the town centre 2 km away (¶8.65–8.66). - Watch for applicant-drafted comparison tables in supplementary reports. This one misapplied S5 to a Green Belt site. ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(e): fail.** majority of site is PDL (former commercial plant nursery, glasshouses) but quantum would cause substantial harm to openness - **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** Council GBA sub-areas 'Provisional Grey Belt'; contained by planting, brook and development on three sides; relevant large built-up area for purpose (a) is London (per Wrotham appeal 3347410) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** 2.96-year supply; HDT 63% - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** adjoins Tonbridge (Tier 1); local parade, supermarkets, medical centre, schools within walking distance; town centre c.2 km; buses 218/219 twice hourly to town/station; lit footway/cycleway - **GB8: pass (substantial weight).** 50% affordable, infrastructure contributions, public open space and sports ground link - **L3: pass.** c.30 dph, 'slightly lower than expected' justified by edge location - **TR6: pass.** independent highways consultant — no severe impact; monitoring condition with trigger points - **S5(1)(d): neutral.** supplementary (applicant-drafted) table also claimed S5(1)(d)/(j) — but S5(5) excludes Green Belt; officers endorsed table ## Key facts - Former commercial plant nursery, ceased Dec 2025 - Supplementary report's NPPF 2024→2026 comparison table "provided by the applicant and has been checked by officers who agree with the conclusions" - Supply 2.96 years (31 Mar 2026), HDT 63% - Members' concerns were traffic on Trench Road, water supply, foul drainage — dealt with by Grampian condition and monitoring ## Sources - https://democracy.tmbc.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=535&MId=6726 - https://democracy.tmbc.gov.uk/documents/s99625/Supplementary%20Report%20of%20Director%20of%20Planning%20Housing%20and%20Regulatory%20Services.pdf - https://democracy.tmbc.gov.uk/documents/s99170/Report%20of%20Director%20of%20Planning%20Housing%20and%20Regulatory%20Services.pdf - https://democracy.tmbc.gov.uk/documents/g6726/Printed%20minutes%2019th-Aug-2026%2019.30%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=1 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/tmbc-25-01976-PA.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land off High Cross Lane, Pinley Green (permanent rural worker's dwelling) - **Decision:** approved, 21 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Dan Charles (case officer) - **Authority:** Warwick (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** W/25/0302 - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Three-bedroom cottage-style rural worker's dwelling (150 m² footprint) with detached garage replacing a temporary log cabin at an equestrian enterprise - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, isolated - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO11(1)(a), GB6(2) - **Development plan policies:** Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2029 DS18, H1, H12 - **Main issues:** rural worker need, Green Belt very special circumstances, dwelling size - **Tags:** rural-worker-dwelling, vsc-shown, equestrian, small-scheme ## Summary A permanent three-bedroom rural worker's house with a garage at an equestrian rehabilitation enterprise near Pinley Green, in the Green Belt, replacing a temporary log cabin. It uses the same Warwick DC template as W/26/0134: HO11(1)(a) essential need, verified by a consultant, provides the very special circumstances for inappropriate development. ## Issues and findings - **HO11(1)(a): PASS.** "the consultant has concluded that the business is financially sound and projects to be so in future … satisfied that the business is financially viable to justify the property" (Report). On size: "the Local Plan does not define a numerical limit on floor area for rural worker's dwellings, only that it should be proportionate to the established functional requirement" (Report). - **Alternatives.** "the site is very isolated from any nearby settlements and … only a dwelling within sight and sound of the enterprise that generates a need to live on-site would be suitable" (Report). - **Green Belt.** GB6(2) is applied; a new dwelling is inappropriate and very special circumstances are required. ## Planning balance GB6(2): the essential need clearly outweighs harm by reason of inappropriateness and harm to openness. ## What made the difference A consultant-verified functional and financial need on an enterprise tested over a temporary-consent period. ## Transferable points - A 150 m² three-bedroom cottage with a garage was accepted as "modest" for a rural worker. There is no numerical cap. - The temporary-then-permanent pattern (a three-year trial dwelling) is decisive in both Warwick cases. ## Policy findings - **HO11(1)(a): pass.** independent rural consultant confirmed the functional need (horse rehabilitation) and financial soundness; 150 m² footprint "modest"; no dwelling within sight and sound available - **GB6(2): pass (substantial weight).** inappropriate development, justified by very special circumstances arising from the essential need ## Key facts - 7.1 ha of grassland north-west of Pinley Green, set back from the highway; existing agricultural building - A temporary log cabin was granted in 2019 (W/19/1390) with additional stables, arena and walker - The application was registered in April 2025 and decided in August 2026, after the new Framework took effect ## Sources - https://planningdocuments.warwickdc.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_WARWI_DCAPR_97418 - https://planningdocuments.warwickdc.gov.uk/online-applications/files/D2E42FC006E4FCBCE7C303A8EDFFDBD5/pdf/W_25_0302-Delegated_Report-2014018.pdf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/warwick-W-25-0302.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Burton Green Village Hall, Red Lane, Burton Green (outdoor activity area, kiosk and pergolas) - **Decision:** approved, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: Warwick DC Planning Committee - **Authority:** Warwick (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** W/25/1768 - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Multi-purpose hardstanding with storage shed, kiosk (7.82 m² footprint) and pergolas under 2.5 m for outdoor activities at the village hall - **Site context:** green-belt, washed-over-village - **Green Belt:** yes - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(f)(iv), HC4 - **Development plan policies:** Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2029 DS18, BE1, BE3, HS6, NE2, NE3, NE5, Burton Green NP 2018-2029 BG2, BG7 - **Main issues:** Green Belt outdoor recreation facilities, community benefit, amenity - **Tags:** outdoor-recreation-facilities, community-facility, not-inappropriate, officer-rec-followed ## Summary An outdoor activity area with small kiosk, store and pergolas beside Burton Green village hall, in the washed-over Green Belt. Warwick's committee approved it in line with officers. It was treated as appropriate facilities for outdoor recreation under GB7, with HC4 giving substantial weight to community facilities. Warwick's standard "NPPF 2026" report preamble is worth noting for later cases. ## Issues and findings - **GB7 recreation facilities: PASS.** "It is considered that this would constitute a outdoor sport or recreation use and therefore must be assessed against the exemption under Policy GB7 … None of the structures would exceed 2.5 metres in height and the kiosk and store buildings would have a limited footprint of 7.82 metres … the development would not significantly conflict with Green belt purpose c)" (Report, Green Belt). - **HC4.** "NPPF Policy HC4 states that substantial weight should be given to the benefits where new or improved public service infrastructure or community facilities would be provided" (Report). - **Framework preamble.** "In the circumstances where Development Plan policies (or parts thereof) are materially inconsistent with the national decision making policies included within the Framework, those Development Plan policies should be given very limited weight" (Report, Relevant Policies). ## Planning balance Not inappropriate, so no very special circumstances test was needed. Amenity was dealt with by condition. ## What made the difference Small scale, siting next to the hall, and an outdoor recreation use. ## Transferable points - Warwick DC committee reports now carry a standard preamble applying the Framework's "materially inconsistent, so very limited weight" rule to local plan policies. Use it against the Warwick Local Plan's H1/DS18-type policies where they conflict with S5/GB7. - At the same 15/16 Sep committee (per the Summary of Decisions), members deferred a listed-building glazing application so officers could offer "clarity on the application of the updated NPPF" and evidence on previous decisions and appeals. The ref was not decodable from the Summary PDF (garbled font). It is probably W/26/0730/LB, 35 Leam Terrace. Members are asking officers to explain the new Framework. ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(f)(iv): pass.** facilities for outdoor recreation linked to the existing use; small (under 2.5 m high), read with the hall; no significant conflict with purpose (c); openness impact minimised - **HC4: benefit (substantial weight).** officers quote HC4's "substantial weight" to improved community facilities and social interaction - **P3: pass.** noise objections handled by an Environmental Health condition ## Key facts - Washed-over Green Belt, outside the settlement boundary; village hall built under W/17/2398 - Nine objections (noise, "not a sports hall"); parish council no objection - Referred to committee because of the number of objections; approved in line with the recommendation (decision issued 17 Sep 2026) - The report's standard NPPF 2026 preamble says plan policies "materially inconsistent" with the national decision-making policies get "very limited weight" ## Sources - https://planningdocuments.warwickdc.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_WARWI_DCAPR_99165 - https://planningdocuments.warwickdc.gov.uk/online-applications/files/B0513118CCE9AC39692E74C225A0DFC2/pdf/W_25_1768-Committee_Report_-_Single_Report-2017788.pdf - https://planningdocuments.warwickdc.gov.uk/online-applications/files/DDCA362D59B1CCAB27C5CD96EBCCAE1A/pdf/W_25_1768-Summary_of_Decisions-2022465.pdf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/warwick-W-25-1768.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Forge Farm, Nunhold Road, Shrewley (permanent rural worker's dwelling, outline) - **Decision:** approved, 28 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Thomas Senior (case officer) - **Authority:** Warwick (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** W/26/0134 - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Outline (access only) for a single-storey self-build essential rural worker's dwelling replacing a temporary caravan at an equine rehabilitation and farriery business - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, isolated - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO11(1)(a), GB6(2), GB7 - **Development plan policies:** Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2029 DS18, H1, H12, BE1, BE3, TR1, NE3, Net Zero Carbon DPD NZC1, NZC2 - **Main issues:** rural worker essential need, financial test, Green Belt very special circumstances - **Tags:** rural-worker-dwelling, vsc-shown, self-build, equestrian, small-scheme ## Summary Outline permission for a permanent single-storey rural worker's dwelling in the Green Belt at Forge Farm, Shrewley (Claverdon postal area), replacing a temporary caravan at an equine rehabilitation yard. Warwick DC held that a new dwelling is inappropriate development because it is not a GB7 category. It treated a proven HO11(1)(a) essential need as very special circumstances. ## Issues and findings - **Essential need, HO11(1)(a): PASS.** The specialist consultant "confirms that there would be a continued and justified essential need for a rural worker to be on site to provide 24-hour supervision in order to support and manage an enterprise of this scale and nature" (Report, Rural Housing). - **Financial test: marginal.** "the net profit for the year ending 5 April 2025 can support the costs of 0.96 of a full-time worker at the current minimum wage … When just taking into account the financial information submitted for Forge Farm Boarding and Rehabilitation, the consultant concluded that the business would not be currently viable" (Rural Housing). It passed once the farriery company accounts were added. - **Green Belt, GB6/GB7.** "The provision of a new dwelling within the Green Belt is considered inappropriate development … as it does not fall within any of the exceptions stated in Section GB7 … if there is a genuine, well demonstrated need for a worker to be present on site at most times of the day and night, then this should represent very special circumstances" (Green Belt). ## Planning balance GB6(2) very special circumstances: "the proposed development would achieve very special circumstances through this identified need, provision of housing, appropriate development scale, and site context, such that it would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt" (Green Belt). ## What made the difference An independently verified 24-hour animal-welfare need on an established, temporarily consented enterprise, plus a modest single-storey form sited next to existing buildings. ## Transferable points - Warwick DC, like Lichfield (lichfield-26-00849-FUL), treats rural workers' dwellings in the Green Belt as inappropriate, with essential need supplying the very special circumstances. The HO11 essential-need test is the gatekeeper. - The viability test is strict: a business supporting 0.96 of a full-time worker on its own accounts initially failed. - Being inappropriate, the scheme needed no GB7(1)(g) or TR3 location analysis, and none was done. This is a separate route from market housing. ## Policy findings - **HO11(1)(a): pass.** essential need for 24-hour supervision of horses in rehabilitation, confirmed by the Council's independent rural consultant; the business passed the financial test only after the farriery company's accounts were added - **GB7: fail.** a new dwelling is not a GB7 exception; "well established in appeal decisions that … essential rural workers dwellings should be considered as inappropriate development" - **GB6(2): pass (substantial weight).** very special circumstances from the demonstrated essential need, modest single-storey scale and siting next to existing buildings - **DP3: pass.** single-storey, well screened, built form consolidated ## Key facts - Temporary 3-year caravan for a rural worker granted in 2022 (W/22/1425), following regularisation of farriery and horse treatment use (W/22/0820) - 4 to 5 horses usually in treatment, fewer than the 6 to 8 projected in 2022 - Boarding and rehabilitation accounts alone supported only 0.96 of a full-time worker at the current minimum wage (about £27,962). The consultant initially found the business not viable until the Shoe U Farriers Ltd accounts were supplied. - No public objections; Shrewley Parish Council did not object, subject to viability - Self-build, so exempt from statutory BNG; the Council declined to impose the ecologist's BNG condition ## Sources - https://planningdocuments.warwickdc.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_WARWI_DCAPR_99350 - https://planningdocuments.warwickdc.gov.uk/online-applications/files/D92680A8E24DA91F495806FD5E22C931/pdf/W_26_0134-Delegated_Report-2016159.pdf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/warwick-W-26-0134.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land off Beech Lane, Kislingbury (58 dwellings) - **Decision:** refused, 8 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: WNC Planning Committee, 3 Sep 2026 (case officer Nathan Lowde) - **Authority:** West Northamptonshire (East Midlands) - **Application reference:** WNS/2022/0673/MAF - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** 58 dwellings (29 affordable, 50%) with access, parking and landscaping - **Homes:** 58 - **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge, conservation-area - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.3 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), S5(2), HE6(4), DP3, N6(1)(a), S6 - **Development plan policies:** West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2014 S1, S3, R1, BN5, South Northamptonshire Local Plan Part 2 SS1, SS2, LH1, HE1, HE6, Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan 2017 - **Main issues:** S5(1)(j) with a shortfall, countryside encroachment, conservation area setting, design, SPA, noise - **Tags:** s5-1-j, s5-2-refusal-policy, heritage-harm-decisive, design-refusal, housing-shortfall, large-scheme, drafting-slip, old-wording-slip, officer-rec-followed ## Summary 58 homes (half of them affordable) on farmland at the eastern edge of Kislingbury, where West Northamptonshire has a supply shortfall of about 0.7 years. Officers accepted that the scheme met S5(1)(j): unmet need, physically well related to a service village, proportionate scale. They still recommended refusal because a stack of harms substantially outweighed the benefits: countryside encroachment, conservation area setting harm, poor design, SPA uncertainty and farm noise. The committee refused on 3 Sep and the notice was issued on 8 Sep. ## Issues and findings - **S5(1)(j): PASS.** "notwithstanding its location beyond the settlement boundary, the site occupies a sustainable location for residential development … the scale of development proposed is proportionate … The proposal therefore is broadly compliance to Policy S5 of the NPPF, in so far as subparagraph 1j" (Report ¶8.48 to 8.50). - **Supply.** "it is accepted that the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land, albeit that shortfall is relatively modest (approximately 0.7 of a year) … in light of Annex A the policies most important for determining the application are out-of-date" (¶8.13). - **Neighbourhood plan, S6: very limited weight.** "very limited weight is attributed to this conflict given that the Neighbourhood Plan was made in 2017 and is now more than five years old" (¶8.30). - **Heritage, HE6: HARM.** "the proposal would cause harm, at a moderate level, to the setting and significance of a designated heritage asset, which is not outweighed by public benefits" (Notice RfR 1). "Whilst moderate in scale, this harm attracts considerable importance and weight" (¶9.7). - **SPA.** "the failure to provide an appropriate assessment … attracts substantial weight against the proposal. Indeed, Policy N61(a) states that application should be refused when the impact … upon a site of international importance has not been appropriate assessed" (¶9.8). This appears to mean N6(1)(a). ## Planning balance S5(1): approve unless substantially outweighed. For: significant weight to 58 homes and 29 affordable, plus economic benefits and CIL. Against: significant weight each to encroachment, design and noise; considerable weight to conservation area harm; substantial weight to SPA uncertainty; moderate weight to the missing health impact assessment and weak viability evidence. Conclusion: "the proposal would also result in significant and demonstrable harm" (¶10.1). That phrase is the old tilted-balance language, not S5's "substantially outweighed". ## What made the difference Several independent harms, one of which (the missing HRA evidence) falls within S5(2)'s "national policies which state that development proposals should be refused". Meeting S5(1)(j) got the scheme into the presumption, but did not survive five separate harms. ## Transferable points - A site can pass S5(1)(j) and still fail the S5(1) balance. Officers treated (j) as a gateway, not an approval. - Neighbourhood plans made more than five years ago lose S6 protection, and their conflicts get "very limited weight" (¶8.30). - An HRA/SPA information gap is used as an S5(2) refusal-policy route. - Drafting slips: the countryside reason cites "Policy L1" (plan-making); the SPA policy is written "N61(a)"; and the balance uses 2024 "significant and demonstrable" wording. - Caution: the AI summary on opencouncil.network recorded this item as approved and as an overturn of an approval recommendation. Both are wrong. Always check the primary notice. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): pass.** supply shortfall of about 0.7 years; the site adjoins Kislingbury (Secondary Service Village A) with a school, shop, pubs and a regular bus to Northampton; scale proportionate. "broadly compliance to Policy S5 … in so far as subparagraph 1j" - **S6: not-engaged (very-limited weight).** the 2017 neighbourhood plan is more than five years old, so its boundary and allocation conflict gets very limited weight - **HE6(4): harm (considerable weight).** moderate less than substantial harm to the setting of Kislingbury Conservation Area (loss of rural context and outward views), not outweighed by public benefits - **DP3: fail (significant weight).** generic suburban layout; terrace of plots 5 to 13 forms a hard urban edge with no transition to countryside - **N6(1)(a): fail (substantial weight).** no wintering-bird surveys for functionally linked land to the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA, so an appropriate assessment cannot be done - **L1: fail (significant weight).** countryside encroachment beyond the Beech Lane edge and loss of a gap towards Northampton. The notice cites "Policy L1 of the NPPF", a plan-making policy (effective use of land), for a countryside-character reason. - **P3: fail (significant weight).** grain-drying noise from Hall Farm; relying on closed windows and mechanical ventilation is unacceptable ## Key facts - The application dates from April 2022 and was decided in September 2026 under the new Framework - WNC supply shortfall of about 0.7 years (April 2026 assessment); officers dispute the Brackley appeal Inspector's split-area supply method - 240 objections plus a petition; the parish council objected - 50% affordable, but not shown to meet an identified Kislingbury need, so not an exception site - Officer recommendation was refuse, and the committee refused (issued 8 Sep 2026). The opencouncil.network AI summary wrongly records this as approved or as an overturn. ## Sources - https://wnc.planning-register.co.uk/Planning/Display/WNS/2022/0673/MAF - https://wnc.planning-register.co.uk/Document/Download?module=PLA&recordNumber=278576&planId=5816069&imageId=816&isPlan=False&fileName=WNS.2022.0673.MAF%20-%20Commitee%20Report.pdf - https://wnc.planning-register.co.uk/Document/Download?module=PLA&recordNumber=278576&planId=5816229&imageId=818&isPlan=False&fileName=Decision%20Notice_WNS20220673MAF.pdf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/westnorthants-WNS-2022-0673-MAF.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Thorneloe Place, Thorneloe Walk, Worcester (4 dwellings, repositioning; with 26/00542/LB) - **Decision:** approved, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: Worcester City Council Planning Committee - **Authority:** Worcester (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/00541/FUL - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Variation of condition 2 of P10D0017 and L10D0007 (4 two-storey dwellings) to reposition the dwellings and keep the existing access; with listed building consent - **Homes:** 4 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE4, HE5, HE6(1), S4 - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR09, SWDPR28, SWDPR33 - **Main issues:** setting of listed building, conservation area - **Tags:** heritage-no-harm, conservation-area, drafting-slip, officer-rec-followed ## Summary A condition variation to reposition four approved houses behind the Grade II listed Thorneloe House in Worcester's St George's Square Conservation Area. Keeping the existing access means part of a curtilage-listed wall need not be demolished. Officers quoted HE6 in full, found no effect on significance and recommended approval. The portal records approval issued on 18 Sep 2026. Committee minutes were not yet published. ## Issues and findings - **Heritage, HE4 to HE6: NO HARM.** "This proposal proposes to utilise the existing access and removes the need to demolish parts of an existing wall attached to Thorneloe House, a curtilage listed asset" (Report ¶7.11). "Having regard to Policy HE5 of the NPPF, the proposed works are considered to have no effect on the significance of the Grade II building" (¶7.13). The report concludes that the proposals comply with "Policies HE 4 and HE6 of the NPPF (2026)" (¶8.7). ## Planning balance None was needed once no harm was found. The extant 2010 permission made the principle a fallback. ## What made the difference The revision reduced physical harm (the wall is kept), and an extant permission established the principle. ## Transferable points - HE6(1) now carries the "irrespective of whether any potential effect amounts to … harm" wording. Officers quote it even where they find no harm (¶7.7). - Drafting slip: the report's policy list mislabels HE5 as non-designated assets (that is HE7). ## Policy findings - **HE6(1): neutral (substantial weight).** HE6(1) to (4) quoted in full; the officer found no effect on the significance of the Grade II Thorneloe House or the St George's Square Conservation Area. Keeping the existing access avoids demolishing a curtilage-listed wall. - **HE5: neutral.** the report's policy list labels HE5 "Proposals affecting non-designated heritage assets", but HE5 is "Assessing effects on heritage assets" and non-designated assets are HE7 ## Key facts - The 2010 permission and listed building consent are extant; 2025 permissions also allowed a new access onto Thorneloe Walk - The revision keeps the existing access, so part of the curtilage-listed wall to Thorneloe House no longer has to be removed - Called in by the ward member; the portal shows approval issued 18 Sep 2026 ## Sources - https://committee.worcester.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=130&MId=6125&Ver=4 - https://committee.worcester.gov.uk/documents/s66144/Applications%2026%2000541%20FUL%2026%2000542%20LB%20-%20Thorneloe%20Place.pdf - https://plan.worcester.gov.uk/Planning/Display/26/00541/FUL --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/worcester-26-00541-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at OS 9265 4891, Stonebow Road, Drakes Broughton (59 dwellings) - **Decision:** approved, 25 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Council planning committee: Wychavon Planning Committee (resolution 5 Mar 2026); notice signed by Adam White - **Authority:** Wychavon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** W/25/01931/OUT - **Procedure:** committee - **Development:** Outline, access only, for 59 dwellings including 24 affordable - **Homes:** 59 - **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** Transitional(1) - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 (as cited in the notice conditions) - **Main issues:** transition between Frameworks, resolution-to-grant issued after 17 Aug - **Tags:** transitional, resolution-before-framework, old-wording-slip, large-scheme ## Summary A 59-home outline on Stonebow Road, Drakes Broughton. The committee resolved to grant in March 2026 and the permission was issued on 25 August 2026, eight days after the new Framework took effect. The notice gives no sign that the decision was re-checked against the 2026 Framework or the newly adopted SWDPR: its condition reasons cite the superseded SWDP 2016. A week later the Council refused 50 homes on nearby land on the same road under S5 with a five-year supply (W/26/01322/OUT). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The notice's reasons refer, for example, to "Policy SWDP4 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)" (condition 10) and to "policy SWDP26 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016" (condition 21). No committee re-report after 17 Aug 2026 appears on the portal. ## Planning balance The balance was not re-run after 17 Aug 2026. The March 2026 committee report has not been harvested. ## What made the difference The timing of the committee resolution. The same Council, on nearby land on the same road (about 0.4 km away by grid reference) and a week later, applied S5(4) to refuse a similar scheme. The difference is not in the merits of the two sites but in which Framework and plan applied at the time of the resolution. ## Transferable points - Resolutions to grant made under the December 2024 Framework are being issued after 17 Aug 2026 without re-assessment. Check the notice's policy citations. Whether a decision issued after that date without considering the new Framework is lawful is a separate question: the decision-maker must have regard to material considerations at the date of issue. - Use this case alongside W/26/01322/OUT to show how far S5 plus a five-year supply changed outcomes on the edge of a village. ## Policy findings - **Transitional(1): not-engaged.** the committee resolved in March 2026 under the earlier Framework and before the SWDPR was adopted. The permission was issued on 25 Aug 2026, after the new Framework took effect, with no recorded re-assessment. Condition reasons still cite the superseded SWDP 2016 and a generic "NPPF". ## Key facts - Committee meeting 5 Mar 2026; decision notice issued 25 Aug 2026 after the s106 - 59 homes, 24 affordable, at least 5 bungalows (condition 22) - The adjacent 50-home outline on Stonebow Road was refused under delegated powers on 2 Sep 2026 under S5 with a five-year supply (W/26/01322/OUT) - Condition reasons cite "Policy SWDP4 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan" and "SWDP26 … 2016", although the SWDPR 2026 had replaced that plan by the issue date ## Sources - https://plan.wychavon.gov.uk/Planning/Display/W/25/01931/OUT - https://plan.wychavon.gov.uk/Document/Download?module=PLA&recordNumber=117664&planId=3247985&imageId=159&isPlan=False&fileName=Decision%20Notice_W2501931OUT.pdf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/wychavon-W-25-01931-OUT.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision notice. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at OS 9574 5003, Seaford, Pinvin (barn replaced by self-build dwelling) - **Decision:** approved, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Wychavon DC case officer (delegated) - **Authority:** Wychavon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** W/26/00329/FUL - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Demolition of an agricultural barn with Class Q prior approval and erection of a new two-storey self-build dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S3(1), S5(1), S5(3), S5(4), AnnexB:settlement - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR03, SWDPR06, SWDPR28, SWDPR34 - **Main issues:** S5 categories, settlement definition, fallback, sustainable location - **Tags:** fallback, class-q-fallback, self-build, small-scheme, s5-4-exceptional, sustainable-location-fail, five-year-supply-met ## Summary A self-build house replacing a barn that already has Class Q prior approval, 700 m outside Pinvin. The officer applied the Annex B "settlement" definition, found no S5 category met and the location car-dependent, and accepted that the scheme conflicts with S5 and the plan. Considerable weight was given to the Class Q fallback, which was held to justify a departure, and permission was granted. This is an early S5 example where a PD fallback amounts in practice to the S5(4) "exceptional circumstances". ## Issues and findings - **Settlement, Annex B.** "as the site is mostly surrounded by open countryside and is clearly visually divorced from the main built development of Pinvin, it is not considered within a settlement as defined within the NPPF" (Report, Principle). - **S5.** "whilst it is acknowledged that the application site is located close to another dwelling and therefore, would not strictly comprise of an isolated home in the context of paragraph 3, it does nevertheless still fail to comply with the relevant parts of Policy S5" (Principle). - **TR3 location: FAIL.** "connected to it by the B4802, which does not include footways or lighting and would represent an unattractive walking route … any future residents would be reliant on the private car for almost all journeys" (Locational Sustainability). - **Fallback.** "a realistic fall-back position exists, and considerable weight should be given to the fall back as a material planning consideration" (Fall Back Position). ## Planning balance A plan-led departure: "the fallback position of the extant prior approval for the conversion of the barn to a dwellinghouse is considered to justify a departure from the development plan" (Conclusion). Design and amenity were neutral given the footprint and massing match. ## What made the difference The Class Q approval: one dwelling here either way. Without it, the S5(4) test would have failed on the TR3 findings. ## Transferable points - The officer did not consider S5(1)(c) (replacement building "for the same use"). The fallback, not an S5 category, carried the scheme. - Under Mansell, a fallback needs only a "real prospect", not probability, and an owner's intention to maximise value was enough here. - Compare bromsgrove-25-01429-FUL (Green Belt, Class Q fallback amounting to very special circumstances). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:settlement: fail.** 700 m north of the Pinvin boundary, "clearly visually divorced" from the village, among scattered dwellings, so not a settlement - **S5(1): fail.** no category met; (h), (i) and (j) considered; S5(1)(c) replacement is not discussed - **S5(3): pass.** close to another dwelling, so not strictly an isolated home - **TR3: fail.** B4802 has no footways or lighting; limited buses; residents "reliant on the private car for almost all journeys" - **S5(4): pass (considerable weight).** the Class Q fallback (W/24/02591/GPDQ, Feb 2025) is given considerable weight and justifies a departure ## Key facts - Class Q prior approval for conversion of the same barn to one dwelling, granted 13 Feb 2025 - The officer relied on Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling BC [2017] EWCA Civ 1314 for the "real prospect" test; the landowner's intention to maximise value was enough - The new build is largely on the existing footprint with similar massing, but has more glazing than the Class Q scheme - Five-year supply with a 20% buffer ## Sources - https://plan.wychavon.gov.uk/Planning/Display/W/26/00329/FUL - https://plan.wychavon.gov.uk/Document/Download?module=PLA&recordNumber=118904&planId=3255622&imageId=56&isPlan=False&fileName=delegated%20report_W2600329FUL.pdf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/wychavon-W-26-00329-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at OS 9294 4914, Stonebow Road, Drakes Broughton (50 dwellings) - **Decision:** refused, 2 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Jack Hanly (case officer); authorised Clare Bull - **Authority:** Wychavon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** W/26/01322/OUT - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Outline, access only, for 50 dwellings including 20 affordable - **Homes:** 50 - **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S3(1)(a), S5(1)(j), S5(4), DP3(3), TR3, TR6(4), N2 - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR01, SWDPR03, SWDPR05, SWDPR06, SWDPR10, SWDPR28, SWDPR30, SWDPR34, Drakes Broughton and Wadborough with Pirton NP 2017 DBWP1, DBWP3, Wychavon Design Code SPD 2026 - **Main issues:** principle outside settlement, S5 with a five-year supply, character, access, BNG - **Tags:** s5-4-exceptional, s5-1-j, five-year-supply-met, sustainable-location-pass, design-refusal, large-scheme, open-market ## Summary An outline for 50 homes (40% affordable) on fields next to Drakes Broughton, outside the development boundary. With a new local plan and a five-year supply, the officer held that S5(1)(j) was simply unavailable, treated the scheme under S5(4) "exceptional circumstances", and refused under delegated powers. The location was found "relatively sustainable" under TR3. The decisive harms were the S5 principle, countryside encroachment under DP3 and a string of technical gaps. ## Issues and findings - **Principle, S3(1)(a) and S5: FAIL.** "physically the site is clearly separate from the village with it being located beyond the village's established northern building line … and so is not considered to be located within a predominantly built up area" (Report, Principle). "Due to its type and location and noting that the Council is able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply, none of the types of development set out within policy S5 are applicable" (Principle; repeated in the Planning Balance). - **TR3: PASS.** "with the exception of the secondary school and the doctor's surgery, the application site is located within a suitable walking distance of key residential amenities … on balance the application site occupies a relatively sustainable location, in compliance with policy SWDPR 06 … and policy TR3 of the NPPF (2026)" (Locational Sustainability). - **Design, DP3(3): FAIL.** The officer quotes DP3(3): "development proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with paragraph 1 … substantial weight should be given to compliance with relevant development plan policies when assessing the design quality" (Character). The refusal reason cites "unwarranted and conspicuous encroachment of built form into the open-countryside" (Decision Notice RfR 2). - **Access, TR3/TR4/TR6: FAIL** for insufficient information (RfR 3). ## Planning balance The S5(4) exceptional-circumstances test was applied: "should only be approved in exceptional circumstances, where the benefits of the proposal would substantially outweigh the adverse effects". The officer listed ten adverse effects and set against them homes (HO7), construction benefits and local spend. "However, as outlined above the Council is able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply … it is not considered that the benefits of the proposal would substantially outweigh the adverse effects" (Planning Balance). ## What made the difference The five-year supply shut the S5(1)(j) gateway. That moved the scheme from "approve unless substantially outweighed" to "refuse unless benefits substantially outweigh", which is a reversed burden. A walkable location passing TR3 did not rescue it. Without a supply, S5(1)(j)(i) ("physically well-related", "scale … accommodated") would have been the test, and the building-line and encroachment points would have been argued under "well-related" instead. ## Transferable points - With a five-year supply, officers treat S5(1)(j) as "not applicable" and go straight to S5(4) exceptional circumstances (Principle). - Passing TR3 does not establish principle outside settlements. The location was "relatively sustainable" and the scheme was still refused. - A site "beyond the village's established northern building line" and surrounded on three sides by fields is "not … within a predominantly built up area", so it is outside the Annex B "settlement" (Principle). - DP3(3) now gives "substantial weight … to compliance with relevant development plan policies" on design. It is being used as a countryside-encroachment refusal ground (RfR 2). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j): not-engaged.** with a five-year supply (July 2026 report, 20% buffer), "none of the types of development set out within policy S5 are applicable" - **S5(4): fail.** no exceptional circumstances; the benefits do not "substantially outweigh" the adverse effects - **TR3: pass.** "relatively sustainable location". Shop 643 m, first school 965 m, village hall 804 m, all within the 2 km CIHT walking figure; school-run buses 321 m away; better bus stops about 1 km - **DP3(3): fail.** "unwarranted and conspicuous encroachment" into open countryside beyond the village's northern building line; substantial weight to compliance with plan design policies (Design Code SPD 2026) - **TR6(4): fail.** insufficient access information (closure of the existing access, fire appliances, visibility), so a severe impact is not ruled out - **HO7: benefit.** "substantial weight" to homes is recited, but the five-year supply and temporary economic benefits reduce it in the S5(4) balance ## Key facts - The site adjoins, and lies up to 37 m from, the Drakes Broughton development boundary, beyond the village's northern building line; Grade 3b land; much of it at medium to high surface-water flood risk - The SWDPR was adopted March 2026; the South Worcestershire five-year supply was confirmed with a 20% buffer (July 2026) - The officer refused to consider unsolicited information submitted after 15 Jul 2026 - [object Object] - A nearby 59-home outline on Stonebow Road (W/25/01931/OUT), resolved in March 2026, had its permission issued on 25 Aug 2026 ## Sources - https://plan.wychavon.gov.uk/Planning/Display/W/26/01322/OUT - https://plan.wychavon.gov.uk/Document/Download?module=PLA&recordNumber=119896&planId=3250462&imageId=175&isPlan=False&fileName=delegated%20report_W2601322OUT.pdf - https://plan.wychavon.gov.uk/Document/Download?module=PLA&recordNumber=119896&planId=3250468&imageId=177&isPlan=False&fileName=Decision%20Notice_W2601322OUT.pdf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/wychavon-W-26-01322-OUT.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Duffledown Farm, Wyre Piddle Bypass, Upper Moor (site manager's dwelling, retrospective) - **Decision:** refused, 4 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Wychavon DC case officer (delegated) - **Authority:** Wychavon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** W/26/01447/FUL - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Retention and completion of a self-built manager's dwelling on a traveller site, said to replace a former straw-bale dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(c), S5(1)(d), S5(1)(g), S5(4) - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR03 - **Main issues:** S5(1)(c) replacement lawfulness, open countryside - **Tags:** s5-1-c-reuse, retrospective, small-scheme, lawfulness-evidence ## Summary A retrospective "replacement" house on a long-established traveller site at Upper Moor. The applicant relied on S5(1)(c), claiming a straw-bale building on the plot had been a dwelling. The officer found insufficient evidence that a lawful dwelling existed. The building was consented in 2002 for agricultural use only. S5(1)(c) therefore failed, as did (d) and (g), and the application was refused. ## Issues and findings - **S5(1)(c): FAIL on lawfulness.** "The applicant maintains that the dwelling that has been constructed replaces a dwelling that previously existed on the site. If that was the case, the principle of development would potentially be supported. However, it is considered that insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that a lawful dwelling existed on the site" (Report, Principle). - **Housing benefit.** "the dwelling replaces an occupied gypsy/traveller pitch … in practical terms, there would be no positive impact on housing land supply in the planning balance" (Planning Balance). ## Planning balance S5(4): no S5 category was met, the benefits were minimal (no net housing, temporary economic benefit), and the application was refused. ## What made the difference The lawfulness of the "existing building". S5(1)(c) requires the building to be "lawful in planning terms", and for a replacement "for the same use". An affidavit about past occupation, without a certificate of lawfulness, was not enough. ## Transferable points - The S5(1)(c) replacement route depends on proving the existing building's lawful use. Applicants should get a lawful development certificate first. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(c): fail.** a replacement must be of a lawful existing building for the same use. Insufficient evidence that the straw-bale building (approved in 2002 for agricultural use only) was a lawful dwelling; an affidavit claimed about 5 years' residential occupation from 2012. - **S5(1)(d): fail.** not the redevelopment of previously developed land - **S5(1)(g): not-engaged.** an open-market dwelling, not traveller accommodation; it would in fact replace an occupied traveller pitch ## Key facts - A resubmission of W/25/01867/FUL (refused) with no material changes; the dwelling is substantially built - The straw-bale building was approved in 2002 (W/01/01355/PN) subject to an agricultural-use-only condition - No net housing gain, because the occupant would vacate a traveller pitch ## Sources - https://plan.wychavon.gov.uk/Planning/Display/W/26/01447/FUL - https://plan.wychavon.gov.uk/Document/Download?module=PLA&recordNumber=120022&planId=3251486&imageId=35&isPlan=False&fileName=delegated%20report_W2601447FUL.pdf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/wychavon-W-26-01447-FUL.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Fanday, Brandheath Lane, New End, Astwood Bank (1-5 dwellings PIP) - **Decision:** refused, 18 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Wychavon DC case officer; authorised under delegated powers - **Authority:** Wychavon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** W/26/01639/PIP - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Permission in principle for 1 to 5 dwellings on paddock land - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 133 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), GB7(1)(c), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3(2), S5(5) - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR01, SWDPR03, SWDPR04, SWDPR06 - **Main issues:** grey belt, evidenced unmet need, sustainable location, limited infilling, openness - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-fail, connectivity-tool, five-year-supply-met, rural-lane-no-footway, PIP, small-scheme, vsc-not-shown, old-wording-slip ## Summary A permission-in-principle bid for up to five homes on paddock land at New End, Astwood Bank, in the Green Belt. It followed an appeal refusal of nine homes on a larger site that included this land. The officer accepted the Inspector's grey belt finding but refused on two grounds. GB7(1)(g)(ii) now fails because adopting the SWDPR restored a five-year supply. GB7(1)(g)(iii) fails because the location is car-dependent, with a Connectivity Tool score of 23 and narrow, unlit walking routes. This is one of the clearest early examples of the grey belt route failing on the need and location limbs even though grey belt status is accepted. ## Issues and findings - **S5(5): not engaged.** "Policy S5 Paragraph 5 outlines that Policy S5 does not apply to development proposals in the Green Belt … The proposals are therefore assessed against these NPPF policies" (Report, Location). - **Limited infilling, GB7(1)(c): FAIL.** "The application site does not read as a clear and contained gap within an established built frontage … the proposals would extend residential development north-eastwards along Wood Lane rather than fill an existing gap within the village" (Green Belt). - **Grey belt, GB7(1)(g)(i): PASS.** "officers have no substantive reason to depart from those findings and consider Policy GB7 Paragraph 1 (g)(i) satisfied" (Grey Belt Land). - **Need, GB7(1)(g)(ii): FAIL.** "At paragraph 24, the Inspector recorded a housing land supply of only 1.1 years … Following adoption of the SWDPR, the South Worcestershire Councils can demonstrate a 5-year supply … The most recent Housing Delivery Test result is 133%. As such, Policy GB7 Paragraph 1 (g)(ii) is not satisfied" (Grey Belt Land). - **Location, GB7(1)(g)(iii) and TR3(2): FAIL.** "Policy TR3 Paragraph 2 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to use the GOV.UK Connectivity Tool alongside other relevant qualitative and quantitative evidence … The application site has a Connectivity Score of 23. When considered alongside the limited range of services and facilities, restricted public transport provision and narrow, predominantly unlit pedestrian routes, this score supports the conclusion that future occupiers would be likely to rely upon private motor vehicles for most day-to-day journeys" (Locational Sustainability). - **Openness.** "the proposed use and amount of development would clearly result in a reduction in spatial openness and introduce urbanising features … the openness of the Green Belt would be materially harmed" (Impact on Openness). ## Planning balance The GB6(2) very special circumstances balance: substantial weight to inappropriateness, loss of openness and encroachment, plus harm from the unsustainable location. On the other side, up to five homes (reduced weight with a supply) and modest economic benefit. "Taken together, the benefits would not clearly outweigh the identified Green Belt harm and the additional harm arising from the proposal's unsustainable location. Very special circumstances have not been demonstrated" (Green Belt Conclusion). ## What made the difference The restored five-year supply removed the only "need" the grey belt route had rested on. Even without it, GB7(1)(g)(iii) failed on the same location facts the Inspector had relied on: an infrequent bus, and narrow unlit lanes to the more distant facilities. Cutting the scheme from nine homes to five reduced the number of trips but did not change "the inherent limited accessibility of the location". ## Transferable points - Fewer homes do not cure a location failure. "the reduction in the amount of development would not alter the limited range of services and facilities … the frequency of public transport provision or the quality of pedestrian connections" (Locational Sustainability). - Officers read TR3(2) as a duty to use the Connectivity Tool, and a score of 23 is cited as corroborating car-dependence alongside qualitative evidence. - Under fn41, GB7(1)(g)(ii) turns on the five-year supply and the HDT. When a new plan restores supply, the grey belt route for market housing closes unless another need is evidenced. - A pub within walking distance does not make a location sustainable where other facilities are reached along "narrow and predominantly unlit pedestrian routes". - Drafting slip: the report's supply section cites "Paragraph 78 of the Framework", which is 2024 numbering, next to the 2026 codes. ## Policy findings - **S5(5): not-engaged.** S5 does not apply in the Green Belt; the proposal is taken to GB6/GB7 - **GB7(1)(c): fail.** not limited infilling in a village; the site extends development north-east along Wood Lane rather than filling a gap, following the earlier appeal (PINS 6001105) - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** grey belt accepted, following the Inspector's finding on the larger site - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): fail.** five-year supply now demonstrated after SWDPR adoption (the appeal had found 1.1 years); HDT 133% - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): fail.** Connectivity Tool score 23; limited bus service; narrow, mostly unlit pedestrian routes; residents would rely on the car - **TR3(2): fail.** Connectivity Tool used "alongside other relevant qualitative and quantitative evidence" - **GB7(1)(h): not-engaged.** no well-connected station - **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** inappropriate development; material harm to openness; very special circumstances not shown ## Key facts - The site is part of a larger site where PIP for up to 9 dwellings was refused and the appeal dismissed on 27 Feb 2026 (PINS 6001105); the Inspector accepted grey belt but found an unsustainable location, with a 1.1-year supply at that time - The SWDPR was adopted March 2026, so the five-year supply is now met with a 20% buffer; HDT 133% - New End has a pub within walking distance; the village hall, church and nursery are further away along narrow, mostly unlit routes; the bus service is infrequent - Connectivity Tool score 23 - The nearest hierarchy settlement is Cookhill (Category 4, lowest tier) ## Sources - https://plan.wychavon.gov.uk/Planning/Display/W/26/01639/PIP - https://plan.wychavon.gov.uk/Document/Download?module=PLA&recordNumber=120214&planId=3256577&imageId=36&isPlan=False&fileName=delegated%20report_W2601639PIP.pdf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/wychavon-W-26-01639-PIP.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Cedar Wood, Seaford Lane, Naunton Beauchamp (1 self-build dwelling PIP) - **Decision:** approved, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Matthew Webb (case officer); authorised Clare Bull - **Authority:** Wychavon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** W/26/01828/PIP - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Permission in principle for one self-build dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(e), S5(3), TR3(1)(e), DP3(3) - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR03, SWDPR06, SWDPR19, SWDPR28, SWDPR34 - **Main issues:** S5(1)(e) infill, fallback, sustainable location - **Tags:** PIP, self-build, small-scheme, fallback, s5-1-e-infill, sustainable-location-fail, five-year-supply-met ## Summary A one-plot self-build PIP between houses in Naunton Beauchamp, a hamlet with no services, outside any development boundary. The officer found the location unsustainable under TR3 but accepted S5(1)(e) limited infilling within a group of houses. Significant weight was given to an extant PIP for the same plot, and permission in principle was granted. Wychavon refused the Broadway plot the same day because no houses adjoined it. ## Issues and findings - **Infill, S5(1)(e): PASS.** "the proposal comprises a single dwelling on a plot located between existing residential development and is considered to represent limited infilling within a group of houses, consistent with criterion S5(1)(e)" (Report, Location). - **Location, TR3: FAIL.** "Whilst the level of services and facilities within Naunton Beauchamp is limited, there is a bus stop located 2km to the south east … This area does also not appear to have a footpath or street lighting … the location of the site is not considered to promote sustainable transport measures, as such the principle of the proposal is generally not supported due to its location" (Location). - **Plan conflict.** "The Council … effectively limits further growth within the open countryside to specific types … Allowing such proposals could easily be replicated … and would erode the open countryside in a harmful and piecemeal way" (Location). ## Planning balance S5(1) (approve unless substantially outweighed) combined with a fallback. "significant weight is afforded to the extant fallback position … The current proposal would result in substantially the same planning outcome as that which could already be achieved through the extant permission" (Conclusion). ## What made the difference The extant PIP fallback. Without it, the TR3 failure and the SWDPR03 conflict would have weighed heavily. Even so, the officer treated S5(1)(e) as satisfied although the location failed TR3, which shows that (e) does not import a location test. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(e) infill can be met in a hamlet with no services. Accessibility is weighed separately in the S5(1) "substantially outweighed" balance. - Contrast W/26/01874/PIP (Broadway, same officer team, same day): no adjoining houses, so no "group", so refused. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(e): pass.** a plot between existing dwellings to the north and south is "limited infilling within a group of houses" - **S5(3): pass.** not an isolated home - **TR3(1)(e): fail.** the village has no key services; the bus stop is 2 km away; national speed limit lane with no footway or lighting; "the location of the site is not considered to promote sustainable transport measures" - **SWDPR03: conflict.** open countryside; the officer defends the plan strategy against "sporadic unplanned growth" ## Key facts - An extant PIP for two self-build plots exists on the wider site; one plot has technical details consent (25/01087/TDC5) and is being built, and this is the second plot - Naunton Beauchamp is not in the settlement hierarchy (no key services); Bishampton is 2.4 km and Upton Snodsbury 2.7 km away; Pershore 4.1 km - Five-year supply with a 20% buffer ## Sources - https://plan.wychavon.gov.uk/Planning/Display/W/26/01828/PIP - https://plan.wychavon.gov.uk/Document/Download?module=PLA&recordNumber=120404&planId=3254368&imageId=23&isPlan=False&fileName=delegated%20report_W2601828PIP.pdf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/wychavon-W-26-01828-PIP.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. # Land at OS 0837 3879, Pennylands Bank, Broadway (1 dwelling PIP) - **Decision:** refused, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Victoria Finch (case officer); authorised Clare Bull - **Authority:** Wychavon (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** W/26/01874/PIP - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Permission in principle for one dwelling on an agricultural field - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane, near-station - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S3, S5(1)(e), S5(1)(h), S5(4), DP3 - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR03, SWDPR06, SWDPR28, SWDPR34 - **Main issues:** S5 categories, well-connected station, infill, sustainable location, landscape - **Tags:** PIP, small-scheme, station-route-h, s5-4-exceptional, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, five-year-supply-met, infill-rejected ## Summary A single-dwelling PIP on a field at Pennylands Bank, between Broadway and Childswickham. The applicant relied on S5(1)(e) infilling. The officer also tested the new station limb, S5(1)(h). The site is within walking distance of Broadway station, but the station fails the Annex B "well-connected" definition. With no S5 category met and a five-year supply, the scheme fell to S5(4) and was refused. ## Issues and findings - **Infill, S5(1)(e): FAIL.** "it is not considered that the development would be infill development within a group of houses as there are no existing houses directly adjoining the application site. There is one house opposite the site … however this is also not within a group of houses" (Report, Location). - **Station, S5(1)(h): FAIL.** "Whilst the application site is considered to be within reasonable walking distance (less than 800m) from Broadway Station, the station does not meet the definition of 'well-connected' as set out in Annexe B of the NPPF as there are less than 2 trains an hour and the service does not operate on Mondays or Fridays" (Location). - **S5(4).** "the principle of residential development in this location is not supported unless the benefits would substantially outweigh the adverse effects. The benefits in this instance would be very modest" (Location). - **Location, TR3: FAIL (despite no highways objection).** "Pennylands Bank is a 40mph road without any footpath … Access is also constrained by the absence of street lighting and crossing points … whilst future occupants would likely have to rely heavily on private cars for day-to-day journeys, it is noted that County Highways have no objection" (Locational Sustainability). ## Planning balance A plan-led s38(6) conclusion within S3 and S5(4): "there are no material considerations of sufficient weight to justify a departure from the development plan" (Conclusion). ## What made the difference No S5 category applied. The (h) limb failed on service frequency. The station's timetable (at least 2 trains an hour in one direction, or 4 overall, every weekday daytime) is a binary test, not a matter of judgement. ## Transferable points - S5(1)(h) and GB7(1)(h) need a station that meets the Annex B service standard. Distance alone is not enough, and heritage or low-frequency lines fail. - A single house opposite does not make a "group of houses" for S5(1)(e). - A highway authority's no-objection does not settle TR3 locational sustainability. The officer still found heavy car reliance. ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(e): fail.** not "limited infilling within groups of houses", since no houses directly adjoin and the one house opposite is not itself in a group - **S5(1)(h): fail.** within 800 m of Broadway station, but the station is not "well-connected" under Annex B (under 2 trains an hour; no Monday or Friday service) - **S5(4): fail.** benefits "very modest"; not exceptional - **TR3: fail.** 40 mph roads, no footway on Pennylands Bank, no crossing point, no lighting; bus stop under 100 m away but services limited; heavy reliance on the car, although County Highways did not object - **DP3: fail.** would increase the dispersal of settlement, contrary to the landscape character guideline to "retain pattern of strongly nucleated villages" ## Key facts - About 0.7 km from the Broadway development boundary and 0.52 km from Childswickham (Category 4, no boundary) - Broadway station is under 800 m away, but the service is fewer than 2 trains an hour and does not run on Mondays or Fridays - Five-year supply with a 20% buffer (July 2026 report) - First school about 1.7 miles; Co-op about 1.1 miles ## Sources - https://plan.wychavon.gov.uk/Planning/Display/W/26/01874/PIP - https://plan.wychavon.gov.uk/Document/Download?module=PLA&recordNumber=120450&planId=3254715&imageId=36&isPlan=False&fileName=delegated%20report_W2601874PIP.pdf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/wychavon-W-26-01874-PIP.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.