- 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
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
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 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 | market housing where evidenced unmet need (DL 39) |
| HO8 | benefit | significant | 6 affordable, 5 social rent (DL 35, 39) |
| CP2 (Mendip) | conflict | limited | 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
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.