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

2.03 years

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

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

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

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

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.