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

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

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

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

• 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.