# 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.