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

4.85 years

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

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

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

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

• 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.