Land west of Little Smiths Farm, Drayton

Decision

allowed, 11 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Stephen Wilkinson

Authority

Vale of White Horse (South East)

Appeal reference

6005108

Application reference

P25/V0180/O

Procedure

inquiry

Development

Outline for up to 31 dwellings (35% affordable), open space, SuDS

Homes

31

Site context

settlement edge, open countryside, agricultural land BMV, conservation area, listed building setting

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

4.9 years

Housing Delivery Test

192%

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(j), AnnexD, HO7, HE6(4), N2

Development plan policies

Vale of White Horse LP1 2016 CP3, CP4, CP8, CP43, CP44, LP2 2019 CP4a, CP8a, Drayton NP 2015 P-LF2

Main issues

housing land supply; location vs spatial strategy; infrastructure

Summary

Outline for up to 31 homes on a well-contained field edge of Drayton, a Larger Village. Allowed after inquiry. The inspector found supply of about 4.9 years (not the council's 5.34), rejecting a blanket lapse-rate discount but also refusing to add Oxford's unmet need to the requirement. With a shortfall, S5(1)(j) was met; settlement-strategy conflict was given only moderate weight because S5 "undermines the essential thrust" of those policies.

Issues and findings

• Transition. Parties consulted after 17 Aug 2026 (DL ¶4).
• Supply — Annex D. Oxford's unmet need not added: "There is no basis in policy for including the unmet need of Oxford in the Council's housing requirement" where both use the standard method (DL ¶14). No non-implementation discount: "not advocated by the Framework or the PPG" (DL ¶54). "I find that the Council has a 5YHLS of around 4.9 years" (DL ¶57). Strong HDT "cannot be relied on as a marker of future delivery" (DL ¶22).
• Location / S5(1)(j): PASS. "Drayton falls within the definition of a settlement identified within Annex B and the site lies outside its built up area. Policy S5 is an important material consideration" (DL ¶137). "The appeal scheme would be consistent with policy S5 … given the 5YHLS position. Furthermore, my conclusions on both landscape and the site's connectivity by a range of transport modes are consistent with the site being well related to Drayton" (DL ¶140).
• Weight to plan policies. "The effect of this policy [S5] undermines the essential thrust of policies LPC3 and C4 … Accordingly, I give only moderate weight to the conflict" (DL ¶139).
• Heritage: low-end harm, outweighed. Off-site highway works caused low less-than-substantial harm to the CA and 44 High Street (DL ¶¶105, 130–132).

Planning balance

Benefits: housing substantial (DL ¶124), location/transport significant, highway works and economic moderate, open space limited, BNG and flood zone neutral. Harms: moderate-weight plan conflict, BMV loss, low heritage harm. Note DL ¶145 uses the 2024 formula — "would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" — rather than the 2026 S5 "substantially outweighed" test; the reasoning at DL ¶¶137–140 is framed under S5. DL ¶105 also still speaks of "less than substantial" harm "of great weight" (2024 wording).

What made the difference

Proving a shortfall, even a marginal one (4.9 years), unlocked S5(1)(j). The site was visually self-contained and walkable to village services with good buses, so no significant harm sat on the other side. The case would have gone the other way had the council held 5.34 years — then S5(1)(j)'s housing trigger would not apply (unless another evidenced unmet need) and the site would fall to S5(4).

Transferable points

• A marginal shortfall (4.9 yrs) is enough to engage S5(1)(j); strong HDT results do not offset it (DL ¶¶22, 144).
• Blanket lapse/non-implementation discounts to supply are not supported by the Framework/PPG absent evidence (DL ¶¶54–56).
• Neighbouring city's unmet need is for plan-making, not to be added to a standard-method requirement in decisions (DL ¶¶14–15).
• "Well related" in S5(1)(j) assessed through landscape containment and transport connectivity (DL ¶140).
• Settlement-strategy policies that restrict all unallocated edge development get reduced weight because S5 cuts across them (DL ¶139).
• Some inspectors still slip into 2024 wording ("significantly and demonstrably", "great weight") — check letters carefully before quoting (DL ¶¶105, 145).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• HDT 177%, 193%, 192% but supply found c. 4.9 years (council 5.34; appellant 3.27-3.63)
• Requirement 4,982 (996 dpa incl. 5% buffer) 1 Apr 2025-31 Mar 2030
• 2.53 ha, two hay fields bounded by tree belts and hedges beside recent estates; visual effects "entirely contained"
• Drayton a 'Larger Village' with shop, pub, post office, primary school, 34 and X2 buses
• Joint Local Plan adoption earliest Feb 2027

Sources

• planninggeek.co.uk
• planninggeek.co.uk

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.