Land east of Wymers Wood Road, Burnham (self-build dwelling)

Decision

allowed, 2 October 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: D R Kay

Authority

Buckinghamshire (South East)

Appeal reference

6005162

Application reference

PL/25/4615/FA

Procedure

written representations

Development

Detached part two-storey, part single-storey five-bedroom self-build dwelling with access, parking, integral garage and landscaping

Homes

1

Site context

green belt, settlement edge, listed building setting

Green Belt

Yes (grey belt accepted)

Housing land supply

0.97 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

GB7(1)(g)(i), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB7(1)(g)(iii), S5(5)

Development plan policies

South Bucks District Local Plan 1999 GB1, GB3, South Bucks Core Strategy Core Policy 9

Main issues

inappropriate development; grey belt; sustainable location; very special circumstances

Summary

A single self-build house on a 0.16 ha plot in the Green Belt at the northern edge of Burnham was allowed. The inspector rejected the previously developed land (PDL) route, but found the site to be grey belt meeting GB7(1)(g)(i) to (iii), with the Council at 0.97 years' supply. The S5(5) balance then favoured approval, with the Special Area of Conservation (SAC) mitigation secured and no heritage harm.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "in the interests of fairness, I have reverted to the parties for their comments as to the effects of the revised Framework on their respective cases" (DL ¶2).
• GB7(1)(e) PDL: FAIL. If the land was part of the neighbour's curtilage, "it would not meet the definition of PDL in Annex B of the Framework, which specifically excludes residential garden land from the definition of PDL" (DL ¶13). The letter does not ask whether the land is in a built-up area, although it describes the site as lying "within a land use designation as open countryside" (DL ¶7).
• Grey belt: PASS. "as ‘any other land’ that would not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b) or (d) outlined in Policy GB2(1) of the Framework, I find it would represent GBL" (DL ¶17).
• GB7(1)(g)(i) "fundamentally undermine": PASS. "the assessment for Policy GB7(1)(g)(i) is not the effect of development on the specific site, but rather it is whether development of the appeal site would fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining GB across the area of the plan" (DL ¶20). "The appeal site would, at 0.16 hectares, represent a very small percentage of the remaining GB land" (DL ¶20).
• GB7(1)(g)(ii): PASS. "The Council have acknowledged they cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply as required by the Framework" (DL ¶22).
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) / TR3: PASS. "Having examined the proposal, as a single dwelling, I do not consider that it would result in a significant amount of movement, given its location at the edge of the village of Burnham. I find it would therefore accord with principle (a)" (DL ¶23). The Connectivity Tool "identifies the site to have average or above average connectivity, relative to the method of travel and to its semi-rural location" (DL ¶28).
• Habitats, N6: PASS. "I am satisfied that the UU would secure and ensure delivery of mitigation, sufficient to address the harm likely to be caused by the development" (DL ¶36).
• Heritage: no harm. "an absence of harm does not weigh positively in favour of the proposal" (DL ¶38).
• Plan weight. Local Plan GB1 "does not encompass the extent of exceptions to inappropriate development in the GB, contained in Policy GB7 of the Framework. I therefore give Policy GB1 of the Local Plan more limited weight" (DL ¶8).

Planning balance

S5(5), applying S5(2): "I find that the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework" (DL ¶45). No adverse effects were identified; the benefits are not individually weighed. The conclusion is framed as accordance with the development plan read as a whole (DL ¶53).

What made the difference

The land was enclosed by housing on most sides, the Council had under one year's supply, and the SAC mitigation and self-build status were both secured by executed undertakings. The location limb was passed by treating one dwelling as below the TR3(1)(a) "significant amount of movement" threshold and by Connectivity Tool evidence, not by an assessment of the walking route. A contested route or an unsigned undertaking would have put the result in doubt.

Transferable points

• The "fundamentally undermine" test is plan-wide and looks at all five purposes, including (c) and (e); a 0.16 ha site in a former district that is 87.4% Green Belt does not meet it (DL ¶18–21).
• In this letter the TR3(1)(a) threshold was applied inside GB7(1)(g)(iii): one dwelling was not a "significant amount of movement", so limb (a) was treated as met (DL ¶23). Other inspectors require a sustainable-location finding in the Green Belt whatever the scale.
• The letter treats residential garden land as excluded from PDL without asking whether it is in a built-up area (DL ¶13). This differs from decisions that apply the Annex B exclusion only to gardens in built-up areas.
• A grey belt finding made under the December 2024 text carries over: the definition is unchanged apart from its move to Annex B and the removal of the old footnote 7 exclusions (DL ¶16).
• Absence of heritage harm is neutral, not a benefit (DL ¶38).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• 0.16 ha undeveloped plot just north of the Burnham settlement boundary, with housing to the north-west, north, north-east, east and south (DL 6-7, 19)
• Council's five-year supply for the southern area is 0.97 years (DL 41)
• Site about 1 km north of the village high street; Burnham has a station on the national rail network and the Elizabeth line (DL 27-28); no footway, lighting or bus evidence is recorded
• Connectivity Tool evidence submitted by the appellant; "average or above average connectivity" (DL 28)
• Second refusal reason (Burnham Beeches SAC) withdrawn after a signed UU for the SAMMS contribution (DL 3)
• Resubmission of a scheme dismissed at appeal APP/X0415/W/25/3360406, where the land was found to be grey belt (DL 15)
• Parties consulted on the August 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.