# 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 (years):** 0.97
- **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
- **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, not-inappropriate, s5-5-balance, sustainable-location-pass, connectivity-tool, small-scheme, self-build, bng-self-build-exemption, housing-shortfall, habitats-mitigation, heritage-no-harm, garden-land, pdl, old-wording-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## 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
- **GB7(1)(e): fail.** appellant said the site was part of the curtilage of the adjoining house; inspector held that, if so, it is residential garden land, which Annex B "specifically excludes" from PDL; no finding on whether the land is in a built-up area (DL 12-13)
- **AnnexB:PDL: fail.** garden land treated as excluded from PDL outright, on a site described as open countryside outside the settlement boundary (DL 7, 13)
- **AnnexB:grey-belt: pass.** no strong contribution to purposes (a), (b) or (d); previous inspector (APP/X0415/W/25/3360406) reached the same view under the 2024 text; definition unchanged apart from the removal of the old footnote 7 exclusions (DL 15-17)
- **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** plan-wide test applied to all five purposes; former South Bucks is 14,100 ha, 87.4% Green Belt; 0.16 ha site consolidates an area between existing development; no encroachment (DL 18-21)
- **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** footnote 41; Council accepts no five-year supply (DL 22); 0.97 years in the southern area (DL 41)
- **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** TR3(1)(a) to (e) taken in turn; one dwelling held not to generate a significant amount of movement, so it "would therefore accord with principle (a)"; no assessment of the walking route (DL 23-29)
- **TR3(1)(a): pass.** single dwelling at the village edge not a significant amount of movement (DL 23); site about 1 km north of the village high street (DL 27)
- **TR3(2): pass.** Connectivity Tool result "average or above average", relative to the method of travel and the semi-rural location; comparator not stated (DL 28)
- **GB8: not-engaged.** not major development (DL 14, 29)
- **N6: pass.** Burnham Beeches SAC 5.6 km zone; SAMMS contribution secured by signed UU; Natural England content; appropriate assessment carried out (DL 31-36, 42); letter uses the 2024 phrase "strong reason for refusing"
- **HE6: neutral.** no harm to the significance or setting of Grade II Elizabeth's Way; absence of harm does not weigh in favour (DL 37-38, 43)
- **S5(5): pass.** not inappropriate, so approve unless benefits substantially outweighed, applying S5(2); no trigger policy failed (DL 44-45)
- **BNG (Sch 7A TCPA): pass.** self-build exemption relied on; self-build secured by UU dated 26 August 2026 (DL 39-40)
- **Transitional(2): conflict (limited weight).** LP GB1 does not cover the full range of GB7 exceptions, so given "more limited weight"; Annex A not cited (DL 8)

## 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005162
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8c0c134c-d724-4902-b726-19a1f974beac

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005162.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. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.