# Former Gardens to Knells House, The Knells, Carlisle

- **Decision:** dismissed, 27 August 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Carla Livingstone
- **Authority:** Cumberland (North West)
- **Appeal reference:** 6005528
- **Application reference:** 24/0230
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** 6 detached dwellings around a courtyard in the overgrown former gardens of a country house (now care home)
- **Homes:** 6
- **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, PDL
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** s38(6), TR3
- **Development plan policies:** Carlisle District Local Plan 2015-2030 HO 2
- **Main issues:** suitable location for housing
- **Tags:** sustainable-location-fail, small-scheme, transitional-no-consultation, rural-lane-no-footway, no-s4-s5-analysis, housing-benefit-moderate, pdl-garden-land, plan-led

## Summary
Six detached houses in the overgrown former gardens of Knells House, a country house near Carlisle, in a dispersed hamlet with no services. Dismissed under the local plan's rural housing policy HO 2. The formal courtyard layout jarred with the organic pattern, the scheme would form a separate group, and the only service village, Houghton, is reached by an unlit route that lacks a footway for much of its length. The benefits of six homes were given moderate weight and did not outweigh the "significant harm" from the plan conflict (DL ¶27).

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "Although there have been significant amendments to its layout and formatting such that previously cited paragraph references are no longer relevant, other changes are not substantive or determinative to the outcome of this appeal" (DL ¶3).
- **Character — HO 2(1): CONFLICT.** "Six additional dwellings would result in a substantial increase in the density of the built environment in the vicinity, the scale of which would not be comfortably accommodated within the existing settlement" (DL ¶7).
- **PDL.** "it is reasonable to consider it as previously developed land" (DL ¶12). It was then not weighed as a benefit beyond "more efficient use of the land" (DL ¶25).
- **Accessibility.** "there is no cycle or footpath for a significant portion of the route linking the appeal site to Houghton; which is also unlit in places. This would make traveling from the appeal site to Houghton unsafe for most pedestrians and cyclists, particularly in the hours of darkness" (DL ¶15). "It is therefore highly likely that future occupants would access shops, services and facilities by private car" (DL ¶18).
- **Consistency with the Framework.** HO 2 is "consistent with the Framework, which requires that development proposals that would generate a significant amount of movement ... should be in locations which are sustainable" (DL ¶20).

## Planning balance
Plan-led s38(6). Benefits of moderate weight against "significant harm" from the conflict with the plan (DL ¶25-28). There is no S4 or S5 analysis, even though the inspector calls The Knells "a small settlement". There is no housing-supply figure and no presumption.

## What made the difference
Lack of safe walking access and a layout out of scale with a scattered hamlet. The letter sidesteps the 2026 principle-of-development tests: it does not decide whether the site is inside a settlement (S4) or outside (S5), and it does not give the six homes HO7 "substantial weight". An appellant might have argued S4 (within "a small settlement") or S5(1) with PDL under L2. As decided, the plan policy was treated as Framework-consistent and determinative.

## Transferable points
- A 20-minute walk to a service village is not "good access" where the route lacks a continuous lit footway (DL ¶15-18).
- Garden land in the curtilage of a permanent structure outside a built-up area can be PDL (Dartford), but that does not overcome a location or character conflict (DL ¶11-13).
- An early post-August letter decides housing location through a local policy said to be "consistent with the Framework" (DL ¶20), with no S4/S5 analysis and housing benefits weighted at moderate.

## Policy findings
- **HO 2 (Carlisle DLP): conflict (significant weight).** criteria 1 (formal courtyard layout at odds with organic, dispersed pattern), 2 (no services to support), 3 (not contained, forms separate group) and 4 (no good access to service villages) all failed (DL 7-19); "consistent with the Framework" (DL 20)
- **TR3: fail.** Houghton about a 20-minute walk, no footway or lighting for a significant part, no formal bus stop; occupiers "highly likely" to be car reliant (DL 15-18); code mapped by harvester — letter paraphrases the Framework without a code
- **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** six homes, windfall small site, efficient use of unused garden land, SME builder, construction and spend: "moderate" because of small scale; HO7 "substantial weight" not applied (DL 25, 27); code mapped by harvester
- **AnnexB:previously-developed-land: neutral.** former garden in curtilage of a permanent structure outside a built-up area accepted as PDL (Dartford [2017] EWCA Civ 141) but not given L2 substantial weight (DL 11-12)

## Key facts
- The Knells described as "a small settlement" of dispersed dwellings with no services (DL 5, 10)
- About 20 minutes' walk to Houghton; no footway for much of the route and unlit in places; informal twice-weekly bus (DL 15-17)
- Not Green Belt, so grey belt not engaged (DL 13)
- Parties not re-consulted; old paragraph references "no longer relevant" but changes "not substantive" (DL 3)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6005528
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/011fd5e7-8497-4318-9f30-d20d584c9d95

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6005528.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.