Land north of Spring Hill, Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor

Decision

allowed, 14 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: H Nicholls

Authority

Vale of White Horse (South East)

Appeal reference

6005809

Application reference

P24/V2357/O

Procedure

inquiry

Development

Outline for up to 249 dwellings (35% affordable), access from Spring Hill

Homes

249

Site context

settlement edge, open countryside, agricultural land BMV

Green Belt

No

Housing Delivery Test

192%

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(j), AnnexA(2), TR3(1)(a), HO7, HO8

Development plan policies

Vale of White Horse LPP1 2016 CP3, CP4, CP8, CP24, LPP2 2019 CP4a, CP8a

Main issues

location vs spatial strategy; housing land supply; implications of the 2026 Framework

Summary

Outline for up to 249 homes (35% affordable) on unallocated farmland at the edge of Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor, a 'Larger Village'. Allowed after inquiry. The inspector found the council still had a five-year supply, but only by about 88 homes. The inspector held that S5(1)(j) was met anyway, because "evidenced unmet need" is "not limited to" a supply shortfall or a low HDT score, and a very marginal supply plus significant affordable need together met it. Restrictive local-plan settlement policies got limited weight under Annex A(2), and the benefits "substantially outweigh" the limited harm.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "The main parties have commented on the relevance of the new Framework policies to the appeal scheme to avoid any prejudice" (DL ¶7). The inquiry closed on 30 June; the decision was made wholly under the 2026 Framework.
• Supply. The council's claimed 342-home headroom was cut to about 88 after trimming the windfall allowance by 40 and deducting Category B sites (DL ¶¶27–45). "This is a far reduced buffer … and is therefore an even more delicate position which points towards evidence of an unmet need for housing in the district" (DL ¶46).
• S5(1)(j) unmet need: PASS without a shortfall. "the words 'including, but not limited to', indicat[e] that the absence of a five year deliverable supply and HDT outcomes are not the only means by which an unmet need can be proven to exist. These are key indicators, but the list is not exhaustive" (DL ¶57). The HDT results of 177–193% "do not establish evidence of unmet, but are incapable of being relied upon as a marker of future delivery" (DL ¶58). "the very marginal five year housing land supply position and the evidenced significant unmet need for affordable housing combine together to indicate that the scheme complies with 2026 Framework Policy S5(1)(j)" (DL ¶60).
• Well-related: PASS. "the appeal site is clearly well-related to the existing settlement of KBS when considered spatially, functionally and visually on the ground" (DL ¶56).
• TR3(1)(a): PASS. The 20-minute bus to Oxford "is a significant factor in connecting the area to outlying higher order settlements without the need to travel by car" (DL ¶50). The school walk is about double 800 m but "comparable to existing dwellings" (DL ¶51). The letter cites the policy as "T3(1)(a)" at DL ¶53, a slip for TR3(1)(a).
• Annex A(2). The restrictive parts of CP3 and CP4 are "materially inconsistent with the 2026 Framework. Thus, the conflict … attracts limited weight"; the sub-area allocation policies CP8, CP4a and CP8a are not inconsistent and their conflict "attracts great weight" (DL ¶76).

Planning balance

S5(1)(j) balance. For: housing substantial, affordable housing substantial, transport and accessibility modest, open space, biodiversity and rights-of-way modest, economic modest. Against: great weight to conflict with the sub-area allocation policies, limited weight to CP3/CP4, BMV loss modest, landscape moderate adverse at most. "there are no other technical objections or conflicts with any national decision-making policies which indicate that development proposals should be refused. Conversely, the scheme would meet the requirements Framework Policy S5(1)(j) and that the benefits of approving the scheme would substantially outweigh the limited adverse effects" (DL ¶84). Conflict with the plan as a whole was outweighed by material considerations (DL ¶¶85, 101). DL ¶84 frames the test the other way round ("benefits … substantially outweigh"), which is stricter than S5(1) requires and does not affect the outcome.

What made the difference

S5(1)(j) was read as open-ended. A council with a technically compliant but razor-thin supply, plus a large evidenced affordable-housing need, was held to have an "evidenced unmet need". The site was otherwise unconstrained: no designations, contained by roads, a high-frequency bus at the gate, and no S5(2) refusal-policy conflict. With a comfortable supply, or a DP3, N4 or heritage conflict (compare the same inspector's Whitchurch decision, PINS-6006893), the result would likely have been different.

Transferable points

• S5(1)(j) "evidenced unmet need" can be met without a five-year shortfall or a failed HDT: a very marginal supply combined with significant affordable need is enough (DL ¶¶57, 60). This is the first letter found taking that route. Expect councils to contest it.
• A strong HDT is backward-looking and does not rebut unmet need (DL ¶58).
• "Physically well-related" was assessed "spatially, functionally and visually" (DL ¶56). Compare Whitchurch (PINS-6006893 ¶69: physical connectivity only), where the same inspector took a narrower reading.
• Annex A(2): local policies that restrict all unallocated development outside the built area are materially inconsistent with S5 and get limited weight. Allocation and sub-area policies can keep great weight (DL ¶¶74–76).
• A frequent bus service can satisfy TR3(1)(a) even where walking distances to school exceed 800 m (DL ¶¶50–53).
• Conflicting findings on the same council's supply within three days (about 4.9 years at Drayton, PINS-6005108; about 5.09 years here) show how evidence-dependent Annex D findings are.

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• 11.3 ha arable, western edge of a 'Larger Village' (third tier) with no settlement boundary; 600-home allocation already permitted on the east side of the village
• Five-year requirement 4,982 (incl. 5% buffer); council 5.34 yrs, appellant 4.24 yrs; inspector left about 88 homes above the requirement
• HDT 177%, 193%, 192%
• 2,904 households on the housing register at 31 March 2025
• Joint Local Plan at examination, very limited weight; will under-provide against the standard method, so JLP2 needed immediately
• Parties made written comments on the 2026 Framework after the inquiry closed (30 June)
• Same council as Drayton (PINS-6005108), where three days earlier another inspector found about 4.9 years

Related decisions

• PINS-6005108
• PINS-6006893

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)
• planningresource.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.