- Decision
- allowed, 10 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: R Gee
- Authority
- Breckland (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6005970
- Application reference
- PL/2025/1130/OMIN
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Outline, all matters reserved, 6 dwellings including 2 affordable
- Homes
- 6
- Site context
- settlement edge, open countryside
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 2.82 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S3, S5(1)(j)(i), HO7, TR3
- Development plan policies
- Breckland Local Plan GEN02, GEN03, GEN05, HOU05, COM01, ENV02, ENV05
- Main issues
- spatial strategy and accessibility; character and appearance; habitats sites
Summary
Outline scheme for six houses (two affordable) on part of a roadside field in Mileham, a village with no settlement boundary, refused by Breckland as contrary to the spatial strategy and harmful to a visually important gap. Allowed on appeal. The inspector found conflict with the local plan and heavy car reliance, but the site passed S5(1)(j)(i) (2.82-year supply, physically well related to Mileham, modest scale), and moderate locational and landscape harm did not substantially outweigh substantial HO7 weight.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "the Council and the appellant were invited to make further comments. My decision reflects the latest version of the Framework, and the responses received on it" (DL ¶4).
- Location / accessibility — local plan: CONFLICT; TR3: moderate harm. Litcham route "along roads subject to the national speed limit without a continuous footway, is unlit, flanked by embanked verges offering limited pedestrian refuge" (DL ¶10); occupiers "heavily reliant upon private motor vehicles" (DL ¶11); "the site is not well located due to its lack of infrastructure and limited accessibility to wider settlements. Notwithstanding this conclusion, I do not find that the appeal site would be isolated" (DL ¶12).
- S5(1)(j)(i): PASS. "the site is physically well related to the existing settlement of Mileham, where future occupiers would have access to some services and facilities. The proposal is modest in scale and could be accommodated by the infrastructure and services available locally. In addition, a bus stop is situated close to the appeal site … These factors satisfy the key requirements of Policy S5(1)(j)(i)" (DL ¶31). Car reliance tempered: "the modest scale of the proposal means that it would not result in significant traffic generation" (DL ¶30).
- Character — HOU05 criterion 4 / N2: moderate harm; DP3: acceptable. Gap-erosion identified as negative in the LSCA (DL ¶15), but "a substantial separation would remain … These factors moderate the extent of the impact … a moderate level of harm at a localised scale" (DL ¶18). Under DP3/N2(1)(a) "the defining characteristics of Mileham as an Interrupted Rural Row village would be retained, albeit to a lesser extent" (DL ¶33).
- Habitats sites. GIRAMS contribution in UU; after consulting NE, no adverse effect on integrity (DL ¶¶23–25).
Planning balance
S5(1) balance. Against: locational and landscape harms, "moderate weight" (DL ¶50). For: market and affordable housing, "substantial positive weight consistent with NDMP HO7(1)" given no five-year supply (DL ¶50); construction/household expenditure (DL ¶51). "the benefits of granting planning permission would not be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects … Accordingly, the proposal satisfies the requirements of NDMP5(j)(i)" (DL ¶53). Local plan conflict set aside under s38(6) (DL ¶49).
What made the difference
A deep shortfall (2.82 years) combined with a site fronting an existing village street opposite existing houses and a bus stop. The inspector treated "physically well related" as a matter of physical relationship to the village (frontage opposite and to the east) plus a bus stop across the road, even though Mileham's own services are minimal and the next village is 2.8 miles along unlit roads with no footway. Car dependence was accepted but downgraded to moderate because six houses generate little traffic. A site detached from the village frontage, or a larger scheme where trip generation matters, would likely have failed.
Transferable points
- S5(1)(j)(i) can be passed in a village with only a shop, hall, church and bus stop, where the site is physically related to the village frontage; poor walking routes to the next village did not defeat it (DL ¶¶10, 31).
- An inspector can find a site "not well located" for accessibility and conflicting with local plan policy, yet "physically well related" for S5(1)(j)(i) in the same letter; the two tests are treated separately (DL ¶¶12, 31). Worth noting as an internal tension if relied on.
- TR3 harm from a small scheme is moderated by its limited trip generation (DL ¶30).
- Partial loss of a locally identified visually important gap scored only moderate where a substantial part of the gap remains (DL ¶¶16, 18).
- Drafting slip: the conclusion refers to "NDMP5(j)(i)" for S5(1)(j)(i) (DL ¶53); ¶31 opens "For the reasons given above" although the preceding reasons were adverse on accessibility.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S5(1)(j)(i) | pass | 2.82-yr supply; site "physically well related" to Mileham (shop, hall, church, bus stop almost opposite), modest scale accommodated (DL 29, 31) | |
| TR3 | harm | moderate | heavy car reliance for day-to-day needs; 2.8 miles to Litcham on unlit national-speed-limit roads without footway; but modest scale → no significant traffic (DL 10-12, 30, 50) |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | HO7(1) substantial weight to homes meeting evidenced unmet need incl. 2 affordable (DL 29, 32, 50) |
| DP3 | neutral | open gap to Beeston Road junction retained so "Interrupted Rural Row Village" character survives "albeit to a lesser extent"; details at reserved matters (DL 33-34) | |
| N2 | harm | moderate | N2(1)(a) cited; moderate localised harm from partial loss of visually important gap (DL 18, 33, 50) |
| BLP GEN05, HOU05 | conflict | moderate | not infilling or rounding off; outside settlement; HOU05 criterion 4 visually important gap (DL 8-9, 13, 18) |
| N6 | neutral | habitats sites; GIRAMS contribution secured by UU; appropriate assessment passed after consulting NE (DL 19-25, 52) |
Key facts
- Mileham has no settlement boundary; parties agree site is outside a defined settlement (DL 6, 28)
- Services in Mileham limited to village shop, village hall, church and bus service; bus stop almost opposite via paved footway, no formal crossing but low traffic observed (DL 10, 31)
- Litcham 2.8 miles away along unlit national-speed-limit roads, no continuous footway (DL 10)
- Council supply 2.82 years (DL 29)
- Landscape and Settlement Character Assessment 2022 describes Mileham as an "Interrupted Rural Row Village" where gaps are a key characteristic (DL 15)
- Earlier appeal APP/F2605/W/24/3336631 on the site (outcome not stated) distinguished on changed supply and policy context (DL 3); outline permission previously granted 3PL/2018/1564/O (DL 39)
- Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 4)
Sources
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.