Springbank, Beech Avenue, Exeter

Decision

dismissed, 17 August 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: S Harrington

Authority

Exeter (South West)

Appeal reference

6006617

Application reference

25/0383/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Single storey (self-build) dwelling in the garden of Springbank

Homes

1

Site context

inside settlement, conservation area, TPO

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

4.32 years

Framework applied

December 2024 NPPF (transitional)

Determinative policies

DM6

Development plan policies

Exeter Local Plan First Review 2025 DG1, C1, LS2, Exeter Core Strategy 2012 objective 8

Main issues

biodiversity net gain; conservation area; Exe Estuary SPA

Summary

One single-storey dwelling in a garden in the Pennsylvania Conservation Area, Exeter, promoted as self-build. Dismissed on the day the new Framework was published. The inspector raised BNG as a main issue of her own accord. The self-build exemption was not secured because there was no s106 and an occupancy condition would be unenforceable. There was no completed metric, so the statutory BNG condition could not be shown to be dischargeable. The conservation area and SPA issues were resolved in the appellant's favour. The planning balance uses the December 2024 NPPF tilted-balance wording, with no reference to S3, S4 or the new Framework.

Issues and findings

• Transition: not addressed. The letter is dated 17 August 2026 and never mentions the revised Framework. The conditions tests are "as outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework)" (DL ¶7), version unstated. The final balance is in 2024 para 11(d)(ii) language (DL ¶35). It is recorded here as transitional (implicitly 2024).
• BNG: FAIL (great weight). "a condition requiring occupation by the person who built the dwelling for 3 years would not be enforceable and if the owner sells or leaves the property before the timeframe for occupation is complete, the house would no longer have permission to exist" (DL ¶7). "I do not have a completed biodiversity metric calculation tool" (DL ¶9). The new small-site exemption under the Biodiversity Gain (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 "only applies to planning applications received on or after the 6 August 2026" (DL ¶10). The chance that a future application would be exempt got "modest weight" (DL ¶33).
• Conservation area: preserved. The dwelling "would assimilate well into the area and CA" (DL ¶16). The trees to be lost are C-category and neutral, and the TPO tree's RPA is protected by the AIA method and a condition (DL ¶¶17–19).
• SPA: mitigated. A UU secures the SMS Habitat Mitigation Contribution, and "the development does not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA" (DL ¶28).

Planning balance

The proposal "would accord with development plan as a whole" (DL ¶36). The benefits were one home in a sustainable location against a 4.32-year supply, which were "modest benefits" (DL ¶32), with no weight for self-build because it was unsecured (DL ¶31). "this important adverse effect would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the modest benefits set out above when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole, even with particular regard to key policies. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply" (DL ¶35). Material considerations indicated refusal despite development plan accord (DL ¶36).

What made the difference

The appellant had no legal mechanism securing self-build and no BNG metric. Either one would probably have won the appeal, since every other issue was resolved in the appellant's favour. The timing was unlucky: the site was under 0.2 ha and would have been exempt under the 2026 Regulations had the application been received after 6 August 2026. The balance language is pre-2026, so the decision says nothing reliable about how S4 would treat an in-settlement single dwelling.

Transferable points

• A self-build BNG exemption needs a s106 or UU. A condition requiring occupation by the self-builder for a period fails the tests for conditions (DL ¶¶6–8).
• Without a completed statutory metric, an inspector cannot find that the BNG condition is capable of being discharged, and the appeal can fail on that alone even where the scheme accords with the development plan (DL ¶¶9, 34–36).
• The 2026 BNG small-site (≤0.2 ha) exemption applies only to applications received on or after 6 August 2026 (DL ¶10).
• Transition slip: a decision issued on 17 August 2026 applied 2024 para 11(d) "significantly and demonstrably outweigh … key policies" wording with no reference to the new Framework (DL ¶35).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Decision dated 17 Aug 2026, the day the new Framework was published; letter does not mention the new Framework or any consultation on it
• Council supply 4.32 years (appellant's figure, undisputed)
• Garden plot within Pennsylvania Conservation Area; three TPO trees on site
• Self-build claimed but no s106; condition offered instead
• Site under 0.2 ha but new BNG small-site exemption only applies to applications received from 6 Aug 2026
• Proposal accorded with the development plan as a whole but was dismissed on BNG as a material consideration
• Costs application by appellant decided separately (not read)

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.