Land South of The Street, Furneux Pelham

Decision

dismissed, 7 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: S Simms

Authority

East Hertfordshire (East of England)

Appeal reference

6006819

Application reference

3/25/1108/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Eco self-build bungalow and double garage with landscaping, new access

Homes

1

Site context

settlement edge, open countryside, conservation area, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(j), DP3(3), TR6, HE6

Development plan policies

East Herts District Plan 2018 DPS2, VILL2, GBR2, DES2, DES3, DES4, HOU12, NE3, TRA2, ED2

Main issues

suitable location; character and CA setting; highway safety; hedgerows; agricultural land

Summary

One eco self-build bungalow on part of a field between the development boundary of Barleycroft End (Furneux Pelham) and scattered outlying houses. Dismissed. The Council accepted a 3.4 to 3.7 year supply, so S5(1)(j) was in play. The inspector found:

• the site not suitably related to the settlement;
• a car-dependent location, since the only walking route was an unlit lane with no footway;
• harm to the conservation area's rural setting;
• an unproven, substandard access.

Design conflicts (DP3) and the highway safety failure (TR6) substantially outweighed the benefits of one self-build zero-carbon home.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "I invited the main parties to comment on any implications of these for their cases" (new Framework and HDT results) (DL ¶2).
• Location / access to services: FAIL. "Whilst the site is within walking distance of a pub, shop, bus stops and village hall along a road with a 30mph speed limit, that road has high hedgerows, which limit forward visibility, no footways and is unlit" (DL ¶5). "it unlikely that residents of the proposal would walk or cycle to these" (DL ¶6). "the proposal would not constitute infill, the site being open on at least three sides" (DL ¶7).
• Character / CA: HARM. "an incremental loss of open agricultural fields and attendant rural landscape character, eroding the setting of the CA" (DL ¶15). The inspector uses the legacy term "less than substantial harm" and the benefits "could be achieved in less harmful ways and on less sensitive sites" (DL ¶16).
• Highway safety: TR6 FAIL. "Whilst the residual impacts on the road network would not be severe, the impacts on highway safety of a substandard access would be unacceptable, particularly for pedestrians or cyclists" (DL ¶20).
• Hedgerows. Loss of hedgerow within the highway, which has amenity value, is not rebutted (DL ¶¶21–23).

Planning balance

The S5(1)(j) framing is at DL ¶28. DP3 gives "substantial weight to relevant development plan policies when assessing design quality", and TR6 says unacceptable safety impacts should be refused (DL ¶29). "These adverse effects assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework substantially outweigh the benefits of the proposal, despite the housing land shortfall. I have also found that the proposal would not be suitably related to an existing settlement and that its need for access to services and facilities could not be accommodated by available infrastructure" (DL ¶31).

What made the difference

The inspector ran the S5(1)(j) balance on a single dwelling with an accepted shortfall, and the scheme failed on several fronts at once:

• the site was separated from the development boundary by an open field;
• the walking route was an unlit, footway-less lane between high hedges;
• the site formed part of the conservation area's agricultural approach;
• the appellant offered no technical evidence on the visibility splays.

An infill plot within the continuous frontage, with a proven access, would have stood a much better chance.

Transferable points

• Nearby village facilities within walking distance do not make a site accessible where the route is an unlit 30 mph lane with no footway and high hedges (DL ¶¶5–6).
• The S5(1)(j) "scale accommodated taking into account infrastructure" limb was read to include access to services and facilities (DL ¶31).
• DP3 requires "substantial weight" to local design policies, so character and CA-setting conflicts can outweigh a 3.4 to 3.7 year shortfall (DL ¶¶29–31).
• TR6 can be failed on access safety even where network impacts are "not severe" (DL ¶20).
• A plot "open on at least three sides" is not infill (DL ¶7).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Gap site between Barleycroft End (development boundary, Group 2 village) and dispersed outlying houses; field separates it from the boundary (DL 4)
• Council accepted 3.4-3.7 years supply (DL 27)
• Parties invited to comment on 17 Aug 2026 Framework and new HDT results (DL 2)
• No technical evidence to rebut highway authority on visibility splays (DL 18-19)

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.