Land off Middlebridge Road, Gringley-on-the-Hill

Decision

dismissed, 22 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Paul Thompson

Authority

Bassetlaw (East Midlands)

Appeal reference

6006950

Application reference

25/00810/FUL

Procedure

hearing

Development

One self-build 4-bed dwelling and garage replacing two sheet-clad barns

Homes

1

Site context

open countryside, rural lane, PDL

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

4.15 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(j), S5(4), TR3, DP3(3), HO7

Development plan policies

Bassetlaw Local Plan 2020-2038 ST1, ST2, ST28, ST33, ST35, ST53

Main issues

housing in the countryside; self-build need; accessibility; character and appearance

Summary

A single self-build house and garage to replace two small barns on a partly previously-developed plot outside Gringley-on-the-Hill. Dismissed after a hearing. None of S5(1)(c), (d) or (j) was met: not a like-for-like replacement, only part-PDL, and not physically well-related to the village. Car dependence along an unlit 60 mph lane and the house's scale in the rural setting substantially outweighed substantial weight to both general housing (4.15-yr supply) and a large self-build shortfall.

Issues and findings

• Transition. Hearing was held on 4 August 2026, before the new Framework; a "Statement of Common Ground regarding the revised Framework" was received after the hearing (Documents list) and the letter applies the 2026 policies throughout.
• Character — DP3(3): FAIL. House and garage "would appear visually domineering … The magnitude of the built form would therefore harmfully intrude" (DL ¶13); architectural design itself not harmful (DL ¶14). "the proposal conflicts with several LP policies because of its adverse effects on the character of the site and its rural setting. In the Framework's terms, this amounts to harm to the character of the countryside" (DL ¶48).
• Accessibility — TR3: significant harm. "these conditions are not convenient or realistic for everyone who might need to reach services and facilities in the village, especially after dark or in bad weather. While the appellant's family accept these conditions, their current circumstances could change in the future" (DL ¶18). "allowing this proposal would cumulatively increase the number of journeys made in the district by private motorised transport" (DL ¶21).
• S5(1)(c): FAIL. "would not be for the same use and would be disproportionately larger than the buildings that it replaces" (DL ¶29).
• S5(1)(d): FAIL. Buried structures "have blended into the landscape"; "Framework Policy S5(1)(d) does not relate to the partial redevelopment of PDL, so the proposal would not satisfy it. On the same basis, I cannot give the proposal the substantial weight for re-using PDL referred to in Framework Policy L2" (DL ¶30).
• S5(1)(j): FAIL. Unmet need and infrastructure met, "it would not be physically well-related to an existing settlement" (DL ¶31).
• Fallback. Barn conversion "hypothetical" — Class Q unavailable and a conversion would still fail on accessibility; even if converted, the new house "would be so considerably larger than the converted 'original dwelling'" (DL ¶¶22-24).
• Self-build. CIL exemption forms and description-only/condition-only permissions should not count towards the duty; a self-build condition "would not pass the tests within Framework Policy DM6. A legal agreement is therefore the most appropriate method" (DL ¶¶39-40). Shortfall "much closer to the 121 plots" (DL ¶41); substantial weight under HO7 (DL ¶42).
• Local plan consistency. ST1/ST2 "fully consistent with the Framework and do not impose a more restrictive approach" because they defer to national policy — substantial weight to conflict (DL ¶55). ST28 "does not allocate plots, as required by the new Framework. This is materially inconsistent" — very limited weight (DL ¶56).

Planning balance

S5(4) exceptional-circumstances balance, cross-checked against S5(1) and S5(2). Benefits: HO7 substantial (housing), HO7 substantial (self-build), L2 moderate, voluntary biodiversity moderate, energy/design moderate, economic moderate (DL ¶¶35-45). Harms: countryside character via DP3(3) and "significant" TR3 harm (DL ¶¶48-49). "Collectively, the adverse effects … would be of such magnitude and importance that they would substantially outweigh those benefits" (DL ¶50). Then s38(6): "meeting the locational needs of SBCH should not come at the expense of these wider aims and objectives of the development plan" (DL ¶58).

What made the difference

Location: a plot some distance from the village along an unlit, footway-less 60 mph lane, so it failed the "physically well-related" test in S5(1)(j) and carried significant TR3 harm. The PDL argument failed because only the barn footprint and access were PDL and the rest became garden; the replacement argument failed because the house was far bigger than the barns. Substantial weight for a large, legally-secured self-build shortfall was not enough. A plot on the village edge, or a like-for-like replacement of a lawful building, would have stood a much better chance.

Transferable points

• S5(1)(d) does not cover partial redevelopment of PDL where the rest of the site becomes garden, and L2 substantial weight is lost for the same reason (DL ¶30).
• Buried or historic structures that have "blended into the landscape" are not enough to treat land as PDL (DL ¶30).
• S5(1)(j) can fail on "physically well-related" alone, even with a 4.15-yr supply and a large self-build shortfall (DL ¶31).
• An unlit, footway-less 60 mph lane into a village gives "significant" TR3 harm for a single house; the applicant's own willingness to walk it does not count because circumstances change (DL ¶¶18, 49).
• DP3(3) is engaged by conflict with local character/landscape policies (as "explicit design standards") and that conflict counts as harm to the countryside in the S5 balance (DL ¶48).
• Self-build: a condition cannot secure self-build (fails DM6); a legal agreement is needed. CIL exemption forms are not evidence of self-build permissions (DL ¶¶39-40).
• A local countryside policy that defers to national policy (ST1/ST2) stays "fully consistent" and its breach carries substantial weight; a self-build policy that does not allocate plots is "materially inconsistent" (DL ¶¶55-56).
• Fallback: a conversion scheme that would itself need permission and would fail on accessibility is "hypothetical" and carries no fallback weight (DL ¶¶22-24).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Housing land supply about 4.15 years (Council did not dispute at hearing)
• Self-build shortfall "much closer to" 121 plots than the Council's 37
• Middlebridge Road narrow, unlit, no footways, 60 mph; village has pub with pop-in shop, hall, church, mobile post office
• Earlier Class Q prior approval refused because site not last in agricultural use
• Hearing 4 Aug 2026; post-hearing Statement of Common Ground on the revised Framework
• Costs application by appellant decided separately (not read)

Sources

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