# 46 North Trade Road, Battle - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Sylvester - **Authority:** Rother (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6007272 - **Application reference:** RR/2025/1747/FULL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Part-demolition of No 46 and 5 detached backland dwellings (3 four-bed chalets, 1 three-bed and 1 two-bed bungalow) with access drive - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** inside-settlement, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.04 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO8, HO7, DP3(2)(a), DP3(3), S4 - **Development plan policies:** Rother Core Strategy 2014 OSS4, BA1, EN1, EN3, LHN1, Rother DaSA 2019 DEN1, DEN2, DHG1, Battle Civil Parish NP 2021 HD2, HD3, HD4, HD5, HD6, High Weald Housing Design Guide, High Weald AONB Management Plan 2024-29 - **Main issues:** High Weald National Landscape, affordable housing, efficient use of land, housing mix - **Tags:** affordable-housing-threshold, dp3-2-a-mixed-communities, dp3-refuse-trigger, s4-substantially-outweighed, national-landscape, backland, housing-shortfall, l3-density, small-scheme, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Five backland bungalows and chalets within Battle, in the High Weald National Landscape. Dismissed. The inspector cleared the scheme on landscape, character, density and housing mix. It failed only because it offered no affordable housing. Once parking and visibility splays inside the red line were counted, the site was found "highly likely" to exceed the 0.3 ha threshold. That failure breached HO7/HO8 and the DP3(2)(a) mixed-tenure principle, which DP3(3) says should lead to refusal, and outweighed the benefits under S4 despite a 3.04-year supply. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties commented on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶3). - **National Landscape — N4/DP3: PASS.** The overgrown backland parcel "does not contribute to the core character components of the rural landscape and scenic beauty of the HWNL" (DL ¶14). The cul-de-sac conflicts with HWDG DG2, but backland cul-de-sacs "form part of the established character of the area" (DL ¶15). - **Site area.** Under PPG the red line includes "all land necessary to carry out the proposed development". The appellant left out parking and visibility splays without explanation, so the site is "highly likely on the balance of probabilities to exceed 0.3 hectares" (DL ¶¶28–30). - **Density — L2/L3: PASS.** The L3(2)(c) minimums did not apply: "there is nothing of substance before me to indicate that the appeal site is within a reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station" (DL ¶35). An earlier 27 dph scheme had been dismissed on character, "a strong indicator that achieving the Council's preferred density would be harmful" (DL ¶37). - **Housing mix: PASS.** There was no evidence of an overconcentration of 4-bed homes (DL ¶¶43–49). - **Affordable / mixed communities — HO7, HO8, DP3(2)(a): FAIL.** "The failure to secure affordable housing would conflict with the principle in Policy DP3(2.a.) ... development proposals should support mixed communities by incorporating a range of tenures. Policy DP3(3) is clear that development proposals that conflict with the relevant aspects of the principles in Policy DP3(2) should be refused" (DL ¶62). ## Planning balance S4 balance. Benefits: substantial weight for DP3/N4 design compliance (DL ¶58), substantial weight for L2/L3 efficient use (DL ¶59), HO7 market housing (DL ¶60), modest weight for BNG and trees. Harm: "substantial weight to the conflict with Framework Policies HO7 and HO8" (DL ¶61) plus the DP3(3) refusal trigger. "the benefits ... would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects arising from the failure to secure affordable housing" (DL ¶63). ## What made the difference Measuring the site, 0.297 ha against 0.312 ha, brought in the affordable requirement. The inspector then routed the failure to meet it through DP3(2)(a) tenure mix, which converts a local-plan affordable-housing shortfall into a Framework refusal trigger under DP3(3). Offering the 35% affordable housing (or a viability case under DM5), or a red line kept below 0.3 ha, would probably have won the appeal, because every other issue was resolved in the appellant's favour. ## Transferable points - Failing to secure plan-required affordable housing is a breach of DP3(2)(a) "range of tenures", and DP3(3) then says refuse (DL ¶62). - HO7/HO8 conflict for failing affordable needs can carry substantial weight on the harm side, cancelling the HO7 market-housing benefit (DL ¶61). - The site-area threshold is measured on the full red line, including parking and visibility splays, following PPG (DL ¶¶28–30). - The L3(2)(c) density minimums apply only where the site is within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station. Otherwise density is set by context under DP3 (DL ¶¶34–35). - A backland site inside a National Landscape town, with no public access and no link to open countryside, may not contribute to the N4 special qualities (DL ¶14). ## Policy findings - **HO8: fail (substantial weight).** site "highly likely" over 0.3 ha once parking and visibility splays in the red line are counted, so 35% affordable required under DaSA DHG1; none offered, no justification (DL 28-32, 61) - **HO7: fail (substantial weight).** HO7 benefit for market homes, but HO7/HO8 conflict for failing affordable needs given substantial weight (DL 60-61) - **DP3(2)(a): fail.** failure to provide a range of tenures conflicts with mixed-communities principle; DP3(3) says refuse (DL 62) - **N4: pass (substantial weight).** backland site contained in built-up Battle; no harm to High Weald National Landscape; DP3 compliance with plan design policies substantial weight (DL 14, 23, 26, 58) - **DP3: pass.** cul-de-sac against HWDG DG2 but consistent with local backland pattern (DL 15-23) - **L3: pass (substantial weight).** 30 dph not required; L3(2)(c) minimum only near well-connected station; earlier 27 dph scheme dismissed on character; L2/L3 benefit substantial (DL 33-40, 59) - **TR3: pass.** sustainable location for housing (DL 59) - **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed by failure to secure affordable housing (DL 57-63) ## Key facts - Site area disputed at 0.297 ha (appellant) vs 0.312 ha (council); the 0.3 ha threshold triggers 35% affordable (DL 27-30) - Supply 3.04 years; Battle's NP housing target already met through allocations (DL 54) - Extant 2024 permission for 4 backland bungalows on adjoining land; earlier 8-dwelling appeal dismissed (APP/U1430/W/24/3345193) (DL 13, 15, 37) - Obscure-glazed dormers would restrict outlook; not decided (DL 50-53) - Partial costs application made (separate decision) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007272 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/66be3320-3301-42aa-bb4b-66a51f8e972c --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007272.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.