Home Farm, Main Road, Bevercotes

appeal 6007348·Bassetlaw·16 September 2026dismissed
Decision
dismissed, 16 September 2026
Decided by
Planning Inspector: J Smith
Authority
Bassetlaw (East Midlands)
Appeal reference
6007348
Application reference
25/01203/FUL
Procedure
written representations
Development
Demolition of agricultural barns and replacement with 3 dwellings with new access
Homes
3
Site context
open countryside, conservation area, rural lane
Green Belt
No
Housing land supply
5.31 years
Framework applied
August 2026 NPPF
Determinative policies
S5(1)(e), TR3, S3
Development plan policies
Bassetlaw Local Plan 2024 ST1, ST2, ST33, ST35
Main issues
landscape character; appropriate location for housing

Summary

Three houses replacing run-down farm buildings between existing houses in the tiny unlisted hamlet of Bevercotes, in open Nottinghamshire countryside. Dismissed. The inspector accepted the scheme as limited infilling within a group of houses under S5(1)(e), with no harm to landscape or the conservation area. But the site's very poor accessibility (Connectivity Tool score 13/100, unlit roads with no footway, no real services) was given substantial weight under TR3 and decided the balance.

Issues and findings

Planning balance

The inspector framed the S5 test correctly at DL ¶49 ("substantially outweighed"), but the concluding balance uses a flat test: "the identified benefits do not outweigh the adverse effects arising from the appeal site's inherently poor accessibility ... Whilst I recognise that it would meet the stipulation of Policy S5 (e) ..., the proposal does not attract sufficient weight under this policy when balanced against its conflict with ... TR3" (DL ¶58). The inspector never finds expressly that the benefits were substantially outweighed, a drafting slip that may be open to challenge. Benefits: 3 homes, economic benefit, visual enhancement, social interaction (DL ¶¶55–57).

What made the difference

The location's accessibility, measured partly with the Government Connectivity Tool. Bevercotes has essentially no services, and every route out is unlit and fast with no footway. Passing S5(1)(e) did not get the scheme over the line once TR3 harm carried substantial weight, and with a 5-year supply in place there was no S5(1)(j) or unmet-need support. In a settlement with a shop and school within safe walking distance, or with a 5YHLS shortfall adding weight to the housing, the S5(1)(e) pass would probably have carried it.

Transferable points

Policy findings

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

PolicyFindingWeightNote
S5(1)(e)passsite within the built form of Bevercotes between houses; 3 dwellings replacing a larger group of barns = limited infilling within a group of houses (DL 53)
S5(1)(d)not-engagedagricultural buildings excluded from PDL definition (DL 50)
S5(1)(j)fail5.31-year supply accepted, so no unmet need (DL 45-47, 52)
TR3failsubstantialno footways or lighting, fast rural roads, no evidence of usable bus service; primary school 3 km; Connectivity Tool score 13/100 (DL 27-31, 38-39, 54)
L3not-engagedL3 station-density minimum inapplicable as not within walking distance of a well-connected station, which itself shows poor accessibility (DL 51)
DP3passred brick agricultural-influenced design; visual improvement; CA preserved; no landscape harm (DL 8-16)

Key facts

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.