# Home Farm, Main Road, Bevercotes

- **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 (years):** 5.31
- **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
- **Tags:** s5-1-e-infill, sustainable-location-fail, connectivity-tool, rural-lane-no-footway, five-year-supply-met, old-balance-wording, drafting-slip, conservation-area, small-scheme, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## 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
- **Transition.** "There have been significant amendments to it. I have therefore sought comment from the parties" (DL ¶4). The Council's officer report had used the 2024 ¶11(d) tilted balance (DL ¶42).
- **Landscape / CA: PASS.** "the proposal would reflect an existing characteristic of the settlement" and would be "a general visual improvement over the current situation" (DL ¶¶10–11, 15).
- **S5(1)(d): not engaged.** "the Framework's definition of previously developed land specifically excludes land that is, or was last occupied by, agricultural or forestry buildings" (DL ¶50).
- **S5(1)(j): FAIL.** 5.31 years accepted: "no substantive or compelling evidence has been provided to demonstrate the extent to which the Council's supply figure should be reduced" (DL ¶47).
- **S5(1)(e): PASS.** "Owing to the small number of dwellings proposed, when compared to the number of buildings located within the appeal site, I am of the view that this development would indeed be limited in its scale" (DL ¶53).
- **TR3: FAIL, substantial weight.** "In utilising the Government Connectivity Tool, the appeal site would score 13/100, thus providing further illustration of the poor connectivity" (DL ¶39). "I attach substantial weight to the harm arising from the site's reliance on private vehicle travel" (DL ¶54).

## 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
- Passing an S5(1) category does not guarantee approval: TR3 car-dependence harm can carry substantial weight and defeat an S5(1)(e) infill (DL ¶¶54, 58). Compare PINS-6009593, where TR3 harm for one dwelling was only moderate.
- The Government Connectivity Tool (TR3(2)) is being used by inspectors: a score of 13/100 was cited as confirming poor connectivity (DL ¶39).
- Land last occupied by agricultural buildings is not PDL for S5(1)(d) (DL ¶50).
- S5(1)(e) "limited" can be judged against the number of existing buildings replaced (DL ¶53).
- An appellant challenging a published 5YHLS must quantify how far the supply falls (DL ¶47).
- Watch for inspectors using a flat "do not outweigh" balance in place of the S5 "substantially outweighed" test (DL ¶58).

## Policy findings
- **S5(1)(e): pass.** site 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-engaged.** agricultural buildings excluded from PDL definition (DL 50)
- **S5(1)(j): fail.** 5.31-year supply accepted, so no unmet need (DL 45-47, 52)
- **TR3: fail (substantial weight).** no 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)
- **L3: not-engaged.** L3 station-density minimum inapplicable as not within walking distance of a well-connected station, which itself shows poor accessibility (DL 51)
- **DP3: pass.** red brick agricultural-influenced design; visual improvement; CA preserved; no landscape harm (DL 8-16)

## Key facts
- Government Connectivity Tool score 13/100 (DL 39)
- Nearest facilities are a fishing-lake tackle shop, services at Markham Moor 2 km (fast food, shop, fuel) and a primary school 3 km along unlit roads with no footway (DL 22-28)
- Council's 5.31-year supply statement (published 5 Mar 2026) accepted over appellant's deliverability challenge (DL 45-47)
- Earlier Misterton and Manor Cottage appeals distinguished on settlement hierarchy and services (DL 32-36)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6007348
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/927a331e-fbfd-4379-9bf5-feba62d67460

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6007348.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.