Land east of New Road, Melksham

Decision

dismissed, 30 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: E Worley

Authority

Wiltshire (South West)

Appeal reference

6007352

Application reference

PL/2025/09917

Procedure

written representations

Development

Outline permission for up to 2 self-build dwellings on agricultural land beyond the Melksham settlement boundary

Homes

2

Site context

open countryside, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

2.8 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(j)(i), S5(4), DP3(3)

Development plan policies

Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015 CP1, CP2, CP15, CP50, CP51, CP57, CP60, CP61, CP67, Joint Melksham Neighbourhood Plan 2 2025 Policy 6

Main issues

location and accessibility; character and appearance; protected species; drainage

Summary

Up to two self-build homes on a field off New Road, a narrow unlit lane outside Melksham. The unmet need limb of S5(1)(j) was met (2.8-year supply and an unmet self-build register), but the site was not physically well-related to the settlement under S5(1)(j)(i). Under S5(4) the substantial weight to self-build housing did not substantially outweigh the character harm and car dependence. Dismissed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. No switch paragraph; the 2026 policies are applied throughout.
• Settlement. "the appeal site does not form part of a settlement and is not physically related to it in terms of character and appearance and is therefore in the open countryside" (DL ¶5).
• Accessibility. Access is partly via "New Road, a narrow rural unlit lane devoid of dedicated footpaths" (DL ¶9). "The appellant accepts that future occupants of the proposed dwellings would drive to services and facilities." (DL ¶9). A pending 295-home scheme could not be relied on, and the inspector noted that "footnote 28 of the Framework indicates that, where a development proposal is located outside a settlement, and separated from the existing built-up area by virtue of being beyond the outside edge of an allocated site that has yet to be fully developed" (DL ¶10), location must be judged as if the allocation did not proceed.
• Character. "the proposal would have a significant harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area" (DL ¶16); the balance later calls it "substantial harm" ("the proposal would give rise to substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area", DL ¶24), an internal inconsistency.
• Plan weight (Transitional(2)). CP1, CP2 and CP15 "are thus materially inconsistent with the national decision-making policies of the Framework, particularly Policy S5, which is broader in scope. For this reason, I afford the conflict with the development strategy only moderate weight." (DL ¶25). Annex A ¶2 prescribes very limited weight for materially inconsistent policies.
• S5(1)(j)(i): FAIL. "the site is not physically well-related to the settlement both in terms of accessibility to services and character and appearance" (DL ¶27).
• Short car trips rejected; DP3. The appellant said "the car-based journeys to access day-to-day services in Melksham may be relatively short and limited in frequency by virtue of the scale of the development" (DL ¶29), but "national decision-making policies nonetheless seek to direct development to locations where it can support sustainable patterns of movement, enable good accessibility for different users and make the most of existing and proposed transport infrastructure" (DL ¶29). "Furthermore, the Framework is clear that proposals should be refused if they conflict with these aspects of Policy DP3." (DL ¶29).

Planning balance

S5(4). Substantial weight to two self-build homes and some economic and social benefit (DL ¶30), against character harm, car dependence and conflict with DP3(1) and (2)(d). "the benefits of the proposal, would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in this Framework, to amount to exceptional circumstances to justify the proposal" (DL ¶31).

What made the difference

The physical separation from Melksham, by open land and an unlit, footway-less lane, which failed S5(1)(j)(i) on both accessibility and character. The self-build need was accepted but could not carry the S5(4) test.

Transferable points

• S5(1)(j)(i) "physically well-related" read as covering both accessibility to services and character (DL ¶27).
• The short-car-trips-for-a-small-scheme argument does not answer TR3-type movement objectives or DP3(2)(d) (DL ¶29).
• Footnote 28: a site that would only be connected once an unbuilt allocation or pending scheme is delivered is judged on present circumstances (DL ¶10).
• Caution: the letter finds plan policies materially inconsistent with S5 but gives them moderate, not very limited, weight (DL ¶25).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• New Road is a narrow rural unlit lane without dedicated footpaths; route to Melksham services in part along it (DL 9)
• Appellant accepted future occupiers would drive to services and facilities (DL 9)
• Protected species (GCN district licence, reptiles, bats) and drainage (rainwater harvesting, lined permeable paving, discharge to watercourse) found acceptable (DL 17-23)
• Same inspector gave CP1/CP2 unqualified weight in Semington PINS-6008970 a week earlier

Related decisions

• PINS-6008970

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.