Land south of Morkery Lane, Castle Bytham

Decision

dismissed, 11 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: A Fulford

Authority

South Kesteven (East Midlands)

Appeal reference

6007403

Application reference

S25/1902

Procedure

written representations

Development

Outline, up to 3 dwellings (all matters reserved)

Homes

3

Site context

settlement edge, open countryside, conservation area, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(j)(i), S5(4), HE6

Development plan policies

South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036 SP4, EN1, EN6, DE1

Main issues

character and appearance; setting of conservation area

Summary

Outline permission for up to three houses on part of a sloping field immediately outside the settlement and conservation area boundaries of Castle Bytham. Dismissed. The Council had no five-year supply, so S5(1)(j) was relevant. The inspector held the scheme was not "physically well-related" to the settlement because it would spill over the settlement's defined hedged edge, down the slope into countryside, harming the conservation area's rural setting. Having fallen outside every S5 category, the scheme failed the S5(4) exceptional-circumstances test.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "Those parts of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have been amended. As a result, parties have been provided with an opportunity to make further submissions" (DL ¶6).
• Character / CA setting: HARM. "given that the site slopes down away from the village the development would give the impression of built form 'spilling over' the current settlement edge into the wider countryside … an obtrusive extension of the village into the countryside in an unsympathetic manner" (DL ¶13). Landscaping would "merely block views into the Conservation Area" (DL ¶18).
• HE6. Setting harm (ungraded). "given the proposal is for just three dwellings, the benefits would be modest in extent and would not outweigh the harm identified to the setting of the CA" (DL ¶20).
• S5(1)(j)(i): FAIL. "criterion (j) is relevant as the Council does not currently have a 5-year housing land supply. However, criterion (j)(i) goes on to state that developments should be physically well-related to an existing settlement. For the reasons set out above, the proposal would detract from the current attractive rural setting of Castle Bytham … The development would thus not be physically well-related to the existing settlement" (DL ¶22).
• S5(4): FAIL. "These benefits would not substantially outweigh the identified adverse effects to the CA and there are therefore no exceptional circumstances" (DL ¶23).

Planning balance

The S5(4) exceptional-circumstances route: modest housing and economic benefits against harm to the conservation area's setting and to character. The HE6 balance was also run and failed (DL ¶20).

What made the difference

Topography and the defined edge. Although the site physically adjoins the settlement boundary, it lies beyond a hedged ridge line that marks the village edge, and it slopes away into open countryside. The inspector treated "physically well-related" as a matter of how the development relates to the settlement's form, not just adjacency. This is significant: a site touching the boundary can still fail (j)(i). A level site within the existing edge, or one enclosed by development, would have been read differently.

Transferable points

• Adjacency to a settlement boundary is not enough for S5(1)(j)(i). Development that "spills over" a defined settlement edge into sloping countryside can be "not physically well-related" (DL ¶¶13, 22).
• Character and heritage harm can be folded into the (j)(i) "well-related" test itself, pushing the scheme into S5(4), where benefits must substantially outweigh harm (DL ¶¶22–23).
• Landscape screening that blocks views into a conservation area is not mitigation of setting harm (DL ¶¶14, 18).
• An unspecified footpath link in an outline scheme gets no weight (DL ¶15).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Site adjoins settlement boundary and CA boundary but slopes away from the village beyond a well-defined hedged edge (DL 8, 12-13)
• Morkery Lane unlit, no footway; suggested footpath link unspecified so no weight (DL 8, 15)
• Council lacks a 5YHLS (figure not stated) (DL 22)
• Framework parts "most relevant to this appeal have been amended"; parties invited to comment (DL 6)
• Costs application by appellant decided separately (DL 2)

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.