- Decision
- dismissed, 17 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: L N Hughes
- Authority
- South Kesteven (East Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6007771
- Application reference
- S26/0117
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Detached bungalow in side garden at village edge within conservation area
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area, settlement edge
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 4.07 years
- Framework applied
- December 2024 NPPF (transitional)
- Determinative policies
- S3, DP3(3)
- Development plan policies
- South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036 SP2, SP3, DE1, EN6, Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven SPD
- Main issues
- character and conservation area
Summary
A garden bungalow at the entrance to Braceborough village and conservation area was dismissed. It was cramped, sat forward of the building line, and caused "less than substantial harm … at the lowest end". The letter is dated 17 Aug 2026 but is written entirely under the 2024 Framework: ¶11(d) with a 4.07-year supply, ¶212 "great weight", ¶215, and the ¶139 "not well designed should be refused" rule.
Issues and findings
- Heritage (2024). "less than substantial harm … at the lowest end of that spectrum of harm to which the Framework paragraph 212 requires that I give great weight" (DL ¶12). This was not a strong reason for refusal under ¶11(d)(i) (DL ¶18).
- Design (2024 ¶139). "Paragraph 139 identifies that development that is not well designed should be refused" (DL ¶21). This is the forerunner of DP3(3).
- Balance. "the adverse impacts … would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶22).
- BNG. Habitats in private gardens are recorded only as urban garden. Only the statutory 10% was credited, with minor weight (DL ¶¶15–16).
Planning balance
2024 tilted balance. A moderate-weight home and minor benefits were outweighed by design harm.
What made the difference
The dwelling's forward position at the village gateway changed the open transition to countryside. Under 2026 this would fall to S4(2)(c) via DP3(3). The outcome would likely be the same, but the "substantially outweighed" test is stricter wording.
Transferable points
- This is an example of a design "should be refused" rule used as the decisive factor in the balance. It uses the 2024 ¶139 wording, which DP3(3) carries forward (DL ¶21).
- A letter issued on the day the new Framework took effect applied the 2024 version without comment, a transitional anomaly.
- Private-garden BNG habitats cannot be credited beyond the statutory minimum (DL ¶15).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE6(4) | harm | great | 2024 wording: "less than substantial harm … at the lowest end of that spectrum" to Braceborough CA gateway; not a strong reason for refusal under 2024 ¶11(d)(i) (DL 8-12, 17-18) |
| DP3(3) | fail | cited as 2024 ¶¶131, 135, 139 — "development that is not well designed should be refused"; cramped plot, forward of building line, dominant at village entrance (DL 5-6, 21) | |
| S3 | fail | 2024 ¶11(d)(ii) — "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" (DL 17-22) | |
| HO7 | benefit | moderate | one windfall home, 4.07-year supply (DL 20) |
Key facts
- Letter dated 17 Aug 2026 applies 2024 Framework throughout with no mention of the new one
- BNG in private garden cannot count beyond statutory 10% (Small Sites Metric guide) (DL 15-16)
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.