- Decision
- dismissed, 8 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Paul Thompson
- Authority
- Ashfield (East Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6008160
- Application reference
- V/2025/0464
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Outline for 42 dwellings (access, layout and scale fixed)
- Homes
- 42
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 4.39 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4(1), DP3(1), DP3(2), N6(1), N2, TR6(4), F7, F8, HE7(2)
- Development plan policies
- Ashfield Local Plan Review 2002 ST1, HG5, EV6
- Main issues
- character and appearance; protected species and LWS; access; flood risk and SuDS; archaeology; NDHAs
Summary
An outline scheme for 42 homes, with layout fixed, on an infill wedge in Selston that includes part of a Local Wildlife Site. It was dismissed on almost every issue: cramped, parking-dominated layout, LWS loss with ecology evidence written for an 18-home scheme, unproven access visibility, no SuDS strategy, and no archaeological assessment. The site was within the settlement, so S4 applied. The inspector found that design, highway and biodiversity failures each meant "the proposal should be refused" (DL ¶49). Supply was 4.39 years, a shortfall the inspector called "not considerable".
Issues and findings
- Transition. The parties had the opportunity to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶4).
- Design, DP3(1)/(2) and TR4. "as greater emphasis is given to accommodating vehicle parking rather than placemaking, this results in a consistent and significant weakness in the design" (DL ¶9). The layout failed DP3(1) and DP3(2), and TR4 because transport was "not integral to its design" (DL ¶12).
- LWS, N6(1). N6(1) says LWS proposals "should only be supported if the benefits of development in the location proposed clearly outweigh the likely impact ... the absence of evidence ... means such a conclusion cannot be reached" (DL ¶20).
- Access, TR6. Splays were not based on 85th-percentile speeds, there were no turning heads, and a crossroads of drives was unassessed. Conditions could not fix a fixed layout (DL ¶22-27).
- Flood, F7/F8. There was no drainage-hierarchy strategy, and SuDS "need to be considered at the start of the design process" (DL ¶29-31).
- Archaeology, HE5(5)/HE7(2). A desk-based assessment "is therefore the minimum expected". A written scheme of investigation was prepared but not carried out, and the inspector took a precautionary approach (DL ¶32-34, 48).
Planning balance
The inspector ran the HE7 balance first, then S4. The benefits were: 42 homes with significant weight (4.39 years); sustainability and location, moderate; and the unsigned s106, very limited (DL ¶42-45). L2 and L3 were not benefits, because the LWS land was not underused and the layout was poor (DL ¶46). "The adverse effects ... on the character and appearance of the area, highway safety, and protected species and habitats (biodiversity), are all of such magnitude that, in accordance with Framework Policy S4, failure to comply with the relevant national decision-making policies means that the proposal should be refused ... Collectively, the adverse effects ... would substantially outweigh those benefits" (DL ¶49).
What made the difference
Evidence quality. The appellant fixed the layout at outline stage but supplied evidence that did not match it: ecology for 18 homes, no speed survey, no SuDS strategy and no archaeological assessment. With layout fixed, conditions could not cure the gaps.
Transferable points
- Under S4, several failures of "should be refused" decision-making policies (design, highway safety, biodiversity) are enough to refuse within a settlement (DL ¶49).
- N6(1) for Local Wildlife Sites requires the benefits to "clearly outweigh" the impact. Missing survey evidence means the test cannot be met (DL ¶20).
- Fixing layout at outline stage means SuDS, visibility splays and parking must be demonstrated at that stage (DL ¶26, 29).
- HE5(5): a desk-based assessment is the minimum where archaeological potential exists (DL ¶32).
- L2 and L3 are not benefits where the land is ecologically valuable or the layout is poor (DL ¶46).
- A 4.39-year supply was described as "not considerable", yet housing still had significant weight (DL ¶42).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| DP3(1) | fail | cramped northern plots and dominant frontage parking; fails to respond to context (DL 8-12) | |
| N6(1) | fail | loss of most of Selston Common Grassland Local Wildlife Site; PEA and BNG based on an 18-home scheme; otter, water vole and bat surveys outstanding (DL 14-20) | |
| TR6(4) | fail | visibility splays not based on speed survey; no turning heads on private drives; unassessed crossroads (DL 21-27) | |
| F7 | fail | no drainage-hierarchy SuDS strategy despite a fixed layout (DL 28-31) | |
| HE7(2) | fail | no desk-based assessment or survey despite watercourse potential; precautionary balance against potential NDHA (DL 32-34, 48) | |
| L2 | not-engaged | LWS land not vacant or underused; L3 density not achieved with poor layout (DL 46) | |
| HO7 | benefit | significant | 42 homes, supply 4.39 years (shortfall "not considerable") (DL 42) |
| S4(1) | fail | failures of design, highway and biodiversity policies mean the proposal should be refused; the wide-ranging harms substantially outweigh the benefits (DL 49) |
Key facts
- Supply 4.39 years (DL 42)
- Draft s106 (8 affordable homes, bus, NHS and education contributions) unsigned - very limited weight (DL 45)
- Appellant declined to have late BNG and PEA updates considered (DL 3)
- Costs application decided separately (DL 2)
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.