Land west of Leicester Road (B6047), Market Harborough (PIP, 5 to 9 dwellings)

Decision

allowed, 1 October 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: J Smith

Authority

Harborough (East Midlands)

Appeal reference

6008177

Application reference

25/01154/PIP

Procedure

written representations

Development

Permission in principle for a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 9 dwellings on an undeveloped field

Homes

9

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

TR6(4), HE9, HE7

Development plan policies

Harborough Local Plan 2019 GD8, IN2, HC1

Main issues

highway safety; setting of conservation area; non-designated heritage asset

Summary

Permission in principle for 5 to 9 dwellings on a field beside the B6047 at Market Harborough was allowed. The inspector found that the visibility splays the highway authority required depend on third-party land and could not be secured with certainty, and that the conservation officer saw potential harm to the adjoining canal conservation area and to ridge and furrow on the site. Both matters were nonetheless left to the technical details stage: the splay constraint might be overcome, and with only a red-line plan there was no demonstrated heritage harm. The letter applies neither S4 nor S5 and runs no planning balance.

Issues and findings

• Transition. No switch paragraph. The Framework is cited only for HE9 and HE7 (DL ¶27-28).
• Scope of permission in principle. "It is not inappropriate for the Council to have considered these matters, which are fundamental to whether a development would be acceptable in principle" (DL ¶4).
• Highway safety: splays not secured. "Whilst the provision and maintenance of visibility splays can be secured by planning condition, it would be difficult to enforce and ensure compliance where the required land lies within third-party ownership." (DL ¶18). "there is no certainty that the splays could be provided in the first instance or maintained for the lifetime of the development" and "this would give rise to an unacceptable risk to highway safety for users of the B6047 without the provision of adequate visibility splays" (DL ¶19).
• Highway safety: deferred, location acceptable. "these constraints do not appear to me to be so severe that there would be no possibility at all for this to be overcome as part of the future detailed site design at the technical details consent stage" and "The land which is owned by a third party could be acquired, or a detailed management agreement be provided prior to the submission of a technical details consent application in the future." (DL ¶21).
• Pedestrian access: deferred. "this location is absent of meaningful and dedicated pedestrian infrastructure" (DL ¶22).
• Heritage: potential harm, not assessed. "there is potential for harm to both the CA and the NDHA through the loss of historic features" but "given the limited information submitted in support of a permission in principle application, it is difficult to undertake a detailed assessment of the extent of any such harm" (DL ¶29).
• Heritage: no demonstrated harm. "On the evidence before me, I therefore find no demonstrated harm to either heritage asset at this stage." (DL ¶31). "Critically, there is no evidence at this stage to demonstrate the proposal would not meet these requirements." (DL ¶35).

Planning balance

None. The inspector found no conflict with local plan policies GD8, IN2 and HC1 at this stage (DL ¶23, ¶35) and allowed the appeal "taking all material considerations into account" (DL ¶38). There is no S4 or S5 analysis, no weighing of housing benefits and no HE6(4) or HE7(2) balance, because no harm was found.

What made the difference

The inspector's view of what the first stage decides. Each unresolved matter (third-party splay land, the lack of a footway, and the effect of up to nine houses on the canal's setting and on the ridge and furrow) was treated as capable of resolution at technical details stage, and the absence of evidence of harm was treated as no harm. Other appeal decisions in this database treat a splay over third-party land as fatal and not curable by condition (PINS-6006496 ¶22-23; PINS-6009997 ¶14-15).

Transferable points

• This letter is an outlier and should be cited with care: it defers to the technical details stage a splay that depends on third-party land, after finding the risk unacceptable without it (DL ¶19, ¶21).
• The test applied to an in-principle highway constraint was whether there is "no possibility at all" of overcoming it (DL ¶21).
• An evidence gap on heritage at permission in principle stage was resolved in the appellant's favour: "no demonstrated harm" (DL ¶31), where the conservation officer had identified potential harm (DL ¶29).
• Highways and heritage are proper matters for a council to consider at permission in principle stage (DL ¶4, ¶32).
• Recorded collisions near a proposed access were attributed to driver judgement, not to an unsafe arrangement (DL ¶14).
• The closing sentence on heritage is garbled: the proposal "would not harm the setting of the CA, or would fail to conserve the NDHA" (DL ¶35).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Undeveloped field fronting the B6047, a 50 mph single carriageway arterial road, next to a car dealership with a right-turn filter lane (DL 7-8, 11)
• Speed survey, 85th percentile 46.2 to 47.4 mph south of the site and about 47.7 to 49.7 mph to the north; highway authority requires 2.4 m x 160 m splays both ways (DL 17)
• Splays rely on land outside the appellant's control; no evidence the land would be available (DL 18)
• Five personal injury collisions within 500 m in five years, including one at the right-turn lane just beyond the frontage (March 2022) and a pedestrian collision 80 m south (August 2025) (DL 13-15)
• Site bounded to the north and west by the Grand Union Canal Conservation Area and contains surviving ridge and furrow, part of a single furlong (DL 24, 28)
• Conservation officer saw potential for harm to both assets; the Canal and River Trust said more information was needed and could come at technical details stage (DL 29-30)
• The letter does not say whether the site is inside a settlement, applies neither S4 nor S5, and runs no planning balance; housing supply is not mentioned
• Council's consideration of highways and heritage at permission in principle stage held not inappropriate (DL 4, 32)
• Section 72(1) is cited although the site adjoins the conservation area and is not said to be within it (DL 24, 27)
• No switch paragraph; HE7 and HE9 cited by their 2026 codes

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.