# Land East of College Road South, Aston Clinton

- **Decision:** allowed, 24 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Zoe Raygen
- **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East)
- **Appeal reference:** 6008253
- **Application reference:** 25/02250/AOP
- **Procedure:** hearing
- **Development:** Outline (access only) for up to 66 dwellings with open space, SuDS and landscaping on three fields at the northern edge of Aston Clinton
- **Homes:** 66
- **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S5(4), HO7, DP3(3), HO13
- **Development plan policies:** Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2013-2033 (2021) S1, S2, S3, S8, D3, NE4, BE2, Aston Clinton Neighbourhood Plan 2018 H1, emerging Buckinghamshire Local Plan (Reg 19) AST01
- **Main issues:** character and appearance including settlement pattern, setting and coalescence, location outside the settlement boundary
- **Tags:** s5-4-exceptional, s5-1-j, housing-shortfall, large-scheme, dp3-refuse-trigger, landscape-harm, emerging-allocation, annex-a-weight-reduction, heritage-no-harm, habitats-mitigation, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
Outline permission for up to 66 homes on three fields at the northern edge of Aston Clinton was granted after a hearing. The inspector found moderate harm to character and limited harm to the village's setting, but no coalescence with Aylesbury. That harm meant the site was not "physically well related" under S5(1)(j)(i), so the scheme fell to S5(4). With a substantial supply shortfall, 25% affordable housing and an emerging strategic allocation covering the site, the benefits substantially outweighed the harm, and the same benefits gave clear justification for the DP3 conflict. This is a rare S5(4) pass.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "I asked the parties to submit supplemental statements regarding the changes relevant to the appeal" (DL ¶3).
- **Character, DP3(1): CONFLICT (moderate).** "Overall, I conclude that the proposal would result in a moderate adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area" (DL ¶23). The harm arises "principally from the change in land use and the presence of development in this location rather than from any identified deficiency in the proposed design approach itself" (DL ¶28). No coalescence (DL ¶25).
- **Plan weight.** S1 is "out of date due to the lack of five year housing land supply, it is in broad accordance with the Framework, and I give any conflict in terms of landscape harm full weight" (DL ¶36). The spatial-strategy policies: "given that the housing land supply shortfall is substantial, I give conflict with the relevant policies limited weight" (DL ¶39). No Annex A ¶2 test is run.
- **S5(1)(j)(i): FAIL.** "the proposal is very close to the settlement. In addition it can be accessed from an existing road within the settlement and is well located in terms of facilities and services. However … it is not physically well related to the settlement and therefore does not comply with criterion j of Policy S5" (DL ¶80).
- **Emerging allocation, HO13: PASS.** "I am satisfied that the proposal would not be inconsistent with NDMP HO13" (DL ¶77). The allocation "indicates that the Council itself now envisages substantial development in this broad location" (DL ¶78).
- **Benefits.** Housing and affordable housing "substantial weight as per Policy HO7 of the Framework" (DL ¶82); economic and environmental benefits moderate; transport improvements limited (DL ¶83–84).
- **S5(4): PASS.** "taken together the substantial benefits of the proposal would substantially outweigh the moderate weight I have applied to the adverse effects to the character of the countryside" (DL ¶85).
- **DP3(3): clear justification found.** "I consider that the substantial benefits are sufficient to provide clear justification for the conflict with Policy DP3 of the Framework, which would only cause limited harm" (DL ¶86).
- **Heritage, SAC, National Landscape, highways: no objection** (DL ¶45, ¶47, ¶59–60, ¶49).

## Planning balance
S5(4) exceptional-circumstances balance, run with the benefits needing to substantially outweigh the harm. Then DP3(3), with clear justification read as the benefits outweighing the harm. Plan-led conclusion: conflict with the plan as a whole outweighed by material considerations, "including the Framework which is a material consideration of critical importance" (DL ¶87).

## What made the difference
Three things together: a substantial and worsening supply shortfall (the plan turned five years old during the appeal), the Council's own emerging allocation of the wider area for 1,660 homes, and a site enclosed on two sides by the village with no coalescence effect. Without the allocation the moderate character harm might have weighed more heavily, and the location was accepted as accessible without a route test.

## Transferable points
- S5(1)(j)(i) "physically well related" can fail on character and setting harm even for a site very close to and accessed from the settlement (DL ¶80).
- S5(4) can be passed at appeal: substantial housing and affordable benefits substantially outweighing moderate countryside harm (DL ¶82, ¶85).
- DP3(3) clear justification read as the benefits outweighing a limited design conflict, after the S5 balance (DL ¶86).
- HO13: a scheme within an emerging strategic allocation is not "inconsistent" with it unless the Council shows it would prejudice infrastructure, access, masterplanning or phasing (DL ¶76–77).
- Weight given to spatial-strategy policies cut for supply shortfall without an Annex A ¶2 test is 2024-style reasoning; treat DL ¶36–39 with care.

## Policy findings
- **DP3(1): conflict (moderate weight).** moderate character harm and limited harm to settlement pattern and setting of Aston Clinton; no coalescence with Aylesbury; harm from the change of use, not design (DL 23, 25, 28-31, 78)
- **DP3(3): pass.** explicit - "the substantial benefits are sufficient to provide clear justification for the conflict with Policy DP3" (benefits reading) (DL 86)
- **S5(1)(j): pass.** evidenced unmet need agreed; infrastructure capacity met via s106 (DL 79)
- **S5(1)(j)(i): fail.** very close to the settlement, accessed from it and near services, but "not physically well related" because of character and setting harm (DL 80)
- **S5(4): pass.** exceptional circumstances; substantial benefits substantially outweigh moderate countryside harm (DL 81, 85)
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** 66 homes against a substantial supply shortfall (DL 82)
- **HO8: benefit (substantial weight).** policy-compliant 25% affordable secured by s106 (DL 41, 82)
- **HO13: pass.** site lies within emerging Reg 19 strategic allocation AST01 (1,660 homes); no evidence the scheme would prejudice the allocation's scale, location, phasing or masterplanning (DL 73-77)
- **DM4: neutral (limited weight).** emerging allocation limited weight but reinforces that character harm is only moderate (DL 74, 78)
- **HE6: neutral.** no harm to Grade II Sunnybrook Farm (setting already engulfed) or 1-6 Ballards Row (DL 43-47)
- **N4: pass.** Chilterns National Landscape conserved; read as a small extension to the village (DL 60)
- **N6: pass.** Chilterns Beechwoods SAC - appropriate assessment; SANG and SAMM secured; no adverse effect on integrity (DL 54-59)
- **TR6: pass.** LHA-agreed TA; no severe capacity or unacceptable safety impact; Green End Street footway to be considered by condition (DL 48-50)
- **TR3: pass.** mapped - "agreed accessible location"; "well located in terms of facilities and services"; TR3 not cited; bus contribution and off-site highway works secured (DL 41-42, 57, 80)
- **LP S1 (local): conflict (substantial weight).** said to be "out of date due to the lack of five year housing land supply" but in broad accordance with the Framework, so landscape conflict given full weight (DL 36)
- **LP S2/S3/D3/NP H1 (local): conflict (limited weight).** spatial-strategy conflict given limited weight because the supply shortfall is substantial (2024-style out-of-date reasoning, no Annex A(2) test) (DL 38-39)

## Key facts
- Council cannot show a five-year supply; figure disputed but shortfall "substantial" on either figure; plan more than 5 years old from 15 Sep 2026, so the standard method applies (DL 38)
- Aston Clinton a "larger village" in the Local Plan with no allocation; 43% dwelling growth since 2011 per Parish Council (DL 32, 53)
- Previous appeal on a site west of College Road South dismissed nine years earlier (APP/J0405/W/16/3147513) on coalescence and highways; distinguished (DL 24-25, 48-49)
- Visual effects substantial from some PRoWs at year 1, moderated over 15 years (DL 16-23)
- s106 signed after the hearing - 25% affordable, education, health, bus service, skylark mitigation, SANG/SAMM, off-site highway works (DL 41)
- Reserved matters within 18 months to meet D3 timely-delivery requirement (DL 62)
- Approx 365 extra vehicle trips within 4.65 km of the SAC (DL 57)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008253

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008253.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.