Land at Brakenhill Mews, Upper Seagry

Decision

dismissed, 17 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: R Standfield

Authority

Wiltshire (South West)

Appeal reference

6008434

Application reference

PL/2025/09810

Procedure

written representations

Development

Permission in principle for 4-9 dwellings on equestrian site (stables, arena, Nissen hut)

Homes

9

Site context

open countryside, PDL, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

2.42 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(d), TR3, DP3(2)(d), N2, S3

Development plan policies

Wiltshire Core Strategy 2015 CP1, CP2, CP10, CP51, CP60, CP61, North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011 saved H4, Seagry Parish NP 2019-2036 SNP6, North Wiltshire Landscape Character Assessment 2004

Main issues

land use and spatial strategy; accessibility; amount of development and landscape

Summary

Permission in principle for 4-9 homes on a small equestrian yard next to a roadside cluster outside Upper Seagry, Wiltshire. Dismissed. The inspector accepted the site was PDL, which engaged S5(1)(d), and gave substantial weight to housing at a 2.42-year supply. But car dependence (TR3/DP3(2)(d)/CC2) and loss of rural character (N2/DP3) were given "very substantial weight" together and substantially outweighed the benefits.

Issues and findings

• Transition. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on the updated NPPF (DL ¶4).
• PDL. The Council argued that only a small part was lawfully PDL. The inspector took the whole current layout as PDL (DL ¶5).
• S5(1)(j): FAIL. "the site is not physically well related to an existing settlement with no justification for the proposed development to be located separately" (DL ¶31).
• S5(1)(d): engaged. "Policy S5 1d does provide for the redevelopment of previously developed land (including a material change of use to residential)" (DL ¶31).
• Accessibility — TR3: FAIL. Routes to the village "would both necessitate sharing the carriageway with vehicles at speed". The bus service "would not be safely accessible on foot" (DL ¶¶16–17). "the upper parameter of development in particular could generate an amount of movement that would be significant within the locational context" (DL ¶33).
• Character — N2/DP3: FAIL. "Whilst the site is deemed to comprise previously developed land by definition, the site clearly relates most closely to its countryside surroundings" (DL ¶24). Untidiness "could be addressed by the appellant without the need for planning permission" (DL ¶26).

Planning balance

S5 balance. For: "In line with NPPF Policies HO7 and L2 ... I therefore attribute substantial weight to these benefits" (DL ¶32). Against: TR3, CC2, DP3(2)(d), N2 and DP3 conflicts, plus "NPPF Chapter 1, paragraph 17" objectives. "In combination, I afford these adverse effects very substantial weight" (DL ¶35). "the adverse effects ... would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶36).

What made the difference

Location and scale. The site is a detached rural yard reached only along unlit, national-speed lanes, and 9 dwellings would double to triple the small cluster. PDL status opened the S5(1)(d) door but gave no protection against TR3 and character harm. A single dwelling, or a site reached by footway within the village envelope, would have had a much better chance given the 2.42-year supply.

Transferable points

• Low-key rural PDL (equestrian) engages S5(1)(d), but a site that "relates most closely to its countryside surroundings" can still fail on character (DL ¶¶24, 31).
• Under S5, TR3 car-dependence harm plus landscape harm can reach "very substantial weight" and substantially outweigh HO7/L2 substantial weight even at 2.42 years (DL ¶¶32–36).
• Scale matters within S5(1)(d): the upper parameter generates "significant" movement in the local context (DL ¶33).
• A bus service does not help if the stop cannot be reached safely on foot (DL ¶17).
• Drafting slips: cites "NPPF Chapter 1, paragraph 17" (the 2026 Framework is policy-coded) and the "Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2024" (fn 4; should be 2004).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Supply 2.42 years (June 2025) (DL 32)
• Nearest house 85 m away; not an infill gap; 9 dwellings not "a few" under CP2 (DL 11-12)
• Council disputed the lawful PDL extent; inspector proceeded on PDL basis given 12+ years of current form (DL 5)
• Combined adverse effects given "very substantial weight" (DL 35)

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.