# 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 (years):** 2.42 - **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 - **Tags:** PIP, pdl-e-limb, s5-1-j, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, equestrian, housing-shortfall, landscape-harm, substantially-outweighed, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## 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 - **S5(1)(d): fail.** equestrian site accepted as PDL so (d) engaged (incl. material change of use to residential), but benefits substantially outweighed (DL 5, 31, 36) - **S5(1)(j): fail.** not physically well-related to Upper Seagry; separated by farmland, 300 m of 60 mph lane with no footway (DL 10, 31) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** with L2, substantial weight at 2.42-year supply (DL 32) - **TR3: fail.** unlit national-speed lanes with no footways; 8 buses a weekday not safely reachable; upper parameter generates significant movement (DL 16-17, 33) - **DP3(2)(d): fail.** cited with TR3 and CC2 for car dependence (DL 33) - **N2: harm.** loss of rural character; would double to triple the adjacent cluster (DL 23-28, 33) ## 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 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008434 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/25d02af0-e6b9-4db0-80ee-d2354716eb83 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008434.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.