The Pigs, Leesthorpe Road, Pickwell

Decision

dismissed, 24 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Andrew Fuller

Authority

Melton (East Midlands)

Appeal reference

6008693

Application reference

25/01286/PIP

Procedure

written representations

Development

Permission in principle for up to two self-build dwellings on a paddock outside the Pickwell Limits of Development

Homes

2

Site context

open countryside, settlement edge, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

7.6 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(j)(i), S5(4), TR3

Development plan policies

Melton Local Plan 2018 SS2, SS3, Somerby Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2021 HR2, HR4, ENV3

Main issues

suitability of location

Summary

Permission in principle for two self-build homes on a paddock next to, but outside, Pickwell's Limits of Development. The self-build shortfall was accepted as an unmet need, but the site failed S5(1)(j)(i) and TR3. The indicative access is at the far end of a narrow, busy road with no footpath, the village has very few facilities, and the bus is bookable only. With a 7.6-year supply, the benefits were modest and there were no exceptional circumstances under S5(4). Dismissed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "The main parties were provided with an opportunity to comment. I have had regard to the 2026 version of the Framework" (DL ¶5).
• Route. "On my site visit I found this section of highway to be busy and, as a pedestrian, I was forced to stand in the hedge to allow vehicles passing one another to enter and exit the village" (DL ¶10). "From here there is only a restricted, bookable service" (DL ¶11).
• TR3: FAIL. "Whilst not a significant development, the future occupants of the proposal would nonetheless still remain heavily reliant on the car. Whilst I acknowledge that in rural areas greater dependency on the private car is a reality, this site is not well connected to the immediate village or services and facilities in the wider area" (DL ¶12).
• Self-build weight. "substantial weight should be given to the fact that up to two self-build dwellings would contribute towards meeting the significant demand for SBCH in the borough" (DL ¶15).
• S5(1)(j)(i): FAIL. "the indicative access from the site would be at the furthest point away from the village and along a section of the road that is narrow and in the absence of a footpath. The development would thus not be physically well-related to the existing settlement" (DL ¶21).
• S5(4): FAIL. "These benefits would not substantially outweigh the identified adverse effects of the location and there are therefore no exceptional circumstances in this case" (DL ¶22).
• S6 slip. The letter says S6 "weighs in favour of the benefits of housing proposals over any conflict with that plan" (DL ¶23). S6 in fact makes a conflict with a recent neighbourhood plan with allocations likely to outweigh the benefits. The slip is immaterial because the plan is over five years old.

Planning balance

S5(4), then s38(6). Modest housing and economic benefits (7.6-year supply) against the location harm and conflict with SS3 and the neighbourhood plan's HR2, HR4 and ENV3.

What made the difference

The access point. Although the site adjoins the village edge, the indicative access sits where the road is narrow and has no footpath, so the inspector read the site as not physically well related and not well connected. A five-year supply left only S5(1)(j) on self-build need, and that limb failed on (i).

Transferable points

• S5(1)(j)(i) "physically well-related" read partly through access and walking conditions, not just adjacency to the boundary (DL ¶21). This is one of the competing readings of the limb.
• TR3 applies to small schemes too: "not a significant development" but still "heavily reliant on the car" (DL ¶12).
• A restricted, bookable bus service is not a genuine alternative (DL ¶11–12).
• The HO7 weight word can drop from substantial to "modest" in the S5(4) balance where the supply exceeds five years (DL ¶15, ¶22). The letter does not explain the shift.

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Council supply 7.6 years (DL 22)
• Self-build shortfall acknowledged by the Council; supply figure uncertain because many permissions unsecured (DL 15)
• Site is a neighbourhood plan "important open space" (ENV3), the "Old quarry site", with no public access; loss conflicts with ENV3 (DL 16-18)
• No character or landscape harm; neutral (DL 19)

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.