- Decision
- dismissed, 7 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: R Cahalane
- Authority
- New Forest National Park Authority (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6008742
- Application reference
- 25/00974FULL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Two residential caravans on concrete hardstands, aggregate, sewage tank and access alterations
- Homes
- 2
- Site context
- open countryside, national park, TPO, rural lane
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(1), S5(3), HO11, S5(2), DP3(3), N4
- Development plan policies
- New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016-2036 SP1, SP4, SP6, SP7, SP15, SP17, SP19, SP28, DP2, DP18
- Main issues
- location; National Park landscape; protected species; highway safety
Summary
The appeal was for two residential caravans (not a traveller site) on a wooded plot in the New Forest National Park. It was dismissed. The site was isolated, "not located within groups of houses", fell outside every S5(1) category and met no HO11 circumstance. The inspector used S5(2): DP3(3) "should be refused" plus N4 substantial weight meant the benefits were "substantially outweighed". There was no survey for great crested newts, and the access was unevidenced.
Issues and findings
- Transition. Further comments were invited on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶4).
- Location and TR3: FAIL. "Routes from the site to these settlements are largely along narrow and unlit roads with no segregated footways ... Future residents would thus likely be heavily dependent on the use of private vehicles" (DL ¶13).
- Landscape and tranquillity, N4: HARM. "movement and light generation from residential use of the site throughout the year would inevitably erode tranquillity" (DL ¶18). Loss of TPO woodland shrubbery would "harm the intrinsic natural beauty of the NFNP" (DL ¶23).
- Protected species. Without a GCN survey, conditions were "not ... reasonable" (Circular 06/2005 ¶99) (DL ¶28-29).
- Isolation. "Even if the appeal site could be described as part of an established rural landholding and existing pattern of development, it is not located within groups of houses" (DL ¶46).
- DP3 as the S5(2) trigger. "In applying NDMP S5, the circumstances in which the benefits ... are likely to be substantially outweighed ... include ... fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies which state that development proposals should be refused ... NDMP DP3 sets out a list of key principles ... Proposals should also prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport ... the appeal scheme would not achieve these key principles" (DL ¶48-49).
Planning balance
HO7 got moderate weight: there was "no evidence ... to indicate a current shortfall in housing supply within the NFNP", and no HO1 group need was shown (DL ¶44-45). On the other side were location, National Park landscape (N4 substantial weight), protected species and precautionary highway harm (DL ¶40-42, 50). "the benefits of approving the appeal development proposal are in this case substantially outweighed by adverse effects" (DL ¶51).
What made the difference
National Park landscape and tranquillity harm plus isolation. There was also a complete absence of supporting technical evidence (ecology, visibility, trees). Structurally, the letter applies the S5(1)/S5(2) "substantially outweighed" framing after finding the scheme outside all S5(1) categories and contrary to S5(3). Strictly, S5(4)'s reversed test or S5(3)'s bar should govern. The outcome is the same either way.
Transferable points
- Isolated homes are those not "within groups of houses". Being part of an established rural landholding does not help (DL ¶46).
- DP3(2)'s principle of prioritising walking, cycling and public transport can be a DP3(3) refusal trigger for car-dependent rural sites (DL ¶48-49).
- In a National Park, N4 substantial weight plus tranquillity erosion from year-round residential use and lighting defeats small-scale housing (DL ¶18, 50-51).
- Where no supply shortfall is shown and no HO1 group need is evidenced, HO7 weight falls to moderate (DL ¶44-45).
- Newt surveys cannot be left to condition where habitat is suitable and presence unknown (DL ¶29).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S5(1) | fail | not within any S5(1) category (DL 46) | |
| S5(3) | fail | isolated - even if part of an established rural landholding, not within groups of houses; no HO11 circumstance (DL 46-47) | |
| DP3(3) | fail | fails to integrate with context and to prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport; used as the S5(2) refusal-type trigger (DL 48-49) | |
| N4 | harm | substantial | loss of TPO woodland shrubbery and erosion of tranquillity; does not conserve or enhance National Park natural beauty (DL 16-24, 50) |
| TR3 | fail | narrow unlit roads without segregated footways to Sway and Lymington; heavy car dependence (DL 13) | |
| HO7 | benefit | moderate | no evidence of NFNP supply shortfall or of HO1 group needs (DL 43-45) |
Key facts
- Outside the NFNP Defined Villages; between Sway and Lymington along unlit roads without footways (DL 6, 12-13)
- No great crested newt survey despite wet woodland on site (DL 26-30)
- No visibility splay or swept-path evidence for the access, so harm found on a precautionary basis (DL 33-37)
Sources
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.