# Land adjoining The Ridings, Singleborough - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Harris-Watkins - **Authority:** Buckinghamshire (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008773 - **Application reference:** PL/25/4181/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for one detached dwelling on an undeveloped gap in a small conservation-area hamlet - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane, conservation-area, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), S5(2), TR3, DP3(2)(d) - **Development plan policies:** Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2021 S1, S2, S3, D51, T1, BE1 - **Main issues:** location, land use and amount - spatial strategy, conservation area and settings of listed buildings - **Tags:** PIP, s5-1-e-infill, s5-2-refusal-policy, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, dp3-refuse-trigger, conservation-area, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Permission in principle for one house on an open gap in Singleborough, a hamlet with a bus only twice a month and no footway. The site counted as limited infilling under S5(1)(e), and the restrictive spatial strategy got very limited weight. But developing the gap would harm the conservation area and the settings of two listed buildings, and occupiers would be almost wholly car-reliant. Through the S5(2) trigger and TR3, the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties invited to comment (DL ¶4). - **Isolation.** "I do not find the site can be considered ‘isolated’ as has been established in the context of the Framework" (DL ¶7). - **Access.** "Singleborough Lane also does not benefit from a footway, such that a pedestrian would have to walk along the highway and share it with vehicles." (DL ¶8). - **Heritage.** "the harm would be at the lower end of the spectrum, but nonetheless of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶18). "Even taken together these public benefits would not outweigh the substantial weight to be attached to the conservation of the designated heritage asset. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with policy HE6 of the Framework." (DL ¶20). - **S5(1)(e).** "This includes limited infilling within groups of housing, which the appeal proposal comprises of." (DL ¶26). - **Plan weight.** S1, S2 and S3 "are materially inconsistent with policy S5 of the Framework, which provides more broad support for limiting infilling outside of settlements. As a result, this conflict is given very limited weight in accordance with the Annexe A of the Framework." (DL ¶27). - **DP3.** "Proposals that fail to do this without clear justification must be refused." (DL ¶29), applied through the heritage conflict. - **TR3 for one dwelling.** Although only one dwelling, TR3 "also includes more general principles about sustainable patterns of movement" (DL ¶30). "the appeal site is poorly connected to services and facilities and would rely almost entirely on the private car to meet its day-to-day needs" (DL ¶32). ## Planning balance S5(1)(e), with S5(2) applied. HE6(4) run first (fail); then "Overall, I find the benefits of approving the development proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects." (DL ¶33). ## What made the difference The site's positive contribution as an open gap in the conservation area, on a public footpath approach, together with a hamlet with virtually no bus and no footway. Meeting the S5(1)(e) infill category did not prevent refusal once HE6 and DP3 conflicts engaged S5(2). ## Transferable points - TR3 is not only about significant movement: its general sustainable-movement principles, and DP3(2)(d), can weigh against even a single dwelling (DL ¶30-32). - A bus on two Thursdays a month, and no footway, is no genuine alternative to the car (DL ¶8, ¶32). - Spatial-strategy policies that bar infill S5(1)(e) allows are materially inconsistent and get very limited weight under Annex A ¶2 (DL ¶27). - s66 and s72 duties apply at the PIP stage, so heritage can defeat permission in principle (DL ¶3, ¶21). ## Policy findings - **S5(3): pass.** not isolated given relationship with surroundings (DL 7) - **S5(1)(e): pass.** limited infilling within a group of housing (DL 26) - **Transitional(2): neutral (very-limited weight).** LP S1, S2, S3 materially inconsistent with S5 (broader support for limited infilling); conflict very limited weight (DL 27) - **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** loss of an open, verdant gap in Singleborough CA (on a PRoW) and harm to settings of Grade II Park Lodge and Old Vine Cottage; lower end of the spectrum (DL 15-18) - **HE6(4): fail (limited weight).** housing, economic and social benefits limited for one dwelling; PRoW widening not securable at PIP stage (DL 19-20) - **DP3(3): fail.** DP3(1) and the refusal direction paraphrased, then applied through the heritage conflict; no express clear-justification finding (DL 29) - **TR3: conflict.** TR3 read as a whole for one dwelling - significant-movement limb not engaged but general sustainable-movement principles are; almost total car reliance (DL 30, 32) - **DP3(2)(d): conflict.** poor connections; no prioritisation of walking, wheeling, cycling, public transport (DL 31-32) - **S5(2): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed by the adverse effects; presumption does not apply (DL 28, 33) ## Key facts - Singleborough has no services other than a bus stop served only on two Thursdays a month (DL 8) - Singleborough Lane has no footway; pedestrians share the carriageway (DL 8) - Settlement not in the LP settlement hierarchy (Table 2); Gibraltar appeal distinguished (pub, frequent bus, footpath to larger village) (DL 9-10, 23) - Consistent with a previous Singleborough appeal (APP/J0405/W/25/3375223) on accessibility (DL 23) - s66 and s72 duties applied at PIP stage (DL 3) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008773 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/eb249c06-3494-4b6c-8a23-edddfb9806bb --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008773.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.