# Overs Farm, Haughton, Tasley, Bridgnorth (wigwam cabins) - **Decision:** dismissed, 23 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Barton - **Authority:** Shropshire (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6008804 - **Application reference:** 25/04206/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Siting of five wigwam holiday cabins, re-use of existing timber cabin as reception, parking and treatment plant - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(b), S5(4), TR3, E4(2), Transitional(2) - **Development plan policies:** Shropshire Core Strategy 2011 CS1, CS5, CS6, CS13, CS16, SAMDev Plan 2015 MD11 - **Main issues:** location and accessibility, spatial strategy - **Tags:** sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, rural-tourism, s5-1-b-necessity, s5-4-exceptional, both-s5-routes-run, pre-2026-plan-full-weight, small-scheme ## Summary Five wigwam holiday cabins on a former pig farm outside Bridgnorth were refused, and the appeal was dismissed. The inspector found the site car-dependent and gave "very substantial weight" to the conflict with TR3 and the local spatial strategy. Economic benefits got substantial weight under E2(1). The inspector ran both S5 routes: S5(1)(b) (assuming necessity) and S5(4). The scheme failed both. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were invited to comment on the new Framework (DL ¶2). - **Location and accessibility: FAIL.** Access to Bridgnorth "is via a narrow country lane with no footpaths or street lighting … visitors … would be heavily reliant on private cars. Although rural areas are unlikely to have the same level of public transport as urban areas, this does not give reason to locate development within locations that are inherently inaccessible by means other than private car" (DL ¶7). - **Older plan keeps full weight (Annex A ¶2).** The CS spatial strategy "is consistent with the Framework's aim in locating development where it can support sustainable patterns of development, particularly policy TR3 … due to a lack of genuinely sustainable travel choices, I afford very substantial weight to this conflict" (DL ¶15). - **E4.** E4(1)(b) and (c) support diversification and rural tourism, "However, as there is no cogent case as to why the proposal needs to be located where it is not well served by public transport, policy E4(2) offers minimal support, even though the proposal would utilise an existing structure" (DL ¶17). - **S5, both routes.** "accepting that S5(1)(b) applies, and a location outside a settlement is necessary … the benefits would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶18). "For completeness and applying S5(4), the benefits would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects, and exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated" (DL ¶19). ## Planning balance Against: conflict with the plan as a whole, and TR3/spatial-strategy harm at very substantial weight. For: economic benefits (substantial weight, E2(1)), and woodland legacy and access. Character and highway effects were neutral. The balance failed under S5(1)(b) ("substantially outweighed") and under S5(4). ## What made the difference Accessibility alone decided it, and it outweighed benefits that were themselves given substantial weight. The decision shows that the E2(1) "substantial weight" to economic growth does not carry a small rural tourism scheme where there is no genuine choice of transport modes. A tourism site close to a settlement, or an existing viable tourism enterprise, would have changed the result. ## Transferable points - Even where E2(1) economic benefits get substantial weight, a car-dependent rural tourism site can fail S5(1)(b)'s "substantially outweighed" balance (DL ¶17-18). - E4(2) offers "minimal support" where there is no cogent case for a location poorly served by public transport (DL ¶17). - Pre-2026 local spatial strategies directing tourism to settlements are consistent with TR3 and keep full weight under Annex A ¶2 (DL ¶15). - An inspector can run S5(1)(b) and S5(4) in the alternative and dismiss under both (DL ¶18-20). ## Policy findings - **TR3: fail (substantial weight).** narrow lane, no footpaths or lighting, Bridgnorth "a noticeable distance"; visitors heavily reliant on cars; "very substantial weight" to the conflict (DL 6-7, 15) - **Transitional(2): neutral.** CS1/CS5/CS16 spatial strategy consistent with TR3; not given reduced weight for pre-dating the Framework (DL 15) - **E2(1): benefit (substantial weight).** construction and visitor-spend economic benefits given substantial weight "in line with Policy E2(1)" (DL 17) - **E4(1)(b): benefit.** supports diversification of land-based businesses and rural tourism (DL 17) - **E4(2): fail (very-limited weight).** no cogent case why the proposal must be where it is not served by public transport, so E4(2) "offers minimal support" despite re-using an existing structure (DL 17) - **S5(1)(b): fail.** even assuming a countryside location is necessary, benefits substantially outweighed by adverse effects (DL 18) - **S5(4): fail.** no exceptional circumstances; benefits do not substantially outweigh harm (DL 19) ## Key facts - Five cabins on an enclosed orchard parcel beside a farmhouse; site a pig farm until 2000, no existing tourism enterprise - Nearest service centre Bridgnorth via narrow lane with no footways or street lighting; very limited evidence on buses - Franchise operating model did not show an "established and viable tourism enterprise" (local plan CS16 test) (DL 8-9) - No harm found to character or highway; those were neutral (DL 16) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008804 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/99e1ba45-4e09-4ecf-89de-8df919292994 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008804.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.