- Decision
- allowed, 30 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: P Eggleton
- Authority
- North Lincolnshire (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- Appeal reference
- 6008883
- Application reference
- PA/2025/1413
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- A three-bedroom bungalow with rooms in the roof, on surfaced land beside an existing bungalow that was formerly used for post office parking
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4(1), S4(2)(a)(ii), L2(1)(d)
- Development plan policies
- North Lincolnshire Local Plan 2003 DS1, H5, H8, LC14, North Lincolnshire Core Strategy 2011 CS1, CS2, CS5
- Main issues
- character and appearance; living conditions of existing and future residents
Summary
A bungalow in the side curtilage of an existing bungalow, inside the settlement boundary of Westwoodside, was allowed. The inspector found no harm to character or to living conditions. The inspector then applied S4: the only S4(2) circumstance in play was L2(1)(d) on residential curtilages, the scheme met it, and so the proposal "should therefore be approved". A local-needs restriction in Core Strategy Policy CS2 was given very little weight as more restrictive than the Framework.
Issues and findings
- Character: no harm. "This proposal would make an efficient use of this area of land and would not be out of keeping with the general arrangement of development in this particular area" (DL ¶8).
- Living conditions: acceptable. "The space available would not result in unacceptable living conditions for existing or future residents" (DL ¶11).
- Plan weight. CS2 allows small-scale development in rural settlements to meet identified local needs. "As this is more restrictive than the Framework; and given the housing supply position, this element of the policy can be afforded very little weight" (DL ¶15).
- S4 and L2(1)(d): PASS. "The only relevant circumstance in this case, would relate to Policy L2(1)(d)) regarding development within residential curtilages but the proposal satisfies the three requirements of part d" (DL ¶17).
- Self-build: no weight. "Conditions are not appropriate mechanisms to secure self-build requirements and no unilateral undertaking or legal agreement has been submitted" (DL ¶14).
- Permitted development rights, DM6(2)(c). "I am satisfied that only development that would be prominent from outside the site would be justified" (DL ¶20).
Planning balance
S4(1), reached through S3. With no harm found and no S4(2) circumstance engaged, "The benefits of approving this proposal would not therefore be substantially outweighed by adverse effects" (DL ¶17). No weight is put on the single dwelling in terms.
What made the difference
The site was inside the settlement boundary and the Council's objections were matters of judgement on plot size, outlook and garden depth. Once those fell away, S4 left nothing to weigh against approval. The letter checks L2(1)(d) as the one S4(2)(a)(ii) circumstance that could apply to a garden plot, but states the result without giving the footprint or curtilage figures.
Transferable points
- For a dwelling in a residential curtilage inside a settlement, L2(1)(d) is the S4(2)(a)(ii) circumstance to check; if its three requirements are met and there is no other harm, S4 directs approval (DL ¶16-17).
- A plan policy that limits development inside a settlement to identified local needs is more restrictive than the Framework, and that element carries very little weight (DL ¶15).
- Self-build cannot be secured by condition; without an undertaking it carries no weight as a benefit (DL ¶14).
- DM6(2)(c) requires clear justification for removing permitted development rights; a blanket removal was cut down to the one class that would be prominent from outside the site (DL ¶20).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S3 | pass | S3 sends proposals within settlements to S4; the Council's decision had relied on the presumption in the former Framework (DL 16) | |
| S4(1) | pass | within the settlement boundary; benefits not substantially outweighed; "It should therefore be approved" (DL 6, 16-17) | |
| S4(2)(a)(ii) | not-engaged | the only relevant S4(2) circumstance was L2(1)(d), development within residential curtilages; its requirements were met (DL 17) | |
| L2(1)(d) | pass | "the proposal satisfies the three requirements of part d"; no footprint or curtilage figures given; the letter writes "L2(1)(d))" (DL 17) | |
| Transitional(2) | conflict | very-limited | the part of CS2 limiting development in rural settlements to identified local needs is "more restrictive than the Framework"; given "very little weight", also because of the housing supply position; Annex A not cited (DL 15) |
| DP3 | accord | mapped: DP3 not cited; efficient use of the plot, in keeping with the varied pattern of the area; no conflict with DS1, H8 or CS5 (DL 7-8) | |
| HO7 | benefit | one open-market dwelling; no weight word given; no weight to self-build because it was not secured by an undertaking or agreement (DL 14) | |
| DM6(2)(c) | pass | Council sought removal of permitted development rights in Classes A, B, C, D, E and G; only Class B (roof additions) justified; the letter writes "DM6(2)c" (DL 20) | |
| BNG (Sch 7A TCPA) | not-engaged | self-build exemption claimed; inspector says that, given the size of the site, the scheme "would not now be required to meet the statutory biodiversity requirements" (DL 14) |
Key facts
- The Council accepts the site is within the settlement boundary and that it has no accepted five-year housing land supply; no figure is given (DL 6)
- New dwelling 3.8 m from the existing bungalow; rear garden about 8 to 10 m deep and about 12 m wide (DL 7, 10-11)
- Some loss of outlook and morning light to one side window of the existing bungalow, found not unacceptable (DL 10)
- Site is in the Isle of Axholme Area of Special Historic Landscape Interest (LP LC14); the Council's specialist adviser found no conflict (DL 13)
- Self-build claimed on the basis that the owner "may seek to build the dwelling for family members"; no unilateral undertaking; conditions held not to be an appropriate mechanism (DL 14)
- Haxey Parish Council objected (DL 18)
- No switch paragraph and no record of consultation; the letter applies "the revised Framework" (DL 16)
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.