# Land south of 2 Leighton Road, Hamerton - **Decision:** dismissed, 29 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: G Dring - **Authority:** Huntingdonshire (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6008987 - **Application reference:** 25/02302/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Detached dwelling with detached garage and secure bicycle store - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.68 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** DP3(3), S5(1)(j) - **Development plan policies:** Huntingdonshire Local Plan 2019 LP9, LP10, LP11, LP12, LP28 - **Main issues:** suitable location, character and appearance - **Tags:** s5-1-j, dp3-refuse-trigger, dp3-clear-justification, design-refusal, rural-lane-no-footway, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, self-build-unsecured, annex-a-weight-reduction, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary One large detached house on a paddock at the edge of Hamerton, a dispersed village with no services, no pavements and two buses a weekday. The scheme passed S5(1)(j) as spatially well related, and car dependence was given only limited weight. It failed on design: an overly dominant building at the village edge, with no clear justification, so DP3(3) carried substantial weight and the benefits were substantially outweighed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "Both parties have had the opportunity to comment on the new Framework" (DL ¶2). - **Accessibility.** "There are no separate pavements along the road network within the settlement, and the roads are fairly narrow and unlit" (DL ¶8); the bus service "is very limited, only equating to two buses each weekday" (DL ¶9); "it is very likely that future occupants would be heavily reliant on the private car" (DL ¶11). - **S5(1)(j): PASS.** "Given the proximity of the site to the settlement edge, the site would be spatially well-related" (DL ¶32). - **Car reliance given limited weight.** "Framework Policy TR3:1 e. also identifies that in rural areas, opportunities to improve sustainable modes of transport should be taken where they exist ... I find limited weight should be attributed to this matter in this case" (DL ¶39). - **Spatial strategy: limited weight for supply.** "given the current housing land supply position, this attracts limited weight against the proposal" (DL ¶38). - **DP3(3): FAIL.** "I have not found any justification for the design approach taken in the evidence before me and therefore I give substantial weight to the conflict with Policy DP3:1 of the Framework" (DL ¶40). ## Planning balance S5(1). Moderate benefits against DP3(3) conflict (substantial), spatial strategy (limited) and car reliance (limited). "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶41). ## What made the difference Design alone. The location, on this letter's reasoning, would have passed: (j)(i) was read as spatial proximity, and TR3 car dependence was discounted as normal for rural areas. A modest pair of cottages matching Nos 1 and 2 would probably have been allowed. ## Transferable points - Clear DP3(3) step: conflict with DP3(1), no justification found, substantial weight (DL ¶40). - Contrary to the prevailing approach, this inspector reduced TR3 car-dependence harm to limited weight by reference to TR3(1)(e) and S5's support for edge-of-settlement sites (DL ¶39). Treat as an outlier; the dismissal did not depend on it. - Reduced weight for a spatial-strategy conflict because of supply is 2024-style out-of-date reasoning (DL ¶38). - S5(1)(j)(i) "physically well-related" passed on adjacency alone, before design harm is weighed (DL ¶32). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:settlement: neutral.** Hamerton accepted as a settlement; site adjacent to but outside it (DL 5, 29) - **S5(1)(j): pass.** engaged by supply shortfall (3.5-3.68 years); spatially well-related as next to settlement edge; single dwelling, infrastructure adequate (DL 31-33) - **TR3: harm (limited weight).** no pavements, narrow unlit roads, 2 buses each weekday, 20-minute cycle to Sawtry on rural roads; heavy car reliance; but TR3(1)(e) rural opportunities and S5 support for edge sites reduce weight to limited (DL 8-11, 39) - **CC2(1)(b): harm (limited weight).** car reliance at odds with limiting need to travel (DL 39) - **DP3(3): fail (substantial weight).** large, bulky, overly dominant dwelling at settlement edge conflicts with DP3(1); "I have not found any justification for the design approach"; substantial weight (DL 18-24, 40) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** one dwelling plus economic/environmental benefits moderate given scale (DL 35) - **LP LP9/LP10 spatial strategy (local): conflict (limited weight).** conflict with spatial strategy given limited weight "given the current housing land supply position" (DL 38) - **S5(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 41) ## Key facts - Supply 3.5 years (appellant) or 3.68 years (council) (DL 28) - About 24 homes adjoining, below the LP 30-home built-up area threshold (DL 6) - Two buses each weekday; no pavements; narrow unlit roads; National Cycle Route to Sawtry 20 minutes (DL 8-10) - Self-build claimed but no mechanism; negligible weight (DL 37) - Parties had the opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008987 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e6d4e67f-ac8f-429c-9ef1-ca24e2bae628 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008987.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.