Bracken Ley, London Lane, Houghton Conquest

Decision

dismissed, 8 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Andrew Owen

Authority

Central Bedfordshire (East of England)

Appeal reference

6009181

Application reference

CB/25/03478/FULL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Redevelopment of agricultural barns for six dwellings (plus retained bungalow)

Homes

6

Site context

open countryside, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

3.93 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(j), S5(4), HO7

Development plan policies

Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2021 HQ1, EE4, EE5, EE8, EE9, T2, T3

Main issues

character and appearance; highway safety; living conditions

Summary

This was a scheme to replace a cluster of agricultural barns (with Class Q prior approval for 8 units) with six new houses. It was dismissed. With a 3.93-year supply, S5(1)(j) was engaged. But the site, in a small cluster 400-500 m from Houghton Conquest, was not physically well-related, and no other S5(1) category applied. Under S5(4), substantial HO7 weight did not substantially outweigh the considerable-weight suburbanising character harm and highway safety harm.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The parties commented on the revised Framework (DL ¶3).
• Character: significant harm. The scheme "would result in a dense enclave of seven houses in plots substantially smaller than the other dwellings nearby" with "a suburban character contrasting with the more scattered and varied form" (DL ¶8-9).
• Class Q fallback distinguished. "the agricultural appearance of the site would generally be retained by the reuse of the existing buildings ... whereas the appeal scheme would have a wholly suburban appearance" (DL ¶12). "the reuse of buildings is specifically allowed for in part c. of paragraph 1" (DL ¶27).
• S5(1)(j): FAIL. "The Council state they can only demonstrate a 3.93 year supply ... part j. adds that ... development must also be physically well-related to an existing settlement. In my view the distance between the site and Houghton Conquest means the site is not physically well-related" (DL ¶26).
• Highways. It was not shown that a full-size fire engine could turn (DL ¶15), and the retained dwelling had only one effective space (DL ¶16).

Planning balance

S5(4) (DL ¶28): "The benefits of an additional six units at a time when the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply attracts substantial weight ... BNG, ... local economy, and ... sustainable design ... modest weight ... Conversely the harm to the character and appearance of the area and to highway safety both carry considerable weight. As such, the benefits do not substantially outweigh the adverse effects."

What made the difference

Distance and separation from the village, 400-500 m across open fields, took the scheme out of S5(1)(j). The extant Class Q permission helped the appellant less than expected. The inspector read it as supporting reuse under S5(1)(c), not redevelopment. Agricultural buildings are not PDL, so S5(1)(d) was unavailable. Building out the Class Q scheme remains the realistic route.

Transferable points

• A small rural cluster 400-500 m from a village across open fields is not "physically well-related" for S5(1)(j) (DL ¶26).
• A Class Q fallback supports reuse (S5(1)(c)) but does not justify suburban redevelopment with a different appearance (DL ¶12, 27).
• Under S5(4), substantial HO7 weight for six homes was not enough against considerable-weight character and highway harms (DL ¶28).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Supply 3.93 years (DL 26)
• Extant Class Q prior approval for 8 units in the barns (CB/25/00256/PAAD) - distinguished as retaining agricultural appearance; S5(1)(c) is the route for reuse (DL 12, 27)
• Houghton Conquest about 400-500m away across open fields (DL 6)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.