# 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 (years):** 3.93
- **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
- **Tags:** s5-1-j, s5-4-exceptional, housing-shortfall, class-q-fallback, landscape-harm, sustainable-location-fail, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## 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
- **S5(1)(j): fail.** 3.93-year supply engages need, but site in a small cluster 400-500m from Houghton Conquest is not physically well-related (DL 26)
- **S5(4): fail.** HO7 substantial weight for six homes does not substantially outweigh considerable-weight character and highway harms (DL 28)
- **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** six units without 5YHLS (DL 28)
- **DP3: harm (considerable weight).** dense suburban row in open clay vale landscape, more prominent than barns (DL 7-13)
- **TR4: harm (considerable weight).** full-size fire engine turning not shown; one effective space for retained bungalow (DL 15-20)

## 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009181
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f40c6853-d035-4760-bcb8-475d041bdaf5

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009181.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.