- Decision
- dismissed, 17 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer L Clark)
- Authority
- King's Lynn and West Norfolk (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6009184
- Application reference
- 25/01006/CU
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Change of use from holiday let to unrestricted dwelling
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- open countryside, rural lane
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- No Framework version cited
- Determinative policies
- s38(6), KLWN LP LP02
- Development plan policies
- King's Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan 2025 LP01, LP02
- Main issues
- principle / location
Summary
Lifting the holiday-occupancy restriction on a lodge beside a 60mph B-road in open countryside near the Burnhams was dismissed as contrary to the settlement hierarchy (LP02). Permanent occupiers would be wholly car-reliant for daily trips. The decision was issued on 17 August 2026, the day the new Framework took effect. It cites no Framework, so the S5 route for development outside settlements (including reuse of existing buildings) was never tested.
Issues and findings
- Location — LP02: CONFLICT. "one would not 'normally' allow unrestricted dwellings in the open countryside" (DL ¶9). Occupiers of a permanent dwelling "would be more likely to undertake more regular, arguably daily, journeys … The nature and frequency of journeys would therefore be materially different" from a holiday let (DL ¶8).
- Accessibility. The long walk to the Holkham bus stop is partly "along the side of a main road which is unlit, does not have segregated footways and carries vehicles at the national speed limit" (DL ¶7).
- Comparators. Earlier allowed schemes "found support in the iteration of the National Planning Policy Framework at the time" (DL ¶14). This is the only reference to national policy.
Planning balance
Plan-led s38(6). The council had a five-year supply. The absence of other harms was neutral (DL ¶12-13).
What made the difference
The plan's "not normally" wording, and the difference in travel pattern between holiday and permanent occupiers. Under the 2026 Framework the inspector would have had to consider whether a change of use of an existing building fell within S5(1). Where it does, the plan's countryside restriction may carry reduced weight under Annex A. That question was not asked.
Transferable points
- Holiday-let occupancy and permanent occupancy generate materially different travel patterns. Removing a holiday condition can be resisted on car-dependence (DL ¶8).
- A letter dated 17 August 2026 that applies neither Framework shows the transition gap. Later decisions on similar facts should be tested against S5.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| LP02 (KLWN LP) | conflict | Tier 6 countryside; residential "not normally" supported outside development boundaries; nothing out of the "normal" here (DL 5-10) | |
| TR3 | fail | code mapped by harvester (not cited) — 60mph B1155, no footway or lighting; only school-day buses (2/day); "reliant upon the use of a car for every trip" (DL 4, 7-8, 11) |
Key facts
- Council has an acceptable five-year supply (DL 13)
- No additional built form; building can already be occupied year-round as a holiday let (DL 7)
- Decided 17 Aug 2026 with no reference to either Framework; S5 (and S5(1)(c)-type reuse) not considered
- Earlier comparators allowed under previous Framework's support for reuse/subdivision distinguished (DL 14)
Related decisions
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.