- Decision
- dismissed, 23 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: John Morrison (site visit and recommendation by appeal planning officer Ellie Nutman)
- Authority
- Hinckley and Bosworth (East Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6009220
- Application reference
- 25/00883/OUT
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Outline (access only) for one self-build dwelling on a roadside paddock (resubmission after earlier appeal dismissal)
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- settlement edge, open countryside, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S6, S5, DP3
- Development plan policies
- Sheepy Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2019 S1, S8, Hinckley and Bosworth SADMP DPD 2016 DM4, DM10
- Main issues
- character and appearance of countryside
Summary
One self-build dwelling on a roadside paddock at the southern edge of Sheepy Parva. Dismissed on an appeal planning officer's recommendation. The Council has no five-year supply and accepted the site is well-related, which gave the S5 route "some support". But the inspector found:
- the house would extend a ribbon into open countryside;
- it would not be infill;
- it would conflict with the neighbourhood plan.
Applying S6, the benefits (moderate weight for a single self-build unit) were substantially outweighed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. The letter does not mention the 17 August 2026 revision or any invitation to comment.
- Character: HARM. "the appeal scheme would contribute to a ribbon of housing stretching away from the established containment of the small settlement" (DL ¶5). "I do not agree therefore that a single dwelling would be classed as an infill plot" (DL ¶6).
- S5. "The Council is unable to demonstrate the supply of housing sites that the Framework requires and … the appeal site is well related to an existing settlement. In principle therefore, there is some support for the proposals" (DL ¶11).
- S6. "where the presumption applies to applications involving the provision of housing, development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan is likely to be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶13). "the NP became part of the development plan five years or less before the date on which this decision is made and it contains policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement … it remains part of the development plan and has primacy as such" (DL ¶14).
- Possible slip. DL ¶7 refers to the "Sheepy Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2019", which would be more than five years old by September 2026. The letter does not say whether a review or modification was made later. Treat the S6(1)(a) finding with care until checked.
Planning balance
The S5 balance with S6 layered on top. Character harm and plan conflict: significant weight. DP3 conflict. Benefits: moderate. "the benefits of granting permission for the appeal scheme would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶15).
What made the difference
Two things. The plot sat in a wide open gap rather than a gap in a frontage, so it could not be infill and would read as ribbon development. And a neighbourhood plan the inspector treated as within S6's five-year window, with allocations, tipped the balance under S6 even with no five-year supply. If the NP is actually the 2019 version with no later modification, S6 should not have applied, and the case would rest on the ordinary S5 balance: significant harm against moderate benefits.
Transferable points
- S6 applied as a decisive gloss on S5: conflict with a recent NP that has allocations makes the benefits "likely" substantially outweighed, even without a five-year supply (DL ¶¶13–15).
- A single plot in a wide open gap between a village edge and an outlying house is not infill. It extends ribbon development (DL ¶¶5–6).
- One self-build unit gets moderate, not substantial, weight when the scale is so limited (DL ¶13). This contrasts with the HO7 substantial weight used elsewhere.
- Check the S6(1)(a) five-year condition against the NP's actual made date (DL ¶7 vs ¶14).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S5(1)(j) | pass | no 5YHLS and, per Council, well related to settlement — "some support" in principle; limb not named (DL 10-11) | |
| S5(1)(e) | fail | not infill — part of an expansive open gap between village edge and Meadowside; would extend a ribbon (DL 5-6) (made without naming S5(1)(e)) | |
| S6 | fail | conflict with NP; NP said to have become part of development plan five years or less ago and to contain allocations meeting its requirement, so benefits likely substantially outweighed (DL 13-15) — but DL 7 calls it the "2019" NP | |
| DP3 | conflict | significant | countryside character harm; significant weight with plan conflict (DL 12) |
| HO7 | benefit | moderate | self-build (obligation completed) and supply; moderate because single unit (DL 13) |
Key facts
- Paddock south of a cluster on the edge of Sheepy Parva; hedge removal needed for access (DL 4-5)
- Previous application refused and appeal dismissed; this is a resubmission (DL 2)
- Council cannot show 5YHLS (figure not stated) (DL 11)
- Appeal planning officer recommendation adopted by inspector (DL 2, 17)
- Letter makes no reference to the 17 Aug 2026 transition or party consultation
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.