The Orchard, Charley Road, Charley (garage conversion to a self-build dwelling)

Decision

allowed, 2 October 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: M Russell (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer E Nutman)

Authority

North West Leicestershire (East Midlands)

Appeal reference

6009255

Application reference

25/01218/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Conversion of an existing garage to a single self-build dwelling with parking and alterations to the residential curtilage

Homes

1

Site context

open countryside, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(c), HO7, TR3

Development plan policies

North West Leicestershire Local Plan 2021 S2, S3

Main issues

suitability of location; spatial strategy; accessibility

Summary

Conversion of a domestic garage in the hamlet of Charley to a self-build home. A similar scheme had been dismissed on appeal under the previous Framework. The location was found poor again: no public transport, unlit roads with no footways, and occupiers reliant on the car, in conflict with the local plan. But under the 2026 Framework the re-use of an existing building is a form of development S5 says should be approved, the TR3 conflict was held to be limited for one dwelling, and a secured self-build home got substantial weight. Allowed on an appeal planning officer's recommendation.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "I have invited comments from the main parties in respect of the revised Framework and have taken any comments received into consideration" (DL ¶3).
• Hamlet, not a settlement. The Framework "also confirms that the term ‘settlement’ does not include hamlets outside predominantly built-up areas" (DL ¶8).
• Location (local S2, S3): CONFLICT. "The surrounding roads are unlit and lack footways and so walking to those settlements would not be convenient" (DL ¶10). "future occupiers and visitors to the dwelling would be heavily reliant on private vehicular transport" (DL ¶10).
• Plan conflict tempered. "this is tempered by the fact that, as it re-uses an existing building, it cannot be located elsewhere. Furthermore, given its location within an existing residential property amongst a small group of dwellings it is already a destination" (DL ¶16).
• New Framework changes the result. "I am mindful of the previous appeal on the site for a similar proposal. However, the different factor now is the provisions in the new Framework" (DL ¶17).
• S5(1)(c) re-use: PASS. "Of relevance to the appeal, those forms include the re-use of an existing building, unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶17).
• TR3: limited conflict. "Given the likely low levels of traffic associated with one dwelling, the environmental effects would be minimal" (DL ¶19). "In the circumstances, the conflict with the principles under Policy TR3 would be limited" (DL ¶19).
• Self-build, HO7: substantial weight. "the provision of a self-build dwelling is a benefit of the proposed development which attracts substantial weight" (DL ¶20).

Planning balance

Section 38(6) with S5(1) as the material consideration. The development plan conflict on location is "an important factor" (DL ¶16). Against it: S5(1)(c) support for re-use, limited TR3 conflict and substantial HO7 weight. "the proposal is for a form of development which should be approved as the benefits of doing so are not substantially outweighed by the adverse effects in this particular instance, when assessed against the national decision-making policies" (DL ¶21).

What made the difference

The S5(1)(c) category. On the same site and much the same facts, the earlier appeal failed on location. Once re-use of an existing building became a form of development to be approved unless the benefits are substantially outweighed, car reliance for one dwelling was not enough, and the secured self-build benefit had substantial weight even though the Council had a five-year supply.

Transferable points

• An appeal dismissed on location before 17 August 2026 was allowed afterwards on a similar scheme because S5(1) now supports re-use of an existing building (DL ¶17).
• TR3 conflict for a single dwelling was held "limited": low traffic, and no realistic or proportionate opportunities to improve rural connectivity (DL ¶19). The letter reaches that view through the environmental and rural-improvement principles; it does not apply the genuine-choice wording of TR3(1)(a).
• A re-use "cannot be located elsewhere", which tempers a spatial-strategy conflict (DL ¶16).
• Self-build need is assessed on the current position; future permissions and emerging policy do not reduce it (DL ¶13).
• One secured self-build home got substantial weight under HO7 with a five-year supply in place (DL ¶12, ¶20).
• Hamlets are outside the Framework's "settlement", so S5 applies (DL ¶8, ¶17).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• A similar proposal on the site was dismissed at appeal under the previous Framework (APP/G2435/W/25/3365289); "the different factor now is the provisions in the new Framework" (DL 4, 17)
• Council can demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply; self-build duty not met, lowest shortfall figure 19 plots (DL 12-13)
• Unilateral undertaking dated 4 November 2025 secures self-build (DL 13)
• Roads unlit with no footways; no public transport nearby; e-bike charging secured by condition (DL 10, 24, condition 4)
• Site is within an existing residential property among a small group of dwellings, so "it is already a destination" (DL 16)
• Appeal planning officer recommendation adopted by the inspector; site visit 21 July 2026 (DL 2, 27)
• Parties invited to comment on the revised Framework (DL 3)

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.