# Land adjacent to 50 Middleton Way, Fen Drayton

- **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: S Simms
- **Authority:** South Cambridgeshire (East of England)
- **Appeal reference:** 6009303
- **Application reference:** 25/04091/OUT
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Outline for two self-build dwellings (access only) on a former Land Settlement Association smallholding
- **Homes:** 2
- **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), CC2, TR3, HO7
- **Development plan policies:** South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 S/2, S/7, H/5, TI/2
- **Main issues:** suitable location, accessibility of services
- **Tags:** sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, self-build, self-build-unsecured, s5-1-j, 5yhls-shown, substantially-outweighed, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
Two self-build dwellings on a former smallholding on the Fen Drayton LSA estate, about 1 km from the village's school and 1.3 km from shops, off an unlit private road with no footway. The appeal was dismissed as heavily car dependent. The self-build benefit collapsed because the unilateral undertaking was unenforceable, and there was no evidence of a 5YHLS or HDT failure to trigger S5(1)(j).

## Issues and findings
- **Location (TR3/CC2): FAIL.** The private road "is narrow, unlit and has no footway. As such, it is unlikely to feel safe for most pedestrians and cyclists, particularly after dark" (DL ¶8). "I accept that opportunities for sustainable transport solutions vary between urban and rural areas, and that routes need not be lit to be usable. However … the proposal would be heavily car dependent" (DL ¶10).
- **Housing supply.** "I have no evidence that there is less than five years' supply or that less than 75% of the requirement has been delivered over the last three years" (DL ¶13).
- **Self-build.** The late UU "was undated and did not contain a plan … I consider it unlikely to be enforceable" (DL ¶15). HO7 weight was therefore modest: "the proposal would not contribute to such a need" (DL ¶21).
- **PDL.** "the definition in the Framework specifically excludes land last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings" (DL ¶18).

## Planning balance
The inspector framed S5(1)(j) (DL ¶19) and gave significant weight to the CC2/TR3 conflict (DL ¶20): "The adverse effects of the unsuitable location would substantially outweigh the benefits … I have also found that the proposal would not be suitably related to an existing settlement and that its need for access to services and facilities could not be accommodated by available infrastructure" (DL ¶22). Local Plan policies S/2, S/7, H/5 and TI/2 were held consistent with the Framework and given significant weight (DL ¶23).

## What made the difference
Two failures of evidence. First, there was no enforceable self-build mechanism, so the self-build need did not count as an "evidenced unmet need". Second, there was no 5YHLS or HDT failure. That left general housing benefits against a car-dependent location. The inspector read the (j)(i) infrastructure test as covering access to services ("need for access to services and facilities could not be accommodated by available infrastructure").

## Transferable points
- An unenforceable self-build UU removes the self-build limb of "unmet need" and cuts HO7 weight to modest (DL ¶15, 21).
- Unlit rural routes are not automatically unusable, but narrow, unlit roads without footways plus 1-1.7 km distances equal heavy car dependence (DL ¶8-10).
- S5(1)(j)(i) "scale which can be accommodated taking into account … infrastructure" was applied to accessibility of services, not only utilities (DL ¶22).
- Land last occupied by agricultural buildings is not PDL (DL ¶18).
- A highway authority's non-objection on the adopted highway says nothing about sustainable travel (DL ¶10).

## Policy findings
- **TR3: fail (significant weight).** private road narrow, unlit, no footway; school 1.0 km, shops 1.3 km (Fenstanton), pub 1.5 km; bus stops realistically reachable only by cycle; heavily car dependent (DL 7-10, 20)
- **CC2: conflict (significant weight).** not located to support sustainable patterns of movement; EV charge points now mandatory so little credit (DL 16, 20)
- **S5(1)(j): fail.** no evidence of under five years' supply or HDT below 75%; unenforceable self-build UU so no contribution to self-build need; not suitably related to a settlement (DL 13-15, 19, 22)
- **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** modest weight - self-build UU undated and without plan, so proposal would not meet self-build need (DL 15, 21)
- **AnnexB:PDL: fail.** land last occupied by agricultural structures excluded from PDL (DL 18)

## Key facts
- Self-build shortfall of 456 plots against demand of 843, but UU unsigned/undated and without plan (unenforceable)
- Private road unlit with no footway; primary school 1.0 km, shops 1.3 km, pub 1.5 km, church 1.7 km
- Local highway authority did not object but commented only on the adopted highway

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009303
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/07ecb4f0-575c-40a3-be78-148a7a80c590

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009303.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.