# Land at Mushroom Lane, Brigsley (outline, nine dwellings) - **Decision:** dismissed, 1 October 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: P Eggleton - **Authority:** North East Lincolnshire (Yorkshire and the Humber) - **Appeal reference:** 6009363 - **Application reference:** DM/0749/25/OUT - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline permission (access only) for nine dwellings and garages on a 1.3 ha field - **Homes:** 9 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** L3(4), S5(2), TR3(1)(a), N2(1)(a) - **Development plan policies:** North East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2018 Policy 3, Policy 5, Policy 22 - **Main issues:** sustainable location, effective use of land, character and appearance - **Tags:** s5-1-j, s5-2-refusal-policy, density-l3, low-density-refusal, sustainable-location-fail, connectivity-tool, reasonable-walking-distance, landscape-harm, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, inspector-raised-own-ground, previous-appeal-followed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Outline permission for nine houses on a 1.3 ha field next to Brigsley's development boundary was dismissed. With no five-year supply, the site met S5(1)(j) as physically well-related to the settlement, and nine homes had substantial weight. But at 6.8 dwellings per hectare the scheme did not make effective use of land, and L3(4) says such proposals should be refused. That engaged S5(2). With a poorly connected location and landscape harm each given considerable weight, the benefits were substantially outweighed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties have had the opportunity to comment on the content of the National Planning Policy Framework 2026 (Framework) including Policy L3; and given its expectations, the effective use of land has been included within the main issues." (DL ¶3). - **Plan weight (Annex A ¶2): part by part.** Of Local Plan Policy 5 Part 1: "This is generally consistent with the Framework and can be afforded full weight. Part 3 of the policy is inconsistent with the Framework and can be afforded very limited weight." (DL ¶4). - **S5(1)(j)(i): PASS.** "As it is accepted that the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, it … satisfies Policy S5(1ji) in that it would be physically well-related to an existing settlement." (DL ¶5; the break is a page break). - **Density, L3: FAIL.** "I am not persuaded that the provision of nine dwellings on this site represents an effective use of land or satisfies Framework Policy L3. In these circumstances, the policy is clear that the development should be refused." (DL ¶9). - **DP3(3): NOT TRIGGERED.** "the details of design are reserved matters and it would not result in clear conflict with Policy DP3 to the extent that it would trigger the requirement that it should be refused" (DL ¶12). The landscape harm is instead recorded against N2(1)(a) (DL ¶11). - **Location, TR3(1)(a): FAIL.** "The Framework defines a reasonable walking distance as being around 800m. Distances from the site are prohibitive for walking to schools, shops and healthcare facilities." and "as no evidence is provided with regard to bus frequency, it cannot be assumed that a convenient service would be available" (DL ¶14). "The site performs poorly with regard to the promotion of sustainable travel and it does not offer a genuine choice of transport modes for residents." (DL ¶17). - **Housing, HO7: substantial.** "The provision of houses must be given substantial weight." (DL ¶21). ## Planning balance S5(1) with S5(2): "These conflicts, particularly but not limited to Framework Policy L3, represent the circumstances, set out in Framework Policy S5(2), in which the benefits of approving development proposals are likely to be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects." (DL ¶24). Substantial weight to nine homes and considerable weight to social and economic benefits, with biodiversity and tree planting in support, against the L3 refusal policy and considerable weight each to the TR3 conflict and the landscape harm. ## What made the difference Density. The site passed the S5(1)(j) gateway and the housing benefit had full weight, but nine houses on 1.3 ha could not be called the best use of the site's potential, and the appellant gave no net density figure. The inspector raised L3 after the Framework changed. A denser scheme would have removed the refusal policy, though it would have sharpened the landscape and location objections, which also carried considerable weight. ## Transferable points - L3(2)(b) and L3(4) apply to housing on unallocated land outside a settlement that relies on S5(1)(j); very low density is a "should be refused" failure that engages S5(2) (DL ¶7-9, ¶24). - An inspector may add effective use of land as a main issue after consulting the parties on the new Framework (DL ¶3). - Local support for low density and the character of neighbouring housing did not justify a very low density (DL ¶9). - At outline stage with design reserved, harm to the character of the area was held not to be a clear DP3 conflict triggering DP3(3); it was weighed under N2(1)(a) instead (DL ¶11-12). - A site adjoining the development boundary was treated as physically well-related to the settlement without further analysis (DL ¶5, ¶22). - Bus stops without evidence of frequency do not show a convenient service (DL ¶14). - The Annex B "around 800m" reasonable walking distance was used as the measure for walking to services, beyond the station policies it is written for (DL ¶14). - A local plan policy can be split under Annex A ¶2, one part at full weight and another at very limited weight (DL ¶4). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(j)(i): pass.** letter says "S5(1ji)"; no five-year supply, and the site adjoins the development boundary, so physically well-related to an existing settlement; the scale and infrastructure limb is not addressed (DL 5, 22) - **L3(2)(b): fail.** letter says "L3(2b)"; 6.8 dwellings per hectare gross over 1.3 ha, and a very low net density even after excluding open space, biodiversity area, swales and pond (DL 7-9) - **L3(4): fail.** not an effective use of land, so the policy says the development should be refused (DL 9, 23) - **S5(2): fail.** conflict with L3, a "should be refused" policy, with the TR3 and N2 conflicts, means the benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed (DL 6, 24) - **DP3(3): not-engaged.** character harm found, but with design reserved there is no clear conflict with DP3 that would trigger refusal (DL 12) - **N2(1)(a): harm (considerable weight).** letter says "N2(1a)" and "N2(a)"; development of the open field harms the character and appearance of the area, as the inspector in an earlier appeal on the site found (DL 10-11, 23) - **TR3(1)(a): fail (considerable weight).** letter says "TR3(1a)"; no services within 500 m; Brigsley's limited services 500 to 1,000 m away along a narrow unlit footpath; Waltham's services beyond 1,000 m; no bus frequency evidence; Connectivity Tool results consistent with poor connectivity (DL 13-17, 23) - **AnnexB:reasonable-walking-distance: fail.** the 800 m definition applied to walking to services generally, although Annex B frames it for the station policies and HC5 (DL 14) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** nine homes where supply is significantly below that required (DL 18, 21) - **N2(1)(e): benefit.** letter says "N2(c-g)"; green infrastructure, biodiversity gain above the statutory requirement and tree planting (N3) support the scheme (DL 19, 21) - **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** Part 3 of Local Plan Policy 5 inconsistent with the Framework, very limited weight; the Framework policy it conflicts with is not named (DL 4) - **Transitional(2): accord.** Part 1 of Policy 5 (suitability and sustainability criteria) and Policy 22 generally consistent and given full weight (DL 4, 9, 19) - **S5(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed by the adverse effects (DL 24) ## Key facts - No five-year housing land supply; supply "significantly below that required"; figure not stated (DL 5, 21) - Site outside but adjacent to the development boundary (DL 4) - Density 6.8 dwellings per hectare gross; no net density figure provided by the appellant (DL 7-8) - Effective use of land was added to the main issues by the inspector after the parties commented on the 2026 Framework and Policy L3 (DL 3) - Earlier appeal on the site (APP/B2002/W/17/3184046) dismissed for intrusion into the rural setting (DL 10) - Footpath to Brigsley narrow and unlit; footpath to Waltham continuous but narrow at first and unlit until the edge of Waltham (DL 13-14) - Waltham is a Level 2 Local Service Centre in the local plan's settlement hierarchy, but its services are beyond a reasonable walk (DL 15) - Social and economic benefits of construction and occupation given considerable weight (DL 21) - Local residents supported low density development (DL 9) - The same inspector applied the same L3 reasoning on the same day at Glentham (PINS-6011337) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009363 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/cdae5565-07f6-414b-86bc-5b983f846356 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009363.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. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.