Godolphin House Stables, Broughton Lane, Leire

Decision

dismissed, 17 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: John Morrison (on recommendation of Appeal Planning Officer Kim Vo)

Authority

Harborough (East Midlands)

Appeal reference

6009409

Application reference

26/00120/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Demolition of stables (with extant conversion permission) and rebuilding as a dwelling in a revised position, plus replacement barn as garage/tack room

Homes

1

Site context

open countryside, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(c), S5(1)(d), S5(1)(j), S5(3), HO11, TR3

Development plan policies

Harborough Local Plan 2019 SS1, GD2, GD3, GD4, H5, Leire Neighbourhood Plan 2022 H2

Main issues

principle of development; location; fallback

Summary

A proposal to demolish stables that already had permission for conversion and rebuild them as a dwelling, near but outside Leire (Harborough), was dismissed. The inspector worked through the S5(1) limbs in turn. (c) failed because a replacement must be for the same use. (d) failed because the site was not PDL as a whole. (j) failed because the site was not physically well-related to Leire. The dwelling was also isolated under S5(3), and access was along an unlit 60 mph lane with no footway (TR3).

Issues and findings

• Settlement status. The site is "clearly beyond the Limits to Development boundary for Leire … more closely associated with its rural surroundings than with the built up area of the village" (DL ¶7).
• TR3: FAIL. Broughton Lane "is a narrow unlit road with no footway, that is subject to a national speed limit of 60 miles per hour … pedestrians would be required to do so on the carriageway" (DL ¶8). Occupants "would be heavily dependent on the use of private vehicles" (DL ¶9).
• S5(1)(c): FAIL. "Criterion c. relates to the replacement of an existing building, these should be for the same use. As the proposed dwelling would replace a stable building … the proposal would not meet this exemption" (DL ¶18).
• S5(1)(d): FAIL. The buildings and menage "occupy only a small part of a wider field, and the proposal includes an area of undeveloped land. Therefore, the site cannot be regarded, as a whole, as previously developed land" (DL ¶18).
• S5(1)(j): FAIL. "As the Council cannot demonstrate the required housing land supply … criterion j) is relevant. However … the appeal site is not physically well related to settlement of Leire" (DL ¶19). The site was separated by "an intervening large field … as well as a dismantled railway line which provides a clear demarcation" (DL ¶12).
• S5(3)/HO11: FAIL. "the site lies outside any settlement or group of houses and would result in an isolated dwelling" (DL ¶20).
• Fallback. The extant conversion was a real prospect, but that cut against the appeal: "To accept it is a simple matter of there being a dwelling on the site regardless … would serve to undermine the principles of spatially strategic planning policies" (DL ¶14-16).

Planning balance

Conflict with the spatial strategy had significant weight (DL ¶26). One self-build home had moderate weight: "I am mindful of Policy HO7 … That said, this appears to be more related to evidenced needs of the community as identified through such assessments. No such evidence has been provided" (DL ¶27). Environmental features had moderate weight and private benefit limited weight. "the adverse effects relating to the location of the proposal would substantially outweigh the limited benefits" (DL ¶29).

What made the difference

Physical separation from Leire (a field and an old railway line) defeated the (j) route despite the lack of a 5YHLS. The same-use rule killed (c). The existing permitted conversion did not help: the inspector expected it to be built anyway, so it was not a fallback justifying a new-build replacement.

Transferable points

• S5(1)(c) replacement must be for the same use. A stable-to-dwelling rebuild does not qualify (DL ¶18).
• For S5(1)(d), a few buildings in a larger field do not make the whole site PDL (DL ¶18).
• For S5(1)(j), physical features such as a dismantled railway line and an intervening field can mean a site is not "physically well-related" even when close to a village (DL ¶12, 19).
• A lane with a 60 mph limit, no footway and no lighting means walking on the carriageway, which fails TR3 (DL ¶8, 21).
• HO7 substantial weight was read as tied to "evidenced needs of the community"; a single self-build home got only moderate weight (DL ¶27).
• A dwelling outside any settlement or group of houses is "isolated" for S5(3), even close to a village (DL ¶20).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Outside Leire Limits to Development (Leire NP 2022); separated from village by a field and a dismantled railway line
• Broughton Lane - narrow, unlit, no footway, national speed limit (60 mph)
• Extant permission to convert the stables to a dwelling; fallback given insufficient weight because it would be implemented anyway and water-main risk unevidenced (DL 13-16)
• Council cannot demonstrate five-year supply (figure not stated)

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.