# Land south of 47 Necton Road (Ashbridge House), Little Dunham - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Knight - **Authority:** Breckland (East of England) - **Appeal reference:** 6009588 - **Application reference:** PL/2026/0265/FMIN - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** One dwelling and garage on open land at the southern edge of the village - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.82 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(j), N6, DP3(3), DM6 - **Development plan policies:** Breckland Local Plan 2023 GEN 01, GEN 02, GEN 03, GEN 05, HOU 05, COM 01, ENV 02, ENV 05 - **Main issues:** location under local plan, character and appearance, habitats sites - **Tags:** s5-1-j, substantially-outweighed, s5-2-refusal-policy, settlement-status-disputed, habitats-mitigation-unsecured, landscape-harm, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary One house on the open plot beyond the last dwelling of Little Dunham, a Breckland village with no settlement boundary. The inspector found the village is a "settlement" under Annex B but the plot is outside it. The scheme passed the S5(1)(j) gateway: 2.82-year supply, physically well-related. It was dismissed because two "should be refused" policies were breached: N6 (unpaid GIRAMS tariff) and DP3(3) (intrusion into the countryside). That pushed the balance to "substantially outweighed" despite substantial HO7 weight. ## Issues and findings - **S4 or S5.** "The term 'settlement' is defined as including villages. As such, I take Little Dunham to be a settlement for the purposes of the Framework. That said … the appeal site is beyond the edge of the existing built form of the village. For that reason, I find the site to be outside of a settlement" (DL ¶23). - **S5(1)(j): gateway met.** "The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply … 2.82 years. This constitutes an evidenced unmet need" (DL ¶24). The dwelling "would broadly continue the existing, established pattern of development … I see no reason to find that the appeal scheme would be anything other than physically well-related to Little Dunham" (DL ¶25). - **Character (DP3): harm.** The plot is "open, green, and undeveloped … it has far more in common with the fields beyond it than with the residential plots alongside it" (DL ¶15). The house "would be readily perceived as an intrusion into that open countryside" (DL ¶16). The inspector nonetheless found no "abrupt or incongruous termination" of built form (DL ¶14). - **Habitats (N6): FAIL.** There was no legal agreement for the GIRAMS payment, and "Policy DM6 … states that conditions should not be used to require payments of money" (DL ¶21-22). ## Planning balance S5(1)(j), "approve unless substantially outweighed". HO7 carried substantial weight (DL ¶27). "Framework Policies N6 and DP3 both give a clear directive to refuse the proposal. To my mind this indicates that the benefits of allowing the scheme, even once I attribute substantial weight to them, would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶31). This is effectively the S5(2) route, though (2) is not cited by number. ## What made the difference A £304 unpaid mitigation tariff and a DP3 "no clear justification" failure. Without either, the scheme was on course for approval under (j). The site being physically well-related to the village for (j) was compatible with a DP3 finding that it reads with the fields. The inspector treated "well-related" and "integrates with its surroundings" as different tests. ## Transferable points - A village with no plan-defined boundary is still a "settlement" under Annex B. A plot beyond the last house is outside it, so S5 applies (DL ¶23). - A 5YHLS shortfall (2.82 years) is itself an "evidenced unmet need" for S5(1)(j) (DL ¶24). - An edge-of-village plot continuing a frontage can be "physically well-related" yet still fail DP3 as an intrusion into the countryside (DL ¶15-16, 25). - Two "should be refused" policies (N6, DP3(3)) substantially outweigh HO7 substantial weight for one home (DL ¶31). - Habitats tariffs must be secured by an obligation, not a condition (DM6) (DL ¶21). ## Policy findings - **AnnexB:settlement: neutral.** Little Dunham (no plan settlement boundary) is a village and so a settlement, but the site lies beyond the edge of existing built form - outside the settlement, S5 applies (DL 23) - **S5(1)(j): pass.** 2.82-year supply = evidenced unmet need; physically well-related (continues frontage pattern, shared access); no infrastructure issue (DL 24-26) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** one dwelling towards significant shortfall (DL 27) - **N6: fail.** GIRAMS tariff (about GBP 304) not secured; DM6 bars conditions requiring payment; cannot rule out harm to Habitats sites (DL 18-22, 28) - **DP3(3): fail.** open green plot reads with the fields; prominent expansion into countryside with no clear justification (DL 15-17, 29-30) ## Key facts - Council treats Little Dunham as a village without a settlement boundary (countryside in plan terms) - Site is the hedged open plot beyond the last house (No 47) on the east side of Necton Road - Unpaid GIRAMS recreational-impact tariff of about GBP 304 per dwelling; no UU submitted ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009588 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/54fefcc5-b88d-43fe-9676-8410e64aca5f --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009588.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.