# Land off Rectory Rise, Petrockstowe - **Decision:** dismissed, 16 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Cooper-Young - **Authority:** Torridge (South West) - **Appeal reference:** 6009618 - **Application reference:** 1/0338/2025/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Three open-market dwellings - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 4.61 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(e), S5(1)(j), TR6(4), TR3, HO7 - **Development plan policies:** North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 ST01, ST07, ST10, ST17, DM05, DM06, DM24 - **Main issues:** suitability of location, highway safety, housing mix - **Tags:** s5-1-j, s5-1-e-infill, s5-2-refusal-policy, substantially-outweighed, sustainable-location-fail, connectivity-tool, housing-shortfall, rural-lane-no-footway, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Three market homes on a field adjoining Petrockstowe on three sides, in Torridge. The inspector applied S5 because the site is outside the settlement despite adjoining it. S5(1)(e) infill failed. S5(1)(j) was engaged by the 4.61-year supply, but the housing benefit got only little weight. Against that were an unsafe access (TR6(4), a "should be refused" policy, substantial weight) and a Connectivity Tool score of 6/100. The benefits were "substantially outweighed". ## Issues and findings - **S4 or S5.** "on the basis that the appeal site is adjacent to, but outside of a settlement, policy S4 is not relevant. Instead … policy S5 should be applied" (DL ¶32). - **S5(1)(e): FAIL.** "Whilst the site is bounded by existing residential development on a number of sides, it comprises an undeveloped field that remains visually and functionally connected to the wider agricultural land … the site does not read as a small gap within an otherwise continuously developed frontage … more appropriately characterised as an extension to the settlement rather than infill" (DL ¶34-35). - **S5(1)(j): engaged.** "because the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply … and on the basis that the criteria at S5:1.j. would be met, the circumstance at Framework policy S5:1.j. is relevant" (DL ¶36). - **TR3: FAIL.** "The Framework Connectivity Tool indicates that the appeal site achieves a score of 6 out of 100, this figure reflects a location with very poor connectivity" (DL ¶7). Lanes are "only intermittently served by footways and street lighting" (DL ¶8). The closure of the pub and church since earlier permissions changed the picture (DL ¶10). Arguments about e-bikes and homeworking were rejected as "optional, weather-dependent and unevenly accessible" (DL ¶14). - **TR6(4): FAIL.** Visibility could not be secured over third-party land, and the highway authority objected (DL ¶17-22). ## Planning balance S5(1)(j). Supply was 4.61 years; "because a shortfall of around this order is marginally below Government expectations, little weight is attributed to the contribution" (DL ¶28). HO7: "the appeal proposal comprises 3 unrestricted open market dwellings that would not address the specific housing requirements within the local area … only little weight" (DL ¶39-40). "Framework policy TR6:4., which is a national decision making policy as referred to in policy S5 … indicates that the development should be refused. Consequently, substantial weight" (DL ¶41). Conclusion: "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶42). ## What made the difference Highway safety, combined with a marginal supply shortfall and market housing that did not match the local mix. The inspector scaled HO7 weight down by the size of the shortfall and by whether the homes met identified local needs. Note the contrast with Torridge's other appeal at Holsworthy Beacon (PINS-6009632), allowed the same day under a different inspector. ## Transferable points - A site adjoining a settlement on three sides is still "outside" it, so S5 applies, not S4 (DL ¶32). - S5(1)(e): a field connected to open farmland beyond is not infill, even if bounded by houses on several sides (DL ¶34-35). - A marginal shortfall (4.61 years) can reduce the housing contribution to "little weight", even though (j) is engaged (DL ¶28, 36). - HO7 substantial weight can be withheld where market homes do not meet identified local needs (DL ¶38-40). - TR6(4) is a "should be refused" policy for the S5 balance (DL ¶41). - A Connectivity Tool score of 6/100 was cited as showing very poor connectivity (DL ¶7). - Lost village services (pub, church) since earlier permissions weaken a location (DL ¶10). ## Policy findings - **S3(1): neutral.** site adjoins development on three sides but is outside the settlement - S4 not relevant, S5 applies (DL 6, 32) - **S5(1)(e): fail.** undeveloped field visually/functionally connected to farmland - extension of settlement, not a small gap in a continuous frontage (DL 34-35) - **S5(1)(j): pass.** no 5YHLS (4.61 years) and criteria met - (j) relevant (DL 36) - **TR3: fail (substantial weight).** Connectivity Tool score 6/100; lanes with intermittent footway and lighting; pub and church closed; Merton 2 miles, Hatherleigh 4.5, Great Torrington 7.5 (DL 7-11) - **TR6(4): fail (substantial weight).** steep narrow access, visibility splay needs third-party land; highway authority objected (DL 12-22, 41) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** little weight - 4.61 years marginal shortfall and open-market homes do not address specific local needs (DL 28, 38-40) ## Key facts - Council supply 4.61 years (acknowledged shortfall) - Connectivity Tool score 6/100 ("very poor") - Pub and church in Petrockstowe closed since adjacent development was approved (1/0246/2020/OUT) - Highway authority recommended refusal; visibility needs land outside appellant's control ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009618 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/39806ced-2c80-4fc7-a10b-dda86840a46a --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009618.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.