- Decision
- allowed, 16 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: O Marigold
- Authority
- Torridge (South West)
- Appeal reference
- 6009632
- Application reference
- 1/0736/2025/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Two detached market dwellings
- Homes
- 2
- Site context
- open countryside, rural lane
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(1)(e), DP3(3), TR3
- Development plan policies
- North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2018 ST07, ST10, DM02
- Main issues
- spatial strategy and access to services; foul drainage
Summary
Two market houses at the edge of Holsworthy Beacon, a small Torridge hamlet, were allowed. The inspector found the site outside any "settlement" but within S5(1)(e) as limited infilling within a group of houses. With connectivity found acceptable for a rural location (TR3; DP3(3) read proportionately), S5 supported the scheme. The Local Plan's restriction (ST07) was given very limited weight as materially inconsistent with S5 (Annex A).
Issues and findings
- S4 or S5. "Settlements do not include hamlets and scattered groups of houses located outside predominantly built-up areas. The pattern of development around the appeal site is somewhat sporadic and secluded" (DL ¶13).
- S5(1)(e): PASS. "Hawarden and another dwelling lie close to the site, and planning permission has been granted for two additional dwellings between the site and Highfield, which are under construction. Other properties … are not far from the site, and not all have a linear position, instead forming a group … I find that the development would meet the S5(1)(e) definition" (DL ¶14).
- Accessibility. There was no footway or lighting to Holsworthy, but "the length of car journeys to Holsworthy would be relatively short, limiting the adverse effects … bus stops are available within reasonable walking distance … buses provide some weekday services" (DL ¶6-7). The walk to the stops was on an unlit lane "but only for a fairly short distance … within the 30mph speed limit area … a 'ring and ride' scheme" (DL ¶8).
- DP3(3) as the S5(2) route. DP3(3) is a "should be refused" policy covering liveability and movement, but "the application of the design principles must be appropriate to the nature of the development, its location and context. Framework policy TR3 recognises that connectivity opportunities may differ in rural areas … the proposal would have an acceptable degree of connectivity and would not conflict with Framework policy DP3" (DL ¶16-17).
Planning balance
s38(6). "Local Plan policy ST07 … is materially inconsistent with Framework policy S5, by not supporting general housing which constitutes infilling within groups of houses in locations that are not in Rural Settlements. In accordance with Framework Annex A, I give the conflict with policy ST07 very limited weight. Against that, I give substantial weight to the support to the proposal provided by the Framework" (DL ¶24).
What made the difference
S5(1)(e) and a non-linear reading of "group of houses". Plots under construction nearby counted towards the group. The council had also conceded "infill" in its statement. The inspector then treated the Framework's support as substantial weight, overriding a restrictive plan policy. The same council lost the Petrockstowe appeal (PINS-6009618) the same day: there the field ran on into farmland, the access was unsafe and the Connectivity Tool score was 6/100.
Transferable points
- A hamlet with sporadic development is not a "settlement", so S5 applies (DL ¶13).
- "Group of houses" for S5(1)(e) need not be linear. Dwellings under construction count (DL ¶14).
- A local plan policy that bars infill market housing outside named settlements is "materially inconsistent" with S5(1)(e) and carries very limited weight (Annex A) (DL ¶24).
- Framework support under S5(1) can itself carry "substantial weight" in the s38(6) balance (DL ¶24).
- Short car trips, weekday buses and a short unlit walk to a stop in a 30 mph zone gave acceptable rural connectivity (DL ¶6-8, 17).
- DP3(3)'s movement and liveability principles are applied in proportion to rural context, and TR3 allows for rural differences (DL ¶16-17).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| AnnexB:settlement | neutral | Holsworthy Beacon sporadic and secluded - treated as outside a settlement (hamlet/scattered group) so S5 applies (DL 13) | |
| S5(1)(e) | pass | near Hawarden, another dwelling and two dwellings under construction; hamlet properties form a group, not only linear; council had accepted "infill" (DL 14) | |
| DP3(3) | pass | liveability/movement principles applied proportionately to rural location, with TR3's rural allowance; acceptable connectivity (DL 16-17) | |
| TR3 | pass | no footway/lighting to Holsworthy, but short car trips, bus stops within reasonable walking distance on 30 mph lane, weekday buses to Holsworthy and Barnstaple, ring-and-ride (DL 6-8) | |
| ST07 | conflict | very-limited | materially inconsistent with S5 by not supporting infill market housing outside Rural Settlements - Annex A (DL 24) |
Key facts
- Holsworthy Beacon lacks facilities to be a Local Plan "Rural Settlement"
- Two dwellings under construction between site and Highfield; council's own statement called it infill
- Foul drainage in Holsworthy critical drainage area resolved by pre-commencement condition (BS6297 percolation tests)
- Earlier Hollocombe appeal (6005680) distinguished - different policy position
Related decisions
- PINS-6009618
- PINS-6005680
Sources
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.