Vyners Estate, Mill Lane, Tidmarsh

Decision

dismissed, 4 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: E Everitt

Authority

West Berkshire (South East)

Appeal reference

6009718

Application reference

25/02270/OUT

Procedure

written representations

Development

Outline for 3 dwellings (access only) on a commercial vehicle storage site

Homes

3

Site context

open countryside, national landscape, listed building setting, flood zone 2, flood zone 3, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(3), HO11, HE6, F5, F7, F8

Development plan policies

West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2023-2041 (2025) SP1, SP3, SP5, SP6, SP9, SP19, DM1, DM4, DM7, DM10

Main issues

countryside location; accessibility; heritage setting; highway safety; flood risk; drainage; climate change; character; contamination

Summary

Outline for three houses on a commercial storage yard in the North Wessex Downs near Tidmarsh, dismissed on many grounds. The key Framework point is that the inspector treated the houses as "isolated homes" under S5(3), being "close to, rather than within" a group of houses. That excluded them from S5 support "irrespective of whether the proposal would involve the redevelopment of previously developed land" (DL ¶60-61). Heritage setting harm, the need for a flood sequential test (the access floods), missing drainage evidence and poor accessibility also counted against it.

Issues and findings

• S5(3)/HO11: FAIL. "the appeal site is located close to some existing residential dwellings. However, its siting is such that it is close to, rather than within, the group of houses. Consequently, I consider that the proposal would comprise isolated homes" (DL ¶60). "irrespective of whether the proposal would involve the redevelopment of previously developed land, the application of the presumption … does not indicate that permission should be granted" (DL ¶61).
• Accessibility: FAIL. Mill Lane "is narrow, has no street lighting and limited footpaths, and includes sharp bends … inconvenient and lack appeal for many, particularly in winter months, after dusk or during poor weather, irrespective of the distance" (DL ¶13).
• Heritage (HE6). Lower-end less-than-substantial harm "is of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶53). Benefits, including removing a lawful HGV-generating use, had moderate weight and did not outweigh (DL ¶54-56).
• Flood (F5/F7). "the information before me indicates that the site access would be at risk of flooding. In accordance with Policy F5 … there is, therefore, a need for the sequential test" (DL ¶32).
• NL (N4): no harm. A residential use "may appear, where visible, more in-keeping" than the storage yard (DL ¶45).

Planning balance

The decision is plan-led, with S3/S5 considered at the end. Because the S5(3) isolated-homes bar applied, the presumption did not help (DL ¶59-61). HO7 was acknowledged but its weight "tempered" by the small scale (DL ¶54).

What made the difference

S5(3). The inspector read "isolated" spatially (not within a group) rather than functionally, and placed it ahead of any S5(1)(d) PDL argument. Even a brownfield yard next to houses can be "isolated" if it sits beside the group rather than within it. The many evidential gaps (FRA design event, drainage, energy statement) were also fatal at outline stage.

Transferable points

• S5(3) "isolated homes" includes sites "close to, rather than within" a group of houses (DL ¶60).
• The S5(3) isolated-homes bar can defeat a scheme whatever the PDL status under S5(1)(d) (DL ¶61). This is a strong reading; S5(1)(d) and S5(3) may otherwise be argued to operate independently.
• The F5 sequential-test exemption fails where access or escape routes are at risk of flooding (DL ¶31-32).
• Replacing a lawful HGV storage use with houses had moderate weight as a benefit and improved NL character (DL ¶45, 55).
• Unlit, narrow lanes with sharp bends put occupiers off walking "irrespective of the distance" (DL ¶13).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Site in commercial storage use under a lawful development certificate (21/01688/CERTE)
• North Wessex Downs National Landscape; setting of Grade II late-16th-century thatched barn
• Access within Flood Zones 2/3; EA required 1% AEP + 31% climate change, not the 0.1% AEP used

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.