# 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
- **Tags:** isolated-home, s5-3-isolated, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, heritage-harm-decisive, flood-risk, national-landscape, pdl, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme

## 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
- **S5(3): fail.** site "close to, rather than within" a group of houses - isolated homes; no HO11 criterion met; applies "irrespective of whether" PDL (DL 60-61)
- **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** lower-end harm to setting of Grade II Barn at Keepers Cottage; moderate public benefits do not outweigh (DL 19-23, 51-56)
- **F5: fail.** access in flood zone, so the "no built development at risk" exemption fails - sequential test needed and not done; FRA used wrong design flood event (DL 29-33)
- **F8: fail.** no drainage strategy; viability of any solution unknown (DL 34-38)
- **N4: pass.** well screened; residential use could be more in keeping than the commercial storage - no NL harm (DL 43-46)
- **TR3: fail.** Mill Lane narrow, unlit, limited footpaths, sharp bends; buses only in Tidmarsh; Tilehurst route with steep inclines (DL 11-18)

## 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009718
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/1b7677cb-4a1f-4493-a422-9a68e9f0455a

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009718.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.