- Decision
- dismissed, 24 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: A Knight
- Authority
- King's Lynn and West Norfolk (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6009844
- Application reference
- 25/01585/O
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Outline (access) for one self-build dwelling on garden land beyond the Brookville development boundary
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- open countryside, settlement edge, garden land
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(1), CC2, Transitional(2)
- Development plan policies
- King's Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan 2021-2040 LP01, LP02, LP13, LP18, LP19, LP21, LP31
- Main issues
- location; highway safety; living conditions (odour)
Summary
One self-build house on garden land beyond Brookville's development boundary in Norfolk. The self-build element could not be secured, so S5(1)(j) was not available, and houses on one side only meant it was not infill under S5(1)(e). The location fails on access to services: the nearest café is along an unlit road with no pavement, and the shop and school are 1.5 to 1.8 miles away along a fast B-road. The inspector framed the location test under CC2, not TR3. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. The main parties were given the opportunity to comment on the new Framework (DL ¶4).
- Self-build unsecured. "it is not clear to me that a planning condition securing the plot for self-build would be enforceable. There is no legal agreement in place" (DL ¶12).
- Accessibility. The café route is "along a stretch of the B1112 that contains no pavements or lighting" (DL ¶14). "These distances are great enough that few people would walk them very often" (DL ¶16). "That the B1112 is fast-moving and the route has no lighting confirms me in these views. Overall, it is likely that occupiers of the proposed development would depend upon the private car for their day-to-day needs" (DL ¶16).
- S5(1)(j): FAIL. "the self-build aspect of the proposal cannot be ensured. As such, the proposal does not evidently have the support of Policy S5(1)(j)" (DL ¶30).
- S5(1)(e): FAIL. "there is no house on the other side of the site and, as such, the scheme would not comprise infilling within a group of houses" (DL ¶32).
- No category. "As such, the Framework provides a clear directive to dismiss the appeal" (DL ¶34).
- Plan weight. "in the context of this appeal, the Local Plan Policies listed above are not materially inconsistent with the Framework and so should continue to be afforded significant weight" (DL ¶36).
Planning balance
Plan-led with S5. A modest housing benefit against the unsuitable location. "The adverse effects of the unsuitable location would outweigh the benefits of the appeal scheme" (DL ¶36). The S5(4) test (exceptional circumstances, with benefits that substantially outweigh) is not named. With modest benefits the result is plainly the same.
What made the difference
No securing mechanism for self-build, which removed the (j) route, and a car-dependent location. A signed unilateral undertaking would have reopened (j), but the location evidence would then have weighed against the benefits.
Transferable points
- A self-build proposal cannot rely on S5(1)(j) self-build need without a legal agreement securing the plot (DL ¶11–12, ¶30).
- A house with neighbours on one side only is not "infilling within a group of houses" (DL ¶32).
- Distances of 1.5 to 1.8 miles along a fast, unlit B-road mean car dependence, even with a partly shared footway (DL ¶15–16).
- A development-boundary policy can be "not materially inconsistent" with the Framework in the context of a scheme that meets no S5 category (DL ¶36). This is a context-specific Annex A ¶2 reading.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S5(1)(j) | fail | self-build shortfall possibly an unmet need, but the self-build element cannot be secured (no legal agreement; condition not shown enforceable) (DL 11-12, 30) | |
| S5(1)(e) | fail | open fields north and south; houses on one side only on Brook Lane; not infilling within a group (DL 31-32) | |
| S5(1) | fail | no category met, so "a clear directive to dismiss"; S5(4) exceptional-circumstances test not named, balance framed as adverse effects "would outweigh the benefits" (DL 34, 36) | |
| CC2 | fail | location test run under CC2, not TR3; café 0.6 miles along the B1112 with no pavement or lighting; shop 1.5 miles and primary school 1.8 miles; fast, unlit B-road; car dependence (DL 14-16, 35) | |
| Transitional(2) | accord | significant | LP02 and other policies "not materially inconsistent with the Framework" in the context of this appeal, so significant weight (DL 36) |
Key facts
- Borough has a "healthy" housing land supply (DL 33)
- Access relies on resurfacing an unmade access point; appellant's right to do so not shown; highway safety conflict (DL 18-24)
- Odour from nearby poultry units (moderate predicted effect) not unacceptable (DL 25-29)
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.