Nectar Haze, Bounds Cross, Pyworthy

appeal 6010166·Torridge·1 September 2026dismissed
Decision
dismissed, 1 September 2026
Decided by
Planning Inspector: C Cooper-Young
Authority
Torridge (South West)
Appeal reference
6010166
Application reference
1/0003/2026/FUL
Procedure
written representations
Development
Demolish stables and erect a new dwelling in lieu of an approved stable conversion (1/0368/2025/FUL)
Homes
1
Site context
open countryside
Green Belt
No
Housing land supply
4.61 years
Framework applied
August 2026 NPPF
Determinative policies
S5(1)(j), S5(4), S3
Development plan policies
North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 ST07, DM02
Main issues
location of housing; drainage; fallback

Summary

A new two-storey dwelling in the Torridge countryside, to replace an approved conversion of a stable block. Dismissed. The council's supply was 4.61 years, but the site was not physically well-related to a settlement, so S5(1)(j) was not met. With no category met, the S5(4) exceptional-circumstances test failed. The conversion fallback was real but less harmful than the proposal, so it carried little weight. Drainage could have been handled by condition.

Issues and findings

Planning balance

The inspector gave substantial weight to ST07 as broadly consistent with the Framework. The shortfall "reduces the weight to this conflict" but "There are no exceptional circumstances that would substantially outweigh the adverse effects" (DL ¶18, 29).

What made the difference

The site's relationship to the settlement. The inspector treated "near a few other houses" as not the same as "physically well-related to an existing settlement", so the shortfall did not open S5(1)(j). The fallback failed because it was a less harmful form of development. A like-for-like replacement under S5(1)(c) was not available, because a stable is not the same use.

Transferable points

Policy findings

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

PolicyFindingWeightNote
S5(1)(j)failunmet need accepted (4.61 years) but site "some distance outside" Pyworthy and not well-related to a settlement, despite being near a few other houses (DL 13-15)
S5(4)failone dwelling (even as windfall/self-build), construction and spend benefits, modest BNG - not exceptional circumstances (DL 16-18, 29)
S5(1)(c)not-engagednot argued; the inspector contrasts the policy support for conversion of rural buildings with a new-build dwelling (DL 19)
S3neutralST07 broadly consistent with the Framework; substantial weight to it, conflict reduced somewhat by the shortfall (DL 18, 29)

Key facts

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.