# Nectar Haze, Bounds Cross, Pyworthy

- **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 (years):** 4.61
- **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
- **Tags:** s5-1-j, s5-4-exceptional, housing-shortfall, fallback, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## 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
- **Transition.** Parties were consulted on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶2).
- **Location, ST07: conflict.** The site is "some distance outside of Pyworthy and outside any other identified settlement boundaries" (DL ¶5).
- **S5(1)(j): FAIL.** "With a lack of a 5YHLS and an unmet need, the most applicable criteria is sub-paragraph 1(j)" (DL ¶14). "Even though the appeal site is close to a few other houses, I have already found it is not well-related to an existing settlement. It therefore does not fall within category 1(j) or any other category" (DL ¶15).
- **S5(4): FAIL.** The benefits "do not, alone or cumulatively, amount to exceptional circumstances to warrant a departure from the development plan" (DL ¶18).
- **Fallback.** It was a real prospect (DL ¶21), but "for significant weight to be afforded to a fallback position there needs … [it] would also need to be equally or more harmful than the scheme" (DL ¶22). The two-storey suburban house with a larger curtilage was more harmful than the low-key conversion (DL ¶25-28).
- **Drainage.** Acceptable subject to a condition (DL ¶9).

## 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
- Proximity to a scattered group of houses does not make a site "physically well-related to an existing settlement" for S5(1)(j) (DL ¶15).
- With no category met, S5(4) requires exceptional circumstances. One dwelling, construction spend and modest BNG are not enough, even with a shortfall (DL ¶17-18).
- An approved barn/stable conversion is not a strong fallback for a new-build dwelling. It must be equally or more harmful to carry significant weight (DL ¶19-28).

## Policy findings
- **S5(1)(j): fail.** unmet 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): fail.** one dwelling (even as windfall/self-build), construction and spend benefits, modest BNG - not exceptional circumstances (DL 16-18, 29)
- **S5(1)(c): not-engaged.** not argued; the inspector contrasts the policy support for conversion of rural buildings with a new-build dwelling (DL 19)
- **S3: neutral.** ST07 broadly consistent with the Framework; substantial weight to it, conflict reduced somewhat by the shortfall (DL 18, 29)

## Key facts
- Council supply 4.61 years (agreed shortfall)
- Extant permission to convert the single-storey stable to a dwelling accepted as a real-prospect fallback but less harmful than a new two-storey dwelling, so not given significant weight (DL 19-28)
- Rural roads; site some distance from Pyworthy near a few scattered houses

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010166
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/c3fe52bf-45be-498b-a4f0-edbb34c35bef

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010166.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.