# Land east of Hockerton Road, Upton - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 August 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Harris-Watkins - **Authority:** Newark and Sherwood (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6010301 - **Application reference:** 26/00382/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 1-5 dwellings on agricultural field at village edge - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside, conservation-area, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 3.84 - **Framework applied:** December 2024 NPPF (transitional) - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), S3 - **Development plan policies:** Newark and Sherwood Amended Core Strategy 2019 SP1, SP3, CP14, Allocations and DM DPD 2013 DM8, DM9 - **Main issues:** suitable location, conservation area, presumption - **Tags:** transitional, PIP, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, less-than-substantial-legacy-wording, housing-shortfall, rural-lane-no-footway, small-scheme, old-wording-slip ## Summary PIP for 1-5 dwellings on a field at the edge of Upton, inside the conservation area, where the council had only 3.84 years' supply. Dismissed. The decision is dated 17 August 2026, the day the new Framework took effect, but it was reasoned entirely under the December 2024 Framework: paragraph 11(d)(i), footnote 7, "less than substantial harm" and "great weight". The new Framework is not mentioned. ## Issues and findings - **Location — local plan DM8: CONFLICT.** The site is in open countryside. Hockerton Road "does not benefit from a footway … would not provide suitable access for all and at all times of year and day" (DL ¶9-10). - **Conservation area — HE9 / HE6: HARM.** "The proposed development would result in the subdivision and fragmentation of the wider agricultural field. This would erode the legibility of the historic field pattern" (DL ¶16). - **Heritage balance (2024 wording).** "the proposal would have less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset. The harm would be in the mid-range of that category of harm, but nonetheless of considerable importance and weight … great weight given to the assets' conservation" (DL ¶18). Housing and economic benefits "would not outweigh the great weight to be attached to the conservation" (DL ¶19). - **Presumption — 2024 ¶11(d)(i): disapplied.** "I have found that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the CA, providing a strong reason for refusal. The presumption in favour of sustainable development therefore does not apply" (DL ¶27). ## Planning balance 2024 heritage balance (LTS harm vs public benefits), then the 2024 ¶11(d)(i) footnote-7 route. Under the 2026 Framework the equivalent is S5 (outside settlement) and HE6(4). A small, non-exception scheme outside a settlement would probably fail S5(1) in any case. ## What made the difference The site's part in the pre-enclosure field pattern that gives the conservation area its significance. The shortfall did not help because heritage was a footnote-7 disapplying policy. Under 2026 policy the scheme would face S5 location control as well as HE6. ## Transferable points - Even at PIP stage, location and use alone can cause conservation-area harm where a field forms part of a historic enclosure pattern (DL ¶15-17). - Transition hazard: a letter issued on 17 August 2026 applied the superseded 2024 tests without comment. This shows the risk of decisions straddling the changeover (DL ¶18, 26-27). ## Policy findings - **HE6(4): harm (great weight).** decided under 2024 wording — "less than substantial harm ... in the mid-range of that category ... of considerable importance and weight"; "great weight" to conservation (2024 NPPF 212/215); s72 cited; public benefits = housing in shortfall, economic/social; not outweighed (DL 5, 18-19) - **HE9: harm.** subdivision of pre-enclosure field erodes historic field pattern; peninsula into countryside; domestication of approach (DL 13-17) - **S3: not-engaged.** 2024 para 11(d)(i) / fn7 — heritage harm a "strong reason for refusing", presumption disapplied (DL 26-27) - **DM8 (N&S DPD): conflict.** open countryside; no footway on narrow unlit Hockerton Road (DL 9-12) ## Key facts - Council accepted 3.84 years supply (DL 26) - Site in pre-enclosure field within Upton Conservation Area, one of best-preserved in district (DL 13-14) - Hockerton Road has no footway, narrow, limited lighting (DL 9) - Refused by committee against officer recommendation (DL 6) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010301 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/11669faa-1586-46e8-8b53-5f92d0745fd6 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010301.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.