Three Acres Farm, The Common, South Creake

Decision

dismissed, 16 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: A Knight

Authority

King's Lynn and West Norfolk (East of England)

Appeal reference

6010354

Application reference

26/00461/F

Procedure

written representations

Development

Self-build dwelling (chalet bungalow) in exchange for giving up a Class Q approval for two dwellings

Homes

1

Site context

open countryside, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(e), S5(4), DP3(3)

Development plan policies

King's Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan 2021-2040 (2025) LP01, LP02, LP18, LP31

Main issues

location; character and appearance; fallback; self-build

Summary

A self-build chalet bungalow in a loose rural enclave 1.7 km from South Creake, offered in exchange for surrendering a Class Q approval for two dwellings. Dismissed. The mixed-use enclave was not a "group of houses", so S5(1)(e) infill failed. On S5(4), the modest travel benefit of one fewer home was outweighed by prominent harm to the countryside character. Under the ordinary fallback test, the Class Q scheme was less harmful, so DP3(3) gave "a clear directive to dismiss".

Issues and findings

• Transition. Parties commented on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶2).
• Character: HARM. The enclave is "surrounded by open fields … The road is unlit, lacks pavements … significant open, green gaps between many of the developed sites, giving a dispersed feel" (DL ¶14). The dwelling would erode "the open gap between existing developments" (DL ¶18).
• S5(1)(e): FAIL. "Given this [mix of uses], I find little reason to view the enclave as a group of houses rather than an intermittently developed area containing a mix of uses" (DL ¶20). The mobile home to the north gave "little reason to consider the mobile home to be a house for the purposes of the Framework policy" (DL ¶21).
• S5(4): FAIL. "occupiers of either the appeal scheme or the Class Q approval would likely rely on private motor vehicles … The appeal scheme would … be the less harmful of the two in that respect" (DL ¶24). However, the character harm "would be prominent" (DL ¶26), so the benefits "would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects" (DL ¶27).
• Fallback test separate from S5(4). "That the appellant has cited fallback in respect of Framework Policy S5(4) does not negate the need to also apply that usual, and less stringent, test" (DL ¶28). The Class Q scheme gives one more home and less character harm, so "the policy [DP3] gives a clear directive to dismiss" (DL ¶30-32).
• Self-build. The shortfall was accepted but unquantified. There was little evidence it "can only be met by eroding neighbourhood character" (DL ¶38-39).

Planning balance

The decision was taken under s38(6), with S5(4) and a separate fallback comparison. Self-build and economic benefits did not outweigh the character harm (DL ¶41).

What made the difference

S5(1)(e) was read strictly on two points: "group of houses" excludes a mixed enclave of caravans and light industry, and the plot on one side must hold a house, not a mobile home. The Class Q fallback, which converts an existing building, was the benchmark and was plainly less harmful to character.

Transferable points

• S5(1)(e) "groups of houses" means a residential group. A mixed-use rural enclave does not qualify (DL ¶20).
• A mobile home of uncertain status is not a "house" bounding an infill gap (DL ¶21).
• Swapping a Class Q consent for a new build has to pass both S5(4) and the ordinary fallback test. Fewer car trips do not offset greater character harm (DL ¶24-32).
• A self-build shortfall carries limited weight where it is not shown that only character-harming sites can meet it (DL ¶39).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• About 1.7 km outside the South Creake development boundary (Tier 5 rural village); unlit road, no pavements
• Class Q prior approval (25/00084/PACU3) for two dwellings in an existing barn; fallback greater than theoretical
• Previous appeal for a dwelling next door dismissed (APP/V2635/W/25/3373292); SBCH shortfall acknowledged but unquantified

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.