- Decision
- dismissed, 21 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: C Butcher
- Authority
- Somerset (South West)
- Appeal reference
- 6010393
- Application reference
- 25/00931/OUT
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Outline for one single-storey custom-build dwelling in rear garden, planting, foul water upgrade
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- settlement edge
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 2.22 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4(1), L2(1)(d)(i), DP3(3), S5(1)(j)
- Development plan policies
- South Somerset Local Plan 2015 SS1, SS2, EQ2, HG5
- Main issues
- location and character
Summary
An outline custom-build bungalow in the rear garden of a house at the loose western edge of East Lambrook, reached by a long new access track. Dismissed. The inspector treated the garden as "likely" part of the settlement, so S4 applied. HO7 (supply only 2.22 years) and W4 (septic tank replacement) each attracted substantial weight. But the backland form failed L2(1)(d)(i) and DP3(1), and DP3(3) was "a key determinative feature". The harm substantially outweighed the benefits, and the result would have been the same under S5(1)(j).
Issues and findings
- Transition. Parties were consulted (DL ¶2).
- Character: considerable harm. "there was a very clear perception of moving away from the core of the small settlement towards the open countryside … backland style developments do not form part of the predominant character" (DL ¶7). The access track "would appear as an obvious and somewhat incongruous feature" (DL ¶9). The LVA "underplays the potential impacts to a significant degree" (DL ¶8).
- Settlement status. "The site is well connected to existing built form, and given that it is part of an existing rear garden, it is likely that the site can be considered to form part of the settlement" (DL ¶19).
- W4. "Given the proposal includes the replacement of an existing septic tank, this policy would also be triggered" (DL ¶19).
- L2(1)(d)(i): FAIL. The unmade track in front "is still publicly accessible … The appellant's own evidence … confirms that the proposal would be visible from the site access" (DL ¶20).
- DP3(3). "I am of the view that this is a key determinative feature of this appeal" (DL ¶21).
Planning balance
S4(1): "the identified level of harm would substantially outweigh the benefits of the proposal, even when affording substantial weight with regards to Policy HO7 and W4" (DL ¶22). In the alternative: "even if the site were considered to be outside of the settlement, and therefore that Policy S5(j) … was in play, the appeal would still fail" (DL ¶23).
What made the difference
Design, via DP3(3). A backland plot with a long, visible track at a soft settlement edge conflicted with both the L2(1)(d) street-scene test and DP3. With a 2.22-year supply, S4 or S5(1)(j) would otherwise have strongly favoured the scheme. A frontage plot would probably have passed.
Transferable points
- A rear garden at the edge of a small village can fall within the Annex B settlement, so S4 rather than S5 applies (DL ¶19).
- L2(1)(d)(i) visibility is judged from any publicly accessible frontage, including an unmade track, and from PROWs (DL ¶20).
- W4 substantial weight can be triggered by replacing an existing septic tank (DL ¶19).
- A DP3(3) design failure can override two substantial-weight benefits (HO7 and W4) under S4 or S5(1)(j) (DL ¶21-23).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| AnnexB:settlement | pass | rear garden well connected to built form "likely … part of the settlement", so S4 applied; S5(1)(j) considered in the alternative (DL 19, 23) | |
| L2(1)(d)(i) | fail | backland plot and long access track visible from a publicly accessible unmade track and PROWs; not consistent with the street scene (DL 20-21) | |
| DP3(3) | fail | "a key determinative feature"; backland suburban form erodes settlement-edge transition (DL 7-10, 21) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | 2.22-year supply implies unmet need including custom-build (DL 6, 19) |
| W4 | benefit | substantial | replacement of an existing septic tank triggers W4 substantial weight (DL 19) |
| S5(1)(j) | fail | in the alternative, harm would still substantially outweigh benefits (DL 23) |
Key facts
- Council supply 2.22 years
- Edge of small rural settlement (pub and church); unusually long access track; LVA admits partial winter visibility from PROWs
- Elderly appellants wanting to downsize; phosphate mitigation UU offered (Somerset Levels and Moors SPA)
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.