- Decision
- dismissed, 17 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Chris Couper
- Authority
- North Northamptonshire (East Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6010401
- Application reference
- 25/01457/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Demolition of two agricultural buildings and erection of two dwellings
- Homes
- 2
- Site context
- open countryside, rural lane
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(4), DP3
- Development plan policies
- North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2016 Policies 1, 8, 11, 13, 29, Kettering Site Specific Part 2 Local Plan 2021 RS5
- Main issues
- location; design and character
Summary
Two new dwellings replacing two steel-framed farm buildings in the countryside outside Wilbarston, argued mainly on a Class Q fallback for two dwellings in the Dutch barn. Dismissed. The appellant conceded no S5(1) category applied, so S5(4) governed. The fallback neutralised the locational (car-dependence) objection, but not the design harm: the new houses were bulky, suburban in layout and poorly proportioned. They were "significantly more harmful" to character than the Class Q conversion, and there were no exceptional circumstances.
Issues and findings
- Transition. Parties were consulted (DL ¶2).
- Location. "there is no roadside footpath or street lighting between the site and the village, and the future occupants … would be largely reliant on the private car" (DL ¶6).
- S5 route. "The appellant acknowledges that the proposal does not fall within any of the listed categories at Policy S5(1)" (DL ¶5).
- Design / DP3: FAIL. "their substantial size, their width and extensive shallow pitched roof would give them an awkward and bulky form" (DL ¶8). Together with garages, fencing and tarmac, they would have "a markedly suburban appearance" (DL ¶9).
- Fallback. Class Q "constitutes a lawful fallback, to which I attribute significant weight" (DL ¶14). Its occupants "would be equally dependent on the private car", but it re-uses a typical rural structure with a "very tightly drawn residential curtilage" (DL ¶15). Overall the appeal scheme is "significantly more harmful" (DL ¶17).
Planning balance
S5(4): "the scheme's limited benefits and the fallback of the PAS, do not amount to exceptional circumstances which would substantially outweigh its adverse effects on the character of the countryside" (DL ¶21). Housing had limited weight because the fallback delivers the same number of homes (DL ¶18).
What made the difference
Design quality. A Class Q fallback can cancel out the sustainability-of-location objection, but then the comparison turns on character. Here the new-build was bulkier and more suburban than the conversion. A scheme closely matching the barn form, on a tight curtilage, might have succeeded.
Transferable points
- With a like-for-like Class Q fallback, car-dependence becomes a neutral factor and the S5(4) comparison turns on countryside character (DL ¶15, 19-21).
- Where the fallback delivers the same number of homes, the housing benefit gets limited weight (DL ¶18).
- Inspector found both spatial-strategy conflict and "significant harm" to character, and expressly tied the DP3 conflict to "well-designed, visually attractive development, which responds to its context, and integrates with and enhances its surroundings" (DL ¶12) — DP3(3) refusal direction not invoked by name.
- Suburban layout (double garages, tall fencing, tarmac) and pseudo-agricultural forms with the wrong proportions fail DP3 in open countryside (DL ¶8-9).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S5(1) | not-engaged | appellant accepted no S5(1) category applied (DL 5) | |
| S5(4) | fail | limited benefits plus Class Q fallback (significant weight) not exceptional circumstances substantially outweighing countryside character harm (DL 14-21) | |
| DP3 | fail | bulky, shallow-pitched pseudo-barns with suburban layout, garages, fencing and tarmac (DL 8-12) | |
| TR3 | fail | no roadside footpath or lighting to Wilbarston; car reliant, same as the fallback (DL 6, 15, 19) | |
| Kettering Part 2 LP RS5 | conflict | 1960s steel barns treated as 'historic farm buildings'; retention not shown impossible (DL 13) | |
| HO7 | benefit | limited | only two units and Class Q fallback delivers similar quantity; HO7 not named in letter (DL 18) |
Key facts
- Class Q prior approval (NK/2025/0006) to convert the Dutch barn to two dwellings; real prospect, significant weight
- Existing 1960s steel barns treated as "historic farm buildings" for local policy RS5
- Housing land supply figure not stated in the letter; letter does not name HO7 or TR3 (TR3 finding above is inferred from DL 6)
- Some distance beyond the Wilbarston boundary; no footway or lighting
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.