Land south of Darlifields, Heywood Road, Tibenham (two self-build dwellings, outline)

Decision

dismissed, 24 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: J Glasin

Authority

South Norfolk (East of England)

Appeal reference

6010418

Application reference

2025/3159

Procedure

written representations

Development

Outline permission (access only) for two self-build dwellings with a shared access, beside a dwelling and agricultural buildings on a narrow country road

Homes

2

Site context

open countryside, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(e), S5(1)(j)(i), S5

Development plan policies

Greater Norwich Local Plan 2024 Policies 2, 7.5, South Norfolk Local Plan Development Management Policies 2015 DM1.4, DM3.8, DM3.10

Main issues

character and appearance; sustainable form of development

Summary

Two self-build dwellings beside a house and farm buildings on a narrow Norfolk lane, about 5 miles from Diss. The inspector found an unwarranted incursion into a sparsely settled area, heavy car dependence on a lane without footpaths or lighting, and no support from S5(1)(e) or S5(1)(j)(i). The letter's S5(1)(e) reasoning contradicts itself and its conclusion uses the 2024 "significantly and demonstrably" formula (DL ¶24). Dismissed.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "Annex 1A makes clear that the appeal proposal should be assessed against this version of the Framework" (DL ¶5).
• Character. "It would therefore represent an unwarranted incursion of residential development into the rural landscape" (DL ¶11).
• S5(1)(e). The site "does not constitute an infill plot, but an extension of built development into the countryside", yet "the development falls within the scope of S5(e) of the Framework" (DL ¶12); then "the adverse effects of the development would substantially outweigh the benefits" so there is no support (DL ¶12). Code it as a fail.
• Access. "it is acknowledged that the Framework recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas" (DL ¶17), which is 2024 wording. But "The absence of safe walking and cycling routes would not promote travelling by foot, cycling or wheeling. Consequently, future occupants of this development would be heavily reliant on the use of a private car" (DL ¶18).
• S5(1)(j)(i): FAIL. "the development is not physically well related to an existing settlement and therefore fails to satisfy criterion j(i)" (DL ¶20).

Planning balance

S5, with categories (e) and (j) rejected. Benefits modest. The conclusion is 2024 wording: "the harm arising from the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole" (DL ¶24). Incidental: no category was met, so S5(4) would require the benefits to substantially outweigh the harm, and they plainly did not.

What made the difference

Remoteness (5 miles to Diss) and a lane with no footways or lighting, plus a site that extended development into open countryside rather than infilling.

Transferable points

• Not a clean authority. The S5(1)(e) and balance paragraphs are muddled; rely on DL ¶18 (car reliance) and DL ¶20 ((j)(i) not physically well related) only.

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Nearest services in Diss, about 5 miles (DL 17)
• Tree reason for refusal withdrawn after an arboricultural assessment; GIRAMS obligation acceptable if executed (unsigned) (DL 3-4)
• Parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework; no comments received (DL 5)
• Benefits (housing, self-build plots, construction) given "some weight" and described as modest (DL 22)

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.