# 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 - **Tags:** s5-1-e-infill, infill-rejected, s5-1-j, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, self-build, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, old-balance-wording, old-wording-slip, drafting-slip, letter-internal-inconsistency ## 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 - **S5(1)(e): fail.** letter finds the site not an infill plot, then says it falls within the scope of S5(e) as part of a group, then that adverse effects substantially outweigh so no support; internally inconsistent (DL 12) - **S5(1)(j)(i): fail.** not physically well related to an existing settlement; Diss about 5 miles (DL 17, 20) - **TR3: fail.** mapped - TR3 not cited; narrow road without footpaths or lighting, heavy car reliance; 2024 "vary between urban and rural areas" acknowledged but not relied on (DL 17-18) - **DP3(1): harm.** mapped - unwarranted incursion into a sparsely settled rural area; conflict with local policies; no DP3 or DP3(3) step (DL 11, 14-15) - **S5: fail.** concluded in 2024 wording - harm would significantly and demonstrably outweigh benefits (DL 24) ## 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 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010418 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/022bf89d-ed13-409b-8829-32e072f04701 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010418.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.