- Decision
- dismissed, 29 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: G Dring
- Authority
- King's Lynn and West Norfolk (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6010422
- Application reference
- 26/00172/F
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- One self-build dwelling on a grass field adjoining the development boundary of Harpley
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- settlement edge, rural lane
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(4), DP3(3), TR6(4), S5(1)(j)(i)
- Development plan policies
- King's Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan 2021-2040 LP01, LP02, LP03, LP06, LP13, LP18, LP21, LP31
- Main issues
- suitable location - spatial strategy and character; highway safety and accessibility; self-build provision
Summary
A self-build house on a field at the edge of Harpley, Norfolk, was dismissed. Self-build need was evidenced and the UU could secure it, so S5(1)(j) was in play, but the character harm and highway danger on a single-track lane made the nature of the development inappropriate there, failing (j)(i). Under S5(4), substantial weight to self-build did not substantially outweigh substantial weight to an unjustified DP3 conflict, considerable weight to TR6(4) safety harm and moderate TR3 harm.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "Both parties have had the opportunity to comment on the new Framework" (DL ¶8).
- Character: SIGNIFICANT HARM. "the erosion of the rural character and appearance of the site at the settlement edge, alongside the incongruity with the settlement pattern to which it would sit adjacent would result in significant harm" (DL ¶18).
- Highway safety, TR6(4): FAIL. "Millers Lane is so narrow that cars are unable to pass each other, whilst remaining fully on the carriageway" (DL ¶21). "It would therefore result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety contrary to Policy TR6:4 of the Framework, to which I attribute considerable weight" (DL ¶50).
- Accessibility, TR3: moderate harm. "There is no separate footway along Millers Lane or Short Lane, nor is there any lighting along the majority of the route" (DL ¶25); "some may struggle to do that, including those with limited mobility or those with young children" (DL ¶25). "the development would not generate a significant amount of movement, given its small scale" (DL ¶49), but moderate negative weight (DL ¶49).
- S5(1)(j). "there does not appear to be a requirement set out in the Framework on the level of contribution that a proposal might make to an evidenced unmet need" (DL ¶41). But "the nature of the development would be inappropriate in this location and therefore criterion j. would not be satisfied" (DL ¶42).
- DP3(3). "I do not find that the conflict with this Framework policy has been justified in the evidence before me. I therefore attribute substantial weight to the conflict with Policy DP3:1" (DL ¶48).
- Self-build. "Given the evidenced unmet need in relation to SBCB provision, I attribute substantial weight to the proposal, in line with Framework Policy HO7:1" (DL ¶44).
- Neutral factors. Lack of harm on ecology, drainage and similar matters is neutral (DL ¶46).
Planning balance
S5(4) exceptional circumstances: benefits must substantially outweigh harm. For: SBCB (substantial), economic and environmental (limited). Against: DP3 conflict (substantial), TR6(4) (considerable), N2(1) ("medium"), TR3 (moderate). "the benefits would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects, when considering them in combination" (DL ¶51). Plan-led conclusion (DL ¶52).
What made the difference
A single-track lane with no passing places, footway or lighting, and a set-back plot that broke the village's roadside pattern. Even with evidenced self-build need, a secured UU and substantial weight, those harms were too many for the S5(4) test. A frontage plot on a wider road with a footway could have passed (j)(i).
Transferable points
- S5(1)(j) sets no minimum contribution to the unmet need; one self-build plot can qualify (DL ¶41).
- S5(1)(j)(i) "nature of the development would make this inappropriate" read to include character and highway harm, even where the site adjoins the settlement (DL ¶40, ¶42).
- A single dwelling can fail TR6(4) where it adds traffic to a lane too narrow for vehicles to pass (DL ¶21, ¶24, ¶50).
- TR3 for one dwelling: not significant movement, yet a 600 m unlit route with no footway still counts as moderate harm in an S5(4) balance (DL ¶25, ¶49).
- DP3(3) applied inside S5(4): an unjustified DP3(1) conflict given substantial weight (DL ¶48).
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)(j) | pass | evidenced unmet self-build need (appellant claims 243-plot shortfall; Council concedes supply not met); no minimum contribution required by the Framework (DL 31, 39-41) | |
| S5(1)(j)(i) | fail | physically adjacent and of limited scale, but character and highway harm make "the nature of the development … inappropriate in this location" (DL 42) | |
| S5(4) | fail | benefits do not substantially outweigh the adverse effects; no exceptional circumstances (DL 43, 51) | |
| DP3(1) | conflict | substantial | set-back siting, oversized garden and close-boarded fence by the PRoW at odds with linear roadside pattern; erodes rural edge; significant harm (DL 13-18, 48) |
| DP3(3) | fail | explicit - conflict with DP3(1) not justified on the evidence; given substantial weight in the S5(4) balance (DL 48) | |
| N2(1)(a) | harm | at odds with N2(1) (natural beauty of the countryside); "medium weight" (not a standard weight word) as effects localised (DL 47) | |
| TR3 | harm | moderate | one dwelling not significant movement; 600 m walk to Nethergate Street on narrow lanes with no footway or lighting, unattractive for many, esp. limited mobility or young children; TR3(1)(e) rural opportunities noted; moderate negative weight (DL 25-28, 49) |
| TR6(4) | fail | considerable | Millers Lane too narrow for cars to pass; verge used; six trips a day increase conflict with pedestrians and cyclists; no severe capacity impact (DL 20-24, 50) |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | HO7(1) substantial weight to SBCB given evidenced unmet need; UU dated 30 Jul 2026 could secure it (DL 32, 44) |
| LP LP02 (local) | conflict | Harpley (tier 5) requirement of one dwelling already exceeded by 16 permissions; outside development boundary (DL 10-12) |
Key facts
- Harpley is a tier 5 rural village; site outside but adjacent to the development boundary (DL 10)
- Amended plans and a late traffic survey not accepted (DL 3-5)
- Services (school, church, pub, village hall, bus stops) about 600 m via Millers Lane and Short Lane (DL 25)
- Restricted visibility at the Back Street junction is an existing constraint (DL 22)
- Pre-application advice more positive but superseded by the new Local Plan (DL 34)
- AA not needed as dismissed (DL 53)
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.