# Land at Main Street, Great Brington

- **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Harris-Watkins
- **Authority:** West Northamptonshire (East Midlands)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010826
- **Application reference:** 2025/4825/FULL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** One new two-storey dwelling on an undeveloped paddock with a stable at the village edge
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** settlement-edge, open-countryside
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S3, S5(1)(j), S5(2), DP3
- **Development plan policies:** West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2014 R1, S10, Settlements and Countryside Local Plan (Part 2) for Daventry District 2020 RA3, RA6, ENV10, Bringtons and Nobottle Village Design Statement 2018 HS24
- **Main issues:** location of development, character and appearance
- **Tags:** s5-1-j, dp3-refuse-trigger, s5-2-refusal-policy, design-refusal, substantially-outweighed, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, small-scheme, self-build-unsecured, housing-shortfall, drafting-slip

## Summary
A single large two-storey house on a paddock at the western entrance to Great Brington, outside the village confines. The council had no five-year supply and the site passed S5(1)(j). The appeal was still dismissed. The house was sited close to the road on a site the Village Design Statement protects as a green space and significant view, so it failed DP3. DP3 is a "should be refused" policy, so S5(2) applied and the limited benefits of one dwelling were substantially outweighed.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "The main parties have been invited to comment on the relevance of the Framework to the appeal … Consideration has been given to those comments received" (DL ¶3).
- **Location — plan policies RA3/RA6/R1: CONFLICT.** Although the site's boundaries adjoin houses, "the site is predominantly surrounded by open space and not built form … it visually appears as part of the countryside" (DL ¶6). Under LP2 Table 3 it is not within the confines (DL ¶7).
- **S4 not engaged.** "the appeal site is not within the settlement and therefore policy S4 does not apply" (DL ¶22). The settlement edge was taken from the local plan's confines test.
- **S5(1)(j): PASS.** "It is agreed that the Council does not have a 5-year housing land supply. The site is physically well related to Great Brington … meeting the criteria (j)(i) and (j)(ii)" (DL ¶23).
- **Character — DP3: FAIL.** "Due to the siting, massing and footprint of the development, this would result in the building being highly prominent from Main Street and create a sense of enclosure to the streetscape" (DL ¶12). Landscaping conditions could not mitigate the harm (DL ¶13). Matching materials and style "do not sufficiently mitigate the harm caused by its massing and physical placement" (DL ¶14).
- **Self-build: little weight.** No demand/supply evidence and no means of securing self-build (DL ¶16).

## Planning balance
S5(1) balance run with S5(2) ("The Framework outlines circumstances in which the benefits … are likely to be substantially outweighed", DL ¶25). Benefits: one dwelling "limited", modest economic, limited biodiversity, passive surveillance (DL ¶24). Harm: DP3 conflict, "significant harm … I give this harm significant weight" (DL ¶26). "Even taken together, I find the benefits of approving the development proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects. As such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply" (DL ¶26). The inspector then applied the plan-led s38(6) conclusion (DL ¶27).

## What made the difference
The site was an open, verdant gateway to the village, protected as an open space and significant view in an adopted Village Design Statement. The scheme placed a wide, two-storey L-shaped house close to the road frontage. Failing DP3 triggered S5(2), and the benefits of one market house (not given substantial weight) could not survive that. A smaller building set back from Main Street, keeping the verdant approach, would have left only the spatial-strategy conflict, which S5(1)(j) would probably have overcome given the agreed supply shortfall.

## Transferable points
- Passing S5(1)(j) does not carry the scheme where a DP3 "refuse without clear justification" failure engages S5(2) (DL ¶¶25–26).
- Village Design Statement designations ("valued open green space", "significant view") carry real weight in the DP3 context assessment even where the site is outside conservation-area views (DL ¶¶6, 13).
- Adjoining houses on two sides does not make a paddock "within" the settlement if it reads visually as countryside; local plan confines definitions were used to decide S4 v S5 (DL ¶¶6–7, 22).
- Self-build claims attract little weight without demand/supply evidence and a securing mechanism (DL ¶16).
- One dwelling's contribution was described as "limited" despite no five-year supply, with no reference to HO7 substantial weight (DL ¶24). This departs from other inspectors and is worth noting as an inconsistency.
- Drafting slip: the inspector said both "(j)(i) and (j)(ii)" were met, but (j)(ii) is the freight and logistics limb (DL ¶23).

## Policy findings
- **S4: not-engaged.** site outside village confines as defined by LP2 Table 3, so not within the settlement (DL 22)
- **S5(1)(j): pass.** no 5-year supply agreed; physically well related to Great Brington; infrastructure can take one dwelling (DL 23). Inspector wrote "(j)(i) and (j)(ii)" though (j)(ii) is the freight limb
- **DP3: fail (significant weight).** large L-shaped two-storey house close to Main Street, prominent from Kimbell's Field and a VDS significant view; "without clear justification" does not respond to context (DL 12-15, 26)
- **S5(2): fail.** DP3 is a refuse-in-specific-circumstances policy; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 25-26)
- **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** one dwelling's contribution "limited" even if self-build; HO7 not named and substantial weight not given (DL 24)
- **TR3: neutral.** within walking distance of several services, per JCS S10 (DL 17); not weighed as a benefit
- **RA3/RA6/R1/ENV10: conflict.** outside confines; spatial strategy undermined; conflict with plan as a whole (DL 9, 15, 21)

## Key facts
- Council agreed it has no five-year housing land supply (figure not stated)
- Site identified as a "valued open green space" and within a significant view in the 2018 Village Design Statement
- Site bounded by a community open space (Kimbell's Field) to the north and fields to the west; stable on site
- Self-build claimed but no demand/supply evidence and no securing mechanism — little weight (DL 16)
- Emerging West Northamptonshire Local Plan R3 would support edge-of-village sites but carries limited weight and its design criteria were also failed (DL 19)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010826
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/6efcd8f4-3fcc-464d-abf6-d2bbcab31042

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010826.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.