Land adjacent to Arcady, Coryates

Decision

dismissed, 18 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: C Cooper-Young

Authority

Dorset (South West)

Appeal reference

6010834

Application reference

P/FUL/2026/01044

Procedure

written representations

Development

Self-build single-storey dwelling in the garden of Arcady, with parking and amenity space

Homes

1

Site context

open countryside, national landscape, rural lane, SSSI

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

2.53 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(j), S5(4), S3

Development plan policies

West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan 2015 INT1, SUS2, ENV2

Main issues

suitable location for housing; biodiversity net gain

Summary

A self-build bungalow in a garden between two dwellings in the hamlet of Coryates (Dorset National Landscape), outside any development boundary, in a district with a 2.53-year supply. Dismissed. The hamlet has no services and is 2.5 km from Portesham along unlit lanes without footways, so S5(1)(j) failed on "well-related to an existing settlement". The very limited benefits of one house were substantially outweighed. A second reason: no s106 securing self-build status, so the BNG exemption and biodiversity measures could not be relied on.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "In the interest of natural justice … I consulted both parties on the changes to the Framework" (DL ¶2). A Council background paper "prepared with significant reference to the 2024 Framework rather than the current policy based version … attracts only very limited weight" (DL ¶13).
• Location: FAIL. "Coryates is a small, loose‑knit hamlet" (DL ¶7). "Access to these facilities would involve walking along a narrow, unlit road, much of which is subject to the national speed limit … occupiers would be heavily reliant on the private car" (DL ¶11).
• S5(1)(j): FAIL. "Even though the appeal site is close to a few other houses, I have already found it is not well-related to an existing settlement. It therefore does not fall within category 1.j." (DL ¶27).
• National Landscape: limited effect. "contained within the existing built extent of the hamlet, positioned between established dwellings … would not materially diminish the natural beauty" (DL ¶21).
• BNG / self-build: FAIL. "there was no robust mechanism proposed (such as a S106 legal agreement) to secure it" (DL ¶18); the 6 Aug 2026 small-site exemption applies only to applications made on or after that date (DL ¶17).
• Habitats. Appropriate assessment not undertaken because appeal fails on other grounds (DL ¶4).

Planning balance

S5(4) balance. Benefits: one dwelling, "only a modest contribution towards addressing the shortfall" and limited construction/trade benefits (DL ¶29). Substantial weight to conflict with SUS2 as "broadly consistent with the strategic aims of the Framework" (DL ¶30). Benefits "do not, alone or cumulatively, amount to exceptional circumstances" (DL ¶30); "the very limited benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by its adverse effects" (DL ¶31).

What made the difference

Coryates being a services-free, loose-knit hamlet reached only by unlit national-speed-limit lanes. That took the site outside S5(1)(j) despite a 2.53-year supply. The plot's garden-between-dwellings form, which looks like an S5(1)(e) infill case, was not argued or considered. A signed s106 for self-build would have removed the second reason but not the first.

Transferable points

• A hamlet with no services is not an "existing settlement" for S5(1)(j), even with a severe supply shortfall (2.53 yrs) (DL ¶¶11, 26-27).
• A single dwelling gets "only a modest contribution" and very limited weight overall, and an S5(4) exceptional-circumstances case fails (DL ¶¶29-31).
• Local evidence papers drafted against the 2024 Framework carry very limited weight under the 2026 Framework (DL ¶13).
• A self-build BNG exemption needs the self-build status secured by a signed s106 submitted with the appeal; the 6 Aug 2026 small-site BNG exemption is not retrospective (DL ¶¶17-20).
• No harm to a National Landscape from a plot contained between existing dwellings does not overcome a failed S5 location test (DL ¶21).
• Drafting slips: DL ¶28 says the scheme "does benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development at Policy S3" (context shows "does not" was meant). DL ¶27 says "I have already found it is not well-related to an existing settlement", but the earlier reasoning (DL ¶¶7-15) addressed accessibility and the local strategy, not S5(1)(j) well-relatedness as such. S5(1)(e) is not considered even though the plot is garden between two dwellings (DL ¶7). HO7 is not mentioned.

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Council supply 2.53 years (agreed)
• Coryates has no services; Portesham about 2.5 km along narrow, unlit lanes without footways, mostly national speed limit
• Plot is residential garden between two dwellings in a loose-knit hamlet, within Dorset National Landscape and near SSSI/SAC/SPA
• No signed s106 to secure self-build; new small-site BNG exemption (6 Aug 2026) does not apply to earlier applications
• Dorset Flexible Settlements Policy Background Paper (2025) very limited weight, partly because prepared against the 2024 Framework
• Inspector consulted parties on the 2026 Framework

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.