Land off Cheddington Road, Pitstone

Decision

dismissed, 18 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Lewis Condé

Authority

Buckinghamshire (South East)

Appeal reference

6010848

Application reference

PL/25/4416/FA

Procedure

written representations

Development

Erection of a dwelling and detached double garage

Homes

1

Site context

settlement edge, listed building setting

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

3.73 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

N6, S5(1)(j)(i), TR3, S6

Development plan policies

Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2013-2033 S1, S2, S3, D3, T1, NE1, Pitstone Neighbourhood Plan 2016 Policy 1

Main issues

habitats site; location and spatial strategy

Summary

A single dwelling on a field at the edge of Pitstone, outside the neighbourhood plan settlement boundary. The inspector found the location acceptable. With a 3.73-year supply the site was physically well-related to the village and passed TR3, so the scheme drew support from S5(1)(j)(i). The spatial-strategy conflict got only limited weight. The appeal was still dismissed, because no executed obligation secured Chilterns Beechwoods SAC mitigation. That meant N6 and the Habitats Regulations were determinative.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The parties had an opportunity to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶2).
• Habitats site, N6: FAIL. "no executed planning obligation or other legally effective mechanism is before me ... I have no certainty that the necessary mitigation would be delivered" (DL ¶12). "Policy N6 of the Framework establishes that proposals affecting habitat sites should be refused unless an appropriate assessment concludes that the proposal would not adversely affect the integrity of the site" (DL ¶34).
• Location, local plan: CONFLICT, limited weight. The site is outside the settlement boundary "despite adjoining residential development ... It is therefore located within the countryside for planning policy purposes" (DL ¶17).
• TR3: PASS. "The surrounding area also benefits from extensive footway provision, street lighting and relatively gentle topography, making active travel a realistic option ... nearby bus services provide regular access to larger centres and local schools" (DL ¶20). The site "would therefore accord with ... Policy TR3 of the Framework" (DL ¶21).
• S5(1)(j)(i): supports. "The appeal site is also physically well related to an existing settlement, whilst existing infrastructure is also likely to be able to accommodate the scale of development proposed. As such, the appeal scheme also draws support from Policy S5(j)(i)" (DL ¶33).
• S6. It "does not weigh against the proposal due to the age of the Neighbourhood Plan" (made 2016) (DL ¶33).
• Heritage. No harm to the Orchard Farm listed group; this follows appeal APP/J0405/W/21/3276552 (DL ¶24-28).

Planning balance

Limited weight went to the spatial-strategy conflict: "the Council's spatial strategy has not delivered a sufficient supply of housing, the site is well related to Pitstone, and the policies do not fully reflect the support in current national policy for meeting identified housing needs in locations physically well related to existing settlements" (DL ¶31). Significant weight went to the NE1 habitats conflict. HO7 got substantial weight (DL ¶33). But "The requirements of the Habitats Regulations are determinative ... the Framework's presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply" (DL ¶35).

What made the difference

A missing executed s106 for SAC mitigation. On every other issue the appellants won: S5(1)(j), TR3, heritage and character. Had the obligation been submitted with the appeal, as the procedural guide requires, this would very probably have been allowed.

Transferable points

• At the edge of a larger village, footways, lighting, gentle topography and regular buses satisfy TR3 (DL ¶20-21).
• A settlement boundary drawn tightly in an older neighbourhood plan gets limited weight where there is a shortfall and the site is well related. The Framework's S5(1)(j) support for well-related sites is the reason given (DL ¶31, 33).
• S6 cannot help a neighbourhood plan made more than five years ago (DL ¶33).
• N6 and Habitats Regulations failures are determinative and override the presumption and substantial HO7 weight (DL ¶34-35).
• Self-build status gets no extra weight without a securing mechanism (DL ¶29).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Supply about 3.73 years (DL 32)
• Site outside Pitstone Neighbourhood Plan settlement boundary but adjoining housing; limited weight to spatial-strategy conflict (DL 17, 31)
• Appellants willing to pay SAC mitigation but no executed s106 submitted with the WR appeal (DL 12)

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.