- Decision
- dismissed, 25 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: D Harris-Watkins
- Authority
- South Kesteven (East Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6010911
- Application reference
- S26/0178
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- One (claimed self-build) dwelling on a paddock between two houses in the 15-house hamlet of West Willoughby
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- open countryside
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- BNG (Sch 7A TCPA)
- Development plan policies
- South Kesteven Local Plan 2020 SP2, SP3, SP4, SP5, SD1, ID2, DE1
- Main issues
- biodiversity gain condition; location; character and appearance
Summary
One house on a paddock between two dwellings in West Willoughby, a hamlet of 15 houses in Lincolnshire. The inspector found the hamlet is not a settlement under Annex B, but the scheme is limited infilling within a group of houses under S5(1)(e). The plan policies restricting infill to named settlements got very limited weight under Annex A, and the S5 presumption applied. But the self-build BNG exemption was not secured and the 0.2 ha exemption did not apply to this application, so the statutory gain condition could not be shown capable of discharge. Dismissed on BNG alone.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The main parties have been invited to comment on the relevance of the Framework to the appeal" (DL ¶2).
- BNG: FAIL. "The appellant has highlighted that there is a BNG condition exemption for sites less than 0.2 Ha, however this applies only to applications made before 6th August 2026" (DL ¶7). "I find a condition requiring occupation of the dwelling by the person who built it would be unlikely to pass the tests" (DL ¶8). "I conclude the appeal fails to demonstrate the biodiversity gain condition is capable of being successfully discharged" (DL ¶11).
- Access. The footway "is however unlit, such that it would not provide suitable access at all times of day and year" (DL ¶16). "Though the level of connection to services and facilities by walking, cycling and public transport may not be to the level expected in an urban area, the combination of those available to the site would meet some of the day-to-day needs of the future occupiers" (DL ¶17).
- Settlement. "West Willoughby comprises 15 houses and no other facilities, accordingly I do not find it can be considered a predominantly built-up area" (DL ¶29).
- S5(1)(e): PASS. The S5 list includes "limited infilling within groups of housing, which the proposal does comprise of" (DL ¶30).
- Annex A ¶2. SP2, SP3 and SP5 "are materially inconsistent with Policy SP5 of the Framework with regards to its broader support for limited infilling outside of settlements. As a result, the conflict with these policies is given very limited weight" (DL ¶31). "SP5 of the Framework" is a slip for S5.
- S5(1) balance: PASS. "Taken together the benefits would not be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects, and therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies" (DL ¶33).
Planning balance
S5(1) passed and the plan conflict was outweighed (DL ¶34), but the statutory BNG requirement is a separate bar: "it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would comply with Schedule 7A" (DL ¶34).
What made the difference
Paperwork. On planning merits the house would have been allowed. A signed unilateral undertaking securing self-build, or a biodiversity metric with the application, would probably have changed the outcome.
Transferable points
- A hamlet of 15 houses with no facilities is not a "settlement", but a gap between two of its houses can be S5(1)(e) infill (DL ¶29–30).
- Plan policies confining infill to named settlements are materially inconsistent with S5(1)(e), so very limited weight under Annex A ¶2 (DL ¶31).
- The 0.2 ha small-site BNG exemption does not apply to applications made before it came in (the letter's wording, "made before 6th August 2026", reads as a slip for on or after; either way the exemption did not help here) (DL ¶7).
- A self-build BNG exemption needs a legal agreement; an occupation condition fails the tests (DL ¶8–9).
- (j)(i) cannot be met by being well related to a hamlet that is not a settlement (DL ¶30).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| BNG (Sch 7A TCPA) | fail | self-build exemption claimed but no unilateral undertaking; occupation condition would fail the tests; 0.2 ha small-site exemption rejected, the letter saying it "applies only to applications made before 6th August 2026" (DL 7) (apparently a slip for on or after; cf. PINS-6011131 DL 16); no Article 7 minimum information, so the gain condition cannot be shown to be capable of discharge (DL 6-11) | |
| AnnexB:settlement | fail | 15 houses and no facilities, not a predominantly built-up area, so not a settlement; S4 does not apply (DL 29) | |
| S5(1)(e) | pass | paddock between two dwellings; limited infilling within a group of houses (DL 15, 30) | |
| S5(1)(j)(i) | fail | no five-year supply, but the hamlet is not a settlement, so the site cannot be well related to one (DL 30) | |
| Transitional(2) | conflict | very-limited | SP2, SP3 and SP5 restrict infill to named settlements, so are materially inconsistent with S5 (letter says "Policy SP5 of the Framework") on limited infilling; very limited weight under Annex A (DL 31) |
| S5(1) | pass | benefits not substantially outweighed; presumption applies (DL 33) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | HO7 substantial weight cited; with effective use of land and social and economic benefits (DL 32) |
| TR3 | not-engaged | TR3 not cited; access judged under plan policies SD1 and ID2 and found acceptable despite an unlit footway and a considerable distance to services, with a bus and cycling available (DL 15-18) |
Key facts
- Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply; figure not stated (DL 30)
- After the new Framework, the Council accepted material considerations favour approval (DL 3)
- Footway to a bar/restaurant and a 7-day service station is unlit; bus between Grantham and Sleaford (DL 15-16)
- Appeal decided solely on the BNG gain condition (DL 34)
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.