- Decision
- dismissed, 30 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: G Bayliss
- Authority
- Rutland (East Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6010934
- Application reference
- 2025/0400/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Isolated self-build earth-sheltered dwelling proposed as a Paragraph 84 (now HO11(e)) house, with solar array and landscaping, in an open field north of Great Casterton
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- open countryside, isolated, rural lane
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(3), HO11(1)(e), S5(4), TR6(4)
- Development plan policies
- Rutland Core Strategy 2011 CS4, CS19, CS21, CS22, Site Allocations and Policies DPD 2014 SP6, SP15, SP19, SP20
- Main issues
- HO11(e) exceptional design; highway safety; ecology; archaeology
Summary
An isolated earth-sheltered self-build house in an open field near Great Casterton, proposed as an exceptional-design home under HO11(e). It deliberately copied Field House, allowed on appeal in 2022. The inspector held that a transplanted design is not "truly outstanding" (DL ¶25), that concealing it in an artificial mound would not significantly enhance its setting, and that the access failed on highway safety, ecology and archaeology. Under S5(4) the adverse effects substantially outweighed the benefits. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "the wording of Paragraph 84 has been transferred and modified to become National Decision-Making Policy HO11" (DL ¶5).
- HO11(e) first limb. "I understand the policy requirement to mean 'one of a kind' dwellings which reach the highest standards of architecture" (DL ¶18). The design "falls well short of being truly outstanding" (DL ¶25).
- Design review. "It does not appear that the scheme has been submitted to an external design critique such as a Design Review Panel" (DL ¶23).
- HO11(e) second limb. "The policy requirement is for the proposal to be seen, to some extent, in its surrounding context" (DL ¶28). "the proposal would harm rather than significantly enhance its immediate setting" (DL ¶30).
- Movement. "the dwelling would still be separated from the nearby settlement, and occupants would be largely reliant on vehicle movements to access services and facilities" (DL ¶24).
- Highway safety: FAIL. "Given the third-party ownership, it would not appear possible to secure the visibility splays through condition" (DL ¶35).
Planning balance
S5(3) isolated home fails HO11(e), so S5(4): "the adverse effects, including to the character of the countryside, substantially outweigh the benefits of the proposal" (DL ¶51). Harms together given "very substantial weight" (DL ¶50).
What made the difference
Copying a design allowed elsewhere. HO11(e) was read as requiring a site-specific, one-of-a-kind design, which a replica cannot be. The access problems were independent reasons.
Transferable points
- HO11(e) needs a site-specific "one of a kind" design; replicating a scheme allowed elsewhere does not qualify (DL ¶18-19).
- Hiding the house is not the same as significantly enhancing its setting (DL ¶28, ¶30).
- Lack of design review weakens an HO11(e) case (DL ¶23).
- Splays over third-party land cannot be secured by condition (DL ¶35).
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(3) | fail | agreed isolated home, so only HO11 applies (DL 8, 10) | |
| HO11(1)(e) | fail | both limbs fail - a replica of the 2022 Field House scheme is not truly outstanding or one of a kind, no design review, no evidence of raising rural standards; concealment in an artificial mound does not significantly enhance the setting (DL 16-31) | |
| DP3(5) | fail | environmental credentials, but not consistent with its surroundings and would not raise design standards, so no DP3 support; conflict with DP3 (DL 24, 31) | |
| TR6(4) | fail | northern splay needs third-party hedge removal; access width, fire appliance turning and delivery bay not shown (DL 33-39) | |
| N2 | fail | roadside verge Local Wildlife Site not assessed; harm from access widening and splays not ruled out (DL 40-41) | |
| HE5 | fail | potential Anglo-Saxon archaeology (NDHA); trial trenching not done before determination (DL 42-45) | |
| HO7 | benefit | one self-build dwelling, an important consideration given the supply position; weight word not given (DL 46) | |
| S5(4) | fail | very-substantial | combined harms very substantial weight; adverse effects substantially outweigh benefits; no exceptional circumstances (DL 32, 50-51) |
Key facts
- Scheme deliberately replicates Field House, allowed on appeal in 2022 under the old outstanding-design paragraph (APP/A2470/W/21/3282349) (DL 16-18)
- No Design Review Panel; few detailed elevations or imagery (DL 22-23)
- Council lacks a Framework-compliant supply (figure not stated) (DL 46)
- Occupants largely reliant on vehicles; no connecting footpath (DL 24, 47)
- Parties given an opportunity to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework; paragraph 84 now HO11 (DL 5)
- Costs application by the appellant, the subject of a separate decision (DL 2)
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.