Four Winds, The Common, Melbourne

Decision

allowed, 23 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: J Buxton

Authority

South Derbyshire (East Midlands)

Appeal reference

6011217

Application reference

DMPA/2026/0030

Procedure

written representations

Development

Permission in principle for one dwelling (applied for as self-build) in the side garden of an existing house

Homes

1

Site context

settlement edge, PDL

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S3, S5(1)(d), AnnexB:previously-developed-land, HO7

Development plan policies

South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 1 H1, South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 2 SDT1, BNE5, Melbourne Neighbourhood Plan DP1

Main issues

suitable location

Summary

Permission in principle for one dwelling in the side garden of a house on The Common, just outside Melbourne's settlement boundary. Allowed. The inspector held that a residential garden outside a built-up area is previously developed land under the Annex B definition, because the garden exclusion applies only within built-up areas. That brought the scheme within S5(1)(d). With good walking and bus access to Melbourne and a contained plot, the limited conflict with the spatial strategy did not substantially outweigh substantial HO7 weight.

Issues and findings

• Transition. Parties had an opportunity to comment; "references hereafter relate to the new version" (DL ¶2).
• Spatial strategy — H1/SDT1/BNE5/DP1: CONFLICT (limited harm). Not BNE5(iv) infill given the site's position in a side garden (DL ¶10). But "the proposal would be contained within an existing residential plot and would not extend into the wider countryside" (DL ¶11).
• PDL — Annex B: PASS. "Whilst the site forms part of a residential garden, the exclusion relating to residential gardens applies only within built-up areas. As the site lies outside the defined settlement boundary and there is no evidence before me that it forms part of a built-up area, that exclusion is not engaged. Accordingly, I find that the site comprises previously developed land" (DL ¶17).
• HO7: substantial weight to one dwelling as "a meaningful contribution towards the Framework's objective to support the delivery of a substantial increase in the supply of homes" (DL ¶18). The supply position was not given.
• Self-build: limited weight. PiP "does not secure the identity of the future developer, the method of delivery or occupation" (DL ¶19).
• Accessibility. "future occupiers would have opportunities to access services and facilities by a combination of walking and public transport … I do not find that the site is isolated" (DL ¶20).
• Annex A. Local policies "are not materially inconsistent with national decision-making policies … I do not consider that Annex A reduces the weight" (DL ¶22). They were still outweighed.

Planning balance

S3 → S5(1)(d) balance. Benefits: HO7 substantial; self-build limited; accessibility in favour; limited economic (DL ¶¶18–21). Harm: plan conflict, but "given the site's accessibility, its relationship with Melbourne, its previously developed status and the limited effect on rural character, I find that the harm arising from this conflict would be limited" (DL ¶23). "the benefits of the proposal would not be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects. Accordingly, the proposal satisfies the requirements of Policy S5(1)(d)" (DL ¶24). Material considerations justified departing from the plan (DL ¶26).

What made the difference

The Annex B reading. Treating a rural garden as PDL placed the site in the S5(1)(d) category without needing a five-year supply shortfall (S5(1)(j)) or an infill argument (S5(1)(e), BNE5). After that, the site facts (enclosed curtilage, established walking route to a Key Service Village, bus stop at the gate) kept the harm "limited". A garden in a remote or poorly connected location, or one inside a built-up area, would not get the same treatment.

Transferable points

• Residential gardens outside built-up areas can count as PDL: the Annex B garden exclusion applies only "within built-up areas", and a defined settlement boundary was used to show the site was outside one (DL ¶17). This is a significant route for rural garden plots under S5(1)(d).
• S5(1)(d) does not need a housing-supply shortfall; HO7 substantial weight was given to one dwelling without any supply figure (DL ¶18).
• Plan policies can be consistent with the Framework under Annex A and still be outweighed through the S5 balance (DL ¶¶22–24).
• Self-build cannot be secured at PiP stage, so it attracts limited weight (DL ¶¶5, 19).
• A bus stop outside the site and established pedestrian links to a service village support the location even where some car use is expected (DL ¶20).
• For reviewers: this reading of the garden exclusion departs from cases that treat rural gardens as not PDL (compare tags garden-not-pdl, residential-garden-pdl).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Site is part of the side garden and curtilage of Four Winds, outside Melbourne's settlement boundary, enclosed by garden, vegetation and woodland
• Melbourne is a Key Service Village; established pedestrian connections to the village centre; bus stop directly outside
• Self-build description dropped because a PiP cannot secure it (DL 5)
• Council's reason for refusal was spatial strategy only; land use and amount not disputed
• Housing land supply position not stated in the letter

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.