Land west of The Charters, Greatford Road, Uffington (Stamford)

Decision

dismissed, 25 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: D Harris-Watkins

Authority

South Kesteven (East Midlands)

Appeal reference

6011227

Application reference

S25/1912

Procedure

written representations

Development

Outline residential development (access only; indicative layout for six dwellings) on a long narrow garden and paddock plot in the Uffington Conservation Area

Homes

6

Site context

settlement edge, conservation area

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

HE6(4), DP3(3), S4, S5(1)(j)

Development plan policies

South Kesteven Local Plan 2020 SP2, SP3, EN6, DE1

Main issues

character and appearance and the conservation area; location

Summary

Outline housing (six indicated) on a long, narrow garden and paddock plot behind Main Road in the Uffington Conservation Area, refused by committee against officer advice. Dismissed. The inspector split the site under S3(2): the garden section is inside the settlement (S4) and the paddock outside it (S5), where S5(1)(j) was met. But developing the open plot would erode the legible historic linear plan form: low-end harm, of considerable importance and weight, not outweighed by public benefits. With the DP3 context conflict, the benefits were substantially outweighed.

Issues and findings

• Heritage. "the undeveloped nature of the site contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CA and the wider area" (DL ¶11). "the harm would be at the lower end of the spectrum, but nonetheless of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶16). "Even taken together, the public benefits would not outweigh the substantial weight to be attached to the conservation of the designated heritage asset" (DL ¶18).
• Plan weight. "the conflict with this part of the policy is given very limited weight in accordance with the Annexe A of the Framework. Notwithstanding this, the identified character and appearance harm remains, and the requirement for development to have an acceptable impact on the character of the area is consistent with the Framework" (DL ¶24).
• S3(2) split. "Where a development proposal falls partly within and partly outside a settlement, policies S4 and S5 of the Framework should be applied to the relevant parts" (DL ¶25). The northern section appears "visually and physically as outside the settlement" (DL ¶26).
• S5(1)(j). "Consequently, I find the proposal accords with criteria (j)(i) and (j)(ii) of policy S5 of the Framework" (DL ¶29). The Framework has no (j)(ii); the scale and infrastructure test is part of (j)(i).
• DP3(3). The Framework says proposals "should be refused if, without clear justification, they do not respond to their context" (DL ¶31), quoted in full. The letter does not say separately that there is no clear justification.

Planning balance

S4 for the southern part and S5(1)(j) for the northern part, with the should-be-refused carve-out (DL ¶30). HE6 harm and the DP3 conflict weighed against housing and economic and social benefits: "Even taken together, I find the benefits of approving the development proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶32).

What made the difference

The site's role in showing the historic linear plan form of the conservation area. Earlier backland consents were single dwellings set close to Main Road (DL ¶14). Members' refusal was upheld on heritage grounds, despite the officers' recommendation and the Council accepting six homes as reasonable in scale.

Transferable points

• S3(2) can split a single plot: a walled garden section inside the settlement and a paddock section outside it (DL ¶25-26).
• Restrictive local infill criteria are materially inconsistent with S4, but the same policy's character requirement keeps its weight (DL ¶24).
• Open rear plots that show a village's historic linear form contribute to a conservation area's significance even with limited public views (DL ¶11-14).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Refused by the planning committee against the officers' recommendation (DL 4)
• Uffington is a Smaller Village (fourth tier of SP2); SP2's text generally allows up to three dwellings, but the Council accepted six (DL 20, 29)
• Southern section is a former tennis court and vegetable garden inside stone walls; northern section a paddock (DL 10)
• The Council lacks a five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 28)
• Lawful residential use of the land claimed but not determinable in a s78 appeal (DL 5)
• Parties invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL 6)

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.