# 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
- **Tags:** s3-2-split-site, s5-1-j, s4-within-settlement, conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, dp3-refuse-trigger, materially-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, overturned-officer-rec, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, drafting-slip, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## 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
- **S3(2): pass.** split site; the garden-like southern section reads as within the settlement (S4), the paddock northern section as outside it (S5) (DL 25-26)
- **S5(1)(j)(i): pass.** physically well related; six homes acceptable in scale; private treatment possible despite Anglian Water objection; letter also cites "(j)(ii)" for the scale and infrastructure clause, which is part of (j)(i) (DL 28-29)
- **S5(1)(e): fail.** northern section not infilling within a group (no built form to the north and west) (DL 29)
- **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** loss of open plot that shows the historic linear plan form; harm "at the lower end of the spectrum" but of considerable importance and weight (DL 11-16)
- **HE6(4): fail.** housing, economic and social benefits do not outweigh; affordable homes and design not secured, so no weight (DL 17-18)
- **DP3(3): fail.** DP3(3) quoted (arrangement of plots); conflict found; clear justification not separately reasoned (DL 31-32)
- **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** SP3's infill location criteria more restrictive than S4, so very limited weight; its character requirement is consistent and keeps weight (DL 24)
- **S4: fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 27, 32)

## 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011227
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/ea0a2950-cde4-4e0c-87bf-36fb13129941

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011227.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.