Land west of Sunnyside, Glentham (three over-55s dwellings)

Decision

dismissed, 1 October 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: P Eggleton

Authority

West Lindsey (East Midlands)

Appeal reference

6011337

Application reference

WL/2025/01036

Procedure

written representations

Development

Three detached four-bedroom dwellings restricted to households with a resident aged 55 or over, built to M4(2), with a shared communal garden

Homes

3

Site context

settlement edge, open countryside

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(4), L3(4), TR3(1)(a), N2(1)(a)

Development plan policies

Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2023 (local codes) S1, S4, S23, S53

Main issues

suitability of location; character and appearance

Summary

Three large over-55s houses at the edge of the small village of Glentham were dismissed. The council has a five-year supply and a recent local plan, which the inspector gave full weight. The appellant's evidence of a general shortage of housing for older people did not show a need for large four-bedroom houses in this location, so no S5(1) category was met and S5(4) applied. The scheme harmed the approach to the village, was poorly connected, and was at so low a density that L3(4) said it should be refused.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The parties had the opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶17).
• Development plan. "The continuous built form of the settlement clearly ends at the current extent of the Sunnyside houses on this side of the A631." (DL ¶8).
• Need must be type-specific. "The evidence presented does not indicate how much, or if any part of the numeric need for market age exclusive accommodation, would relate to large 4-bedroom dwellings, particularly in an edge of a small rural settlement location." (DL ¶10).
• Plan weight (Annex A ¶2): KEPT. "it is not considered that the LP is inconsistent with the Framework with regard to Policies S1, S4 or S23 and can be afforded full weight" (DL ¶18).
• Plan-making policies. "This is a matter for the review of the LP which is already underway. This will be required to take into account the plan making Polices HO1 and HO5 of the Framework referred to by the appellant. This does not reduce the primacy of the development plan at this time." (DL ¶19).
• S5(1)(e): FAIL. "This proposal does not represent infill development as suggested by the appellant as it extends development away from the settlement." (DL ¶21).
• S5(1)(j): FAIL. "There is no unmet need for housing in general." (DL ¶22).
• Location, TR3(1)(a): FAIL. "as no evidence has been provided with regard to bus frequency, it cannot be assumed that a convenient service would be available" (DL ¶23). "The Connectivity Tool provides a particularly low score for connectivity. Whilst it is positive with regard to comparisons with other local sites and rural villages, it reflects the physical situation on the ground, including the local absence of services and the need to travel to access them." (DL ¶24).
• Housing, HO7: moderate. "As need has not been established, either generally or with regard to this specific form of specialist housing, only moderate weight is afforded to the additional provision of housing" (DL ¶28).
• Density, L3: FAIL. "It therefore conflicts with Framework Policy L3(2b) which requires that development footprints should make the best use of a site’s development potential. In these circumstances, the policy indicates that the development should be refused." (DL ¶29).

Planning balance

Plan-led, with the plan at full weight (DL ¶31). The Framework is then taken as a material consideration: "Policy L3(4) is clear that development proposals that do not make efficient use of land should be refused" and "there are no exceptional circumstances that indicate that the benefits of the proposal would substantially outweigh the adverse effects" (DL ¶32). Moderate weight to three homes against landscape harm, a TR3 conflict and an L3 conflict.

What made the difference

A council with a five-year supply and a 2023 plan. Without a shortfall, S5(1)(j) depended on evidence of need for this particular product, and a district-wide count of older people's housing did not show it. Type-specific evidence of need for large accessible houses in small villages, or a site within the village's developed footprint, would have been needed; the low density would still have had to be justified.

Transferable points

• Where the council has a five-year supply, S5(1)(j) "evidenced unmet need" must be shown for the type of housing proposed, including its size and location; a numeric district-wide deficit is not enough (DL ¶10, ¶13, ¶22).
• HO7 weight falls to moderate where need is not established (DL ¶28).
• A plan that addresses older people's housing through a general mix policy is not materially inconsistent with the Framework and keeps full weight (DL ¶18).
• HO1 and HO5 are plan-making policies; a rise in local housing need since adoption is a matter for the plan review, not a reason to reduce the plan's weight (DL ¶19).
• L3(2)(b) was applied to an unallocated site outside a settlement, and L3(4) treated as a refusal policy for very low density (DL ¶29, ¶32).
• A bus stop without evidence of frequency does not show a genuine choice of transport modes (DL ¶23).
• A Connectivity Tool score that is good only by comparison with other rural places is still a low score (DL ¶24).
• HO9(1)(a) can count against specialist housing for older people in a poorly connected location even where the accessibility standard is met (DL ¶26-27).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Council has a five-year housing land supply and satisfies the latest Housing Delivery Test; figures not stated (DL 6)
• Central Lincolnshire Local Plan adopted 2023; Glentham is a small village in its settlement hierarchy, where growth beyond allocations is limited to sites within the developed footprint (DL 6-8)
• Site adjoins the Sunnyside houses and would extend the village west along the A631, beyond its continuous built form (DL 4, 8)
• Appellant's specialist housing report shows a numeric deficit for market age-exclusive and sheltered accommodation in West Lindsey, not broken down by size, location or quality (DL 9-10)
• Village has a small shop, a public house and a few other services; health care, schools and supermarkets are in Market Rasen or elsewhere (DL 23, 25)
• Bus stop nearby but no evidence of frequency (DL 23)
• Connectivity Tool score particularly low, although positive against other local sites and rural villages (DL 24)
• Appellant's point that local housing requirements have risen since adoption was treated as a matter for the plan review; Annex A paragraph 3 is not cited (DL 19)
• Parties had the opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework, published after the Council's decision (DL 17)
• The same inspector applied the same L3 reasoning on the same day at Brigsley (PINS-6009363)

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.