- Decision
- dismissed, 2 October 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: S Simms
- Authority
- South Cambridgeshire (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6011365
- Application reference
- 26/01207/PIP
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Permission in principle for up to seven self-build and custom-build dwellings on a field north of the village
- Homes
- 7
- Site context
- open countryside, settlement edge, agricultural land BMV, rural lane
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(1)(j)(i), DP3, CC2
- Development plan policies
- South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 S/2, S/7, HQ/1, NH/2, NH/3
- Main issues
- accessibility of services; character and appearance; best and most versatile agricultural land
Summary
Permission in principle for up to seven self-build homes on a field just north of Fowlmere's development framework. The inspector found future residents would depend on the car, that building in the gap between the village and outlying houses would be inherently harmful, and that best and most versatile land would be lost. The self-build need was undisputed but got only moderate weight because technical details consent was uncertain. Under S5 the harms substantially outweighed the benefits, and the site was not suitably related to the settlement. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "I invited the main parties to comment on any implications of these for their cases and took their responses into account in reaching my decision" (DL ¶4).
- Accessibility: FAIL (CC2; TR3 not named). "the first 100m of the road to it lacks a footway" (DL ¶6). "the village has no shops and a poor bus service, limiting the advantage obtained" (DL ¶8). "I am satisfied that future residents would be likely to depend on the car for access to most services and facilities" (DL ¶10).
- Character: CONFLICT. "I am satisfied that the impact of developing this site would be inherently harmful, so that design and landscaping could only reduce harm to character and appearance" (DL ¶13).
- DP3. "Policy DP3 of the Framework requires proposals to be refused if they would not respond to their context, integrate with and enhance their surroundings" (DL ¶24). "I attach substantial weight to this conflict" (DL ¶24).
- Self-build weight: moderate. "it is not certain that TDC would ultimately be granted and that the proposal would therefore contribute to meeting that need. Consequently, I attach only moderate weight to this consideration" (DL ¶25).
- S5(1)(j): FAIL. "I have also found that the proposal would not be suitably related to a settlement and its need for access to services and facilities could not be accommodated by available infrastructure" (DL ¶28).
- Plan weight (Annex A ¶2). "in the context of this appeal, SCLP Policies S/2, S/7, HQ/1 and NH/2 are not materially inconsistent with the Framework and so should continue to be afforded significant weight" (DL ¶29).
Planning balance
S5(1) "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶22, ¶28). Harms: location (CC2, significant), character (DP3, substantial), agricultural land (N2, moderate). Benefits: self-build homes (HO7, moderate), economic (modest). "The unsuitable location, likely harm to character and appearance and loss of agricultural land would substantially outweigh the benefits, despite the shortfall in self- and custom-build serviced plots" (DL ¶28). The letter runs the S5(1) balance before finding the (j) criteria unmet, and does not cite S5(4) or S5(2).
What made the difference
A village with no shop and a poor bus service, a first 100 m with no footway, and a site that sits in a gap beyond the village, not within it. The inspector distinguished an allowed PIP in the same district because that site "infilled a frontage gap within the village" (DL ¶12). A footway and bus stop were offered, but better infrastructure to a village with few services gained little.
Transferable points
- Offering a footway and bus stop does little where the destination village has no shop and a poor bus service (DL ¶8).
- A railway station "within cycling distance" does not help without evidence of service frequency and where the route is at the national speed limit and crosses a main road (DL ¶9).
- At PIP stage, landscape harm that is "inherently harmful" cannot be left to technical details (DL ¶13).
- PIP self-build weight was cut from substantial to moderate because technical details consent, and so delivery, is uncertain (DL ¶25).
- Countryside, design and location policies were kept at significant weight under Annex A ¶2 "in the context of this appeal", where the scheme met no S5(1) category (DL ¶29).
- Location harm was weighed under CC2, not TR3 (DL ¶23).
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(1)(j)(i) | fail | S5(1)(j) paraphrased at DL 22; "the proposal would not be suitably related to a settlement and its need for access to services and facilities could not be accommodated by available infrastructure" (DL 28); site detached from the village across a gap | |
| S5(1) | fail | unsuitable location, character harm and loss of agricultural land "would substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL 28); S5(4) not cited | |
| CC2 | conflict | significant | location would not support sustainable patterns of movement or good access to facilities; future residents likely to depend on the car; TR3 not named (DL 10, 23) |
| DP3 | conflict | substantial | letter says DP3 "requires proposals to be refused if they would not respond to their context"; the "without clear justification" qualifier is not mentioned and S5(2) is not cited; closing the gap is "inherently harmful" (DL 13, 24) |
| HO7 | benefit | moderate | substantial weight for homes including self-build acknowledged, but cut to moderate because it is not certain that technical details consent would be granted (DL 25) |
| N2 | conflict | moderate | Grade 2 or 3a land not farmed for at least 60 years; N2 read as requiring poorer-quality land if significant development of agricultural land is necessary; contiguity and necessity uncertain (DL 15-18, 27) |
| Transitional(2) | accord | significant | "in the context of this appeal" local policies S/2, S/7, HQ/1 and NH/2 "are not materially inconsistent with the Framework"; NH/3 "less consistent" as it does not consider the significance of development (DL 29) |
Key facts
- Village centre about 600 m away with bus stops, pub, church, primary school and business park; the first 100 m of the road has no footway; 30 mph outside the site, 20 mph in the village (DL 6)
- Nearest shop about 2.5 km (Thriplow); doctor and pharmacies about 5 km (Melbourn); cafe 300 m north with no footway and national speed limit (DL 7)
- Limited daytime bus to Cambridge and Royston; stations at Shepreth and Foxton 3.3 km and 3.7 km with no footway; no evidence of rail frequency or journey times (DL 8-9)
- Footway extension and a bus stop offered for the technical details stage, but "the village has no shops and a poor bus service, limiting the advantage obtained" (DL 8)
- Self-build register 1,110 against 533 permissions (appellant's figures, need not disputed) (DL 19)
- Self-build could be secured by an obligation at technical details stage because of the description of development (DL 20)
- Housing land supply figure not stated; latest Housing Delivery Test results noted (DL 4)
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.