Land adjacent to Waterloo Court Health and Wellbeing Hub, Waterloo Cross, Uffculme

Decision

dismissed, 23 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: C Cooper-Young

Authority

Mid Devon (South West)

Appeal reference

6011431

Application reference

26/00151/PIP

Procedure

written representations

Development

Permission in principle for up to 3 dwellings

Homes

3

Site context

open countryside, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

2.4 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1), TR3, CC2

Development plan policies

Mid Devon Local Plan 2020 S1, S2, S3, S13, S14

Main issues

suitability of location

Summary

This was a PiP for up to three homes on a field beside a rural health hub at Waterloo Cross, about 2 km from Uffculme. The council could show only 2.4 years' supply. The site was not isolated, but it was outside any settlement. The inspector applied S5's "substantially outweighed" test without identifying which S5(1) category, if any, applied. Car dependence under TR3 and CC2 was given substantial weight and outweighed the limited housing benefit.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The parties were consulted "in the interest of natural justice" (DL ¶4).
• Not isolated. The site is next to a health hub, pub, residential caravan park, dwellings, farm buildings and a garden centre café, "Accordingly, I find the appeal site is not isolated" (DL ¶8), despite LP S14 text treating anywhere outside a boundary as isolated (DL ¶7).
• Station, S5(1)(h): FAIL. "Tiverton Railway Station is not within a reasonable walking distance ... there are no pedestrian footways between the appeal site and the station. The proposal is therefore not physically well-related to the station" (DL ¶10).
• Walking, TR3: FAIL. The PROW "provides more of a recreational pedestrian link through unlit and unpaved fields and country lanes, rather than a direct or formalised route" (DL ¶11). "Although there is a footway along the B3181 to Uffculme, much of this is unlit and vehicular traffic subject to the national speed limit ... I am unconvinced that a walk of approximately 2km ... would be a realistic or attractive alternative" (DL ¶12).
• Buses. "I have no substantive evidence relating to the timetables, or frequency ... I cannot be certain that public transport would be a realistic alternative" (DL ¶13).
• Cycling, short car trips and lifestyle. Cycling got limited weight (DL ¶15). "Whilst services and facilities may be reached by relatively short car journeys, this does not negate the fact that future occupiers would remain heavily dependent on the private car" (DL ¶16). EVs and homeworking "are not persuasive factors" (DL ¶17).

Planning balance

This was the S5 balance (DL ¶22). The benefits were up to 3 homes against a 2.4-year supply, with small economic and social gains, "at most attract limited weight" given "a potential only one dwelling may be provided" (DL ¶23). "future occupiers would be reliant on the private motor vehicle ... contrary to Framework policy TR3 and CC2 to which I attribute substantial weight. As a result, the adverse effects ... substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶24).

What made the difference

The quality of the walking route and the absence of bus evidence. A 2 km walk was not in itself decisive. Unlit national-speed road footway, a field-path alternative and no timetable data together meant no genuine choice. The inspector did not test S5(1)(j), although supply was 2.4 years. Being physically well-related to an existing settlement was plainly not arguable at 2 km from Uffculme. An appellant here would need timetable evidence and a lit, continuous route.

Transferable points

• "Not isolated" (S5(3)) does not mean sustainable. A cluster of non-residential uses can defeat isolation without supplying day-to-day services (DL ¶8-9).
• A footway that is unlit beside national-speed traffic, over about 2 km, is not a realistic walking route (DL ¶12). A PROW across fields is recreational, not a service route (DL ¶11).
• Without timetable and frequency evidence, nearby bus stops carry no weight (DL ¶13).
• Short car journeys still count as car dependence (DL ¶16). EVs and homeworking do not make a location sustainable (DL ¶17).
• TR3 and CC2 conflict got substantial weight and, against a 2.4-year supply, substantially outweighed three homes (DL ¶24).
• In PiP appeals where "up to" a number of homes is proposed, the inspector may weigh the minimum (one) (DL ¶23).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Council supply 2.4 years (DL 21)
• Uffculme about 2km; B3181 footway largely unlit with traffic at national speed limit; PROW alternative across unlit, unpaved fields (DL 11-12)
• No bus timetable or frequency evidence despite nearby stops (DL 13)

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.