# 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 (years):** 2.4 - **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 - **Tags:** PIP, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, housing-shortfall, not-isolated, substantially-outweighed, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, s5-limb-not-identified ## 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 - **S5(1): fail.** outside any settlement; no S5(1) limb identified; adverse effects under TR3/CC2 substantially outweigh limited benefits (DL 22-24) - **TR3: fail (substantial weight).** Uffculme about 2km via unlit PROW across fields or unlit B3181 footway at national speed limit; no bus timetable evidence; heavy car reliance (DL 9-16, 24) - **CC2: fail (substantial weight).** sustainable patterns of movement not prioritised (DL 24) - **S5(1)(h): fail.** Tiverton Parkway station not within reasonable walking distance, no footways, not physically well related (DL 10) - **S5(3): not-engaged.** not isolated - next to health hub, pub, caravan park, dwellings, garden centre; LP text treating everything outside boundaries as isolated not followed (DL 7-8) - **HO7: benefit (limited weight).** at most limited weight - up to 3 homes, possibly only one (DL 23) ## 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 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011431 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/9aa08ddf-ad70-4950-a0de-ab76c0db4d73 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011431.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.