# Wayside Farm, Lower Road, Hough-on-the-Hill (three dwellings, outline) - **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: D Harris-Watkins - **Authority:** South Kesteven (East Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011585 - **Application reference:** S25/1903 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Outline permission (access only) for three dwellings on a paddock identified as an Important Open Space in the Hough-on-the-Hill Conservation Area - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** conservation-area, settlement-edge, open-countryside - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), DP3(3), S5(2), S5 - **Development plan policies:** South Kesteven Local Plan 2020 EN6, DE1, SP2, SP3, SP4, Hough on the Hill Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2026 HoH3, HoH6, HoH10, Hough-on-the-Hill CA Appraisal and Management Plan 2014 - **Main issues:** character and appearance and the CA, location against the spatial strategy - **Tags:** conservation-area, heritage-harm-decisive, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, dp3-refuse-trigger, s5-2-refusal-policy, substantially-outweighed, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Three dwellings on a paddock that the conservation area appraisal names as an Important Open Space in Hough-on-the-Hill, a village of dispersed farmsteads. The inspector found harm at the lower end of the spectrum but of considerable importance and weight, not outweighed by moderate housing benefits. The design conflict was treated as a DP3(3) refusal circumstance under S5(2), and the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties have been invited to comment on the relevance of the Framework to the appeal" (DL ¶5). - **Harm.** The scheme "would consolidate the dispersed pattern of development. This would harmfully reduce the legibility of the historic settlement pattern of the village, which forms part of the CA's significance" (DL ¶11). - **Degree and weight.** "the harm would be towards the lower end of the spectrum of harm, but nonetheless of considerable importance and weight" (DL ¶16). - **HE6: FAIL.** "Consequently, the proposal fails to accord with policy HE6 of the Framework" (DL ¶20). - **Settlement.** "The appeal site is primarily surrounded by grass paddocks and open space, as a result I do not find it is located within the settlement" (DL ¶35). - **DP3(3).** "Proposals that fail to do this without clear justification must be refused" (DL ¶38). No separate finding on justification. ## Planning balance S5 (outside a settlement), with S5(2) set out (DL ¶37). "Even when taken together, I find the benefits of approving the development proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶38). The letter does not decide whether S5(1)(j) was met, though it notes the lack of a five-year supply (DL ¶36). ## What made the difference The site's listing as an Important Open Space, and a village whose significance lies in the gaps between farmsteads. ## Transferable points - Loss of an appraisal-identified open space in a dispersed village is harm to CA significance even with gaps retained (DL ¶10-11). - Harm "towards the lower end of the spectrum" still carries considerable importance and weight and outweighed three homes (DL ¶16-20). - A site ringed by paddocks at the edge of a village can be outside the settlement (DL ¶35). ## Policy findings - **HE5(2): harm.** degree identified - harm towards the lower end of the spectrum; loss of an Important Open Space consolidates the dispersed historic settlement pattern (DL 11-16) - **HE6(4): fail.** considerable importance and weight to harm, substantial weight to conservation; housing moderate, other benefits limited (DL 16-20) - **DP3(3): fail.** fails to respond to context; "without clear justification must be refused" quoted, no separate justification finding; routed through S5(2) (DL 37-38) - **S5: fail.** site outside the settlement; (j) unmet need noted (no five-year supply) but not resolved; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 35-38) - **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** moderate weight for three homes given scale; HO7 not named, 2024-style "significantly boosting" framing (DL 17) - **LP SP2, SP3, SP4 (local): conflict.** not infill in a built-up frontage, mostly not PDL, no substantial community support; counted in the plan-led conclusion with no Annex A(2) check (DL 22-29, 34) ## Key facts - Site agreed to be an Important Open Space in the CA appraisal (DL 10) - Only a small corrugated building and rubble on site; mostly paddock, so not PDL (DL 24) - Nine supporters at a parish meeting; Parish Council neutral (DL 25-26) - Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply (figure not stated) (DL 27, 36) - Parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 5) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011585 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f23c32f4-6632-494a-9c80-6e3e71c0fd55 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011585.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.