Land adjacent to 16 Mill Road, Fen Drayton

Decision

dismissed, 15 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: S Simms

Authority

South Cambridgeshire (East of England)

Appeal reference

6011872

Application reference

26/01273/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Self-build bungalow on subdivided smallholding plot in the Fen Drayton Former Land Settlement Association Estate

Homes

1

Site context

open countryside

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

5.5 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(j), CC2, DP3, HO7

Development plan policies

South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 S/2, S/7, H/5, HQ/1, TI/2, CC/1, CC/3, CC/4

Main issues

accessibility of services; sustainable living; character and appearance

Summary

The proposal was a self-build bungalow on a subdivided smallholding plot in the Fen Drayton former LSA estate, west of the village. The appeal was dismissed. Greater Cambridge had a 5.5-5.6-year supply, but the inspector treated the 456-plot self-build shortfall as the "evidenced unmet need" route into S5(1)(j). The scheme then failed (j)'s locational limbs. Most services were reachable only by car or bike, and plot subdivision harmed the estate's spacious smallholding character. CC2 conflict got significant weight, design conflict substantial weight, and the uncertain self-build benefit moderate weight.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The parties were invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework and the 2025 HDT (DL ¶3).
• Accessibility: FAIL. "A school, village hall and recreation ground are near the village boundary about 600m away, with a pub and church about 1.0km and 1.2km away ... The nearest shops are a mile or so away in ... Fenstanton" (DL ¶6). "The road fronting the site has footways as far as both villages, but the cycleway to Fen Drayton and lighting to Fenstanton are discontinuous. Village bus stops are realistically accessible only by cycle, and I have no evidence as to frequencies" (DL ¶7). "future residents would be likely to depend on the car for access to most services and facilities" (DL ¶8).
• Character, DP3: FAIL. The scheme "would not be in open countryside, nor would it read as rounding off a village or cluster of buildings. Rather, it would subdivide plots, reduce spacing and intensify both built form and residential use" (DL ¶15).
• Housing supply. "Greater Cambridge has 5.5-5.6 years' supply" (DL ¶18). Self-build: "There is a shortfall of 456 serviced self-build or custom build plots against demand for 843 ... This is an important material consideration" (DL ¶19).

Planning balance

The inspector framed S5 as requiring approval of development "which would address an evidenced unmet need ... if it is physically well-related to a settlement and of a scale that can be accommodated" (DL ¶22). Against the scheme: CC2 conflict, significant weight (DL ¶23), and DP3 conflict, substantial weight (DL ¶24). For it: HO7 self-build, moderate weight, because a one-year marketing obligation "offers no certainty it would be delivered" (DL ¶21, 25). "The unsuitable location and harm to character and appearance would substantially outweigh the benefits ... Furthermore, I have also found that the proposal would not be suitably related to a settlement and that its need for access to services and facilities could not be accommodated by available infrastructure" (DL ¶26). The local policies were not materially inconsistent with the Framework and kept significant weight (DL ¶27).

What made the difference

With a five-year supply shown, the only "unmet need" was self-build. That need carried only moderate weight because the UU gave weak assurance of delivery. The site sits about 600 m to 1.2 km from limited village services, with gaps in cycleway and lighting. It was not "physically well-related", and the inspector folded access to services into the (j)(i) infrastructure test. A plot within the village framework, or a stronger self-build obligation, would have been needed.

Transferable points

• A self-build shortfall can be an "evidenced unmet need" for S5(1)(j) even where 5YHLS is shown (DL ¶19, 22).
• A one-year marketing-to-register UU gives only moderate HO7 weight for self-build (DL ¶20-21, 25).
• The (j)(i) "infrastructure" limb was read to include access to services and facilities (DL ¶26). PINS-6009303 (South Cambridgeshire) reads it the same way.
• Footways alone do not make a location sustainable where the cycleway and lighting are discontinuous and bus frequency is unevidenced (DL ¶7-8).
• DP3 conflict from subdividing a sparsely developed plot, not "rounding off", attracted substantial weight (DL ¶15, 24).
• Local spatial policies restricting countryside housing were "not materially inconsistent" with the 2026 Framework (DL ¶27).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Greater Cambridge supply 5.5-5.6 years; no evidence of under-delivery (DL 18)
• Self-build shortfall of 456 serviced plots against demand for 843 (DL 19)
• UU submitted only at final comments and missing its plan; still accepted as enforceable (DL 4, 20)

Related decisions

• PINS-6009303

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.