- Decision
- dismissed, 23 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: J Hills
- Authority
- Mid Devon (South West)
- Appeal reference
- 6012985
- Application reference
- 26/00300/PIP
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Permission in principle for one dwelling (intended self-build)
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- open countryside, rural lane
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(1)(e), S5(1)(j), S5(3), HO11, S5(4)
- Development plan policies
- Mid Devon Local Plan 2020 S1, S3, S13, S14, DM6
- Main issues
- suitability of location
Summary
A PiP for one dwelling on a lane about 400 m from Morchard Bishop, near a scattered linear group. It was dismissed. The council lacked a 5YHLS. The site was neither limited infilling (S5(1)(e)) nor physically well-related to the settlement (S5(1)(j)), and no HO11 circumstance applied. The inspector therefore used S5(4)'s reversed test. Substantial weight to housing (HO7) did not substantially outweigh the substantial-weight harm to sustainable movement.
Issues and findings
- Transition. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶5).
- Well-related? NO. The site "is said to be about 400m away from Morchard Bishop ... While near a scattered group of dwellings that extends in a linear form away from the settlement, there are notable verdant gaps along this route ... Such characteristics lead to a physical separation" (DL ¶9). "the physical and functional separation means the appeal site is not well-related to Morchard Bishop" (DL ¶12).
- Infill? NO. "Although properties line the lane adjacent to the appeal site, there are no nearby houses either side of it. Therefore, a new dwelling here could not reasonably be considered a natural infilling" (DL ¶10).
- Isolation. "the proximity of other nearby properties means that there is no overriding sense of isolation. That is not to say however that the appeal site is not isolated from Morchard Bishop in the terms set out in the LP and Framework" (DL ¶10). The LP definition of isolated as anywhere outside a settlement was found "consistent with the Framework" (DL ¶7). Compare PINS-6011431 (same council), where a similar LP gloss was not followed.
- Access: FAIL. "There is a bus stop ... that I am told provides a service every other hour ... future occupiers would still need to navigate a narrow lane that lacks any pavement. During my visit I had to move to the grass verge on several occasions ... I did observe some street lighting" (DL ¶11). "It took me over 10 minutes to walk from the appeal site to the village pub ... given the steep hill, be a challenge for some" (DL ¶12).
Planning balance
S5(4): "Part 4 of S5 says that proposals that do not fall into such categories should only be approved in exceptional circumstances ... I attach substantial weight to the harm identified in respect of patterns of movement" (DL ¶18). Benefits: HO7 substantial weight given the evidenced unmet need (DL ¶19), self-build moderate because it could not be secured at PiP stage (DL ¶20), and economic benefits limited (DL ¶21). "the benefits of the proposal do not substantially outweigh the adverse effects" (DL ¶22).
What made the difference
Physical separation. Green gaps along the lane and a steep hill broke the link to the village. The lack of houses on either side of the plot defeated infill. That moved the case from the benefits-favouring S5(1) test to the harm-favouring S5(4) test. There, even substantial HO7 weight could not win against substantial weight on movement.
Transferable points
- S5(1)(e) needs houses on both sides of the plot along the frontage. Being near a scattered linear group is not enough (DL ¶10).
- Verdant gaps in a ribbon of houses and a steep gradient break the "physically well-related" link for S5(1)(j), even at about 400 m (DL ¶9, 12).
- A site can lack an "overriding sense of isolation" yet still be isolated from the settlement for S5(3)/HO11 purposes (DL ¶10). Inspectors differ here; compare PINS-6011431.
- A bus every other hour does not overcome a pavement-less lane and a steep hill (DL ¶11-12).
- Under S5(4), substantial HO7 weight versus substantial movement harm is not "substantially outweighing" (DL ¶18-22).
- Self-build cannot be secured at PiP stage, so it gets moderate weight only (DL ¶8, 20).
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)(e) | fail | no houses immediately either side along the lane - "could not reasonably be considered a natural infilling" (DL 10, 18) | |
| S5(1)(j) | fail | no 5YHLS, but about 400m from Morchard Bishop with verdant gaps and a steep hill - physically and functionally separated, not well related (DL 9, 12, 17-18) | |
| S5(3) | conflict | no overriding sense of isolation, but isolated from Morchard Bishop in LP and Framework terms; no HO11 circumstance applies (DL 7, 10, 18) | |
| S5(4) | fail | benefits do not substantially outweigh harm to sustainable patterns of movement (substantial weight) (DL 18-22) | |
| TR3 | fail | substantial | narrow lane without pavement, some lighting, steep hill; walk to pub over 10 minutes; bus every other hour at mid-point (DL 11-12) |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | evidenced unmet need, no 5YHLS; self-build given only moderate weight as not secured at PiP stage (DL 19-20) |
Key facts
- About 400m from Morchard Bishop settlement edge, near a scattered linear group with verdant gaps (DL 9)
- Lane has no pavement; inspector stepped onto verge several times to avoid vehicles; bus every other hour (DL 11)
- Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply (figure not given) (DL 17)
Related decisions
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.