- Decision
- refused, 8 September 2026
- Decided by
- Council planning committee: WNC Planning Committee, 3 Sep 2026 (case officer Nathan Lowde)
- Authority
- West Northamptonshire (East Midlands)
- Application reference
- WNS/2022/0673/MAF
- Procedure
- committee
- Development
- 58 dwellings (29 affordable, 50%) with access, parking and landscaping
- Homes
- 58
- Site context
- open countryside, settlement edge, conservation area
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 4.3 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(1)(j), S5(2), HE6(4), DP3, N6(1)(a), S6
- Development plan policies
- West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2014 S1, S3, R1, BN5, South Northamptonshire Local Plan Part 2 SS1, SS2, LH1, HE1, HE6, Kislingbury Neighbourhood Plan 2017
- Main issues
- S5(1)(j) with a shortfall; countryside encroachment; conservation area setting; design; SPA; noise
Summary
58 homes (half of them affordable) on farmland at the eastern edge of Kislingbury, where West Northamptonshire has a supply shortfall of about 0.7 years. Officers accepted that the scheme met S5(1)(j): unmet need, physically well related to a service village, proportionate scale. They still recommended refusal because a stack of harms substantially outweighed the benefits: countryside encroachment, conservation area setting harm, poor design, SPA uncertainty and farm noise. The committee refused on 3 Sep and the notice was issued on 8 Sep.
Issues and findings
- S5(1)(j): PASS. "notwithstanding its location beyond the settlement boundary, the site occupies a sustainable location for residential development … the scale of development proposed is proportionate … The proposal therefore is broadly compliance to Policy S5 of the NPPF, in so far as subparagraph 1j" (Report ¶8.48 to 8.50).
- Supply. "it is accepted that the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land, albeit that shortfall is relatively modest (approximately 0.7 of a year) … in light of Annex A the policies most important for determining the application are out-of-date" (¶8.13).
- Neighbourhood plan, S6: very limited weight. "very limited weight is attributed to this conflict given that the Neighbourhood Plan was made in 2017 and is now more than five years old" (¶8.30).
- Heritage, HE6: HARM. "the proposal would cause harm, at a moderate level, to the setting and significance of a designated heritage asset, which is not outweighed by public benefits" (Notice RfR 1). "Whilst moderate in scale, this harm attracts considerable importance and weight" (¶9.7).
- SPA. "the failure to provide an appropriate assessment … attracts substantial weight against the proposal. Indeed, Policy N61(a) states that application should be refused when the impact … upon a site of international importance has not been appropriate assessed" (¶9.8). This appears to mean N6(1)(a).
Planning balance
S5(1): approve unless substantially outweighed. For: significant weight to 58 homes and 29 affordable, plus economic benefits and CIL. Against: significant weight each to encroachment, design and noise; considerable weight to conservation area harm; substantial weight to SPA uncertainty; moderate weight to the missing health impact assessment and weak viability evidence. Conclusion: "the proposal would also result in significant and demonstrable harm" (¶10.1). That phrase is the old tilted-balance language, not S5's "substantially outweighed".
What made the difference
Several independent harms, one of which (the missing HRA evidence) falls within S5(2)'s "national policies which state that development proposals should be refused". Meeting S5(1)(j) got the scheme into the presumption, but did not survive five separate harms.
Transferable points
- A site can pass S5(1)(j) and still fail the S5(1) balance. Officers treated (j) as a gateway, not an approval.
- Neighbourhood plans made more than five years ago lose S6 protection, and their conflicts get "very limited weight" (¶8.30).
- An HRA/SPA information gap is used as an S5(2) refusal-policy route.
- Drafting slips: the countryside reason cites "Policy L1" (plan-making); the SPA policy is written "N61(a)"; and the balance uses 2024 "significant and demonstrable" wording.
- Caution: the AI summary on opencouncil.network recorded this item as approved and as an overturn of an approval recommendation. Both are wrong. Always check the primary notice.
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)(j) | pass | supply shortfall of about 0.7 years; the site adjoins Kislingbury (Secondary Service Village A) with a school, shop, pubs and a regular bus to Northampton; scale proportionate. "broadly compliance to Policy S5 … in so far as subparagraph 1j" | |
| S6 | not-engaged | very-limited | the 2017 neighbourhood plan is more than five years old, so its boundary and allocation conflict gets very limited weight |
| HE6(4) | harm | considerable | moderate less than substantial harm to the setting of Kislingbury Conservation Area (loss of rural context and outward views), not outweighed by public benefits |
| DP3 | fail | significant | generic suburban layout; terrace of plots 5 to 13 forms a hard urban edge with no transition to countryside |
| N6(1)(a) | fail | substantial | no wintering-bird surveys for functionally linked land to the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA, so an appropriate assessment cannot be done |
| L1 | fail | significant | countryside encroachment beyond the Beech Lane edge and loss of a gap towards Northampton. The notice cites "Policy L1 of the NPPF", a plan-making policy (effective use of land), for a countryside-character reason. |
| P3 | fail | significant | grain-drying noise from Hall Farm; relying on closed windows and mechanical ventilation is unacceptable |
Key facts
- The application dates from April 2022 and was decided in September 2026 under the new Framework
- WNC supply shortfall of about 0.7 years (April 2026 assessment); officers dispute the Brackley appeal Inspector's split-area supply method
- 240 objections plus a petition; the parish council objected
- 50% affordable, but not shown to meet an identified Kislingbury need, so not an exception site
- Officer recommendation was refuse, and the committee refused (issued 8 Sep 2026). The opencouncil.network AI summary wrongly records this as approved or as an overturn.
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.