A · The shorthand applied wrongly: tier treated as the answer, no route sentence
settlement hierarchy (village with services)
“Great Witley is identified in the development plan settlement hierarchy as a village”
There is none. The decision says nothing about the walk, the footway, lighting or the bus service.
Four large detached houses were proposed on an edge-of-village field at Great Witley, which already had permission in principle for up to nine dwellings. The appeal was dismissed because the scheme's very low density (about 4 dwellings per acre) failed the new Framework's efficient-use-of-land policy L3. L3(4) says such proposals "should be refused". It is the first decision found that refuses housing for under-using land under L3.
Tier → "therefore reasonably accessible to the village’s services" with no route analysis; dismissed on other grounds. In the register this counts as a case where the tier was treated as the answer on location and the decision contains no route sentence, the shorthand this piece is about.
Decision on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service · full decision note · letter pins-corpus/6010196.txt