C · Tier cited in support, beside route or transport evidence
larger village
“Pitstone is identified as a larger village within the settlement hierarchy and is”
“The surrounding area also benefits from extensive footway provision, street lighting and relatively gentle topography, making active travel a realistic option for future occupiers.”
A single dwelling on a field at the edge of Pitstone, outside the neighbourhood plan settlement boundary. The inspector found the location acceptable. With a 3.73-year supply the site was physically well-related to the village and passed TR3, so the scheme drew support from S5(1)(j)(i). The spatial-strategy conflict got only limited weight. The appeal was still dismissed, because no executed obligation secured Chilterns Beechwoods SAC mitigation. That meant N6 and the Habitats Regulations were determinative.
Tier recited as "a relatively sustainable location" (¶17), then a route analysis at ¶20 (footways, street lighting, gentle topography, regular buses) found accordance with TR3 (¶21); dismissed on other grounds (unexecuted SAC obligation). In the register this counts as a case where the tier was cited in support of the scheme beside route or transport evidence.
Decision on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service · full decision note · letter pins-corpus/6010848.txt