DP3(3) design conflict

Appeal 6007927 · Hackney · Appeal · 2 Oct 2026

• DP3(1) conflict double-height and one-and-a-half-storey glazed doors on the rear elevation would be "obtrusive and inharmonious", at odds with the smaller windows along the terrace and visible from two streets (DL 9-12, 15)
• DP3(3) fail DP3 stated as refuse "if, without clear justification, they do not do this"; the claimed benefits could be achieved without causing the harm, so no justification (DL 15-16)

A rear extension with large double-height glazed doors to a Victorian terrace house in Hackney, next to a locally listed house. The inspector found the glazing obtrusive and harmful to the terrace and to the setting of the non-designated heritage asset. The S4 balance was run with DP3's refusal limb and HE7: the modest benefits could be achieved without the harm and were clearly and substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008679 · Thurrock · Appeal · 2 Oct 2026 · 5 homes

• DP3(1) conflict cul-de-sac deep into the plot harms the linear pattern of this part of Fobbing and suburbanises a rural, verdant setting; "significant harm to the character of the area"; substantial weight to the harm; houses themselves well designed (DL 20-23, 42)
• DP3(3) fail quoted - refuse "if, without clear justification, they conflict with DP3(1)"; no separate finding on justification (DL 45-46)

Five houses on a cul-de-sac in the long rear garden of a house on High Road, Fobbing, in the Green Belt. The site was accepted as grey belt, the supply was 1.02 years, and the location passed the sustainable location limb on well-lit footways and a bus stop 100 m away. So the scheme was not inappropriate. It was still dismissed: building in depth behind a linear frontage caused significant harm to character, in conflict with DP3(1). DP3(3) made that a "should be refused" policy under S5(2), and the harm substantially outweighed five homes given substantial weight.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009245 · Harborough · Appeal · 2 Oct 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(1) conflict fails to respond to context; also conflict with the built form and identity principles in DP3(2) (DL 17)
• DP3(3) fail DP3(3) quoted with its clear-justification qualifier and applied as a refusal policy; no separate finding on justification (DL 17-18)

A replacement dwelling in the Bushby Conservation Area was dismissed on an appeal planning officer's recommendation. The new house would dilute the spacious plot pattern and appear overtly contemporary and dominant, harming the conservation area. With no net gain in homes, the public benefits did not outweigh that harm under HE6(4). The design conflict with DP3(1) and (2) was then run as a "should be refused" policy through S4, and the benefits were substantially outweighed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009769 · Medway · Appeal · 2 Oct 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(3) fail DP3 stated as refuse "if, without clear justification, they do not respond to their context"; tight, congested layout at odds with the open estate; no justification finding made (DL 20-24, 38)

A self-build bungalow on a small grassed amenity space in a Gillingham housing estate. The inspector held that HC7 protects the space unless an assessment clearly shows it is surplus, which nothing did. Because the whole space would be lost, the adverse impact was "substantial", engaging S4(2)(a)(ii). With a cramped layout that also engaged DP3's refusal limb, the modest benefit of one home against a 3.1-year supply was substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010305 · North Somerset · Appeal · 2 Oct 2026

• DP3(1) conflict letter says "Policy DP3.1"; replacement elevation not of suitably high quality and poorly related to the upper floors (DL 17, 34)
• DP3(3) fail letter says "Policy DP3.3"; paraphrased as substantial weight to compliance with development plan design policies and refusal "where they lack clear justification for non-compliance"; conflict with the Shopfront Design Guide SPD "carries weight"; S4(2)(c) not cited (DL 34)

A vacant shop unit in a busy secondary street next to Weston-super-Mare's Primary Shopping Area was to be absorbed into the dwelling above, with a domestic frontage in place of the shopfront. The inspector found the loss of the unit would harm town centre vitality under local policy, and that the new frontage and the loss of ground-floor commercial use would cause low-end harm to the Great Weston Conservation Area. Public benefits were limited, the harm lacked clear and convincing justification, and under S4 the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011081 · Newham · Appeal · 2 Oct 2026 · 2 homes

• DP3(1) conflict DP3 quoted (respond to context, integrate with and enhance surroundings); two-storey building fills a distinct first-floor break between Barking Road and Aintree Avenue, sits forward of the terrace building line, hipped roof and simplistic fenestration out of keeping (DL 8-12)
• DP3(3) fail letter says "Framework Policy D3 relating to character and appearance that stipulates permission should be refused in such circumstances"; "fundamental conflict"; no clear-justification question asked; S4(2)(c) not cited (DL 28-29)

Two studio flats over a car wash waiting area behind shops on Barking Road, East Ham. The inspector found harm to the Aintree Avenue street scene, poor living conditions for future occupiers and neighbours, and no workable cycle or waste storage. Housing and effective use of land got substantial weight despite the small scale, but the design conflict with DP3 (which the letter calls "D3") was treated as a "should be refused" policy, and under S4 the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010376 · Kingston upon Hull · Appeal · 1 Oct 2026 · 37 homes

• DP3(1) conflict flat-roofed first-floor extension, off-centre dormers and render create a top-heavy, discordant building; harm to the building and the immediate area (DL 8-10, 15, 69)
• DP3(3) fail conflict "without clear justification (as in this case)"; letter calls it "section (2) of Policy DP3" (DL 69)

Conversion and upward extension of a former school building in Hull to 37 student bedrooms was dismissed on design alone. The inspector found against the Council on the loss of a community use, the concentration of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) and neighbours' privacy. But the extensions conflicted with DP3(1) without clear justification, which engaged the S4(2)(c) refusal trigger and outweighed the benefits.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011062 · Wokingham · Appeal · 1 Oct 2026 · 13 homes

• DP3(1) conflict overbearing effect on outlook and loss of privacy for 1 to 5 Remenham Row treated as a failure to respond positively to context (DL 17, 42); substantial weight to the harm (DL 46)
• DP3(3) fail letter says "Criterion 3"; the significant benefits were held not to provide clear justification for the living-conditions harm (DL 43-44)

A three-storey extra-care extension (13 net Class C2 units) at a riverside retirement village in the Green Belt opposite Henley was dismissed. The heritage harm to two conservation areas was limited and was outweighed by substantial public benefits under HE6(4). The appeal failed on living conditions: the overbearing effect and overlooking of 1 to 5 Remenham Row conflicted with DP3, there was no clear justification, and S5(2) then indicated refusal.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6001859 · Southwark · Appeal · 30 Sept 2026

• DP3(1) conflict 2.8 m solid pergola and tall planters conceal the ground-floor frontage, openings at odds with tall windows, awning sits awkwardly under the overhang; incongruous and longstanding (DL 15-17)
• DP3(3) fail explicit step - "the scheme lacks clear justification" (DL 24)

A restaurant on More London Place, Southwark, sought a larger outdoor seating area enclosed by a 2.8 m pergola, glazed screens, planters and an awning. The inspector found no harm to the settings of the Tooley Street Conservation Area or Grade I Tower Bridge, but held that the structure would be incongruous in the cohesive contemporary frontage. That conflict with DP3(1) lacked clear justification, so the S4(2) trigger applied and the modest benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6004363 · Folkestone and Hythe · Appeal · 30 Sept 2026

• DP3(3) fail conflicts with DP3(1) (context, heritage integration) and "no clear justifications for the harm" (DL 28)

A BT Street Hub with two 75-inch digital screens on a pedestrianised Folkestone town-centre pavement, in the setting of the Leas and Bayle Conservation Area. The planning appeal and the joint advert appeal (6004364) were both dismissed. The hub would be prominent and intrusive, causing modest harm to the CA through its setting; connectivity and kiosk-removal benefits were small or limited. The letter runs DP3(3) through S4(2)(c) with an explicit clear-justification finding.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006003 · Kirklees · Appeal · 30 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(1) conflict loss of open gap and trees harms character (DL 17-20, 27)
• DP3(3) fail explicit - "The application does not provide clear justification in this regard" (DL 27, 33)

One dwelling on an open, treed gap in the ribbon of Manchester Road, Linthwaite, in the Green Belt and the Linthwaite Conservation Area. The inspector accepted grey belt and found the scheme not inappropriate under GB7(1)(g). But the loss of the visual break and larger trees caused moderate harm to the conservation area and conflicted with DP3(1) without clear justification. Under S5(5), applying S5(2), the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007352 · Wiltshire · Appeal · 30 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• DP3(1) conflict encroachment into open agricultural land eroding scattered pattern; letter says significant harm at DL 16 and substantial harm at DL 24 (DL 13-16, 24, 29)
• DP3(2)(d) conflict heavily car reliant; short-car-trip argument rejected (DL 29)
• DP3(3) fail paraphrased as proposals should be refused if they conflict with these aspects of DP3; no express clear-justification finding (DL 29)

Up to two self-build homes on a field off New Road, a narrow unlit lane outside Melksham. The unmet need limb of S5(1)(j) was met (2.8-year supply and an unmet self-build register), but the site was not physically well-related to the settlement under S5(1)(j)(i). Under S5(4) the substantial weight to self-build housing did not substantially outweigh the character harm and car dependence. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007677 · Folkestone and Hythe · Appeal · 30 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(1) conflict larger bulky dwelling angled to the road on the field side, domestic curtilage in open field; considerable harm (DL 8) / significant harm (DL 27) (DL 6-8, 27)
• DP3(2)(d) conflict car-dependent dwelling does not prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling or public transport (DL 21, 27)
• DP3(3) fail explicit - no clear justification for the conflict with DP3(1) and (2)(d) (DL 27)

A self-build chalet bungalow replacing a dilapidated concrete store in a field on the Romney Marsh, outside Brenzett. The site qualified under S5(1)(d) as previously developed land, but the house would harm the rural character and be car-dependent, conflicting with DP3(1) and DP3(2)(d). With no clear justification, the S5(2) trigger meant the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008855 · Southend-on-Sea · Appeal · 30 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(1) conflict five-storey appearance, forward siting and bulk dominant and jarringly intrusive against a low-rise street; local policies consistent with DP3 (DL 11-24)
• DP3(3) fail explicit step - benefits would not amount to the clear justification for the harm (DL 44-45)

A cliff-top bungalow in Westcliff-on-Sea was to be replaced by a house that would read as five storeys, sited forward of the building line. The inspector found it dominant and intrusive in a low-rise street and overbearing to neighbouring flats. Both conflicts were tied to Framework policies (DP3(1) and P3), and the benefits were expressly found not to be a clear justification under DP3(3). S4 benefits substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009030 · Cornwall · Appeal · 30 Sept 2026 · 8 homes

• DP3(1) conflict site is one of the landscape gaps between clusters that give the village its verdant, spacious character; significant and enduring harm (DL 13-14, 24, 27)
• DP3(3) fail paraphrased omitting the clear-justification qualifier - proposals conflicting with DP3(1) "should be refused"; "highest possible weight"; no clear-justification question asked (DL 27)

Permission in principle for up to eight affordable homes as a rural exception site at Towan Cross, Cornwall, was dismissed. Towan Cross counted as a settlement and the site was well related to it, but it is one of the green gaps between the village's clusters that give it its character. Building on it would cause significant harm, conflicting with DP3(1), and eight homes likely breached HO10's 5% size limit. Substantial weight to affordable need did not prevent the harm substantially outweighing the benefits under S5(1).

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009407 · Cheshire East · Appeal · 30 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• DP3(1) conflict loss of woodland and a clustered group harm rural character (DL 19-25, 48)
• DP3(2)(c) conflict fails to maintain and enhance tree cover; long-term retention of retained trees not shown (DL 22-24, 48)
• DP3(3) fail "Where such conflict would occur without clear justification, the Framework advises that development proposals should be refused"; applied as an S5(2) circumstance (DL 48, 51)

Three homes on a wooded plot beside the A49 at Spurstow, a scattered roadside hamlet. Dismissed. The location was car-dependent: there is no continuous footway or lighting and no bus within walking distance, and a previous appeal found the same. The loss of woodland harmed rural character, and it was not shown that the retained trees could survive. The inspector accepted S5(1)(j) because the site is physically close to existing development. But the DP3 conflict without clear justification brought S5(2) into play, and the benefits (substantial weight to housing) were substantially outweighed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009649 · Ribble Valley · Appeal · 30 Sept 2026

• DP3(3) fail cited with "without clear justification" wording; not sensitively located (DL 35); no separate justification finding

A farm-diversification food truck and customer parking on a field near Gisburn Forest in the Forest of Bowland National Landscape. Dismissed: parked cars and commercial activity would be an incongruous intrusion in the open pastoral landscape. The principle had S5(1) support, but N4's substantial weight and DP3(3) meant the modest economic benefits were substantially outweighed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011983 · Leeds · Appeal · 30 Sept 2026

• DP3(2) conflict ramped access too steep and narrow for people using mobility aids, contrary to the Accessible Leeds SPD; letter cites DP3(2) generally and the words "function well over the lifetime of the development", which are in DP3(2)(a) (DL 8-11)
• DP3(3) fail DP3(3) quoted with the clear-justification qualifier; conflict with DP3(2) found; no justification because access could be improved without significant prejudice to the business (DL 12-13)

A revised scheme for a raised outdoor seating deck, a smaller canopy and planters at a hospitality unit in Woodlesford was dismissed. The inspector found the appearance acceptable, which resolved the concern behind an earlier dismissed appeal. But the ramped access failed the Council's accessibility standards, which is a conflict with DP3(2). DP3(3) then directed refusal, despite substantial weight to the economic benefits under E2.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006541 · Eastbourne · Appeal · 29 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(1) conflict cramped overdevelopment almost filling the plot, discordant with well-spaced semis (DL 8-10)
• DP3(3) fail DP3(3) set out with the S4(2)(c) trigger (DL 27-28); clear justification not separately assessed

A two-storey one-bedroom house replacing a garage on a small plot in a well-spaced suburban street in Eastbourne. The inspector found it cramped and discordant (DP3(1)) and short of usable garden (P3). With a 1.4-year supply, housing got significant weight, but one unit's benefit was modest. Under S4, with DP3(3) and S4(2)(c) set out, the harm outweighed the benefits. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006725 · Cornwall · Appeal · 29 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(1) conflict overly complex gabled roof and disjointed fenestration at odds with simple roofs and regular openings (DL 8-10)
• DP3(3) fail local design policies generally consistent with DP3; failure to comply with these explicit design standards means DP3(3) says refuse; no separate clear-justification finding (DL 24)

A taller version of a townhouse already allowed on appeal in 2025, adding a roof-space bedroom. The inspector found the gabled roof and mixed windows cluttered and discordant, and the extra height harmed the outlook and light of Atlantic Lodge next door. The design conflict was run through DP3(3) and S4(2)(c), and the modest benefits over the extant permission were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008773 · Buckinghamshire · Appeal · 29 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(3) fail DP3(1) and the refusal direction paraphrased, then applied through the heritage conflict; no express clear-justification finding (DL 29)
• DP3(2)(d) conflict poor connections; no prioritisation of walking, wheeling, cycling, public transport (DL 31-32)

Permission in principle for one house on an open gap in Singleborough, a hamlet with a bus only twice a month and no footway. The site counted as limited infilling under S5(1)(e), and the restrictive spatial strategy got very limited weight. But developing the gap would harm the conservation area and the settings of two listed buildings, and occupiers would be almost wholly car-reliant. Through the S5(2) trigger and TR3, the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008987 · Huntingdonshire · Appeal · 29 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(3) fail large, bulky, overly dominant dwelling at settlement edge conflicts with DP3(1); "I have not found any justification for the design approach"; substantial weight (DL 18-24, 40)

One large detached house on a paddock at the edge of Hamerton, a dispersed village with no services, no pavements and two buses a weekday. The scheme passed S5(1)(j) as spatially well related, and car dependence was given only limited weight. It failed on design: an overly dominant building at the village edge, with no clear justification, so DP3(3) carried substantial weight and the benefits were substantially outweighed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009141 · East Riding of Yorkshire · Appeal · 29 Sept 2026

• DP3(3) fail conflict with DP3 (integrate with surroundings) treated as a refusal policy; routed through "S5(2)" although the site is inside a settlement (S4(2)(c)); no clear-justification words (DL 25)

A BT Street Hub replacing a kiosk and cash machine on a prominent corner of the Bridlington Quay Conservation Area. The inspector graded the harm as low but applied HE6(1) and HE6(3) weight, and found the public benefits, including CO1's substantial weight for connectivity, did not outweigh it. The design conflict was treated as a refusal policy and the S4 benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed, with the linked advertisement appeal.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010207 · Enfield · Appeal · 29 Sept 2026

• DP3(2) fail communal living room has no external window, daylight only through internal partition windows, poor outlook; fails the "liveability" key principle (DL 6-9)
• DP3(3) fail cited as should-be-refused policy for conflict with DP3(2) principles "without clear justification"; no separate justification finding (DL 14)

A small HMO conversion in Edmonton, dismissed on an appeal planning officer's recommendation. The shared living room would have no window of its own, failing DP3(2)'s liveability principle, and one bedroom's escape route would pass through that room. DP3(3) was cited as a "should be refused" policy and S4(2) applied.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010422 · King's Lynn and West Norfolk · Appeal · 29 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(1) conflict set-back siting, oversized garden and close-boarded fence by the PRoW at odds with linear roadside pattern; erodes rural edge; significant harm (DL 13-18, 48)
• DP3(3) fail explicit - conflict with DP3(1) not justified on the evidence; given substantial weight in the S5(4) balance (DL 48)

A self-build house on a field at the edge of Harpley, Norfolk, was dismissed. Self-build need was evidenced and the UU could secure it, so S5(1)(j) was in play, but the character harm and highway danger on a single-track lane made the nature of the development inappropriate there, failing (j)(i). Under S5(4), substantial weight to self-build did not substantially outweigh substantial weight to an unjustified DP3 conflict, considerable weight to TR6(4) safety harm and moderate TR3 harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006117 · Waverley · Appeal · 28 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(1) fail incongruous, urbanising addition harming woodland setting of AGLV (local landscape designation acting as Surrey Hills NL buffer) (DL 5-8, 26)
• DP3(3) fail quotes DP3(3) "should be refused if, without clear justification" (DL 26); "directs refusal" (DL 27); no separate clear-justification finding; letter says no S4(2) situation applies (DL 23) yet relies on DP3 directing refusal

A one-bedroom house on a wooded plot inside Godalming, within an AGLV and beside TPO trees. Waverley has only 1.28 years' supply and the housing benefit attracted substantial weight. The appeal was dismissed on localised woodland-setting harm, a risk to category A trees and harm to neighbours' outlook, with DP3(3) cited as directing refusal and the benefits found substantially outweighed under S4.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008762 · Uttlesford · Appeal · 28 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• DP3(1) conflict wooded gap is a break in built form at a transition to dispersed development; moderate localised harm to character; design itself acceptable (DL 12-17)
• DP3(3) fail "As I have found that the proposal would conflict with paragraph 1. of Policy DP3, the proposal should be refused on this basis. This weighs heavily against the proposal" - clear justification quoted but not separately assessed (DL 39)

Two dwellings on a wooded gap in the hamlet of Howlett End, Uttlesford. The inspector accepted that the scheme was limited infilling within a group of houses under S5(1)(e), but found moderate harm to the hamlet's loose character in conflict with DP3(1), and unproven noise mitigation against the kennels next door. DP3(3) meant the scheme "should be refused", and under S5(2) the moderate housing benefit was substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008840 · King's Lynn and West Norfolk · Appeal · 28 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(1) conflict siting close to the southern boundary loses spaciousness; constrained shared turning and tandem parking at odds with character; tempered by corner position (DL 5-9, 30)
• DP3(3) fail DP3(3) quoted ("should be refused, if without clear justification"); conflict given moderate weight in the S4 balance; clear justification not separately assessed (DL 30)

A self-build bungalow in the side garden of a corner house in Sedgeford, in the Norfolk Coast National Landscape. The dwelling would sit higher than, and alongside, the neighbour's rear garden, overbearing and overlooking it, and the shared turning area would bring vehicle noise next to bedrooms. The self-build status was unsecured. The inspector ran S4, citing S4(2)(a)(ii) (L2(1)(d)) and S4(2)(c) (DP3(3)), and found the limited benefits substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009669 · Preston · Appeal · 28 Sept 2026

• DP3(2)(a) fail five of the terrace's HMOs clustered at Nos 3-8; another HMO worsens the imbalance and cumulative noise and disturbance; conflicts with the DP3 liveability principle (DL 8-13)
• DP3(3) fail failure to comply with DP3 treated as a "should be refused" policy through S4; no clear-justification step (DL 22)

Conversion of a five-bedroom family house in a Grade II listed Preston terrace to a six-bedroom HMO. Five of the terrace's houses, clustered next to the site, are already HMOs. The inspector found a further HMO would worsen the overconcentration and cause cumulative noise and disturbance, conflicting with HS7/AD1 and with DP3's liveability principle. Under S4 that failure meant refusal. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009760 · Milton Keynes · Appeal · 28 Sept 2026

• DP3(2)(a) conflict HMOs within 50 m exceed the SPD's 35% threshold (licensed but unpermitted No 160 counted); loss of family housing and transient occupation harm mix and balance of the community (DL 8-16, 21, 23)
• DP3(3) fail "Development should be refused if without clear justification it conflicts with the principles of Policy DP3" - set out; justification not separately assessed (DL 21)

A six-person HMO in a Milton Keynes terrace, already operating, pushed the local HMO concentration over the SPD's 35% threshold. The inspector found harm to the mix and balance of the community and framed it as a conflict with DP3(2)(a), a "should be refused" principle under DP3(3). The limited benefits were substantially outweighed under S4. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010498 · Cornwall · Appeal · 28 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(1) conflict fails to respond to site history and integrate heritage assets (DL 25)
• DP3(3) fail "should be refused if, without clear justification" - "clearly a very important matter within the overall planning balance"; justification not separately assessed (DL 25)

Permission in principle for one dwelling on a plot in the hamlet of Higher Bal, near St Agnes, inside the Cornwall Mining World Heritage Site and the Cornwall National Landscape. The plot was almost certainly part of a mineworkers' smallholding, an attribute of the site's Outstanding Universal Value. The inspector accepted S5(1)(e) infill, but found WHS harm that very limited benefits could not outweigh, a DP3(1) conflict engaging DP3(3), and some car reliance. The harm substantially outweighed the benefits. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6004873 · Southend-on-Sea · Appeal · 25 Sept 2026

• DP3(1) conflict floor-to-ceiling glazing, vertical emphasis, no stallriser or curved panel; breaks the matched pair with No 38 and the symmetrical facade (DL 6-12, 14)
• DP3(3) fail explicit step - modest economic and vitality benefits "do not ... amount to clear justification" for the harm (DL 27)

A retrospective full-height bi-fold shopfront to a seafront restaurant in Southend replaced a traditional shopfront that formed a matched pair with No 38. The inspector found no harm to the nearby conservation area, the listed fishermen's cottages or the locally listed terrace. But the design conflicted with DP3(1), the modest benefits were not "clear justification", and so under DP3(3) and S4 the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006825 · Waverley · Appeal · 25 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(1) conflict backland dwelling out of keeping with linear, street-fronting pattern; would not integrate with or enhance surroundings; increased density not justified under L2/L3; adverse effect of considerable importance (DL 8, 11-14)
• DP3(3) fail explicit step - no clear justification for the DP3(1) conflict (DL 44)

A single backland dwelling behind a row of street-fronting buildings in Cranleigh, following a dismissed two-dwelling scheme. The inspector found conflict with DP3(1) with no clear justification, overlooking contrary to L2(1)(d)(ii), and failures on trees (N3), biodiversity net gain (N2) and drainage (F8). Substantial weight to one home on a 1.28-year supply was substantially outweighed through S4(2)(c). Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007133 · Wyre · Appeal · 25 Sept 2026

• DP3(1) conflict dense, up to 9 m commercial frontage closes a verdant field gap and views to the Forest of Bowland; significant character harm (DL 16-25, 27)
• DP3(3) fail DP3(3) cited (DL 27); clear justification not found - harm not "necessary to achieve the substantial public benefits" (necessity reading) (DL 59)

Outline permission for up to 9 m commercial and storage units on a 2.44 ha field at Bilsborrow on the A6 was dismissed after a hearing. The inspector accepted, for argument's sake, the appellant's case on unmet employment need and gave the economic benefits substantial E2 weight. But the scheme would close a valued field gap and views to the Forest of Bowland. That DP3(1) conflict had no clear justification because the harm was not necessary to achieve the benefits, so S5(2) applied and S5(1)(j)(i) failed on the "well-related" limb.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007582 · Buckinghamshire · Appeal · 25 Sept 2026 · 28 homes

• DP3(3) fail DP3.1 living-conditions conflict; "should be refused if, without clear justification" cited; no separate clear-justification finding (DL 47-48)

Twenty-eight flats (40% affordable) over flexible commercial space on a former bar site in Beaconsfield New Town. Dismissed because surface-water exceedance flows would be sent into a neighbour's private drainage without evidence of capacity, and because of daylight loss to Elmers Court and privacy loss to The Hollies. The inspector treated F7 and DP3(3) as two "should be refused" policies engaging S4(2)(c), outweighing substantial housing, town-centre and brownfield benefits.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009487 · Luton · Appeal · 25 Sept 2026 · 4 homes

• DP3(1) conflict enlarged roof and dormers break the rhythm of heights and the pairing with No 12; incongruous and unduly prominent (DL 8-10, 41)
• DP3(3) fail explicit - the DP3 conflict has not been clearly justified, so it is a reason to refuse (DL 42)

Raising the roof of a two-storey Luton office building and adding a side extension and dormers to create four flats. The enlarged building would be incongruous in the street, and the flats would be sub-standard in space, privacy and outdoor amenity. The DP3 conflict was not clearly justified, and with the L2(1)(d) failure the benefits were substantially outweighed under S4. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009808 · St Albans · Appeal · 25 Sept 2026 · 4 homes

• DP3(1) conflict rear pair cramped, too close to Chene Mews frontages and forward of their building line; plus living conditions and garden size (DL 17-19, 40)
• DP3(3) fail cited to support substantial weight to the DP3(1) conflict; no separate clear-justification finding (DL 40)

Four houses on the site of a demolished sports and social club in St Albans. Loss of the community use was accepted under HC6, since the club had failed financially. But the rear pair would be cramped and overlook neighbours, the front gardens would be too small, and highway safety was not demonstrated. With DP3(3) cited and a highway conflict under TR3(1)(c), the adverse effects substantially outweighed four homes on a 1.12-year supply. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011227 · South Kesteven · Appeal · 25 Sept 2026 · 6 homes

• DP3(3) fail DP3(3) quoted (arrangement of plots); conflict found; clear justification not separately reasoned (DL 31-32)

Outline housing (six indicated) on a long, narrow garden and paddock plot behind Main Road in the Uffington Conservation Area, refused by committee against officer advice. Dismissed. The inspector split the site under S3(2): the garden section is inside the settlement (S4) and the paddock outside it (S5), where S5(1)(j) was met. But developing the open plot would erode the legible historic linear plan form: low-end harm, of considerable importance and weight, not outweighed by public benefits. With the DP3 context conflict, the benefits were substantially outweighed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011882 · Huntingdonshire · Appeal · 25 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(1) conflict formal Georgian design discordant with varied, informal Greenhill Road; scale and forward garage otherwise acceptable (DL 8-15)
• DP3(3) fail DP3(3) wording set out with S4(2)(c); clear justification not separately assessed (DL 26, 28)

A larger Georgian-style replacement house on the edge of Elton. The site is in Flood Zone 1 but at 1-in-30 surface water risk and susceptible to groundwater, so F4(2)(c) required a site-specific flood risk assessment; none was provided. The formal design was also discordant with the informal street. Both F7 and DP3 were treated as "should be refused" policies under S4(2)(c), and the limited benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011888 · Stafford · Appeal · 25 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(1) conflict doubled floor area and much greater height and massing, tight to boundaries, dark vertical cladding; dominant and incongruous among low-lying properties (DL 11-15, 20)
• DP3(3) fail explicit - no clear justification that would outweigh conflict with design policies; also cites substantial weight to compliance with plan design policies (C5, N1) (DL 24)

Replacing a modest bungalow on Old Acre Lane, Brocton, on the edge of Cannock Chase National Landscape, with a much larger two-storey timber-clad house. The National Landscape would be conserved, but the house would dominate the lane's low-lying side and fail DP3(1). With no clear justification, DP3(3) and S4(2)(c) applied. The replacement added no net dwelling. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6005590 · Islington · Appeal · 24 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• DP3(3) fail no step-free access; conflict with explicit design standards (London Plan D5/D7, SDMP H4); housing (substantial) and affordable contribution (significant) do not amount to clear justification (DL 43-47)

Conversion of basement storage at Highbury Grove Court, Islington, into two flats reached only by steps from a private courtyard. The inspector found only limited living-conditions and information shortfalls, but the lack of step-free access conflicted with explicit accessibility standards in the development plan. Housing (substantial weight) and an affordable contribution (significant) were held not to be the "clear justification" DP3(3) requires (DL ¶46), so the policy directed refusal. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007434 · Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole · Appeal · 24 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• DP3(3) fail conflict with DP3(1) (arrangement of buildings) and DP3(2) liveability, and with plan design standards; DP3(3) quoted but clear justification not separately assessed (DL 33)

A three-storey block of three flats behind a commercial building with flats above, in Broadstone. Rear bedroom windows would face the existing flats at about 9 m and 15.8 m, causing mutual overlooking. With supply at about 2.55 years, housing got substantial weight and L3 efficiency significant weight, but the privacy harm was "substantial and long lasting", engaged DP3(3), P3 and L2(1)(d)(ii), and substantially outweighed the benefits under S4. A commenced two-flat permission was a real fallback but less harmful. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007698 · Sevenoaks · Appeal · 24 Sept 2026

• DP3(1) conflict smooth grey tiles on the extensions would jar with the textured red tiles of the house and its neighbours; brown or red roof tiles are part of the distinctive character recorded in the Residential Character Area Assessment (Character Area C08); fails to respond to context or adhere to a local design standard (DL 9-10, 14)
• DP3(3) fail DP3(3) treated as a national policy stating that proposals should be refused; sporadic grey roofs elsewhere "do not provide justification"; the clear-justification wording is not quoted (DL 11, 14)

A section 73 appeal to roof approved house extensions in smooth grey concrete tiles, where the house and street have red tiles, was dismissed. The mismatch would dilute a consistent roofscape recorded in the Council's character assessment. The inspector found conflict with DP3(1), took that to DP3(3) as a policy directing refusal, and under S4 found the private benefits substantially outweighed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009092 · North Yorkshire · Appeal · 24 Sept 2026

• DP3(3) fail DP3(1) context conflict cited with the refusal direction (fn 10 cites DP3(1) and DP3(3)); no separate clear-justification sentence (DL 41-42)

Replacing two dilapidated curtilage-listed outbuildings behind a Grade II former school in Seamer with a large generic garage and a tarmac yard. The inspector found a low level of harm to the listed building and a very low level to the conservation area. The claimed structural and salvage benefits were unevidenced and the rest were private. The letter walks through HE5(2), HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4) and HE4(2) in order, then S4 with DP3(3). Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009621 · Epping Forest · Appeal · 24 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• DP3(1) conflict cramped subdivision and backland unit 3 at odds with spacious plots (DL 20-24, 40)
• DP3(2)(d) conflict poor connections to nearby settlements; walking, wheeling and cycling not prioritised (DL 40)
• DP3(3) fail DP3 treated as a should-be-refused policy under S5(2); clear justification not separately reasoned (DL 39-41)

Splitting a large house into two and converting outbuildings into a third home on a rural lane in the Epping Forest Green Belt. Dismissed. The site is previously developed land, and the harm to openness was moderate, not substantial, so GB7(1)(e) made the scheme not inappropriate. DM4's stricter "no greater impact" (DL ¶9) test was given very limited weight. Under S5(5), though, the scheme conflicted with DP3(1) (a cramped, backland layout) and with DP3(2)(d) (poor connections to North Weald along unlit lanes without footways). DP3 is a should-be-refused policy, so S5(2) applied and the benefits were substantially outweighed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010157 · Lake District National Park Authority · Appeal · 24 Sept 2026

• DP3(1) conflict assertive, domestic-looking intervention out of keeping with discreet single-storey boathouses (DL 14-16, 24)
• DP3(3) fail DP3(3) set out as a "should be refused" policy under S5(2); weighs strongly against; clear justification not separately assessed (DL 34)

A two-storey boathouse with a glazed day room and balcony on an undeveloped stretch of the Windermere shore at Newby Bridge, in the Lake District National Park and World Heritage Site. The inspector found a high level of harm to the landscape and to the World Heritage Site, largely private benefits, and an inadequate flood risk assessment in Flood Zones 2 and 3. DP3(3) and F7 were both "should be refused" policies under S5(2), and the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011037 · Burnley · Appeal · 24 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(3) fail DP3(1) conflict "in the absence of clear justification", so should be refused; significant adverse factor (DL 30)

A new dwelling built into the stone boundary wall of the garden of a former chapel and burial ground in the Padiham Conservation Area. The inspector found low harm to the conservation area, moderately high harm to the wall as a non-designated heritage asset, and moderate harm to the outlook of a facing terrace. The scheme failed L2(1)(d) and DP3(1) without clear justification, both routes to refusal under S4(2). The benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011585 · South Kesteven · Appeal · 24 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• DP3(3) fail fails to respond to context; "without clear justification must be refused" quoted, no separate justification finding; routed through S5(2) (DL 37-38)

Three dwellings on a paddock that the conservation area appraisal names as an Important Open Space in Hough-on-the-Hill, a village of dispersed farmsteads. The inspector found harm at the lower end of the spectrum but of considerable importance and weight, not outweighed by moderate housing benefits. The design conflict was treated as a DP3(3) refusal circumstance under S5(2), and the benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6012293 · Somerset · Appeal · 24 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(3) fail explicit - retention and viable use of the historic structure do not clearly justify the design; benefits achievable by a less harmful scheme (DL 23-24)

Converting a stone barn at Elworthy Farm, a vestige of a medieval house with a jointed cruck roof, into a dwelling with extensions. The works would be a genuine conversion, and drainage and water supply were acceptable. But heavily domestic fenestration and cladding would cause moderate harm to the non-designated heritage asset. Under HE7, and with no clear justification under DP3(3), that outweighed substantial weight to one home on a 3.9-year supply. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009857 · Kingston upon Hull · Appeal · 23 Sept 2026

• DP3(3) fail context conflict "without clear justification (as in this case)"; the letter cites "section (2) of Policy DP3" for the refusal wording, which is in DP3(3) (DL 31)

Retrospective change of use of two terraced houses in Hull's Avenues Conservation Area to supported living with an office. The rear walls were rendered with external wall insulation and a palisade fence was put up. Dismissed, but only because of the render and the fence. The use, the windows and the bins were acceptable. The heritage balance gave the insulation's energy benefit modest weight, because it was unquantified and less harmful options had not been excluded. DP3(3) and S4(2)(c) were applied.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6004809 · Reading · Appeal · 22 Sept 2026 · 8 homes

• DP3(1) fail taller than neighbours, cramped, prominent 3-storey front gables; does not respond to context (DL 15-17, 20, 60)
• DP3(3) fail refusal trigger engaged by DP3(1) conflict without clear justification (DL 60)

Replacement of a building of 4 flats with a 3-storey block of 8 flats on Oxford Road, near Tilehurst station. Dismissed. Scale, height and large front gables harm the street scene, and the scheme harms neighbours' and future residents' privacy and outlook. This triggers DP3(3) and outweighs the S4 benefits, even with only 3.55 years' supply. Parking, housing mix and viability-limited affordable housing were all found acceptable.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006950 · Bassetlaw · Appeal · 22 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(3) fail conflict with explicit local design standards (ST33, ST35) through scale and harm to rural setting = harm to countryside character (DL 13, 48)

A single self-build house and garage to replace two small barns on a partly previously-developed plot outside Gringley-on-the-Hill. Dismissed after a hearing. None of S5(1)(c), (d) or (j) was met: not a like-for-like replacement, only part-PDL, and not physically well-related to the village. Car dependence along an unlit 60 mph lane and the house's scale in the rural setting substantially outweighed substantial weight to both general housing (4.15-yr supply) and a large self-build shortfall.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008707 · Hounslow · Appeal · 22 Sept 2026

• DP3(3) fail poor accessibility conflicts with DP3(2)(a) good connections and priority to walking and public transport, so DP3(3) says refuse (DL 15)

This was an 8-person HMO in a detached Feltham house with PTAL 1b, about 1.4 km from the nearest designated town centre. The appeal was dismissed on location alone. The inspector used DP3(2)(a), a design principle about good connections and prioritising walking and public transport. Through DP3(3), which says refuse, poor accessibility became a substantial-weight harm alongside TR3. Together they substantially outweighed the limited housing-choice benefit under S4.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008785 · Shropshire · Appeal · 22 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• DP3(3) fail encroachment across the lane that marks the clear edge between village and open valley field conflicts with DP3(1) without clear justification (DL 8-11, 39)

An outline scheme for two houses on the corner of a valley field just across the lane from Hook-a-Gate, a Community Cluster Settlement without a boundary. It was dismissed. Unusually, the inspector accepted that S5(1)(j) applied: there was no 5YHLS, and the site was physically well-related to the village with capacity to accommodate it. But the lane marks a clear edge between village and countryside. Crossing it was a DP3(1) conflict, and DP3(3) says such conflicts should be refused. Through S5(2) that meant the benefits were "substantially outweighed". Poor walking, cycling and bus access added to the harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6004691 · Medway · Appeal · 21 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• DP3(3) fail would not "integrate with and enhance its surroundings"; DP3(3) refusal direction cited (DL 28)

Permission in principle for 1–3 self-build homes on an open green field off Perry Hill, north of Cliffe Woods. Medway has a 3.1-year supply, a 60% Housing Delivery Test result and a self-build shortfall of about 100 plots. The appeal was dismissed. The site is visually separate from the contained edge of Cliffe Woods, so it failed S5(1)(j)(i). With no S5 category met, S5(4) needed exceptional circumstances. Significant harm to rural character (DP3(3), N2) was not substantially outweighed by the housing and self-build benefits.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009127 · Doncaster · Appeal · 21 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(3) fail conflict with an explicit plan design standard (NDSS via LP 45) without clear justification - 49 sqm two-storey 1-bed flat against 58 sqm minimum (DL 9-10, 19)

The proposal split a first-floor-and-attic flat in a Doncaster terrace into two 1-bed flats. It was dismissed on living conditions: rooflight-only outlook from the main living room, an undersized two-storey flat, and a bin store over 100 m away. The key Framework move was DP3(3). Its "explicit design standards set out in the development plan" limb was triggered by the local plan's adoption of the national space standard (NDSS). The inspector gave that conflict substantial weight and treated it as a refusal-type policy, so the S4 benefits were substantially outweighed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010393 · Somerset · Appeal · 21 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(3) fail "a key determinative feature"; backland suburban form erodes settlement-edge transition (DL 7-10, 21)

An outline custom-build bungalow in the rear garden of a house at the loose western edge of East Lambrook, reached by a long new access track. Dismissed. The inspector treated the garden as "likely" part of the settlement, so S4 applied. HO7 (supply only 2.22 years) and W4 (septic tank replacement) each attracted substantial weight. But the backland form failed L2(1)(d)(i) and DP3(1), and DP3(3) was "a key determinative feature". The harm substantially outweighed the benefits, and the result would have been the same under S5(1)(j).

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006720 · Waverley · Appeal · 18 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(1) fail single-storey backland dwelling with its garden to the front, tight to three boundaries; cramped and incongruous in a symmetrical close of two-storey semis; density increase not justified under L2/L3 (DL 6, 9-11)
• DP3(3) fail conflict with DP3(1) without clear justification, so a "should be refused" policy engaging S4(2)(c) (DL 34)

A one-bedroom bungalow replacing outbuildings in the rear garden of a semi-detached house in Badshot Lea. Dismissed. The Council had only 1.28 years' supply, and the housing benefit was given substantial weight. But the dwelling was cramped and out of character, which failed DP3(1). That triggered DP3(3)'s "should be refused", and so S4(2)(c). It also harmed neighbours' gardens, gave future occupiers an oppressive outlook contrary to P3, and had no BNG evidence (N2).

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009211 · Enfield · Appeal · 18 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(3) fail boxy near-ridge dormer and hip-to-gable break the symmetrical pair on a prominent corner; conflicts with the identity principle without clear justification (DL 10-12, 15)

A flat subdivision with a near-ridge rear dormer and a hip-to-gable change on a prominent Southgate corner semi was dismissed, on an appeal planning officer's recommendation. The design conflicted with DP3's identity principle, which under DP3(3) requires refusal. Both units also fell below London Plan ceiling heights. Under S4, the limited benefit of one extra flat was substantially outweighed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009866 · Barnsley · Appeal · 18 Sept 2026

• DP3(3) fail cluttered cluster in front of the Interchange doors, narrowing the pavement; harm "not clearly justified" (DL ¶12-16, ¶30)

A communication kiosk with defibrillator and digital advertising, proposed immediately outside the entrance to the Barnsley Interchange. It would narrow a busy pavement and create an "excessively cluttered cluster" of street furniture. The inspector gave CO1 substantial weight to the telecoms benefits. But the scheme failed CO1(1)(b), because no operational need for this exact spot was shown, and it failed DP3(3), so S4(2)(c) applied. Both appeals were dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010288 · Dartford · Appeal · 18 Sept 2026

• DP3(3) fail loss of a large open corner front garden to parking; DP3(1) conflict without clear justification "weighs substantially" (DL 9-14, 24)

A driveway and crossover on a prominent corner front garden onto the A226 in Dartford. Dismissed. The inspector applied the 2026 Framework without re-consulting, because it did not "fundamentally alter the relevant policy position" (DL ¶5). Both DP3(3) (design) and TR6(4)/TR4(1)(c)(i) (highway safety) were treated as weighing "substantially" against, so the modest parking and EV benefits were "substantially outweighed" under S4 (DL ¶23-26).

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011150 · Shropshire · Appeal · 17 Sept 2026 · 8 homes

• DP3(3) fail significant urbanising intrusion into countryside; conflict with DP3(1) without clear justification so refuse (DL 24, 34)

Permission in principle for seven to eight houses on part of a field beside the A458 at Chavel, a roadside group with a petrol-station shop, restaurant and takeaway. Dismissed. The inspector held Chavel is not a "settlement" under the 2026 definition (not a predominantly built-up area), so S5(1)(j) failed despite no five-year supply. Under S5(4) the site's car dependence and urbanising effect on the countryside (a DP3(3) refusal trigger) were not substantially outweighed by the housing benefits.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6005969 · County Durham · Appeal · 16 Sept 2026

• DP3(2)(a) fail exceeding the plan's 10% student-exempt threshold within 100 m fails mixed and balanced communities; DP3(3) refusal trigger invoked (DL 17, 24)
• DP3(3) fail "development proposals should be refused if they conflict with these principles" (DL 24)

Conversion of a Durham terraced house to a 5-bed student HMO, appealed for non-determination and dismissed. Updated council tax data put student concentration within 100 m at 11.9%, above the plan's 10% "tipping point". This failed mixed and balanced communities and caused moderate noise and disturbance harm. Parties were consulted on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶2).

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010354 · King's Lynn and West Norfolk · Appeal · 16 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(3) fail erodes an open gap in a sporadic, dispersed enclave; avoiding the fallback is not "clear justification" as the fallback is less harmful (DL 31-32)

A self-build chalet bungalow in a loose rural enclave 1.7 km from South Creake, offered in exchange for surrendering a Class Q approval for two dwellings. Dismissed. The mixed-use enclave was not a "group of houses", so S5(1)(e) infill failed. On S5(4), the modest travel benefit of one fewer home was outweighed by prominent harm to the countryside character. Under the ordinary fallback test, the Class Q scheme was less harmful, so DP3(3) gave "a clear directive to dismiss".

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009588 · Breckland · Appeal · 15 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(3) fail open green plot reads with the fields; prominent expansion into countryside with no clear justification (DL 15-17, 29-30)

One house on the open plot beyond the last dwelling of Little Dunham, a Breckland village with no settlement boundary. The inspector found the village is a "settlement" under Annex B but the plot is outside it. The scheme passed the S5(1)(j) gateway: 2.82-year supply, physically well-related. It was dismissed because two "should be refused" policies were breached: N6 (unpaid GIRAMS tariff) and DP3(3) (intrusion into the countryside). That pushed the balance to "substantially outweighed" despite substantial HO7 weight.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009541 · Lewisham · Appeal · 11 Sept 2026

• DP3(3) fail conflict with DP3(1) without clear justification - "should be refused" - engages S4(2)(c) (DL 38)

A proposed 16-person HMO in a former nursery on Bromley Road, Catford, was dismissed. Two ground-floor studios would be gloomy and poorly sunlit, and occupants would have no communal living space. The council's HMO-overconcentration objection failed for lack of current, local evidence. Under S4 the P3 conflict carried substantial weight. The DP3(3) "should be refused" limb engaged S4(2)(c), so the benefits were substantially outweighed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010619 · Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole · Appeal · 11 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(3) fail contemporary flat-roof grey brick and black timber design wholly out of keeping with Arts and Crafts park edge (DL 17-28, 59)

A contemporary flat-roofed self-build house on a severed rear-garden plot backing onto the locally listed Alexandra Park in Poole. Dismissed. The supply was only 2.55 years and L2(1)(d) gave substantial weight to a curtilage home. But the design was out of keeping and prominent from the park (DP3(3), HE7 harm to the NDHA setting). Living conditions for new and existing occupiers were also poor, which meant the scheme failed L2(1)(d)(ii) itself. The inspector relied on both S4(2)(a)(ii) (substantial adverse impact on L2(1)(d)) and S4(2)(c) (DP3 refusal policy).

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011648 · North East Derbyshire · Appeal · 11 Sept 2026

• DP3(3) fail conflict with LC5 character and appearance; DP3(3) says refuse without clear justification; "substantial adverse effect" in balance (DL 7, 18)

A householder appeal in the countryside that sets out two important readings of the new Framework. First, under S5(1)(c) and footnote 25, proportionality is measured against the building as it stood on 17 August 2026. Earlier extensions are therefore excluded, and a 22.4% addition was not disproportionate even though the cumulative increase was 70.6%. Second, a DP3 design conflict engages DP3(3) and S5(2), and that alone was enough to dismiss.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008167 · East Hertfordshire · Appeal · 10 Sept 2026 · 4 homes

• DP3(1) fail cramped detached house tight to both boundaries erodes open space intended as wildflower meadow; no detached houses in Dovedale (DL 5-9, 19-20)
• DP3(3) fail no clear justification for the DP3(1) conflict, so refusal required (DL 21)

The proposal would add one detached house to an approved backland terrace in Ware, on the open parking and landscape area meant as a wildflower meadow. It was dismissed. The inspector gave the extra home substantial weight, given a 3.4-3.7-year supply. But the house was awkward, cramped and unlike anything in Dovedale. "without clear justification" it conflicted with DP3(1), so DP3(3) required refusal, and S4(2)(c) meant the benefits were "substantially outweighed" (DL ¶21).

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6005150 · Mole Valley · Appeal · 9 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(3) fail 44 sq m vs 50 sq m NDSS minimum in LP H10, an explicit design standard, so the Framework directs refusal; engages S5(2) (DL 21-24, 37-38)

Conversion of redundant stables to a one-bed dwelling in the Green Belt near Headley. The scheme passed GB7(1)(b) (re-use), so it was not inappropriate. The case then fell under the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance, where the NDSS shortfall triggered DP3(3)'s direction to refuse via S5(2). Car dependence and inadequate BNG evidence added to the harm. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011803 · Three Rivers · Appeal · 9 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• DP3(1) fail tandem layout alien to linear Toms Lane pattern (DL 7-10)
• DP3(3) fail clear conflict with local backland policy DM1 engages DP3(3) "should be refused" — S5(2) trigger (DL 20)

A replacement dwelling plus two tandem self-build houses in a deep rear garden on Toms Lane, a linear road washed over by the Green Belt. The parties agreed the scheme was not inappropriate under GB7, so the S5(5) "substantially outweighed" balance applied. The tandem layout was alien to the linear pattern and in clear conflict with the local backland policy. That engaged DP3(3), a "should be refused" policy and so an S5(2) trigger, and the appeal was dismissed despite substantial weight to the housing.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009640 · Epping Forest · Appeal · 8 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(3) fail subdivided cramped plot at odds with spacious detached-plot character; no clear justification (DL 7-12, 25)

Converting a backland annexe in Chigwell into a separate dwelling was dismissed, although no physical works were proposed. Subdividing the plot would disrupt the spacious pattern of large detached plots, contrary to DP3(1). Under S4, the benefits, given substantial weight under L2(1)(d), were still "substantially outweighed" because DP3(3) says such proposals "should be refused" (DL ¶24-26).

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006819 · East Hertfordshire · Appeal · 7 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(3) fail substantial weight to design-related local plan conflicts (character, CA, hedgerows) (DL 29-30)

One eco self-build bungalow on part of a field between the development boundary of Barleycroft End (Furneux Pelham) and scattered outlying houses. Dismissed. The Council accepted a 3.4 to 3.7 year supply, so S5(1)(j) was in play. The inspector found: - the site not suitably related to the settlement; - a car-dependent location, since the only walking route was an unlit lane with no footway; - harm to the conservation area's rural setting; - an unproven, substandard access. Design conflicts (DP3) and the highway safety failure (TR6) substantially outweighed the benefits of one self-build zero-carbon home.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008742 · New Forest National Park Authority · Appeal · 7 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• DP3(3) fail fails to integrate with context and to prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport; used as the S5(2) refusal-type trigger (DL 48-49)

The appeal was for two residential caravans (not a traveller site) on a wooded plot in the New Forest National Park. It was dismissed. The site was isolated, "not located within groups of houses", fell outside every S5(1) category and met no HO11 circumstance. The inspector used S5(2): DP3(3) "should be refused" plus N4 substantial weight meant the benefits were "substantially outweighed". There was no survey for great crested newts, and the access was unevidenced.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010701 · Stoke-on-Trent · Appeal · 7 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• DP3(3) fail backland plots and wide access road incongruous in a spacious verdant stretch; S4(2)(c) engaged (DL 7-18, 35)

Three houses in a large, well-treed garden on a spacious stretch of Church Road, Blurton, including two in a backland position reached by a new access. Appeal against non-determination, dismissed. The supply was 3.73 years and housing had substantial weight. But the inspector found two S4(2) triggers: S4(2)(a)(ii), a "substantial adverse impact" under L2(1)(d) (visible, out of keeping, under 50% of undeveloped curtilage retained, more than double the footprint), and S4(2)(c) via DP3(3). Inconsistent bat surveys added an N2(1)(f) failure.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011373 · Ashfield · Appeal · 7 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(1) fail siting forward of building lines on a prominent corner breaks the NP-identified sight line along Portland Road and the open junction character (DL 10-12, 21)
• DP3(3) fail conflict with DP3(1) without clear justification → refuse; substantial weight to compliance with plan design policies (DL 21)

A dormer bungalow in the garden of a corner-plot bungalow in Selston, Nottinghamshire. Dismissed on character grounds alone. It would sit forward of the established building lines at an open junction and cut the Portland Road sight line that the neighbourhood plan singles out. The inspector used the DP3(1) → DP3(3) → S4(2) chain to hold that the S4 benefits were substantially outweighed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007220 · North Yorkshire · Appeal · 4 Sept 2026

• DP3(3) fail does not respond to context in scale, form and detailing; should be refused without clear justification (DL 49-50, fn 8)

The planning-permission half of the Hunmanby appeals. The full distillation, including the heritage sequence, is in PINS-6007221 (the listed building consent appeal, same letter). For Appeal A the S4 test was applied: low harm to the Grade II farmhouse and very low harm to the conservation area, given HE6(1) and HE6(3) weight and routed with DP3(3) into an S4 "substantially outweighed" conclusion (DL ¶51). Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008739 · Uttlesford · Appeal · 3 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• DP3(3) fail urbanising loss of open transitional plot conflicts with DP3(1) and LP design standards, so should be refused (DL 16-21, 38)

A self-build house on the grassed side curtilage at the end of a small hamlet near Great Easton was dismissed. It was not "limited infilling within groups of houses", because it adjoined built form on one side only and extended the hamlet. With a 4.77-year supply, S5(1)(j) was engaged, but the site was not physically well-related to a settlement. So S5(4) applied. Poor access to services (significant harm) and an urbanising DP3(3) conflict (moderate harm) outweighed a single unsecured self-build home.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011137 · Basildon · Appeal · 2 Sept 2026

• DP3(3) fail shed-like second cabin in confined rear space does not integrate or enhance and has no clear justification, so DP3(3) requires refusal (DL 13)

A second timber cabin behind a Wickford church for children's classes was dismissed. The decision is unusual because it was taken entirely on the 2026 Framework. The council had refused only by reference to the Framework, and Basildon's saved Local Plan was not relied on. The inspector worked through S4, L2(1)(b), L3(1) and DP3. The cabin failed DP3(3) and impinged on neighbours' weekend enjoyment of their gardens.

Full summary and sources

W/26/01322/OUT · Wychavon · Council (delegated) · 2 Sept 2026 · 50 homes

• DP3(3) fail "unwarranted and conspicuous encroachment" into open countryside beyond the village's northern building line; substantial weight to compliance with plan design policies (Design Code SPD 2026)

An outline for 50 homes (40% affordable) on fields next to Drakes Broughton, outside the development boundary. With a new local plan and a five-year supply, the officer held that S5(1)(j) was simply unavailable, treated the scheme under S5(4) "exceptional circumstances", and refused under delegated powers. The location was found "relatively sustainable" under TR3. The decisive harms were the S5 principle, countryside encroachment under DP3 and a string of technical gaps.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006985 · Southend-on-Sea · Appeal · 1 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• DP3(3) fail flat roof, coastal stone and metal cladding depart from the hipped-roof seafront form protected by DM6 Seafront Character Zone 4; conflict with explicit plan design standards given substantial weight (DL 7-10, 16-17)

A flat-roofed, stone-and-metal-clad block of 3 flats on a vacant plot on Southend seafront. There was already permission for a hipped-roof building of 2 flats. Dismissed on character grounds. The conflict with an explicit plan design standard (the Seafront Character Zone policy) engaged DP3's refusal trigger. With substantial weight, it substantially outweighed the benefits even with a 2.9-year supply and about 20% delivery.

Full summary and sources