Rural roads without footways

Appeal 6008432 · Cornwall · Appeal · 2 Oct 2026 · 2 homes

• TR3 fail day-to-day services 2.6 km and 3.4 km away along lanes and a classified road largely without footways or lighting; bus stops 300 m away by an unlit route without pavement; local policy T1 consistent with TR3 and the conflict given substantial weight (DL 19-22, 27)

Permission in principle for two dwellings at a marquee hire yard in a scatter of buildings at Higher Trevellas was dismissed. The inspector found that Trevellas is not a settlement, that the yard is not previously developed land because its hardstanding and use are unauthorised, and that the site would extend a group of buildings and not infill it. With no S5(1) category met, S5(4) applied. Car reliance was given substantial weight and two homes were a modest benefit, so the benefits did not substantially outweigh the harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009255 · North West Leicestershire · Appeal · 2 Oct 2026 · 1 home

• TR3 harm no public transport nearby, unlit roads without footways, occupiers heavily reliant on private vehicles (DL 10); but low traffic from one dwelling means minimal environmental effects and no realistic rural improvements exist or would be proportionate, so "the conflict with the principles under Policy TR3 would be limited" (DL 18-19); the TR3(1)(a) genuine-choice test is not addressed

Conversion of a domestic garage in the hamlet of Charley to a self-build home. A similar scheme had been dismissed on appeal under the previous Framework. The location was found poor again: no public transport, unlit roads with no footways, and occupiers reliant on the car, in conflict with the local plan. But under the 2026 Framework the re-use of an existing building is a form of development S5 says should be approved, the TR3 conflict was held to be limited for one dwelling, and a secured self-build home got substantial weight. Allowed on an appeal planning officer's recommendation.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6012202 · Fylde · Appeal · 1 Oct 2026 · 2 homes

• TR3 harm no continuous lit footway to Weeton or the nearest bus stop; unlit public right of way unsuitable in bad weather, darkness or with pushchairs and wheelchairs; heavy reliance on private vehicles, moderated by the existing business's trips and short driving distances; "at odds with the principles" of TR3 (DL 10-11, 18-19)

Permission in principle for up to two dwellings replacing kennel buildings in the countryside near Weeton was allowed. The scheme conflicted with the local plan's countryside policy and future occupiers would rely heavily on cars. But the site is previously developed land, so S5(1)(d) applied, and the inspector held that (d) does not require a site to be well-related to a settlement. The local countryside policy, which has no equivalent provision, was given very limited weight. Housing had substantial weight, undiminished by the small scale, and the moderate transport harm did not substantially outweigh it.

Full summary and sources

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

• TR3 harm TR3 not cited; no continuous footway, no street lighting on the A49, no bus within easy walking distance; reliance on private cars; previous appeal found the same (DL 12-16, 47)

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 6005652 · Stroud · Appeal · 29 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• TR3 harm TR3 not named; uphill walk to the bus stop on a road without pavements or significant lighting, unappealing and "probably not feasible" for some users; car dependence (DL 11-12, 37)

Conversion and extension of a stone barn to a self-build home on the Cotswold escarpment, outside any settlement or group of houses. Dismissed. The reuse category in S5(1)(c) appeared to be met, but the home would be isolated. S5(3) therefore routed it to HO11, whose reuse limb requires the scheme to enhance its immediate setting. It would not: the unit would take in a large area of pastureland, causing significant harm to the National Landscape. The walk to the bus was uphill along a road without pavements or lighting. The S5(4) balance was then run and failed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007668 · Newcastle-under-Lyme · Appeal · 29 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• TR3 fail no services on the lane; nearest centre Clayton 2.6 km; bus stop about 860 m on the A53, which has no footway; No 64 bus 6 a day Mon-Sat, 2-hourly, last from Newcastle 1746, none Sundays/bank holidays; timetable submitted; no improvements proposed; highway authority reached similar view but did not object (DL 13-19)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail not in a sustainable location, so (g) fails whatever the position on (i) and (ii) (DL 24, 26)

One self-build plot in an open Green Belt field beyond the end of a rural lane near Newcastle-under-Lyme. The inspector tested the route in detail: the quiet no-through lane itself was walkable, but it ends at the A53 with no footway, and the only bus runs six times a day with no evenings or Sundays. That failed TR3 and GB7(1)(g)(iii), so the dwelling was inappropriate. With openness and character harm and modest benefits, VSC did not exist. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

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

• TR3 conflict TR3 read as a whole for one dwelling - significant-movement limb not engaged but general sustainable-movement principles are; almost total car reliance (DL 30, 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

• TR3 harm no pavements, narrow unlit roads, 2 buses each weekday, 20-minute cycle to Sawtry on rural roads; heavy car reliance; but TR3(1)(e) rural opportunities and S5 support for edge sites reduce weight to limited (DL 8-11, 39)

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

• TR3 harm one dwelling not significant movement; 600 m walk to Nethergate Street on narrow lanes with no footway or lighting, unattractive for many, esp. limited mobility or young children; TR3(1)(e) rural opportunities noted; moderate negative weight (DL 25-28, 49)

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 6006224 · East Hertfordshire · Appeal · 28 Sept 2026 · 4 homes

• TR3 fail 0.72 km to the edge of Hertford and 1.15 km to Ware, services further; mostly single-track road with no lighting or pavement; Connectivity Tool 49 (90th percentile for "Rural hamlets and isolated dwellings") outweighed by route quality; EV charging and cycle storage do not cure (DL 10-17)
• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail not a sustainable location, so the (g) exception fails and the scheme is inappropriate (DL 18)

Permission in principle for up to four homes on open land in the Green Belt between Hertford and Ware. Grey belt and unmet need (3.4 to 3.7 years' supply) were accepted, but limb (iii) failed. The site is 0.72 km and 1.15 km from the edges of the two towns, with services further on, reached along a mostly single-track, unlit lane with no pavement. A Connectivity Tool score of 49, in the 90th percentile for its rural class, did not rescue it. As inappropriate development causing openness harm, substantial weight to housing did not clearly outweigh. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007158 · Maidstone · Appeal · 28 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• TR3 fail narrow unlit lanes without footpaths; nearby buses infrequent and reached via those lanes; car "safer and more convenient" (DL 23); TR3 not named, S5(4) sustainable-movement limb used (DL 45-46)

A self-build bungalow in a disused traditional orchard on the historic approach to Grade II* Brishing Court, outside any settlement near Maidstone. The inspector found moderate harm to the listed farmhouse's setting that one dwelling could not outweigh, significant localised landscape harm, a car-dependent location that was not "physically well-related" under S5(1)(j)(i), and no reptile survey. With no S5(1) category met and no exceptional circumstances, S5(4) failed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009849 · Brentwood · Appeal · 28 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• TR3 harm mapped (TR3 not named) - unlit narrow lanes, no pavements or cycle lanes for much of the route, poor public transport; occupiers largely car-reliant; appellants' local family and business ties discounted as personal (DL 18-23)

A single dwelling in the garden of a rural house at Navestock, in the Green Belt, was allowed. Because the garden is outside a built-up area it counts as previously developed land, and the moderate harm to openness was below GB7(1)(e)'s "substantial" threshold, so the scheme was not inappropriate. The inspector found occupiers would be largely car-reliant on unlit lanes, but gave the local settlement-hierarchy conflict limited weight because of the supply shortfall, did not treat it as a TR3 conflict, and allowed the appeal under S5(5).

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010253 · Cheshire East · Appeal · 28 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail bus stop about 550 m in the village; route beyond the village edge unlit, no footways, national speed limit, incline, little refuge; supermarkets, GP and station (about 4.5 km) in Macclesfield; heavy car reliance notwithstanding small scale (DL 12-23)
• TR3 fail TR3(2) Connectivity Tool score of 25 with little detail given no weight; TR3 does not displace development plan considerations; local accessibility policies SD 1 and SD 2 broadly consistent with TR3 (DL 12-14, 19)

Permission in principle for one dwelling on a field beyond the edge of Langley, near Macclesfield, in the Green Belt. Grey belt and unmet need (3.3-year supply) were undisputed, but GB7(1)(g)(iii) failed: the walk to the village bus stop is on an unlit, footway-free lane at the national speed limit, and a Connectivity Tool score of 25 came with no useful detail. Small scale did not help. As inappropriate development with significant openness harm, significant housing weight did not clearly outweigh. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

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

• TR3 harm narrow unlit lane without pavement to St Agnes; occupiers "largely reliant on private vehicles", but few, short journeys so on-the-ground harm "very limited" (DL 12)

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 6010642 · Cheshire West and Chester · Appeal · 28 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• TR3 fail 400 m to an hourly bus, but first part walked in the carriageway of an unrestricted lane with no verge, then an uncontrolled crossing of the A54; cycling on unlit 40 mph roads; only a pub within walking distance (DL 12-16, 27)

Permission in principle for one self-build dwelling beside a small cul-de-sac of semis at Sproston, between Middlewich and Holmes Chapel. The site is 2 km from either town, so S5(1)(j)(i) failed. An hourly bus stops 400 m away, but reaching it means walking in the carriageway of an unrestricted lane and crossing the A54 with no formal crossing. The inspector gave significant weight to the TR3 conflict, and under S5(4) the limited benefits did not substantially outweigh it. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6012304 · Cheshire West and Chester · Appeal · 28 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• TR3 fail 1 km along 40 mph lane with no footway and long unlit sections; alternative public footpaths unlit, undulating and secluded; station 3.5 km; not realistic for parents with young children or those with mobility issues (DL 9-12, 33)

Two large houses on a field at the end of ribbon development on a rural lane about 1 km from Cuddington and Sandiway, with 1.6 years' supply. Dismissed: the ribbon is not a settlement, so S5(1)(j)(i) failed and S5(4) applied. The walking routes (a 40 mph lane with no footway and unlit sections, or secluded unlit footpaths) were not realistic. Unassessed harm to three mature trees and a mix of 4-bed homes against neighbourhood plan need added to the harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007772 · Horsham · Appeal · 24 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• TR3 harm TR3 not cited; limited accessibility, no footways or lighting, narrow unlit right of way, heavy car reliance; counted only as reinforcing the local-plan conflict (DL 12-13, 36)

Two homes in a coach-house building on the car park of the former Lamb Inn at Lambs Green, a hamlet outside Horsham's settlement hierarchy. The site is car-dependent, on lanes with no footways or lighting. The inspector found the scheme fell within S5(1)(d) (previously developed land), gave substantial weight to housing against a 1.7-year supply, and reduced the weight of the local countryside restrictions. The "limited adverse effects" (DL ¶38) did not substantially outweigh the benefits. Allowed against the development plan.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008693 · Melton · Appeal · 24 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• TR3 fail access at the far end of a narrow, busy road with no footpath (inspector had to stand in the hedge); only a restricted bookable bus; unlit footpath to Somerby a considerable distance; occupants "heavily reliant on the car" (DL 10-12)

Permission in principle for two self-build homes on a paddock next to, but outside, Pickwell's Limits of Development. The self-build shortfall was accepted as an unmet need, but the site failed S5(1)(j)(i) and TR3. The indicative access is at the far end of a narrow, busy road with no footpath, the village has very few facilities, and the bus is bookable only. With a 7.6-year supply, the benefits were modest and there were no exceptional circumstances under S5(4). Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

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

• TR3 harm low connectivity on the Essex map; unlit rural lanes without footways or cycle lanes to North Weald; cumulative extra car trips (DL 27-29, 32)

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 6009691 · Ribble Valley · Appeal · 24 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• TR3 fail mapped (TR3 not named; CC2 cited) - services in Hurst Green within walking distance but road unlit with no segregated footway, unattractive "by all users"; bus route 5 to Clitheroe also needs the unlit walk (DL 10, 21)

Permission in principle for up to three self-build homes on a smallholding outside Hurst Green, in the Forest of Bowland National Landscape, was dismissed on an appeal planning officer's recommendation. The site's access to the village and bus is by an unlit lane with no footway, so it was not well related to the settlement. The houses and curtilages would urbanise an unspoilt landscape. Self-build and over-55 need were unevidenced and unsecured, so the benefits carried limited weight.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010418 · South Norfolk · Appeal · 24 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• TR3 fail TR3 not cited; narrow road without footpaths or lighting, heavy car reliance; 2024 "vary between urban and rural areas" acknowledged but not relied on (DL 17-18)

Two self-build dwellings beside a house and farm buildings on a narrow Norfolk lane, about 5 miles from Diss. The inspector found an unwarranted incursion into a sparsely settled area, heavy car dependence on a lane without footpaths or lighting, and no support from S5(1)(e) or S5(1)(j)(i). The letter's S5(1)(e) reasoning contradicts itself and its conclusion uses the 2024 "significantly and demonstrably" formula (DL ¶24). Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006637 · Warwick · Appeal · 23 Sept 2026 · 28 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail Hatton Station has very few facilities; unlit Station Road without footways, narrow bridge; bus 1.1 km with twice-weekly service; station 350 m but not "well-connected" and only partly step-free; 28 homes are "significant movement" in context (DL 14-39)
• TR3 fail location does not limit need to travel; no genuine choice of modes; signage, markings and possible 20 mph TRO too minor or uncertain (DL 27-39)

28 affordable homes on a grey belt field next to Hatton Station, a small West Midlands Green Belt settlement, 350 m from a railway station reached along unlit Station Road with no footway. Dismissed after a hearing. The site failed GB7(1)(g)(iii): 28 homes would generate significant movement in this context, the location did not limit the need to travel, and the route to the station was unsafe for pedestrians. It also failed GB8(1)(b), because the necessary local highway improvements were not secured. The station fell short of the "well-connected station" definition, so GB7(1)(h) was not available. Very significant weight to affordable housing (1.96 years' supply) did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008804 · Shropshire · Appeal · 23 Sept 2026

• TR3 fail narrow lane, no footpaths or lighting, Bridgnorth "a noticeable distance"; visitors heavily reliant on cars; "very substantial weight" to the conflict (DL 6-7, 15)

Five wigwam holiday cabins on a former pig farm outside Bridgnorth were refused, and the appeal was dismissed. The inspector found the site car-dependent and gave "very substantial weight" to the conflict with TR3 and the local spatial strategy. Economic benefits got substantial weight under E2(1). The inspector ran both S5 routes: S5(1)(b) (assuming necessity) and S5(4). The scheme failed both.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011235 · Fenland · Appeal · 23 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• TR3 fail remote position on Cock Bank, no footways or lighting, reliance on private vehicles (DL 5, 30)

A self-build bungalow replacing an equestrian barn on Cock Bank, Turves, in Flood Zone 3. Redeveloping the previously developed barn site fell within S5(1)(d). But no essential need for a worker to live on site was shown, so the sequential test could not be limited to the site and failed. The bungalow also harmed the rural character, and the site is car-dependent. With conflict with "should be refused" policies, the modest benefits were substantially outweighed. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011431 · Mid Devon · Appeal · 23 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• TR3 fail Uffculme about 2km via unlit PROW across fields or unlit B3181 footway at national speed limit; no bus timetable evidence; heavy car reliance (DL 9-16, 24)

This was a PiP for up to three homes on a field beside a rural health hub at Waterloo Cross, about 2 km from Uffculme. The council could show only 2.4 years' supply. The site was not isolated, but it was outside any settlement. The inspector applied S5's "substantially outweighed" test without identifying which S5(1) category, if any, applied. Car dependence under TR3 and CC2 was given substantial weight and outweighed the limited housing benefit.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6012985 · Mid Devon · Appeal · 23 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• TR3 fail narrow lane without pavement, some lighting, steep hill; walk to pub over 10 minutes; bus every other hour at mid-point (DL 11-12)

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.

Full summary and sources

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

• TR3 harm 60 mph unlit lane with no footways, uphill into village; bus not realistically usable; regular car trips for most needs (DL 18-21, 49)

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 6007428 · West Lancashire · Appeal · 22 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail 60 mph narrow hedged lane used by agricultural traffic, no footway between site and pedestrian network; some street lighting does not overcome this (DL 12-16, 19)
• TR3 fail no "genuine choice of transport modes"; would not improve walking/wheeling connectivity (DL 16)

A PIP for up to three dwellings on a gap along a rural 60 mph lane in the West Lancashire Green Belt. The site was accepted as grey belt and unmet need was established. However, the lack of any footway between the site and the pedestrian network at Southport Road meant it failed GB7(1)(g)(iii)/TR3, even though the distance was short and some street lighting existed. As inappropriate development with openness harm, it was dismissed on the VSC balance. The S5(5) balance was expressly held not to be engaged.

Full summary and sources

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

• TR3 fail Longden Road beyond village unlit, no footway; route to Bayston Hill an uneven track with steep gradient; demand-responsive bus Mon-Sat 7am-6:30pm with unclear frequency (DL 20-22)

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 6011736 · Tandridge · Appeal · 22 Sept 2026 · 7 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail 1 km / 15-minute walk to shop, school, village hall along mainly unlit 30-40 mph road with a section walking in the carriageway; hourly bus; Connectivity Tool score 52/100; no genuine choice of modes (DL 4-7, 11)
• TR3 fail £250 travel vouchers don't change site features; unevidenced 30 mph extension not Grampian-able; TR3(1)(e) improvements not shown to exist (DL 6-7)

Seven houses on an open site off Copthorne Bank, about 1 km from Copthorne's shop, school and village hall. Grey belt, unmet need and the Golden Rules limb were undisputed. The appeal was **dismissed on GB7(1)(g)(iii)**. The walk is along a mainly unlit road with a stretch in the carriageway, so it is unattractive, and an hourly bus did not provide a "genuine choice" of modes. This was so despite a Connectivity Tool score of 52/100 and £250 travel vouchers. The scheme was therefore inappropriate, and moderate housing benefits did not clearly outweigh the harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6012481 · Sevenoaks · Appeal · 22 Sept 2026 · 6 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail undisputed poor Connectivity Tool score; nearest settlement (Well Hill) has few services; no accessible public transport; no lighting, footways or cycle lanes (DL 13-17)

Outline proposal for up to six dwellings on an open field next to the M25, offset by removing nearby commercial buildings. Dismissed. Grey belt and unmet need were agreed, but the site failed GB7(1)(g)(iii): it scored poorly on the Connectivity Tool, had no public transport, and was reached by unlit rural roads without footways. The scheme was therefore inappropriate development, and no very special circumstances were shown. Missing protected-species surveys, M25 noise and poor access visibility added to the harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006761 · Epping Forest · Appeal · 21 Sept 2026

• TR3 conflict c. 1 km from Theydon Bois along a hedged lane with no footway or lighting; about 170 daily trips; "some conflict" (DL 23-25, 29)

B8 storage conversion of farm buildings in the Epping Forest Green Belt. Not inappropriate under GB7(1)(b). The location conflicted with TR3 and E3 but was on balance acceptable given E2 and E4 support. Dismissed because the required visibility splay could not be secured on land the highway authority accepts as highway. That breach of TR6(4), a "refuse" policy, meant the S5(2) presumption was defeated.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009985 · Cherwell · Appeal · 21 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• TR3 fail Mill Lane unlit, no footway, half of route a gravel bridlepath; bus stops about 1 km; almost entirely car dependent (DL 9-15)

Permission in principle for converting an agricultural building 700 m outside Kirtlington into two homes was refused on appeal. The homes would be "isolated" (S5(3)) with no HO11 justification. The site was not physically well-related to the village (S5(1)(j)) and was almost wholly car dependent. The inspector accepted the site "could be described" as PDL attracting S5 support, but the benefits (substantial HO7 weight) were still "substantially outweighed".

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011694 · Guildford · Appeal · 21 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• TR3 fail unlit lanes without footways; villages "some distance"; bridleways not practical; no public transport; heavy car reliance (DL 7-11, 34)

This was a non-determination appeal to replace a working sawmill in woodland near East Horsley, in the Surrey Hills National Landscape, with three homes: one barn conversion and two new builds. The appeal was allowed. The inspector accepted the site was car-dependent and conflicted with the spatial strategy. The scheme qualified under S5(1)(c) and (d), but the two new-build homes were isolated and did not meet HO11. The inspector therefore ran S5(4) and found exceptional circumstances. The main reasons were PDL redevelopment, 20% BNG, the removal of HGV traffic and disturbance, and the housing shortfall. The letter has serious drafting problems. It cites S5's sub-paragraphs as "S3(2)", "S3(3)" and "S3 Part 4", and uses the old "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" formula. It also records a Green Belt openness benefit but never applies GB6/GB7, even though S5(5) excludes Green Belt land from S5.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006900 · South Downs National Park Authority · Appeal · 18 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• TR3 fail highly reliant on private car "irrespective of the precise distance" (DL 17-18)

PIP for one self-build dwelling on an elevated field in the South Downs National Park, reached by an unlit single-track lane. Dismissed. Not infill (only one neighbouring dwelling), not well-related to Findon (so S5(1)(j) failed despite a 4.8-year supply), so S5(4) exceptional-circumstances test applied; National Park harm (N4), design (DP3) and car-dependence (TR3) substantially outweighed one home.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009443 · Cornwall · Appeal · 18 Sept 2026

• TR3(1) fail Bude c.4 miles on narrow unlit lanes without pavements; buses three each way weekdays, request stops on 60 mph road; TR3(1)(e) rural constraint acknowledged but not enough (DL 16-18, 21, 25)

Three glamping pods in open Area of Great Landscape Value countryside near the Cornwall National Landscape were dismissed at appeal. There were two harms, each given "very substantial negative weight": landscape intrusion, including a permanent gravel drive across the field, and poor access to services. The inspector held that E4, although it accepts rural businesses may be poorly served by public transport, still requires well-related sites and appropriate siting.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009474 · Horsham · Appeal · 18 Sept 2026 · 9 homes

• TR3 fail Rudgwick facilities limited and beyond 800 m; unlit roads, part of Naldretts Lane without footway; unexplained "hail and ride" bus; no Connectivity Tool evidence (TR3(2)); no connectivity improvements (TR3(1)(e)) (DL 18-26)

Permission in principle for 3 to 9 self-build park homes on a field in open countryside near Rudgwick was refused on appeal. The site was not "limited infilling within groups of houses" (S5(1)(e)), was not near a station (S5(1)(h)) and fitted no other S5(1) category. Under S5(4) the housing benefits (substantial weight, 2.9-year supply) did not substantially outweigh car dependence and harm to the countryside. The council's boundaries were held out of date, but that was not enough to change the outcome.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009966 · Tandridge · Appeal · 18 Sept 2026 · 5 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail 800 m to settlement edge, services a similar distance beyond; 40/30 mph lanes, no continuous footways or lighting; hail-and-ride bus unevidenced (DL 21-23, 28)
• TR3 conflict 5 dwellings do not engage TR3(1)(a) as strongly as a large scheme, but TR3 "must be read as a whole" and is breached (DL 27); unsustainable travel given significant weight (DL 44)

Permission in principle for up to 5 dwellings on a paddock in the Green Belt, about 800 m outside South Nutfield. Grey belt, GB7(1)(g)(i) and (ii) were all common ground. The appeal failed on limb (iii) sustainable location, because the walking and cycling routes are unlit lanes with no continuous footway and the bus evidence was thin. As inappropriate development, substantial weight to the housing benefit did not clearly outweigh the Green Belt, openness, character and travel harms.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010348 · North Yorkshire · Appeal · 18 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• TR3 fail narrow unlit lanes, limited safe pedestrian movement; heavy car reliance (DL 7, 25)

Demolition of a traditional stone barn in the Nidderdale National Landscape, which already had consent for conversion to a dwelling, and its replacement with a new-build house. Dismissed. S5(1)(c) did not apply because a replacement must be for the same use. S5(1)(j) did not help because the scheme added no home beyond the fallback and was not physically well-related to Galphay. Under S5(4), the unjustified loss of the barn (N4, substantial weight) and car reliance outweighed the benefits, even with significant weight to the fallback.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010834 · Dorset · Appeal · 18 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• TR3 harm not cited by code; 2.5 km to Portesham on narrow unlit national-speed-limit lanes with no footways; heavily car-reliant (DL 11)

A self-build bungalow in a garden between two dwellings in the hamlet of Coryates (Dorset National Landscape), outside any development boundary, in a district with a 2.53-year supply. Dismissed. The hamlet has no services and is 2.5 km from Portesham along unlit lanes without footways, so S5(1)(j) failed on "well-related to an existing settlement". The very limited benefits of one house were substantially outweighed. A second reason: no s106 securing self-build status, so the BNG exemption and biodiversity measures could not be relied on.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6011972 · Tandridge · Appeal · 18 Sept 2026 · 8 homes

• TR3 fail narrow lane with no lighting or pavements; bus 3-4 a day each way weekdays only; A22 unattractive for cycling; car-dependent even allowing for reduced trips from the equestrian use (DL 12-15)

Eight detached houses replacing equestrian buildings at Newchapel, the same area as Branford Wells (PINS-6010313). Dismissed. The site was agreed PDL, but eight two-storey houses would be taller, bulkier and more conspicuous than the low stables, so they would cause substantial harm to openness and fail GB7(1)(e). The site was also car-dependent under TR3. Moderate overall benefits against 1.92 years' supply did not clearly outweigh the harm. Grey belt (GB7(1)(g)) was not argued or considered.

Full summary and sources

W/26/01639/PIP · Wychavon · Council (delegated) · 18 Sept 2026 · 5 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail Connectivity Tool score 23; limited bus service; narrow, mostly unlit pedestrian routes; residents would rely on the car
• TR3(2) fail Connectivity Tool used "alongside other relevant qualitative and quantitative evidence"

A permission-in-principle bid for up to five homes on paddock land at New End, Astwood Bank, in the Green Belt. It followed an appeal refusal of nine homes on a larger site that included this land. The officer accepted the Inspector's grey belt finding but refused on two grounds. GB7(1)(g)(ii) now fails because adopting the SWDPR restored a five-year supply. GB7(1)(g)(iii) fails because the location is car-dependent, with a Connectivity Tool score of 23 and narrow, unlit walking routes. This is one of the clearest early examples of the grey belt route failing on the need and location limbs even though grey belt status is accepted.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008434 · Wiltshire · Appeal · 17 Sept 2026 · 9 homes

• TR3 fail unlit national-speed lanes with no footways; 8 buses a weekday not safely reachable; upper parameter generates significant movement (DL 16-17, 33)

Permission in principle for 4-9 homes on a small equestrian yard next to a roadside cluster outside Upper Seagry, Wiltshire. Dismissed. The inspector accepted the site was PDL, which engaged S5(1)(d), and gave substantial weight to housing at a 2.42-year supply. But car dependence (TR3/DP3(2)(d)/CC2) and loss of rural character (N2/DP3) were given "very substantial weight" together and substantially outweighed the benefits.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009409 · Harborough · Appeal · 17 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• TR3 fail narrow unlit 60 mph lane with no footway, walking on carriageway; no bus stops within easy walk (DL 8-9, 21)

A proposal to demolish stables that already had permission for conversion and rebuild them as a dwelling, near but outside Leire (Harborough), was dismissed. The inspector worked through the S5(1) limbs in turn. (c) failed because a replacement must be for the same use. (d) failed because the site was not PDL as a whole. (j) failed because the site was not physically well-related to Leire. The dwelling was also isolated under S5(3), and access was along an unlit 60 mph lane with no footway (TR3).

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010401 · North Northamptonshire · Appeal · 17 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• TR3 fail no roadside footpath or lighting to Wilbarston; car reliant, same as the fallback (DL 6, 15, 19)

Two new dwellings replacing two steel-framed farm buildings in the countryside outside Wilbarston, argued mainly on a Class Q fallback for two dwellings in the Dutch barn. Dismissed. The appellant conceded no S5(1) category applied, so S5(4) governed. The fallback neutralised the locational (car-dependence) objection, but not the design harm: the new houses were bulky, suburban in layout and poorly proportioned. They were "significantly more harmful" to character than the Class Q conversion, and there were no exceptional circumstances.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007348 · Bassetlaw · Appeal · 16 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• TR3 fail no footways or lighting, fast rural roads, no evidence of usable bus service; primary school 3 km; Connectivity Tool score 13/100 (DL 27-31, 38-39, 54)

Three houses replacing run-down farm buildings between existing houses in the tiny unlisted hamlet of Bevercotes, in open Nottinghamshire countryside. Dismissed. The inspector accepted the scheme as limited infilling within a group of houses under S5(1)(e), with no harm to landscape or the conservation area. But the site's very poor accessibility (Connectivity Tool score 13/100, unlit roads with no footway, no real services) was given substantial weight under TR3 and decided the balance.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6008528 · Mole Valley · Appeal · 16 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail no footways or lighting on Beare Green Road; bus not shown to stop nearby; well separated from village and Holmwood station; Connectivity Tool score 25/100 (DL 11-13)
• TR3 fail Connectivity Tool considered alongside local evidence; occupiers largely reliant on the private car; no genuine choice of modes (DL 12-13)

The appellant sought to keep an original house, which was due to be demolished under a 2017 replacement-dwelling permission, as an extra dwelling in the Mole Valley Green Belt. Dismissed. Grey belt and unmet need were accepted: the Council has a five-year supply, but its HDT is below 75%. Limb (iii) sustainable location failed on an unlit lane with no footways, remote from the village and station, with a Connectivity Tool score of 25/100. A new driveway through ancient woodland separately failed N6.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009618 · Torridge · Appeal · 16 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• TR3 fail Connectivity Tool score 6/100; lanes with intermittent footway and lighting; pub and church closed; Merton 2 miles, Hatherleigh 4.5, Great Torrington 7.5 (DL 7-11)

Three market homes on a field adjoining Petrockstowe on three sides, in Torridge. The inspector applied S5 because the site is outside the settlement despite adjoining it. S5(1)(e) infill failed. S5(1)(j) was engaged by the 4.61-year supply, but the housing benefit got only little weight. Against that were an unsafe access (TR6(4), a "should be refused" policy, substantial weight) and a Connectivity Tool score of 6/100. The benefits were "substantially outweighed".

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009838 · Mid Sussex · Appeal · 16 Sept 2026 · 9 homes

• TR3 fail Lodge Lane narrow, two very sharp bends, no footway or lighting, mostly national speed limit; bus stops 250 m but infrequent (DL 17-21)

Permission in principle for up to nine self-build homes in a field near Bolney (Mid Sussex) was refused on appeal. Supply was 3.38 years, so there was an evidenced unmet need. But the site was not "physically well-related" to Bolney for S5(1)(j): it was reached by a single access onto a lane far from the village core and separated by gaps from nearby houses. S5(4) therefore applied, and the substantial HO7 weight did not substantially outweigh the location, character and heritage harms.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006289 · Chelmsford · Appeal · 15 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• TR3 harm nearest Danbury services and bus stop ~850 m via largely unlit, partly single-track lanes without footways; "significant proportion of car journeys"; conflict framed under CLP S7 (DL 7-11)

An outline proposal for one self-build house on the site of a dwelling largely demolished about 40 years ago following enforcement, beside Twitty Fee, a protected lane outside Danbury. Dismissed. The site was accepted as PDL, but the dwelling would be car-dependent, "significantly harmful" to the naturalised plot's rural character, and harmful to the protected lane (an NDHA) because of the visibility splay. There was no metric, so BNG could only be avoided by securing self-build, and no obligation was before the inspector. Together these "substantially outweigh" the limited benefit of one home against a 3.88-year supply.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006123 · Dover · Appeal · 14 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• TR3 fail letter says "T3"; very poor and unsafe access - unlit lanes without footways, car reliance (DL 11, 19)

Conversion of a lawful light-industrial former barn at Court Farm, Elmstone, to 3 houses with large gardens and parking. Dismissed. The inspector found the scheme would domesticate a rural farmyard setting (DP3), create "isolated" dwellings outside any settlement that meet no HO11 exception, rely on unsafe unlit lanes (TR3), and lose a rural employment site without 12 months' marketing (local plan E2). Housing benefit got substantial weight in principle but did not outweigh the harm. The reasoning under the new S5 is thin, and the letter contains several drafting slips.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010442 · Cornwall · Appeal · 14 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• TR3 fail 900 m walk to village shops, 1.25 km to school; unlit lane without footway; unsignalised four-lane A391 crossing by a roundabout; bus stop 450 m but beyond the same crossing (DL 12-14, 17)

Permission in principle for one self-build home on grassland next to a small cluster of buildings west of Roche, beyond the new A391 bypass. Dismissed. Cornwall's supply was 3.9 years and HO7 carried substantial weight. But the site was not physically well-related to Roche, so S5(1)(j) did not apply. Building next to the last house would *extend* the group rather than infill within it, so S5(1)(e) failed. The walking route (900 m, unlit, no footway, then an unsignalised four-lane crossing at a roundabout) was a TR3 failure given substantial weight, and S5(4) was not met.

Full summary and sources

M/26/01131/FUL · Malvern Hills · Council (delegated) · 14 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• TR3(1) fail about 500 m to Hallow along an unlit, unpaved, narrow sunken lane with no passing places; walking and cycling are theoretical, not realistic

One self-build dwelling to replace former business buildings, part of which have lawful residential use, 500 m outside Hallow. The officer accepted the site is likely PDL, bringing it within S5(1)(d), and noted a Class MA fallback. The application was still refused. The officer ran an ordinary development-plan balance in which substantial weight went to an unsustainable location (a narrow, unlit sunken lane) and to landscape harm, rather than asking whether the benefits were "substantially outweighed".

Full summary and sources

W/26/01874/PIP · Wychavon · Council (delegated) · 14 Sept 2026 · 1 home

• TR3 fail 40 mph roads, no footway on Pennylands Bank, no crossing point, no lighting; bus stop under 100 m away but services limited; heavy reliance on the car, although County Highways did not object

A single-dwelling PIP on a field at Pennylands Bank, between Broadway and Childswickham. The applicant relied on S5(1)(e) infilling. The officer also tested the new station limb, S5(1)(h). The site is within walking distance of Broadway station, but the station fails the Annex B "well-connected" definition. With no S5 category met and a five-year supply, the scheme fell to S5(4) and was refused.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010260 · Shropshire · Appeal · 11 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• TR3 harm narrow, unlit, national speed limit lane; residents "highly reliant on the private vehicle" (DL 20, 28)

PIP for one or two houses in the garden of a rural cottage near Albrighton, on land that once held four earlier cottages. It was dismissed. The former buildings had "blended into the landscape", so the site was not PDL under GB7(1)(e). No other exception was argued, so the scheme was inappropriate. Location on a narrow, unlit, national-speed-limit lane added spatial-strategy and car-dependence harm.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6005495 · Cheshire West and Chester · Appeal · 10 Sept 2026 · 6 homes

• TR3 fail narrow rural road without footways, distant from bus stops and services (DL 24)

Conversion of a Grade II* farmstead's traditional buildings, plus one new detached house presented as a "replacement dwelling". The conversions were acceptable and a heritage benefit. The new house was inappropriate in the Green Belt: it was not a replacement, grey belt was not shown, and it was in any event unsustainably located under TR3. It harmed visual openness and the setting of the farmhouse, and it failed S5(1)(j) because it was not well-related to a settlement. Dismissed. The joint LBC appeal (PINS-6005497) was dismissed on the same heritage reasoning.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6009303 · South Cambridgeshire · Appeal · 10 Sept 2026 · 2 homes

• TR3 fail private road narrow, unlit, no footway; school 1.0 km, shops 1.3 km (Fenstanton), pub 1.5 km; bus stops realistically reachable only by cycle; heavily car dependent (DL 7-10, 20)

Two self-build dwellings on a former smallholding on the Fen Drayton LSA estate, about 1 km from the village's school and 1.3 km from shops, off an unlit private road with no footway. The appeal was dismissed as heavily car dependent. The self-build benefit collapsed because the unilateral undertaking was unenforceable, and there was no evidence of a 5YHLS or HDT failure to trigger S5(1)(j).

Full summary and sources

26/00772/PIP · Stratford-on-Avon · Council committee · 10 Sept 2026 · 4 homes

• TR3(1)(a) harm 200 m along private single-track Hunt Hall Lane with no footway to Barton Road footway; "not suitable for all users, including those with mobility impairments"; then 700–900 m to school, shop, pub; buses 400 m (routes 27 and 247)

Permission in principle for up to 4 market homes on a paddock at the south-west edge of Welford-on-Avon (not Green Belt), reached along 200 m of private single-track lane with no footway. The officer ran S5(1)(j) on the 2.21-year supply. Pedestrian access was the main harm (moderate weight) and landscape harm was minor. Committee granted unanimously on 9 September 2026. The notice is dated 10 September.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010729 · Cornwall · Appeal · 8 Sept 2026

• TR3 fail facilities in Bugle reached along a fast road with no pavements, refuge or lighting; not well served by public transport; heavy car reliance (DL 10-13, 23)

A part-retrospective scheme for holiday accommodation (railway wagons, a shepherd's hut, caravans and a shower block) at a rural fishery near St Austell was dismissed. There were two reasons: heavy car reliance, and flood risk to the access route. The units were in Flood Zone 1 but the only access crossed Flood Zone 2/3 and there was no formal emergency plan, so F7's safe-access requirement was not met.

Full summary and sources

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

• TR3 harm pub, shop, bus stops, hall within walking distance but along 30 mph lane with high hedges, no footway, unlit; car dependent (DL 5-6, 11) — assessed under local policy, TR3 not named

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

• TR3 fail narrow unlit roads without segregated footways to Sway and Lymington; heavy car dependence (DL 13)

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 6009718 · West Berkshire · Appeal · 4 Sept 2026 · 3 homes

• TR3 fail Mill Lane narrow, unlit, limited footpaths, sharp bends; buses only in Tidmarsh; Tilehurst route with steep inclines (DL 11-18)

Outline for three houses on a commercial storage yard in the North Wessex Downs near Tidmarsh, dismissed on many grounds. The key Framework point is that the inspector treated the houses as "isolated homes" under S5(3), being "close to, rather than within" a group of houses. That excluded them from S5 support "irrespective of whether the proposal would involve the redevelopment of previously developed land" (DL ¶60-61). Heritage setting harm, the need for a flood sequential test (the access floods), missing drainage evidence and poor accessibility also counted against it.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6010313 · Tandridge · Appeal · 4 Sept 2026 · 5 homes

• GB7(1)(g)(iii) fail five dwellings in an area with very few homes = significant movement "in this context"; rural, away from settlements, facilities and buses; 40 mph lane without footways or lighting (DL 12-14)
• TR3 fail no genuine choice of transport modes (DL 12, 14)

Conversion of a barn complex to five dwellings in the Tandridge Green Belt, where supply is 1.97 years. Grey belt and unmet need were accepted, but GB7(1)(g)(iii) failed: the site is on a 40 mph lane with no footways or lighting, away from settlements and buses. As inappropriate development causing openness, heritage (Grade II setting), character and amenity harm, it did not show VSC even with an acute shortfall. Dismissed.

Full summary and sources

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

• TR3 fail TR3(1)(a) not relevant for one dwelling, but reliance on car contrary to plan-led sustainable development; farm shop 1 mile; bus stops over 30 min walk with no evidenced footway or lighting (DL 11-12, 37)

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 6006832 · Cornwall · Appeal · 1 Sept 2026

• TR3 fail 2 km to Zelah along busy unlit B3288 with no pavements; bus finishes early evening; guests reliant on cars (DL 36-40)

Proposal to turn a former A30 roadworks workers' caravan compound beside the hamlet of Marazanvose into a site for up to 50 permanent holiday lodges. Dismissed. The temporary compound was not PDL, no locational need for the tourism use was shown (S5(1)(b)), the site is car-dependent (TR3) and the scheme would urbanise a historic landscape (DP3/N2). Substantial weight to economic benefits under E2 was "substantially outweighed".

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6005528 · Cumberland · Appeal · 27 Aug 2026 · 6 homes

• TR3 fail Houghton about a 20-minute walk, no footway or lighting for a significant part, no formal bus stop; occupiers "highly likely" to be car reliant (DL 15-18); code mapped by harvester — letter paraphrases the Framework without a code

Six detached houses in the overgrown former gardens of Knells House, a country house near Carlisle, in a dispersed hamlet with no services. Dismissed under the local plan's rural housing policy HO 2. The formal courtyard layout jarred with the organic pattern, the scheme would form a separate group, and the only service village, Houghton, is reached by an unlit route that lacks a footway for much of its length. The benefits of six homes were given moderate weight and did not outweigh the "significant harm" from the plan conflict (DL ¶27).

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6000903 · Cornwall · Appeal · 25 Aug 2026

• TR3 fail narrow unlit lanes without footways; bus every two hours, Mon-Sat only; visitors at least as car-dependent as residents (DL 7-8, 10-11, 27)

An appeal to convert a former piggery in open countryside near Tintagel to a single holiday cottage was dismissed. The inspector applied the August 2026 Framework without a separate consultation round, as the issues were already in play. The site was car-dependent, the appellant did not show a countryside location was necessary for the tourism use (S5(1)(b)), and the building was not shown to be capable of conversion without, in effect, rebuilding (S5(1)(c)).

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6006388 · North West Leicestershire · Appeal · 25 Aug 2026 · 1 home

• TR3 fail cited as "T3"; no services nearby, B591 unlit with no footway; heavy reliance on private car (DL 10-12, 15)

Conversion of a former groom's flat in a farm courtyard to a separate house, in a hamlet classed as countryside. Dismissed. Heavy car reliance (no services, unlit B591 with no footway) conflicted with the local plan's countryside accessibility criterion, and the building was not shown to be redundant or disused, so the Framework's isolated-homes re-use route did not help.

Full summary and sources

Appeal 6007601 · Mole Valley · Appeal · 20 Aug 2026 · 1 home

• TR3 fail unlit rural road without footways, very limited facilities in Okewoodhill, highly car dependent; cited against LP INF1/S1 (DL 17-18)

A temporary static caravan for a worker at a growing equestrian enterprise near Okewood Hill, already on site. Dismissed. The appellant gave no evidence of how often emergencies happen, how many mares are bred, whether alternative security would work, or how the business is doing. So essential need under HO11(1)(a) was not shown and S5(3) barred the isolated home. The site was also car-dependent, with an unlit, footway-less road, and the caravan caused considerable harm to the Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).

Full summary and sources