Appeal 6002316

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant submitted a signed [name] (UU) dated 2 February 2026 securing the development proposal to be delivered as a self-build dwelling. The Council highlighted an error at clause 2.2 insofar as the occupation of the dwelling by the applicant/self-builder should read three years, rather than their lifetime. I return to the UU as appropriate throughout my Decision.

During the appeal, it became apparent that incorrect ownership certification had been provided at the application stage, and that part of the site is not owned by the appellant but is unregistered. However, the correct notices have now been served and, from the evidence before me, no party has been prejudiced because of this. I shall therefore deal with the appeal on this basis.

The main issues are: • whether the site would provide a suitable location for the proposal, having particular regard to the spatial strategy of the Development Plan and, to the accessibility of the site to services and facilities, and; • the effect of the proposed development on the supply of employment sites.

Policies SD1 and SP1 of the Taunton Deane Borough Council Adopted [name] 2011-2028 (September 2012) (CS) describe the general principles and spatial strategy for new development within the Borough, which aim to direct new development to the most accessible and sustainable locations. As such, the Taunton urban area is the strategic focus for growth, with the market town of Wellington providing a secondary focus. Policy SP1 identifies Major and [name] and a number of villages as settlements where new development, including residential, of an appropriate scale to the settlement size, is permitted within the defined settlement boundaries.

Policy SB1 of the [name] adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Plan (2016) (DMP) reinforces a sustainable approach to development, stating that proposals outside of the boundaries of settlements identified in CS Policy SP1 will be considered as being within open countryside. Policy SP4 builds on this, identifying areas for growth in Major and [name].

[site address] is not included within the list of identified settlements, so whilst the site is located close to existing residential development, it is treated as being within open countryside for development plan policy purposes and is therefore in conflict with the policies as set out above.

DMP Policy SB1 requires any proposal to be assessed against [name] CP1, CP8 and DM2 unless it accords with a specific development plan policy or proposal or is necessary to meet a requirement of environmental or other legislation. There is no evidence before me that these criteria apply in the case of the appeal scheme.

Whilst the Council’s decision notice does not directly reference Policy DM2, it does refer to Policy SB1 which requires an analysis of Policy DM2. CS Policy DM2 specifically supports community uses, business use, holiday and tourism, non-residential agriculture and forestry buildings, replacement dwellings, affordable housing, conversion of existing buildings and essential utilities infrastructure. As a result, although this policy does not explicitly exclude residential development, it does not offer specific support for the proposal.

CS Policy CP1 requires development proposals to contribute to a sustainable environment and, amongst other objectives, minimise the need to travel through strategic locational choices. This approach is further supported by CS Policy CP6 which states that development should contribute to reducing the need to travel and improve accessibility to jobs, services and community facilities.

Building on this, Policy A5 of the DMP requires residential development to be situated within walking distance of, or have access by public transport to, essential community facilities, including employment, retail, education, health and leisure. The defined acceptable walking distances for residential development in Taunton and Wellington include up to 400 metres to bus stops and up to 800 metres to local shops.

[site address] consists of a low‐density scattering of dwellings and farm buildings that has developed incrementally over time. It does not include the essential day-to-day community facilities and services listed within Policy A5 of the DMP, the nearest of which are located at Milverton which is approximately 1.6km from the appeal site.

Milverton has limited day-to-day facilities such as a primary school, post office, and food store. Access to these facilities involves walking along a narrow, unlit footpath adjacent to the B3227, with a large section of this road subject to the national speed limit. At the turn-off toward [name] observed that although the road here incorporated streetlighting, albeit for small sections, the footpath ends and the remaining walk into Milverton along the B3187, although limited to 20mph, is uphill, and lacking any safe pedestrian refuge from passing traffic.

The appellant highlights an alternative walking route to Milverton via the Public Right of Way (PRoW) to the south of the appeal site. [name] observed the PRoW on a dry, bright and sunny day, it provides more of a recreational pedestrian and countryside link through fields, rather than a direct or formalised route to day‐to‐day services and facilities. Accessing services and facilities using this route would be even less likely during inclement weather and hours of darkness.

I have not been provided with any information regarding the suitability of, or proximity to any designated cycle routes between the appeal site and Milverton. During my site visit I noted that the route is largely via an unlit rural road subject to a 60 mph speed limit. The absence of street lighting significantly reduces visibility, particularly in poor weather or during winter months, while the higher vehicle speeds create an intimidating environment for cyclists. As such, I cannot be certain that this route is likely to be perceived as attractive or safe for regular cycling, particularly for less confident users.

The closest bus stops are located approximately 200m to the east of the site, or approximately 800m to the west, neither stop includes a bus shelter. The narrative to Policy A5 states that it is important that walking distances to bus stops are short and walking and waiting conditions attractive to potential bus users. The highway between the site’s access and the bus stops to the east has neither a separate footway nor lighting, and I observed during my visit that this section of B3227 is relatively narrow.

Consequently, although only a short distance, walking between the site and these bus stops would not be particularly appealing or safe, particularly in the dark. This is also likely to put off occupiers of the development from using the bus. Moreover, the submitted timetables indicate that the last bus from Milverton to Taunton is at 6.22pm and the last arrival from Taunton is 6.32pm. There is no bus service on a Sunday. This reflects a limited and early‐ending rural service, particularly relevant when considering accessibility and reliance on public transport.

Given the limited alternative sustainable transport modes and the unattractive walking options available, occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be likely to be highly reliant on one mode of transport, the private motor vehicle, for the majority of their journeys and to serve their daily needs.

I accept that my findings may be applicable to rural areas in general. Indeed, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas and sets out that sites to meet local needs in rural areas may have to be found in locations that are not well served by public transport.

Whilst the Framework acknowledges that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary in rural areas, this does not justify development that would, in practice, lead to an unacceptable degree of reliance on the private motor car, particularly where this would conflict with the development plan. In the present case, the evidence indicates that the site is poorly served by realistic alternatives to the car, with limited public transport and unattractive walking and cycling conditions. As such, future occupiers would be likely to rely predominantly on private vehicle use to meet day‐to‐day needs.

I have had regard to the appeal decisions drawn to my attention by both parties. A number of the decisions relied upon by the appellant (including [address] 1, Bicknoller2; Alcombe3; and Yeovil4) relate to sites that are either within, or functionally part of, defined settlements or have close and convenient access to a range of day‐to‐day services. In those cases, Inspectors placed weight on the site’s clear relationship with existing settlements and the realistic prospect of walking to local facilities, notwithstanding the absence of footways or street lighting in places. I therefore find that those decisions are distinguishable from the appeal proposal, which lies outside any defined settlement boundary and does not have the same level of functional integration with nearby settlements.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the appeal site is not a suitable location for the proposal, particularly having regard to the spatial strategy of the Development Plan, and the accessibility of the site to services and facilities. It would therefore be contrary to Policies SD1, SP1, SP4, CP1, and CP6 of the CS and Policies A5 and SB1 of the DMP. Although referenced in the reason for refusal, CS Policy CP8 aims to establish a clear and consistent approach to the protection and enhancement of the natural and historic environment. As such, it is not directly relevant to this main issue.

The appeal site relates to a currently disused former nursery and there is no dispute that the last use of the land was, in part, for employment purposes. The appellant’s evidence outlines that the former plant nursery business ceased trading, following a short revival of that commercial use, in or shortly after 2005. During my site visit I noted that the small outbuildings associated with the former nursery use appeared empty. Consistent with this, there is no dispute that the land has been vacant for a number of years.

However, the Council is concerned that the submission was not accompanied with any evidence outlining why the former use of the site could not be reintroduced, generating local employment. The land has subsequently been separated in terms of ownership and the adjacent site received consent in 2015 for holiday letting. There is no suggestion that the reuse of the site for employment purposes would be incompatible with adjacent uses.

The appeal seeks a change in the use of the land. As set out above, there are no environmental reasons why employment use could not be re-introduced on the site. Therefore, in the absence of any contrary evidence, the proposal would lead to the unacceptable loss of employment land and, as such, would conflict with 1 APP/D3315/W/19/3220853 2 APP/W3330/W/20/3263909 3 APP/H3320/W/17/3188118 4 APP/E3335/W/24/3348456 Policy CP2 of the CS in this regard, which states, amongst other things, that the loss of existing or identified business land to other uses will not be permitted.

The appellant refers to the appeal decision at [name], Williton5. In that case, the Inspector expressly concluded that the site was not a suitable location for residential development but granted ‘permission in principle’ because the adverse impacts did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits at that preliminary stage of decision‐making. That decision was taken in the specific context of permission in principle, where the scope of assessment is limited. I therefore do not consider that it provides strong support for the granting of full planning permission in the circumstances of the present appeal.

Further, the appellant highlights the appeal decision at Comberton6, in Cambridgeshire. In that case the Inspector determined that the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area was acceptable and that there would be a generally low risk of flooding. As such, those considerations are not reflected in the circumstances of the present appeal.

Several larger‐scale appeal decisions were also cited, including Ruishton7; [name] Michael8; and Wellington9. Those cases involved a range of substantial housing numbers, affordable housing provision, and significant public benefits, alongside infrastructure and mitigation measures that materially altered the planning balance. Inspectors in those cases explicitly acknowledged conflict with settlement boundary and countryside policies but found that the scale of benefits carried overriding weight. Given that the current proposal is for a single dwelling with limited public benefits, I attach very limited weight to those decisions as comparators.

Taken as a whole, I find that the appeal decisions the appellant has referred to do not establish a consistent pattern indicating that development of the type proposed must be permitted in this location. Rather, when read in full context, they reinforce the importance Inspectors place on settlement hierarchy, functional accessibility, and the limited weight to be afforded to the benefits of a single dwelling when weighed against significant locational harm.

I note that both the [name], Parish Council and members of the general public support the proposal. However, support, or a lack of objection to a scheme is not, in itself, a reason to allow development. I have in any case, determined this appeal on its own particular merits.

The Council has confirmed that it is able to demonstrate a housing land supply of 3.94 years. This is well below Government expectations. As a result, paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework requires that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to 5 APP/E3335/W/25/3373573 6 APP/W0530/W/25/3364329 7 APP/E3335/W/24/3349986 8 APP/W3330/W/23/3329488 9 APP/E3335/W/24/3354865 sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

In this instance, the benefits of the proposal include the provision of new accommodation that would assist in meeting housing need in the area, provide support local facilities and create jobs during the construction phase. I place limited weight on support for local facilities and on job creation, due to the minor scale of the development proposed.

With regard to the proposed home, the UU secures the first occupation of the dwelling by the self-builder, the appellant, as their sole or main residence. It would therefore be a self-build/custom-build dwelling. The Council is required by the [name] and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended) to grant planning permission for enough serviced plots of land to meet the demand for self-build housebuilding in the area. I agree with the appellant that the Council is not achieving sufficient delivery of self-build houses and there is a significant shortfall in their supply. Both because of the need for self-build/custom-build dwellings and the overall poor housing land supply, I place moderate weight on the proposed home.

However, for the reasons given above and from the information before me, I have concluded that there would be significant harm arising, in terms of the reliance on the private motor vehicle, accessibility to facilities and services, given the spatial strategy for the area. I also place limited weight to the harm on the loss of a potential employment site. The support for the principle of housing development within the Framework is balanced by the importance it places on the provision of housing development in sustainable locations and strategic policies for employment. In this instance, the harm in these respects would be both significant and enduring. When assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

The Council highlight recent appeal decisions at [address], Williton10; and Llantarnam, Wellington11; concerning proposed dwellings in countryside locations which have been dismissed where future occupiers would be largely reliant on private car travel and where access to services by sustainable modes was found to be impractical or unattractive, even if physically possible. My approach is therefore consistent with these decisions, which demonstrate that, for small‐scale development, an unsustainable location can remain decisive, notwithstanding the absence of a five‐year housing land supply.

Policy CP2 of the CS states that, where there would be loss of employment land, permission will be forthcoming where the overall benefit of the proposal outweighs the disadvantages of the loss of employment or potential employment on the site. As can be seen above, this is not the case for the proposed development.

I therefore conclude that the development conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that outweigh the identified harm. 10 APP/E3335/W/24/3345467 11 APP/W3330/W/22/3313229

The site is located within the catchment area of the [name] and Moors Special Protection Area (SPA) and listed Ramsar site. As a European Designated Site and Ramsar site, this is protected pursuant to the Conservation of Habitats Regulations 2017 (as amended).

In the event that I had found no harm in respect of the main issues, the competent authority (in this case myself) would need to carry out an Appropriate Assessment in respect of the potential effects of the proposal on the designated site. However, as I have found against the appellant on other substantive grounds, this matter need not be considered further in this case.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.