A Barnoldby housing appeal for 42 homes beside Waltham has been dismissed after an Inspector found that extending the village into open countryside would cause substantial and permanent harm. The decision, issued on 14th October 2026, concerns land off Waltham Road in Barnoldby le Beck parish, North East Lincolnshire.
The proposed homes would have occupied approximately 2.26 hectares immediately outside Waltham’s settlement boundary, near Oakfield Lane. North East Lincolnshire Council had refused outline permission, and the appeal has now left that refusal in place. No housing permission has been granted through this decision.
I would not read this as a case where the need for homes was ignored. The Inspector accepted that the council could not demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and that 42 homes would make a meaningful contribution. The deciding issue was whether those benefits justified permanently pushing the village further towards Barnoldby le Beck.
Why the Barnoldby housing appeal failed
Robert Baillie’s proposal, council reference DM/0468/25/OUT and appeal reference 6012180, sought outline permission with all detailed matters reserved. That means the application asked whether the development was acceptable in principle, with its detailed design and other matters to follow if permission was granted.
A possible layout had been submitted, but Inspector J D Clark treated it as indicative. It did not turn the application into an approval of a fixed arrangement of houses or access. The Inspector visited on 17th September 2026 and decided the appeal personally.
The Barnoldby housing appeal site has houses across the road, relatively recent development at Oakfield Lane to the south-east, and agricultural land to the south and west. Its western edge cuts across an open field without an existing feature defining the proposed boundary.
That distinction mattered under Policy 5 of the adopted North East Lincolnshire Local Plan. Land beyond development boundaries is treated as open countryside. The policy supports specified forms of development there, but an ordinary market housing scheme does not qualify simply because some affordable homes are included.
The Inspector accepted that the scheme would provide some affordable housing in accordance with council policy. However, it did not otherwise fall within the relevant countryside categories. Satisfying individual requirements on matters such as traffic or neighbouring living conditions did not overcome the broader conflict over where development should go.
An ordinary field can still matter
The appellant argued that the land was neither rare nor unique and was already influenced by the road and existing village edge. Landscape evidence suggested that change could be absorbed, while planting could create a new edge and reduce the visibility of the houses.
For the Barnoldby housing appeal, however, the Inspector distinguished screening a development from avoiding the loss of countryside. A planted buffer might soften views as it matured, but it would not reverse the extension of the built-up area.
The decision explains that the field’s value lay partly in its typical open, relatively flat agricultural character. Drivers passing briefly might perceive relatively little change, but people living nearby would experience the altered surroundings much more directly.
The Inspector described the proposal as “urbanising what is open countryside”. There was no natural or built feature supporting the suggested new settlement edge. The proposed boundary and landscape buffer would instead follow an arbitrary line through the field.
I would draw a practical distinction here. A scheme can be partly hidden and still change how a settlement sits in its landscape. Evidence needs to address both what people would see and what happens to the remaining countryside, rather than assuming that a belt of trees answers every objection.
The gap between Waltham and Barnoldby le Beck
Approximately 750 metres of undeveloped land would have remained between the settlements. The Inspector considered that enough to provide some sense of open space, but not enough to withstand an intrusion of this scale without harm.
The Barnoldby housing appeal did not concern a site identified as a Strategic Gap under the local plan. The Inspector expressly acknowledged that point and considered the specific strategic-gap policy to have little relevance. The refusal should therefore not be reported as enforcement of a designation that the land does not have.
Instead, the reasoning rested on countryside character and the separate identity of the settlements. Other nearby permissions did not persuade the Inspector that this proposal was merely a logical rounding-off of Waltham. It would extend beyond the cluster at Oakfield Lane and reduce the distinction between the two villages.
Housing benefits were recognised
The council’s stated housing land supply was 3.6 years. The Inspector gave significant weight to the provision of 42 homes, while noting that no delivery evidence established when they would become available. Further detailed approvals would have been needed before construction.
An executed Section 106 agreement, a legal planning agreement, provided for education contributions, affordable housing and highway works. The Inspector also accepted the parties’ common position that the required improvement in biodiversity could be delivered on the site.
In the Barnoldby housing appeal, those points were benefits or acceptable aspects of the scheme. They were not overlooked defects that the applicant had failed to address. The unresolved problem was the substantial and permanent landscape harm, which the Inspector concluded was not overcome in the overall balance.
What applicants and neighbours can take from it
The Barnoldby housing appeal is a reminder to test the proposed settlement edge early. I would ask why the boundary belongs in that particular position, whether existing features support it, and how the remaining gap would function once the houses were built.
For neighbours, the decision gives specific planning reasons for the outcome rather than a general objection to development. For applicants, it shows why housing supply, affordable provision and an agreed infrastructure package still need to be weighed against the actual landscape consequences.
This is a decision about this scheme and evidence, not a prohibition on every future proposal around Waltham. The full Inspector’s decision sets out the reasoning. Our separate Alfold housing appeal report illustrates a different outcome on different evidence; it should not be treated as a prediction for this land.
0 Comments