Nine-home Brigsley appeal fails as Inspector says site makes poor use of land

The Brigsley appeal for nine homes has been dismissed after an Inspector found the proposal would make ineffective use of a 1.3-hectare village-edge site, despite North East Lincolnshire’s housing land supply shortfall.

Inspector Peter Eggleton dismissed appeal 6009363 on 1st October 2026. Mr and Mrs Hansen had sought outline permission for nine dwellings and garages on land at Mushroom Lane, with access considered now and all other matters reserved.

The decision matters because the scheme cleared an important initial hurdle under the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework. Its relationship to Brigsley and the council’s inability to demonstrate a five-year supply opened the Policy S5 route. That did not overcome low density, poor connectivity and landscape harm.

Why Policy S5 opened the door

The site lies outside, but next to, the settlement’s development boundary. The Inspector accepted that this was not infill development. Instead, he considered the part of Policy S5 dealing with development which addresses an evidenced unmet need.

The accepted absence of a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites was crucial to the Brigsley appeal. Because the land was physically well related to an existing settlement, the proposal satisfied Policy S5(1)(j)(i). Being outside the boundary was therefore not, by itself, enough to close the route to approval.

Under S5, qualifying proposals should be approved unless their benefits would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects assessed against the Framework’s national decision-making policies. The Brigsley appeal shows why we need to read that balance alongside the rest of the Framework.

The Inspector also assessed the 2018 local plan. Part 1 of Policy 5, addressing suitability and sustainability, retained full weight. Part 3 was inconsistent with the Framework and received very limited weight. The decision did not treat every local policy as outdated simply because housing supply was deficient.

6.8 homes per hectare was too little

The design and access statement identified a gross density of 6.8 dwellings per hectare. Gross density uses the overall site area; it is different from net density, which focuses on the developable area. No net density figure had been supplied.

The appellants pointed to the layout and character of neighbouring development. They also proposed retaining hedgerows and boundary trees, with landscaping, biodiversity enhancements and an attenuation pond. Local residents supported low-density development.

Those were relevant considerations, but they did not settle the question. The indicative plan identified areas for gardens, parking, roads and dwelling footprints. Even setting aside the stated areas for open space, biodiversity, swales and the attenuation pond, the Inspector considered the resulting net density very low.

He said he was “not persuaded that the provision of nine dwellings on this site represents an effective use of land”. That is the central finding in the Brigsley appeal, rather than a conclusion that every rural scheme must achieve a particular universal density.

How Policy L3 became decisive

Policy L3(2)(b) requires development footprints to make the best use of a site’s development potential, taking account of the Framework’s policies. The Inspector acknowledged the neighbouring housing character and the proposed landscaping and biodiversity benefits, but remained unconvinced that nine homes satisfied L3.

The proposal also conflicted with local plan Policy 22(B)(ix), which required efficient use of land and retained full weight. Both national and local policy therefore supported the density objection.

Importantly, L3 contains a refusal instruction. Policy S5(2) identifies failure to comply with a national decision-making policy containing such an instruction as one of the circumstances in which adverse effects are likely to substantially outweigh benefits.

That linked the density finding back into the S5 balance. The housing shortfall helped establish the route for considering the development favourably, but did not remove the need to use the land effectively.

The Inspector’s final conclusion relied particularly, though not exclusively, on L3. Connectivity and landscape effects remained separate adverse considerations. We should not read the Brigsley appeal as suggesting that increasing the number of homes would necessarily secure permission.

The Connectivity Tool supported the site assessment

The location also failed Policy TR3 in the August 2026 Framework. This seeks sustainable locations which limit travel, particularly by private car, and offer a genuine choice of transport modes. It calls for the Connectivity Tool alongside other quantitative or qualitative evidence.

Both parties had an opportunity to comment on the tool’s results. The Inspector found that those results did not conflict with his assessment from the submitted evidence and his site visit: the site was poorly connected and future residents would probably rely heavily on cars.

The Brigsley appeal decision gives no detailed tool score. Its significance is that the tool supported the wider assessment, rather than replacing consideration of actual routes, services and bus provision.

The site context plan showed a 500-metre isochrone, but the Inspector explained that it did not represent walking distances. No services or facilities were shown within that area. Brigsley’s limited facilities, including its village hall, play area, church and a bus stop, fell between the 500-metre and 1,000-metre isochrones.

Why the 800-metre reference mattered

There was a footpath to the larger settlement of Waltham. However, it was initially narrow, and the road was unlit until Waltham’s outskirts. The route towards Brigsley was also narrow and unlit.

The Inspector referred to the Framework’s reasonable walking distance of around 800 metres. Nearly all Waltham’s services lay beyond the 1,000-metre isochrone and well beyond a reasonable walking distance. Schools, shops and healthcare facilities were too distant for convenient walking.

The presence of bus stops did not resolve that weakness. No evidence of bus frequency had been provided, so the Inspector could not assume that a convenient service was available. The Brigsley appeal is a useful reminder that a stop on a plan needs supporting service information.

Landscape harm survived the outline-stage argument

A previous housing appeal on the site, APP/B2002/W/17/3184046, had also been dismissed. That Inspector had found that housing would change an open field associated with the village’s countryside into a more suburban residential setting, projecting built development into the countryside.

Peter Eggleton did not have the earlier plans. He nevertheless concluded that the current scheme would harm character and appearance, even with retained and strengthened boundary landscaping. It conflicted with landscape character requirements in Policy N2 and local plan Policy 5.

He distinguished that harm from Policy DP3’s refusal instruction for unjustified conflict with its design objectives. Detailed design remained reserved, and the proposal had sought to satisfy DP3. The conflict was not sufficiently clear to trigger that particular refusal requirement.

That distinction did not make the landscape impact disappear. It still carried considerable weight against the scheme. Reserving appearance and other details does not prevent an Inspector assessing the consequences of introducing housing into an open rural field.

Housing, biodiversity and trees still counted

The Inspector gave substantial weight to nine additional homes in an area where housing land supply was significantly below requirements. Construction and occupation would also support economic and social objectives, including local services and community facilities.

The proposed biodiversity net gain exceeded the statutory requirement. New habitats, retained trees and substantial additional tree planting counted positively, as did green infrastructure and nature-based solutions addressing several environmental functions.

These were real benefits in the Brigsley appeal, recognised under Policies N2 and N3 and local plan Policy 22. They were not enough, taken together, to overcome the density conflict, poor connectivity and landscape harm.

What the Brigsley appeal means for rural-edge proposals

For applicants, the practical lesson is to test density, accessibility and landscape together before fixing an outline proposal. A generous landscape package needs an explanation of why the remaining development area still makes effective use of the land.

A measured net density assessment, realistic walking routes and current bus timetables can help address questions left unresolved here. None guarantees approval, and more homes could introduce different impacts. The task is to demonstrate an appropriate scheme for the particular site.

We can help assess those planning issues before an application or planning appeal. The Brigsley appeal illustrates how a favourable housing-supply starting point can still lead to refusal when the proposal fails the wider policy balance.