A rural residential garden in South Derbyshire has been treated as previously developed land, helping a permission-in-principle appeal for one home succeed.
The surprising part of the Melbourne decision turns on the wording of the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework: its garden exclusion applies to land in built-up areas.
Garden sat outside Melbourne settlement boundary
The appeal site formed part of the residential curtilage and side garden of Four Winds, outside the defined settlement boundary for Melbourne.
South Derbyshire’s development plan normally resists new housing in the Rural Area outside settlement limits, and the proposal did not qualify as conventional infill under the relevant local policy.
Inspector J Buxton nevertheless found that the site was physically contained and that one additional dwelling would cause little harm to the rural character of the area.
The more important national-policy question was whether the land counted as previously developed land.
Previously developed land definition proves decisive
The current NPPF definition includes land that has been lawfully developed and its curtilage. It also contains exclusions, including land in built-up areas such as residential gardens.
That geographical wording was decisive. The Inspector found the appeal garden was outside Melbourne’s settlement and there was no evidence that it formed part of a built-up area.
As a result, the residential-garden exclusion did not apply and the site fell within the definition of previously developed land.
That brought the proposal within the current NPPF Policy S5 route for redevelopment of previously developed land outside settlements. The policy does not create an automatic permission, but it changes the balance by directing that qualifying development should be approved unless its benefits are substantially outweighed by adverse effects.
One home carries substantial housing weight
The site had pedestrian links into Melbourne and a bus stop immediately outside. Although future occupiers would still use cars for some journeys, the Inspector did not regard the location as isolated.
Delivery of one additional home was given substantial positive weight. The proposal remained in conflict with parts of the development plan, but the identified harms did not substantially outweigh the benefits under the national policy balance.
Appeal 6011217 was allowed on 23rd September 2026.
The application had been presented as self-build, but the Inspector found there was no mechanism at the permission-in-principle stage to secure the eventual dwelling as self-build. That claimed benefit therefore received only limited weight.
Planning Geek has already covered that separate issue in the Findon PIP appeal. The fresh point at Melbourne is the treatment of a residential garden outside a built-up area as PDL.
This should not be stretched into a rule that every rural garden is brownfield. The decision depended on the current definition, the site’s lawful residential curtilage and the Inspector’s factual finding that the land was outside a built-up area.
Planning Geek’s previously developed land guide and permission in principle guide cover the wider framework. You can read the locally hosted appeal decision or the Planning Inspectorate appeal record.
0 Comments