Another Appeal Win for a Rural Home Outside the Settlement Boundary: Why “Similar” Sites Get Different Results
- jason5843
- Oct 10
- 2 min read
We’re often asked why one rural scheme outside a settlement boundary is allowed at appeal while another—apparently “similar”—is dismissed. The answer is straightforward: appeals are determined on the strength of the argument and the evidence presented, not on superficial similarity.
Case in point: Ashby St Mary, Norfolk
Our recent appeal concerned a single high-quality sustainable dwelling with garaging on land between The Street and Sandy Lane, Ashby St Mary—a countryside location outside any defined development boundary. The Inspector identified clear limitations in access by sustainable modes:
future occupiers would need to walk and cycle along roads “not particularly wide, mostly unlit and [that] lack dedicated footways, cycle lanes or passing places,” which would discourage regular walking and cycling, particularly after dark or in poor weather.
Authorities frequently cite that scenario as determinative. At appeal, however, the decision must weigh all relevant considerations on the evidence.
What changed the outcome here?
Transport impact in context: Although private car use would occur, the Inspector accepted that day-to-day journeys would be short in a rural context, limiting overall harm.
Design and sustainability of real substance: The dwelling—by Agora Architects—was found to be of “outstanding design” and to “promote high levels of sustainability,” integrating with site topography and verdant setting; no harm to character/appearance was identified (GNLP 2/3; SNLP DM1.4/DM4.5).
Policy position (tilted balance): With the authority unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, NPPF 11(d)(ii) applied. The Inspector concluded:
“Whilst closely balanced, … the adverse impacts of the development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits… therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies.”
Why “similar” sites diverge at appeal
Two proposals can both be rural, outside the boundary, and lack footways/cycleways—yet diverge in outcome. The decisive factor is whether the appellant has presented a disciplined, evidence-led case that:
Addresses each reason for refusal with precise policy analysis;
Substantiates assertions (transport, design, character, habitats) with proportionate, credible evidence; and
Sets out a transparent planning balance that a decision-maker can rely on.
That is why we secure permissions on sites that others consider unwinnable: not because they are fundamentally different, but because the appeal case we present is stronger.
Comments