Appeal Allowed for standard rural home at Old Buckenham: Correcting the “Sustainable Location” Test and the Footpath Myth

We’re pleased to share another successful appeal for a rural self-build home in Norfolk — this time for a Permission in Principle at Fen Road, Old Buckenham (APP/F2605/W/25/3370598).The Planning Inspector has allowed the appeal and granted permission, confirming that the proposal must be assessed as a whole under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and that the absence of a lit or continuous footpath is not grounds for refusal in a rural context.

🏡 What Breckland Council Said — and Why It Was Wrong

1️⃣ A Misunderstanding of “Sustainable Location”

Breckland Council’s officer report made the fundamental error of treating the site’s location as the overriding test of sustainability, stating that:

“The application proposal does not seek to place development in a sustainable location, and any benefits are not considered to outweigh this harm.”

That interpretation is incorrect.Under paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF, decision-makers must grant permission unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole.

This means that the assessment must consider all three strands of sustainability — economic, social, and environmental — not simply the proximity of the site to a village core or whether there is a continuous footway.

The Inspector explicitly rejected Breckland’s approach, confirming that the proposal must be weighed in the round and not reduced to a single issue of location.

2️⃣ The “Lit Footpath” Myth

The officer’s report went on to criticise the proposal for being located on a “narrow, unlit and unpaved road with no nearby bus stops within what is considered to be a safe walking distance.”

This reasoning is increasingly common in rural decisions — and increasingly challenged on appeal.The Inspector found that Fen Road is a lightly trafficked rural lane, that many existing homes within Old Buckenham lack pavements or street lighting, and that this is not uncharacteristic of the area.

In other words, the absence of a footpath is not unusual for Norfolk villages and cannot automatically render a proposal unsustainable. The NPPF recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport “will vary between urban and rural areas”, and this must be reflected in decision-making.

3️⃣ Confusing “Sustainable Development” with “Sustainable Location”

The Council’s approach conflated two very different concepts. The principles of sustainable development — set out in paragraph 8 of the NPPF — require planning to balance social, economic, and environmental objectives. This is not the same as demanding a site be within walking distance of all services via a lit footpath.

By equating the two, the Council failed to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development correctly. The Inspector reaffirmed that planning judgments must reflect the principles of sustainability, not a checklist of physical infrastructure.

4️⃣ Failing to Apply Reduced Weight to Out-of-Date Policies

Although the site lies outside the settlement boundary, Breckland cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply (5YHLS). This automatically engages the tilted balance under NPPF paragraph 11(d).

Where a Council’s housing policies restrict delivery, conflict with those policies carries reduced weight. The Inspector made this clear, noting that the site’s limited locational harm did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, particularly given its role in supporting self-build housing delivery.

⚖️ The Correct Test — As Confirmed by the Inspector

• The Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, triggering the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

• The proposal must therefore be granted unless harms significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

• The lack of pavements or street lighting is not determinative in a rural context.

• The site is not isolated, and its development would not harm the character of the countryside.

• The self-build nature of the proposal adds clear public benefits through housing diversification and delivery.

  
  

🚜 Why This Matters for Rural Applicants

This decision highlights a widespread issue: many councils continue to misapply national policy by using “sustainable location” as a gatekeeping test, often citing the absence of a footpath or street lighting as a reason for refusal.

However, national policy — and now another clear appeal decision — confirms that planning decisions must consider the proposal as a whole and that rural settings require a flexible, balanced approach.

A lack of footpaths does not equate to an unsustainable development. The real question is whether the proposal achieves the principles of sustainable development under the NPPF.

🌾 Meadows’ Experience in Rural and Self-Build Planning

At Meadows, we’ve successfully delivered a wide range of rural housing and self-build projects across the East of England — including numerous appeals where similar misinterpretations have been corrected.

Our team understands the nuances of rural planning and the importance of applying national policy correctly, including:

• Demonstrating that footpath absence is not fatal to a rural proposal;

• Applying the tilted balance where housing or self-build supply is lacking;

• Framing schemes around sustainable development principles rather than arbitrary locational tests;

• Preparing lawful Habitats Regulations mitigation where required.

  
  

Whether your land lies within a village boundary or along a rural lane, we can help you navigate the process with a clear, evidence-based strategy that reflects both national policy and local context.

📞 For advice on your rural or self-build project, contact us at www.meadows.co.uk/contact