Appeal 6000576

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for four dwellings, new access arrangements and associated works at [site address] ), [site address] , [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/24/01568/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The application form does not include a description of the proposed development. I have therefore used the description set out on the Council’s Decision Notice and appeal form in the banner heading and formal decision above.

As part of the appeal, to address the Council’s third reason for refusal, the appellant has submitted an updated [name] (PEA)1. The Council is satisfied that the updated PEA addresses its previous concerns and that [name] can be achieved. From the evidence before me and my observations on site, I can find no reason to disagree.

As part of the appeal, to address the Council’s fourth reason for refusal, the appellant has submitted a signed and dated unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Council is content that the unilateral undertaking meets its requirements for the purposes of securing an affordable housing contribution for the value of £51,188.00. From the evidence before me, I can find no reason to disagree.

In the context of the above, the main issues in this appeal are therefore: • whether the appeal site would be an appropriate location for the proposal with regards to the Council’s development strategy for the area; and • whether the proposal would make an effective use of land, with specific regard to the housing mix and type. 1 Phase 1 [name], Hanley farm (un-redacted), Ref: HFHS 0425_PEA, [name] 2025

There is no dispute between the parties that the appeal site is located outside the development boundary and, for the purposes of Policy SWDP 2 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (2016) (Local Plan), within the open countryside.

Policy SWDP 2 of the Local Plan sets out the development strategy and settlement hierarchy for the District. It states that in the open countryside, development will be strictly controlled and limited to specific types. Policy RE 2 of the Hanley Castle Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan (2025) (NDP) has a similar approach. The proposal would not meet any of the exceptions identified in either policy. It would therefore be at odds with the development strategy and would conflict with [name] 2 of the Local Plan and RE 2 of the NDP.

Policy MnGr 1 of the NDP states that proposals for new housing should deliver a range of house types, sizes and tenures. Particular needs in the area include affordable housing, starter homes, two and three bedroom family homes and homes for the elderly or disabled. The policy requires applicants to demonstrate how the proposal would meet these local needs.

The proposal would deliver four 4-bedroom detached dwellings. This would not represent a range of house types, sizes and tenures, and, although it includes a contribution towards affordable housing, there is no guarantee that this contribution would meet the local needs of the Hanley Castle Parish. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy MnGr 1 of the NDP.

The proposal would have a low gross density of around 5 dwellings per hectare, despite the site’s accessible location adjacent to [site address] ’s development boundary. However, with 66% of the site allocated as Green Infrastructure, partly for a badger exclusion zone, the net density would be significantly higher and, based on the evidence and my site observations, broadly comparable to the adjacent detached housing on [site address] and [name].

For these reasons, I am of the view that the density of the proposal would be appropriate when assessed against the density criteria in parts B, C, D and E of Policy SWDP 13 relevant to the locality and the character of the built and natural environment context. The proposal would therefore accord with this policy.

I have taken careful account of the representations of nearby residents, which include concerns regarding the capacity of the local highway and services, the impact of the proposal on biodiversity, living conditions and the character and appearance of the area, and the affordability of the proposed dwellings. However, none of the concerns raised have led me to dismissing the appeal.

Given the modest scale of the proposal, any impact on highway capacity or local facilities would be limited. The Highways Authority raises no objection, and from the evidence before me and my observations on site, I am not of the view that unacceptable effects would arise in this regard.

The PEA indicates [name] are unlikely to be present on the appeal site. Precautionary measures during construction to protect other newts and amphibians would be secured by condition.

The Council considers the position of the proposed dwellings, window location and private amenity areas to be acceptable and policy compliant. Based on the evidence before me and my observations on site, I can find no reason to disagree. [name] 1 would back onto the bungalow, known as Mayfield, there would be a significant distance between these two dwellings. Furthermore, the means of enclosure between the gardens and a landscaping scheme, which could be used to bolster the privacy between the rear gardens, would be secured by condition.

A previous Inspector concluded2 that an earlier scheme on the appeal site would not harm the character and appearance of the area. Based on the evidence before me and my observations on site, for similar reasons, I reach the same conclusion in respect of this proposal. The Council also considers the impact acceptable.

A unilateral undertaking, under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), provides an affordable housing contribution of £51,188, equivalent to 20% of the units, in accordance with Policy SWDP 15 of the Local Plan. This obligation is necessary, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. It therefore meets the tests set out at Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and Paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and weighs in favour of granting permission.

The Council has suggested 14 conditions be imposed on any grant of permission, which I conclude on below. In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the approach in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. I have accordingly modified the wording or form of certain conditions without altering their fundamental aims. Pre-commencement conditions were agreed by the appellant.

In addition to the standard time limit, a condition specifying the approved plans is necessary for certainty. For the same reason and to protect the area’s character and appearance, conditions requiring details of external finishes, means of enclosure, and a landscaping scheme are also justified.

To ensure highway safety during the construction and occupation of the proposal, a pre-commencement Construction Environmental Management Plan is required, along with conditions securing access, parking, and turning areas prior to occupation, as well as their ongoing maintenance.

To safeguard biodiversity during construction and occupation of the proposal, conditions requiring a Green Infrastructure Management Plan and a pre-commencement [name] and Monitoring Plan are required.

To prevent increased flood risk, a condition for a surface water drainage scheme is necessary. This condition needs to be pre-commencement as the scheme could affect the fundamental design of the proposal. 2 Appeal Reference: APP/J1860/W/23/3331962

To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a condition requiring the details of the renewable and/or low-carbon energy measures is necessary.

Finally, to protect the living conditions of neighbouring residents, a condition controlling construction hours is also imposed.

The Council does not currently have a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. It has been put to me by the appellant that the current supply position is 2.06 years. This is a chronic shortfall, which is not disputed by the Council.

Given the shortfall in housing supply, paragraph 11d) of the Framework falls to be considered. Permission should therefore be granted unless any adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

Paragraph 14 of the Framework states that in situations where the presumption (at paragraph 11d) applies to applications involving the provision of housing, the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, provided the following apply: a) the neighbourhood plan became part of the development plan five years or less before the date on which the decision is made; and b) the neighbourhood plan contains policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement (see paragraphs 69-70)

In this case, Policy MnGr 7 of the NDP allocates sites for housing development. However, while I do not doubt that the intention was to propose a plan led approach to the delivery of housing for this community, these allocations do not meet an identified housing requirement for Hanley Castle Parish. From the evidence before me, the Local Plan does not include a housing requirement for designated neighbourhood areas, as advised by Paragraph 69 of the Framework. Neither does it appear that an indicative figure has been requested or provided, as advised in Paragraph 70 of the Framework. The NDP does not therefore meet Part b) of Paragraph 14 and, as such, the provisions of Paragraph 14 do not apply.

I have found that the proposal would be at odds with the development strategy set out at Policy SWDP 2 of the Local Plan and Policy RE 2 of the NDP. It would also conflict with Policy MnGr 1 of the NDP.

The development strategy is broadly consistent with the Framework in terms of supporting housing in rural areas that reflect local needs. Nonetheless, Policy SWDP 2 of the Local Plan restricts the type of development permitted in rural areas where it would be located beyond the development boundary, whereas the Framework only restricts the type of development permitted in rural areas where it would result in isolated homes in the countryside.

The proposed dwellings would be located on the edge of [site address] , a Category 1 settlement with a number of facilities and services, including a primary school, which future occupants would likely use. The proposal would therefore support the vitality of this rural community and accord with Paragraph 83 of the Framework.

Accordingly, although the appeal site is located beyond the development boundary, I am of the view that it is not in an unsustainable location and would not be contrary to the aims of Paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. For this reason, I afford the conflict with Policy SWDP2 limited weight.

The NDP has undergone a material review, which was recently tested at examination and the updated plan made by the Council. It therefore affords full weight in my decision. Nevertheless, in this case, the breach of Policy RE 2 would not be significant.

Policy RE2 of the NDP seeks to maintain the distinct identities of [name] and [site address] and prevent encroachment into open countryside. Although the appeal site lies east of [site address] , it is visually enclosed by the adjacent housing, [address], and trees along the eastern boundary. The proposed dwellings would relate well to the neighbouring houses and be contained by the proposed Green Infrastructure. As such, the proposal would not result in significant sprawl and would preserve the settlements’ separate character, as well as the rural feel of the parish.

Policy MnGr 1 of the NDP is broadly consistent with the Framework’s aim to ensure that a range of homes is provided to meet the needs of present and future generations, including the housing needed for different groups.

Notwithstanding this, I am mindful that the proposal would deliver 4 new dwellings in an accessible location, supporting the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes in an area where there is a chronic shortfall in the supply of deliverable housing sites. It would also contribute to the delivery of affordable housing. Therefore, while the proposal may not directly address the local needs of the parish, it would make a meaningful contribution to the needs of the district. As a small site, it could also be built out relatively quickly. I afford these benefits significant weight in my decision.

In addition, there would be social and economic benefits arising from the construction and occupation of the dwellings. There would also be opportunities for environmental benefits arising from an appropriate and comprehensive landscaping scheme and a net gain in biodiversity. These are further modest benefits of the proposal.

Overall, the adverse impacts arising from conflict with Policy SWDP 2 of the Local Plan and [name] 1 and RE2 of the NDP would be moderate, and, as such, the associated harm to public interest and the plan-led system. These impacts do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the substantial benefits of the proposal when assessed against the Framework as a whole. Thus, material considerations justify allowing the appeal.

For the reasons above, having had regard to the development plan as a whole and all relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: PL-01C, PL-10E, PL-11D, PL-12D, PL-13D, PL-14, PL-20B, PL-21A, PL-22A, PL-23A, PL-24A, PL-25A, PL-26A, PL-27B.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations set out in the Phase 1 [name], Hanley farm (un-redacted), [name]: HFHS 0425_PEA, [name] 2025.

No development shall take place until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall include but not be limited to the following: (a) measures to ensure that vehicles leaving the site do not deposit mud or other detritus on the public highway; (b) details of site operative parking areas, material storage areas and the location of site operatives’ facilities (offices, toilets etc); (c) the hours that delivery vehicles will be permitted to arrive and depart, and arrangements for unloading and manoeuvring; and (d) details of any temporary construction accesses and their reinstatement. The measures set out in the approved CEMP shall be carried out and complied with in full during the construction of the development hereby permitted. Site operatives' parking, material storage and the positioning of operatives' facilities shall only take place on the site in locations approved in writing by the local planning authority.

No development shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall: (a) provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; (b) include a timetable for its implementation; and (c) provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the surface water drainage scheme shall be fully implemented before first occupation of the development hereby permitted. Thereafter, the approved sustainable drainage system shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance plan.

No development shall take place including demolition, ground works and vegetation clearance until a [name] and Monitoring Plan (the HMMP), prepared in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan and the approved landscaping scheme, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. It shall include: (a) a non-technical summary; (b) the roles and responsibilities of the people or organisation(s) delivering the HMMP; (c) the planned habitat creation and enhancement works to create or improve habitat to achieve the biodiversity net gain in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan; (d) the management measures to maintain habitat in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan for a period of 30 years from the completion of development; and (e) the monitoring methodology and frequency in respect of the created or enhanced habitat to be submitted to the local planning authority. (f) where the results of the monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the HMMP are not being met, how contingencies and/or remedial action are identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme. Notice in writing shall be given to the Council when the habitat creation and enhancement works as set out in the HMMP have been completed. The created and enhanced habitat specified in the approved HMMP shall thereafter be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved HMMP. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the local planning authority in writing in accordance with the methodology and frequency specified in the approved HMMP.

Prior to development above slab level details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to development above slab level a scheme of soft and hard landscaping shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include: (a) a plan(s) showing details of all existing trees and hedges on the application site, together with an indication of any proposals for felling/pruning and any proposed changes in ground level, or other works to be carried out, within the canopy spread; (b) a plan(s) showing the layout of proposed tree, hedge and shrub planting and grass areas; (c) a schedule of plants including species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities; (d) written specifications of planting and cultivation works; and (e) an implementation programme and schedule of landscape maintenance for a minimum period of five years. The scheme of soft and hard landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and agreed implementation programme. Thereafter the completed scheme shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details. If, within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, any tree or plant (or any tree or plant planted in replacement of them) is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies or becomes seriously damaged or defective, another tree or plant of a similar size and species as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place within the first planting season following the removal, uprooting, destruction or death of the original tree or plant.

Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted details of renewable and/or low carbon energy generation measures that contribute to at least 10% of the predicted energy requirements of the development shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include: (a) the overall predicted energy requirements of the approved development; (b) the predicted energy generation from the proposed renewable/low carbon energy measures; and (c) an implementation timetable for the proposed measures. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted, the vehicle access, parking spaces, and areas for manoeuvring vehicles shall have been constructed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the vehicle access, parking spaces and areas for manoeuvring vehicles shall be maintained, available at all times for their intended purpose.

Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted, a Green Infrastructure Management Plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all areas identified on approved plan PL-10E shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Green Infrastructure Management Plan shall be carried out as approved.

Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted, all means of enclosure shall have been constructed in accordance with details previously submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the means of enclosure shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Demolition, clearance or construction work in connection with the development hereby permitted shall only take place between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 Monday to Friday and 08.00 and 13.00 on a Saturday. There shall be no demolition, clearance or construction work or deliveries to and from the site on Sundays or [name].