Appeal 6000677

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new build dwelling to replace existing barn approved for residential conversion at [site address] , [site address] , [site address] , Worcestershire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/24/00132/FUL, and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The Government launched a consultation on reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in December 2025, but as the proposals are still subject to change, they carry little weight. Accordingly, the decision was made with reference to the December 2024 version of the Framework.

The existing agricultural building on the appeal site benefits from prior approval1 under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). If implemented, the approval would convert the existing building into a dwellinghouse (the Class Q scheme). The Class Q scheme has not been implemented but it is a material consideration in the determination of this appeal.

Located within the open countryside, the main parties accept that the proposed development does not accord with the Council’s spatial strategy of the development plan for new housing. I have dealt with the appeal on this basis, identifying the main issues based on the totality of the written evidence before me.

The main issues are: • whether or not the proposal would be a suitable location for residential development having regard to the spatial strategy of the development plan, and 1 Council reference: W/23/00549/GPDQ - Notification of prior approval for the proposed change of use of an agricultural building to a dwellinghouse. • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises agricultural land and includes an existing barn which would be replaced by a proposed detached, two storey dwelling. The site lies within the open countryside, in a remote location.

Policy SWDP2 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (Adopted 2016) (the DP) sets out that development within the open countryside will be strictly controlled and will be limited to certain types of development. The proposed development does not replace an existing house, and it does not meet any of the other listed exceptions set out in Policy SWDP2(C).

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal is contrary to the Council’s development plan strategy for housing and would thereby conflict with Policy SWDP2 of the DP.

The existing barn is a modest building with a traditional, agricultural appearance, comprising metal sheet cladding to the walls and roof. The barn occupies a central position within the site, set off each boundary and accessed via an unmade track off [site address] . The land is bounded by tall natural hedgerows, including to the road frontage.

The surrounding area, with open fields, agricultural and equine buildings, is remote and rural in character. Dwellings are sporadic with a traditional rural appearance. The houses along the lane are visible from the road and relate to farms and other rural enterprises.

Policy SWDP21 of the DP, amongst other things, requires new development to complement the character of the area and the scale, height and massing of development must be appropriate to the setting of the site and the surrounding landscape character.

With a two-storey height and a greater footprint, the proposed dwelling would be larger than the modest barn and it would be more noticeable along the lane. In particular, the new house, garden area, driveway and parking areas would increase the amount of built development on the land. As a consequence, the encroachment of residential development onto the land would be harmful to the rural character and appearance of the landscape.

The harm to the landscape would be relatively localised with views of the proposal from the lane being restricted by the tall frontage hedgerows. Likewise, the topography of the land and natural screening in the wider landscape would further limit views of the proposal.

The harm would also be tempered by the traditional appearance of the proposed dwelling, which would be akin to a modern farmhouse. Indeed, set within a rural landscape and with red brick walls, corbelled brick verge and eaves detailing, well-proportioned fenestration, a chimney and front porch, the proposed dwelling would have an acceptable design in the context of its countryside location. Particularly in the context of other houses along the lane and in the wider area which have a traditional, cottage style appearance. Accordingly, in this countryside setting, and for the reasons given, the proposal would integrate effectively with its surroundings, as opposed to it appearing as a suburban house.

Overall, I attach modest weight to the identified harm but nonetheless, I must conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and it would conflict with Policy SWDP21 of the DP.

The main parties accept that the Class Q scheme represents a fallback position, but there is disagreement about the amount of weight to be given to the fallback position in the context of the proposed development. I have had regard to the submitted information in respect of this issue, including the case of Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2017] [name] 1314, and the other Court cases cited by the parties and the implications of these judgements in my

The Class Q scheme allows for the change of use of the existing building into a dwellinghouse, and it would be sympathetic to the character of the building, which would assimilate into the landscape. There is a greater than theoretical possibility that the Class Q scheme might take place as a fallback position should this appeal fail. As such, the Class Q scheme is a realistic prospect and constitutes a fallback position. However, for significant weight to be afforded to a fallback position it would also need to be equally or more harmful than the appeal scheme.

Both the Class Q scheme and the appeal scheme would introduce a new house into the countryside. Accordingly, the appeal scheme would be no more harmful when compared with the Class Q scheme in respect of the number of dwellings to be provided and the associated vehicle trips to access services and amenities.

Compared to the Class Q scheme, the proposed dwelling is not aligned with some of the technical aspects of Policy SWDP18 of the DP due to its greater size, slightly different position and the greater degree of domestication of the site. Nevertheless, the differences are relatively small, and the design of the proposal is not markedly inferior compared to the Class Q scheme. As such, although the proposed development would lead to a greater degree of harm to the character and appearance of the site and landscape compared to the existing building and the fallback position, in the context of its acceptable design, the additional harm would be modest. For these reasons, I afford the fallback position moderate weight in support of the appeal scheme.

My attention has been drawn to two previous appeal decisions2 elsewhere, both of which involved a fallback scheme. I have reflected on the cited appeal decisions in reaching my conclusions on the appeal scheme before me. Inevitably it is the detail and context of any development, as well as the site-specific circumstances of the case which determines the weight to be afforded to a fallback position. Given this, as I am required to do, I have determined the case before me on my own observations and on the merits of the appeal proposal before me. 2 Appeal References: APP/H1840/W/24/3339797 and APP/H1840/W/21/3284614

Policy SWDP15 of the DP identifies that new development will contribute to affordable housing and on sites of less than 5 dwellings, a financial contribution should be made, based on the cost of providing the equivalent in value to 20% of the units as affordable housing on site. In this case the Council confirm that the required contribution is £12,797.00.

The appellant has submitted a signed [name] dated 16 December 2025 (the UU), which secures an affordable housing contribution of £12,797.00 towards the offsite provision of affordable housing, so as to comply with Policy SWDP15 of the DP.

I have considered the UU in light of the statutory tests contained in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations and the Framework. I am satisfied that the UU and the obligations are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development and are fairly related in scale and kind. As such, it would accord with the statutory tests.

For these reasons, the appeal scheme would make adequate provision for affordable housing in accordance with Policy SWDP15 of the DP. Furthermore, it would comply with the aims of the Framework to meet affordable housing needs.

The Council has suggested several conditions, some of which I have amended for the sake of clarity and precision. In addition to the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to impose a condition that requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for certainty.

To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory, a condition is imposed to require samples of the external materials to be approved. However, even though the Council has listed a number of items to be submitted, in the context of the proposed development and the submitted plans, I am not satisfied that those specific items are reasonable or necessary. To retain and enhance the appearance of the landscape, the prior approval of a soft landscaping scheme is necessary and would further ensure that the development has an acceptable appearance within the rural landscape.

The prior approval of a construction management plan before works commence on site is necessary in the interests of highways safety and to protect public amenity, as well as wildlife. This needs to be a pre-commencement condition to avoid unacceptable impacts once construction activities start on site. As such, I am satisfied that the condition is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and that it would have otherwise been necessary to refuse planning permission.

A foul water and surface water drainage scheme for the site is necessary to prevent an increase in flood risk following the development and to ensure the appropriate management of water and foul sewage disposal is implemented. Details need to be approved and implemented prior to the occupation of the dwellinghouse. A condition which secures the prior approval of any external lighting is also necessary to protect the environment and biodiversity.

To support the delivery of low carbon / renewable energy measures a condition is reasonable and necessary to secure the measures set out in the submitted [name] prior to the occupation of the dwellinghouse.

In the interests of highway safety, I have included a condition which requires details of the closure of the existing access to be submitted for approval prior to above ground construction. The approved works would then need to be carried out prior to the occupation of the dwellinghouse.

While the Council suggest a condition removing permitted development rights, no clear justification for doing so has been demonstrated, and I am not satisfied that it would pass the test of reasonableness and necessity, as required by the Framework and the national Planning Practice Guidance.

At 1.1 years, the shortfall of housing land supply is severe and the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out at Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework applies. In these circumstances, Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework states that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

In terms of adverse effects, the proposed development is in conflict with the locational aspects of Policy SWDP2 of the DP. There would also be harm to the character and appearance of the area, thus failing to comply with Policy SWDP21 of the DP. However, for the reasons given and when compared to the fallback position, the identified harm would be modest.

The replacement of the existing building and the construction of a new dwelling would contribute to boosting the supply of new housing, as referenced in the Framework. The development could also be delivered relatively quickly due to it representing a small, windfall site. The proposal secures a financial contribution towards affordable housing and there would also be social and economic benefits to local services during the construction phases. In combination and taking into account the severe shortfall in housing land, the benefits attract positive weight in my determination, as does the fallback position. Overall, despite the small-scale nature of the proposed development, the benefits of the scheme attract moderate weight in the balance.

Consequently, the adverse impacts of the proposal would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

For the reasons outlined above, and taking account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, numbered: 001/23/001 Rev 00; 003 [name]; 004 [name]; 005 [name]; 006 [name] and 007 [name].

No development shall take place until a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP shall include the following details: a) details to minimise the impact of noise, vibration and dust from construction, demolition and site clearance activities and the traffic associated with this development, including a scheme for vehicle wheel cleaning and other 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 operative facilities; c) hours of operations, including site clearance, demolition, construction, and deliveries; d) protection of trees and hedgerows during the construction phase; e) a management strategy and proposals for the minimisation of construction waste; and f) details of any temporary construction accesses. The approved CEMP shall be implemented as approved and be maintained throughout the duration of the construction works period.

No development above ground level shall take place until details / samples of the materials to be used in the construction of external walls and roofs, including windows and doors, of the building hereby permitted 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 / samples.

No development above ground level shall take place until full details of all foul and surface water drainage systems to serve the dwellinghouse hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved drainage systems shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the first occupation of the dwellinghouse and shall be retained as such thereafter.

No development above ground level shall take place until a landscaping scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The landscaping scheme must include, where appropriate, the following details: a) Indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land and details of any trees and hedgerows to be retained, together with measures for their protection; b) A schedule of plants including species, plant sizes and proposed numbers / densities; and c) A programme of implementation. The approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out not later than the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development or occupation of the dwellinghouse, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years, die, are removed, or have become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with ones of similar size and species to the satisfaction of the local planning authority, unless written consent has been obtained from the local planning authority for any variation.

The dwellinghouse hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the renewable and / or low carbon energy generation measures, as set out and detailed in the submitted [name], have been fully implemented and are operational. The measures shall thereafter be maintained and be fully operational as approved.

No development above ground level shall take place until details of the means of closure and reinstatement of the existing gated vehicular access onto the adjoining highway 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 the occupation of the dwellinghouse and maintained as such thereafter.

Prior to the installation, the full details, including height, design, location and intensity of external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The lighting installation shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details. ***END***