Appeal 6001109

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for residential development comprising a maximum of 1 dwelling at [site address] , [address], Hartlebury [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/01406/PIP, dated 30 June 2025.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second (‘technical details consent’) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The appellant’s submissions state that the proposal is for either the construction of a dwelling or the conversion of the existing garage to a dwelling. However, the appellant’s application form describes the development as the construction of a dwelling and it is this description on the Council’s decision notice. As such I find the Council to have considered the proposal as being for the construction of a new dwelling, and I have therefore done the same.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development.

The appeal site comprises part of a wider domestic garden associated with an existing dwelling. This wider plot is part of a small cluster of development primarily formed of domestic buildings. The site is within a predominantly rural area interspersed with sporadic development. The closest settlement is Hartlebury and further away are Stourport-on-Severn and Kidderminster. The appeal site and wider cluster are not part of these settlements.

Policy SWDP2 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (the DP) sets out the Council’s spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy for new residential development. The policy considers sites outside of any development boundaries to be open countryside where residential development is more tightly controlled and required to meet specific exceptions.

Given the above and for the purposes of DP Policy SWDP2, the appeal site is outside of any development boundaries and is, therefore, within the open countryside. The relevant exceptions set out under the above policy are namely; dwellings for rural workers, rural exception sites, and replacement dwellings.

The proposal does not meet any of these exceptions and as such does not comply with the spatial strategy and hierarchy for new residential development set out under DP Policy SWDP2.

I am content that Hartlebury is within a walking distance from the appeal site and that it contains a train station. However, there are no continuous footpaths and future occupiers would have to walk or cycle in the carriageway. There is also no street lighting along the route. Given the above, the length of the route and the narrow, winding nature of the roads, walking or cycling would be a dangerous and unattractive proposition for future occupiers. This would be especially so for more vulnerable occupiers and given the presence of industrial uses that likely generate HGV movements. Future occupiers would consequently be primarily reliant upon private motor vehicles to reach their typical needs, including the train station.

The appellant has identified that an electric vehicle charging point would be provided. However, it has not been demonstrated that electric vehicles would be a suitable alternative to sustainable transport modes such as walking, cycling or buses.

From the information before me and my observations on site, it is clear that there are only some very limited services and facilities provided in and around Hartlebury. These are predominantly the notable number of employment uses near the site. However, I am not aware of any shops within Hartlebury that could accommodate a typical weekly food shop, or any education facilities. Future occupiers would therefore need to travel further afield for at least shopping and education. As future occupiers would primarily be reliant upon private motor vehicles, the proposal would conflict with DP Policy SWDP4.

The appeal site is also located within the Green Belt where the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), under Paragraph 154, makes it clear that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate. Although the appellant has raised a number of exceptions that may be relevant to the appeal, exception (g) is particularly relevant to the appeal proposal. This exception, in part, covers the redevelopment of previously developed land, including a material change of use to residential, which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

The proposal is for the redevelopment of the appeal site, which comprises part of an existing garden, outside of a built-up area, and contains a permanent structure, in the form of a garage. The site is, therefore, previously developed land. As the appeal is at the permission in principle stage, I cannot consider the design of the proposal or the size of the dwelling. Nevertheless, given the appeal site is within a domestic garden amongst a cluster of development, and as it contains an existing building, I am content that the location, use and amount of development would not, in itself, substantially harm the openness of the Green Belt. In all therefore, the proposal would comply with the exception set out by Paragraph 154(g) and would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Given the above, it is not necessary to consider the other exceptions outlined by the appellant or whether the appeal site is within the grey belt.

Again, as the appeal is at the permission in principle stage, I cannot consider the design of any new dwelling or any associated landscaping. However, the proposed location, use and amount of development could still affect the character and appearance of the surrounding area and landscape. The site is read directly in association with the cluster of residential development and the garden within which it sits. Although longer views of the site are possible, these are softened by surrounding mature vegetation and the proposal would be seen within the envelope of development formed by [site address] and its neighbours. One new dwelling in this location would not be out of keeping and the amount proposed would not be so great as to have an urbanising impact within this setting. The proposal would not unacceptably affect the character and appearance of the surrounding area and landscape.

Nevertheless, the appeal site’s location within the open countryside conflicts with the Council’s spatial strategy and would result in future occupiers being reliant upon private motor vehicles to reach services and facilities. The proposal would therefore conflict with [name] SWDP1, SWDP2, SWDP4 and SWDP21 which collectively, and amongst other matters, strictly control residential development within the open countryside, and require proposals to minimise demand for travel.

There is no dispute that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply and therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out under Paragraph 11(d) applies. The policies of the Framework do not provide any clear reason for refusing the development proposed and I have therefore considered Paragraph 11(d)(ii) below.

The Government’s objective is to significantly boost the supply of housing, and the proposal would provide one new dwelling and contribute towards the Council’s housing land supply. It would also lead to a small and time limited economic benefit during the construction phase, as well as some limited social and economic benefits resulting from future occupiers. Given the above, and while mindful of the proposal’s small scale, given the under provision of housing, these matters at most attract moderate weight.

Conversely, the proposal would conflict with the Council’s locational strategy and hierarchy for residential development. It would also lead to a development where future occupiers are reliant upon private motor vehicles. As above, the proposal is of a small scale, introducing only one new dwelling, the erosion of the Council’s strategy would therefore be more modest and the number of journeys to and from the site would similarly be more limited. Therefore, in light of this, I afford these matters only moderate weight.

Taking everything into account, I consider that the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Consequently, the application of Framework Paragraph 11d indicates that permission should be granted, and in the circumstances of this appeal, the material considerations above justify making a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.

Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.