Appeal 6001147

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

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 two 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 two 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 [name] application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for the proposed single dwelling, having particular regard to its location.

The appeal site is a parcel of land located on [site address] , within the curtilage of [site address] and can be accessed from the cottage garden. It also has a separate access from [site address] . The site is bounded on all sides by vegetation and trees, including some of which are covered by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). Beyond the appeal site, and still within the curtilage of [site address] , there is a disused glamping site.

The appeal site is outside the development boundary of the nearest settlement, [site address] and therefore situated in open countryside, for the purposes of applying Policy SWDP2 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (2016) (SWDP). This policy sets out that the Development Strategy is based on a set of principles that include ‘(vi) Focus most development on the urban areas, where both housing needs and accessibility to lower-cost public services are greatest’. The policy also states that development outside within the open countryside will be strictly controlled to exceptions specified within the policy, none of which relate to the proposed land use in this case, a new build market dwelling.

The site also sits within the ‘Malvern Neighbourhood Plan Area’ as identified in the Malvern Town Neighbourhood Plan (2019) (NP). Policy MH3 of the NP states that it will look favourably on development outside of the development boundary if the scheme falls into one of several key categories. These categories also do not include new market housing.

[name] of the SWDP categorises [site address] as having ‘at least two key services including a shop and have access to at least daily services for employment and shopping purposes.’ Furthermore, the Worcestershire County Council Streetscapes Design Guide (2022) considers that walking is considered a viable travel option up to two kilometres or twenty-five minutes. By this definition, the small convenience store, the primary school, and public house within [site address] are all considered to be an achievable distance on foot from the appeal site.

I also accept that there is a footpath on the A4103 linking [site address] to [site address] . Despite this, occupiers of the proposed dwelling would first need to negotiate [site address] which is a narrow single-track road. It is unlit, and the natural bends and undulations of the road near to the appeal site limit long-range visibility for all road users, including vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians. It also lacks any footpaths and there are sections where roadside vegetation severely restricts the opportunity for pedestrians to find refuge to the side of the vehicular carriageway. The safety and convenience of this option for pedestrians and cyclists travelling to and from the appeal site would be further compromised during periods of inclement weather or hours of darkness. Therefore, [site address] does not facilitate a suitable viable alternative to using a motor vehicle to access the nearby services and facilities.

The appellant has referenced growth of grass in the middle of [site address] as evidence that pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders outnumber vehicular movements. However, there is no detailed evidence such as a traffic survey to substantiate this. Reference is also made to a highway sign indicating ‘Pedestrians in [name] between the appeal site and the A4103 on [site address] . However, such a measure relies on individual driver behaviour and does not overcome all the safety and convenience deficiencies identified.

The appellant has highlighted that there are over fifty-four public rights of way (PROWs) within a mile radius of the appeal site and indeed I observed two within a short distance of the site during the site visit. However, as above, in order to access the PROWs, future occupiers of the development would be required to traverse [site address] . Furthermore, there have been no details supplied of the condition of the PROWs, and as to whether they would represent suitably appropriate walking environments at all times, having regard to the need for lighting during hours of darkness and surface materials suitable for all weather conditions. Additionally, it is not clear from the supplied material as to whether any of the PROWs would lead to key residential amenities and thus offer a suitable option.

Furthermore, occupiers of the proposed dwelling would need to travel further afield to access a wider range of services and facilities including for example secondary schools and a supermarket. However, the nearest bus stop is indicated in the evidence to be some 800m away from the appeal site, with some [address] being on [site address] . [name] understand the nearest stop facilitates services to Ledbury, there is nothing to dispute the Council’s position that stop does not cater for return trips. The bus stop does not facilitate journeys to any other larger settlements including Worcester or Malvern. The appeal site is therefore not currently considered to be facilitated by a ‘high quality, direct and level route’ as stipulated by the [name], as in addition to the poor provision of public transport, the bus stop would be accessed via [site address] , which as established above, would be an unattractive walking environment. This compounds my concerns about the poor connectivity of the site.

The appellant has acknowledged that the current access to bus services is limited but has referred to the potential future provision of improvements to local bus services, funded by developer contributions relating to a nearby site1. [name] acknowledge that the future improvements to the provision of bus services have the potential to increase connectivity between [site address] and the wider area, there has been no evidence provided as to the location of any new bus stops relative to the appeal site, or the proposed routes and frequency. Furthermore, there is no timeframe evidenced for their implementation. Therefore, my concerns in respect of the existing access issues are not currently addressed.

I have been presented with several cases which the appellant has stated demonstrates precedence for development in this location. However, no detailed information has been provided in terms of the planning considerations that were material for each case. Therefore, I cannot be certain that there were not significant material differences between those particular cases and the appeal proposal, including for example the quantum of development, demonstrable social and economic benefits, their respective proximity to the development boundary, or key amenities including public footpaths. Therefore, they do not justify the site-specific issues detailed in this instance.

In conclusion, the appeal site is not suitable for the proposed single dwelling, having particular regard to its location. In this respect, the proposal would conflict with the development strategy in Policy SWDP2 as well as SWDP4 of the SWDP which requires that proposals minimise demand for travel and offer genuinely sustainable travel choices. Furthermore, it would conflict with Policies MSD1 and MH3 of the NP in respect of promoting and achieving sustainable development and the types of new residential development that are supported beyond the development boundary. For the same reasons, it would also conflict with the sustainable development objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) including the requirements at Paragraph 115 of the Framework for 1 M/22/00187/OUT applications for development to ensure that sustainable transport modes are prioritised and that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users.

The Council is content that the proposed use and amount of development, it being a single dwelling, could be laid out in a way to ensure it does not detract from the character and appearance of the area, and I find no reason to disagree. I also acknowledge that the envisaged dwelling would be constructed with traditional materials and would also potentially include ‘eco-friendly features’. However, in the absence of any detailed information on the design these matters can only be attributed very limited weight.

The Council has acknowledged that it cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and that as of 1 April 2024, the supply stood at 2.06 years. There is no evidence before me to suggest this situation has changed.

The provision of a single dwelling would make a very limited but positive contribution to this shortfall. It would also result in some limited social and economic benefits associated with the construction and future occupation of a single dwelling. Taken together with the design and ‘eco-friendly’ features detailed above, these matters attract modest weight in favour of the proposal.

However, I have found that the appeal site does not represent a suitable location for a new dwelling having regard to its poor connectivity to services and facilities. In this regard there would also be conflict with the development plan for the area, and the proposal would also conflict with the sustainability and access requirements of the Framework. I find that these matters are of overriding concern and substantially and demonstrably outweigh the modest benefits that would result through the provision of a single dwelling at this location.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.