Appeal 6001244

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.

Following the Council’s decision and during the appeal process, the Council adopted the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review on 26 March 2026 (SWDPR). This supersedes the South Worcestershire Development Plan (2016) the policies of which are reference on the Council’s decision notice. The Council has provided the policies of the SWDPR that it considers most relevant to the appeal and the appellant has been provided with an opportunity to comment on the SWDPR. I have therefore assessed the appeal against the current development plan, that being the adopted policies of the SWDPR.

As it is only the principle of development under consideration, I have considered the appellant’s ‘proposed – site block plan’ on the basis that it is indicative only.

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

Policy SWDPR 03 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (2026) (SWDPR) sets out the Council’s ‘Spatial Development Strategy and [name]. It confirms that the existing urban areas are the focus for development since they are the most sustainable locations for growth. [name] of the SWDPR categorises Guarlford as a ‘[name] (2) – Category 4’ settlement. Although the lowest category on the settlement hierarchy in Table 1 of Policy SWDPR 03, this table indicates where growth will be directed, indicating ‘allocated housing development’. This suggests therefore that some housing development may be accommodated in Guarlford subject to it being assessed against all relevant development plan policies.

Guarlford is predominantly characterised by the consolidated development focussed around the more immediate stretches of [address] and [address] taken off [address], including the cul-de-sacs at [address] and [address]. Beyond the last houses that sit within the village’s consolidated footprint on [address], the road narrows to a single track and there is a clear transition into an overtly rural character. Indeed, the appeal site relates to the front section of a field set behind a grass verge and hedgerow and is accessed through a field gate. A field also sits opposite the site and there are only sporadic buildings thereon as [address] extends away from the village. Consequently, the appeal site is visually and physically experienced as sitting outside the settlement and positively contributes to the character of the countryside surrounding the village.

Given the above and that there is nothing to suggest that a meaningful proportion of the site sits within a defined development boundary, the provisions in the development plan relating to the open countryside appear more applicable to the appeal site’s location. In that regard paragraph D of SWDPR 03 confirms that in the open countryside development will be strictly controlled subject to other policies in the development plan. Even, if I were to take an alternative view, paragraph E of Policy SWDPR 03 confirms that development proposals should be of an appropriate scale and type with regard to landscape character, location, settlement hierarchy classification and infrastructure capacity.

In terms of landscape character, the appeal site is situated within the ‘[name] landscape, defined in the Worcestershire County Council Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) (2012). The LCA identifies this landscape as being characterised by a mosaic of agricultural land cleared directly from woodland, on a piecemeal basis, together with land enclosed from former localised areas of open fields, resulting in their dispersed pattern of farmsteads and wayside cottages and a lack of strong settlement nuclei. The key characteristics of the landscape type include hedgerow boundaries to fields, ancient wooded character, rolling lowland, mixed farming land use and dispersed settlements. The LCA suggests that modern development favouring groups or clusters of new houses would not be appropriate in this landscape.

Whilst indicative and I accept that precise details of design and layout are for the technical details consent stage, the proposed site plan depicts a linear development of houses. Indeed, whether it be for the minimum 4 or maximum of 6 dwellings indicated, the rectilinear nature of the appeal site dictates that these amounts would form a ribbon development significantly extending along [address]. The site’s elongated form and the concentration of built form within it would extend away from and be at odds with the existing consolidated development pattern at Guarlford. It would also significantly detract from the distinctive rural character of the landscape as [address] extends away from the village.

In terms of accessibility, ‘Category 4’ settlements are identified in the SWDPR as having access to either some secondary services and facilities but limited or no bus provision, or have low or medium levels of public transport provision but low services / facility provision. Furthermore, the Worcestershire County Council Streetscapes Design Guide (2022) (SPD) considers that walking is considered a viable travel option up to two kilometres or twenty-five minutes. By this definition, the services within Guarlford, identified as a public house, church, and village hall, are all an achievable distance on foot from the appeal site.

However, there is no continuous footpath linking the site to the town of Malvern, which is the nearest larger settlement providing a wider range of services and facilities. The appellant also indicates that there are a number of facilities located on [address]. However, both [address] and [address] are unlit and consequently are unlikely to provide an appealing walking route to services and facilities at these locations, particularly in hours of darkness or inclement weather. Furthermore, they are beyond what the [name] considers to be a viable walking distance. There is no identified regular bus service serving Guarlford, and there is no access to a community bus or dial a ride service. The facilities in Malvern including at [address] would therefore in all likelihood only be accessed by private motor vehicle.

The cumulative impacts on the road network for the amount of dwellings indicated would not be severe and the appellant has suggested parking, cycle storage and vehicle charging points would be provided for each dwelling, albeit these are matters for the technical details stage. I also accept that the existing dwellings within the settlement have similar accessibility to services and facilities.

However, any new development needs to meet other development plan requirements, including those relating to character and appearance of an area in determining whether a site is sustainable overall. In this instance, the location and shape of the site together with the amount of development proposed would physically and visually relate poorly to the character and appearance of Guarlford and the surrounding countryside. When taken together with the accessibility deficiencies identified, this would not be sustainable development.

I acknowledge that a higher number of dwellings to achieve more efficient densities would also not respond to the character and appearance of the immediate surrounds. Even so, this does not overcome my concerns in respect of the principle of the range indicated or the specific relationship of the site to its surroundings. Furthermore, whilst existing hedgerows could likely be maintained or enhanced, the increased domestic presence would nevertheless likely be evident in views through any access point or where the height of buildings protrude over the hedge line.

The appeal site is not suitable for residential development, having particular regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development. In these respects, the proposed development conflicts with [name] 01, 02, 03, 05, 06, 28 and 34 of the SWDPR in terms of the development strategy following the principles of sustainable development, the delivery of housing and the requirements to minimise demand for travel by car taking into account their nature and location, and for development to respond to local character, integrate effectively with its surroundings and be of an appropriate scale and type with regard to landscape character taking into account the LCA.

For the same reasons, the proposed development would also conflict with the sustainable development objectives, and requirements for development to be sympathetic to local character and to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Following the adoption of the SWDPR, the Council now advises that it can demonstrate a 5year supply of deliverable housing land. However, the appellant contests that the Inspector examining the SWDPR concluded that it had not been demonstrated that there would be a five-year supply of deliverable sites on adoption when applying the required 10% buffer as per the requirements of the Framework at that time. Paragraph 78 of the current Framework requires a 5% buffer or 20% where there has been significant under delivery. In the absence of a fully evidenced current housing land supply position, I have applied a worst-case scenario, that being that a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites with the appropriate buffer has not been fully demonstrated.

The provision of up to six dwellings would make a modest but positive contribution to the housing land supply. It would also result in some limited social, environmental, and economic benefits associated with the construction of the dwellings and the contributions of occupiers towards services and facilities in the area. 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 the proposed residential land use and amount of dwellings proposed having regard to character and appearance and accessibility considerations. In this regard there would also be conflict with the development strategy for the area, and the proposal would also conflict with the sustainability objectives, and requirements for development to be sympathetic to local character and to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside in the Framework. I find that these matters are of overriding concern and substantially and demonstrably outweigh the modest weight I attach to the benefits of up to six dwellings 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.