Appeal 6001340

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for construction of a minimum of 3 and maximum of 4 dwellings at Land off [address], [site address] , Worcester, Worcestershire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/01319/PIP.

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 would be considered as part of a subsequent [name] application if permission in principle is granted. I have defined the main issue on this basis.

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 referenced 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.

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

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 [site address] 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 [site address] provided that it is of an appropriate scale and type with regard to landscape character as set out at paragraph E of Policy SWDPR 03 and is also consistent with the other requirements of the development plan when read as a whole.

When the Council determined the planning application which led to this appeal, it suggested that owing to the site’s location adjoining but outside the settlement boundary at the time, it was in the open countryside. It therefore considered the proposal against its previous development plan requirements relating to ‘open countryside’. However, during the appeal it has been confirmed by the main parties that following the adoption of the SWDPR, there is no longer a defined settlement boundary at [site address] .

From my own observations, some parts of this settlement are focussed around [site address] ’s recreation ground, but there is also development along roads extending from there, including along ‘Bungalow’ where the appeal site is situated. This is consistent with the area’s [name]: [name] as defined in the Worcestershire County Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) (2012) which amongst other things notes a lack of strong settlement nuclei. The appeal site is a small field and the wider surroundings also reflect some of the other characteristics identified in the LCA including for example irregularly shaped woodlands, winding lanes, frequent wayside dwellings and farmsteads, hedgerow boundaries to fields and a dispersed settlement pattern.

Together with adjoining fields on this side of the road, the appeal site forms a gap between the ‘[name] and further clusters of dwellings that are situated towards the junction with [address] and [address]. Opposite the site there are farm buildings and dwellings which add to the settlement’s fragmented development pattern. Consequently, whilst the appeal site contributes to a semi-rural character, its close relationship amongst the built form of the settlement ensures that it is visually and spatially appreciated as being located in [site address] .

The precise design and layout of the development would be determined at the technical details consent (TDC) stage. However, a maximum of 4 dwellings, represents a modest amount of development that would be of an appropriate scale relative to the size of the settlement. Its close context to existing built form means the location of the development and type would also allow for a response to the existing landscape character in line with [name] of Policy SWDPR 03. For example, the generous parameters of the site have the potential to afford a layout and soft landscaping that would reflect the local vernacular and be sensitive to the semi-rural surroundings. Whilst other design matters, such as the design of the access point, would also be dealt with under the TDC stage, the appellant’s intention to retain as much hedgerow as possible would likely further assist in assimilating the proposal. In these respects, there would be an opportunity to ensure a sensitively designed development which responds to the landscape guidelines in the LCA including maintaining tree cover, conserving and restoring the pattern and composition of the hedgerow structure and maintaining the historic dispersed settlement pattern.

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. Even so, I agree with the appellant that the road that the appeal site fronts on to represents an acceptable walking or cycling route. It is relatively wide and straight, with verges to provide refuge for pedestrians. [site address] ’s village hall, village green and public house could all be accessed from the appeal site via this route.

Occupiers of the proposed dwellings would need to travel further afield to access a wider range of services and facilities including for example the local primary school, secondary schools and a supermarket. The nearest bus stop is indicated to be approximately half a kilometre from the appeal site facilitating services to Worcester. I understand that those bus services are limited to three a day with no service to or from Malvern. The evidence before me suggests that the local primary school and a bus stop at [name] which facilitates increased services are within the walking and cycling distances recommended in the Worcestershire County Council Streetscapes Design Guide (2022) (SPD). However, I accept that they would not be easily accessed by foot or on cycle given the conditions on [address] and the A443 are not ideally suited to travel by such means.

Notwithstanding the above factors, as recognised in the National Planning Policy Framework, transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas and should be taken into account in decision making. As the settlement hierarchy indicates that some development could be provided in [site address] , the travel options would be similar for occupiers of any new housing development there. In this instance, the facilities in the village would provide some, albeit limited, easily accessible services for occupiers of the proposed development. Whilst private vehicle travel would likely be the most convenient mode of transport to access a wider range of facilities, this would be for a limited number of occupiers given the modest scale of development and their travel options would be similar to those already residing at [address]. Taking these factors into account, and by virtue of the modest nature of development which would be proportionate to its location, the need to travel by private vehicle would be minimised.

I conclude that the appeal site is suitable for the proposed development, having particular regard to its location, land use and amount. In these respects, the proposal complies 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 comply with the sustainable development and local character objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

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

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