Appeal 6001369

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for residential development comprising a minimum of three dwellings and a maximum of three dwellings at Land adjacent to [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/00864/PIP, dated 2 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 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 permitted1. 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. However, given that matters relevant to land use and the amount of development are not contested and are not reflected in the reason for refusing the application, I have focused my consideration on locational matters in the main issue below.

The description of development in the application form includes reference to the provision of a bungalow. However, in agreement with the appellant, the Council omitted reference to the bungalow prior to making its decision, on the basis that the specific types of dwellings proposed would be a matter relevant to the technical details consent stage. Accordingly, I have used the amended description in the heading and determined the scheme on the same basis as the Council. 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone]

The main issue is whether the site is a suitable location for residential development having particular regard to the Council’s development strategy and access to services, facilities and sustainable modes of transport.

The site lies outside any settlement boundary identified in the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) and is therefore open countryside for policy purposes.

Whilst not cited in the Council’s decision notice, it is evident from the Council’s officer report that Policy SWDP2 of the SWDP is relevant. This sets out the Council’s development strategy. It seeks to ensure the delivery of sufficient housing; safeguard and, wherever possible, enhance the open countryside; and focus most development on the urban areas where both housing needs and accessibility to lower-cost public services are greatest. It does this by strictly controlling development in the open countryside other than for defined exceptions. None of those exceptions apply to the site or the proposed development. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with SWDP Policy SWDP2.

Turning to access considerations, policy SWDP 4 of the SWDP specifies that proposals must offer genuinely sustainable travel choices amongst other things. Services and facilities in the immediate location are very limited; none in [site address] have been drawn to my attention. Therefore, it would be necessary for future occupiers of the proposed dwellings to travel further afield to access work, education and other services and facilities for day to day living. Given the lack of facilities in the immediate area, most trips would be at least to Tenbury, approximately 4 miles away or further to Kidderminster or Worcester.

A bus stop on the A456 provides access to Tenbury, and Worcester. It is uncontested by the Council that services are hourly, and thus they are regular albeit not frequent. The bus stop can be accessed from the site by walking 700 metres along a footway adjacent to the A456. Accordingly, while there is the prospect that occupiers would make use of the bus for certain journeys, such reliance would be constrained by both the distance to the stop and the modest service frequency.

Drawing these matters together, limited travel choices are available and future occupiers of the proposed development would be likely to rely predominantly on the private car for day-to-day journeys. The limited scale of the proposal reduces the absolute number of trips that would be probable. For the above reasons I conclude that the proposal would not offer genuinely sustainable travel choices and hence there is conflict with policy SWDP4 of the SWDP.

Accordingly, the appeal would not be a suitable location for residential development having particular regard to the Council’s development strategy and access to services, facilities and sustainable modes of transport.

I have considered other appeal decisions cited by the main parties. However, those schemes involved different circumstances in respect of matters such as access to services and facilities, and the extent to which they can be considered to offer sustainable travel choices. Therefore, they have limited relevance in determining this appeal and do not lead me to alter my findings.

Knighton on Teme Parish Council expressed support in principle subject to satisfactory rain/grey water dispersal details. Conditions have also been recommended regarding other detailed matters. However, these matters are considerations for the technical details consent stage should permission in principle be granted. Additionally, I cannot attach any conditions in the event the appeal is allowed.

The Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites with both main parties referring to a 2.06-year supply. The presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out by paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is therefore applicable. The application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance do not provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Accordingly, the Framework sets out that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies that it specifies.

The Framework indicates that small and medium sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement for an area. The provision of three additional homes would be beneficial in addressing housing needs. There would also be economic benefits arising from the construction process.

Additionally, though there is a lack of services and facilities in the nearest settlements, future occupiers of the dwellings could reasonably be expected to participate in community activities and support the services, facilities and public transport that does exist including the aforementioned bus service. As such the proposal would provide a small contribution to the vitality of rural communities consistent with paragraph 83 of the Framework. While the Council’s housing supply shortfall is very significant, having regard to the limited number of dwellings proposed, I accord these benefits moderate weight overall.

SWDP policy SWDP2 is broadly consistent with the Framework insofar as it seeks to direct development to accessible locations and recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. However, no harm is identified in respect of the latter, and the policy adopts a restrictive approach to housing in providing for only certain forms of development in the countryside. Paragraph 83 of the Framework adopts a more balanced approach to housing in rural areas and provides some limited support for the proposal as discussed above. In that context a rigid application of the development strategy though policy SWDP2 would only further frustrate housing supply in the district, and thus overall, the conflict with it attracts limited weight.

Although access to services and facilities would mostly be made using private vehicles there would be some opportunity for future occupiers to use public transport for some trips as discussed above. Moreover, paragraph 110 of the Framework indicates that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Accordingly, I give modest weight to the harm that would arise from the degree of dependence on and related impacts from private motor vehicles, and the associated conflicts with SWDP policy SWDP4.

Whilst there is harm arising due to the policy conflict referred to above, the Council is currently failing to deliver sufficient homes to meet the five-year housing land supply requirement. Overall, the adverse impacts attract modest weight. Consequently, I find that these would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits that would arise from the proposed development, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole. The proposal therefore benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. However, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is a material consideration which outweighs that conflict. Material considerations therefore indicate that a decision should be taken which is not in accordance with the development plan.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.