Appeal 6001458

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for permission in principle for up to 9 dwellings at [site address] ), Defford, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/00854/PIP.

The proposal is for permission in principle. The 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 TDC application if permission in principle is granted.

The appeal is against a failure of the Council to give notice of its decision on the planning application [name]/25/00854/PIP within the prescribed period. As such, there is no decision notice.

The Council has indicated that it would have supported the application, and raise no issues.

The proposed scheme was granted planning permission by the Council on 23 June 2025. Following a challenge by a third party, the decision to grant planning permission was subsequently quashed on 8 September 2025. Upon legal advice, the Council gave consent to judgment on the basis of a failure to comply with the s.66(1) duty and for the decision to be quashed.

Along with third party objections, this will inform the main issues for this appeal, and I will consider these in detail below. I have considered the proposal against the development plan policies referenced and provided by the Council.

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, with specific reference to whether the proposal would preserve the setting of the [name] listed [address].

The site is located outside the settlement boundary of Defford, in accordance with Policy SWDP2 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (2016) (DP), and for the purposes of planning policy, the site is located within the open countryside. [name] of this policy sets out that development in the open countryside is strictly controlled. The purpose of this policy is, amongst other matters, to provide for and facilitate the delivery of sufficient housing and to safeguard and, wherever possible, enhance the open countryside.

The proposal would not comprise of development that meets the exceptions set out in Policy SWDP27 or other SWDP policies.

The proposal does not therefore meet any of the circumstances for new development within the countryside and conflicts with DP Policy SWDP2 which seeks to control the distribution of housing.

Defford is a Category 3 village within the Local Plan and hierarchy of settlements defined in [name]. As such, Policy SWDP2 sets out that it is, ‘suited to accommodate market and affordable housing needs alongside limited employment for local needs.’ The settlement has modest services and facilities such as a primary school and a public house.

In addition, there are bus stops within the settlement. Whilst providing a service to the wider services and facilities of Pershore and Worcester, the Council set out that this bus service would be infrequent and limited. I have no substantive evidence before me to contradict this, and this service alone, in combination with the modest services and facilities of Defford, is therefore unlikely to provide residents with safe and convenient access to sufficient services and facilities to meet day to day needs, such as shops and employment

As such, even if the hierarchy identification of Defford is incorrect, overall, travel by private car would consequently be likely to be a necessity for future occupants of the development needing to access services. The proposal would conflict with [name] SWDP2 and SWDP4 which seek to control the impact of development in the countryside and aims to minimise the demand for travel.

The appeal site is part of an undeveloped parcel located to the north of Defford. Agricultural land extends further north and west, and a linear row of residential development neighbours to one side and extends opposite. A nearby property, [address], is [name] listed1.

The property was listed in 1972 and comprises of a modest 17th century timber frame cottage. It has a tiled roof with gabled ends and casement windows. The listing description refers to the dwelling being single storey with attic, however there is a two storey side addition. Nevertheless, I observed that its significance in part relates to its retained historic and architectural interest.

The setting of the property includes newer residential development of mixed character and appearance on either side and opposite and has clearly substantially changed over the years. As such, the setting contributes little to the significance of the property. A number of these properties would sit in between the heritage asset and the appeal site.

Whilst details of matters such as siting and appearance would be considered under the technical details consent stage, the proposed development would be seen in the context of the existing mixed surrounding residential form. The setting of [address] would be preserved, and its significance would not be harmed. As such, there would therefore be no conflict with the prevention of harm to heritage assets, including their setting, goals of Paragraph 213 of the National Planning Policy Framework. There is also no conflict with the preservation of the significance of heritage asset goals of [name] 6 and SWDP 24

The appeal site sits opposite residential development and would continue the pattern of development extending out from the centre of the settlement along [address]. As a result, it would not appear as an incongruous projection into the surrounding countryside. Whilst detailed design and siting are matters for consideration at technical details consent stage, I am satisfied that a scheme could be designed that sits comfortably within this existing context, would follow the established linear pattern of development and not lead to harm to the character of the settlement nor surrounding landscape.

Similarly, given the lack of detail in this stage, consideration of the effect on matters such as the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, access and parking, highways impact, surface water/drainage arrangements and biodiversity enhancement are also a matter for technical details consent stage.

The site lies in an area of low flood risk ([name] 1) and as such is suitable for residential development.

Any further separate development nearby would be considered on its own merits. Limited details are provided of other proposals/developments being considered or approved nearby, and in terms of character, I have considered the proposal on the basis of what has been submitted and what I have observed on site. Approved developments are taken into account in the housing land supply figure referred to below. 1 [name]: 1319734

As such, should consent be forthcoming at the technical details stage, this would not set a precedent for otherwise unacceptable development. There is no evidence before me that the site represents best and most versatile agricultural land. There is no requirement on the appellant to submit a full planning application.

Concerns have also been raised about pressure on local services arising from the development. However, I have not been provided with substantive evidence of how such services might be harmed by the proposals. I note that the Council does not identify harm to such services and I have no substantive evidence to come to a different conclusion.

Little detail is provided of refused application W/25/01975/PIP, however it is evident that harm was found to a separate listed building. As such, it is not directly comparable to the scheme before me.

The proposal would result in up to 9 additional units of accommodation which would contribute to the Government’s broader objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. The development would make efficient use of the site, as supported by the Framework. The proposal would also result in a short-term economic benefits arising from the construction process. Economic and social benefits are also likely to arise from the occupation of the new dwellings. However, given the quantum of development in this case, each of these benefits would be modest.

The proposal would conflict with the housing strategy in the development plan. DP Policy SWDP2 is broadly consistent with the Framework where it states that the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth. Given the current significant shortfall, the housing strategy policies are not currently providing sufficient housing. As such I give the conflict with these policies minor weight.

Whilst there is some access to services and facilities, residents would likely still be reliant on private car for day to day needs. The Framework indicates that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. As such, the conflict with the sustainable transport goals of [name] SWDP2 and SWDP4 also have minor weight. Nevertheless, the scheme would conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The Council confirms that they are unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, and put the current figure at 1.10 years supply. The presumption in favour of sustainable development outlined in Paragraph 11d)ii of the Framework is therefore engaged.

The proposal would align with the Framework where it seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing, and acknowledges that small-scale developments can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement and be built out quickly. Whilst the scale of the proposal is limited, given the considerable scale of the shortfall identified, this attracts moderate weight.

The economic and social benefits from the build and occupation of the dwellings as well as support for local services, facilities and the community, including those in other villages would be limited given the size of the development, and their weight in favour of the scheme is modest.

The proposal would conflict with the Framework where it seeks to actively manage patterns of growth and supports sustainable transport. However, for the reasons set out above, I give these conflicts minor weight.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that applications for planning permission, and therefore appeals, must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The proposal benefits from the presumption of sustainable development as outlined in Paragraph 11d)ii of the Framework. In this instance, the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

On the basis of the individual merits of the scheme, the material considerations indicate that planning permission should be granted notwithstanding the conflict with the development plan.

PPG2 indicates that it is not possible to impose conditions as the terms of any permission in principle must only include site location, type of development and amount.

I conclude that, for the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.