Appeal 6001953

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] on behalf of [name] and Development Ltd against Malvern Hills District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The appeal follows the Council’s refusal for the reserved matters for appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale of the approved outline planning application M/22/00117/OUT (the parent permission) granted at appeal in 20231.

The appeal proposal is for approval of reserved matters and the drainage details for the development. From the evidence before me there is no dispute between the parties as to the acceptability of the submitted drainage information. I shall therefore confine my detailed considerations to the reserved matters as detailed.

The South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (the SWDPR 2026) was adopted by the Council on 25 March 2026 and replaces, in full, the South Worcestershire Development Plan, 2016 (the SWDP 2016). This appeal was received before the adoption of SWDPR 2026 and as such, at that time it was emerging policy and Policies from the SWDP 2016 were referred to in the decision notice.

I have received copies of the relevant adopted SWDPR 2026 policies and both main parties have had an opportunity to comment on them. I have therefore taken 1 APP/J1860/W/22/3300301 the recently adopted policies into consideration in reaching my decision and have not referred to the previous SWDP 2016 policies.

The main issues are: • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; and • whether the proposal would provide appropriate Green Infrastructure.

[site address] Road lies on the edge of the main built up area of [site address] , which is predominantly 1960’s housing set along estate roads and small cul-de-sacs. To the north of [site address] Road there is a small group of houses next to the appeal site. Housing on this side of the road is sporadic or in small groups, separated by open fields. Hedgerows form a prominent feature along the road, including the existing hedge along the front of the appeal site.

The scheme proposes four detached dwellings of two different designs positioned either side of an access road. There are two house types proposed but both types would have similar features, design, scale, and massing. The position of plot 1 and plot 4 would create a straight line across the frontage of the site and the access road is straight and uniform. The layout of the proposed road and plots, albeit providing an appropriate density and efficient use of the land, would not reflect the more organic layout of the houses on this side of [site address] Road or the village as a whole. Moreover, the massing of the proposed dwellings would not reflect the size of the properties around the appeal site, including those on the opposite side of the road which are a mix of semi-detached and linked houses.

The proposed dwellings, by reason of their footprint and massing, would be substantially larger than any of the existing housing around the appeal site and would not reflect the surrounding built form. The scale and massing of each of the four houses proposed would result in dwellings that are clearly seen as larger than numbers 17, 19 and 21 [site address] Road and would dominate and not respect the edge-of-village character and the views of the open countryside around this part of the village.

While build zones and the layout were submitted for the outline appeal for self-build dwellings, this did not form part of the approval for the outline against which this appeal seeks reserved matters consent. Furthermore, even though the layout was approved for the self-build scheme the appeal before me proposes a different layout with plots 1 and 4 closer together and of the same size as each other and with all four houses now having a larger footprint. The extent of the differences are, therefore, such that I am not bound by the self-build appeal decision. The build zones, layout, and other parameters did not fix the precise height, scale, or appearance of the dwellings, as noted by the Inspector in the previous appeal decision. Moreover, even if the [name] submitted with the outline application detailed maximum heights these were maximums rather than approved heights.

The granting of the outline planning permission accepted that the development of the appeal site would urbanise the area and that such urbanisation would be most evident from [site address] Road and The Greenway. The principle of a development of four houses was accepted as it would be experienced in the context of other dwellings. As too was the opening up of the hedge to provide the access into the site. Although the development would result in removal of a large part of the existing hedge to provide visibility splays the scheme would also provide replacement planting to ensure that a hedge boundary remains the predominant feature when travelling along the road.

That there is no harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, no harm to trees or highway safety, and appropriate levels of parking and garden areas are neutral matters and do not mean that the development is wholly acceptable in terms of the character and appearance of the area.

The position, massing, footprint and height and the uniform layout of the proposal would cumulatively result in a scheme that would appear as overdevelopment of the site. Although the garages have been reduced in size, this would not substantially increase the spaciousness around the proposed houses and the access road would still be dominated by garages and parking. The proposal fails to reflect the surrounding context, scale and built form and fails to maintain an appreciation of the countryside beyond, as was suggested as a suitable approach to developing the site by the previous inspector.

For the above reasons, even though the Council Planning Officer recommended approval for the scheme, the layout, massing, and height of the proposed dwellings would adversely affect the character and appearance of the area contrary to the requirements of [name] 05, SWDPR 28 and SWDPR 34 of the SWDPR 2026. Collectively these policies seek to ensure the delivery of high quality and inclusive design that responds to local character, integrates effectively with its surroundings, reinforces a sense of place and local distinctiveness, reflects the given characteristics of the site, complements the local character, responds to surrounding buildings, respects and responds to the rural setting, landscape setting and safeguards the character of rural settlements.

Policy SWDPR 07 of the SWDPR 2026 requires housing developments to contribute towards the provision, maintenance, improvement, and connectivity of Green Infrastructure (GI). For the size of the appeal site the policy requires 20%, excluding private gardens. [name])i) of the policy the precise form and function of the GI will depend on the wider strategic green network, site characteristics, and the local context. C)ii) requires developers to demonstrate how the functionality and connectivity of existing and proposed GI features will be retained, protected, and enhanced through the lifetime of the development. [name]) requires management arrangements to be secured by condition and thereafter secures the GI as protected Green Space.

The appeal scheme proposes 21.04% GI which would comprise flower rich grass and hedges wrapping around three sides of the appeal site. The principle of providing the GI in this form, around the outside of the houses, was accepted by the Inspector in considering the outline appeal, even though it was only indicative at that time. The GI would be provided on the edges of the site but this would help to soften the appearance of the built development from outside the site. It would also help provide a visual connection to the open fields beyond and a transition area between the dwellings and the open countryside.

The level of GI proposed would comply with the amount required by Policy SWDPR 07 of the SWDPR 2026. All of the GI is shown as behind the visibility splays at the front of the site and would, therefore, not be reduced to provide visibility. The previously indicated pond is no longer part of the scheme but this would not reduce the amount of GI proposed. There is nothing within the Policy to advise that existing landscaping cannot be counted towards the GI within a development site. Moreover, even noting the requirement in subsection C)ii) of the Policy, there is no requirement for GI to be publicly available. The proposed GI would deliver visual benefits in providing a green buffer around the houses and would also maintain green corridors for wildlife. It would clearly connect to the open fields and field boundary hedges around the appeal site in both design and functionality to meet the requirements of C)ii) of the policy.

The management of the GI is capable of being secured by an appropriately worded condition as required by the policy. Furthermore, Policy SWDPR 07 advises that GI provision, such as that proposed in the appeal, is thereafter protected as Green Space under policy SWDPR 48 which would resist any further development on this land. The appropriate management of the GI through a condition, and the protection secured by the policy, would ensure that it would not be at risk of being absorbed into the gardens of the proposed dwellings and would ensure that it is retained for the lifetime of the development as required by subsection C)ii).

The proposed landscaping plans indicate the retention of the trees around the outside edges of the appeal site, most of which would then be within the GI. Additional new tree planting is also proposed both within the GI and within the gardens of the proposed plots. Hedges are also proposed along the new internal road which would soften the appearance of the proposed garden fences, similar to the existing property on the opposite side of [site address] Road.

For the above reasons, albeit that the GI would be around the outside edge of the site, I find that the scheme would provide appropriate GI, which would not be marginalised or unsuitable, and which would comply with the requirement of Policy SWDPR 07 of the SWDPR 2026.

For the same reasons, the proposal would comply with 5A and 5D of the South Worcestershire Supplementary Planning Document on Design which advises that space should be allocated for GI within and around the edge of developments. Nevertheless, the suitability of the GI and landscaping would not overcome the harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the area.

[site address] Farmhouse is a [name] listed building. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (‘the Act’), requires the decision maker, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest.

The setting in which the Farmhouse is experienced includes the rural area around it, which includes the appeal site. However, the way the Farmhouse is appreciated and views of it in the wider area would be retained. The appeal scheme would be read alongside the rest of the village and the other houses on this side of [site address] Road, even though I have found it to be out of keeping with those houses. The development would not dominate views of the Farmhouse and the effect on the listed building would also be mitigated, in part, by the additional landscaping.

[name] have found that the details of the appeal scheme are not appropriate, for the reasons given above, I find no harm to the setting of the designated heritage asset or its significance and the appeal proposal would therefore preserve the setting of the listed building. I have had regard to the Act as detailed above.

The recent adoption of the SWDPR 2026 has also altered the Council’s five year housing land supply to a position where they can now evidence more than five years supply. This, therefore, reduces the weight of the benefit of new housing to the area. Nevertheless, as a reserved matters application the principle of delivering new housing and the associated benefits have been accepted at the outline stage and there is no compelling evidence that the benefits will only arise with the reserved matters as put forward in this appeal.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.