Appeal 6002026

The appeal is dismissed.

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 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in principle and the second stage (‘technical details consent’) 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 technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

In respect of residential development, an applicant can apply for permission in principle for a range of dwellings by expressing a minimum and maximum number of net dwellings as part of the application. In this instance, permission in principle has been sought for the erection of a maximum of three dwellings at the appeal site. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on that basis, having regard to the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) (Amendment) Order 2017 and the PPG.

The main issues are whether the location, the proposed land use and the amount of development is suitable with particular regard to: • whether the location would provide a suitable location for housing, having regard to the spatial strategy for the area and accessibility to public transport, services and local facilities; and • the effect on the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to the effect on the significance of the Abbots Morton Conservation Area as a designated heritage asset, and the effect on the significance of the Grade II Listed buildings known as [address], [name], Edwalyn Close1, Cymbeline, and the [name] attached to the south-west corner of [address] as designated heritage assets through development within their setting.

Policy SWDP 2 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) (adopted February 2016) sets out the development strategy and settlement hierarchy. [name] states that development in the open countryside will be strictly controlled and limited to specific circumstances.

The appeal site lies outside any defined settlement boundary under Policy SWDP 2, although adjacent to the boundary of [name]. I accept that the proposal would not be physically isolated, having regard to relevant case law, and the Council has not suggested otherwise. Nevertheless, the proposal would introduce new dwellings in the open countryside. It does not fall within any of the exceptions that allow new residential development in such locations, including those set out in Policy SWDP 2. Nor would it be supported by any other policy in the SWDP. It would therefore conflict with the development strategy.

[name] is categorised as a 4B settlement, with low/medium public transport provision and very limited services, comprising only a church and church hall. This reflects its limited capacity to accommodate additional growth. While paragraph 83 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) recognises that development in one village may support services in another, nearby settlements such as Bishampton and [name] are Category 3 villages and also have limited facilities. The site is therefore in an area with restricted services and poor transport connections, and future occupiers would be largely dependent on the private car.

Public transport provision is also limited. I acknowledge the existence of the Worcestershire on Demand (WoD) bus service. However, demand-responsive services do not offer the predictability or frequency of fixed-route public transport and cannot be assumed to provide reliable access to employment, education or day-to-day needs. I am also unaware of the location of the nearest pick-up point for this service. Moreover, I am not persuaded that its availability would materially alter the findings of the Inspector for the site opposite2, who concluded that the location does not offer genuinely sustainable travel choices and would lead to reliance on the private car. 1 Although the official [name] identifies the property as [address], I observed during my site visit that it is currently known as [address]. For consistency with the [name] and that of the Council’s decision notice, I refer to the property as [address] throughout this decision. 2 APP/H1840/W/24/3339168

Paragraph 110 of the Framework acknowledges that opportunities for sustainable transport vary between rural and urban areas. However, I am not persuaded that the WoD service, based on the evidence submitted, would amount to a genuinely sustainable travel choice. Occupiers would remain heavily reliant on private vehicles, and the site would not be well served by public transport or local facilities.

The reasoned justification to Policy SWDP 2 explains that the development strategy reflects the SWDP’s vision and associated objectives, bringing together land use, development and infrastructure considerations informed by the area’s economic, environmental and social characteristics. It also highlights the value of the open countryside as a key planning attribute. Consequently, while the development boundary may seem arbitrary, as claimed by the appellant, the boundary has been drawn to support this strategy and to limit development around settlements with limited services and transport provision.

Accordingly, the appellant’s assertion that the site is ‘equally sustainable’ to land within the settlement boundary is not supported by the development plan or recent appeal decisions. [name] classification as a 4B settlement reflects its very limited services and transport options, meaning opportunities for growth are constrained. A site outside the settlement boundary cannot be regarded as equally sustainable merely because of its proximity to it. Its designation as open countryside remains, where a more restrictive policy approach applies, and the presence of existing housing nearby does not alter either the policy status of the site or the purpose of the boundary.

Furthermore, home-working and online retail are national trends and not site-specific benefits. They do not overcome locational shortcomings or remove the need for access to essential services, education, healthcare or employment. Car dependency for the future occupants would remain high.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would not represent a suitable location for new housing, having regard to the spatial strategy and the site’s poor accessibility to public transport, services and local facilities. The development would therefore conflict with [name] 1, SWDP 2 and SWDP 4 of the SWDP, as well as with the objectives of the Framework, which together set the overarching development strategy for the area, strictly controlling new development in the open countryside, and seek to promote genuinely sustainable travel choices. Character and Appearance, including the Abbots Morton Conservation Area and the nearby Grade II Listed buildings

The appeal site comprises an undulating parcel of land accessed from [address], the principal thoroughfare through the village. A pond is located centrally at the rear of the site, and a mature hedgerow defines the boundary with the road. Although residential properties lie to the north, east and west, the absence of built form on the land allows it to function as an important visual and physical connection to the wider agricultural landscape beyond. Despite the substantial hedgerow along the highway boundary, which provides a degree of screening, the site nevertheless contributes meaningfully to the openness and rural character of the settlement, a contribution emphasised by its prominent and central position within the village. It is also visible from the adjacent pavement along [address].

The site lies within the ‘Village Claylands’ Landscape Type (LT), as defined in the Landscape Character Assessment (LCA). The LCA describes this LT as an open, gently rolling agricultural landscape, characterised by an ordered pattern of hedged fields and dispersed rural villages connected by minor roads. The prevailing field pattern forms the underlying structure that defines the scale and character of the landscape.

The site also lies within the Abbots Morton Conservation Area (CA) and is identified as a ‘prominent open space’ within the [name] (July 2005). The Appraisal emphasises the important contribution that open spaces and the natural environment make to the CA’s rural character by retaining visual links with the surrounding countryside. It also notes the presence of several ponds, describing them as surviving historic features that provide a tangible reminder of the village’s past. For the purposes of this appeal, the significance of the CA derives from its clearly defined linear form, historic plot pattern, hierarchy of buildings, and its open spaces. Collectively, these elements contribute to the CA’s special interest, and the appeal site currently contributes positively to its historic form, layout and spatial qualities.

[name] listed buildings lie in close proximity to the site, including [address], [name], [address], Cymbeline, and the [name] attached to the south‐west corner of [address]. Their significance derives principally from their 17th and 18th Century architectural and historic interest, reflected in their traditional forms and detailing. Owing to their proximity to and visibility from [address], the setting of these designated heritage assets is influenced by the appeal site, which currently contributes to the rural character that formed the original context for their development. When travelling east along [address], the site affords views towards [address] and Cymbeline and it is also experienced in the immediate foreground of [address], the associated [name] and [name]. In its open and undeveloped state, the site currently facilitates views of the listed buildings and informs how they are experienced. Accordingly, it makes a positive and important contribution to their rural village setting and, in turn, to their significance.

Although the precise quantum, layout, scale and design are not yet fixed, up to three dwellings are proposed. The introduction of domestic built form, together with associated structures, parking, paraphernalia and activity, would appear incongruous within this prominent open space. It would subdivide an existing field, disrupt the established field pattern, and permanently erode the positive contribution the site currently makes to the character and landscape setting of [name]. The development would therefore harm the rural character and appearance of the area.

The introduction of built form would also undermine the integrity of this open space, weakening the visual and spatial relationship between the village and its rural hinterland. This would run contrary to the LCA, which seeks to conserve the open agricultural qualities of the Village Claylands and maintain a clear distinction between settlement and countryside.

Moreover, the proposed development would erode the historic form, layout and spatial qualities that contribute to the character and appearance, and thus the significance, of the CA. Although boundary vegetation is present, the openness of the land, together with its slightly elevated position above the road, permits views both within and out of the CA that are integral to its special interest. The site therefore performs a prominent role in sustaining the CA’s significance and the proposal would result in the partial but considerable loss of a prominent open space. Accordingly, the harm arising from the proposal would fall towards the higher end of the less than substantial range as defined in the Framework.

The proposal would also diminish the rural setting of the nearby [name] listed buildings, thereby harming the significance of these designated heritage assets. Having regard to the degree to which their significance is derived from their setting and the immediate rural context, the level of harm in this case would lie towards the lower end of the less than substantial range.

The appellant argues that the site represents only a small part of a wider area of ‘[name] and that the village is ‘washed over’ by similar constraints. However, the [name] identifies the openness of surrounding agricultural land as a defining characteristic of the CA. The appeal site forms a visible and integral element of that landscape, and its contribution is not dependent on it being ‘singled out for any special aspect of importance within the Appraisal, as suggested by the appellant. Despite adjacent residential properties, the gap provides an important rural break that reflects the historic pattern of development. Its central and prominent position also distinguishes it from more enclosed open spaces that are less visible to the rear of existing dwellings. Infilling the site would erode this relationship and diminish the rural setting that underpins the CA’s significance. Therefore, for these reasons, I do not accept the appellant’s claim that the site is not an important component of the CA.

An illustrative layout has been submitted showing how two or three dormer bungalows could be accommodated in a manner broadly reflecting the village’s linear pattern and building line. It is acknowledged that positioning two dwellings either side of a retained central open space would preserve a limited sense of openness and maintain some views towards the countryside. However, the introduction of residential built form across much of the site would nevertheless lead to a substantial loss of open space and result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area.

I acknowledge the appellant’s view that new landscaping, a high‐quality design and an appropriate layout could be secured at the technical details stage and may assist in mitigating some effects. However, given the nature and extent of the harm identified, I am not persuaded that such measures would be sufficient to address or overcome my concerns.

The absence of any formal landscape or ecological designation, and the fact that the development would not affect a scheduled monument, a significant view, or notable trees or tree groups, does not diminish the site’s contribution to local character or to the settlement’s form. Undesignated land can nevertheless perform important spatial and visual functions, and in this case those functions would be materially harmed by the proposed development.

Consequently, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, including harm to the significance of the [name] as a designated heritage asset, and harm to the significance of the Grade II Listed buildings known as [address], [name], [address], Cymbeline, and the [name] attached to the south-west corner of [address] as designated heritage assets through development within their setting.

It would be contrary to [name] 6, SWDP 21, SWDP 24 and SWDP 25 of the SWDP. In combination, these policies seek to ensure that development integrates effectively into its surroundings, in terms of form and function, reinforcing local distinctiveness and conserving heritage assets and their settings. Development should complement the character of the area, including safeguarding the distinct character of settlements, ensuring that they are appropriate to, and integrate with, the character of the landscape setting. Development proposals will be supported where they conserve and enhance the significance of heritage assets, including their setting.

The proposal would also be contrary to the principles within Chapters 12 and 16 of the Framework which seek good design sympathetic to the local area, and which conserves and enhances the historic environment.

The harm that I have identified to the significance of the Conservation Area (CA) and the [name] listed buildings, arising from development within their setting, would be localised. This harm would be less than substantial in the terms of the Framework. I have found that the level of harm to the CA would fall towards the higher end of the spectrum of less than substantial harm, whereas the harm to the listed buildings would be towards the lower end. In either case, such harm must be given considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires that this harm is weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, with its most recent position statement confirming a supply of only 1.1 years. This significant shortfall means that the provision of three dwellings attracts substantial weight, consistent with the Government’s objective in paragraph 61 of the Framework to significantly boost the supply of homes. The proposal would also secure an off-site financial contribution towards affordable housing, which carries additional weight.

The development would generate economic benefits through construction activity, alongside revenue from Council Tax and the [name]. Future occupants would also support the local economy and the continued viability of nearby services. Social benefits would arise from the provision of additional housing and there would also be environmental benefits through the retention of landscape features and the potential for enhancements. Taken together, these benefits attract moderate weight.

I note the absence of physical or environmental constraints, including Green Belt, flood risk, archaeology, protected species and trees. However, these are neutral in

Having regard to the above, I recognise that a CA designation does not preclude development. However, in this case the public benefits advanced would not outweigh the harm I have identified to this designated heritage asset. The paragraph 215 balance is therefore not satisfied. Accordingly, the Framework policies relating to designated heritage assets provide a strong reason for refusing the proposal, and paragraph 11(d)(i) is engaged. As such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

I recognise that the Inspector in the earlier appeal for the site opposite3 reached a different outcome on the overall planning balance and allowed that scheme following the application of the tilted balance under paragraph 11(d) (ii) of the Framework. However, in that case the Inspector found no harm to the setting or significance of the nearby listed buildings or the CA, and the Council’s reasons for refusal did not allege any such harm. This is materially different from the circumstances before me, where I have identified harm to designated heritage assets and concluded that the heritage balance is not satisfied. As a result, paragraph 11(d) (ii) is not engaged in this appeal.

In conclusion, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole, as it would not represent a suitable location for housing having regard to the area’s spatial strategy and the site’s accessibility to public transport, services and facilities. It would also harm the character and appearance of the area, including harm to the significance of the [name] as a designated heritage asset, and harm to the significance of the Grade II Listed buildings known as [address], [name], [address], Cymbeline, and the [name] attached to the south-west corner of [address] as designated heritage assets through development within their setting. The less than substantial harm identified would not be outweighed by public benefits. The material considerations before me do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore dismissed.