Appeal 6002124

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for erection of up to 2 dwellings at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/01818/PIP.

The address in the banner heading above has been taken from the Council’s decision notice and the appellant’s appeal form for clarity purposes.

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 (‘permission in principle’) 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 two 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.

Whilst it has not been cited as a reason for refusal, the Council’s evidence indicates that the proposal conflicts with the local development strategy for housing delivery, particularly in relation to new housing in the countryside. Given the implications of this matter and its relevance to my assessment, I must reach my own conclusions on this issue before applying the planning balance. Accordingly, I will treat this as a main issue in my reasoning below.

The main issues are whether the location, the proposed land use and the amount of development is suitable, with particular regard to: • whether the proposed development would provide a suitable location for housing, having regard to the development strategy for the area; and • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

Policy SWDP 2 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) (2016) sets out the development strategy and settlement hierarchy for the District. [name] confirms that development in the open countryside will be strictly controlled and limited to specified forms of residential development in defined circumstances.

The appeal site lies outside any adopted settlement boundary and is therefore located within the open countryside for the purposes of Policy SWDP 2. The proposal would introduce a new dwelling in this location, and it does not meet any of the exceptions identified in Policy SWDP 2, nor is it supported by any other policy of the SWDP that would allow new housing in the open countryside. As such, it would conflict with the development strategy for the area.

Consequently, the proposed development would not represent a suitable location for housing, having regard to the development strategy and settlement hierarchy established by the development plan. It would be contrary to Policy SWDP 2 of the SWDP which sets out the development strategy and settlement hierarchy for the District, strictly controlling development in the open countryside.

The appeal site comprises an enclosed parcel of land accessed directly from [site address] . It lies immediately west of the semi-detached dwellings known as Kissing Tree and [address], with Oaklands and The Royal Grammar School (The Grange) located to the south of [site address] . To the north and west, towards which the land gently slopes, the adjoining land remains in agricultural use. The site is enclosed on most boundaries by mature trees and hedgerows, creating strong and defensible edges, although it is open to the neighbouring properties to the east, where a low post-and-rail fence forms the boundary. Several trees are also present within the site, which third parties indicate reflect its historic use as an ‘ancient orchard’.

I observed that residential development is present in the immediate area, arranged either in clusters or in linear form along the roadside and existing boundaries. Beyond these features, the wider landscape remains predominantly rural and undeveloped, contributing to the setting of [name], with the countryside becoming more open to the west of the appeal site.

The Worcestershire Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) identifies the site as lying within the ‘[name] with [name] (LT), characterised as ‘a rolling, lowland, settled agricultural landscape with a dominant pastoral land use and small scale, defined by its hedged fields. Hedgerow and streamside trees, together with those associated with settlement, provide tree cover in a landscape with a notable network of winding lanes, scattered farms and clusters of wayside settlements’. The secondary key characteristics confirm that this landscape type typically accommodates a dispersed settlement pattern of farmsteads and groups of wayside dwellings. A landscape guideline for this LT is to retain the integrity of this dispersed pattern of settlement.

Taking the above and my observations on site into account, I recognise that the appeal site makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. It forms part of the setting of [name] and reflects aspects of its claimed historic use as an orchard. However, due to its enclosed nature and the presence of existing built form in the immediate context, the site contrasts, to some extent, with the more verdant and open countryside that extends to the north and west. This remains the case even when having regard to the limited number of dwellings in the surrounding area.

The proposal would introduce up to two dwellings, although the final quantum, design, scale and siting remain undefined. This would result in the loss of an undeveloped parcel of land and would introduce development of a domestic and urbanising nature, including residential curtilage, boundary treatments, lighting, parking and associated activity. However, the site’s physical and visual relationship with the adjoining residential built form is such that it would not appear as the ‘incongruous and sporadic encroachment into the open countryside’ as suggested by the Council. Instead, it would read as a modest and coherent addition to the existing small cluster of dwellings, reflecting the established pattern of dispersed wayside groups. In this context, the scheme would respond appropriately to the local landscape and would not harm the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The site would also be capable of accommodating a wayside form of development accessed from the southern boundary, reinforcing the existing built form pattern along established boundaries.

Although the wider landscape to the north and west remains rural, the appeal site adjoins existing residential development, notably a pair of semi-detached dwellings which, despite the assertions of the Council and an interested party, clearly read as two separate units due to their differing external finishes. Whilst the site lies away from the main built-up area of the settlement, these dwellings form a small but evident cluster along an established boundary. In this immediate context, and contrary to the Council’s position that the site reads as part of an open field parcel detached from, and with little relationship to, the settlement, the site relates more closely to this cluster of dwellings than to the open countryside. The introduction of up to two dwellings would therefore represent a small-scale and contextually appropriate extension to the existing pattern of development rather than an encroachment into the wider landscape.

I walked the Public Rights of Way (PROWs) in the immediate area, including the route to the north accessed from [name], and I also viewed the site from the highway pavement network. From these vantage points, I noted that views of small clusters of wayside dwellings, as well as larger groups, form part of the established landscape character. The existing pair of semi-detached properties is visible from the PROW to the north, and the proposal would also likely be visible from similar viewpoints. However, the new dwellings would be seen in the context of the existing built form already apparent from the footpath. They would not be particularly prominent, and the existing landform and vegetation would mitigate views. Accordingly, the proposal would not harm the overall quality or character of views from the PROW currently enjoyed by users.

In relation to views from the highway pavement network, the claim that the entire plot is clearly and continuously visible from the corner of [site address] is overstated. Boundary vegetation, together with the changing angles of approach, serves to filter views, and any glimpse obtained at the bend would be oblique rather than uninterrupted. The established roadside vegetation, along with the potential to supplement this through additional landscaping at the [name] stage, would further assist in mitigating views from the pavement network.

While boundary vegetation does not in itself eliminate all visibility and varies seasonally, as suggested by the Council, it does play a meaningful role in softening and filtering views. This ensures that any built form would not appear intrusive within either the immediate or the wider landscape. Moreover, development on this relatively well contained plot would not undermine the overarching pattern of settlement or materially erode the area’s rural character to an extent that would render the proposal unacceptable.

Although the site forms part of a rural context, its contribution to wider openness is limited, and the enclosed nature of the parcel means development would not materially harm the rural character of the unaffected open fields to the north and west. The absence of any subdivision of the field would also help to preserve the small-scale landscape of prominent hedged fields, which is identified as a primary characteristic of the relevant LT.

The Council’s reference to the earlier appeal in Middle Littleton1 would not be directly comparable in scale, context or effect. Based on the limited evidence before me, which is confined to the appeal decision alone, although that case also concerned residential development within the District, the site lay within a different LT, appeared more exposed, and related to a larger scheme. Moreover, harm was identified in that case to the setting, and therefore the significance, of a nearby [name] listed building, which is not a consideration before me now. Given these material differences, the conclusions reached in that appeal cannot reasonably be applied to the present proposal. On the evidence before me, the appeal site at [site address] would be capable of accommodating a small-scale residential scheme without resulting in material landscape harm.

Consequently, for the reasons set out above, the proposal would not materially harm the character and appearance of the area. It would be in accordance with [name] 21 and SWDP 25 of the SWDP and Policy NCD1 of the North Claines Neighbourhood Plan 2015-2030 (adopted 2017) (the NP). In combination, these policies seek to ensure that development integrates effectively into its surroundings, in terms of form and function, reinforcing local distinctiveness. They require development to complement the character of the area, including safeguarding the distinct character of settlements, ensuring that they are 1 APP/H1840/W/23/3335286 appropriate to, and integrated with, the existing character of the landscape and its setting.

Interested parties have raised concerns regarding visibility splays, neighbouring living conditions, and potential effects on ecology, biodiversity and trees. However, these matters relate to technical, site-specific details that can be appropriately addressed at the [name] stage, where matters of layout, landscaping and mitigation can be fully considered. The site is of sufficient size to accommodate two dwellings while maintaining appropriate separation distances to safeguard neighbouring living conditions, particularly in respect of privacy and outlook.

There is no requirement for the appellant to consider whether alternative sites might be preferable, or to assess potential infill opportunities elsewhere in [name]. The proposal must be determined on its own planning merits against the relevant policies and material considerations, rather than by comparison with other sites.

The adjacent cottages are not listed, and the Council has not identified them as non-designated heritage assets or raised any concerns regarding their setting. In the absence of any formal assessment or designation, limited weight can be afforded to assertions regarding the site’s ‘historic orchard’ status as suggested by ‘historic mapping’. Similarly, references to an undocumented bridge and alleged archaeological finds nearby are unsubstantiated, and the Council has raised no archaeology-related objection. On the evidence before me, there is no basis to conclude that the development would harm heritage or archaeological interests.

I note the claim that a number of trees were felled on the site prior to the submission of the application. However, as they were not subject to a Tree Preservation Order and the site does not lie within a Conservation Area, their removal did not require planning permission.

Finally, concerns about water pressure, drainage and electricity supply have been raised, but no objections have been submitted by the relevant utility providers. Such matters are ordinarily addressed through detailed design stage and do not provide a basis for resisting the principle of up to two dwellings on the site.

I have found no harm to the character and appearance of the area. However, I have found conflict with Policy SWDP 2 of the SWDP by virtue of the site being outside of any defined settlement boundary, it not being allocated for housing and it failing to fall under any of the exceptions set out by Policy SWDP 2. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The Council’s most recent housing land supply position statement confirms that it can only demonstrate a 1.10 year supply of deliverable housing sites. Consequently, paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) is engaged.

Paragraph 11 d) ii states that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the most important policies for determining the application are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole. This includes consideration of key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places, and providing affordable homes. Footnote 8 confirms that this applies where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, while Footnote 9 identifies the key policies that should be given particular regard.

Whilst the conflict with the development plan amounts to harm, the development strategy is clearly failing to deliver a five-year supply of housing. Accordingly, the weight to be afforded to the conflict with the development strategy, in light of the land supply shortfall, is reduced and I attach moderate weight to the conflict in these circumstances. I also recognise that the location of the appeal site would represent a sustainable form of development with access to services and facilities accessible on foot or via public transport, providing sustainable opportunities to reduce the dependency on the private car.

Such a level of housing land supply shortfall would mean that the provision of up to 2 dwellings would attract significant weight in the balance, consistent with the Government’s aim in paragraph 61 of the Framework of significantly boosting the supply of homes.

The proposal would also provide some socio-economic benefits, including supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities. There would also be economic benefits contributing to building a stronger, responsive, and competitive economy, supporting growth with construction and post-construction benefits. The proposal would encourage development and associated economic growth, with future occupants contributing to the local economy and continued viability of services in the local area. Together these benefits carry moderate weight in favour of the development.

Accordingly, in the context of paragraph 11 d) ii of the Framework, the adverse impacts of the development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits when assessed against the Framework’s policies taken as a whole. This includes consideration of key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land and securing well-designed places. Therefore, although the proposal would conflict with the development plan when considered in its entirety, material considerations, including the Framework, outweigh that conflict and indicate that planning permission should be granted for development that is not fully in accordance with the plan.

The PPG makes it clear that it is not possible for conditions to be attached to a grant of permission in principle, whose terms may only include the site location, the type and amount of development.

Therefore, for the reasons set out above, having considered all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal is allowed.