Appeal 6002163

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for a minimum of 1 net dwelling and a maximum net 9 dwellings at [name] [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application [name]/25/01517/PIP.

Permission in principle is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission that separates out the matters of principle from technical details. The scope of my assessment is limited to the location, land use and amount of development.

The description of development in the header is taken from the application form. The Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) explains that a decision notice that grants permission in principle must express the amount of residential development as a range, indicating the maximum and minimum number of dwellings. With this in mind, the description of development has been amended in my decision above to refer to a minimum of 1 dwelling and a maximum of 9 dwellings.

The main issues are (i) whether the site is a suitable location for the development having regard to the policies of the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 (the SWDP) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), and (ii) the effect on the character and appearance of the area. If the proposal is found to be unacceptable in any of these regards it follows to consider whether other material considerations indicate granting permission in principle.

The appeal site is outside the development boundary for [site address] as defined in the SWDP. [name] of policy SWDP2 defines land beyond development boundaries as open countryside and where development should be strictly controlled. The appellants accept the proposal would not fall within any of the categories of development that may be acceptable in the open countryside as listed in [name] of SWDP policy SWDP2. Therefore, the development would not be in a suitable location when having regard to this policy.

The appellants refer to an emerging development plan that will replace the SWDP and that sets out a less restrictive policy on development beyond settlement boundaries. I also understand the replacement document would re-define the settlement boundary for [site address] so that it would be nearer to the appeal site. However, there is little information before me on the progress of this emerging development plan document towards adoption and whether there are any unresolved objections to the referred to policy. As such, the emerging document and its policies attract little weight in my assessment of this main issue.

Whilst outside the defined development boundary, the proposed dwellings would be near to [site address] and the neighbouring residence called [address]. Also, part of the appeal site boundary adjoins a newly constructed residential development at The Paddocks. Therefore, the houses would not be isolated homes in the countryside as resisted under paragraph 84 of the Framework.

In light of its close proximity to the settlements, residents of the proposed development are likely to support local facilities within [site address] and Ryall. However, there is a limited range of services within these villages. Instead, it is more likely future occupiers would use the broader range of facilities within [site address] , which includes shops, eateries, a primary school and a medical centre. There are also bus stops within [site address] that provide public transport links to larger settlements further afield.

Pedestrians would be able to walk safely between the development and [site address] along the pavement to the side of the A4104. The separation distance, traffic noise and lack of street lighting along part of the route may deter some from walking and to instead travel by car. Even so, the drive time would be short and so it is unlikely the separation distance would dissuade residents from using the [site address] facilities. Therefore, the proposed houses would be located where they would enhance and maintain the vitality of a rural community, in accordance with paragraph 83 of the Framework. Moreover, they would be located so as to minimise the need to travel and to offer genuine sustainable travel choices as required under SWDP policy SWDP4.

Also, it is noteworthy that under SWDP policy SWDP58, sites at [site address] are allocated for housing development. These include a plot at [name], which is further away from [site address] compared to the appeal site. The reasoned justification to this policy explains that [site address] will be the focus for housing development as opportunities within [site address] are likely to be limited due to flood risk, landscape and access issues. These factors support the view that the appeal site would be a suitable location for the development in terms of accessibility to services

In summary, I conclude the proposal would not be in a suitable location when having regard to the SWDP as it would not accord with [name] of SWDP policy SWDP2. However, any harm caused by this policy conflict is tempered as the location of the housing would accord with the provisions of the Framework on rural housing and would accord with SWDP policy SWDP4. Also, the weight I attribute to the identified policy conflict is reduced given that [site address] is recognised as a suitable location for new housing under SWDP policy SWDP58. Effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The site lies on rising land to the rear of [site address] . Whilst it is fairly near to dwellings, the plot is rural in appearance as it contains orchard trees, grassed areas and a pond. It also includes a strip of land that contains mature trees and that links the main part of the plot to the A4104. The site does not lie in an area that is formally recognised for its landscape value. Even so, the natural features contained on the land as well as its openness make a positive contribution to the visual qualities of the countryside.

No details on the proposed development are before me for consideration. However, the erection of up to 9 dwellings is bound to lead to a loss of openness and introduce a residential rather than countryside character to the site. Moreover, it is fair to assume access to the development would be along the strip of land that currently contains mature trees. Therefore, the proposal would lead to the removal of these trees and at least some of the fruit trees within the orchard. As such, it would be detrimental to the rural and natural qualities of the site and the locality.

The houses would not be prominent from the A4104 near to the site as they would be set back from the road. Also, [site address] , [address] and trees along the road would provide a degree of screening. However, when approaching the site from the direction of [site address] , it seems likely the houses would be visible on the rising land behind [address] and [site address] , although they would be most noticeable from medium and long distances.

There are also views of the highest parts of the site from a public bridleway that runs in front of [address] and through adjoining fields. The visual effects of the development from this public vantage point could be mitigated by positioning new buildings away from the western boundary and by introducing new planting as a buffer between the housing and the adjoining fields.

The development would also be seen at a distance and from higher land on [address]. In such views, the housing would be seen alongside the existing development at The Paddocks and with other developed parts of [site address] . Again, the visual effects of the scheme could be mitigated to a degree through sensitive design and landscaping.

Even so, the proposed housing would be most obvious from [site address] , [address] and from The Paddocks. From these vantage points, the development would appear as a clear encroachment of the settlement onto open countryside.

In summary, I find the development by virtue of its location, its residential nature and the amount of housing proposed would be harmful to the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area. In these regards, it would not accord with SWDP policies SWDP2, SWDP21 and SWDP25. Amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure development integrates with its surroundings and has regard to the local landscape character. Other considerations and planning balance.

I have found the proposal would not accord with the development plan when read as a whole. It follows to consider whether other factors justify allowing the appeal.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 years’ worth of housing land supply as required under the terms of the Framework. A housing land supply report dated January 2025 indicates a supply figure equating to 2.06 years. This is a significant shortfall. In such circumstances, footnote 8 of the Framework dictates that paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged. There are no Framework policies that protect areas or assets of particular importance and that provide strong reason to refuse the appeal proposal. Therefore, under sub-paragraph 11(d)(ii) it follows to consider the benefits of the development against its adverse effects.

The provision of up to 9 dwellings would make a modest but meaningful contribution towards the housing stock. Paragraph 73 of the Framework highlights that small sized sites such as the appeal plot make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area. In light of the housing land supply shortfall, the proposal’s contribution towards housing provision attracts moderate weight in support of allowing the appeal. Also, the development would lead to construction employment and residents supporting local services and facilities. These economic factors add modest weight towards allowing the appeal.

The description of development refers to the provision of a single self-build dwelling. The Council claims that sufficient planning permissions have been granted for self-build housing plots to meet the demand derived from its self-build and custom-build register. However, this claim is based partly on permissions in principle that have been granted rather than planning permissions. As such, there is an element of uncertainty over whether these should be counted as permitted self-build plots. However, the same uncertainties would exist with the current appeal as it seeks permission in principle rather than planning permission. Therefore, I attach very limited weight to the proposal’s contribution towards the provision of self-build plots.

Whilst not mentioned in the description of development, the Council is satisfied that affordable housing could be secured as part of the proposal through a planning obligation provided at the technical details stage. However, it is unclear from the submissions with this appeal as to the level of affordable housing that would be provided and how this would address any particular need. Therefore, this factor attracts limited weight in support of the appeal.

A consultee on the application leading to this appeal suggests a developer contribution is necessary towards mitigating the impacts of the development on health services. However, the PPG explains that planning obligations cannot be secured at the permission in principle stage. Therefore, this would be a matter to be resolved through the technical details consent process.

For the reasons as set out under the first main issue, I attach very limited weight to the harm that would be caused through the policy conflict with the SWDP in terms of the suitability of the location for the appeal development. Also, I find the development would be in an appropriate location having regard to the Framework’s provisions on the location of rural housing. The proposal would not recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and so it would be contrary to paragraph 187 of the Framework. However, through sensitive design and mitigation measures, the visual effects of the development would cause no more than moderate harm to the landscape and rural qualities of the area.

When considered together, I find the adverse effects of the development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits when having regard to the policies of the Framework as a whole. The circumstances at sub-paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework do not exist and so the presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 11(d) applies. Therefore, the Framework dictates that planning permission should be granted. For these reasons, I find the benefits of the proposal and other considerations are of sufficient weight to justify allowing permission in principle contrary to the SWDP.

Planning conditions have been suggested by consultees on the application leading to this appeal. However, the PPG states it is not possible for conditions to be attached to a grant of permission in principle. Therefore, I conclude the appeal should be allowed as set out in my decision above.