Appeal 6002525

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for a minimum of two and a maximum of two dwellings on the land to the rear of Iona, [site address] , [site address] , Droitwich, Worcestershire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/00976/PIP, dated 2 May 2025.

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. The second stage (technical details consent (TDC) is when detailed proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first stage.

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. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

Section 5A of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 states that when granting permission in principle the minimum and maximum net number of dwellings must be stated. The application form indicates that the development proposed is for a minimum of 2 dwellings with no maximum. As the description of development given on the application form states the proposal is for 2 dwellings, I have determined the appeal on the basis of 2 dwellings.

The main issues are whether the location, land use and amount of the proposed development is suitable, having regard to: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and, • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of Iona and neighbouring properties.

The appeal site comprises a modern detached dwelling (Iona), with a sizeable garden to the rear and side. It sits within a group of residential buildings bounded by [site address] to the west and [address] and [address] to the east, both of which face open countryside on the approach to the village of [site address] .

To the north of the appeal site is a row of closely spaced, detached houses, with rear gardens of a similar depth. They back onto the rear gardens of the dwellings facing [address] and [address], which are of a comparable size. The rear garden of the appeal site is enclosed by established hedges and trees and, from what I was able to observe at my site visit, the gardens to the rear of the site have a similar generous, spacious and verdant character.

The southern boundary of the appeal site is defined by a public right of way. To the south of the right of way the pattern of development is more mixed, comprising modern housing, around a series of cul-de-sacs.

The defining character of the area is, therefore, of predominantly modern, closely spaced ribbon development along, but set back from, roads on the approach to [site address] , which face onto open countryside. Those detached dwellings to the north of the public right of way have generous, enclosed rear gardens, but due to their location, and the close spacing of the buildings, the gardens make a more limited contribution to the street scene.

The development proposed entails the division of the current curtilage of Iona, to create a site to accommodate 2 houses to the rear, with access from [site address] , resulting in the loss of a significant proportion of the open rear garden to the house.

Subdivision of the large rear garden, and development in this location, would be at odds with the prevailing open and spacious nature of the surrounding gardens. It would harm the character of the spaces to the rear of the properties fronting [site address] and [address]. However, due to the location, and enclosed nature of the rear gardens, the ribbon development facing [site address] and [address] and [address] would appear largely unaltered.

Nevertheless, the proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, although for the reasons set out above, the extent of that harm would be limited. Accordingly, there would be conflict with Policy SWPD21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan, (the Development Plan) 2016, which seeks to ensure that development integrates effectively with its surroundings. Similarly, the development would not accord with advice in the [name] Planning Document, (the SPD) 2018, which seeks to deliver development that respects and enhances local character.

While no indicative site plan has been submitted, it is reasonably assumed by the main parties that some form of vehicular access would be required from [site address] to the side of Iona. While the vehicular access would be close to the side of the dwelling, the number of vehicle movements per day would be unlikely to be of such a high frequency or of a nature that would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of Iona.

The Council estimate that [address] metres of private outdoor amenity space is required for the occupants of Iona. The development proposal would provide more than double this amount to the rear of the building, in addition to the outdoor amenity space to the front. While the proposal would reduce the amount of existing amenity space to Iona it would provide sufficient outdoor amenity space according to the SPD.

[name] and Farthingwood are more than 50m away from the shared boundary with the appeal site, so the proposed development would be unlikely to have significant impacts on privacy and outlook, nor be overbearing and, in any event, this would be subject to detailed consideration at TDC stage. Any impacts would be more pronounced towards the very end of the long gardens of those properties, which are some distance from Torchwood and Farthingwood themselves and, therefore, on areas unlikely to be in prolonged or frequent use.

The Willows is immediately to the north of the appeal site, with a shared boundary along the sides of the [address]. There is currently an established, high hedge along the boundary, although this cannot be relied upon to provide permanent and all year screening between the 2 sites. However, any views from windows to habitable rooms at the Willows, are likely to be at some distance or at an oblique angle, and would be subject to detailed consideration at TDC stage.

Similarly, the length of the retained rear garden, to Iona, indicates that there would be sufficient space to accommodate development on the appeal site which would not be overbearing or impact unduly on privacy and outlook for the occupants of Iona and future occupants of the proposed development.

The size and scale of the proposed dwellings is not a matter for consideration at permission in principle stage. However, the Council calculate that the proposed net density for 2 dwellings on the site would be approximately 14 dwellings per hectare. This would be approximately half the density required, in villages, under SWDP13 of the Development Plan. This supports the view that the site is physically capable of accommodating 2 dwellings, at a density more in keeping with the spacious character of the immediate area, without harm to the outlook from neighbouring properties.

I am satisfied that the area of the site is such that 2 dwellings could be accommodated on it in a way that would not be visually intrusive, appear cramped, or have an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties and their occupants. Matters such as daylight and sunlight assessment is dependent on the size and scale of the proposed dwellings, which is not a matter for consideration at permission in principle stage. Such assessments would be considered at TDC stage.

Accordingly, the proposed development could, subject to consideration at TDC stage, be accommodated on site in a way which would not harm the living conditions of the occupants of Iona or of neighbouring properties. I therefore find no conflict with Policy SWDP21 of the Development Plan or advice in the SPD.

I acknowledge the objections from interested parties with regard to issues including loss of trees, biodiversity, drainage, health and safety, and highway safety. These matters were considered by the Council at application stage, in so far as they are relevant, and would be considered in full at TDC stage and as such they do not form part of the considerations relating to permission in principle. The Council raised no objections to the proposal with regard to impact on landscape character. Based on the evidence before me, I have no reason to take a different position.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Consequently, Paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is engaged; whereby permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations.

The operation of Paragraph 11(d) does not depend on whether a site is located inside a development boundary. Instead, Paragraph 11(d) is triggered where the most important policies for determining the application are out-of-date, including in circumstances where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.

There is conflict with the Development Plan, with regards to impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. However, for the reasons given above the harm would be limited in nature and extent and, therefore, I attach limited weight to this conflict.

The latest housing land supply figure (January 2025) for the Council is 1.1 years, which falls considerably below the five-year target. The construction of 2 dwellings would make a small, but meaningful, contribution towards the Council’s housing supply and there is nothing to suggest, subject to TDC, that the proposal could not be delivered quickly. In view of the significant shortfall in the housing land supply figure, I attach significant weight to the benefit of 2 new homes.

There would also be modest economic and social benefits associated with the construction and occupation of the dwellings, such as through new residents using local services. I attach modest weight to these benefits.

Overall, therefore, the adverse effects of the proposal, namely in relation to the limited impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, are not considered to be so harmful as to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal outlined above, when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied and Paragraph 11(d) indicates that permission should be granted. There are no other material considerations to override this finding.

As set out in PPG, it is not possible for conditions to be attached to a grant of permission in principle. Therefore, I have not imposed any conditions. The Council has suggested a number of informatives be included in the decision should the appeal be allowed: however, these are not necessary.

Whilst conflict with the development plan has been identified, the harm associated would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.