Appeal 6002700

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. The 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 two stages. The first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle, and the second (‘technical details consent’) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these two stages.

As set out in the PPG, 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 [name] application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

A layout plan has been submitted, which is clearly marked as illustrative. I have therefore considered it as such.

Since the commencement of the appeal, the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 (SWDPR) was adopted. This represents a material change in the local policy framework compared to that in place when the application was decided. The parties have made submissions regarding the implications of the adopted SWDPR which I have considered. I have determined the appeal on the basis of the policies within the SWDPR.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and amount of development.

Policy SWDPR 03 of the SWDPR, sets out the spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy where development will be directed, this seeks to ensure that development is delivered in sustainable locations.

The appeal site is located on land adjacent to [name], in open countryside, which is defined in Policy SWDPR 03 of the SWDPR as any land beyond any development boundary and within Policy RE 2 of the [site address] Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan, 2025 (the Neighbourhood Plan) as outside the [site address] and Hanley Swan Development Boundaries. The Neighbourhood Plan was adopted under the previous development plan, and less weight can be afforded to its policies. However, Policy RE 2 is considered consistent with the SWDPR in this regard. These policies seek to strictly control development in the open countryside which is generally less sustainable as access to local services and employment opportunities tends to be poorer.

[name] is a rural road with no footways or street lighting. It is subject to National Speed Limit in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site but this changes to 30mph, a short distance from the site, in the direction of [address].

A primary school, village hall and village store are within walking distance of the site. The route to these facilities includes a significant length (noted as 1.4km in the officer’s delegated report) along [name] to [address]. There is a section of road immediately adjacent to the site access where the road and verge are narrow, and this section of road is subject to National Speed Limit. There are also no pedestrian facilities on [name] at the junction with [address], and the verge for pedestrians heading to the local facilities becomes very narrow on the approach to the junction, such that pedestrians are likely to be in the road at a location where vehicles would be turning left from [address] on to [name], and where visibility is limited by vegetation. These sections are not a safe environment for pedestrians which combined with the length of routes is likely to significantly deter walked trips to these facilities.

The appellant refers to the public footpath (537(C)) that joins the site with [name]. I walked a short section of this route which was extremely muddy and therefore very difficult to use. It is not a route that could be relied on for pedestrian access to [name].

The officer’s report notes that the nearest bus stops are approximately 1.7km from the site, which is well beyond what is considered a reasonable walk distance within the Worcestershire County Council Streetscapes Design Guide, 2022. As described above there are pedestrian safety issues along the route. Consequently, it is likely that there would be minimal bus trips from the proposed development.

The site is within a reasonable cycle distance of a number of facilities and services. The appellant refers to facilities available at [name] and [site address] . The pedestrian and cycle route to [site address] , along [name], is not an attractive route. It is narrow, has no pedestrian or cycle facilities, is unlit, is subject to National Speed Limit and forward visibility is limited in places. [site address] [name] is also beyond a reasonable walk distance.

In summary, while some facilities would be within reasonable walking and cycling distance, there are highway safety issues with the routes and therefore the number of such trips from the proposal is likely to be very limited. Access to facilities and services would therefore be very heavily reliant on travel by motor car. While the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) notes that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, this location would largely be reliant on travel by private car.

The proposal is therefore in conflict with Policy SWDPR 06 of the SWDPR, which requires development to minimise the need to travel by car and avoid unacceptable impact on highway safety.

The Council considers that the location of the development would impact on the character and appearance of the area, by extending the existing ribbon of development along [name] towards [site address] , contrary to the aims of Policy RE2 of the Neighbourhood Plan. Also, the proposal would be contrary to development guidelines for the landscape type, which in part seek to retain the dispersed pattern of settlement.

The ribbon of development on [name] is characterised by detached houses that are close together, set back but visible from the road. Beyond this ribbon, the space between dwellings increases. The officer’s delegated report refers to the appeal site being 53m beyond [address] and 163m from [address]. This spacing of the development from other properties would not be out of character with this section of [name]. The location of the site would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the area. The effect of the form of development on the character and appearance of the area, which will be influenced by the number of dwellings, would be a matter for consideration of a [name] application.

The location of the proposal would not in itself be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and would not therefore be in conflict with [name] 05, SWDPR 28 and SWDPR 34 of the SWDPR which require development to integrate effectively with its surroundings and reinforce local distinctiveness, which in terms of location in this area is of well-spaced properties set back from the road.

In summary, for the reasons set out above, I conclude the site is not suitable for development with regard to its location and proposed land use. The proposal would conflict with [name] 03 and SWDPR 06 of the SWDP and Policy RE2 of the Neighbourhood Plan.

The appellant has drawn my attention to the [name] on the Examination of the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review, where it states that it has not been demonstrated that there would be a five-year supply of deliverable sites by applying the 10% buffer required in the 2023 Framework and suggested that significant weight should still be afforded to the benefit of the homes the proposal would deliver. However, the plan was adopted including a 5% buffer, which is the requirement in the current Framework. The Council can therefore demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. While the proposal would help the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it would not outweigh the harm to the Council’s spatial strategy.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.