Appeal 6002718

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 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.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted1. 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. However, given that matters relevant to land use are not contested and are not reflected in the reason for refusing the application, I have focused my consideration on location and amount of development in the main issue below.

The address of the appeal site (site) in the application form was given as only, “Easting:371302, Northing: 261195 grazing field accessed off [address]”. For clarity I have taken the address used in the banner heading and my decision above from the address used in the Council’s decision notice and given by the appellant at the start of the appeal.

While the Council considers the submitted Landscape Appeal Statement to be new evidence, the appellant confirms that it was prepared in response to the Council’s landscape‐based reason for refusal. As the Council has had the opportunity to comment on the document, I find that no prejudice has arisen, and I have therefore taken it into account. 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone]

During the course of the appeal, the Council adopted the South Worcestershire Development Plan review 2021-2041 (2026) (SWDPR). This superseded the policies against which the appeal proposal had originally been determined. The Council provided an updated list of policies considered relevant to the planning appeal and the appellant had the opportunity to respond accordingly. I have taken the updated policies and relevant responses into account in making my decision.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development having regard to its location, and the amount of development, in respect of: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • the Council’s spatial development strategy.

The site comprises a rectangular parcel within a larger agricultural field maintained as grassland. It is accessed from [address], which leads to the village of [site address] . The land rises gently from the road towards a tree line. A hedged area of open space, described as a biodiversity area associated with relatively recent development on [address] separates the site from the village’s built‐up edge. The proposed development would extend the built form into the undeveloped area on the southern edge of the village. The site’s frontage to [address] is also defined by hedging; at the time of my site visit, the roadside hedge was neatly cut, allowing views into and across the site.

The Worcestershire Landscape Character Assessment (WLCA) identifies the site as within the [name] Type (LCT) and within that is part of the [name] [name] (LDU). The local landscape in which the site is situated is typical of the LCT. There is a mixed farming landscape including features such as hedged fields, scattered farms woods, and wooded valleys. Settlement comprises dispersed farmsteads and wayside dwellings. However, these characteristics diminish as the established area of the village of [site address] is approached.

[site address] is a nucleated settlement which contrasts with the prevailing dispersed settlement pattern in the wider LCT and LDU. It is on an elevated plateau surrounded by agricultural fields and wooded valley sides. The field in which the site is located defines the setting to this side of [site address] and is a key part of the transition to the rural landscape surrounding it.

Primary characteristics of the LCT include upstanding plateaus of rolling topography dissected by broad valleys, filtered medium/long distance views, ancient wooded character, and mixed hedges with scattered hedgerow oaks. The site’s elevation and location allow views towards and across it even allowing for intervening boundary hedging and vegetation. The proposal would be seen against the existing built form of the village. However, as additional built form along [address] moving away from the village, it would appear more prominent in the landscape. This would strongly contrast with the current transition from built form to farmland provided by the green space.

The proposal would replace agricultural land with residential development which would have an adverse effect on the landscape character of the site itself. The separation provided by the adjacent biodiversity green space means the proposal would appear disconnected and intrusive into the wider landscape rather than as a natural extension to the village.

Some hedgerow loss may occur to achieve appropriate access visibility, but taking account of the size of the site, it would be possible for existing hedgerows to be enhanced as well as additional lengths of hedgerow to define the site boundary furthest away from the village. This is supported by the Worcestershire County Council landscape type advice sheets concerning protecting, managing, and enhancing traditional hedgerows in order to maintain and strengthen their connectivity and landscape character.

However, the layout of the development is not for consideration at this stage of the permission in principle process, and I do not have any illustrative evidence before me to determine how this prominently located field could accommodate six dwellings without resulting in a visually harmful layout. Either a compact ribbon or nucleated layout would create the appearance of a disconnected group of dwellings which would appear incongruous and contrived in this key location between the edge of the settlement and the wider landscape.

For the reasons given, I conclude that having regard to its location and the amount of development, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, it would conflict with Policy SWDPR 28 of the SWDPR in so far as development is expected to integrate effectively with its surroundings and with Policy SWDPR 34 of the SWDPR in so far as it requires development to take account of the latest WLCA and its guidelines; be appropriate to and integrate with the character of the landscape setting; and conserve, and where appropriate, enhance the primary characteristics defined in character assessments and important features of the [name], and have taken any available opportunity to enhance the landscape.

The Council also referred to Policy SWDPR 05 of the SWDPR, but this relates to design and sustainable construction which would be relevant to the technical details consent stage if permission in principle is granted but does not assist my determination of the matters relevant at this stage of the appeal.

Policy SWDPR 03 of the SWDPR seeks to focus development on the urban areas as the most sustainable locations for growth to be aligned with infrastructure provision and environmental constraints. It does this by strictly controlling development in the open countryside where access to local services and employment opportunities tend to be poorer, subject to other policies in the plan. The main parties agreed that the site lies outside of any settlement boundary at the time of the application and it has not been put to me that has changed since the SWDPR was adopted. Accordingly, the appeal site is open countryside for policy purposes.

The proposal would not accord with the circumstances in which housing development outside the [site address] development boundary is supported by Policy CH2 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP). Paragraph 4.3.14 of the justification text makes clear that new housing development beyond the village boundary will be strictly controlled. The NDP was made over five years ago under the previous development plan, but its approach to restricting development in the open countryside remains consistent with the spatial strategy in Policy SWDPR 03 of the SWDPR.

The village of [site address] is a category one settlement in the settlement hierarchy in the SWDPR; provides a range of local services and facilities and is suited to accommodate market and affordable housing needs. Future occupants could access services and facilities in the village on foot or by bicycle, and the Council acknowledges that the application site occupies a sustainable location in this regard.

However, the site is outside and not adjacent to the settlement boundary, and this has not changed with the adoption of the SWDPR. I have had regard to the appeal decision2 where permission in principle was granted on a site outside a settlement boundary. However, in that case the site was part of garden land, already having a domestic character, and harm to character and appearance was not found, therefore it is not directly comparable to this appeal and does not lead me to alter my conclusions.

I also note the comments that the site would be a suitable location to consider live/work residential development in accordance with Policy SWDPR 15 of the SWDPR. However, the proposal before me is not for a live/work development.

For the reasons given, the site is not a suitable location for residential development having regard to its location in respect of the development strategy. There is conflict with Policy SWDPR 03 of the SWDP in so far as it sets out a settlement hierarchy and indicates where growth will be directed amongst various categories of settlement, while also confirming that open countryside is defined as land beyond any defined development boundary, where development will be strictly controlled subject to other policies in the Plan. Conflict also arises with Policy CH2 of the NDP, in respect of those circumstances where new housing in the open countryside outside the [site address] village development boundary will be considered favourably.

[site address] Parish Council expressed support in principle subject to securing a number of matters. These would be considerations for the technical details consent stage, in the event permission in principle is granted.

The proposal is for self-build dwellings. The PPG expects suitable development permission to be given to enough suitable serviced plots of land to meet the demand for self-build and custom house building in the area. The appellant’s planning statement indicates a shortage of seven self-build units to be delivered by October 2025; however no other more recent evidence is before me. Consequently, while this weighs in favour of the appeal proposal, it carries only modest weight in the overall planning balance.

As there were no policies regarding self-build housing in the development plan at the time of the determination of the proposal by the Council, the appellant asserted that paragraph 11d of the Framework was engaged and policies which restrict the 2 Ref: APP/J1860/W/22/3304685 delivery of housing should be deemed out of date. I have had regard to the appeal decision3 referred to which considered self-build in detail and applied paragraph 11d. However, that decision dates from well before the newly adopted SWDPR, and although no policies regarding self-build dwellings in the SWDPR have been drawn to my attention, there are relevant development plan policies which weigh against the proposed development as discussed above.

The proposal would boost housing supply. The Framework recognises that small and medium‐sized sites, including windfalls, can make an important contribution in this regard including for the supply of sites for self-build housing. Additional self-build homes therefore weigh in favour of the proposal. Economic benefits would result from the construction process, and future occupiers would contribute to the vitality of [site address] consistent with paragraph 83 of the Framework. The Council’s housing supply partly relies on windfall sites, and the Framework advises that great weight should be given to the use of suitable windfall sites within existing settlements. However, for the reasons given the site is not suitable therefore the proposal does not attract the great weight envisaged by the Framework to this being a windfall site.

However, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, result in loss of Best and [name] and the development plan does not support development in this location instead guiding new development to more accessible non-countryside locations. These adverse impacts combined carry significant weight.

I have considered all the appellant’s detailed evidence relevant to the housing land supply. This includes that related to the SWDPR examination and the findings of the examining Inspectors, the role of windfall sites and which buffer is applicable. However, even if there were a shortfall in the five year supply of deliverable housing sites to the level suggested by the appellant, and I attach additional weight to the benefit of the proposed housing in that context, the adverse impacts of granting permission would still significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits combined when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.