Appeal 6003008

The appeal is dismissed.

The site address in the banner heading above is taken from the Council’s decision notice as opposed to the original planning application form as it provides a more precise description of the appeal site’s location.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is a two-stage process and alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing. The scope of the first stage (or ‘permission in principle’), is to establish whether a site is suitable in principle for development and is limited to consideration of the location, land use and amount of development. The second stage (‘technical details consent’) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first stage.

In this instance, permission in principle has been sought for the erection of a minimum of two and maximum of four dwellings at the appeal site.

During the appeal the Council adopted the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (adopted 2026) (the SWDPR). The appeal has therefore been determined against the updated development plan. Main parties have had an appropriate opportunity to comment on the change in policy context.

The main issue is whether the proposed development is acceptable in principle having regard to its potential effects on a community facility.

The appeal site lies at the edge of the village of Whittington, close to the village primary school and opposite the recently completed village hall.

From the evidence before me, and my site visit, the appeal building’s approved use is as an after-school and holiday club, but it is also being used as a pre-school educational setting.

The use of the building was granted in 2001, as part of planning permission reference W/01/01703/CU, for the “change of use of existing agricultural building to an after-school and holiday club facility for children, and development of educational farm and rural crafts learning centre in existing agricultural buildings”.

In 2016, the Council approved an application (ref: W/16/01014/CU) under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) relating to a condition restricting the operational hours of the facility. This was to enable the property to accommodate [name].

[name] have limited details of these permissions, the available evidence suggests that use of the building as a pre-school facility is likely to be in breach of the relevant permissions1.

Nonetheless, the appeal property has been used as a pre-school educational setting for approximately 10 years and appeared to remain so at the time of my site visit. Whilst there is no robust evidence before me, such as a certificate of lawfulness, to confirm its precise lawful use.

Both Wychavon District Council and Worcestershire County Council have been aware of this longstanding use and acknowledge its valuable contribution to early years education provision in the County. The local planning authority has also indicated that an application to regularise the pre-school use would likely be viewed favourably.

Policy SWDPR 47 seeks to protect built community facilities, supporting their loss only in limited circumstances, such as where replacement provision is made, or where it is demonstrated that there is an excess of similar facilities, and the site or building is surplus to requirements and not needed for any other built community facility.

The policy also allows loss to be justified on viability grounds, subject to evidence including financial performance, consideration of whether the facility could be operated by alternative operators and evidence of marketing. The wording of the policy also makes clear that built community facilities can be both commercial and non-commercial in nature.

The supporting text to Policy SWDPR 47 explains that its purpose is to protect valuable community facilities and services that play an important role in the social infrastructure of [name] and help to secure sustainable communities. It also identifies that built community facilities comprise specific buildings for a range of uses including: educational establishments such as schools and colleges and community centres and village halls (including youth centres).

[name] cannot conclusively determine the lawfulness of the pre-school use, the policy’s list of community facilities is not exhaustive. I consider that after-school 1 Either through non-compliance with relevant conditions or due to the Section 73 permission W/16/01014/CU not being lawful due to conflicting with the operative part of permission W/01/01703/CU. and holiday childcare facilities reasonably fall within the scope of community uses the policy seeks to protect.

Significant local representation highlights the site’s importance as a community asset, largely due to the pre-school provision. Irrespective of the lawfulness of that use or its rental arrangement, the permitted after-school and holiday club use means the building functions as a built community facility for the purposes of Policy SWDPR 47.

The proposal does not involve the provision of an alternative built community facility. Nor has appropriate evidence been presented to demonstrate that there is an excess of similar provision of after-school/holiday clubs within a suitable area or that the site or building is surplus to requirements.

Even if the pre-school use is unlawful, criterion ii) of Policy SWDPR 47 requires clear evidence that the site is not needed for any other community facility. The evidence before me, including public representations and the County Council’s Education Planning Impact Assessment, demonstrates a need for the building to be used as a pre-school educational setting, a role it has fulfilled for around 10 years.

The appellant has referred to alternative nearby facilities, most notably Whittington Village Hall, where the activities currently taking place at the appeal site could potentially be accommodated. However, no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that these facilities have sufficient capacity or that relocation would be a viable option. Nor has it been demonstrated that consolidation or rationalisation of existing facilities would be more appropriate.

The evidence before me indicates that costs associated with running activities from the site have increased significantly in recent years, while the after-school and holiday club has had declining attendance, with external factors likely to be a contributing factor. Nevertheless, there is a lack of substantive evidence, such as full financial accounts, to demonstrate that the after-school and holiday club use is no longer viable. Nor has the appellant demonstrated that the facility could not be operated by an alternative occupier, including through evidence of marketing the facility, as per the expectations of Policy SWDPR 47.

I have been provided with correspondence indicating that notice has been served on [name], such that it will shortly vacate the premises. Private leasing arrangements do not, however, demonstrate that the building’s community use is unviable in planning terms.

For these reasons, I find that the loss of the built community facility has not been suitably justified. Accordingly, the proposed development would result in the harmful loss of a community facility and therefore is not acceptable in principle. It is also contrary to Policy SWDPR 47.

The appellant highlights that the use of the building as a pre-school setting is contrary to a restrictive covenant on the property. Notwithstanding that the restriction has not seemingly been enforced by its beneficiary, this is a private legal matter beyond planning control. Nor does it negate that the proposal would still result in the loss of an established community facility.

The appeal site is within the setting of several listed buildings, notably, the Church of [name] and [name], [address], [name] and [address] (all Grade II Listed). The significance of the Church lies in its architectural quality, stature, and historic associations with the village. While the significance of the other listed buildings is predominantly derived from their age and architectural interest. The pleasant, rather tranquil and rural setting also contribute to the significance of the listed buildings. No detailed design of the proposed development is before me. However, given the separation distances involved, and the presence of other surrounding built form I consider it conceivable that a development of up to four dwellings could come forward that would suitably integrate with its surroundings and thus could preserve the significance of the listed buildings.

The appeal proposal would provide socio-economic benefits associated with the construction and subsequent occupation of up to four dwellings. There would also be some environmental benefits associated with the development taking place on a brownfield site in a broadly sustainable location.

These benefits must be weighed against the conflict with Policy SWDPR 47 and the significant harm arising from the unjustified loss of a community facility, matters to which I attach substantial weight.

The SWDPR was recently examined and adopted, with the Inspector’s examination report confirming that on its adoption the Council would be able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply (+5% buffer). This aligns with the current approach outlined under paragraph 78 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). No robust evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the Council’s housing land supply has deteriorated since the findings of the Inspector’s report or that it is currently in deficit. Consequently, Paragraph 11d) of the Framework is not engaged.

It is likely that in the very near future the Council will be unable to demonstrate a five-year housing supply, once the requirement to demonstrate a 20% buffer for the purpose of decision making is applied, as per Paragraph 78c) of the Framework. Moreover, the ability to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply is not a cap on development or upper limit. Accordingly, I have still given moderate weight to the benefits associated with the provision of up to four dwellings at this location.

Nonetheless, the benefits of the scheme do not outweigh the conflict with the development plan and the harm arising through the unjustified loss of a community facility.

In conclusion, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and the are no other material consideration, including the provision of the Framework, that indicate a decision other than in accordance with it.