Appeal 6003096

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Malvern Hills District Council. An application for costs was also made by [name] and [name] against the appellant. These applications are the subject of separate

The appeal was accompanied by an updated site plan showing a revised (albeit reduced) site area. A flood risk assessment and an updated highways technical note were also submitted to address the impact of this change. These documents were not before the Council when it made its decision.

Consultation is an important part of the planning system and the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. The Procedural Guide: Planning Appeals – England is clear that it is important that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Council and interested parties at the application stage.

Accepting these submissions would deny interested parties and consultees the opportunity to comment on them. This would result in procedural unfairness. I have therefore proceeded to determine the appeal on the plans and details which were before the Council and have been subject to formal consultation.

The proposal seeks permission for the use of the land. The details of the caravans are therefore not before me. In determining this appeal, I have had regard to the definition of a caravan, as set out in the [name] and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site is in a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the development plan; • whether the appeal proposal would be at risk of flooding or increase the risk of flooding elsewhere; • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; • whether the proposal would have an adverse impact on the living conditions of nearby occupiers with regards to noise and disturbance; and • the effect of the development on highway safety.

The appeal site is located in the open countryside where Policy SWDP 2 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan, adopted February 2016 (LP) strictly controls development by limiting it to that permitted by other policies in the LP. Policy SWDP 36 of the LP is one such policy. It permits proposals for new caravan sites, subject to meeting a number of criteria, which I deal with below.

For reasons that I come on to, the proposal would not comply with the requirements of Policy SWDP 36 particularly in respect of flood risk and therefore the proposal would be contrary to policies SWDP 2 and 36 of the LP. This would harmfully undermine the strategy for the location of development in the LP.

The evidence before me indicates that whilst the proposed caravans would be stationed on land within [name] 1, part of the appeal site falls in [name] 2 and 3, with a high risk of flooding from surface water. Whilst the areas of the site in [name] 2 and 3 may be limited in size, they include areas of the southern access, internal access road and the turning head. Even if minor adjustments could be made to these under the caravan site licence issued by the Council on 9 January 2026, it does not alter the proposal on which I must make my assessment.

Policy SWDP 28 of the LP and Government advice in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), set out a sequential risk-based approach to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source. This is done through the application of the sequential test, whereby sites with the lowest risk of flooding should be developed in favour of those at a higher risk.

Some minor developments and certain changes of use are not subject to the sequential test. However, footnote 62 in the Framework makes it explicit that this exemption does not extend to changes of use to a caravan site.

The sequential test is also not required in situations where a site-specific flood risk assessment (FRA) demonstrates that no built development within the site boundary, including access or escape routes, would be located on an area that would be at risk of flooding. An FRA was not before the Council.

It therefore follows that in line with the advice in Paragraphs 174 and 175 of the Framework, the appeal proposal must be subject to the sequential test and should not be permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding. There is no substantive evidence before me that the appellant has applied a sequential approach to site selection.

In the absence of an FRA and evidence that the appeal site is sequentially preferrable, I cannot be certain that the appeal scheme would not put the guests staying in the caravans, at unacceptable risk from flood events or increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. As a result, conflict would arise with [name] 28, 29 and 36 of the LP which seek to minimise the impacts of and from all forms of flood risk and prevent new sites for caravans being located within [name] 2 or 3.

The appeal site consists of a single field enclosed with boundary hedging and bordered by a watercourse lined with established trees. It reflects the overall landscape character of the area1 as a rolling, lowland landscape where the dominant land use is pastoral with small scale, hedged fields. Hedgerow and streamside trees, provide tree cover in a landscape with a network of winding lanes linking scattered farms and clusters of settlements.

The plans indicate that the proposed caravans would be located in two discreet groups, separated by additional landscaping. They would be positioned on lower ground, retaining an area in the centre of the site which would be free from development. The layout and number of caravans would not result in overdevelopment of the site or development which would be harmful to the overall landscape character of the area.

The appeal site is clearly rural in character. Whilst siting caravans along with domestic-type paraphernalia associated with this use, would result in the loss of countryside and urbanise the site, the impact could be mitigated to an extent by additional landscaping which could be secured by condition. Moreover, the extent of existing tree and hedge planting around and close to the site, means that the site is well screened and any views of the site are very localised.

For these reasons, I find no conflict with [name] 2, 21, 25 and 36 of the LP which requires proposals to integrate with their surroundings, conserve the landscape character and that new caravan sites are visually unobtrusive and well screened from important local vantage points and public highways.

The nearest properties to the site are [name] and [address]. Fairacres is located on elevated land to the east of the site. [address] is located to the south and opposite an existing access to the site.

The Noise Impact Assessment (NIA)2 identifies that the main sources of noise would arise from cars moving through the site and guests staying at the site. The NIA has assumed an on-site speed limit of 5mph which is reasonable. At this speed, the dominant noise associated with cars would be tyre noise rather than 1 In the Worcestershire Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Guidance 2012 2 Carried out by [name] dated 28 May 2024 engine noise, together with door slams from stationary vehicles. The NIA concludes that even with windows partially open, the noise levels at the nearest properties would not exceed LAmax 27dB. This is well below the guideline level of 45dB stated in the World Health Organisation Guidelines for [name] (1999).

The NIA also recommends the implementation of a noise management plan (NMP) to control noise which might arise from guests using the site. The NMP would include a number of measures including restrictions on bookings by large adult-only groups, the use of amplified music and the introduction of a complaints procedure. I see no reason why the operation of the NMP would be reliant on the operator being present on site at all times. Implementing a NMP would not only introduce safeguards to protect the living conditions of nearby residents but also those guests staying elsewhere on the site. Securing this by a planning condition would prevent unacceptable noise and disturbance arising.

Accordingly, there would be no conflict with Policies 21, 31 and 36 of the LP which require consideration of the relationship of a development to its surroundings and the protection of the living conditions of local residents from adverse effects including from noise.

The Transport Statement3 indicates that, at full occupancy, the proposed development would result in an increase in vehicle movements. The proposed two-way daily flow would amount to an additional 24 vehicle movements. This would amount to a modest increase in traffic using the local roads and the timings of these movements would likely be sporadic, with the majority occurring outside of the recognised am and pm peaks.

The submitted plans indicate that sufficient visibility would be available in either direction from the proposed accesses and this could be secured by planning conditions. From the details provided of the one recorded [name] near the site in a five year period, there is nothing to indicate to me that the roads around the site are inherently dangerous.

The distance of the appeal site from day-to-day services and facilities, means that most occupiers would be reliant on the car for transport. However, there are some options, albeit limited, for occupiers of the site to use public footpaths in the area, cycle to the nearby settlements of Upton-upon-Severn or Welland and utilise the bus service which is approx. 1km from the site for settlements further afield.

[name] 2 and 4 of the LP seek to focus most development on urban areas and minimise demand for travel, Policy SWDP 36 of the LP acknowledges that caravan sites in the countryside can be of great benefit to the local economy. Paragraph 88 of the Framework seeks to enable the expansion of all types of business in rural areas and Paragraph 89 recognises that this may be in locations which are not well served by public transport.

Taken together I conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on users of the highway including horse riders and pedestrians. Whilst there is some limited conflict with [name] 2 and 4 of the LP, I find no conflict with Policies 21 and 36 of the LP which require that the local road network 3 produced by Transport Planning Associates dated September 2024 has capacity to safely accommodate the traffic generated by caravan site proposals.

The Framework supports a prosperous rural economy with Paragraph 85 stating that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth. There would be economic benefits arising from the provision and occupation of the caravans which also carry significant weight.

The appeal site lies close to a number of [name] listed buildings including [address] to the south east and [address] and [name] to the north. I have therefore had regard the duty in Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. However, the scale and location of the proposed development together with the intervening established planting and topography means that the proposed development would have a neutral effect on the setting of these listed buildings.

I have considered other matters raised by interested parties including, but not limited to whether there is a demand or need for the caravans, ecology, the occupation of the existing caravans, the disposal of foul sewage and flooding on surrounding roads. However, given that I have identified harm in respect of the main issues, these are not matters on which my decision turns.

I have found that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, the living conditions of existing residents or highway safety. There is a need to support economic growth which I have given significant weight, together with the economic benefits arising from the development.

However, the proposal would pose an unacceptable flood risk and fails to comply with the spatial strategy in terms of the location of development. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that outweigh this conflict. Consequently, with reference to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the appeal is dismissed.