Appeal 6003206

The appeal is dismissed.

The description above is taken from the appeal form, which is the same as the decision notice. This is a more concise description than that given on the application form and adequately describes the proposal.

The proposal is for permission in principle (PiP). 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 (or PiP) establishes whether a site is suitable in principle, and the second, technical details consent (TDC), stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. It is the granting of TDC that has the effect of granting planning permission for the development. This appeal relates to the first of these two stages.

The scope of the considerations for PiP is limited to location, land use and the amount of development. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent TDC application if PiP is granted.

A plan has been submitted showing how development could be accommodated on the site. I have taken this plan into account for indicative purposes only.

Following the submission of this appeal, the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review was adopted by the Council in March 2026. This replaces the South Worcestershire Development Plan adopted in 2016. Both main parties have had the opportunity to comment on this and I have taken those comments into account in my reasoning. Planning law requires that applications are determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. I must base my decision on the development plan policies in force at the time of my decision, irrespective of the policies used to determine the planning application. I have therefore determined this appeal based on the policies contained within the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 (the DP).

Having regard to the above, the main issues are whether the location, land use and amount of development proposed is suitable with particular regard to: • the Council’s strategy for the location of housing and the site’s accessibility to services and facilities; and • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

DP Policy SWDPR 03 sets out the Council’s spatial development strategy and settlement hierarchy. The appeal site is located in proximity to, but outside of the Development Boundary of the settlement of Harvington. Policy SWDPR 03 defines land beyond any defined Development Boundary as open countryside, where development will be strictly controlled subject to other policies in the DP.

There is nothing before me to suggest that the proposed development would be permitted by other policies in the DP. Therefore, the site location would conflict, in principle, with the Council’s strategy for the location of housing in Policy SWDPR 03.

I am mindful, however, that settlement boundaries are a starting point, and that a judgement should be made as to whether the appeal site is within the settlement, against the situation on the ground.

The settlement boundary submitted by the Council includes the main built-up part of Harvington which has a tight knit form of development. It does not include the properties known as Etoile and [name], which are located between the appeal site and the boundary and present a looser form of development. My observations on site were that these properties represent a definite edge of the village on the southern side of [address]. The appeal site would be separated from the nearest property, [name] by a wide strip of land and as such, I do not find the appeal site to be part of the settlement.

Turning to access to services and facilities, DP Policy SWDPR 06 seeks, amongst other things, for development to minimise the need to travel by car and provide infrastructure to facilitate active travel. This is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which expects development to promote walking, cycling, and the use of public transport, while recognising that sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas.

Harvington has a range of services and facilities, including a convenience store and first school, within a reasonable walking distance of the site. There is also a bus stop providing regular services to the larger towns of Stratford-upon-Avon and Evesham.

However, pedestrian access from the site to these services and facilities would be from a section of [address] which has no dedicated footway, is unlit and where a 60 mile per hour speed limit is in place. The nearest footway begins at the eastern edge of the orchard on the opposite side of [address] to the site. Future occupiers would therefore need to walk some distance from the site’s access point indicated by the red line boundary, along the road, and cross it, in order to reach the nearest footway and onward routes.

The appellant’s suggested pedestrian routes, including the provision of a footpath within the site or through the adjacent orchard, would not overcome these concerns. The former would still require pedestrians to join and cross [address] where there is no dedicated footway. The route through the Orchard would also require pedestrians to cross the road where vehicles are travelling up to 60 miles per hour and the route itself is unmade and unlit. Furthermore, as this route is not within the red line boundary, I am not satisfied it would remain available for use by future occupiers for the lifetime of the development.

Consequently, I find that the site location would not offer safe and attractive pedestrian access to Harvington, particularly for those with reduced mobility or for young children travelling to the first school. As a result, there is likely to be a reliance on cars for travel to services and facilities.

Whilst the reasoned justification to Policy SWDPR 06 acknowledges that communities in rural areas are more reliant on the private car, this is stated in the context of parking standards. This does not, in my view, negate the need for safe and suitable pedestrian access to the site.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that the site location is not suitable for housing having regard to the Council’s strategy for the location of development and it’s access to services and facilities. As such, the proposal would conflict with [name] 03 and SWDPR 06, as set out above.

The appeal site is located to the southwest of [address] and comprises part of a larger area of undeveloped grassland. There is a low level fence and hedge along the site’s boundary on [address], but the remaining boundaries are undefined. To the northeast of the site, is an orchard along with a small surface car park. To the southeast is the residential property known as [name] although there is a wide strip of land between that property and the site. The site is otherwise surrounded by undeveloped agricultural land. The site and its immediate surroundings therefore have a predominantly verdant and open agrarian character.

The site lies within the ‘Village Farmlands with Orchards’ landscape type. As described in the Worcestershire County Council Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Guidance 2012 (the LCA), and confirmed during my site visit, this landscape type is characterised by an intensively cultivated landscape comprising nucleated villages set within large agricultural fields. The appeal site location is representative of this.

In its current undeveloped state, the site contributes positively to the area’s character and appearance. The proposed development, even if compliant with the DP’s density requirements, would introduce built development, and likely associated domestic paraphernalia which would erode the site’s open and verdant character. Whilst the detailed layout would be determined at TDC stage, landscaping enhancements would not, in my judgement, sufficiently mitigate this impact.

Although the site is not isolated due to its proximity to other built development, it is predominantly surrounded by undeveloped land and so the proposal would not represent an infill development. Nor would it read as a coherent extension to the existing settlement, given its distance from the main built up part of Harvington and the gap between the site and [name]. Instead, it would appear as an isolated development which would appear discordant within the landscape and disrupt the nucleated settlement pattern that the LCA seeks to retain.

The appellant asserts that the Council’s objection on landscape and visual grounds is not substantiated. However, I am satisfied it is based on the LCA, referred to above. In the absence of any rigorous evidence to the contrary, there is nothing to lead me to an alternative conclusion on this matter.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would conflict with [name] 28 and SWDPR 34 and Policy E3 of the Harvington Neighbourhood Plan 2025 (the NP). Taken together these policies seek, amongst other things, for development to integrate effectively with its surroundings, be sympathetic to its immediate setting and character, and be appropriate to the character of the landscapes setting, taking into account the LCA.

My attention has been drawn to planning permissions for residential development on other sites in Harvington. There is little detail provided of these sites and therefore I cannot be sure that they are directly comparable to the appeal proposal before me now. As such, this consideration does not alter my conclusions on the main issues of this appeal.

Furthermore, the fact that the Parish Council did not object to a planning application for residential development on a nearby site does not materially alter my findings in relation to this appeal proposal.

I acknowledge that DP Policy SWDPR 03 supports development proposals promoted through [name]. However, whilst a review of the [name] may have commenced, this appeal site is not currently allocated in the NP. It is not within the scope of this appeal to determine whether a site should be allocated in the NP. Therefore, this consideration does not alter my conclusions on the main issues of this appeal.

Concerns regarding the manner in which the Council handled the planning application and issued the decision also fall outside the scope of this decision.

Nine dwellings would make a moderate contribution to the Council’s supply of housing. There would also be economic uplift during the construction period and from the future spending of occupiers. It is suggested that the proposed bungalows would meet local housing needs, although there is little before me to substantiate this. However, these benefits must be balanced against the conflict with the aforementioned policies of the development plan.

The DP was recently examined and adopted by the Council. There is nothing before me to suggest the policies relevant to the proposal should not be given full weight. Furthermore, the Inspector’s report confirms that, on adoption of the DP, the Council can demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. There is no evidence before me to demonstrate that the housing land supply has changed since the findings of the Inspector’s report.

The Council’s housing target is, however, not an upper limit, and I am mindful that the Framework seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing. Thus, I attribute the provision of nine dwellings and the associated economic benefits moderate weight in the planning balance. Nevertheless, these benefits do not outweigh the proposal’s conflict with the development plan in respect of the site’s location, access to services and facilities and the harm identified to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate a decision other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.