Appeal 6003301

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. The Planning Practice Guidance 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, and so my scope is limited to matters relevant to location, land use, and the amount of development proposed. The appeal proceeds on this basis.

Plans showing the proposed site layout, elevations, and floorplans have been submitted, which are marked as indicative. I have therefore considered them as such.

Following the determination of the planning application, 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 upon the new policies and the implications for the proposal. I have taken comments into account in reaching my decision. The appeal is therefore determined using the policies contained within the new South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (the Plan).

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development, with particular regard to: i. Accessibility to services and facilities; and ii. The loss of a rural employment site.

The site is located within a rural area predominantly surrounded by open countryside. The site is adjacent to an existing dwelling (Crossways), with access from [site address] . The area has a sporadic existing development pattern, with dwellings irregularly positioned along nearby roads, separated by spacious gardens, agricultural fields, and dense vegetation. The area has a strong rural character, with extensive views of the open countryside.

Policy SWDPR 03 of the Plan sets out the Council’s development strategy, which promotes sustainable patterns of development by focusing most development on urban areas, with a preference for locations close to railway stations, and establishing a settlement hierarchy to guide the distribution of future growth.

The site is not within a development boundary. Land beyond any development boundary is defined by [name] of Policy SWDPR 03 as open countryside, where development will be strictly controlled subject to other policies in the Plan.

The Plan notes that restrictions to development in rural areas seeks to maintain the quality of the countryside and to direct development to locations which have more sustainable access to local services and employment opportunities. In determining the suitability of the location of the site for development, consideration should therefore be given to how potential future occupants of the development would access services and facilities.

I have been referred to a recent consultation response from the highway authority on a separate application for [name] on the appeal site which advises that the number of trips likely to be generated by the proposed development would not give rise to an objection on sustainability grounds. However, the determinative consideration is not the quantum of trips generated, but the accessibility of the site to services and facilities and the ability of future occupiers to meet the majority of their day-to-day needs by sustainable modes of transport.

The appeal site is located some distance from any settlement. There are no pavements, cycle paths, or streetlights on nearby roads. There are no services and facilities in close proximity to the site, and no nearby public transport services. Given that the proposal would provide up to three dwellings, this would result in a number of future occupiers being reliant on the use of a private motor vehicle to access services and facilities. While the scale of development would limit the extent of such impacts, the associated car use would nonetheless give rise to localised effects on air quality, congestion and carbon emissions.

While paragraph 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, the absence of any sustainable alternatives to the car conflicts with sustainable transport objectives in the Framework. In particular, the proposal would conflict with paragraphs 115 and 117 which taken together, amongst other things, seek to prioritise sustainable transport modes including pedestrian and cycle movements, and seek to address the transport needs of all people.

Consequently, the appeal site would not be suitable for the proposed development, having regard to its location and the amount of development. The proposal would be contrary to Policy SWDPR 03 of the Plan which, amongst other things, seeks to direct new development to appropriate sustainable locations.

In relation to accessibility to services and facilities, there is also conflict with Policy SWDPR 06 of the Plan which, amongst other things, requires development proposals to demonstrate that they will minimise the need to travel by car.

The appeal site currently consists of a number of buildings used for Class E(g) commercial, business and services purposes. The proposal seeks to replace the Class E uses on the site for up to three residential dwellings, however no marketing exercise has been undertaken to demonstrate that employment uses on the site are unviable.

Consequently, the proposed land use would be contrary to Policy SWDPR 15 of the Plan which, amongst other things, seeks to promote rural regeneration by safeguarding employment-generating uses, including existing employment sites in rural areas that are currently used for Use Class E(g) purposes.

The proposal would also be contrary to Policy P9 of the Pebworth Parish Neighbourhood Plan (2019) (the Neighbourhood Plan) which, amongst other things, seeks to resist the loss of existing employment or business use, unless it can be demonstrated that the continued use of the site as a business premises is no longer financially viable.

The proposed development would deliver additional housing on previously developed land, and the appellant notes that, given its small scale, the site could be delivered in the short term. The proposal would also result in a net gain in biodiversity and generate limited socio-economic benefits during the construction phase. In addition, future occupiers would be likely to use and support services in surrounding settlements. However, in this instance, the benefits would be limited to those reasonably attributable to the provision of up to three dwellings.

Following the adoption of the Plan, the Council has confirmed that it can now demonstrate a five-year housing land supply using a 5% buffer. Where the Plan was examined under the September 2023 version of the Framework, the appellant argues that a 10% buffer should be applied. However, this appeal is being considered using the current December 2024 version of the Framework. There is no evidence before me that there has been a significant under delivery of housing over the previous three years. Consequently, I agree that the 5% buffer should be applied, and that a five-year housing land supply can be demonstrated.

Development not specifically identified in the Plan constitutes ‘windfall’, which forms part of the Council’s housing land supply. However, windfall development generally comes forward on sites that accord with the development plan or are otherwise acceptable having regard to material considerations. Where conflicts arise with the Plan, the Neighbourhood Plan and the Framework, the proposal would not be appropriate to be considered as windfall development.

The desires of the existing business on the appeal site to relocate and expand are noted, however it is not clearly demonstrated why this would necessitate the change of use on the site to residential.

While it is accepted that the proposed change of use would alter the nature of vehicle movements at the site, potentially resulting in a reduction in HGV movements, I have no evidence before me to indicate that existing vehicle movements give rise to any current harms. Nor is it clear to what extent any environmental benefits would arise from changes to vehicle movements associated with the proposal.

Although potential effects on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property at Crossways have been alleged in relation to the existing employment use, it is unclear precisely what those impacts comprise, particularly given the relationship between the current occupiers of the neighbouring property and the operators of the business. There is no evidence before me of any complaints arising from the existing use. Moreover, any future occupiers of the neighbouring property would be aware of the established commercial use of the appeal site prior to purchase.

I have been referred to an appeal decision (APP/H1840/W/24/3344335) in which it was concluded that the benefits of additional housing outweighed the identified harms, including the site’s location and its accessibility to services and facilities. However, that decision relates to a site some distance from the appeal site, involved a larger-scale development, and was made at a time when the Council was unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. As such, it does not provide a meaningful basis for comparison. In any event, each appeal must be considered on its own merits which is what I have done.

I note the appellant’s commentary regarding the draft Framework (published December 2025). However, as a consultation draft it can only carry limited weight in decision making as it may be subject to change before the final document is published.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the site is not suitable for the proposed development having regard to its location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development. The proposal would be contrary to [name] 03, SWDPR 06, and SWDPR 15 of the Plan, and Policy P9 of the Neighbourhood Plan, resulting in conflict with the development plan as a whole. Moreover, this is not outweighed by the benefits associated with the provision of new dwellings. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, which would indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.