Appeal 6003340

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission for the erection of new self-build dwelling is refused.

Since the appeal was submitted, the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (SWDPR) has been adopted on the 26 March 2026. Therefore, I have had regard to this in making my decision and, the appellant was given opportunity to comment on it as part of the appeal process.

The appeal proposal is a revised scheme to that approved in April 2024, Council application ref. W/23/01405/FUL. It includes a revised internal layout for the proposed dwelling, to create three bedrooms and an additional side window to provide a means of escape.

While the Council had not determined the planning application prior to the submission of the appeal, it has set out in its statement of case that it would have refused planning permission. Its reasons for this includes, that there is no secure arrangement in place to ensure the proposed dwelling would fulfil the definition of self-build, nor that it would make provision for appropriate [name] in accordance with the requirements of the [name] (Town and Country Planning) (Modifications and Amendments) (England) Regulations 2024, contrary to relevant development plan policy and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

In view of the above, the main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on biodiversity.

Since the previous planning permission ref. W/23/01405/FUL was submitted, new legislation has come into force, which requires all minor development submitted after 2 April 2024 to provide at least 10% biodiversity net gain (BNG), subject to some exceptions. BNG does not apply to self-build and custom build dwellings, provided that it would be as defined in section 1(A1) of the Self-build and Custom Build Housing Act 2015.

It is the appellants intention for the proposed dwelling to be self-build. This is included in the description of development and they have submitted some information in regard to such. However, no appropriate mechanism, including a legal agreement, is in place to ensure that the dwelling would be built and remain for an appropriate time period as a self-build dwelling for the appellant, in accordance with the definition.

Even though the SWDPR may not mention that there is a requirement for a S106 legal agreement to secure a self-build dwelling, this does not mean that it would be ensured that the proposal would be a self-build dwelling without such, even when having regard to the description of development. While the detailed wording of a suitable condition has not been provided, I am not satisfied that a condition restricting the dwelling to self-build would meet the relevant tests for conditions, including that it would be enforceable. Therefore, there is no assurance that the proposed dwelling would be a self-build property and so meet the relevant exception for BNG in this instance.

Even if some works have commenced on site in respect of the extant permission for one dwelling and there may not be a high level of existing biodiversity on the appeal site, no baseline information or biodiversity metric has been provided to demonstrate that 10% BNG would be provided. Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that the appeal scheme would have an acceptable effect on biodiversity.

Also, even if the draft proposed revised National Planning Policy Framework (2026) would exempt sites under 0.2 hectares from the mandatory BNG, I have determined this appeal on the basis of the current regulations and policy, including the current Framework (December 2024).

In view of the above, the proposal would have a harmful effect on biodiversity in conflict with [name] 29 and SWDPR 30 of the SWDPR (March 2026), which require development to provide appropriate biodiversity net gain.

The actions of the Council, including its delay in determining the application, are not matters which affect my findings on the main issue. Although, the evidence submitted shows that the Council provided some advice during the application process about the need for a legal agreement. Furthermore, that there are no highway objections to the proposal, the scheme is not for major development and so does not need to make a contribution to affordable housing provision, and that the proposal would promote the use of brownfield land in a sustainable location are neutral matters that do not affect my findings on the main issue.

While the appellant asserts the Council does not have a 5 year supply of housing land, the SWDPR examining Inspectors set out in their report of the 12 March 2026 that with a 5% buffer applied there would be a five-year supply on adoption of the plan. Notwithstanding this, the appeal proposal would not increase the number of houses delivered, as there is still an extant permission in place for one dwelling on the appeal site. Therefore, this consideration does not weigh in favour of the proposed development and paragraph 11d of the Framework is not engaged in this instance.

In view of my findings on the main issue, it is not necessary for me to consider the recommend conditions. The dispute between the main parties regarding a condition attached to the previous permission is not a matter for me to consider as part of this appeal. This is subject of a separate appeal and so, a separate appeal decision will be made in regard to such.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations which would justify a decision other than in accordance with it.

Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed and planning permission is refused.