Appeal 6003424

The appeal is dismissed.

I have amended the site address given on the application form to land rear of, as opposed to ‘at’ 3 [name]. This best describes the location of the appeal site and no party would be prejudiced by this.

Since the appeal was submitted, the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (SWDPR) has been adopted on the 26 March 2026 and so, is now the development plan for the area. The appellant was given opportunity to comment on this as part of the appeal process and I have considered any comments made.

Two completed [name] (UUs), under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, as amended, dated 30 March 2026, have been submitted during the appeal process. [name] include an obligation that the owner will pay an affordable housing contribution. In view of this, the Council no longer wishes to pursue its reason for refusal No 5. Additionally, one of the UUs includes an obligation that the proposed dwelling would be self-build, while the other does not. The Council has had opportunity to comment on the UUs and I have considered any comments made.

Following further comments from the local highway authority, the Council has set out that it no longer wishes to defend reason for refusal No 4 in relation to highway safety.

The appellant has submitted proposed revised drawings with the appeal submission, which include a reduction in the size and scale of the new dwelling. However, an appeal should not be used to evolve a scheme. Furthermore, I cannot be sure that all interested parties have had opportunity to review and comment on the proposed amended scheme and so, it is likely that there would be procedural unfairness if I accept the proposed revised plans. Therefore, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans submitted to and determined by the Council.

In view of the above, the main issues are: • whether the proposal would be in a suitable location, having regard to the housing development strategy for the area and sustainable travel choices; and, • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

Charlton village is identified as a Category 4 settlement within the [name]. Such category 4 settlements either have access to some secondary facilities/services but limited or no bus provision or have low or medium level of public transport provisions but low services/facility provision. Policy SWDPR03 of the SWDPR sets out that in the open countryside beyond any defined development boundary, development will be strictly controlled subject to other policies in the Plan.

The appeal site is to the rear of existing dwellings on three sides, although the previously defined development boundary for the village excluded part of the rear gardens of such nearby dwellings. Furthermore, from my site observations, there is a distinctive difference between the character and appearance of the appeal site, compared to that of other residential garden land located at the rear of dwellings that typically front onto a road. The appeal site, together with other land in the appellant’s ownership which extends beyond the stream, is a large open grassed area, which has a tranquil, verdant character, visually appreciable as part of the open countryside which surround the built up areas of the village. Additionally, apart from the access leading to [site address] , there is a degree of spatial separation between the appeal site and the built up areas of the village.

The appeal site is located near to existing dwellings, some with extended gardens, and is bounded on one side by a hedge separating it from wider agricultural land. Although the site would be outside the previously defined village boundary, the evidence and my site observations indicate that the appeal dwelling would not from part of the built up area of the village, either visually or spatially. The site has a distinctively open character, with both natural and man-made features clearly defining its extent. Furthermore, as the extent of the built-up area of the village boundary is readily identifiable on the ground, the proposal is not directly comparable with the example of Wood v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWCA Civ195. In addition, because the appeal site lies outside any defined village boundary, it would constitute natural infill within the village.

Draft Policy S5 of the proposed revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) consultation document includes certain types of development, whereby the presumption in favour of development would apply. Although, this is not current national policy and it has not been demonstrated that the appeal site is within reasonable walking distance of a railway station. Furthermore, the proposed density of the appeal scheme would be relatively low, notably lower than that of nearby dwellings and so, the development would not promote the effective use of land, aligned with Section 11 of the current Framework (Dec 2024).

The appeal site would not be within close proximity to any bus stop or other sustainable mode of transport. The Council sets out the nearest bus stop is some 1.7 miles away, accessible via lanes with no dedicated footways or street lighting and has the national speed limit for traffic. Therefore, walking or cycling to the bus stop would not be particularly accessible or attractive, especially in the dark or inclement weather. Furthermore, other higher category settlements with a greater range of services and facilities are some distance away, beyond reasonable walking distance. Therefore, it is likely that the occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be reliant on the private car to access the majority of facilities and services.

Examples of other development in unsustainable locations, including at Uphampton (Council ref W/24/02061) and [address] (Appeal Ref: APP/H1840/W/24/3344084 and Council ref W/23/01671/FUL) have been brought to my attention. In the Uphampton case, while the appeal site was described as being outside the development boundary in the open countryside, with Uphampton having limited services and facilities, it was set out to be fairly close a Category 1 settlement having a range of village services. Consequently, it was considered by the Council that the site offered some sustainable travel choices. Additionally, no other harms were identified, and it was found that the scale and position of the new dwelling would be similar to a garage previously permitted on the site.

In the [address] example, the Inspector found that while the new dwelling would be in an isolated unsustainable location, the benefits of the scheme, including affordable housing contribution and delivery of an additional dwelling whereby paragraph 11d was engaged, meant the presumption in favour of sustainable development applied. However, these examples relate to different proposals, in different locations, with different site contexts compared to the appeal site, as are the examples provided by the Council1. Therefore, I have assessed the proposal having regard to its own merits, including the current development plan and housing land supply position, which I will go on to discuss further below.

It is intended that the appellant would live in the appeal dwelling with his family and they already live nearby and use certain services and facilities within Charlton and other villages. However, the proposal would create an additional dwelling and, it is likely that their existing dwelling would become available for other homeowners once they vacate it and so increase the number of overall residents in the local area. Additionally, even though the appellant and his wife do not currently have work that requires a great deal of daily travel movement, their circumstances and travel needs could change over time and it would not be reasonable to restrict such by condition.

In view of the above, the proposal would not be in a suitable location, having regard to the housing development strategy for the area and sustainable travel choices. Therefore, it would conflict with Policies SWDPR03 and SWDPR06 of the SWDPR. Policy SWDPR03 requires growth to be directed amongst the various categories of settlements following the principles of sustainable development and Policy SWDPR06 requires proposals to demonstrate it will minimise the need to travel by car. 1 Appeal Refs APP/H1840/W/24/3349462; APP/J1860/W/24/3353894; APP/H1840/W/23/3329579

The appeal site is primarily open grassland with a few small fruit trees and, is located behind existing residential development on three sides, with a hedge boundary and field beyond to its fourth side. It has a verdant, tranquil character, with open views towards rising landscape to the south. While much of the previous orchard has gone and the land is generally well maintained grassland, rather than grazing or arable land, it is not domestic garden and does not include any structures or residential paraphernalia currently.

Consequently, the appeal site together with surrounding land provides a welcome green gap and relaxed rural edge to the village between dwellings fronting The Bight and [site address] . That there is a boundary hedge enclosing the land to one side does not persuade me that the site and surrounding land is integrated within the village. Rather, the land has a distinctive open character which enhances the attractive rural setting of this edge of the village, providing an important transitional open area beyond the nucleated core of the village.

The land rises considerably from the south to the north and, most of the rear gardens of nearby dwellings have relatively open boundary treatments. As a result and, given that the proposed dwelling would occupy higher ground, the development would appear unduly prominent when viewed from surrounding residential properties. It would also be visible from certain viewpoints along [address] and The Blight, through glimpses between existing properties. This would erode the attractive green edge to this part of the village, resulting in harm to the character of the area.

Existing built form within the village is typically two storeys, fronting onto a road, even if it is set back from it, whereas the proposal would be set behind other existing dwellings on three sides with no direct road frontage. The new dwelling would have a footprint much larger that that of nearby dwellings and include single storey and two storey elements. Also, it would have a much lower density compared to other dwellings nearby and would be sited fairly central within the site, set away from other properties, where it would appear unduly isolated within the open land.

The design concept for the proposed dwelling and use of traditional external materials is inspired by rural barns, which would be sympathetic to its rural location. However, the siting, scale and form of the proposal would not be in keeping with existing built form of the surrounding area. While the design includes a U-shape courtyard arrangement, from my observations, this is not directly comparable with the traditional farmsteads nearby along [site address] in terms of form, layout and location. Also, the proposed dwelling would be very bulky and includes a large first floor patio area, which is not a typical feature of traditional rural buildings. As a result, the proposal would appear anomalous in terms of its design and setting.

Therefore, in view of the above, the proposal would appear unduly isolated and discordant with the prevailing character and appearance of existing surrounding built form. Furthermore, it would harmfully reduce the open verdant character of the site, urbanising this edge of the village.

Even though there is a fairly new, small housing development at the end of [site address] and some older properties along [site address] have extended their rear gardens, these changes are not particularly discordant with the prevailing character of the local area. Furthermore, the extended gardens have fairly open boundary treatments and do not include large structures, unlike the proposed new dwelling and garage and so, do not harmfully erode the open, rural character of this edge of the village.

While the Council has referred to other appeal decisions2 in respect of landscape and character considerations, these relate to different proposals in different locations. Therefore, I have determined the appeal proposal having regard to its individual merits, including the context of the appeal site and its surroundings.

Having regard to the above, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, in conflict with Policies SWDPR28 and SWDPR34 of the SWDPR. These policies, amongst other matters, require development to be in keeping with its surroundings, including in regard to local distinctiveness and the character of the landscape setting.

Even though it is intended that the appeal dwelling would be a self-build property and that there would be a suitable legal agreement in place to ensure this, the Council has demonstrated that there is an appropriate supply of self-build and custom build dwellings for the period up to the 30 October 2026. Therefore, this matter does not weigh in favour of the proposal.

The signed UU would make appropriate provision for an offsite contribution towards affordable housing and the dwelling would meet national space requirements in regard to internal layout. Therefore, there would be no conflict with Policy SWDPR17 of the SWDPR in regard to housing mix and standards and the affordable housing contribution would be a positive benefit of the scheme. I give moderate positive weight to this.

It is asserted that the needs of the appellant are not being met, as they require a larger property for their growing family and wish to stay within the village, yet they are unable to find a readily available larger property in the village. Additionally, the proposal would allow the release a smaller, more affordable unit in the village, which is currently occupied by the appellant. However, no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would be a rural exception site which would provide affordable housing to meet the needs of local people in perpetuity. Therefore, I give limited positive weight to these considerations.

The proposed development would be of a highly efficient design with renewal technology used and ensure appropriate management of water discharge to prevent flooding. Biodiversity mitigation and enhancement is proposed, despite that the proposal would be exempt from [name] requirements, if restricted to a self-build dwelling. Also, it would have sufficient parking, access and refuse provision and, there would be no harmful impact on the living conditions of nearby residents. However, these are not matters that affect my findings on the main issues. Also, even if the proposal would ensure the ongoing maintenance and management of the wider land and creation of a new orchard area, the land is currently well maintained and it has not been demonstrated why this and any orchard planting could not take place without the proposed dwelling. 2 [name]. APP/J3720/W/24/3354243, APP/H1840/W/23/3335286 and APP/H1840/W/24/3357991

In regard to its location and the harm caused to character and appearance, I have found the proposal would be contrary to Policies SWDPR03, SWDPR06, SWDPR28 and SWDPR34 of the SWDPR. These policies within the recently adopted development plan are consistent with the Framework, and so I give significant weight to this conflict. Consequently, there would be conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The proposed development would have some socio-economic benefits in respect of its construction and occupation. It would contribute towards affordable housing and provide a self-build dwelling. Although, these benefits would not be significant for one dwelling and there is no current shortfall for self and custom build properties in the district. Therefore, I give limited weight to these benefits individually or cumulatively.

At the time of the Council’s decision, it was undisputed that a five year supply of housing land could not be demonstrated. However, 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 Framework (Dec 2024). 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 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. One dwelling, would make a minor but useful contribution to housing land supply, although given the lack of shortfall at this time, I give limited weight to this benefit.

Therefore, the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would not be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

In view of the above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations, including the Framework, which indicate a decision other than in accordance with it.

Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.