Appeal 6003495

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. The 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 (permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in principle and the second stage (‘technical details consent’) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted, as set out in the PPG. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent [name] application if permission in principle is granted.

Since the Council’s decision, the South Worcestershire Development Plan (2016) (SWDP) has been replaced by the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (SWDPR), adopted 26 March 2026. Accordingly, the SWDPR together with the Hallow Neighbourhood Plan comprise the development plan for the purposes of this appeal. Additionally, the Council advises that the examining Inspectors confirmed that with a 5% buffer on adoption of the SWDPR, the Council could demonstrate some 5.8 years deliverable housing land supply.

Therefore, in making my decision, I have considered the recently adopted plan and housing land supply position. This includes, [name] 02, 03 and 04 of the SWDPR which set the spatial strategy for the District and Policy SWDPR 06, relating to managing travel demand. The appellant was given opportunity to comment on the updated development plan position as part of the appeal process.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, land use, and the amount of development, with particular regard to proximity to key services and accessibility via sustainable travel modes.

The appeal site is on land within the side garden area of the existing farmhouse at [site address] . It is set within the small hamlet of Shoulton, outside any designated settlement boundary and so, is in the open countryside. The nearest village settlement, Hallow, which is a Category 1 village with services and facilities is some distance away from the appeal site. Also, there are no bus stops or other sustainable transport modes easily accessible near to the appeal site. Therefore, while the proposed dwelling would not be in an isolated location in terms of other dwellings set within Shoulton and that surround it to three sides, it would be in an unsustainable location within the open countryside.

It is intended that the proposed dwelling would provide accommodation for the son of the appellant, who is a farm worker involved in the [site address] business. Therefore, it is likely that the appellant’s son would have reduced journeys to and from work if they lived within the proposed dwelling. However, from the evidence provided, it is not clear where the son currently resides in terms of their commute to work and accessibility to services and facilities. Furthermore, on living at [address] and any other future occupiers would still need to travel to and from local services and facilities primarily by private vehicle.

In rural areas, there will likely be a reliance to some extent on a private motor car, as the appellant asserts has been recognised in other appeal decisions. However, the appeal decision ref APP/J1860/W/24/3341346, for which I was the determining Inspector, related to planning permission for a live work unit, as opposed to a permission in principle for one dwelling and was in a different part of the District. Therefore, this relates to a different proposal, in a different location. Furthermore, it was possible to include a condition on that permission to restrict the occupation of the dwelling, whereas the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that it is not possible to attach conditions to a permission in principle, except for the default time limit duration. Therefore, it would not be possible to restrict the occupation of the proposed dwelling to an agricultural worker.

Having regard to the above, the location would not be suitable for the proposed residential development, in particular regard to proximity to key services and accessibility via sustainable travel modes. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with [name] 02 and SWDPR 03 of the SWDPR. These policies respectively set the housing land supply trajectories for the District and sets out that development should be directed to within settlements, including that development within the open countryside will be strictly controlled, to ensure the delivery of sustainable development. Also, there would be conflict with Policy SWDPR 06 of the SWDPR and Policy HAL15 of the Hallow Neighbourhood Plan (made July 2021), which amongst other matters, require development to demonstrate that it will minimise the need to travel by car.

As the appeal site is not stated to be within the Green Belt, Policy SWDPR 04 of the SWDPR is not relevant to the appeal proposal.

The proposal would not occupy land that is currently used for agricultural purposes and so it is unlikely that there would be loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Also, the proposed dwelling would replace an existing large, detached garage and, the area of land is of adequate size to accommodate a detached dwelling, in keeping with the density of surrounding development.

Furthermore, there are existing dwellings to three sides of the site and the land is currently garden area with significant existing vegetation to the fourth boundary. Therefore, it would not appear as an isolated form of development, nor encroach onto open land beyond existing built form and boundary treatments.

There are nearby listed buildings, including the [name] and [name], which are both grade II listed buildings. Also, [site address] farmhouse is identified as a non-designated heritage asset. The significance of these heritage assets includes their traditional architectural design and links to the rural area, including farming. The grade II listed buildings are located on the opposite side of the road and so would be some distance from the proposed dwelling. Also, these buildings are set within their own enclosed garden and yard areas which would be unaltered by the proposal. Therefore, in principle, the proposal would not harmfully affect the setting of these nearby listed buildings.

Even though the proposed dwelling would be within the garden of Shoulton farmhouse, it would replace the existing large garage, which is a more modern recent addition within its grounds. Therefore, in principle, a replacement building would not have a harmful effect on the setting of this non-designated heritage asset. Although, the effect of the design, scale and siting of the new dwelling, including the treatment of the traditional boundary wall of the appeal site would need to be considered further at the technical details consent stage.

Therefore, subject to the details of the new dwelling, which would be considered at the technical details consent stage, the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

In view of the above, in regard to the land use and the amount of development, the proposal would not conflict with parts of Policy SWDPR 03 which require development to be of an appropriate scale and type with regard to landscape character. Also, in principle, in regard to the land use and the amount of development I find no conflict with [name] 05 and SWDPR 09 of the SWDPR. Amongst other matters, these policies require development to respond to distinctive local character and that, proposals integrate within its surroundings and setting, including that it conserves or enhances the significance of heritage assets.

The appellant sets out that the proposed dwelling would be a self-build property for their son to live in, who could be on hand to deal with the day to day running of the farm, due to the father’s age and health. Even though this is the appellants’ intention and the family have lived and worked at the farm for some years, the occupation of the dwelling is not a matter for consideration for a permission in principle. Furthermore, while some information has been provided, it has not been appropriately demonstrated that the proposal would satisfy the requirements for a rural worker’s dwelling, as required by Policy SWDPR 24 of the SWDPR and paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Additionally, as set out above, it is not possible to impose a condition on a permission in principle, including to restrict the occupation of the dwelling and no other mechanism is in place to ensure the new dwelling would be self-build. Therefore, I give limited weight to each of these considerations.

The Council previously could not demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land, which was stated to be 2.61 years as of 1 April 2025 when the 10% buffer is applied. However, following the recent adoption of the SWDPR, with a 5% buffer applied, the examining Inspectors have confirmed that a five-year land supply exists. In such circumstances, paragraph 11d) of the Framework is not engaged.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, which outweigh this finding.

Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.