Appeal 6003838

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. 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 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.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted1. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly. However, given that matters relevant to land use and the amount of development are not contested and are not reflected in the reason for refusing the application, I have focused my consideration on locational matters in the main issue below.

During the course of the appeal, the Council has confirmed that the policies from the South Worcestershire Development Plan (adopted February 2016) referred to in the decision notice have been superseded by policies from the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2021-2041 (2026) (SWDPR). The appellant is aware of the policies and has had the opportunity to comment upon their relevance to the appeal. I have taken the updated policies and relevant responses into account in making my decision.

The Government launched a consultation on reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in December 2025, but as the proposals are still subject to change, they carry little weight. Accordingly, the decision was made with reference to the December 2024 version of the Framework. 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone]

The main issue is whether the site is a suitable location for residential development having particular regard to the Council’s development strategy and access to services, facilities, and sustainable travel modes.

The site comprises land and agricultural buildings between two tracks which provide access to several properties including farmhouses and other dwellings some of which are converted former farm buildings. It lies outside any settlement boundary identified in the SWDPR and is therefore open countryside for the purposes of Policy SWDPPR 03.

Policy SWDPR 03 sets out the Council’s development strategy which aims to focus development in the urban areas as the most sustainable locations for growth aligning with infrastructure provision and environmental constraints. It does this by strictly controlling development in the open countryside where access to local services and employment opportunities tend to be poorer, subject to other policies in the plan.

The supporting text to Policy SWDPR 03 explains that development in the open countryside is restricted to uses that are supportive of more specific SWDPR policies set out in [name]. It has not been put to me that the policies concerning rural workers dwellings or live-work units referred to in [name] apply to the appeal proposal. The Broadwas and Cotheridge Neighbourhood Development Plan (2019) (the Neighbourhood Plan) identifies types of development which would be supported in the open countryside, none of which apply to the appeal proposal.

Within the appellant’s appeal statement, it is contended that what was the emerging policy SWDPR 03 is less restrictive of development in open countryside than the policy under which the Council assessed the appeal proposal. However, it is evident from the Report on the Examination of the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review ([name]) that the now adopted SWDPR has been modified by amending policy SWDPR 03 so it is clear that development will be strictly controlled in the open countryside2.

The nearest services and facilities for day to day living such as education, medical care, convenience shopping, and socialising are over three kilometres away from the appeal site and as such beyond walking distance.

A bus stop approximately 965 metres away is also over the recommended walking distance suggested in the Worcestershire County Council Streetscapes Design Guide (2025). Furthermore, to access it on foot, future occupiers would have to walk along a narrow, winding, unlit and poorly surfaced access track and then along the A44 which is unlit, subject to the national speed limit and without a pedestrian footway. Services at two hourly intervals are regular but not frequent. For these reasons, using the bus would be highly unlikely to be regarded as an attractive or practical option for future occupiers of the appeal site.

Similarly, while the appeal site is within is within a theoretical cycling distance from services and facilities, cycling would not be an appealing means of travel for future 2 Report on the Examination of the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review paragraph 43. occupiers due to the characteristics of the routes as discussed above, which also do not have any cycling infrastructure, and therefore would strongly discourage cycling.

The appellant has drawn my attention to the services available at [name], however this would not provide goods to fulfil day to day needs. Moreover, as referred to above, the characteristics of the access track and the A44 make them unconducive to walking and cycling.

The appellant has indicated an intention to resurface the private access track following the sale of some properties within the farmstead. However, as a conditional future intention I cannot be certain this would occur, and in any event, it would not remove all deterrent factors to its use other than predominantly by car.

Acknowledging the advice in Framework that sustainable transport options will differ between urban and rural areas, future occupiers of the proposed development would be heavily reliant on the private car for day-to-day journeys, and as such the appeal proposal would not promote active travel or sustainable patterns of movement.

For the reasons given, the site would not be a suitable location for residential development having particular regard to the Council’s development strategy and access to services, facilities, and sustainable travel modes. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policy SWDPR 03 of the SWDPR in respect of its objectives of focussing development in urban areas as the most sustainable locations for growth and to strictly control development in open countryside, and Policy P2 of the Neighbourhood Plan in that it does not accord with the types of development that would be supported in land defined as open countryside. It would also conflict with policy SWDPR 06 of the SWDPR in so far as it requires development proposals, taking account of their nature and design to minimise the need to travel by car and provide infrastructure to facilitate active travel.

I have had regard to the appeal decisions cited by the appellant3. However, the schemes to which those decisions relate are not directly comparable to the proposal before me. Amongst other things, they differ in respect of the nature of the development proposed, their relationship to settlements, accessibility to sustainable methods of transport, and benefits. Accordingly, they have limited relevance in determining this appeal and do not lead me to alter my findings.

I have had regard to the planning history of the appeal site which includes a permission4 to demolish the agricultural buildings and site eight log cabins for holiday use which remains extant until July 2026, and therefore it is possible that development could take place. Development of the site for holiday accommodation would be materially different from permanent residential dwellings. Holiday accommodation would typically generate trips that are more intermittent, seasonal and time-limited in nature, whereas residential use would give rise to regular, day-to-day travel patterns including commuting, education, and routine service trips. Accordingly, the fallback position would be less harmful overall. 3 PINS references: 3332645; 3340561; 3338781; 6000439; 3351527; 3351528 4 Council reference: M23/00273/[name] this, additional vehicular trips would undoubtedly be generated over and above those arising from the current situation at the appeal site and its environs. Furthermore, tourism proposals are subject to different policy tests to new market housing in the countryside. Drawing this together, the fallback position has relevance to the determination of this appeal, and I accord it moderate weight in my assessment.

While the appeal proposal would replace existing agricultural buildings, the Framework’s definition of previously developed land explicitly excludes land that is, or was last occupied by, agricultural buildings. Accordingly, this element of the proposal attracts minimal weight in my determination.

At the time of the Council’s determination of the proposal, it was common ground between the main parties that the Council could not demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. However, since the adoption of the SWDPR, the main parties disagree whether paragraph 11d of the Framework is engaged. The Examination Report confirmed a five year supply with a 5% buffer, but not if a 10% buffer is applied.

Paragraph 78 of the current Framework requires a 5% buffer to ensure choice and competition but a 20% buffer if there has been significant under delivery over the previous three years by reference to the [name]. For decision-making, a 20% buffer may also be applicable from 1July 2026 where a Council has a housing requirement adopted in the last five years examined against a previous version of the Framework, and whose annual average housing requirement is 80% or less of the most up to date local housing need figure calculated using the standard method. I do not have the evidence before me to determine conclusively if either of the latter two scenarios apply.

If paragraph 11d of the Framework applies, the Framework sets out that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies that it specifies, including for directing development to sustainable locations.

[name] have identified conflict with Policy SWDPR 03 and Policy SWDPR 06, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole. Policy SDWPR 03 is consistent with the Framework in seeking to direct development to sustainable locations. Consequently, I accord significant weight to the conflict with the Council’s recently adopted spatial strategy. Although the Framework acknowledges that sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, the high degree of dependence on private motor vehicles and associated conflicts with SWDPR policies SWDPR 03 and SWDPR 06 weigh heavily against the proposal.

The proposal also conflicts with Policy P2 of the Neighbourhood Plan, however this was made over five years ago under the previous development plan, so while the conflict remains a negative factor, it attracts reduced weight and does not, of itself, mean the benefits are automatically significantly and demonstrably outweighed. That said, its general approach to restricting development in the open countryside remains consistent with the newly adopted SWDPR and the Framework. Accordingly, the weight I attach to the policy conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan is not significantly diminished.

On the other hand, the proposal would deliver five dwellings, contributing to the Framework’s objective of significantly boosting housing supply. There would also be social and economic benefits arising from the construction process, and future occupiers could contribute to the vitality of nearby rural settlements, supporting paragraph 83 of the Framework. However given the small scale of the development, the benefits would be modest and carry cumulatively moderate weight in favour of the proposal.

The Framework recognises that small and medium‐sized sites, including windfalls, can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement, and are often built-out relatively quickly. The appellant has highlighted that the Council’s housing supply partly relies on windfall sites. The Framework advises that great weight should be given to the use of suitable windfall sites within existing settlements. However, for the reasons set out above in respect of the main issues, I have found that is not a suitable location for the development proposed. As a result, the proposal does not attract the great weight envisaged by the Framework for windfall development.

The proposal would replace a current fallback position which would generate vehicular traffic beyond the current baseline which also weighs moderately in its favour.

Drawing these matters together the harms that would arise from the proposal attract significant weight. Accordingly, I find that the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits that would arise from the proposed development, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The appeal proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. Even if paragraph 11d of the Framework is applied, material considerations, including the fallback position do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.