Appeal 6003962

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 2 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 2 stages.

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

In terms of the amount of development, the application form indicated that permission in principle is sought for up to four self-build dwellings and I have considered the appeal on that basis.

The reason for refusal issued within the decision notice by the Council included policies from the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP). On 26 March the Council superseded the SWDP with the new South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (2026) (SWDPR). Policies relevant to the main issue of this proposal are now different. I have therefore made my decision on these new policies.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, in terms of its location, land use and amount, with particular regard to: a) Development plan policies concerning the location of development and accessibility; and b) the character and appearance of the area.

The strategy for new housing in the Council area is set out in Policy SWDPR 02 and Policy SWDPR 03 of the SWDPR. These seek to direct new housing towards existing urban centres and defined rural settlements with existing facilities, services and transport connections. The policies strictly control development in the open countryside.

The appeal site is in the open countryside and comprises a paddock along [site address] , leading into the village of [site address] . It is located just before the speed limit is lowered from 40mph to 30mph on the approach into the village, and at some distance from the settlement boundary. A rough footpath is located on the opposite side of the road, beyond a verge, and extends in both directions.

The area between the site and the village boundary largely occupies open space lined with hedging, with a small group of buildings set well back from the road. This group comprises [site address] Farm and its associated outbuildings, along with a small number of converted agricultural buildings known as Cygnet Business Centre.

My attention has been drawn to appeal reference 3365992 at [address], [site address] . Whilst the evidence does not clearly demonstrate that this scheme is directly comparable to the current appeal, I did see the site from the road during my site visit. I note that whilst this site was also outside of the settlement boundary, it was adjacent to it and does form part of a continuous line of built form that is functionally and visually linked to the village.

The Hanley Castle Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan (HCPNDP) (2025) seeks to assist in the delivery of new housing with a total of approximately 22 new homes across three sites on the edge of the village. On my site visit I saw these sites and found them all to relate well to the settlement boundary by virtue of their direct adjacency and contextual links to the village. In particular, I noted Site D which is located on [site address] , closer to the village than the appeal site and capable of being directly served by the footpath. Moreover, Site D faces existing houses and thereby would complete the settlement form along this part of the village. In contrast to the above cases, I find the locational relationship of the development not clearly linked to [site address] , with homes significantly beyond the settlement boundary which would be incongruous with the settlement pattern and the planned expansion through the HCPNDP.

I have also been directed towards the judgments involving Bramshill v SSHCLG [2021] [name]. 320 and Braintree District Council v SSHCLG [2018] [name].610 [2018]. While the site may not be isolated from the settlement, it remains that it would not be contiguous with it.

The proposal would not meet any of the exceptions set out in Policy RE2 of the HCPNDP which is concerned with protecting identity. This policy does not allow for housing in the countryside beyond the settlement boundary unless it is either necessary for use by rural workers, comprises affordable housing, or replaces an existing dwelling. As discussed in greater detail below, neither would it protect the separate settlement identity or distinctive character of the rural landscape.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) seeks to support housing in rural locations where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. In doing so, such housing is considered to constitute sustainable development. However, in the case of the appeal site, whilst trips would often be short, and the number of dwellings is limited, the disconnect from [site address] would increase car use dependency.

The appellant has set out that the proposed development would benefit from a number of local services within [site address] , in line with its classification as a Category 1 settlement. Employment opportunities at the Cygnet Business Centre are also brought to my attention. However, whilst it scores well in terms of facilities for a village and is within close proximity to other larger settlements, development located outside of it would be heavily reliant on the car.

Travel distances set out in Manual for Streets have been put to me in the evidence submitted, however there are still limitations to this location. Whilst the bus stop is in the village, and walkable, the footpath is on the opposite side of the road, rudimentary in its formation of compact earth, and poorly accessed over a rough verge or via a vehicular crossing, making it challenging for those with impaired mobility. Therefore, I find that distance alone cannot be relied on, and that the site would be unacceptable for housing based on its poor accessibility for all.

I am mindful of the support given in the Worcestershire County Council Design Guide ([name]) for cycling, and its potential to substitute short car trips, as well as the presence of nearby cycle routes. Moreover, I note the possibility in the proposals for both EV charging points and cycle stores, but in this location cycling would make a limited addition to travel choices.

My attention has been drawn to appeals at The Homestead, [name] (reference 3332645) and Land at OS 7904 6930, Dunley (reference 3338781). Whilst the full details of these cases are not before me, I note that the Inspector in those cases did acknowledge the need to travel to larger service centres for facilities. Whilst this also is the case for [site address] , it does not overcome the location of the appeal site beyond the village, which despite the relatively small distance would still discourage travel by non-car means.

Overall, I conclude that the appeal site would not be suitable for residential development due to its location and accessibility. The proposed development would conflict with [name] 02, SWDPR 03 and SWDPR 06 of the SWDPR and Policy RE2 of the HCPNDP, which together and amongst other things, seek to direct development in accordance with the settlement hierarchy and control development in the open countryside

The site is bound by a mix of open rail fencing, hedging, trees and a stream. To one side is [site address] Farm which comprises a 17th century farmhouse identified as a non-designated heritage asset. Along with its associated outbuildings and the small business centre, they form an isolated cluster of typical agricultural buildings in the open countryside. The surrounding landscape is largely open, with some containment with field boundaries, but otherwise broadly flat and slightly undulating. Public footpaths are located at some distance and extend across the surrounding countryside. The current absence of development within this location therefore maintains the open rural character of the area including around the established historic cluster of buildings at [site address] .

The site is within the ‘[name] with pastoral [name]. In the case of this appeal site, [site address] Farm comprises a principal dwelling forming part of a traditional agricultural group sat within an expansive landscape which includes the appeal site. Whilst the proposed development would constitute a further group of buildings in this landscape, taken together with the presence of other groups of existing buildings, the balance between built form and open countryside would be tipped towards a dominance of buildings in this location that would be uncharacteristic.

The proposed development would appear at odds to the openness of the countryside when viewed along the road in both directions as well as from footpaths. It would interrupt open aspects across the site in views towards the [site address] group.

The submitted layout plan illustrates four detached houses clustered around a single access off the road. I am aware that this layout is only indicative, that the appellant is not tied to that scheme, and that it is not a technical requirement for submission. I also note that any number of alternative schemes may come forward in the future. Be that as it may, it is the only evidence before me of how up to four dwellings could realistically be achieved at this site. In doing so, the group of houses would form an incongruous cluster that would not reflect the typical way other building are grouped or scattered across this landscape beyond the main built form of the village.

The indicative layout plan demonstrates that the siting of the dwellings within the plot would ensure that the mature trees and hedging along the boundaries could be retained. Furthermore, it would allow for landscape planting and enhanced Green Infrastructure assets along with acceptable living accommodation and outdoor living space to be satisfied. The possibility of landscaping and screening some of the proposed development does not however outweigh the harm of development in this location at some distance from the village.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character of the surrounding area. As such, it conflicts with [name] 02 and SWDPR 03 of the SWDPR and Policy RE2 of the HCPNDP, which together and amongst other things, seek to ensure new development is on an appropriate scale and type with regards to landscape character.

The development would contribute 4 self-build homes to the supply of housing, a type of development encouraged by the Framework and set out in the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended) (SB&CB Act). In the Dunley appeal, the Inspector placed weight on the delivery of a small number of Windfall dwellings. It has not been shown that the case is directly comparable, but nevertheless I also afford some weight to the benefits of the proposed development albeit this is limited considering its modest scale.

I recognise the role of the HCPNDP in the governments targets to boost housing supply. However, whilst I have been directed towards Policy MnGr4 of the HCPNDP, the appeal site would constitute neither infill nor backland development and therefore this policy weighs neither for nor against the proposal.

I accept that [site address] is neither a Listed Building (LB) nor within a Conservation Area (CA). Moreover, the appeal site is not in a protected landscape, there are no Public Rights of Way across it, and it is not within a flood zone. Nevertheless, this weighs neither for nor against the scheme.

Matters of design, foul water disposal and safe vehicular access are not for permission in principle. These along with other technical appraisals and necessary planning obligations would be matters for stage 2 of a permission in principle. Therefore, these matters carry limited weight in favour of the scheme.

The Council has recently adopted a new local plan. The examining Inspectors confirmed that, on adoption, the Council would be able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing with a 5% buffer. While the appellant emphasises that the Inspectors said that a 10% buffer could not be demonstrated, paragraph 78 of the current Framework sets out that for decision making only 5% is required. On this basis, I am satisfied that the Council is able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land and the balance outlined at paragraph 11d)ii of the Framework does not fall to be considered.

I have found harm in respect of the Council’s development strategy for the location and accessibility of new housing which I give significant weight. I also find harm to the character of the surrounding area, to which I also give significant weight. As a result of this harm, I have found that the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with it. Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.