Appeal 6004523

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 permitted15. 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 six dwellings and I have considered the appeal on that basis.

The reason for refusal issued within the decision notice by the Council on 19 January 2026 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 On 26 March the Council superseded the SWDP with the new South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (2026) (SWDPR).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 therefore now different and I must make my decision based on the policies contained within the most up to date local plan and I have determined the appeal on this basis. 15 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone]

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 [name] 01, SWDPR 02 SWDPR 03, SWDPR 05 and SWDPR 06 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 for six bungalows in the open countryside, adjacent to, but beyond the settlement boundary of the village of Charlton. It comprises a fenced strip of pastureland on an incline that forms part of the expansive landscape above the nucleus of the village. It is accessed between two existing houses at its lower end and runs parallel and adjacent to the rear of a cul-de-sac of housing along its side.

The village has very limited local facilities and is only slightly supplemented by further community facilities in the neighbouring village of Cropthorne, which include a first school. Whilst 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, the future occupants of the proposed development would be highly car dependent.

The South Worcestershire Design Guide SPD (2018) sets out a series of criteria to achieve acceptable connections. Furthermore, Manual for Streets advocates different patterns of travel and I accept that the opportunity to maximise sustainable transport use will vary between rural and urban areas. I have considered pedestrian movement as well as access to public transport and on my site visit walked to the bus stop in the village and on to the neighbouring village of Cropthorne.

The access from the site itself would be down a long and steep driveway and the indicative plans before me do not provide evidence that it would be capable of a separate pedestrian footpath. Moreover, the first sections of lane through the village are absent of footpaths and therefore the proposed links to the village would be poor.

The timetable at the bus stop displayed a very limited service with no standard departures on any day of the week. Beyond, the footpath to Cropthorne, whilst unlit was adequate and although it would provide a sustainable pedestrian connection to this neighbouring settlement, this would still only access a limited number of further facilities.

Whilst not a significant development, the future occupants of the development would nonetheless and in the light of Paragraph 110 of the NPPF, still remain heavily reliant on the car. It is not well connected to the immediate village or services and facilities in the wider area.

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] 01, SWDPR 02, SWDPR 03, SWDPR 05 and SWDPR 06 of the SWDPR. which together and amongst other things, seeks to direct development in accordance with the settlement hierarchy, control development in the open countryside and minimise the need to travel by car.

The strict control applied by Policy SWDPR 03 to development outside of the defined development boundary does not impose an absolute restriction on residential development. Boundaries of settlements are not an absolute, but help determine where new development should be focussed. The proposed development however, as backland development, does not make for a contextually appropriate development beyond that boundary and would site incongruously with it.

Housing across Charlton in most cases fronts directly onto the network of roads and lanes that form the settlement. The appeal site, however, is located on land that forms an angle behind the rear fence lines of properties on [site address] and [name]. This backland location has a single point of access up a long, curved, narrow, steep and fenced track between houses at No 7 and 8 [site address] .

The submitted layout plan illustrates six detached bungalows in a linear formation along an access road. The access would be slightly widened to take in a narrow section of No 7’s garden, before running along the front of the proposed dwellings. 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 six dwellings could realistically be achieved at this site.

The position and form of this backland site, where the development would not front a road, would constitute an incongruous line of dwellings disconnected from the wider village. Without knowing the detailed design and therefore orientation of the dwellings, the full impact on the surrounding landscape is not determinative, but with regards the settlement itself, simply abutting the settlement boundary would not make the proposed development contextually appropriate.

I note that the proposed access is not new and its widening would seek to meet some of the requirements of the Worcestershire County Council Streetscape Design Guidance (2025). However, in serving a new residential use, it would fail to secure greater contextual requirements with the immediate village, over and above the current operative access to a field. I find its length, fenced enclosure and close relationship with No. 7 and 8 not to form an acceptable residential access, thereby further accentuating its backland character.

I have been directed towards the judgments involving Bramshill v SSHCLG [2021] [name]. 320 and Braintree District Council v SSHCLG [2018] [name].610 [2018]. Whilst the site may not be isolated from the settlement, and is indeed adjacent to it, it remains that this backland position would be out of character with the typical pattern of development of this settlement.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As such, it would conflict with [name] 03, SWDPR 05 and SWDPR 28 of the SWDPR, which together and amongst other things, seek to ensure new development integrates with existing development and street patterns.

Matters of flood risk, surface water management, foul water disposal, visibility splays, detail design, landscaping, ecology and future and neighbouring living conditions 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, consideration of these matters has been afforded limited weight in my considerations.

Support has also been expressed, identifying limited impacts with regards traffic and views, support to the local economy and facilities as well as the need for the bungalows. Whilst acknowledged, the lack of objection to the scheme is effectively neutral in my determination of the appeal.

Heritage matters do not form part of the Council’s reason for refusing the proposed development. Nonetheless, in line with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving the setting of nearby listed buildings.

[address], [address] and Lavender Cottage1 are a range of grade II listed buildings. They date from the 17th Century and are timber framed structures with whitened brick nogging, sat adjacent to the appeal site. Their significance relates to the early formation of the village and traditional local vernacular design. The orientation of the cottages is away from the appeal site which although rises up slightly above the cottages, has a neutral impact on their rear setting. Whilst in close proximity to the cottages, the scale of the proposed bungalows would preserve the setting of these designated heritage assets.

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 Framework sets out that for decision making only 5% is required. On this basis, I am satisfied that at the time of this decision 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.

There are a variety of benefits to the scheme, including the provision of up to six bungalows in the district, together with associated economic benefits during the period of construction and once occupied. The development would also make 1 Listed Building entry number: 1116981 efficient use of a small site. However, these benefits would inevitably be modest by reason of the scale of the development, attracting moderate weight.

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 that there would be harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, to which I also give significant weight. Overall, the degree of harm that I have identified would not be outweighed by the benefits of the proposal.

I have found that the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.