Appeal 6004746

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance 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 technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

During the course of the appeal, the Council adopted a new local plan, the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (2026) (the ‘Local Plan’). The Council’s position on the appeal was unchanged following the Local Plan’s adoption, and the Council identified it considered the policies from the Local Plan most relevant to the determination of the appeal were Local Plan policies SWDPR 02, SWDPR 03, SWDPR 06, SWDPR 16 and SWDPR 34. The Council’s Statement additionally identified the Council considered the proposal would conflict with Local Plan Policy SWDPR 28. The appellant has had the opportunity to comment on the policies identified. As such, I am satisfied that interested parties would not be prejudiced by my reference to these policies in my decision.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development, with particular regard to: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • whether the proposal would be suitably located, having regard to relevant development plan policies concerning residential development; and • whether future occupiers of the proposed development would have reasonable access to facilities and services.

The appeal site is an agricultural field adjacent to a small cluster of largely residential development. This cluster of development is proximate to the built-up area associated with the village of [site address] , though with undeveloped land intervening. The character of this cluster of development is largely rural, with extensive agricultural fields in proximity to the appeal site. On the evidence before me, the site is located in an area characterised by settled farmlands with pastoral use, with a dispersed settlement pattern of farmsteads and groups of wayside dwellings.

The appeal site is bound by trees and hedgerow, though with views over the appeal site towards the agricultural landscape beyond. There is residential development on either side of the site. The appeal proposal would introduce up to 6 dwellings onto the land parcel.

Given its agricultural use, the site forms part of the pattern of settled farmlands that characterise the area. When combined with its relatively open nature and intervisibility with agricultural fields beyond, the site contributes positively to the area’s pastoral character.

Whilst the appeal site is proximate to [site address] , the presence of undeveloped land between the nearby cluster of dwellings and the village of [site address] itself gives the surroundings to the appeal site a rural and verdant feel, and the site appears in this context rather than the more developed character of the built-up area of the village.

Therefore, whilst details of design and landscaping would be set out at technical details consent stage, the proposal would nevertheless introduce residential development, hardstanding, vehicular access and associated domestic paraphernalia to the site. This would have the effect of urbanising the appeal site, and by doing so would undermine the site’s positive contribution to the area’s pastoral character, as well as undermining the rural character of the area more broadly. Whilst the settlements of [site address] and [name] would remain distinct were the site to be developed, this would not outweigh the harm identified.

I acknowledge that the site is between existing development and a proposal at technical details consent stage could infill such a gap. Equally, a proposal could come forward that sought to replicate nearby development patterns. Nevertheless, and regardless of design or the precise quantum of development within the range of dwellings for which permission in principle is sought, this would not mitigate the harm I have identified.

My attention has been drawn to permission in principle for residential development granted at appeal at Land adjacent to [address], [site address] . However, on the evidence before me that site was located within the built-up area of [site address] , albeit outside the settlement boundary. By contrast, given the presence of intervening undeveloped land between the cluster of development in proximity to the appeal site and the built-up area of [site address] itself, the appeal site does not form part of the built-up area of [site address] . The context to the previous appeal is therefore significantly different to the proposal before me, and does not lead me to an alternative conclusion on this issue.

Given the above, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would conflict with the relevant provisions of [name] 02, SWDPR 03, SWDPR 28 and SWDPR 34 of the Local Plan, and Policy RE2 of the Hanley Castle Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan (2016-2030) (2025) (the ‘NDP’). Amongst other matters, these policies require development proposals to be of appropriate scale and type, to reinforce a sense of place, to be appropriate to the character of the landscape setting, and identify that housing development in the countryside can affect local character.

The site is an agricultural field and located outside of a development boundary set out within the development plan. Although some development is nearby, there is undeveloped land between this cluster of development and the built-up area of the village of [site address] .

Given its location outside of a development boundary, the site is in policy terms located within ‘open countryside’. Policy SWDPR 03 of the Local Plan identifies that development within the open countryside will be strictly controlled subject to the application of other policies. Policy RE2 of the NDP identifies that housing development in the open countryside will only be considered favourably where the proposal is for a number of matters including rural workers dwellings, affordable housing exception sites, replacement dwellings or conversions.

The proposal does not constitute an identified exception set out within Policy RE2 of the NDP. Whilst the appellant identifies that Policy SWDPR 03 of the Local Plan does not include a blanket restriction on all development within the open countryside, I have not been directed to any policy exception within the development plan that would be applicable in this instance. Given this, the proposal would conflict with the locational requirements of these policies.

Whilst permission in principle was granted at Land adjacent to [address], [site address] , that appeal did not entail the outward extension of the village. By contrast the appeal proposal would – notwithstanding its distance from the built-up area of the village – extend built development into the countryside. As such, the compliance of that appeal with certain other development plan policies, including specifically Policy MnGr 4 of the NDP, is not a determinative matter in this case. In any event, my decision is consistent with this previous appeal insofar as it relates to residential development outside development boundaries being strictly controlled unless exceptions apply.

Given the above, the proposal would not be suitably located, having regard to relevant development plan policies concerning residential development. The proposal would conflict with the relevant provisions of [name] 02 and SWDPR 03 of the Local Plan, and Policy RE2 of the NDP. Amongst other matters, these policies identify that development proposals outside a development boundary will be strictly controlled, and that proposals should be of appropriate scale and type with regard to location and settlement hierarchy.

The appeal site is located outside, though proximate to, the settlement of [site address] . [site address] itself contains a variety of facilities and services including a public house, convenience store, bus stop and primary school. The evidence before me suggests there is also a nearby employment site. There is a pedestrian footway in close proximity to the site which provides a largely continuous connection from the site to the built-up area of [site address] . This footway is narrow in places between the site and [site address] . The route to [site address] is largely flat, though largely unlit. The speed limit in proximity to the appeal site is 40mph. The village of [name] is also proximate to the appeal site, though further distant, with the route to [name] also largely unlit and the footway also narrow in places.

Whilst the footway between the site and [site address] is largely continuous, the distance from the site to the village not substantial, and pedestrians are largely separated from traffic for the significant extent of any walk between the site and the village, the road is nevertheless unlit for a significant extent. Therefore, during the hours of darkness or when visibility is poor accessing the village by foot would require a reasonable walk with limited visibility next to cars driving at reasonable speeds. Cyclists would also be required to share the road with cars during these times, and given the speed limit would be likely to find the presence of overtaking vehicles off-putting.

In addition, the footway is narrow in places, and given this pedestrians would be likely to be disincentivised from walking side by side along parts of the route. Equally, given its existing state the footway would not be appealing for those less mobile or those with children.

Street lighting may be less common in rural areas, there may be differences in opportunities for sustainable transport between urban and rural areas, and given its largely continuous nature the use of the footway would not be likely to result in an adverse impact on highway safety. Nevertheless, the distance from the site to the built-up area of [site address] is such that, when coupled with the inadequacy of the footway, pedestrians and cyclists would be likely to be sufficiently disincentivised that they would be reliant on the private vehicle to access the services and facilities within [site address] , particularly when visibility is poor. Given its greater distance from the appeal site, and similar arrangements for pedestrians and cyclists, this would also be the case with [name].

Therefore, although there may be some facilities and services nearby, including a bus stop with services to larger settlements, given the road and footway arrangements described the likely greater use of the private vehicle would result in a pattern of trips to local services that was excessively reliant on the private car.

Given these matters, future occupiers of the proposed development would not have reasonable access to facilities and services. The proposal would therefore conflict with the relevant provisions of [name] 02, SWDPR 03 and SWDPR 06 of the Local Plan, insofar as these policies require development proposals to minimise the need to travel by car.

Whilst the Council has directed my attention to Policy SWDPR 16 of the Local Plan, I have not been drawn to any particular conflict with this policy, nor did the Council include an objection either to it or the policy it superseded. As such, this policy has not been determinative in the case of this appeal.

Whilst the site may have sufficient visibility to allow for an access proposal to come forward at technical details consent stage and may be of sufficient size to accommodate the proposal, these matters weigh neutrally in the overall balance.

The appellant’s planning statement made reference to other allowed appeals within the District. On the limited evidence before me, these are a significant distance from the appeal site and did not include the harm to character and appearance that I have identified in this appeal. As such, these appeals are not directly comparable and have not led me to an alternative conclusion on this appeal.

Due to the recent adoption of the Local Plan, the Council’s five-year housing land supply position (‘5YHLS’) changed during the course of the appeal. I acknowledge that the [name] on the examination of the Local Plan identified that the Council could not demonstrate 5YHLS on adoption, due to the application of a 10% buffer. However, the Inspector identified that the Council could demonstrate a 5YHLS if a 5% buffer were applied instead. On the evidence before me, the Local Plan was not examined under the current version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’), but was instead examined under the September 2023 version which required a 10% buffer to be applied where a Local Plan was recently adopted.

However, the current Framework does not include such a requirement. Therefore, given the Council’s position on the [name], the Council is at the current time required to apply a 5% buffer to its housing supply. Whilst precise supply details are not before me, given the conclusions of the Inspector on the examination of the Local Plan and its recent adoption I consider that the Council can at the current time demonstrate five years supply, and the provisions of Paragraph 11d are not applicable in the case of this appeal.

The proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and would not be suitably located. In this context I afford the harm arising from the conflict with [name] 02, SWDPR 03, SWDPR 28 and SWDPR 34 of the Local Plan and Policy RE2 of the NDP significant weight in my determination of the appeal insofar as they relate to these matters. The proposal would also not have reasonable access to facilities and services, a matter to which I afford moderate weight. Given the above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan read as a whole.

The proposal would result in the provision of housing on a smaller sized site, which could be built out relatively quickly, would result in economic benefits during both the construction and occupation phase, and future occupiers could contribute to local facilities, services, and the vitality of the village. However, given the scale of development these benefits would be limited and would not outweigh the harm identified.

Whilst the appellant has made reference to a [name] (‘WMS’) with regards the development of unallocated greenfield sites, this relates to situations where authorities cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply. Given the housing land supply conditions described, the conclusions of the WMS in this regard are not directly applicable to the appeal before me, and do not alter my conclusions with regards the weight afforded in this case.

I acknowledge that the Council may become subject to a 20% buffer from 1 July 2026 in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 78c of the Framework. Nevertheless, these provisions are not yet in force.

In any event, on the evidence before me the NDP has become part of the development plan within the last five years. Whilst it may be the case that the housing needs of the neighbourhood area will be subject to evaluation now the Local Plan has been adopted, there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that the policies and allocations contained within the NDP do not meet its identified housing requirement. Even had I found the provisions of Paragraph 11d of the Framework were to be applicable in this instance, I consider that the conflict with the NDP would, given the harm arising from the conflict with Policy RE2 of the NDP, mean the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan read as a whole and material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.