Appeal 6006082

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 two 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 two 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 technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

Since the appeal was submitted, the South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (SWDPR) was adopted on the 26 March 2026 and so, is now the development plan for the area. The examining Inspectors confirmed that with a 5% buffer on adoption of the SWDPR, the Council could demonstrate a 5 year deliverable housing land supply. In view of such, the Council now sets out in its statement of case, that the appeal site is not a suitable location having regard to the development plan spatial strategy for housing and accessibility, in addition to the original reasons for refusal. Therefore, it states the proposal conflicts with [name] 01, SWDPR 03 and SWDPR 06 of the SWDPR. Also, in respect of the original reasons for refusal, the Council sets out that there would be conflict with other policies in the SWDPR, including [name] 09, SWDPR 28, SWDPR 33 and SWDPR 34.

The appellant has had opportunity to comment on these matters as part of the appeal process and so, I have determined the appeal having regard to such, including the up to date housing land supply position and policies in the SWDPR.

The main issues are whether the appeal site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, proposed land use, and the amount of development, with particular regard to:  the housing strategy for the district and accessibility to facilities and services by sustainable travel modes; and,  the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the setting of nearby grade II listed buildings and the rural landscape.

Policy SWDPR 03 of the SWDPR sets out the spatial development strategy within the district. It is based on the settlement hierarchy, that growth will be directed amongst various categories of settlements following the principles of sustainable development and that, in the open countryside, development will be strictly controlled subject to other policies in the Plan. Policy SWDPR 06 of the SWDPR states that, development proposals, taking into account their nature and location, must demonstrate that, amongst other matters, the proposed layout and design will minimise the need to travel by car.

Additionally, Policy SWDPR 01 of the SWDPR sets out that, to ensure development contributes to the mitigation and adaption to climate change, development proposals will be required to locate development to minimise the need to travel by car.

There is existing development near the appeal site and, as asserted by the appellant, is garden land capable of accommodating one dwelling. However, it is located outside any defined development boundary, within the open countryside and no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would meet any exceptions of other policies in the Plan. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with the spatial strategy for the district.

While there are other dwellings and development within the small hamlet, there are no services or facilities within it. The nearest available bus service is along the A422, a fairly short walk along the unlit country lane, then along the busy A422 to bus stops. However, even if the walking route to the bus stops is considered to be relatively safe, due to the light flow of traffic and that verges can be stepped onto when traffic passes, Worcester County Council Highway Authority sets out that the frequency of bus services using this route is poor, arriving every 3-4 hours. It is also stated that there are no evening and Sunday bus services.

Furthermore, it is unlikely that the ’Worcestershire on Demand’ bus service would be suitable for all the daily service and employment needs of future residents of the new dwelling, due to waiting times and potential unreliability, depending on when and where demand arises for this bus service each day. Therefore, travel by bus would not facilitate an acceptable means of commuting to work and local centres for the occupiers of the proposed dwelling.

The walking and cycling distances to Inkberrow are not that far and parts of the routes thereto are stated to be designated ‘quiet lanes,’ encouraging walking, cycling and horse riding. Also, the walking to school distance to its primary school would be within the recommended [name] guidelines, Assessment of [name] to School ([name] 2021). However, the routes to Inkberrow, where there are facilities and services, would be principally via unlit country lanes and part of the A422, which is a very busy main road. During my site visit, I observed that despite relatively light traffic on the country lanes, there are no separate footways along much of the route to Inkberrow and, in places, little or no verge space for pedestrians to step off onto when vehicles pass. Additionally, I observed that some areas along the routes to Inkberrow have restricted forward visibility, particularly along [address].

The public rights of way crossing fields nearby have no suitable surfacing or lighting along them. Also, I observed that the nearest public footpath, adjacent to The Haven, was heavily overgrown and inaccessible at the time of my site visit. Therefore, nearby public rights of way would not provide appropriate alternative routes for all trips associated with the employment and service needs of future occupiers of the appeal dwelling.

The absence of any records of road accidents does not persuade me that the walking and cycling routes would be safe, due to the aforementioned restrictions, particularly for, but not limited to, unsupervised children travelling to school. Consequently, walking and cycling to Inkberrow from the appeal site would unlikely represent attractive or safe options, particularly in the dark or during inclement weather.

Even though the appellant, who currently lives adjacent to the appeal site, tends to walk or cycle for approximately half their travel needs, it does not follow that the future occupiers of the new dwelling would do the same. Furthermore, even if trips by car to the nearby villages and towns with services and facilities would be relatively short, this would not ensure that the appeal proposal minimises the need to travel by car.

Having regard to the above, while the appeal site is large enough to accommodate the amount of development proposed, it is not suitable for residential development in terms of its location and land use, with particular regard to the housing strategy for the district and accessibility to facilities and services by sustainable travel modes. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with [name] 01, SWDPR 03 and SWDPR 06 of the SWDPR, which amongst other matters, set the overarching development strategy for the area, strictly controlling development in the open countryside and seek to promote genuinely sustainable travel choices for new development.

The appeal site is within the open countryside. It is an open, principally grassed area of land located between [address], which is a grade II listed building, on one side and a collection of residential properties, including converted barns to the other side. There is a hedge with interspersed trees along the road frontage, with open agricultural land on the opposite side of the road. At the rear, beyond a further strip of grassland, there is a substantial boundary hedgerow and a track leading to a menage at the rear of [site address] and [address]. Also, there is a public footpath between The Haven and [site address] leading from [site address] to the track near the menage. However, at the time of my site visit, this was not accessible as it was heavily overgrown with bramble and other vegetation.

There are residential properties and other buildings nearby within the small hamlet of Holberrow Green. Furthermore, the appeal site has been owned in conjunction with other land at The Haven for some years and contains some planting. However, the appeal site has an open, tranquil feel and does not contain any buildings or significant structures. Additionally, the Council sets out that it is not domestic garden land and cannot be lawfully used as such or contain domestic paraphernalia. Therefore, overall, the appeal site provides a welcome, verdant, development-free break between buildings, making a positive contribution to the open character and appearance of the rural area.

[address] is a timber-framed building, with painted brick infill on a sandstone plinth and a substantial stone chimney stack to one end and gabled front dormers. It is originally 17th century with later 19th and 20th century additions to it. There is also an adjacent grade II listed barn to one side of [address], known as [address] Barn. This is of the same era as [address], also with later additions to it in the late 19th and 20th centuries. It is a timber frame, weather boarded building on a brick plinth with a corrugated iron roof. The barn appears to have a historical link to [address] and the rural area generally, being closely co-located and built around the same time, yet set away from other farm buildings and built form further along [site address] .

Therefore, the significance of both listed buildings derives from their traditional architecture and historic features, together with their open, rural setting, set away from other built form. Consequently, the open land to the side of [address], including the appeal site, makes a positive contribution to this open rural character, important to the appreciation of the significance of these nearby listed buildings.

The appeal site is of considerable size and so would be capable of accommodating a new dwelling. However, even if the new dwelling would not be particularly isolated and could be set away from the nearby listed buildings, adding built form within the land would considerably reduce its open character, in both spatial and visual terms. It would reduce the open, tranquil and verdant gap between existing buildings and to the side of [address], stretching out development along the road and reducing the more distinct, isolated, open rural setting to one side of the listed buildings.

Additionally, the proposal, by adding development within the open land to the side of [address], even if of a sensitive, single-storey design with landscaping, would diminish existing views of the cottage across the open land from public vantage points, including from the road and public rights of way nearby. Accordingly, even if no objections have been raised by the Council’s Conservation Officer and the owners of nearby listed buildings, for the reasons given above, I find the proposal would not preserve the setting of [address] and [address] Barn. This would harm the significance of these designated heritage assets.

While the design, layout and size of the new dwelling are not fixed and the submitted layout plan is only indicative at this stage, the introduction of a dwelling on this currently undeveloped land would nevertheless urbanise the space between existing development along the lane. Even if limited to single storey with landscaping, it would materially alter the site’s rural and open character, causing harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape.

The Council has referred to other appeal decisions, and the assessment undertaken in relation to heritage assets therein, including appeal ref. APP/H1840/W/23/3335286, Land at [address] and, ref. 6002026, [name] of [address]. However, these examples are in different locations and I do not have any substantive evidence to show that they have the same site contexts as the appeal proposal. Therefore, I have determined the proposed development on its own merits, including its site context, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and other considerations relevant to permissions in principle and designated heritage assets.

In view of the above, due to its location and land use, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including the setting of nearby grade II listed buildings and the rural landscape. This would be contrary to [name] 03, SWDPR 09, SWDPR 28, SWDPR 33 and SWDPR 34 of the SWDPR, which, amongst other matters, require development to have regard to the landscape setting and to integrate well with it and, conserve and enhance heritage assets and their settings, in accordance with the Framework.

While other permissions in principle schemes have been approved nearby, namely Council ref, W/25/02760/PIP and W/25/01182/PIP, they are not in the same location as the appeal scheme and so, do not share the same site context as it. Also, since these decisions were made the SWDPR has been adopted in March 2026 and, the Council sets out that it can now demonstrate appropriate housing delivery land. Therefore, different considerations now apply.

The harm I have identified to the significance of the nearby grade II listed buildings, [address] and [address] Barn, arising from development within their setting would be relatively localised and dependent upon the location and scale of the new dwelling. Therefore, this harm would be less than substantial in terms of the Framework, falling towards the medium to lower end of the spectrum. However, special regard must be given to preserving the setting of the listed buildings and the harm caused to the significance of them weighed against the public benefits of the scheme.

On adoption of the SWDPR at the end of March 2026, the Council has a demonstrated five year supply of housing land and so, without any evidence to the contrary, there is no current housing land shortfall. Consequently, there would be no benefit derived from an additional dwelling in regard to such.

The proposal would provide some social and economic benefits through its construction and occupation. Although, this would be limited for a single dwelling and so, I give limited weight to these benefits. Furthermore, I have no substantive evidence to show that the future occupiers of the new dwelling would help support any services and facilities within the small hamlet or sustain local services in nearby villages either. Also, while it has been set out that the proposal would trigger a requirement for an affordable housing contribution, no mechanism is in place to secure such. Therefore, I give limited and no positive weight to these benefits, respectively.

The site is within [name] 1 and so, is at low risk of flooding. It is intended the proposed development would exceed the policy requirements for green infrastructure and increase biodiversity, although substantive details are not included with the proposal and these matters cannot be secured by condition as part of a permission in principle. There is an existing access and parking suitable for the new dwelling and so, the proposal would unlikely cause any highway incidents, harmful to highway safety or the free flow of traffic on the highway.

Even if nearby residents raised no objections to the planning application and the proposal would promote the effective use of land, without full details of the design, scale and location of the new dwelling, these matters cannot be fully assessed at this stage. However, such matters and that the appeal site is not in a Conservation Area or the Green Belt and, that the new dwelling would be of a high-quality design, are neutral matters that do not affect my findings on the main issues.

Having regard to the above, the public benefits of the scheme would not outweigh the harm I have identified to the setting of nearby listed buildings. Accordingly, policies within the Framework relating to heritage assets provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed, and so, paragraph 11 d) ii is not engaged in this instance.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.