Appeal 6007756

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by The Sidings Partnership against Wychavon District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The planning application was submitted in outline form with all matters reserved for future consideration apart from access. I have determined the appeal on this basis, treating the submitted plans which show details of the matters reserved as illustrative.

The South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2021-2041 (SWDPR) was formally adopted by the Council on 26 March 2026. I have therefore had full regard to these Policies in the determination of the appeal.

The main issues are:  whether the proposed development would be appropriately located having regard to the Council’s development plan policies and access to services and facilities,  the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, and  highway safety.

The appeal site is located outside of any settlement boundary and is therefore classed as the open countryside whereby Policy SWDPR3 of the SWDPR restricts development to a set criteria, none of which would be met by the proposed development.

Policies SWDPR1 and SWDPR6 of the SWDPR seek to ensure that, amongst other things, that development is sited where it will encourage sustainable travel modes and reduce the reliance on the private car, maximise opportunities for pedestrian and cycle linkages to the surrounding area and local services and minimise carbon emissions. The appeal site is close to residential dwellings and there are footways that provide access to some limited facilities such as a pub, shop, petrol station and restaurant.

The walk to access these facilities would be moderate and also by a footway which would provide some opportunities for walking albeit the services accessible are limited and would not meet most day-to-day needs. Furthermore, the route is not lit and to access the shop in particular would require crossing a road without any formal crossing points and limited dropped kerbs. As such it would be unattractive during certain seasons, during the evening/night and for those with mobility issues or pushchairs.

The same facilities could be accessed by a short cycle, however, due to the route being unlit and the limited range of services available this is unlikely to be an attractive option for future occupiers.

There are two bus stops within a short walking distance, however, the limited frequency of services is unlikely to be attractive for future occupiers. As such, taking the above matters into account, while there are some opportunities for sustainable travel, future occupiers would be reliant on the use of a private car to access day to day services and facilities.

I note that there are existing dwellings further away from facilities, the site would not be isolated due to the presence of existing dwellings nearby and that the site would be closely related to Kington. I also note that the highway authority made comments on the application which suggested it would be difficult for them sustain a recommendation of refusal solely on sustainability grounds; however, for the reasons I have outlined these matters do not outweigh the harm I have identified.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not be appropriately located and access to services and facilities would be reliant on the private car. The magnitude of harm would be substantial given that I have found clear conflict with the provisions of Policies SWDPR1, SWDPR3 and SWDPR6 of the SWDPR and paragraph 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development is located to minimise the need to travel by car and design layouts to provide infrastructure to facilitate active travel and also limit the need to travel and offer a genuine choice of transport modes.

The appeal site is a large parcel of land which is located behind a row of houses and is accessed by a track which is also a public right of way. The land is mostly laid to grass and is open with the wider area consisting of dwellings, which are predominantly sited in a linear pattern and front [address] with generous front gardens and driveways. Dwellings on the same side of the road as the appeal site are generally single storey with generous gaps between them which highlights the open space behind and results in an open character and appearance.

The Council’s landscape assessment identifies the appeal site as being located within principal timbered farmlands which is identified as consisting of a mosaic of agricultural land. The appeal site makes a strong contribution to this character and is visible from the access and behind the dwellings located within the wider area. Furthermore, a public right of way passes through the appeal site which means that even though it does not have a statutory landscape designation, the mosaic of agricultural land is clearly visible.

The layout of the proposed development is not before me, however, due to the access of the appeal site the proposed dwellings would be located behind the established linear pattern of development with no dwellings fronting the road. As such, the proposed development would not be in keeping with the linear pattern of development and would also erode the open character and appearance of the area as the proposed development would fill the space behind existing dwellings.

I acknowledge that there are examples of cul-de-sac layouts within the area, however the linear pattern is still most noticeable and is the pattern that most houses follow. The cul-de-sac layouts and smaller side roads are generally spread out and also include dwellings close to [address] which means that the linear pattern is not detracted from. The proposed development would result in two cul-de-sac layouts being located close together and also, due to the access, no dwellings would be able to be close to [address] which would result in an odd addition and would erode the linear pattern and be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant has referred to guidance contained within West Oxfordshire District Council Design Guide (2016). I have not been provided with a copy of this guidance, however, as it relates to a different Council, I have not had regard to it in the decision before me. The appellant also considers that a landscaping scheme would integrate effectively into the immediate surroundings, however, landscaping is not a matter before me to consider and based on the limited information, I am not convinced this would mitigate the harm.

The appeal site is partially surrounded by domestic gardens and would not result in an expansion of the settlement to the West. However, this has not been raised as a specific concern by the Council, and in any case would not mitigate the harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the area.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. The magnitude of harm would be substantial. It would be contrary to Policies SWDPR3, SWDPR5, SWDPR28 and SWDPR34 of the SWDPR and Paragraph 135 of the Framework. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that developments are appropriate to, and integrate with, the character of the landscape setting and establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit.

The proposed development would utilise an existing field access and track which is proposed to be upgraded and also include a pedestrian footpath. The Council consider that inadequate information was provided with the application to determine whether the proposed development would not result in a severe or unacceptable impact on the local highway, and safe and suitable access can be ensured for all users.

The appellant has provided a transport statement with the appeal which sought to provide the information required. The Council have not commented on the information that has been submitted; however, I am satisfied that the visibility splay has been correctly illustrated and is achievable. Furthermore, the access would be suitable for a range of large vehicles, and the latest data demonstrates that there have been no personal injury collisions in the vicinity of the appeal site.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not harm highway safety. I find no conflict with Policy SWDPR6 of the SWDPR and Paragraph 116 of the Framework which amongst other things, seek to ensure that developments avoid unacceptable impact on highway safety.

The appellant has submitted a completed planning obligation with the appeal in the form of a S106 agreement to secure affordable housing and biodiversity net gain, seeking to address the Council’s fourth and fifth reasons for refusal. The Council have not confirmed whether the S106 resolves their concerns but given that I am dismissing the appeal other reasons it has not been necessary for me to consider this matter in any further detail. I have however weighed the benefits of affordable housing and biodiversity net gain against the harm identified.

The Council is able to demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing; however, I note that the appellant considers the Council’s figure lacks robustness and is marginal. No specific evidence has been presented to me to demonstrate this.

Notwithstanding the above, the provision of additional dwellings and affordable housing still attracts significant weight in favour of the appeal proposal. There would also be economic benefits through the building out of the scheme and future occupiers supporting the vitality of the area as well as environmental benefits such as biodiversity net gain which would attract moderate weight in favour of the proposed development.

However, and even if I was presented with evidence that the Council could not demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply the benefits outlined would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the substantial harm and associated policy conflict I have identified with regard to the site’s location and character and appearance of the area.

The Council have raised concern that the location plan red line does not include all land necessary to carry out the proposed development with particular regard to the visibility splays. The Council consider that this is contrary to the requirements outlined within Planning Practice Guidance1, however, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I have not explored this matter further.

Interested parties suggest that the land is redundant and that existing traffic is causing concern locally, however, I have very limited information before me to suggest that this is the case and I have therefore not taken this into account.

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. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.