64 Prestwich Avenue, Worcester

Decision

dismissed, 22 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: D Marley

Authority

Worcester (West Midlands)

Appeal reference

6006644

Application reference

25/00541/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Detached three-bedroom "bungalow" with rooms in the roof and a large dormer, in the rear garden of an existing house

Homes

1

Site context

inside settlement

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

2.37 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S4(1), S4(2)(c), S4(2)(a)(ii), DP3, TR6, L2(1)(d)

Development plan policies

South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR 05, SWDPR 06, SWDPR 28, South Worcestershire Design Guide SPD 2018, Streetscapes Design Guide 2022

Main issues

character and appearance; living conditions of future occupiers; highway safety; neighbour privacy

Summary

A backland "bungalow" (really one and a half storeys with a large dormer) in the rear garden of a semi-suburban house in Worcester, served by a driveway past the host house. The appeal was dismissed. The inspector found harm on character (DP3), highway safety (TR6), future occupiers' internal space (below NDSS) and a neighbour's privacy. The S4 balance was run with three triggers together: S4(2)(c) for DP3 and TR6, and S4(2)(a)(ii) for a substantial adverse L2(1)(d) curtilage impact. Together they substantially outweighed a small contribution to a 2.37-year supply.

Issues and findings

• Transition. New local plan adopted and new Framework published during the appeal; both parties had the opportunity to comment (DL ¶¶2–3).
• Character — DP3: FAIL. "By introducing a new dwelling into the rear garden, the proposal would contrast with the well-established rhythm of nearby buildings" (DL ¶8). Nearby outbuildings are "clearly subservient" and not comparable (DL ¶9). A claimed permitted-development dormer fallback got limited weight: no evidence it would fall within the relevant class (DL ¶11). "I see no clear justification for the harm" (DL ¶44).
• Future occupiers — NDSS: FAIL. A dwelling with two or more bedspaces must have at least one double bedroom, so the minimum is 3b4p; occupancy by two people cannot be secured in perpetuity (DL ¶15). The home was "an unacceptably cramped internal layout … This would not be an efficient use of land" (DL ¶17). Garden space was acceptable (DL ¶¶18–19).
• Highway safety — TR6: FAIL. The fence meant "vehicles leaving the site would only have limited time to react to pedestrians … regardless of whether vehicles could exit in a forward gear or even if vehicle movements were low" (DL ¶23). A narrow space would push the host house's second car onto the street (DL ¶¶25–26). No severe cumulative impact, but that "do[es] not offset … the need for development proposals to not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety" (DL ¶27).
• Neighbour — privacy: FAIL; outlook/sunlight: no harm (DL ¶¶31–35).

Planning balance

S4 balance. Benefits: small contribution to a 2.37-year supply, "moderate weight" (DL ¶41); home for elderly relatives, moderate (DL ¶42); limited economic (DL ¶43). Harms: DP3 and TR6 conflicts, "substantial weight" (DL ¶44); L2 "substantial adverse impact" (DL ¶45). "I have found conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies DP3 and TR6 … Policy S4 further states that such circumstances also include where a proposal would result in a substantial adverse impact in relation to the application of Policy L2 to development within residential curtilages … the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶46).

What made the difference

Cumulative, avoidable design failures on a tight plot. The dwelling broke the open rear-garden pattern and had an oversized dormer. It was under NDSS space. A 2 m fence cut pedestrian visibility at the shared access, and it overlooked the neighbour's rear windows. Each failure engaged a "should be refused" policy or the L2(1)(d) trigger in S4(2)(a)(ii). A smaller, genuinely single-storey building with no first-floor window towards No 62, a low boundary at the access and proper parking widths might still have met the character objection, but would have removed most of the S4(2) triggers.

Transferable points

• S4(2)(a)(ii) is used for backland and garden development: failing L2(1)(d)'s privacy and safe-access requirements is a "substantial adverse impact" pointing to refusal (DL ¶¶45–46).
• DP3 and TR6 conflicts together engage S4(2)(c) and were given substantial weight (DL ¶¶44, 46).
• Here the inspector gave only moderate weight to one dwelling against a 2.37-year supply and did not cite HO7 (DL ¶41). Other inspectors give substantial HO7 weight in the same situation, so this is an inconsistency to flag.
• NDSS: a three-bedroom home is at least 3b4p because one bedroom must be a double; claims that the home would have fewer occupants cannot be secured (DL ¶15). Undersized space is also "not an efficient use of land" (DL ¶17).
• Visibility to pedestrians at an access is decisive "regardless of whether vehicles could exit in a forward gear or even if vehicle movements were low" (DL ¶23).
• Unevidenced permitted-development fallbacks for dormers get limited weight (DL ¶11).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Council supply 2.37 years per officer report — "a significant shortfall" (DL 41)
• Proposed GIA at most 72 sqm; NDSS minimum 84 sqm for a two-storey 3-bed 4-person home; appellant's "3b3p" argument rejected because NDSS needs at least one double bedroom (DL 15-16)
• First-floor window would look directly into rear windows of No 62 (DL 31)
• 2 m fence almost to the site boundary beside a parking space leaves exiting drivers with very little view of pedestrians (DL 23)
• New South Worcestershire Development Plan Review adopted during the appeal; parties had the chance to comment
• PSED (age) considered; dismissal proportionate (DL 47)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.