# 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 (years):** 2.37
- **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
- **Tags:** s4-within-settlement, s4-substantially-outweighed, s4-2-c-refusal-policy, dp3-refuse-trigger, tr6-highway-safety, l2-1-d-curtilage, backland, garden-infill, nds-space-standards, living-conditions, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, psed, new-local-plan, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## 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
- **DP3: fail (substantial weight).** backland dwelling breaks consistent linear pattern with open rear gardens; bulky dormer out of character; no clear justification (DL 5-13, 44)
- **TR6: fail (substantial weight).** 2 m fence next to access blocks pedestrian visibility; one existing-house space too narrow, so parking would spill onto a narrow street with footway parking (DL 21-28, 44)
- **L2(1)(d): fail.** plot intensification does not keep acceptable privacy for No 62 or safe access; "substantial adverse impact" (DL 45)
- **S4(2)(a)(ii): fail.** substantial adverse impact on the application of L2 to development within residential curtilages (DL 46)
- **S4(2)(c): fail.** DP3 and TR6 refusal policies failed (DL 46)
- **S4(1): fail.** benefits substantially outweighed (DL 46)
- **HO7: benefit (moderate weight).** small contribution to a 2.37-year supply given only moderate weight; HO7 not named (DL 41)
- **HO5: benefit (moderate weight).** home for elderly relatives but no evidence of older people's needs (DL 42); HO5 not named
- **SWDPR 05 (NDSS): conflict.** 72 sqm GIA against 84 sqm for a two-storey 3b4p; low ceiling heights; cramped (DL 14-17, 20)
- **SWDPR 05/06/28: conflict.** character, living conditions, highway safety, neighbour privacy; conflict with plan as a whole (DL 39)

## 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
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006644
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/8fd0ba33-90f8-4678-8f50-f8211c42ff30

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006644.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.