# Land off Drake Street, Welland - **Decision:** dismissed, 28 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Andrew Fuller - **Authority:** Malvern Hills (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6006722 - **Application reference:** M/26/00154/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for up to one self-build dwelling on a strip of field opposite the Welland settlement boundary - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(4), TR3 - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR 02, SWDPR 03, SWDPR 28, SWDPR 34, Welland Neighbourhood Plan 2024 DB1, HLP - **Main issues:** location, character and appearance - **Tags:** PIP, self-build, self-build-unsecured, sustainable-location-fail, s5-4-exceptional, infill-rejected, five-year-supply-met, small-scheme, national-landscape, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Permission in principle for one self-build house on a field strip across the road from Welland's settlement boundary. The inspector found no character or National Landscape harm, but the site fails TR3: the walk to the village centre means crossing a 30 mph road to an unlit footway, and the bus has only very limited weekday services. No S5(1) category applied (infill rejected), and with a five-year supply the modest benefits did not substantially outweigh the harm under S5(4). Dismissed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "The main parties were provided with an opportunity to comment. I have had regard to the 2026 version of the Framework in my decision" (DL ¶8). - **Location: TR3 FAIL.** "On my site visit I crossed the 30mph carriageway and walked along the unlit footpath (on the opposite side of the street) to the village centre" (DL ¶12). "The site is located close to bus stops in both directions, however with only very limited weekday services" (DL ¶11). "in my judgement future occupiers of the proposal would be heavily reliant upon the private car for many day-to-day needs" (DL ¶13). - **Character: NO HARM.** "I conclude that residential development could be designed so that it would not harm the character and appearance of the area" (DL ¶29). - **Self-build.** A unilateral undertaking "has not been submitted voluntarily with the appeal, so it is not secured that the appeal scheme would contribute towards meeting any current or future needs for a self-build dwelling" (DL ¶31). - **S5(1)(e): FAIL.** "the site is at some distance from built form to one side, and separated by a large paddock from a single house on the other" (DL ¶35). - **S5(4): FAIL.** "These benefits would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects, arising from the unsustainable location of the development" (DL ¶36). ## Planning balance S5(4) exceptional circumstances, then s38(6). Modest housing (five-year supply now shown) and local-spend benefits against the TR3 location harm and conflict with SWDPR 03 and the Welland Neighbourhood Plan (DL ¶33–38). ## What made the difference Being across the road from a Category 1 village was not enough. The walking route needs a crossing of a 30 mph road and runs on an unlit far-side footway, and the bus is near but rarely runs. With a five-year supply, self-build unsecured and no S5(1) category, the S5(4) bar could not be met. ## Transferable points - A site opposite a village settlement boundary can still fail TR3 where the walk involves crossing the road to an unlit far-side footway and the nearby buses are "only very limited weekday services" (DL ¶11–13). - A house separated by a large paddock from its only neighbour on one side, and at a distance from built form on the other, is not "limited infilling within groups of houses" (DL ¶35). - Under S5(4), the adverse effects weighed include the location's effect on sustainable patterns of movement (DL ¶36). - Self-build at PIP stage: without a unilateral undertaking the self-build benefit is unsecured, though one could be required at the technical details stage (DL ¶31). ## Policy findings - **TR3: fail.** opposite a Category 1 village, but reached by crossing a 30 mph road to an unlit footway on the far side; bus stops close by with "only very limited weekday services"; occupiers "heavily reliant upon the private car" (DL 11-13) - **S5(1)(e): fail.** some distance from built form on one side, a large paddock from the single house on the other; not infilling within a group (DL 35) - **S5(4): fail.** no S5(1) category; modest housing and spending benefits do not substantially outweigh the harm from the unsustainable location (DL 35-37) - **DP3: neutral.** mapped: character; a single dwelling could be designed not to harm the landscape character or the Malvern Hills NL (DL 22-29) - **N4: neutral.** s245 LURA duty; NL natural beauty preserved (DL 27-28) ## Key facts - SWDPR adopted 26 March 2026; Council now demonstrates a five-year supply (DL 6, 33) - Self-build register progress report shows adequate supply against Part 1 demand; no unilateral undertaking offered (DL 30-31) - Welland settlement boundary on the opposite side of Drake Street; village has schools, church, village hall, post office (DL 11-12) - Appellant owns the adjacent vineyard; personal wish to live on site not sufficient justification (DL 32) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006722 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/7a3c221e-2113-4f38-b4cd-97686649014d --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006722.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.