# Pinfield House, Brown Heath Lane, Martin Hussingtree - **Decision:** dismissed, 17 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: MG Garrard - **Authority:** Wychavon (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6008404 - **Application reference:** W/25/00931/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings, replacement with one larger Passivhaus dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, PDL - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt not-argued) - **Housing land supply (years):** 5.48 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(b), GB7(1)(e), S5(2), N2, AnnexB:previously-developed-land - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2021-2041 (2026) SWDPR 03, 4, 23, 29, 30 - **Main issues:** inappropriate development, replacement dwelling size, protected species, BNG - **Tags:** replacement-dwelling-materially-larger, pdl-e-limb, gb7-pass-still-dismissed, protected-species-surveys, s5-2-refusal-policy, fallback, new-local-plan, bng-self-build-exemption ## Summary A replacement dwelling in the Worcestershire Green Belt, more than double the size of the existing house. The appeal was dismissed. The house failed GB7(1)(b) (materially larger). It was still not inappropriate development, because the rural dwelling plot is previously developed land and the harm to openness from redevelopment fell "well short of substantial" under GB7(1)(e). The appeal was lost instead on the local plan's 30% replacement-dwelling cap and on missing bat and great crested newt surveys. The N2 failure engaged S5(2). ## Issues and findings - **GB7(1)(b): FAIL.** The replacement is "more than double the width … higher and slightly deeper … the footprint would almost triple" (DL ¶10). The unbuilt CLOPUD outbuilding "does not form part of the existing development against which the proposal is to be assessed for the purposes of this exception" (DL ¶11). - **GB7(1)(e): PASS.** "The appeal site has been lawfully developed and is occupied by permanent structures. It therefore falls within the definition of previously developed land in Annex B" (DL ¶12). "the effect on openness is not determined solely by a quantitative comparison of built form … it would be contained within the existing residential curtilage, and would remove the majority of the outbuildings" (DL ¶18). The harm "would fall well short of substantial harm" (DL ¶19). - **Local plan: CONFLICT.** The scheme breaches SWDPR 23's 30% GIA cap and so the spatial strategy (DL ¶26-27). - **Protected species / N2: FAIL.** "I cannot be satisfied that demolition of the brick-built garage would not harm legally protected bat species" (DL ¶32). The ponds were dry "during a period of exceptionally dry weather" but that "does not demonstrate that they are permanently incapable of supporting GCN" (DL ¶35). - **BNG.** The self-build UU secured the exemption (DL ¶42). ## Planning balance S5 for a non-inappropriate Green Belt scheme outside settlements. The question was whether benefits would be "substantially outweighed by any adverse effects" (DL ¶49). Under S5(2), failing a policy requiring refusal (N2) is likely to be decisive. The benefits were moderate weight each for the fallback and for Passivhaus and design, with limited weight for housing supply. Together with the SWDPR 03/23 conflict, the adverse effects substantially outweighed them (DL ¶50). ## What made the difference The Green Belt was not the problem. GB7(1)(e) gives a route around a failed (b) test for replacement dwellings on rural plots, because the whole curtilage is PDL and openness harm is judged qualitatively. The appeal failed on a stricter local replacement-dwelling policy and on incomplete ecology surveys. Complete bat and GCN surveys and a scheme within 30% would probably have succeeded. ## Transferable points - A replacement dwelling that fails GB7(1)(b) as "materially larger" can still be not inappropriate under GB7(1)(e) if the harm to openness is not substantial (DL ¶12-19). - A lawfully developed rural dwelling plot is PDL under Annex B (DL ¶12). - The GB7(1)(b) comparison is with buildings that exist. Unbuilt CLOPUD/PD buildings are not part of the baseline, though they may be a fallback (DL ¶11, ¶43). - Openness under (e) is qualitative: containment within the curtilage, consolidation of outbuildings and no increase in activity all count (DL ¶17-19). - Missing protected-species surveys engage S5(2) through N2 and can be decisive on their own (DL ¶50). - A Green Belt pass does not override a stricter local replacement-dwelling size cap (DL ¶26). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(b): fail.** replacement more than double width, higher, GIA approximately doubled (143→345 m²), footprint almost tripled → materially larger; unbuilt CLOPUD outbuilding not part of the "existing building" baseline (DL 10-11) - **GB7(1)(e): pass.** lawfully developed dwelling plot with permanent structures is PDL; demolition and rebuild = redevelopment; harm to openness "well short of substantial" — contained in curtilage, consolidates outbuildings, screened, no more activity (DL 12-19) - **GB6(2): not-engaged.** not inappropriate; local SWDPR 04 read with Framework → no conflict (DL 20) - **SWDPR 23 / SWDPR 03: conflict.** local replacement-dwelling policy caps GIA uplift at 30%; scheme c.141% larger → disproportionate; outside spatial strategy (DL 21-27) - **N2: fail.** no bat survey of brick garage to be demolished; no great crested newt surveys despite suitable ponds within 500 m; Circular 06/2005 — not deferrable to condition (DL 28-38) - **S5(2): fail.** failure of N2 (a policy requiring refusal) plus plan conflict → adverse effects substantially outweigh benefits (DL 49-50) - **HO7: neutral (limited weight).** 5.48-year supply; replacement adds no net housing (DL 45) ## Key facts - Existing house GIA 143.2 m², footprint 112 m²; proposal GIA 345 m² - A lawful development certificate (W/26/00474/CLPU) for a 113 m² outbuilding was accepted as a realistic fallback (moderate weight), but not as part of the GB7(1)(b) baseline - Self-build secured by a unilateral undertaking, so exempt from BNG (DL 41-42) - New local plan adopted mid-appeal restored a five-year supply (5.48 yrs, 20% buffer) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008404 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b4f2301e-c47c-4952-ac7d-ac1d0d24b400 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008404.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.