- Decision
- dismissed, 29 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: D Marley
- Authority
- Wychavon (West Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6009011
- Application reference
- W/26/00048/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Live/work unit with a new direct access onto the B4092 and a new agricultural access (an earlier live/work permission on the site is an agreed fallback)
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- open countryside
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- TR6(4), S5(4)
- Development plan policies
- South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR 03, 6, 15, 29, 30, 38, 39
- Main issues
- highway safety; location against plan policies; access to services; BNG; drainage
Summary
A live/work unit in open countryside near Inkberrow, with a new access onto the B4092. An earlier live/work permission on the site was an agreed fallback. The inspector found the visibility splays unevidenced for the road's speeds, a TR6(4) failure given very substantial weight, and that the rural-business category S5(1)(b) was not met because necessity was not shown. Under S5(4) the benefits did not outweigh the harm. Dismissed.
Issues and findings
- Highway safety: FAIL. "no substantive assessment is before me to show whether this distance is suitable for the speed limit of the road or the recorded speeds of approaching traffic" (DL ¶8). "Policy TR6 of the Framework states that development proposals should be refused where they would have such an impact. I therefore afford this harm very substantial weight in the planning balance" (DL ¶48).
- Location (plan). Conflict with SWDPR 03 and 15 (DL ¶22), but "given the fallback permission, I attach only limited weight to that particular harm" (DL ¶48).
- Access to services. "by its nature the proposal is for a live/work unit, and given that only one-bedroom would be provided within the residential element of the proposal it is likely that future occupiers of the site would predominantly live and work in the same space" (DL ¶26). TR3 is not cited.
- S5(1)(b): FAIL. "no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the countryside location is necessary for its operation" (DL ¶43).
- Plan-making policies. E1 "is a plan-making policy, and the Framework directs that plan-making policies should not be used in the determination of development proposals" (DL ¶47).
Planning balance
S5(4) exceptional circumstances, correctly stated at DL ¶43. Benefits (fallback significant on location; live/work, construction, planting limited) against very substantial highway harm. The conclusion is phrased as "the benefits of the proposal would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶49), the S5(1) form rather than the S5(4) "substantially outweigh" test (DL ¶43). Immaterial here: it fails either way.
What made the difference
The new direct access onto a fast B road without a speed survey. The fallback neutralised the location objection, but not the new access, which the earlier permission did not include.
Transferable points
- TR6(4) failure can carry "very substantial weight" and decide an S5(4) case (DL ¶48).
- Visibility splays must be justified against recorded speeds, not just shown to be achievable (DL ¶8).
- S5(1)(b) needs evidence that a countryside location is necessary (DL ¶43).
- E1 and other plan-making policies are not decision tests (DL ¶47).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| TR6(4) | fail | very-substantial | no evidence that 60 m splays suit the 40 mph limit (60 mph nearby) or recorded speeds; condition could not mitigate (DL 8-10, 14, 48) |
| S5(1)(b) | fail | rural business element, but no evidence a countryside location is necessary (DL 42-43) | |
| S5(4) | fail | exceptional circumstances test stated correctly at DL 43; concluded at DL 49 in S5(1) form (benefits substantially outweighed) | |
| TR3 | neutral | mapped - TR3 not cited; limited footway and lighting and some car reliance, but live/work and the fallback mean few extra trips, so reasonable access under SWDPR 06 (DL 23-30) | |
| F8 | pass | drainage acceptable by condition; no conflict with CC3, F7, F8 (DL 40) |
Key facts
- Live/work permission previously allowed on appeal under the old plan; agreed real-prospect fallback, significant weight on location (DL 3, 44, 49)
- B4092 40 mph at the site, changing to 60 mph nearby; no speed survey (DL 6, 8)
- One-bedroom residential element (DL 24)
- PEA and Small Sites Metric show -15.81% area and -11.55% hedgerow units; left to the biodiversity gain plan (DL 32-35)
- E1 cited by appellant is a plan-making policy, so not determinative (DL 47)
- Parties given the opportunity to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 4)
Sources
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.