- Decision
- dismissed, 18 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: MG Garrard
- Authority
- Malvern Hills (West Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6010196
- Application reference
- M/25/01626/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- 4 large detached dwellings on an edge-of-village field with extant permission in principle for up to 9
- Homes
- 4
- Site context
- settlement edge, open countryside
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 5.48 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- L3(4), L3(2)(b), HO7
- Development plan policies
- South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2021-2041 (Mar 2026) SWDPR 03, SWDPR 16, SWDPR 39
- Main issues
- efficient use of land; drainage
Summary
Four large detached houses were proposed on an edge-of-village field at Great Witley, which already had permission in principle for up to nine dwellings. The appeal was dismissed because the scheme's very low density (about 4 dwellings per acre) failed the new Framework's efficient-use-of-land policy L3. L3(4) says such proposals "should be refused". It is the first decision found that refuses housing for under-using land under L3.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The main parties were given an opportunity to comment on the implications of the revised Framework … References to the Framework in my decision are to the August 2026 version" (DL ¶5).
- Principle. The site lies outside the settlement boundary but is reasonably accessible, and the PiP "establishes the principle of residential development on the site" (DL ¶13-14).
- Efficient use of land: FAIL (L3(2)(b), L3(4)). "Policy L3:2.b. of the Framework seeks to achieve appropriate densities and applies to land outside settlements, and to land at the edge of built-up areas which is allocated or has permission for development and so will form part of the settlement … in accordance with Policy L3:2b. the proposal's development footprint should make the best use of the site's development potential. Policy L3:4. indicates that development proposals that do not make efficient use of land in accordance with paragraph 2 of the policy should be refused" (DL ¶23). "the proposal's low density has not been sufficiently justified by the appeal site's context or constraints" (DL ¶24). The spacious layout was not out of keeping with the area's character (DL ¶20). The failure was one of efficiency, not appearance.
- Housing benefit (HO7). Substantial weight in principle, but "The Council's evidence indicates a particular need for smaller homes which is not addressed by the proposal. Consequently … this limits the weight I attach to that benefit" (DL ¶31).
- Drainage: PASS. Infiltration and attenuation were shown in the appeal evidence (DL ¶25-27).
Planning balance
A plan-led s38(6) decision, with an S-policy style test: "the benefits of approving the proposal are substantially outweighed by the adverse effects arising from the failure to make efficient use of the appeal site and the conflict with the development plan" (DL ¶33). Benefits (housing, affordable contribution, BNG, spending) weighed moderately. The council could show a 5.48-year supply, so no evidenced unmet need was in play.
What made the difference
L3(4) gave a national "should be refused" hook for under-development. Paired with the SWDPR 30 dph benchmark and the SHMA need for smaller homes, it outweighed modest benefits. A denser scheme of smaller homes on the lower, flatter part of the site (DL ¶20) would probably have succeeded.
Transferable points
- L3(2)(b) applies to edge-of-settlement land that has permission, including PiP, so it "will form part of the settlement". Such schemes must "make the best use of the site's development potential" (DL ¶23).
- L3(4) works as a free-standing refusal policy against low-density housing even where character is not harmed (DL ¶20, ¶23-24, ¶30).
- HO7 substantial weight is reduced where the housing mix does not match the evidenced need (DL ¶31).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| L3(2)(b) | fail | site adjoins settlement boundary and has PiP, so footprint "should make the best use of the site's development potential"; about 4 dpa unjustified by constraints (DL 20-24) | |
| L3(4) | conflict | proposals not making efficient use of land "should be refused" (DL 23, 30) | |
| HO7 | benefit | moderate | substantial weight to homes meeting evidenced needs, reduced because SHMA need is for smaller homes (DL 31-32) |
| AnnexD(9) | neutral | Council shows 5.48 years including 20% buffer (DL 29) | |
| F8 | pass | infiltration drainage feasible; SWDPR 39 met (DL 25-27) |
Key facts
- Extant PiP (APP/J1860/W/23/3330800, June 2024) for up to 9 dwellings; scheme proposed 4 large detached houses at about 4 dwellings per acre (DL 13, 16-17)
- SWDPR 16 sets 30 dph minimum for allocated village sites (DL 18-19)
- Council able to show 5.48 years supply after SWDPR adoption (DL 4, 29)
- Parties invited to comment on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL 5)
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.