- Decision
- allowed, 11 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: K Townend
- Authority
- Malvern Hills (West Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6010973
- Application reference
- M/25/00216/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- One detached two-storey dwelling on a paddock between two houses
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- settlement edge, open countryside
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(1)(e), S3, TR3, HO7
- Development plan policies
- South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR 03, 6, 19, 26, 37, Broadwas and Cotheridge NP 2019 P2
- Main issues
- suitable location; accessibility; affordable housing contribution
Summary
One house on a paddock between two existing houses just outside the Broadwas development boundary, in a district with a five-year supply and a plan adopted in March 2026. Allowed. The inspector held the plot to be "limited infilling within groups of houses" under S5(1)(e), found the location acceptable for one dwelling given walkable village facilities and buses, and treated S5(1)(e) as a material consideration outweighing conflict with the brand-new local plan's boundary policy.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "Any reference to the National Planning Policy Framework … will be in relation to the August 2026 version" (DL ¶4). The letter records consultation on the newly adopted SWDPR policies (DL ¶3) but does not say parties were asked about the 2026 Framework.
- Settlement status. "Broadwas is defined as a settlement in the SWDPR 2026 and is, therefore, a settlement when considered against the definition in Annex B" (DL ¶12).
- S5(1)(e): PASS. "The appeal site is, therefore, within a group of houses, albeit that it is outside the development boundary. Moreover, as a proposal for a single dwelling between two existing properties, it would comprise limited infilling. It would not represent a standalone extension of residential built form into the open countryside" (DL ¶13).
- 5YHLS irrelevant to S5(1)(e). "That the Council can now show a five year housing land supply, with the required 20% buffer, would not reduce the weight of Policy S5:1(e) or mean that, under Policy HO7:1 of the Framework, that I should not support additional housing" (DL ¶15).
- Accessibility TR3: PASS. "The reliance on the private car for access to other facilities and employment would be no different for the residents of the appeal site and the residents of existing housing in the village" (DL ¶18); "the addition of one further dwelling would not result in a significant amount of movement" (DL ¶20); "in a suitable and sustainable location for the scale of the development" (DL ¶20).
- Previous appeals. Three Council-cited dismissals distinguished as "further from the development boundary" and services (DL ¶19).
- Plan conflict. "although the proposal would conflict with Policy SWDPR 03 … there are other material considerations, specifically Policy S5:1(e) of the Framework, which supports the proposed development" (DL ¶22).
- Affordable housing — HO5: accord. SWDPR 19 "is, therefore, consistent with Policy HO5:1(a)(i)"; UU accepted (DL ¶¶24-26).
Planning balance
Section 38(6) with S5(1)(e) as the material consideration; the inspector found no adverse effect that would "substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶23). The concluding paragraph, however, uses the superseded 2024 tilted-balance wording: "the harm from the conflict with the development plan would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits … when assessed against the policies in the Framework, taken as a whole" (DL ¶47). No weights are given to individual benefits.
What made the difference
Physical form: a single plot sandwiched between two houses and backed by a group of others, right by the development boundary of a plan-defined Category 2 village. That fitted S5(1)(e) regardless of the healthy housing supply, and the short distance to a pub, school, recreation ground and bus stops made the TR3 case. The Council's earlier appeal wins at Broadwas failed to carry over because those sites were further out. A plot on the outer edge of a group, or further from the village facilities, would probably have been dismissed.
Transferable points
- S5(1)(e) infilling can override a development-boundary policy in a plan adopted only months earlier, because that plan predates the 2026 Framework (DL ¶¶11, 14, 22).
- A five-year supply (even with 20% buffer) does not reduce the weight of S5(1)(e) or HO7(1) support (DL ¶15).
- A village defined as a settlement in the development plan is an Annex B "settlement" even if not a large built-up area (DL ¶12).
- For one dwelling next to a plan-defined village, car reliance "no different" from existing residents plus walkable pub/school/bus stops passes TR3 (DL ¶¶17-20).
- Earlier dismissals nearby are distinguished on distance from the boundary and facilities (DL ¶19).
- Drafting slip: the conclusion uses 2024 NPPF para 11(d) "significantly and demonstrably outweigh … taken as a whole" wording instead of the S5 "substantially outweighed" test (DL ¶47). Policies cited in "S5:1(e)" style.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S5(1)(e) | pass | paddock between Cedars Farm and Oaklands, behind a group of houses, close to Broadwas boundary = limited infilling within a group of houses (DL 13-14) | |
| AnnexB:settlement | pass | Broadwas is a settlement because the development plan defines it as one (Category 2) (DL 12) | |
| TR3 | pass | pub, school, recreation field and bus stops walkable; GP cyclable; car reliance no worse than existing residents; one house generates little movement (DL 16-20) | |
| HO7 | benefit | HO7(1) support not reduced by Council now having 5YHLS with 20% buffer (DL 15); weight not stated | |
| S3 | pass | compliance with S5(1)(e) means compliance with S3(1) and sustainable development (DL 22) | |
| HO5 | accord | SWDPR 19 off-site affordable contribution for <5 dwellings in Designated Rural Areas consistent with HO5(1)(a)(i); UU accepted (DL 24-26) | |
| SWDPR 03 | conflict | outside development boundary of newly adopted plan (March 2026), outweighed by S5(1)(e) as material consideration (DL 10-14, 22) |
Key facts
- SWDPR adopted 25 March 2026; plan found "broadly consistent" but predates the 2026 Framework
- Council can show a five-year supply with 20% buffer (figure not stated)
- Site is a paddock between two houses reached by a shared drive off a cul-de-sac off the A44
- Three earlier Broadwas-area dismissals (Tack Farm, A44, Brook Farm) distinguished as further from the boundary and services
- Unilateral undertaking for affordable housing contribution
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.