# Land at Doctors Hill, Bournheath - **Decision:** allowed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C McDonagh - **Authority:** Bromsgrove (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6011301 - **Application reference:** 26/00226/PIP - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Permission in principle for 3 to 5 bungalows and houses - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.24 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(i), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3, S5(1) - **Development plan policies:** Bromsgrove District Plan 2011-2030 BDP1, BDP2, BDP4 - **Main issues:** grey belt, sustainable location, highway safety, spatial strategy - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-pass, PIP, connectivity-tool, on-demand-bus, small-scheme, housing-shortfall, substantially-outweighed, costs-refused, settlement-boundary-conflict-outweighed ## Summary Permission in principle for 3 to 5 dwellings on grey belt land outside the Bournheath settlement boundary, in the Bromsgrove Green Belt. Allowed. All the GB7(1)(g) limbs passed. Limb (iii) passed despite a twice-weekly scheduled bus and car dependence for higher-order services, on the strength of walkable village facilities, lit 30 mph lanes to Fairfield's school and shop, a county on-demand bus serving the site, and a Connectivity Tool score of 43/100 (90th percentile nationally). S5 then applied, and conflict with the settlement boundary did not substantially outweigh the benefits. The appellant's costs application was refused (local copy PINS-6011301-costs.pdf). ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties commented on the 17 Aug 2026 Framework (DL ¶5). - **GB7(1)(g)(i)/(ii): PASS** (DL ¶7-8). - **GB7(1)(g)(iii) / TR3: PASS.** "set against the size of Bournheath up to 5 dwellings would be a significant amount of movement" (DL ¶10). "Walking or cycling to Fairfield would be along a number of narrow roads although many of these have a 30 miles per hour speed limit and have street lighting with stretches of footpath. As such, some people may choose to walk or cycle this route which could be done safely" (DL ¶11). The scheduled bus "would clearly not offer a reasonable alternative to the private vehicle" (DL ¶13), but on the on-demand bus: "the proposal would utilise an existing transport option and while doubts are raised as to its longevity, with additional residents using it this would offer increased support to this existing transport infrastructure" (DL ¶15). "the Connectivity Tool … scores the location 43 out of 100 … this is in the 90th percentile nationally … in the context of the location the proposal would score relatively highly for connectivity" (DL ¶17). - **Openness not assessed.** Once a scheme is not inappropriate, "it is not necessary to consider its impact on the openness of the Green Belt, nor does the proposal need to demonstrate very special circumstances" (DL ¶18, citing *Lee Valley* [2016] EWCA Civ 404). - **Highway safety in a PIP.** Pedestrian conflict "given the locational aspect of the in-principle matter … can be considered at this stage" (DL ¶19). No harm found (DL ¶21). - **S5 in the Green Belt.** "policy S5 … does not apply to development proposals in the Green Belt except where development would not be inappropriate … In those cases, proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶24). "there are no relevant national decision making policies which state that the development should be refused" (DL ¶25). - **Settlement boundaries.** The Annex B definition of settlement adopts plan boundaries, so the site is outside the settlement (DL ¶23). Costs DL ¶7: "the new Framework has confirmed this is still a valid approach." ## Planning balance S5 "substantially outweighed" balance, applied to non-inappropriate Green Belt development. Limited positive weight to 3 to 5 dwellings, "given the scale", and limited weight to social and economic benefits. The only harm was conflict with BDP2, so the benefits were not substantially outweighed (DL ¶26-27, ¶31-32). ## What made the difference Evidence of a real, if unconventional, public transport option (on-demand bus with photographic proof of trips), together with some walkable and cyclable local facilities on lit 30 mph lanes, and a Connectivity Tool score that was high in relative terms. Compare Branford Wells (PINS-6010313), Chedworth and Henhurst Lodge (PINS-6008528, tool score 25/100), where there was no footway, no lighting and no usable bus. ## Transferable points - Five dwellings can be "significant movement" in the context of a small village, which brings TR3(1)(a) into play (DL ¶10). - A demand-responsive bus serving the site can supply the "genuine choice of transport modes", and extra users are said to support it under TR3(1)(e) (DL ¶15-16). - The Connectivity Tool score can be read against the national percentile distribution as well as in absolute terms (DL ¶17). - Grey belt schemes that are not inappropriate go into S5's "substantially outweighed" balance, and openness is then irrelevant (DL ¶18, ¶24). - Pedestrian safety on access lanes can be a locational issue at the PIP stage (DL ¶19; Costs DL ¶9). - Costs: settlement-boundary reasoning and the weight given to 3 to 5 homes against a 2.24-year supply are matters of judgement, not unreasonable behaviour (Costs DL ¶5-7). ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** undisputed grey belt; no strong contribution to (a), (b) or (d); small scale does not undermine purposes across the plan area (DL 7-8) - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** Council accepts supply deficient (2.24 years per costs decision) (DL 8; Costs DL 4) - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** up to 5 dwellings is significant movement for Bournheath; 3 pubs and hall walkable; Fairfield school/shop reachable on 30 mph lit roads with some footway; twice-weekly bus is no alternative but county on-demand bus serves the site; Connectivity Tool 43/100 (90th percentile nationally) (DL 9-18) - **TR3: pass.** 1(b) and 1(e) met by utilising and supporting the on-demand bus; 1(c)/(d) deferred to TDC (DL 16) - **GB7(1)(g)(iv): not-engaged.** not major development (DL 8) - **S5(1): pass.** S5 applies to GB development that is not inappropriate; no S5(2) refusal policy engaged; limited-weight benefits not substantially outweighed by conflict with BDP2 settlement boundary (DL 24-27, 31-32) - **TR4: neutral.** pedestrian conflict on lanes is a locational matter considered in principle; low vehicle speeds; details for TDC (DL 19-21) ## Key facts - Supply 2.24 years; net shortfall about 2,300 homes a year to 2030 (Costs DL 4-5) - Bournheath is a "small settlement" in BDP2; site outside the settlement boundary - Scheduled bus only once a day on Tuesdays and Fridays (DL 13) - County-run app-based on-demand bus can pick up outside the site and reach Bromsgrove (DL 14-15) - Connectivity Tool 43/100, reported as the 90th percentile nationally (DL 17) - Route to Catshill is national speed limit, largely unlit, few footways; those trips would be by car (DL 12) - Costs application by appellant refused; the Council's failure to assess the on-demand bus was unreasonable but caused no wasted expense (Costs DL 8) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6011301 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/643f2b0e-f950-43a5-bc10-5b2b20d174ef - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/b1a87df9-7205-4072-ac93-69895578e514 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6011301.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.