- Decision
- approved, 26 August 2026
- Decided by
- Council planning committee: Malvern Hills Southern Area Planning Committee (6-5)
- Authority
- Malvern Hills (West Midlands)
- Application reference
- M/25/01044/FUL
- Procedure
- committee
- Development
- Change of use of 3.7 ha of agricultural land to a solar microgrid array with battery storage
- Site context
- open countryside, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- CC2(2), N4, HE4(3), HE6(4)
- Development plan policies
- South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR01, SWDPR03, SWDPR09, SWDPR28, SWDPR31, SWDPR33, SWDPR34, SWDPR37
- Main issues
- setting of the National Landscape; landscape character; setting of a listed building; renewable energy benefit
Summary
A 3.7 ha solar microgrid with battery storage on farmland beside the M50 near Pendock, in the setting of the Malvern Hills National Landscape and near the Grade II listed Longhouse. The report was written under the December 2024 Framework. Nine days after the new Framework was published, a same-day update sheet re-mapped every paragraph to its 2026 code and concluded that nothing changed. The committee approved 6-5 after a motion to refuse failed 5-6.
Issues and findings
- National Landscape setting, N4: PASS. Update sheet: "The revised NPPF National decision-making policies N4 4 states: Development proposals within the setting of Protected Landscapes should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts … The assessment within the Committee Report therefore remains unchanged" (Update, item 6, ¶7.2.2). The report found the impact would be "localised rather than having any more substantial effect on the setting of the National Landscape" (Report ¶7.12.2).
- Heritage, HE4/HE6: less than substantial harm. "while there would be less than substantial harm, this would be at a slightly higher level for individual properties than is concluded within the applicant's heritage statement" (Report ¶7.4.9). "Vegetation cannot be relied upon through the seasons or across the course of time to mitigate views / changes to setting" (¶7.4.9). The update quotes HE4(3): "Any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight" and says this "does not alter the assessment" (Update ¶7.4.4).
- Climate, CC2(2). "the revised NPPF does refer to 'substantial weight should be given', on which the previous NPPF was otherwise silent. Notwithstanding this change … it is evident that substantial weight is afforded the renewable energy proposal" (Update ¶7.9).
Planning balance
The HE6(4) heritage balance and the overall balance were run together. On the benefit side: renewable generation, carrying significant (report) and then substantial (update) weight; farm diversification; biodiversity; and limited socio-economic weight. On the harm side: less than substantial harm to Longhouse's setting and localised landscape change. The report says the array "would provide supported renewable energy and be in place for a temporary period and be fully reversible" (¶7.12.12).
What made the difference
Officers raised the energy weight from "significant" to "substantial" under CC2(2). That, together with the temporary and reversible nature of the array, carried a narrow committee majority. The ward member's grounds (landscape officer objection, 47 residents) came within one vote of a refusal. A different landscape officer view in the report, or one vote, would have changed the result.
Transferable points
- Early committee practice was to add a "code-mapping" update sheet to reports drafted under the 2024 Framework rather than re-write them. Each 2024 paragraph was given a 2026 code and the officer declared the assessment "unchanged" (Update, items 6 to 8).
- CC2(2) is read as lifting renewable energy benefits to substantial weight (Update ¶7.9).
- Officers accepted that vegetation screening "cannot be relied upon through the seasons or across the course of time" when judging harm to a listed building's setting (¶7.4.9). This is useful in any setting argument.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| N4 | pass | within the setting of the Malvern Hills National Landscape; the impact is judged "localised"; the update sheet maps old ¶189 to "N4 4" (setting) | |
| HE6(4) | harm | less than substantial harm to the setting of Grade II Longhouse (a cruck barn), put by officers "at a slightly higher level" than the applicant's heritage statement; outweighed by renewable energy benefits | |
| CC2(2) | benefit | substantial | the update sheet says the new CC2 "substantial weight" wording replaced the old Framework's silence, but "substantial weight is afforded the renewable energy proposal" in the balance anyway |
| SWDPR 09 / SWDPR 33 | conflict | "it might be argued that the scheme would be contrary to the aims of" the heritage policies (Report ¶7.4.10) |
Key facts
- 3.7 ha on the north side of the M50, up to 2,600 MWh a year, plus a battery container
- Submitted alongside the applicant's pending outline for 31 dwellings (M/23/01712/OUT) that the array was originally described as serving
- Referred by the ward member after 47 resident objections, a parish council objection and a Council landscape officer objection
- The report was drafted under the December 2024 Framework; a same-day update sheet mapped each paragraph to a 2026 code and left the recommendation "unchanged"
- A motion to refuse against officer advice failed 5-6; approval was then carried 6-5
Sources
- moderngov.malvernhills.gov.uk
- moderngov.malvernhills.gov.uk
- moderngov.malvernhills.gov.uk
- moderngov.malvernhills.gov.uk
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.