# Greenhill Farm, Greenhill Lane, Hallow (former business buildings to self-build dwelling)

- **Decision:** refused, 14 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Joshua Evans (case officer); authorised Simon Jones
- **Authority:** Malvern Hills (West Midlands)
- **Application reference:** M/26/01131/FUL
- **Procedure:** delegated
- **Development:** Demolition of existing office and storage buildings, removal of external storage and construction of one self-build dwelling
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane, PDL
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(d), TR3(1), TR4(1)(a)
- **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR02, SWDPR03, SWDPR16, SWDPR28, SWDPR34, SWDPR35, Hallow NDP HAL3
- **Main issues:** PDL outside settlement, sustainable location, landscape character
- **Tags:** pdl-outside-settlement, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, self-build, small-scheme, old-wording-slip, fallback

## Summary
One self-build dwelling to replace former business buildings, part of which have lawful residential use, 500 m outside Hallow. The officer accepted the site is likely PDL, bringing it within S5(1)(d), and noted a Class MA fallback. The application was still refused. The officer ran an ordinary development-plan balance in which substantial weight went to an unsustainable location (a narrow, unlit sunken lane) and to landscape harm, rather than asking whether the benefits were "substantially outweighed".

## Issues and findings
- **PDL, S5(1)(d).** "Policy S5 states that only certain forms of development should be approved outside settlements, including the redevelopment of previously developed land … the evidence indicates that the relevant building has not been solely occupied as an agricultural building and has previously accommodated uses falling within Class B and Class E … there is a reasonable basis for concluding that the site and building should be assessed having regard to the national policy provisions relating to previously developed land" (Report, Principle).
- **Location, TR3: FAIL.** "the approximately 500-metre route between the application site and Hallow is served by an unlit and unpaved section of the local highway network … a narrow, sunken rural lane … results in an environment which is primarily suited to vehicular use rather than active travel" (Sustainability). "Whilst some local facilities may fall within a theoretical walking or cycling distance when measured in purely numerical terms, this does not necessarily mean that they are reasonably accessible by sustainable modes in practice" (Sustainability).
- **Landscape: FAIL.** "The development would extend the domestic character of Hallow into the surrounding countryside, result in a suburbanising influence" (Landscape).

## Planning balance
"the benefits associated with the reuse of previously developed land, the existing lawful residential use and potential fallback position attract material weight … However … the identified harm arising from the unsustainable location of the site and, in particular, the adverse impact upon landscape character … is considered to carry substantial weight. On balance, these adverse impacts would outweigh the benefits" (Conclusion).

## What made the difference
The quality of the walking route, not its length. Facilities at 0.5 to 0.8 km would normally count as walkable. The sunken, unlit lane with no footway made them "theoretical". Note that S5(1) sets a presumption to approve an (d) proposal "unless … substantially outweighed". The report's simple "outweigh" balance applies a lower threshold and could be challenged on appeal.

## Transferable points
- Distance is not enough. A route's lighting, footway, width and enclosure decide whether walking is "realistic". The officer's wording ("theoretical walking or cycling distance … not … reasonably accessible by sustainable modes in practice") is directly reusable.
- A likely inconsistency: once a category in S5(1) is met, the test is "substantially outweighed". This report used plain "outweigh".
- Old-wording slip: "Para 11d … is not engaged … paragraph 14 of the NPPF is not engaged" (Principle).

## Policy findings
- **S5(1)(d): pass.** probably PDL. The building's lawful uses have been Class B/E, and part has lawful residential use (CLEUD), so it is not solely agricultural; a Class MA fallback is noted. The officer does not then apply the S5(1) "substantially outweighed" test.
- **TR3(1): fail (substantial weight).** about 500 m to Hallow along an unlit, unpaved, narrow sunken lane with no passing places; walking and cycling are theoretical, not realistic
- **SWDPR28 / SWDPR34 / HAL3: conflict (substantial weight).** extends domestic character into the countryside and erodes the separation between settlement and landscape

## Key facts
- Shop 0.5 km, primary school 0.6 km, bus stop 0.8 km (services to Worcester), all along a narrow sunken lane with no footway or lighting
- Certificate of lawfulness for part residential use; historic B and E uses; potential Class MA fallback
- The report says "Para 11d … is not engaged" and "paragraph 14 of the NPPF is not engaged", which is 2024 wording, while applying the 2026 S5

## Sources
- https://plan.malvernhills.gov.uk/Planning/Display/M/26/01131/FUL
- https://plan.malvernhills.gov.uk/Document/Download?module=PLA&recordNumber=93858&planId=1358847&imageId=44&isPlan=False&fileName=delegated%20report_M2601131FUL.pdf

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/malvern-M-26-01131-FUL.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the officer report. 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.