Land at OS 9574 5003, Seaford, Pinvin (barn replaced by self-build dwelling)

Decision

approved, 16 September 2026

Decided by

Council officer (delegated): Wychavon DC case officer (delegated)

Authority

Wychavon (West Midlands)

Application reference

W/26/00329/FUL

Procedure

delegated

Development

Demolition of an agricultural barn with Class Q prior approval and erection of a new two-storey self-build dwelling

Homes

1

Site context

open countryside, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S3(1), S5(1), S5(3), S5(4), AnnexB:settlement

Development plan policies

South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR03, SWDPR06, SWDPR28, SWDPR34

Main issues

S5 categories; settlement definition; fallback; sustainable location

Summary

A self-build house replacing a barn that already has Class Q prior approval, 700 m outside Pinvin. The officer applied the Annex B "settlement" definition, found no S5 category met and the location car-dependent, and accepted that the scheme conflicts with S5 and the plan. Considerable weight was given to the Class Q fallback, which was held to justify a departure, and permission was granted. This is an early S5 example where a PD fallback amounts in practice to the S5(4) "exceptional circumstances".

Issues and findings

• Settlement, Annex B. "as the site is mostly surrounded by open countryside and is clearly visually divorced from the main built development of Pinvin, it is not considered within a settlement as defined within the NPPF" (Report, Principle).
• S5. "whilst it is acknowledged that the application site is located close to another dwelling and therefore, would not strictly comprise of an isolated home in the context of paragraph 3, it does nevertheless still fail to comply with the relevant parts of Policy S5" (Principle).
• TR3 location: FAIL. "connected to it by the B4802, which does not include footways or lighting and would represent an unattractive walking route … any future residents would be reliant on the private car for almost all journeys" (Locational Sustainability).
• Fallback. "a realistic fall-back position exists, and considerable weight should be given to the fall back as a material planning consideration" (Fall Back Position).

Planning balance

A plan-led departure: "the fallback position of the extant prior approval for the conversion of the barn to a dwellinghouse is considered to justify a departure from the development plan" (Conclusion). Design and amenity were neutral given the footprint and massing match.

What made the difference

The Class Q approval: one dwelling here either way. Without it, the S5(4) test would have failed on the TR3 findings.

Transferable points

• The officer did not consider S5(1)(c) (replacement building "for the same use"). The fallback, not an S5 category, carried the scheme.
• Under Mansell, a fallback needs only a "real prospect", not probability, and an owner's intention to maximise value was enough here.
• Compare bromsgrove-25-01429-FUL (Green Belt, Class Q fallback amounting to very special circumstances).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Class Q prior approval for conversion of the same barn to one dwelling, granted 13 Feb 2025
• The officer relied on Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling BC [2017] EWCA Civ 1314 for the "real prospect" test; the landowner's intention to maximise value was enough
• The new build is largely on the existing footprint with similar massing, but has more glazing than the Class Q scheme
• Five-year supply with a 20% buffer

Related decisions

• bromsgrove-25-01429-FUL

Sources

• plan.wychavon.gov.uk
• plan.wychavon.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.