- Decision
- refused, 4 September 2026
- Decided by
- Council officer (delegated): Wychavon DC case officer (delegated)
- Authority
- Wychavon (West Midlands)
- Application reference
- W/26/01447/FUL
- Procedure
- delegated
- Development
- Retention and completion of a self-built manager's dwelling on a traveller site, said to replace a former straw-bale dwelling
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- open countryside
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(1)(c), S5(1)(d), S5(1)(g), S5(4)
- Development plan policies
- South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR03
- Main issues
- S5(1)(c) replacement lawfulness; open countryside
Summary
A retrospective "replacement" house on a long-established traveller site at Upper Moor. The applicant relied on S5(1)(c), claiming a straw-bale building on the plot had been a dwelling. The officer found insufficient evidence that a lawful dwelling existed. The building was consented in 2002 for agricultural use only. S5(1)(c) therefore failed, as did (d) and (g), and the application was refused.
Issues and findings
- S5(1)(c): FAIL on lawfulness. "The applicant maintains that the dwelling that has been constructed replaces a dwelling that previously existed on the site. If that was the case, the principle of development would potentially be supported. However, it is considered that insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that a lawful dwelling existed on the site" (Report, Principle).
- Housing benefit. "the dwelling replaces an occupied gypsy/traveller pitch … in practical terms, there would be no positive impact on housing land supply in the planning balance" (Planning Balance).
Planning balance
S5(4): no S5 category was met, the benefits were minimal (no net housing, temporary economic benefit), and the application was refused.
What made the difference
The lawfulness of the "existing building". S5(1)(c) requires the building to be "lawful in planning terms", and for a replacement "for the same use". An affidavit about past occupation, without a certificate of lawfulness, was not enough.
Transferable points
- The S5(1)(c) replacement route depends on proving the existing building's lawful use. Applicants should get a lawful development certificate first.
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)(c) | fail | a replacement must be of a lawful existing building for the same use. Insufficient evidence that the straw-bale building (approved in 2002 for agricultural use only) was a lawful dwelling; an affidavit claimed about 5 years' residential occupation from 2012. | |
| S5(1)(d) | fail | not the redevelopment of previously developed land | |
| S5(1)(g) | not-engaged | an open-market dwelling, not traveller accommodation; it would in fact replace an occupied traveller pitch |
Key facts
- A resubmission of W/25/01867/FUL (refused) with no material changes; the dwelling is substantially built
- The straw-bale building was approved in 2002 (W/01/01355/PN) subject to an agricultural-use-only condition
- No net housing gain, because the occupant would vacate a traveller pitch
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.