# Fanday, Brandheath Lane, New End, Astwood Bank (1-5 dwellings PIP)

- **Decision:** refused, 18 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Wychavon DC case officer; authorised under delegated powers
- **Authority:** Wychavon (West Midlands)
- **Application reference:** W/26/01639/PIP
- **Procedure:** delegated
- **Development:** Permission in principle for 1 to 5 dwellings on paddock land
- **Homes:** 5
- **Site context:** green-belt, open-countryside, rural-lane
- **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted)
- **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 133
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** GB6(2), GB7(1)(c), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB7(1)(g)(iii), TR3(2), S5(5)
- **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR01, SWDPR03, SWDPR04, SWDPR06
- **Main issues:** grey belt, evidenced unmet need, sustainable location, limited infilling, openness
- **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, sustainable-location-fail, connectivity-tool, five-year-supply-met, rural-lane-no-footway, PIP, small-scheme, vsc-not-shown, old-wording-slip

## Summary
A permission-in-principle bid for up to five homes on paddock land at New End, Astwood Bank, in the Green Belt. It followed an appeal refusal of nine homes on a larger site that included this land. The officer accepted the Inspector's grey belt finding but refused on two grounds. GB7(1)(g)(ii) now fails because adopting the SWDPR restored a five-year supply. GB7(1)(g)(iii) fails because the location is car-dependent, with a Connectivity Tool score of 23 and narrow, unlit walking routes. This is one of the clearest early examples of the grey belt route failing on the need and location limbs even though grey belt status is accepted.

## Issues and findings
- **S5(5): not engaged.** "Policy S5 Paragraph 5 outlines that Policy S5 does not apply to development proposals in the Green Belt … The proposals are therefore assessed against these NPPF policies" (Report, Location).
- **Limited infilling, GB7(1)(c): FAIL.** "The application site does not read as a clear and contained gap within an established built frontage … the proposals would extend residential development north-eastwards along Wood Lane rather than fill an existing gap within the village" (Green Belt).
- **Grey belt, GB7(1)(g)(i): PASS.** "officers have no substantive reason to depart from those findings and consider Policy GB7 Paragraph 1 (g)(i) satisfied" (Grey Belt Land).
- **Need, GB7(1)(g)(ii): FAIL.** "At paragraph 24, the Inspector recorded a housing land supply of only 1.1 years … Following adoption of the SWDPR, the South Worcestershire Councils can demonstrate a 5-year supply … The most recent Housing Delivery Test result is 133%. As such, Policy GB7 Paragraph 1 (g)(ii) is not satisfied" (Grey Belt Land).
- **Location, GB7(1)(g)(iii) and TR3(2): FAIL.** "Policy TR3 Paragraph 2 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to use the GOV.UK Connectivity Tool alongside other relevant qualitative and quantitative evidence … The application site has a Connectivity Score of 23. When considered alongside the limited range of services and facilities, restricted public transport provision and narrow, predominantly unlit pedestrian routes, this score supports the conclusion that future occupiers would be likely to rely upon private motor vehicles for most day-to-day journeys" (Locational Sustainability).
- **Openness.** "the proposed use and amount of development would clearly result in a reduction in spatial openness and introduce urbanising features … the openness of the Green Belt would be materially harmed" (Impact on Openness).

## Planning balance
The GB6(2) very special circumstances balance: substantial weight to inappropriateness, loss of openness and encroachment, plus harm from the unsustainable location. On the other side, up to five homes (reduced weight with a supply) and modest economic benefit. "Taken together, the benefits would not clearly outweigh the identified Green Belt harm and the additional harm arising from the proposal's unsustainable location. Very special circumstances have not been demonstrated" (Green Belt Conclusion).

## What made the difference
The restored five-year supply removed the only "need" the grey belt route had rested on. Even without it, GB7(1)(g)(iii) failed on the same location facts the Inspector had relied on: an infrequent bus, and narrow unlit lanes to the more distant facilities. Cutting the scheme from nine homes to five reduced the number of trips but did not change "the inherent limited accessibility of the location".

## Transferable points
- Fewer homes do not cure a location failure. "the reduction in the amount of development would not alter the limited range of services and facilities … the frequency of public transport provision or the quality of pedestrian connections" (Locational Sustainability).
- Officers read TR3(2) as a duty to use the Connectivity Tool, and a score of 23 is cited as corroborating car-dependence alongside qualitative evidence.
- Under fn41, GB7(1)(g)(ii) turns on the five-year supply and the HDT. When a new plan restores supply, the grey belt route for market housing closes unless another need is evidenced.
- A pub within walking distance does not make a location sustainable where other facilities are reached along "narrow and predominantly unlit pedestrian routes".
- Drafting slip: the report's supply section cites "Paragraph 78 of the Framework", which is 2024 numbering, next to the 2026 codes.

## Policy findings
- **S5(5): not-engaged.** S5 does not apply in the Green Belt; the proposal is taken to GB6/GB7
- **GB7(1)(c): fail.** not limited infilling in a village; the site extends development north-east along Wood Lane rather than filling a gap, following the earlier appeal (PINS 6001105)
- **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** grey belt accepted, following the Inspector's finding on the larger site
- **GB7(1)(g)(ii): fail.** five-year supply now demonstrated after SWDPR adoption (the appeal had found 1.1 years); HDT 133%
- **GB7(1)(g)(iii): fail.** Connectivity Tool score 23; limited bus service; narrow, mostly unlit pedestrian routes; residents would rely on the car
- **TR3(2): fail.** Connectivity Tool used "alongside other relevant qualitative and quantitative evidence"
- **GB7(1)(h): not-engaged.** no well-connected station
- **GB6(2): fail (substantial weight).** inappropriate development; material harm to openness; very special circumstances not shown

## Key facts
- The site is part of a larger site where PIP for up to 9 dwellings was refused and the appeal dismissed on 27 Feb 2026 (PINS 6001105); the Inspector accepted grey belt but found an unsustainable location, with a 1.1-year supply at that time
- The SWDPR was adopted March 2026, so the five-year supply is now met with a 20% buffer; HDT 133%
- New End has a pub within walking distance; the village hall, church and nursery are further away along narrow, mostly unlit routes; the bus service is infrequent
- Connectivity Tool score 23
- The nearest hierarchy settlement is Cookhill (Category 4, lowest tier)

## Sources
- https://plan.wychavon.gov.uk/Planning/Display/W/26/01639/PIP
- https://plan.wychavon.gov.uk/Document/Download?module=PLA&recordNumber=120214&planId=3256577&imageId=36&isPlan=False&fileName=delegated%20report_W2601639PIP.pdf

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/wychavon-W-26-01639-PIP.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.