Cedar Wood, Seaford Lane, Naunton Beauchamp (1 self-build dwelling PIP)

Decision

approved, 14 September 2026

Decided by

Council officer (delegated): Matthew Webb (case officer); authorised Clare Bull

Authority

Wychavon (West Midlands)

Application reference

W/26/01828/PIP

Procedure

delegated

Development

Permission in principle for one self-build dwelling

Homes

1

Site context

open countryside, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(e), S5(3), TR3(1)(e), DP3(3)

Development plan policies

South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR03, SWDPR06, SWDPR19, SWDPR28, SWDPR34

Main issues

S5(1)(e) infill; fallback; sustainable location

Summary

A one-plot self-build PIP between houses in Naunton Beauchamp, a hamlet with no services, outside any development boundary. The officer found the location unsustainable under TR3 but accepted S5(1)(e) limited infilling within a group of houses. Significant weight was given to an extant PIP for the same plot, and permission in principle was granted. Wychavon refused the Broadway plot the same day because no houses adjoined it.

Issues and findings

• Infill, S5(1)(e): PASS. "the proposal comprises a single dwelling on a plot located between existing residential development and is considered to represent limited infilling within a group of houses, consistent with criterion S5(1)(e)" (Report, Location).
• Location, TR3: FAIL. "Whilst the level of services and facilities within Naunton Beauchamp is limited, there is a bus stop located 2km to the south east … This area does also not appear to have a footpath or street lighting … the location of the site is not considered to promote sustainable transport measures, as such the principle of the proposal is generally not supported due to its location" (Location).
• Plan conflict. "The Council … effectively limits further growth within the open countryside to specific types … Allowing such proposals could easily be replicated … and would erode the open countryside in a harmful and piecemeal way" (Location).

Planning balance

S5(1) (approve unless substantially outweighed) combined with a fallback. "significant weight is afforded to the extant fallback position … The current proposal would result in substantially the same planning outcome as that which could already be achieved through the extant permission" (Conclusion).

What made the difference

The extant PIP fallback. Without it, the TR3 failure and the SWDPR03 conflict would have weighed heavily. Even so, the officer treated S5(1)(e) as satisfied although the location failed TR3, which shows that (e) does not import a location test.

Transferable points

• S5(1)(e) infill can be met in a hamlet with no services. Accessibility is weighed separately in the S5(1) "substantially outweighed" balance.
• Contrast W/26/01874/PIP (Broadway, same officer team, same day): no adjoining houses, so no "group", so refused.

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• An extant PIP for two self-build plots exists on the wider site; one plot has technical details consent (25/01087/TDC5) and is being built, and this is the second plot
• Naunton Beauchamp is not in the settlement hierarchy (no key services); Bishampton is 2.4 km and Upton Snodsbury 2.7 km away; Pershore 4.1 km
• Five-year supply with a 20% buffer

Related decisions

• wychavon-W-26-01874-PIP

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.