A Wychavon Green Belt appeal has failed despite a proposed replacement house clearing the previously developed land test. The scheme at Pinfield House in Martin Hussingtree qualified under that route even though it was materially larger than the home it would replace. The appeal still failed because of a separate countryside size policy and missing evidence about bats and great crested newts.
The Green Belt appeal, decided on 17th September 2026, is a useful reminder that more than one policy route may apply to a proposal. Succeeding under one Green Belt category can resolve the inappropriateness issue, but the rest of the planning assessment still matters.
Two routes in the Wychavon Green Belt appeal
Mr and Mrs Kernaghan sought permission to demolish their existing house at Pinfield House, Brown Heath Lane, and build a replacement dwelling with associated external works. Wychavon District Council refused application W/25/00931/FUL.
Inspector MG Garrard considered the appeal under the August 2026 NPPF, alongside the newly adopted South Worcestershire Development Plan Review.
Policy GB7(1)(b) provides a route for a replacement building in the Green Belt, subject to its requirements. A replacement must be for the same use and must not be materially larger than the building it replaces.
This proposal failed that test. The Inspector recorded an existing gross internal floor area of 143.2 sq m, against 345 sq m proposed. The house would also be wider, higher and slightly deeper, with a substantially enlarged footprint.
A certificate of lawfulness for a proposed ancillary building did not change that baseline. The building had not been constructed. Although it could count as a realistic fallback in the planning balance, it was not existing development for this replacement-building test.
Why the brownfield route succeeded
The Inspector then considered the separate previously developed land route in GB7(1)(e).
The site had been lawfully developed, with permanent buildings and their residential grounds. Redeveloping that land could therefore fall within GB7(1)(e), provided it would not cause substantial harm to Green Belt openness.
The Inspector did find an effect on openness. The larger house would increase built mass and bulk. However, the assessment also took account of the existing developed setting, mature planting, the revised position further from the road, local topography and the removal of most outbuildings.
The proposal would consolidate built development around one house. It would remain a single dwelling, with no convincing evidence of a material increase in vehicles or domestic activity.
Taken together, the harm to openness fell well short of substantial harm. The proposal was therefore not inappropriate development under GB7(1)(e).
For practitioners, that is the useful Green Belt point. Failure under the replacement-building category did not prevent the Inspector considering another applicable category on its own wording. These were alternative policy routes, rather than a single sequence in which failure at the first stage ended the assessment.
Countryside size restrictions still applied
There was a separate obstacle.
Policy SWDPR 23 governs replacement dwellings in the countryside. Its relevant criterion requires the new home not to be disproportionately larger and not to exceed the existing gross internal floorspace by more than 30%.
The scheme exceeded that limit by a considerable margin. The Inspector accepted its high-quality contemporary design, but still found conflict with SWDPR 23 and the countryside spatial strategy in SWDPR 03.
That distinction matters. A favourable Green Belt finding did not remove the need to assess the replacement house against the rest of the development plan.
Bat evidence covered the house, but not the garage
The ecology position was also more specific than a general objection to demolishing a building used by bats.
Surveys had confirmed a bat day roost in the existing dwelling. The Inspector accepted that its effects could be addressed through mitigation and a Natural England licence, and that aspect did not weigh against the proposal.
The problem concerned a brick-built garage.
The preliminary ecological assessment had assumed the outbuildings would stay. The scheme subsequently changed to include further demolition, but the necessary bat survey evidence for the brick garage was not provided. The assessment had identified moderate suitability for roosting bats and recommended further work if demolition was proposed.
An argument that lost roof tiles had made the garage unsuitable for bats was not supported by substantive evidence about when the tiles were lost or what that meant for roosting.
The Inspector could not conclude that demolition would avoid harm to protected bats, or that any required licence would be obtainable.
Dry ponds did not settle the newt question
The preliminary assessment identified one nearby pond with good suitability for great crested newts, another that was dry during the survey, and ten further ponds within 500 metres.
No great crested newt surveys were submitted. Nor did the evidence establish whether the works would remove more than 100 sq m of suitable terrestrial habitat, a trigger identified in the appellants’ own ecological assessment for further survey work.
The nearest ponds were dry when the Inspector visited during exceptionally dry weather. That did not establish that they could never support newts, including seasonally.
The outstanding protected-species questions needed to be resolved before permission. The Inspector identified no exceptional circumstances justifying leaving the surveys to a planning condition.
Self-build resolved BNG, under the saved rules
The appellants did overcome the statutory biodiversity net gain issue.
An executed unilateral undertaking dated 25th August 2026 secured the dwelling as self-build development, including evidence of compliance following completion and occupation. The Inspector accepted that this provided sufficient certainty for the exemption relied upon.
The application date is crucial when reading this part of the decision. Wychavon’s register records receipt on 29th April 2025, well before the 6th August 2026 changes.
The specific self-build and custom-build BNG exemption was removed for new applications from that date. However, regulation 4(2) of the 2026 amending Regulations preserves the old exemption where the application was made before 6th August 2026.
Regulation 4(3) also provides a separate saving for certain later section 73 permissions where the original permission benefited from the former exemption.
That transitional rule explains why the exemption remained relevant here. It would be wrong to use this appeal as evidence that self-build status alone still exempts a new application made today.
The BNG exemption also did not remove the need to address harm to protected species.
The lesson for a replacement-house proposal
The Inspector gave weight to the realistic ancillary-building fallback, the proposed energy-efficient design and other benefits. Those matters did not outweigh the remaining countryside-policy conflict and unresolved protected-species concerns. Appeal 6008404 was dismissed.
Our reading is that applicants should establish each of the following early:
- Which Green Belt policy categories actually fit the proposal
- How the replacement compares with any separate development-plan size restriction
- Whether ecological evidence covers every building and habitat affected by the final scheme
- Which BNG rules apply to the date the application was made
The decision applies the existing policy framework to this site. It does not establish a general entitlement to replace a smaller Green Belt house with a much larger one.
Read the full Pinfield House appeal decision and the council application record.
0 Comments