Appeal Decision

Appeal Decision Inquiry Held on 17 to 20 and 24 April 2018 Site visit made on 17 and 23 April 2018 by J Dowling BA(Hons) MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 06 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/D3125/W/17/3182864 Land South East of Lancott Lane, Brighthampton, Oxfordshire The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Spitfire Bespoke Homes Limited against the decision of West Oxfordshire District Council. The application Ref 17/00965/FUL, dated 22 March 2017, was refused by notice dated 12 July 2017. The development proposed is full planning permission for residential development comprising 46 dwellings, together with access, landscaping and associated infrastructure. Decision 1. This appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. On the application form the site address is given as Land South of Abingdon Road, Standlake. However, when the application was registered, the Council referred to the site as ‘land south east of Lancott Lane, Brighthampton’. Given the length of the Abingdon Road I consider that this address more accurately identifies the location of the site and therefore I have used this in my banner heading. 3. Prior to the start of the Inquiry the Council confirmed that in the second reason for refusal they had erroneously referred to policy BE5 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011(the LP). This policy deals with development in conservation areas and as the site is not within a conservation area I agree it is not relevant and have therefore not considered it when reaching my decision. 4. Since the application was determined there have been further modifications to the emerging West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031. As a consequence a number of policies referred to in the Council’s reasons for refusal have been modified or changed. In particular policy EH7 under the further modifications had been revised so that in addition to policy EH7 parts of it now appear in policies EH9, EH11 and EH14 as well as EH7. 5. The Inquiry sat for five days. I undertook an unaccompanied site visit on the morning of 17 April 2018 to enable me to familiarise myself with the site and observe the traffic flows along the Abingdon Road during the morning peak. In addition on 23 April 2018 I visited the site and the immediate area on an accompanied basis before visiting a number of pre-agreed locations in the wider area on an unaccompanied basis. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/D3125/W/17/3182864 6. A Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) was submitted before the start of the Inquiry which set out the policy context along with matters of agreement and those in dispute. This included confirmation that the Council could not demonstrate that they had five years worth of housing land supply. 7. The SoCG also set out that although policy BE12 of the LP is relevant to the extent that there is a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) located to the south east of the site the Council do not allege any material harm to the SAM. 8. Two completed Section 106 (S106) agreements were submitted at the close of the Inquiry. The S106 agreements would deliver financial contributions towards improvements to the bus stops and bus service; alterations and improvements to the highway; provision on-site of 18 units of affordable housing and financial contributions towards enhancement and maintenance of recreational facilities for sport, play and public art. 9. At the Inquiry the Council confirmed that the S106s would resolve the fourth reason for refusal. Furthermore, the Council submitted written evidence that they considered that the S106s would be compliant with regulations 122 and 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations (2010)(as amended). 10. In light of all I have read, heard and seen I have no reason to disagree with the Council and the appellant with regards to policy BE12 and contributions and as a result I have revised the main issues to reflect this. 11. The site would deliver a new area of public open space which the appellant refers to as a village green. However, it was confirmed at the Inquiry that this was a descriptive label and whilst the area would deliver a new area of public open space it was not a village green for the purposes of the Commons Act 2006. 12. Finally, during the accompanied site visit it became clear that a property that had been referred to as Yew Tree Farm throughout the Inquiry was in fact called Hamilton House. Whilst the property was historically known as Yew Tree Farm when the site to the rear was developed the name was transferred to this development and the original property renamed. However, in order to provide consistency and clarity for the purposes of this decision letter I will continue to refer to the property by its original name Yew Tree Farm. Main Issues 13. Based on the original reasons for refusal and the evidence submitted and heard in relation to the appeal I consider that the main issues are: the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to the effect on the countryside; the effect of the proposal on the setting of a number of listed buildings; and the effect of the proposals on the living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed units with particular reference to overlooking and the future retention of trees. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/D3125/W/17/3182864 Reasons Policy Background 14. The development plan for the area consists of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011(the LP). The plan expired in 2011 however the majority of the policies were saved in 2009 and it is these saved policies that provide the basis for decisions until they are replaced by the emerging West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031 (the ELP). 15. The policies most relevant to the determination of this appeal are BE2, BE4, BE8, BE12, NE1, NE3, H2 and H3. 16. It was accepted at the Inquiry that the LP was ‘time expired’. However, this does not mean that it ceases to be the development plan for the purposes of considering this appeal. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework)1 advocates that the closer the policies in a plan are to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that they may be given. 17. Policy BE2 states that new development should respect and where possible improve the character and quality of its surroundings. It provides a number of criteria that proposals need to meet including, amongst other things, that it is well designed and respects the existing scale, pattern and character of the surrounding area (a); that existing features of importance are protected and/or enhanced (d) and the landscape surrounding and providing a setting for existing villages is not adversely affected (e). As such I consider that BE2 accords with the approach set out in section 7 of the Framework regarding good design and consequently it can be given full weight. 18. Proposals for development within or adjoining the built-up area should not result in the loss or erosion of an open area which makes an important contribution to the distinctiveness of a settlement and/or the visual amenity or character of the locality (policy BE4). The appellant advocated that as the policy does not distinguish between areas of particular merit it could apply to any area of open space that adjoins a built up area. As a result they consider that the policy effectively results in a blanket type protection contrary to the guidance provided by the Framework. However, I consider that criterion ‘a’ provides a number of criteria by which to assess open space. As a result in my opinion the policy does not conflict with the Framework and can therefore be afforded full weight. 19. Policy BE8 seeks to protect the setting of listed buildings. It was agreed at the Inquiry that whilst this policy was generally consistent with the underlying aims of the Framework, to conserve and enhance the historic environment, as it does not reflect the need to weigh any harm against the public benefits2 the weight that can be attached to it is limited. 20. Policy NE1 aims to safeguard the countryside. It advocates that proposals should maintain or enhance the countryside for its own sake. Whilst the Framework3 recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside it also seeks to support thriving rural communities including through the 1 Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) 2 Paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) 3 Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/D3125/W/17/3182864 provision of housing. As a consequence I consider that this policy can only be afforded moderate weight. 21. Policy NE3 states that development will not be permitted if it would harm the local landscape character of the district. Furthermore it advocates that proposals should respect and, where possible, enhance the intrinsic character, quality and distinctive features of the individual landscape types. Whilst the policy is not criteria based I consider that the overall aims of the policy are generally consistent with the Framework and as such I consider that it can be given significant weight. 22. Policy H2 advocates that proposals for additional dwellings should not, amongst other things, erode the character and appearance of the local area, including important buildings and public and private open space (a); adversely affect features of historical importance and their setting (b); create unacceptable living conditions for existing and new residents (d); create unsafe conditions for the movement of people and vehicles (e); and set an undesirable precedent (f).

Load more