1 Dijksman Planning 35 Berkeley Road, Newbury, RG14 5JE Appeal Statement Demolition of redundant agricultural buildings. Erection of 197 dwellings (79 affordable and 118 open market) with associated access roads, landscaping and public open space. At Land south of Summertown, East Hanney Wantage, OX12 0JQ Appeal by Linden Homes Dijksman Planning (UK) LLP is a limited liability partnership number OC337894 registered in England and Wales at 35 Berkeley Road, Newbury RG14 5JE 2 Background – Officer Support 1. The application which is the subject of this appeal was submitted following extensive pre-application discussions and consultations with stakeholders. It was subsequently amended to reflect comments received during the application process and it received an Officer’s Recommendation for approval. Draft Local Plan Allocated Site 2. The pre-application discussions related to this site were particularly extensive because this is one of the District Councils identified strategic allocations within the emerging local plan (Strategy for Abingdon on Thames and Oxford Fringe Sub-Area Site 6). The Examination in Public is continuing in early February and the Council maintains it’s in principle support for the allocation of this site, notwithstanding the refusal of the detailed application. Statement of Common Ground 3. Appendix 1 to this statement is the recently agreed Statement of Common Ground which sets out the District Council’s ongoing support for the allocation and recognition of the intrinsic sustainability of this proposal. This Statement of Common Ground has been agreed since the refusal of the application by the Planning Committee, which was based upon concerns relating to landscape impact, density and the requirement for financial contributions. Local Plan Site Development Template 4. The inclusion of this site within the draft Local Plan can only be accorded limited weight, because it is yet to be adopted, however the identification of the site and the careful and positive consideration given to it by the authority cannot be ignored. At the very least the allocation of the site for around 200 homes represents a very significant level of pre-application advice and support. (The Inspector is requested to consider the Local Plan Site Development Template to be found on page 18 of appendix A to the Submission Draft) Supporting Application Documents 5. In the interests of brevity this statement does not seek to repeat the points made in the supporting documents submitted with the planning application and the Inspector is requested to give due consideration to the applications submissions, including the Design and Access Statement and its Addendum and the submitted Planning Statement. Dijksman Planning (UK) LLP is a limited liability partnership number OC337894 registered in England and Wales at 35 Berkeley Road, Newbury RG14 5JE 3 Committee Report 6. The Committee Report which supported the application represents a full and comprehensive description of the proposal, setting out the responses from stakeholders. It provides a carefully considered assessment of the planning merits of the scheme in the current planning policy context. The Inspector is therefore requested to give due consideration to the extensive analysis and comments made in support of the scheme within the Committee Report, a copy of which is provided in Appendix 2 to this Statement. It is important to note that the reasons for refusal only relate to particular aspects of the scheme, the remaining aspects, as considered in the Report in some detail, have not been objected to by the Council. Main Issue 7. As confirmed within the Committee Report and as set out in the application Planning Statement, the Vale of White Horse District Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites. The Council is under continual pressure in this regard, due to both its lack of a five year land supply and the absence of an up-to-date Local Plan. East Hanney Appeal – Land Off Steventon Road 8. In Appendix 3 is an Appeal Decision, which granted outline permission for up to 35 dwellings on the edge of this same village of East Hanney in January 2015 (Appeal reference 14/2223292). The Inspector in that case succinctly set out the main issue in that appeal, which is equally applicable to this appeal, as follows: i. The Council accepts that it cannot demonstrate a five- year supply of deliverable housing sites. This means, having regard to paragraph 49 of the Framework that The Vale of White Horse Local Plan 201 Policies GS1 and GS2, which dictate where the provision of new housing will be considered acceptable, are not up-to-date. ii. This directs the decision-maker to paragraph 14 of the Framework. The appeal site is not in a location where specific policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted. iii. As such, where the development plan is out-of-date, paragraph 14 says that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework, considered as a whole. iv. The main issue to be considered, therefore, is whether any adverse impacts of the proposal significantly and Dijksman Planning (UK) LLP is a limited liability partnership number OC337894 registered in England and Wales at 35 Berkeley Road, Newbury RG14 5JE 4 demonstrably outweigh any benefits it would bring forward. 9. This sets out very clearly the principle that this appeal should be upheld unless this particular proposal would result in adverse impacts which significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits. Demonstrable Benefits 10. Before considering the reasons for refusal it is helpful to set out the demonstrable planning benefits which will arise from this proposal. The provision of housing in the district, (which is not providing an adequate supply of housing land in the context of objectively assessed housing need) must clearly be given significant weight as a benefit. Paragraph 47 of the NPPF sets out the need significantly boost the supply of housing which has both social and economic benefits. Constructive Local Engagement 11. As indicated above this scheme represents the culmination of intensive and constructive pre-application and post submission discussions and engagement with Council Officers, the Council’s consultant Urban Designer, the Parish Council, the County Archaeologist, the County Highway Authority, Environment Agency and local stakeholders including the Letcombe Brook Project Officer. As a consequence, the benefits of this scheme go beyond the delivery of a significant number of market and affordable homes. Environmental Benefits 12. The application also delivers demonstrable environmental benefits with desirable social consequences, through the provision of a very significant area (approximately 2.4 hectares) of new publicly available and ecologically beneficial open space. The comments of the Countryside Officer, dated 23rd of October 2015, make the position quite clear. Namely that this proposal incorporates a Habitat Restoration Plan and Ecological Management Plan which, in combination will deliver a Community Nature Reserve and area of public open space along the Letcombe Brook, which forms the Western boundary of the appeal site. The land involved is currently privately owned farmland, much of which is intensively farmed. The dedication of this land in perpetuity to a combination of public and ecological uses is a significant positive material benefit of this application to be weighed in the planning balance. Reasons for Refusal 13. Notwithstanding the officers support for the application it was refused for two main reasons (plus the absence of a 106 agreement to secure infrastructure contributions). It is noteworthy that neither Dijksman Planning (UK) LLP is a limited liability partnership number OC337894 registered in England and Wales at 35 Berkeley Road, Newbury RG14 5JE 5 reason for refusal argues that the scheme will have a significant impact or would result in ‘significant harm’: i) Policy NE9 of the adopted Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011 is consistent with paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The site is located within the Lowland Vale landscape which is distinctive and valued for its own quality. The site is an area of open land beyond the southern extent of the village, extending into open countryside. It is highly visible from public viewpoints and the northern section contributes to the settling of listed Mill buildings and the conservation area. It is the Council's opinion that the proposal, adversely impacts on the quality of this part of the Lowland Vale in respect of cultural heritage, townscape and setting of listed buildings and causes harm to the wider landscape, the settlement pattern and its landscape setting, and in particular a visual impact on the southern approach to East Hanney. The proposal is therefore, contrary to policies NE9, HE1 and HE4 of the adopted Local Plan and to the National Planning Policy Framework. ii) Policy DC1 of the adopted Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011 and the adopted Design Guide (March 2015) require high quality design and this accords with criterion 4 of paragraph 17 and paragraphs 56, 57, 58, 61 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework the Council gives great importance to the design of the built environment. It is the council's opinion that the density of the proposed development creates a cramped form of development that is not appropriate to this location, comprising a high density and urban character that is at odds with the low density and rural character of the existing edge of the village which in turn detracts from the open, rural aspect of the village. As such the proposal is contrary to policies DC1 and DC6 of the adopted Local Plan, the adopted Vale of White Horse Design Guide (March 2015) and to the National Planning Policy Framework.