Appeal 6000712

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for residential development comprising a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2 custom/self-build dwellings at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref P25/V0188/PIP.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second (‘technical details consent’) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted1. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development.

The appeal site comprises a parcel of undeveloped land situated towards the southern end of Uffington village. This part of the village is characterised by open spaces and a loose, linear pattern of development along [address] and 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone] [address]. The site consists of a paddock that is accessed off [address]. The appeal proposal would see the erection of two self-build dwellings on the site.

Policy CP3 of the Vale of White Horse District Council Local Plan 2031 Part 1 [name] and Policies (adopted 2016) (Local Plan), states that Uffington is classified as a Larger Village within its settlement hierarchy. Policy CP4 established a presumption in favour of sustainable development within the existing built area of [name].

To the north of the appeal site lie open paddocks and fields, beyond which the built form of the village core is located. However, the site itself is contained by a linear row of existing dwellings to the east and a detached dwelling to the west. It also sits opposite a substantial detached property on the other side of the road. As a result, the site has a strong visual and functional relationship with the established neighbouring built-up area. In my judgment, it therefore forms part of the village’s built-up area.

A modest housing development, as proposed, would complement the existing residential development immediately to the east and west, and would respond appropriately to the linear pattern of development in this part of the village. It would not encroach upon the paddocks and open spaces to the north, and the open character of the village centre would therefore be preserved.

I note that the Uffington and Baulking Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2031 (made

states that the site falls within the low landscape-capacity category. However, this category acknowledges that very small-scale development may be acceptable, providing it respects the setting and form of the existing settlement and the surrounding landscape.

The proposed scale of housing is proportionate and appropriate for the village, which is one of the more sustainable settlements in the district. A development of between one and two dwellings would be small-scale and could be accommodated on the site at an appropriate density. Details of layout and design would be finalised at technical details stage, ensuring further control over its integration. I therefore find that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above, the proposed development would be in a suitable location for housing, having regard to its location, land use and amount. As such, it would accord with Policies CP4, CP37 and CP44 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Parts 1 and 2 (adopted 2016, 2019). It would also accord with Policies L1 and H2A of the Uffington and Baulking Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2031 (made 2019). Collectively, these policies amongst other things, seek to ensure development responds positively to the site and its surroundings, physically and visually integrating with it and preserving local distinctiveness and character. It also seeks to ensure that the scale and density of development is appropriate and proportionate to the location.

The appeal site is located within the Uffington Conservation Area (CA). Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) requires decision makers to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area, to which I have attached considerable importance and weight.

According to the submitted Heritage Appraisal (dated January 2025), the CA is characterised by a mix of 17th and 18th century vernacular cottages, Georgian farmhouses, and modern infill development. It integrates open paddocks and green spaces, creating a layered village character where housing and landscape interweave harmoniously. I consider that the significance and special interest of the CA is partly drawn from its surviving historic buildings, including their modest rural form and fabric, green spaces in the heart of the village, connections between landmark buildings, and the tranquil rural character of the area. It is also the way the buildings of varying ages and styles reflect the evolution of the village.

There is concern that the proposal would diminish the sense of openness at this point within the CA. However, the site lies at the periphery of the CA and makes only a modest contribution to its significance. A sensitively designed scheme for up to two dwellings, with careful consideration of layout, scale and landscaping, would ensure that the development neither encroaches harmfully upon, nor substantially interrupts, the open vistas across this section of the CA. As such, the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CA as a whole.

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) requires the decision maker, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest.

The Church of [name] is a [name] listed2 building dating from the 13th century. It features a cruciform plan with a distinctive octagonal tower and Gothic-style elements. The special interest and significance of this listed building is largely derived from its historic and architectural interests.

The setting in which the church is experienced includes views from [address] and the public right of way footpath to the west of the appeal site. However, the appeal site is a considerable distance from the listed building and there are intervening buildings and vegetation which partially obscure the distant views of the church from the road and footpath. Only fleeting glimpses of the church are experienced from the road, and mature planting conceals views along a section of the public footpath. Furthermore, the appellant suggests that the scheme could incorporate a sensitive design with deliberately framed views and landscaping at the technical details stage, to which I agree. A carefully designed scheme would still ensure views towards the church.

Consequently, the proposal would have a neutral effect on the setting of the listed building. It would preserve the way the setting of the church is experienced and therefore would preserve the significance of the listed building. For the reasons given above, the significance of the CA would also be preserved.

As such, the proposal would accord with Policies CP39, DP36, DP37 and DP38 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Parts 1 and 2 (adopted 2016, 2019). It would also accord with Policy H4 of the Uffington and Baulking Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2031 (made 2019). Collectively, these policies amongst other things, 2 List entry Number: 1198865. seek the preservation of heritage assets. For the same reasons there would be no conflict with the heritage protection aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework).

Interested parties have raised concerns about flooding in the village. However, the site is located within flood zone 1 and the Council has confirmed that there are no known critical drainage issues affecting the site. Moreover, details of on-site drainage would be subject to the technical details stage. There are also concerns including loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers and biodiversity issues. Nevertheless, these issues would be addressed at technical details stage.

There are highway objections. However, the site is located within a village identified as a larger village, meaning it has a reasonable level of services and facilities. Details relating to access arrangements, vision splays and vehicle swept paths would be addressed at technical details consent stage.

The appeal site is within the vicinity of several listed buildings, including [address], [address], and Tamarisk and [address]. However, due to the distance from the appeal site and the intervening buildings and vegetation, the proposal would preserve their settings.

The appeal is accompanied by a draft Section 106 [name] (UU) which in general terms seeks to limit the construction of the dwellings, if permitted, to self and custom build dwellings as defined in the UU.

The proposal would contribute towards the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of housing contributing two dwellings to the Council’s housing land supply. Even though the Council can demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, this does not preclude the provision of further housing, and I give this significant weight given the site is located within an accessible location. There would be economic benefits from the construction of jobs created during the construction phase and the ongoing expenditure in the local area from the future occupants.

The proposal would deliver two self-build dwellings in accordance with the Framework. Paragraph 73(b) of the Framework supports the delivery for self-build and custom-build housing. The Framework also supports the delivery of a variety of land coming forward to meet the needs of groups with specific housing requirements. The benefits of self-build and custom housing are recognised by the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) finding that it helps to diversify the housing market and increase customer choice.

The Council acknowledges that it is not currently meeting the demand for self-build housing in the district. The appeal site is in a sustainable and appropriate location for self-build housing to meet the identified demand. The appeal scheme is well-related to the existing built form and within walking distance of the village centre and school. These matters weigh considerably in favour of the proposal.

The proposal complies with the development plan, read as a whole. No material considerations have been shown to have sufficient weight as to warrant a decision otherwise than in accordance with it.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal is allowed.