Appeal 6000848

The appeal is dismissed.

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 [name] (TDC) application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

A site layout plan, street façade and elevations for the three houses has been submitted as part of the proposal. I have treated these drawings as indicative only as they show only one way that the scheme could be developed.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development with particular regard to the effect on the character and appearance of the area, bearing in mind it would be within the settings of Moreton Conservation Area (MCA) and the grade II listed [name], [address] and [address]. 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone]

The appeal site is a small field located outside of the MCA, opposite an open amenity area containing a pond (‘the village green’) in the centre of Moreton.

The MCA has a distinctly rural and agricultural character, arising from its spacious layout, extensive greenery and farm buildings. The appeal site contributes to this character, providing a tangible link to the wider countryside beyond.

In so far as relevant to the proposal, the MCA’s significance and special interest lies partly in the physical presence of its historic buildings, many of which are listed, but also the verdant undeveloped spaces between them which contribute to its rural and agricultural setting.

With regards to its listed buildings, one such building is the late 17th century [name]. It is situated opposite the appeal site and is listed along with a historically associated outbuilding. The farmhouse itself is a two-storey brick building with a plain-tile roof, half-hipped to its ends. Both buildings are set back from the road that runs through the village. The outbuilding is located behind a 19th century Methodist chapel and the farmhouse is screened from views from the road by a mature hedgerow. The significance of these buildings largely derives from their age, architectural detailing, and traditional materials.

[address] and [address] are located to the east of [name] and are [name] listed. Both cottages are timber framed with thatched roofs and were built in the 17th century. Their significance largely derives from their age and vernacular construction.

Whilst details of the design are not before me at this stage, the appeal site is of a size which is capable of accommodating up to three dwellings in a spacious low density manner, corresponding with the low density of the village. However, even assuming a sympathetic well-designed scheme would be forthcoming at the TDC stage, the introduction of built form to the site and associated hard surfacing, lighting, and residential activity, would significantly alter the appearance of the appeal site from views from the public highway and the village green opposite. The resulting development, and the loss of an important physical and visual connection to agricultural land in the heart of the village, would harm the character and appearance of Moreton and the setting and significance of the MCA.

Whilst the appellant maintains that the development would be well screened due to the retention of the site’s tall hedgerow along the street frontage, it would still be visible above and through the hedgerow, particularly in winter months when the hedgerow was bare. As such and given the defining rural characteristics of the settlement I have described above it would look harmfully out of place.

With regards to the listed buildings, they are well set back from the road affording them a reasonable separation distance from the appeal site. Furthermore, they are largely screened by intervening buildings and established trees and vegetation in their curtilage. As such and the fair expectation that sympathetic well-designed development would be forthcoming at TDC stage, I consider that their setting would be preserved, and their significance would not be materially harmed. This is notwithstanding my separate findings above, with respect to the setting of the MCA.

For the above reasons, notwithstanding the Council’s concerns in this regard I conclude that the proposed development would preserve the settings and thereby the significance of close by listed buildings. However, to be clear it is my judgement that the proposed development, by virtue of its built form, associated hard surfacing, lighting, and residential activity would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the area and therefore the setting of the MCA.

Accordingly, I find conflict with Policies ENV1, ENV6, ENV7, ENV8, DES1 and DES2 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 - 2035 which requires development to conserve or enhance the significance of heritage assets and the landscape setting of settlements and to respect the local character and distinctiveness of Conservation Areas. I also find conflict with Policy CPQ1 of the Thame Neighbourhood Plan (TNP2) 2020 – 2041 which requires development to respond positively to the setting and character of the area. There would also be conflict with the provisions of the Framework which seeks to conserve and enhance the historic environment.

Given the proposal’s localised extent and having regard to paragraphs 214 and 215 of the Framework, I consider that the harm that would be caused to the significance of the MCA would be less than substantial and towards the lower end of any range. This harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. I will return to this in my balance below.

I note the appellant’s comments with regards to drainage and flood risk in the Appeal Statement. This would be a matter for a subsequent TDC to this PIP.

The proposal would deliver three dwellings in a location where the parties agree there is an existing shortage in housing land and the Council can only demonstrate a 4.5 year housing land supply2. Given the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes I attach moderate weight to this benefit.

In economic terms, the proposed development would provide construction jobs and some local investment during its build out, as well as longer term expenditure in the local economy. Although a matter for the TDC stage, landscaping would provide biodiversity enhancements. However, the weight I afford to all these public benefits combined is insufficient to outweigh the great weight I afford to the harm I have identified to the MCA.

With regards to the Council’s housing land supply position, paragraph 11(d) i) of the Framework indicates that the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be engaged unless the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Footnote 7 of the Framework lists designated heritage assets as one such asset of particular importance. [name] have found harm to the significance of the MCA which, provides a strong reason for refusing planning permission, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not therefore apply in this case.

Consequently, the proposal, having regard to its location, the proposed land use, 2 Section 6.6 of the [name] for application Ref P25/S2509/PIP (Appendix 4 of the Appellant’s Appeal Statement). and the amount of development, conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole and the material considerations outlined do not outweigh that conflict.

Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.