Appeal 6000849

The appeal is dismissed.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that The Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 (as amended) is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development, which separates the consideration of matters of principle from the technical detail. This consent route has 2 stages: the first ‘permission in principle’ (PiP) stage establishes whether a site is suitable in principle, and the second ‘technical details consent’ (TDC) stage, assesses the detailed development proposals. This appeal relates to an application under the first (PiP) stage.

An applicant can apply for PiP for residential development by expressing a minimum and maximum number of dwellings. In this case, PiP has been sought for the erection of one dwelling. The scope of the considerations is limited to location, land use and the amount of development. All other matters would be considered as part of a subsequent TDC application if PiP 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 amount of development.

The site is a triangular parcel of grassland which is in agricultural use. The site is devoid of built form and forms part of a gently undulating field which is bound by mature hedging. A Public Right of Way (PROW) passes through the field from which there are clear views of the site. The site borders the Churchill Conservation Area (CA) to the north and east and is located in the Cotswold National Landscape (NL).

As the site lies within the NL, I am required to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing its natural beauty1. The site’s sloping, pastoral landform combines with the wider and adjoining fields to form part of a highly visible, attractive, undulating landscape which contribute positively to the landscape qualities of the area and the scenic beauty of the NL.

The site adjoins the CA and is thus within its setting. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) establishes the need to consider the impact of development within the setting of designated heritage assets including conservation areas. The CA covers the historic core of the village. It is characterised by its rural setting, which gives the village a verdant, rural character and appearance that reflects the historic settlement pattern and which, in addition to the quality of its architectural fabric, appears to form part of the CA’s significance. The site’s green and open character, in combination with the hedgerow to the northern boundary, give the entrance to the village a verdant character reflective of its rural setting, contributing positively to the rural character of the village and the setting of the CA.

Whilst the size and scale of the proposal are not yet known, the introduction of a dwelling would result in an urbanisation of the site and a noticeable reduction in the size of a field which currently makes an important contribution to the verdant, rural character of the area. The development would form an awkward, disjointed relationship with the built form to the east and would extend development further into the NL. The dwelling, along with associated hardstanding and formalising of garden areas, would appear as a prominent urban incursion resulting in a change in the site’s appearance which would be appreciable from the surrounding area, including from the PROW, where the development would erode the open and verdant character of the landscape, the special qualities of the NL and the site’s contribution to the established character and appearance of the area and the rural setting of the CA. This would fail to conserve the natural beauty of the NL and would result in harm the significance of the CA.

As a proposal for housing which would be located near to other residential properties, there is little reason in principle to anticipate a conflict in land use. The site is big enough to accommodate one dwelling of a size commensurate with those nearby. Therefore, I find the proposed use and amount acceptable.

[name] have identified that there would be no conflict in relation to the land use and amount of development proposed, the site would not be a suitable location for residential development having regard to the effect on the natural beauty of the NL, the character and appearance of the area and the setting of the CA. The proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the CA but nevertheless is of considerable importance and weight. Under such circumstances, the Framework and policy EH9 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan (2018) (LP) advise that harm to designated heritage assets should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 1 Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

The Government’s objective is to significantly boost the supply of housing, and the proposal would provide one additional dwelling on a small windfall site which, it is stated, could be built out quickly. There would be economic benefits to local services and facilities during the construction and occupancy phases, and the development would bring social and economic benefits to the appellant and his family. Factoring in the acknowledged shortfall in housing supply, these matters attract weight in favour of the proposal. Nevertheless, heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource, and I do not consider that collectively the public benefits are sufficient to outweigh the great weight that I must attach to the harm that would be caused to the CA.

In light of the above the proposal would not be a suitable location for residential development and would conflict with those aims of LP policies OS2, H2, EH1, EH2, EH9 and EH10 which require that great weight be given to conserving and enhancing the NL’s natural beauty, that new development conserve and, where possible, enhance the intrinsic character, quality and distinctive natural and man-made features of the local landscape, that proposals conserve and/or enhance the special character, appearance and distinctiveness of the historic environment, including the significance of heritage assets, and which identify villages as being suitable for limited development subject to the development respecting the village character and local distinctiveness and compliance with other policies in the plan.

The proposal is also contrary to the aims of the Framework in respect of promoting development that conserves and enhances the historic environment and the landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes.

It is stated that the proposal comprises a self-build dwelling, for which the main parties agree there is an unmet need. The Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 sets out that the primary purpose of the build must be for personal occupancy and that ownership must initially be retained by the self-builder. So as not to undermine the aims of the legislation, this is a matter that reasonably needs to be controlled. To be considered a self-build dwelling there must be an effective mechanism through which the dwelling could be secured as a self-build property. Such matters would normally be contained within a legal agreement to limit ownership/first occupancy or bind the requirement to successors in title should the land/property be sold in the future.

No planning obligation is before me, and the description of development alone would not be sufficient to ensure that the dwelling is constructed as a self-build dwelling. Consequently, I afford limited weight to the benefits of the provision of self-build housing. Whilst noting that moderate weight was given to the provision of self/custom build housing by the Inspector in a decision to which my attention has been drawn2, the full details of that proposal, including whether it was supported by a legal agreement controlling the provision of self-build housing, are not before me to give substantial credence to. This decision does not therefore lead me away from my above conclusion on the weight to be afforded to the benefits of the provision of self-build housing.

In support of the proposal the appellant comments that the development would not result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties 2 APP/D3125/W/24/3352523 and would be constructed using materials characteristic of the local area. These details are not before me and compliance with the relevant development plan policies on these matters would be required in any case. Therefore, these matters do not weigh in favour of the proposal.

The Council confirms that it is currently unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. In such an event, Paragraph 11d of the Framework indicates that 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 taken as a whole unless the application of policies in the 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 and National Landscapes as such assets of importance

I have found harm in relation to the effect of the development on the NL and the setting of the CA, which, in accordance with Footnote 7 of the Framework, provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed. Thus, the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development outlined at Paragraph 11, and, as a material consideration, the Framework would not indicate that permission should be granted.

There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.