Appeal 6000890

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has two 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 two stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. 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.

Plans showing the proposed site layout, elevations, and floorplans have been submitted. These are presented as preliminary proposed plans and are therefore treated as illustrative only.

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, with particular regard to the effect of the proposed development on: i. the character and appearance of the area; ii. the Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL); and iii. the setting of the nearby ancient woodland and Finstock Conservation Area.

The appeal site consists of scrubland and some areas of concrete, adjacent to the B4022 and surrounded on all other sides by woodland. Beyond the woodland to the southwest a dwelling can be seen through the trees, and northeast of the site is the entrance to TreeDwellers holiday accommodation. Opposite the site beyond the B4022 is the edge of the village of Finstock, where residential properties are located along the eastern side of the B4022.

The built-up area of the village closest to the appeal site consists of dwellings of varying designs and age. The area has a rural village character, with low density development, spacious gardens, and views to the surrounding open countryside.

The B4022 separates the built-up area of the village to the countryside beyond. Land to the west of the B4022 includes a small number of dwellings and access tracks, sporadically located along the road and separated by dense vegetation and woodland. There is therefore a significant difference in the character of development on the opposing sides of the B4022, and the road clearly defines the edge of the village from the countryside.

Land to the west of the B4022, including the appeal site, forms the CNL, a protected landscape and designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The appeal site therefore forms the edge and gateway to the protected landscape beyond. The appearance of the CNL from the edge of Finstock village is predominately undeveloped woodland and dense vegetation, extending to areas of ancient woodland beyond. There are a small number of dwellings facing onto the B4022 and the connected [address], and the undeveloped areas between these properties are important to the character and appearance of the area in providing views to the woodland and the wider CNL.

The location of the proposed development would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the CNL. This would be contrary to Policy EH1 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 (the Plan) which, amongst other things, seeks to manage development which would affect the setting of the CNL, conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, landscape, and countryside within the CNL. This would also be contrary to Policy EH2 of the Plan which, amongst other things, seeks to protect and enhance the intrinsic character and distinctive features of the local landscape.

The identified effect on the character and appearance of the CNL would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which seeks to enhance the natural and local environment and requires great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes.

Policy OS2 sets out the Plan’s overall strategy for the location of development in the district, and Policy H2 of the Plan outlines where new homes will be permitted. In considering the proposed development against the requirements of these policies, there is disagreement between the parties regarding whether the site would constitute previously developed land. This is not determinative for this appeal.

Policy OS2 of the Plan supports limited development in villages which respects the village character and accords with Policy H2. Policy H2 only permits new dwellings within or adjoining villages where the proposals accord with other policies in the Plan. Therefore, the conflict identified with Policies EH1 and EH2 of the Plan relating to character and appearance results in conflict with Policies OS2 and H2 of the Plan. Irrespective of whether the site is considered as previously developed land, the proposed development would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area, which would conflict with Policies OS2 and H2 of the Plan.

While there are no detailed plans before me, an illustrative site plan has been submitted to show how the two dwellings and access could be accommodated on the site. As described above, the appeal site currently consists of scrubland predominantly surrounded by woodland and dense vegetation, with boundary vegetation which allows for views into and across the site. The site forms part of an undeveloped area on the edge of the village and between existing properties which is important to the character and appearance of the area. The proposed use, including the development of houses, separate garages, access and areas of hardstanding for parking and vehicle manoeuvring, would inevitably lead to a change in the character and appearance of the site.

The proposed amount of development would require the two dwellings to be positioned close to each other, and in relatively close proximity to the existing dwelling southwest of the site. This would create a development pattern inconsistent with the existing character and appearance of land to the west of the B4022.

The proposed land use and amount of development would have an urbanising effect which would extend the built-up area of the Finstock village further west and into the CNL. This would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area, and would therefore be contrary to Policies EH1 and EH2 of the Plan and the Framework, the requirements of which are set out above.

The Council’s reason for refusal refers to the setting of the nearby ancient woodland. The site is located some distance from the ancient woodland, separated by existing dense woodland. Given the distance of the ancient woodland from the site, and the likely effects of the proposed development, there would be no harm to the setting of the ancient woodland. The identified effects on the character and appearance of the area as a result of the proposed development would not therefore include the setting of the nearby ancient woodland.

The proposed development is located adjacent to the Finstock Conservation Area. The area of the village opposite the appeal site includes a mixture of vernacular stone buildings and modern properties. Most buildings facing the B4022 on the edge of the village, and most buildings a short distance from the site near the [address] / B4022 junction, are modern with no heritage value. As the appeal site is separated from the Conservation Area by the B4022, opposite an area of the village with few identifiable heritage assets, there would be limited harm to the setting of the Conservation Area as a result of the proposed development.

The identified effects of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area would not therefore include the setting of the Finstock Conservation Area. Consequently, the proposed development would not conflict with Policies EH9 and EH10 of the Plan which, amongst other things, seek to preserve and enhance the character, appearance, and setting of the historic environment including the Finstock Conservation Area.

I have been directed to previous decisions in the surrounding area for similar types of proposed development. There are differences in the specific circumstances of the examples provided which do not allow for direct comparisons to be made with the appeal site. Each scheme must be considered and determined on its own individual merits.

A decision on whether to grant permission must be made in accordance with the relevant policies in the development plan, unless there are material considerations, such as those in the Framework, which indicate otherwise.

The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites and therefore paragraph 11d) of the Framework is engaged. This means that planning permission should be granted 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 National Landscapes as an area or asset of importance.

I have found harm in relation to the effect of the proposed development on the CNL, which in accordance with Footnote 7 of the Framework, provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed. Consequently, 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.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the site is not suitable for the proposed development having regard to its location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development. The proposal would be contrary to Policies OS2, H2, EH1, and EH2 of the Plan, resulting in conflict with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, which would indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.