Appeal 6000925

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. 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 (permission in principle) establishes whether a site is suitable in principle. The second stage (technical details consent) is when detailed proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first stage.

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.

An indicative site layout plan was submitted as part of the application. I have treated this as being for illustrative purposes only.

There is no dispute between the main parties regarding the principle of the proposed land use, the amount of development, or the loss of the existing buildings on the site. The Council’s officer report confirms that it considers the use would be compatible with the surroundings and that the site could physically accommodate up to four dwellings.

There is a previous appeal decision1 for the same form of development at the same site. However, since that decision, a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been published, and planning permission has been granted2 for part of the appeal site for the change of use of the land from mixed use to B2 (General Industrial) for car servicing and repairs. I have had regard to the appeal decision and planning permission in my consideration of the appeal before me. 1 Planning Inspectorate Ref.: APP/D3125/W/22/3313201. Dated 18 October 2023. 2 West Oxfordshire District Council Ref.: 24/02605/FUL. Dated 5 March 2025.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location having regard to access to services and facilities.

The appeal site comprises a former farmyard which includes an area of hardstanding and an accretion of single storey former agricultural buildings and adjoining land. It is currently used for storage, office, and workshop purposes in connection with the car servicing and repair business which operates from the site. The site fronts [address] in part and is bounded by neighbouring residential properties and adjoining agricultural land.

To the south of the appeal site, [address] is an unlit, single track country lane, enclosed by high hedges and vegetation in an agricultural landscape. To the north, the character of the area remains rural, although fields give way more to residential development as [address] meets [address] around 300m distant. Here the Lane remains unlit and without a footway, although is slightly more open with informal grass verges in parts.

Policy OS1 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031, (the Local Plan) 2018, sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and that planning applications that accord with relevant policies in the Local Plan will be approved, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Policy H1 of the Local Plan sets out the housing supply targets to meet identified housing needs of the area for the plan period up to 2031, to be delivered in accordance with the strategy set out in Policy OS2 of the Local Plan.

Policy OS2 sets out the policy on location of new development. A significant proportion of new homes is directed to the main service centres. Villages are identified as being suitable for limited development which respects their character and local distinctiveness and would help to maintain the vitality of these communities. Development in small villages, hamlets, and open countryside, however, is limited to that which requires and is appropriate for a rural location and which respects the intrinsic character of the area. Proposals for residential development are to be considered under Policy H2 of the Local Plan. Importantly, Policy OS2 also requires all development to be provided with safe and convenient pedestrian access to supporting services and facilities.

The supporting text for Policy H1 indicates that windfall developments on sites that are not allocated for housing can include previously developed (brownfield) land where the current use may no longer be viable. It also sets out that it is important that windfall development supports the delivery of the Local Plan strategy, specifically that it should contribute to meeting housing needs in sustainable locations, recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and, where appropriate, encourage the re-use of previously developed land.

Policy H2 of the Local Plan sets out that in small villages, hamlets and open countryside new dwellings will only be permitted where they comply with the general principles set out in Policy OS2 and in specific circumstances. The proposal does not fall within the exceptions listed in Policy H2.

The appeal site lies on the edge of the hamlet of [name], which comprises residential properties and farmsteads, interspersed within open countryside. It contains very limited services and facilities, with only a bus stop giving access to public transport. The village of Finstock is between around 1.3 and 1.8 km from the appeal site and contains a church, public house and school, but appears to have no shopping facilities. There is a degree of separation between [name] and Finstock, although they are linked by an unlit road, with a footway to one side.

Access to the limited facilities in Finstock from the appeal site would not be an attractive proposition on foot; due to the separation distance, unlit roads, and absence of a footway along [address]. The appellant states that an adjacent landowner has offered to provide an easement over his land to provide access to the public footpath to Finstock, however this would not reduce the travel distance appreciably, and no legally binding mechanism has been provided to demonstrate that such access would be secured, if that is the case. Unmade and unlit footpaths across countryside would not be accessible to all users and would be unattractive in the dark or poor weather. It therefore remains likely that such a journey would be made by car, as would travel to larger settlements to access a broader range of essential facilities, such as shops and healthcare.

Whilst there would be some access to public transport from the bus stop on [address] at [name], the route to the bus stop from the appeal site would be along an unlit road with no footway, and I have not been provided with any evidence regarding the frequency or reliability of the bus service. School buses may be available to enable children to access schools further afield; however, given the distance to nearby bus stops and the nature of [address], it is likely that future occupants at the appeal site would be reliant on private motorised transport.

The appellant has presented evidence of vehicular movements for the site from June 2025 generated by the current business use, alongside an estimate for vehicle movements for the proposed residential use. Whilst this evidence suggests that use of the site for up to four dwellings may result in less vehicle movements, than the current use of the site, this does not overcome the unsuitable location of the site for housing with regard to access to services and facilities.

The appellant asserts that reliance on a motor car will in time become less of a concern, as ever more cars will be electric. However, there is no mechanism before me to ensure that residents would use electric vehicles, nor any certainty that such an outcome would materialise in practice.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would not be in a suitable location having regard to access to services and facilities. As such it would be in clear conflict with Policies OS1, OS2, H1 and H2 of the Local Plan.

The appearance and condition of the buildings on the appeal site may not be pristine. They have a utilitarian appearance derived from their origins as agricultural buildings, and as such they do not have an unexpected appearance given their rural location and current use. Additionally, I observed at my site visit that they were not prominent in views from the public highway. Furthermore, residential development is not the only means available to the appellant to tidy the site. Accordingly, the current appearance of the buildings on the appeal site do not weigh in favour of the proposal.

My attention has been drawn to an appeal decision3 at land adjacent to [address], Ramsden. Whilst that decision may have considered similar matters around the location of development in rural areas, it was for a single dwelling in between existing dwellings in a nearby village. I am not persuaded that it is entirely comparable to this case. I therefore attach limited weight to this comparison.

Both parties have also referred to a planning permission4 for a single dwelling at the [name] on [address], Finstock. From the small amount of information I have before me, it appears that this permission dates from 2015 and was, therefore, granted in a different planning policy context. That site also has a different relationship with the hamlet of [name] to the current appeal site. I therefore attach limited weight to this comparison.

The Council has suggested that the proposal would result in the loss of an existing beneficial commercial use. This concern does not appear in the Decision Notice, and no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that there has been a significant change of circumstances since the permission was refused. In any event, as I am dismissing the appeal for the reasons set out in my decision, it is not necessary for me to consider this matter further.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Consequently, Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged; whereby 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, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations.

The Council’s Statement of Case indicates that its housing land supply position is around 4.3 years. However, the Council accept that the shortfall is likely to increase using the revised methodology currently in place, although I have not been provided with an updated published figure.

There is clear conflict with the development plan, particularly with the strategy for the distribution of, and sustainable locations for, development. These policies are broadly consistent with the Framework in directing development to sustainable locations. I therefore attach considerable weight to the conflict with the identified policies in the Local Plan and the associated harm.

The construction of up to four dwellings would make a modest contribution towards the Council’s housing supply, particularly given that it could be anywhere between 1 and 4 units; although there is nothing to suggest, subject to technical details consent, that the proposal could not be delivered quickly. I therefore attach modest weight to these benefits.

There would also be economic and social benefits associated with the construction and occupation of the dwellings. Paragraph 83 of the Framework supports development in rural areas where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. However, the economic benefits of construction would be transitory and those derived from residential occupation would be modest. 3 Planning Inspectorate Ref.: APP/D3125/A/14/2220555 4 Council Ref.: 15/03722/FUL

Paragraph 125 of the Framework indicates that substantial weight should be given to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs. However, it has been established that this is not a suitable site for housing, given its unsustainable location, and poor access to services and facilities.

The Highways Authority raised no objections to the proposal on the grounds of highway safety. This is a neutral matter which does not in itself weigh in favour of the development.

Overall, therefore, I find that the adverse impacts of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the cumulative benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework when taken as a whole.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed.