Appeal 6000968

The appeal is dismissed.

In the interests of consistency, I have taken the site address from the decision notice and appeal form. This is reflected in the banner heading above.

Following the submission of the appeal, the Council approved an application for the erection of a dwelling at the appeal site1 (the 2025 application). It is important that my decision is made taking account of all relevant material considerations. The main parties have been given the opportunity to comment on this decision. On this basis, I do not consider that either party would be unfairly prejudiced and I have had consideration to this in making my decision.

Following the approval of the 2025 application, the Council has clarified that it no longer has an objection to the principle of the proposed development. Accordingly, the main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area including landscape character and the setting of the Bartons Conservation Area.

The site is a gently sloping rectangular parcel of former allotment land described as an informal grazing paddock. The site is grassed and at my visit I observed that it was being used for the storage of materials. The Council states that this use does not benefit from planning permission and I have not been presented with evidence to the contrary. The site is located on a prominent corner plot to the south of a crossroads at the junction of [address], [address] and [address]. The site is elevated above the adjacent highways and incorporates a vegetation-lined steep bank to the north and east boundaries. To the west the site is bordered by field, through which there is a public right of way (PUBROW). 1 25/02814/FUL

The proposal is for the erection of a dwelling with access from [address]. The ‘L’ shaped barn style dwelling would be 1-11⁄2 storeys in height comprising 2 pitched roof structures linked by a flat roof.

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 site borders the Bartons Conservation Area (CA) to the north and east and is thus within its setting. The CA covers the historic core of the settlement. It includes and is bordered by agricultural land and is characterised by its open, rural setting, which gives the village a verdant, rural character and appearance that reflects the historic settlement pattern and which appears to form part of the CA’s significance. Given its prominent location and elevated position, the site is clearly visible in views from the CA, including from [address], [address] and [address], where the absence of built form and dense planting at its boundaries contribute positively to the established character of the CA.

The dwelling would be limited in height, would have a comparable plot coverage to dwellings in the immediate surroundings and would be of a design and palette of materials consistent with the local vernacular. It is stated that the proposal has sought to replicate the form of the historic residential building once located on the site. However, the evidence indicates that the built form was small in scale and limited to the eastern part of the site. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) states that the development would result in the loss of the majority of the grassland on the site, and that the character of the site would change to a suburban one. Given the dense boundary vegetation there would be limited views of the proposed dwelling from [address] and [address]. Nonetheless, the introduction of a dwelling to the central part of the site, which the evidence indicates has been historically absent of built form, would introduce development to a part of the site where the absence of built form positively contributes to the setting of the CA, resulting in a change to its appearance which would be appreciable from within the CA, in particular from the site access at [address], where the introduction of built form would alter the verdant rural character of this part of the village and the setting of the CA.

The site is located on the boundary of the open limestone wolds landscape type within the [name] character area (EUCA) and the [name] landscape type within the [name] and Ridges Character Area (IVRCA) which covers the built-up part of the village. The West Oxfordshire Landscape Assessment (1998) (WOLA) states that the character of the IVRCA is defined by its overall diversity, with the complex landform and the intricate patchwork of fields, hedges and woodland combining to create a rich pattern of landscape. The IVRCA is described as having a very attractive and unspoilt, rural character with few detracting influences where the expansion and suburbanisation of rural settlements is a potential threat to landscape quality. The EUCA is characterised by large-scale, smoothly rolling farmland occupying the limestone plateau, comprising large or very large fields of an open and exposed character and high intervisibility. The site’s sloping, vegetation-lined grassed landform combines with the surrounding undulating upper valley slopes of the adjoining field to form part of an attractive undulating landscape, which contributes positively to the landscape character of the area and the rural character of the settlement.

The site is clearly visible from the PUBROW to the west. Landscaping is proposed to the western site boundary, however, even once this is mature, the development would still be visible from beyond the site boundaries, including from the PUBROW, where there would be an appreciable change to the site’s rural character. Whilst the dwelling would be seen in the context of built form which borders the site to the south ([address]), in views from the PUBROW its users would nonetheless experience the site’s altered rural setting, which would be evident in short and medium range views. Furthermore, the alteration of the site’s rural character would compromise its contribution to the area’s landscape character, harming the relationship between the settlement and the surrounding rural landscape which contributes positively to, and forms an intrinsic part of, the settlement’s character.

The proposal has been informed by the advice given in 2 design review panels (DRPs), which provided independent, impartial feedback on the proposal. The Framework requires Local Planning Authorities to have regard to the outcomes of the recommendations made by DRPs. I concur with the DRP’s comments that the dwelling has architectural merit, and, consistent with the approach taken by the Inspectors in the decisions to which my attention has been drawn2 I afford weight to the panel’s support of the design. However, this support for the architectural merits of the proposal does not alter the fact that the introduction of built form to this part of the site would not be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the CA, bringing harm to its setting and significance as well as harm to the landscape character. This limits the degree of positive weight that attaches to the benefits of the design.

The harm to the CA’s setting and significance would be less than substantial but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Under such circumstances the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. There would be economic benefits during the construction and occupancy phases of the development, and the proposal would result in the provision of an energy-efficient family dwelling on a small windfall site which would contribute towards meeting identified local housing need. Factoring in the shortfall in housing land supply in the district, I attach significant weight to these benefits. The dwelling would be of high design quality and there would be improvements to ecology and biodiversity through habitat creation and enhancement and landscaping to the site boundaries, matters which also weigh in favour of the proposal. There is no indication that these benefits would not be realised as a result of the appeal proposal or justification to afford them less than full weight.

Nevertheless, heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource. Overall, I do not consider that collectively the public benefits are sufficient to outweigh the great weight that I must attach to the harm to the designated heritage asset. Conflict therefore arises with the historic environment protection policies in the Framework.

I have given due regard to the 2025 application for the erection of a dwelling on the site. I have limited information about whether there would be an intention to carry out this development if this appeal were dismissed. However, there would seem a greater than just theoretical possibility that this would take place. This consent is for a dwelling with a smaller footprint which is located closer to the site’s southern boundary. Based on the information before me the 2025 application would retain the open character of the northern and central part of the site and 2 APP/F0114/W/18/3213784, APP/Q3305/W/18/3200788, APP/W0530/W/22/3302832, APP/U2235/W/24/3357959 and APP/U1105/W/25/3364929 thus, if implemented, it would not result in the same harm to the setting of the CA. I therefore afford this permission limited weight.

The proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area including the area’s landscape character and the setting and significance of the CA. Conflict therefore arises with those aims of policies OS2, OS4, EH2, EH9 and EH10 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan (2018) (LP), which require that development respects the intrinsic character of the area, conserves and/ or enhances the special character, appearance and distinctiveness of the historic environment, and conserves, and where possible, protects or enhances the intrinsic character, quality and distinctive natural and man-made features of the local landscape.

I also find conflict with the [name] (2016), which seeks to ensure that views within, into and out of conservation areas are carefully assessed, with new development designed to ensure that these are not harmed and which requires that careful consideration is given to the impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area and its setting.

The grade II listed building known as [address], is located to the southeast of the site on [address]. Statute requires that I pay special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting3. [address] is a 17th century rendered house with a gabled thatch roof. The significance of the building appears to lie in its architectural interest as a well-preserved example of a vernacular building of its type. There is no indication that there is any historic link between the site and [address] and consequently it does not appear to derive its significance from any physical connection to the site. There is limited intervisibility between the site and the listed building. Thus, the proposal would have a neutral effect on the setting of this listed building and would preserve its significance.

My attention has been drawn to [address] Farm, a grade II listed farmhouse dating from the early 18th century, which is located to the north of the crossroads. [address] Farm appears to derive its significance from its architectural interest and its rural setting. There is no indication that there is any historic link between the site and the building which are separated by intervening development. Consequently, the development would not result in harm to the setting or significance of this listed building.

The Council raised no objections to the proposal on grounds of its effect on trees, drainage, highway safety, ecology or the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. However, compliance with the relevant development plan policies on these matters would be required in any case. These are not therefore matters which weigh in favour of the proposal.

My attention has been drawn to a reported shortfall in pupils at the local primary school, which, it is stated is threatened by closure. The appellant suggests that the proposal’s delivery of family accommodation would go some way to addressing this shortfall. However, there is no guarantee that the dwelling’s occupants would 3 Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 attend this school. This is not therefore a matter to which I attribute weight 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 as such assets of importance.

I have found harm in relation to the effect of the development on the setting and significance 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.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan and material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.