Appeal 6001589

The appeal is dismissed.

The Government launched a consultation on reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework in December 2025, but as the proposals are still subject to change, they carry little weight. Accordingly, the decision was made with reference to the December 2024 version of the Framework.

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 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 permitted1. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent [name] application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

I have used the appeal site address given in the site address details description section of the application form for clarity.

The appellant has submitted evidence as part of their appeal including an appeal decision relating to Land to the east of [address], [name] and reference to [name] - The Taylor Review of [name] and [name] (2008) (the [name]) late within the process. They did not form the basis of the Council’s decision.

The procedural guide for planning appeals advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme as it is important that what is considered by the 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone] Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the local planning authority and by interested parties at the application stage.

Consequently, accepting the appeal decision and the [name] may prejudice the interests of the interested parties. I have therefore proceeded to determine the appeal on the basis of the evidence upon which the Council made its decision.

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.

The appeal site is located on land adjacent to [address] Barn and close to an agricultural building, on the edge of the village of Horley. It currently is a paddock area with mature hedgerow along the boundary of the site.

Paragraph 73 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) outlines that small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area and notably support the development of windfall sites through their policies and decisions – giving great weight to the benefits of using suitable sites within existing settlements for homes.

Policy Villages 1 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 (the CLP) states that proposals for residential development within the built-up limits of villages should be considered in regard to the categorisation it outlines. Notably, it states that only those classified as [name] and B should be considered suitable for minor development in addition to infilling and conversions.

Horley is a category C village and consequently, Policy Villages 1 provides that infill development would be appropriate within the built-up limit of the village. Notably, the CLP does not clearly define the built limits of the village and therefore, in this case it is a matter of planning judgement.

The appeal site is bordered by [address] Barn as well as an agricultural building which is set back significantly from the highway and the boundary with the appeal site. The village cricket ground is adjacent to the site.

However, there is not a significant built frontage near to the appeal site and its character is to my mind, more rural. The site does have mature hedgerow which visually encloses the site, nevertheless, it remains to my mind generally rural in character and relates more to the countryside than the village of Horley due to the absence of significant built form both within and surrounding the site.

Furthermore, in my planning judgement, although there is an agricultural building adjacent to the site, there is a clear pattern of development regarding the built-up limit of the village which ends at [address] Barn. Moreover, the cricket ground which is located opposite the appeal site also has an absence of significant built form.

[name] acknowledge the location of the road signs for the village, these do not signify the village boundary and rather are likely to be located on an approach to a settlement for highway safety reasons. Regarding the rear boundaries of the dwellings on [address] these are gardens associated with residential dwellings and thus are not, in my planning judgement, similar to the appeal site.

Given all of the above, in my planning judgement, the appeal site is not within the built limits of the village in this case and thus does not benefit from support from Policy Villages 1 of the CLP.

Additionally, Saved Policy H18 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 (the CLP 1996) (online version) provides support for the construction of new dwellings beyond the built-up limits of settlements subject to certain criteria. Given that the appeal scheme does not meet these criteria it does not benefit from support from this policy either.

Moreover, even if the appeal site were to be in the built-up limit of Horley, Policy Villages 1 of the CLP would only provide support for infill development or conversions given it is a category C village. Consequently, irrespective of the scale of the proposal, the criterion outlined by paragraph C.262 of the CLP in relation to minor development would not be pertinent to the appeal scheme.

Infill development is defined in paragraph C.264 of the CLP as development of a small gap in an otherwise continuous built-up frontage. Consequently, whilst I acknowledge the relatively continuous development on [site address] into [address], given the general absence of frontage built form on one boundary of the appeal site except for a set back agricultural building, the appeal scheme would not in my planning judgement constitute an infill development as per Policy Villages 1 of the CLP.

I note reference to other dwellings approved in and around the village of Horley, however, I do not have the full circumstances of these permissions and therefore cannot be certain that they are wholly comparable to the appeal before me. Nevertheless, each application is determined on its own merits and context. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would not, to my mind, result in an infill development in this case.

Policy BSC2 of the CLP relates to the effective and efficient use of land. It outlines, amongst other things, that new housing should be provided on net developable areas at a density of at least 30 dwellings per hectare unless there are justifiable planning reasons for a lower density development.

The appeal scheme would be approximately 13 dwellings per hectare. Regarding other development for small housing sites in villages in Cherwell such as a permission relating to a development in Alkerton, I do not have its full circumstances. Therefore, I cannot be certain that it is wholly comparable to the appeal scheme before me. Nevertheless, each application is determined on its own merits.

I have identified that the appeal site is not within the built-up limits of the village of Horely and based upon the evidence before me including the appeal site’s location and nearby built form, it remains that there is limited substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that there are justifiable planning reasons for a lower density development in the appeal before me. Consequently, the proposal would not benefit from support from Policy BSC2 of the CLP.

Paragraph 83 of the Framework outlines that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.

I have identified above that Horley is deemed to be a category C village. Consequently, it is considered to be one of the least sustainable settlements in the District’s rural area. Horley has a public house as well as a cricket team, however for planning purposes, it remains in my planning judgement to have limited community facilities and services overall. [name] acknowledge that Banbury is around a four-minute drive and that there is a limited bus service to Banbury, it remains that there is insufficient evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that there are adequate services available to access by sustainable methods such as on foot or bicycle. Given all of the above, it is likely, that the occupants of the appeal scheme would be somewhat reliant upon private motor vehicles to access day to day services.

The appeal site is immediately adjacent to the [name] listed [address]. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out the duty, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

Given the built form which separates the appeal site from [address], in my judgement the appeal proposal would preserve the setting of the [name] listed [address]. However, a lack of harm in this respect does not alter my overall

Additionally, the appeal site is adjacent to the Horley Conservation Area (the CA). The significance of the CA derives in part from its historic context and form.

Paragraph 213 of the Framework goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of those assets or from development within their setting and this should have a clear and convincing justification.

In my planning judgement, given the existing enclosure of the appeal site by significant mature hedgerows as well as the intervening built form on [address] between the appeal site and the CA, I do not consider that the appeal scheme would unacceptably harm views into and out of the CA including along [site address] . Moreover, detailed matters including scale and design would be part of the second stage of the permission in principle process. Consequently, to my mind, the appeal scheme would not harm the significance of the CA through development within its setting.

Therefore, whilst the appeal scheme would not result in harm to the CA through development within its setting nor to the [name] listed [address], it remains that the location of the appeal scheme would not be a suitable location for the proposed development given that the appeal site is not within the built up limit of Horley, would not constitute infill development and due to an absence of adequate services result in reliance upon private motor vehicles by future occupants. Consequently, it would conflict with Policies BSC2, ESD1, ESD13, ESD15, SLE4 and Villages 1 of the CLP as well as [name] C8 and C28 of the CLP 1996. These policies seek, amongst other things, to ensure new developments are sited in suitable and sustainable locations, support the efficient use of land uses, mix and density, facilitate the use of sustainable modes of transport and prevent harm to the setting of settlements.

A lack of harm regarding landscape or heritage harm insofar as they are relevant to this stage of the permission in principle is a neutral factor in this case.

The Council has stated that they are able to demonstrate a housing land supply of around 3.1 years according to the Cherwell District Council Annual Monitoring Report 2025. This is below the housing land supply the Council is expected to deliver in line with the Framework. The proposal would deliver up to five dwellings and boost the housing stock in circumstances where there is a shortfall.

The proposal would deliver up to five dwellings in a District that is falling below the level of housing supply required by national policy. They would make a modest but important contribution as indicated in paragraph 73 of the Framework.

Consequently, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, the conflict I have identified above with the development plan significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits of additional homes. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.