Appeal 6001675

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of single storey link extension and change of use of existing equestrian buildings to 1x residential dwelling at [site address] , Towersey [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P25/S2449/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for an award of costs was made by [name] against South Oxfordshire District Council. This application will be the subject of a separate

The Council refers to the emerging development plan in its delegated officer report which forms part of its evidence. The Council has submitted the [name] and Vale of White Horse Joint Local Plan 2041 (JLP) for Examination. As the emerging plan is at the early stages of examination, I afford limited weight to its policies.

The main issue is whether the site is an appropriate location for residential development taking into consideration its effect on the character and appearance of the area.

Policy H1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 (SOLP) (December 2020) establishes the Council’s approach to the delivery of housing across the area. Policy H1 identifies that residential development will be permitted on allocated sites, sites carried forward within the Plan and on sites allocated by [name].

The Towersey Neighbourhood Plan (NP) was made in December 2023. The NP does not allocate any land for housing as the village has a zero indicative housing requirement within the SOLP. However, NP Policy TOW1 identifies that proposals for infill development within the settlement would be supported. The NP Policies Map identifies the village boundary. The appeal site lies directly to the east and outside of the defined development boundary in the open countryside. However, due to its proximity and context, the appeal site is functionally and visually linked to the village and would not lead to an isolated home in the countryside.

The SOLP identifies that residential development sought on non-allocated sites will be permitted where it meets one of several criteria within Policy H1 of the SOLP. Criteria vii) is relevant to the appeal proposal and identifies development where “it would bring redundant or disused buildings into residential use and would enhance its immediate surroundings.”

Section 4 of Policy H1 and Policy H16 of the SOLP also identify that the residential development of previously developed land (PDL) would be permitted within and adjacent to the existing built-up areas of towns and larger and smaller villages. Policy TOW1 of the NP supports appropriate rural development outside of the village boundary but is silent in relation to the use of PDL and/or redundant or disused buildings. The NP also identifies, within the Policy TOW1 commentary, that outside the defined boundaries, development proposals are required to comply with the relevant policies of the SOLP (particularly Policies H1 and Policy H8) and the NP in respect of protecting local landscape and character of the natural environment.

The two buildings subject to this appeal were formerly in use as stables with one having already undergone some conversion although are now redundant/disused. Both buildings along with the proposed link extension, parking area and garden are located on PDL. Consequently, the proposed development would comply with the first section of criteria vii) and Section 4 of Policy H1 and Policy H16 of the SOLP regarding the location of development. Whilst the development would not be for a rural exception, it would comply with NP Policy TOW1 by virtue of complying with the first section of SOLP Policy H1 and Policy H8 relating to housing in smaller villages in accordance with Policy H16.

I am however unable to fully conclude against the SOLP as the second section of criteria vii) of Policy H1 requires the development to enhance its immediate surroundings and this is addressed below.

The proposed development relates to two existing buildings on the appeal site which have a lawful equestrian use. The remaining elements of the site, including further buildings, a horse walker, manége and paddock would remain, and are not within the application site boundary.

The two existing buildings are single storey, constructed from timber and have corrugated roofs. They have a hardstanding yard to their front and a gravel area to the rear, adjacent to a hedge that forms the boundary with a public footpath. Access would be from [site address] , via the existing access gate and gravel driveway. The existing paddock area is located adjacent to existing residential development at [address] whilst the buildings proposed for conversion are located adjacent to a public footpath with open countryside beyond. Due to their single storey height, position on site, existing boundary treatment, and access gate, the two buildings have limited visibility from outside of the appeal site and make a neutral contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

Criteria vii) of SOLP Policy H1 requires the development to “enhance its immediate surroundings”. The Council has not defined the term ‘immediate surroundings’ in Policy H1 or its associated commentary and it has not been defined in its statement of case. This is therefore a matter of planning judgement, and I have assessed the proposal based on its relationship to the application site, the immediate grounds it stands within and its closest neighbouring uses.

The proposal would retain the existing appearance of the site through the reuse of the single storey buildings and through the retention of its corrugated roofs and timber cladding. New windows and doors would be provided, some of which would be in existing stable door openings or moved from their current position to the opposing elevation to address the proposed internal layout. The new link structure would be around the same height as the eaves of the existing buildings and would be clad in matching timber, reflecting the positive features of the buildings on site. Consequently, whilst limited change to the buildings would be visible on site, the improvement to the buildings through their sensitive conversion and re-use would enhance their immediate surroundings on site.

The Council appears to consider that any new residential development in the countryside would fail to enhance or complement the surrounding area and result in a degradation of the character of the countryside alongside the landscape setting of the village. Whilst the buildings’ former equestrian use is appropriate for the countryside location, the limited works to facilitate their conversion would not significantly or harmfully alter their rural appearance or cause an adverse effect on the neighbouring residential use at [address] nor the open countryside beyond.

The dwelling, within the existing low-key buildings as proposed, would not harmfully intensify development on site, as no further built form or hard surfacing is proposed and the existing hedge surrounding the site would remain. Suitably worded planning conditions could be imposed to restrict further extensions and garden buildings (restricting domestic paraphernalia). As such, the proposed development would not harmfully impact the intrinsic character and rural appearance of the countryside and would, through re-use, enhance its immediate surroundings.

For the above reasons, the appeal site would be in an appropriate location for the proposed development taking into consideration its effect on the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policies H1, DES1, DES2 and ENV1 of the SOLP and Policies TOW1 and TOW4 of the NP. These policies, amongst other things, require development to be of high-quality design that uses land efficiently, protects and enhances the existing landscape character, and reflects, enhances, and complements its surroundings.

I note the objection from Towersey Parish Council. In addition to the main issue, its concerns identified that the development fails to provide details relating to energy and drainage. These factors are not in dispute between the main parties and were addressed in the [name], with the Council concluding that there would be no material harm in these regards and did not form part of its reasons for refusing the proposal. I also note that the Council’s drainage engineer raised no objection. I have also considered these matters, and am satisfied that, no substantiated evidence has been submitted that would lead me to a different view.

The Parish Council’s concerns also related to whether the proposed development would be compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) Paragraph 14. The NP does not allocate land for housing within or adjacent to the Towersey settlement boundary. I am also aware that the housing needs of the village will be subject to evaluation through the JLP and where the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing. The appellant has identified that the Council can currently evidence a 4.5-year housing supply, a figure which is undisputed by the Council.

In this circumstance, paragraph 11 of the Framework would be engaged. However, as I have found that the proposed development complies with the development plan, an assessment under paragraph 11d) is not necessary. Paragraph 14 of the Framework advises that in situations where the presumption at paragraph 11d) applies, the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with a neighbourhood development plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Subsequently, as paragraph 11d) is not engaged, an assessment in relation to the NP and Paragraph 14 is not applicable. On this basis, there is no conflict with policies contained in the NP regarding the location of housing. Furthermore, even if I were to have found a conflict with the NP provisions, paragraph 14 of the Framework is a material consideration, and the overall balance is a matter of judgement.

The Framework states that conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other aspects. I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council against the Framework and where necessary I have amended the wording in the interests of clarity and enforceability.

To ensure certainty and clarity, I have imposed the standard conditions relating to the commencement of development and approved plans. I have also imposed a condition to ensure the use of matching materials for the link extension and any making good of the buildings that would occur as a result of the development.

As one of the buildings is used by swallows, it is necessary to secure details of how construction impacts on nesting birds would be mitigated. The Emergence and [name] report identified that all the surveys undertaken indicate that the surrounding grounds are being used for foraging and commuting bats, predominantly common pipistrelle. Consequently, it is necessary to secure details of bat sensitive external lighting on site. Whilst the proposed development is not biodiversity net gain applicable, due to the site’s location in the open countryside and its use by birds and bats, it is necessary to secure ecological enhancements in accordance with SOLP policies.

In the interest of highway safety and to ensure safe access and egress, it is necessary to secure the visibility splay as shown on drawing number 1401-PL-05. Due to the site’s location in the open countryside and as the proposal involves the reuse of existing buildings, it is necessary to remove permitted development rights to the dwelling in the interests of the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings. Those to be removed relate to extensions, additions and alterations to the roof, porches and other buildings, enclosures, or swimming pools.

The Council suggested several conditions that I have not imposed as they are not necessary and do not meet the required tests. The requirement for an electric vehicle charging point and foul water drainage details to be submitted are not necessary as these are covered by Building Regulations and would therefore be a duplication. Details of cycle storage was also suggested however the dwelling would have sufficient external space in which to provide secure and covered bicycle storage if required and details are not therefore required. The Council also suggested a condition requiring the parking and turning areas to be constructed, laid out, surfaced, and drained including sustainable drainage prior to occupation of the dwelling. However, the access drive and parking areas are already in situ and are already constructed and surfaced. As such, a condition requiring this is not necessary.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: 1401-PL-01 Site Location Plan; 1401-Pl-04 Proposed Site Layout (Block) 1-500; 1401-PL-05 Proposed Site Layout Plan 1-250; 1401- PL-08 Proposed Floor Plan; 1401-PL-09 [name]; 1401-PL-10 Existing and [name].

The external materials of the extension alongside any making good that is considered necessary as a result of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The development hereby approved shall be implemented in full accordance with the method statements for mitigating construction impacts on nesting birds set out in Section 4.3 of the Emergence and [name] report submitted with the application ([name], dated 29 July 2025).

No external lighting shall be installed on site unless and until a sensitive lighting strategy for bats is submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall protect the conservation status of local bat populations, by: a) identifying those areas/features on site that are likely to be both sensitive for bats and vulnerable to disturbance from artificial lighting, including: known or potential breeding sites, resting places, foraging areas, or important routes used to access key areas of their territory; and b) demonstrating that the design and siting of the proposed lighting installation will not disturb or prevent bats using the areas identified in a) (through provision of appropriate lighting plans, isolux contour maps and technical specifications). All external lighting shall be installed and maintained for the life of the development in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the approved strategy. Under no circumstances should any other external lighting be installed.

Prior to development above new slab level on the link extension, details (including specification, position, height, orientation) of a scheme of features to be provided for protected and priority species, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be designed in conjunction with a suitably qualified ecologist. A minimum number of biodiversity enhancement features shall be provided onsite as follows: two building-mounted nest cups for swallow Hirundo rustica, and one building mounted bat box. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. All features shall be provided prior to first use and shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

The vision splays shown on the approved plan 1401_PL-05 shall not be obstructed by any object, structure, planting, or other material with a height exceeding or growing above 0.9 metres as measured from carriageway level.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order), the enlargement, improvements or other alterations of any dwellinghouse as described in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A , B, C and D of the Order shall not be undertaken without obtaining planning permission from the local planning authority.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) the provision within the curtilage of the dwelling of any building, enclosure or swimming pool as described in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the Order shall not be undertaken without obtaining planning permission from the local planning authority. End of conditions