Appeal 6001750

The appeal is dismissed.

A revised site plan has been submitted to this appeal showing a 5m adjustment to the location of the proposed dwelling increasing separation from perimeter trees. The description of development has been changed from that on the application form to that appearing on the decision letter which better reflects the basis of the application. My acceptance of these changes does not, given the overall size of the site and distance from boundaries, significantly change the nature of the proposal or affect the rights of any party. As the Council indicate that the fourth refusal reason would be addressed by the amended plan I have determined the appeal on that basis accordingly.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposed development would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and if so, what other considerations, including relevant policies of the development plan are material, and • the effect of the proposed development on protected species.

Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless specified exceptions apply. Development on Grey-Belt land within the Green Belt may be not-inappropriate in the circumstances defined in the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework). The appeal site lies within the Oxford Green Belt but is not otherwise in any area referred to in footnote 7 of the Framework.

The proposed development would insert a large two-storey dwellinghouse on the well-enclosed northern half of the existing garden of No [site address] (No.39), sharing the existing access all set within a number of perimeter trees. A nearby motorcycle dealership to the north-west of the appeal site is separated by a small intervening green field from the appeal site such that I consider it to be an isolated site washed over by Green Belt and not part of the Whitecross built-up area.

The existing dwelling (No.39) with its proposed-to-be- retained section of garden lies adjacent to large commercial premises on its southeast side and forms the northern edge of the Whitecross built-up area1. This is a well-bounded and generally unbroken mile-long area of largely suburban housing arranged along the B4017, all being set within a generally open area of fields on both sides of the road. Having regard to the differing spatial and visual qualities of the site, in particular its enclosed character and adjacency to No.39 as part of an area of established development, I consider, as the Council suggest, that the appeal site does not strongly contribute to any of Green Belt purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143 of the Framework2 and may therefore be considered as Grey Belt as set out in the Glossary to the Framework.

The Framework makes clear that development on Grey Belt land would be not-inappropriate if the provisions of Paragraph 155 of the NPPF are met. In this case the development would not undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt land and would be in a sustainable location given its proximity to Abingdon with bus route adjacent. However, proviso (b) of Paragraph 155 requires the appellant to demonstrate, in the case of a housing proposal, an unmet need for the type of development proposed. The Appellant has not disputed the Council’s position on current housing land supply or the delivery test, but refers to a deficiency in self-build plots. However, footnote 56 of the NPPF precludes such deficiency as relevant to the inappropriateness and therefore the proposal would conflict with Paragraph 155 of the Framework. Previously developed land.

Paragraph 154 (g) of the Framework states that the ‘limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land..... which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt’ would not be inappropriate development. The Council refer to the site as [name] (PDL) being garden land within the curtilage of No.39 but assert that being new build the proposal would not be redevelopment3. This is a distinction which is not made in the Framework as ‘complete redevelopment’ would necessarily involve new build construction.

The proposal relates to a part of the garden of No.39 at the northern edge of Whitecross which my on-the-ground assessment indicates as a built-up area which includes the appeal site. I have already assessed that the site, being Grey Belt, does not fulfil the purposes of Green Belt land. Noting that the site is largely enclosed by substantial fencing, walling or hedging in its role of garden land and would share an existing residential access there would be no significant increase in the level and type of activity on the land. Nevertheless, my reasoning directs that 1 The B4017 is subject to a 30mph speed limit with street lighting where is passes through Whitecross 2 These purposes being to prevent sprawl, the merging of neighbouring towns or retain the setting of historic towns. 3 Emphasis added for clarity even if there were a degree of harm to the openness of the Green Belt, footnote 55 of the Framework makes clear that, having concluded the land is PDL and also Grey Belt, the development proposed would not be inappropriate in the Green Belt.

The first refusal reason states that the proposal is for an unallocated site in the Countryside in conflict with the spatial strategy of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1 (2016) (Adopted Local Plan or ALP). Policies CP3 and CP4 seek to pursue sustainable development such that development outside stated settlements will not be appropriate unless specifically supported by other relevant policies set out. Whilst the referred policies are important in that they support the spatial strategy of the development plan and in other circumstances could attract significant weight, this predates the specific provisions for Grey Belt made in the Framework. My reasoning indicates that as a single dwelling on previously developed grey belt land having a negligible impact on openness, the proposed development would cause little or no planning harm and, in consequence, that little weight can be attached to any conflict with those policies in this specific matter. Neither Core Policy 13 of the ALP nor Policy SS1 of the Wootton and St Helen Without Neighbourhood Plan (2019-2031) add anything of contrary indication to this

It is an offence under the 1992 Protection of Badgers Act to damage, destroy or obstruct a badger sett and in this case the appellant, other than his own commentary, has not provided formal evidence that the proposal would not directly affect setts or outliers. I note that the Council’s Ecology officer does not appear to have visited the site but refers to a ‘reasonable likelihood’ of the presence of badgers based on background data. In such circumstances, survey by a competent person4 absent, a grant of permission would risk direct conflict with the statutory protection afforded to badgers and with Policy CP46 of the ALP. This is not a matter that can reasonable be addressed by a condition and therefore weighs heavily against the grant of permission sought.

In relation to the first main issue I have concluded that the proposed development would be not-inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that any conflict with the spatial strategy would attract very little weight in the circumstances set out. Refusal reason 4 is now void on the basis that the amended location of the proposed dwellinghouse would not conflict with the root protection areas of the established trees. However, notwithstanding the benefit of an additional self-build plot which should attract moderate weight in favour of the proposal and the absence of Green Belt harms, uncertainty as to the presence of badgers on the site as a species protected by law directs, alone, that the appeal cannot succeed.