Appeal 6001780

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site is located in the Green Belt. Neither party has suggested that the proposed development represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt. [name] have no evidence to indicate otherwise, I have proceeded on the basis that the proposed development would not comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

A Unilateral Undertaking (UU) was submitted with the appeal (deed dated 22 October 2025). This is a matter to which I return to below.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development, having particular regard to the spatial strategy in the development plan and the accessibility of services and facilities; and • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises an access road which extends from [site address] past [address] and a former mill towards a former caravan site, an existing building formerly used as an ablutions block in association with the former caravan site, and a shed to the rear of that building.

The site is located outside of any settlement and accordingly is in the open countryside for the purposes of the policies contained within the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 (adopted 2018) (Local Plan). Policy H2 of the Local Plan provides that, amongst other things, new dwellings will only be permitted in the open countryside where they comply with the general principles set out in Policy OS2 of the Local Plan and in certain prescribed circumstances.

Regarding the 7th bullet point of the ‘Small villages, hamlets and open countryside’ section of Policy H2 of the Local Plan, few details have been provided to substantiate the appellant’s assertion that the former ablutions block on site is not suitable for any other (non-residential) use such as a commercial use or a tourism use. No marketing or other relevant technical evidence has been provided to support the appellant’s stance.

As the building is of substantial construction and is located within a former caravan site served by an access road close to the A40, there appears to be no reason in principle why it could not be re-used for one or more of the uses listed in Policy H2, which include business, recreational or community uses, tourist accommodation or visitor facilities. That such uses might be undesirable to the owner of the site does not obviate the need for evidence to be provided which shows why these uses are not viable. Hence, it has not been demonstrated that the building is not capable of re-use for the uses cited within Policy H2.

Policy H2 also allows for the re-use of appropriate existing buildings which would lead to an enhancement of their immediate setting where the proposal will address a specific local housing need which would otherwise not be met. The appellant’s intention to develop the land they own for residential purposes is acknowledged. However, the site is in the open countryside, which is in the lowest tier in the settlement hierarchy, where development is purposefully restricted by the Local Plan. In this context, the appellant’s personal circumstances alone are not sufficient to demonstrate a ‘specific local housing need’. No settlement-specific local need has been established.

In any event, although the submitted UU would ensure that the development would consist only of self-build or custom housebuilding (SBCH), the UU does not bind the owner of the land to occupy the plot for a set period of time. Rather, the UU refers to a ‘commissioning or building household’ which the UU does not tie to the appellant’s household, nor to any particular household in the local area. The UU would not prevent the resulting residential unit from potentially being occupied by persons from outside the local area. Although there is no requirement in law for self-build occupiers to have a local connection, in relation to the requirements of Policy H2 the UU would not ensure that a specific local housing need would be addressed.

Policy EW10 of the Local Plan provides that, amongst other things, development not in rural service centres will be limited to meeting local housing, community and business needs and will be steered towards the larger villages. Policy BC1 of the Local Plan contains an identical phrase. In considering Policy BC1, the Inspector in appeal decision [name]/D3125/W/18/3209551 found that ‘local housing need’ means need of a specific settlement. An Order of the High Court1 found that the Inspector’s conclusion in this regard is hard to fault. For the reasons given above, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would meet a local housing need in the terms of Policy EW10 of the Local Plan. 1 [name]: CO/3061/2019Y

It follows that the proposed development would not fall within the remit of the 7th bullet point of the ‘Small villages, hamlets and open countryside’ section of Policy H2 of the Local Plan, and would be at odds with Policy EW10. It therefore conflicts with Policies H2 and EW10. Harm would be caused to the Local Plan’s spatial strategy, which includes locating development in the right places as set out in Policy OS2 of the Local Plan.

Cassington is a village with a limited range of services and facilities. In particular, I have not been referred to any shopping destinations within the village. Although commercial development is situated along [site address] close to the A40, few details have been provided to illustrate the size of the operations involved and the extent of any employment opportunities likely to be available, if any. Thus, the future occupiers of the proposed development would likely be required to travel beyond Cassington to meet their day-to-day needs, including those relating to shopping, healthcare, leisure, and employment.

The site is within walking distance of bus stops on the A40, where frequent services towards Oxford and Witney are available. A cycle path is present on the A40 which also provides links to these places. I observed that the area immediately surrounding the former ablutions block suffers from a lack of natural surveillance. The bus stops are approximately 8 to [address] away from the former ablutions block, and the route involves walking uphill along pathways which are almost entirely unlit. Due to these factors, walking / cycling from the former ablutions block along the accessway on site towards [site address] and the bus stops and cycle path on the A40 would present as an uninviting prospect during the hours of darkness and in poor weather, particularly for anyone travelling alone or with children.

I observed numerous vehicles entering and leaving [site address] via the junction with the A40, and several vehicles (including large lorries) were parked on the northern side of [site address] . This part of the road serves several business premises, and in this regard no data has been presented to demonstrate that the road is lightly-trafficked. The appellant has stated that the nearby commercial sites have reasonably short work hours, but no evidence has been provided to substantiate this.

Considering this, and the lack of any formal and dedicated footway on this road (which is also unlit), this stretch of the road, which is open to traffic, would not offer a pleasant and convenient route to use in the winter and during the hours of darkness. These circumstances would cause particular difficulties for those with mobility issues and / or with children.

Eynsham is defined in the Local Plan as a rural service centre. The Local Plan describes such areas as generally offering a good range of services and facilities. [site address] is a public highway which passes the site and continues all the way to Eynsham. Again, the majority of this route is unlit, with no designated footway for pedestrians.

It is possible to cycle along the road, although there did not appear to be a cycle path on the left-hand side of the road for some distance from the part of the road closest to the site where vehicular access is blocked by a gate; the white line on that side of the road is an appropriate width for vehicles rather than bicycles, and indeed I observed several vehicles parked within it, blocking its usage for cycling. Few details have been provided to demonstrate that this road is lightly-trafficked, although I accept that it is likely to be much less busy than the A40 which bypasses it. So, whilst this route is cyclable, its attractiveness for this purpose is likely to be much reduced during inclement weather, in the winter, and during the hours of darkness.

Overall, the quality of the routes towards the bus stops and the cycle path on the A40, and towards Eynsham, are such that they are unlikely to be used for walking or cycling except in fair weather conditions in the daylight and outside of the winter. In all likelihood, the future occupiers of the proposed development would be very dependant on the use of private vehicles to access everyday services and facilities for much of the time. An electric vehicle charging point could be provided on site (to be secured via a planning condition), but the use of electric vehicles cannot be mandated at this time.

Thus, whilst paragraph 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) provides that, amongst other things, opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, in this case the proposed development would not prioritise sustainable modes of transport, in conflict with paragraph 115 a) of the Framework.

I therefore find that the site is not a suitable location for the proposed development, having particular regard to the spatial strategy in the development plan and the accessibility of services and facilities. It would conflict with the 7th bullet point of the general principles set out in Policy OS2 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, all development should be provided with convenient pedestrian access to supporting services and facilities. The conflict identified with Policy OS2 means that the proposed development would also conflict with Policy CAS9 of the Cassington Neighbourhood Plan 2021 – 2041 (made: 26 June 2023) which permits new homes in accordance with Policy OS2.

The proposed development would conflict with the 7th bullet point of the ‘Small villages, hamlets and open countryside’ section of Policy H2 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, new dwellings will only be permitted in the open countryside where they comply with the general principles set out in Policy OS2, and in certain circumstances including re-use of appropriate existing buildings which would lead to an enhancement of their immediate setting and where it has been demonstrated that the building is not capable of re-use for business, recreational or community uses, tourist accommodation or visitor facilities or where the proposal will address a specific local housing need which would otherwise not be met.

The proposed development would conflict with Policy EW10 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, development not in rural service centres will be limited to meeting local housing, community and business needs and will be steered towards the larger villages, and with Policy H5 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, proposals for custom and self-build housing will be approved in suitable, sustainable locations subject to compliance with other relevant policies of the Local Plan including Policies OS2, H2 and E3.

The former ablutions block on site is of little architectural merit. It is located near to the [name], and beyond the mainly historic buildings associated with [address]. The closeness of the river, the abundance of green space and trees around the building, the surrounding rural fields, and the dense woodland towards the north and north-east of the site, all combine to give the area immediately surrounding the building a tranquil and rustic character.

Given that the former caravan use is no longer operating on site, the former ablutions block, with its bulky elongated form and a bland and utilitarian design, detracts from the character and appearance of its surroundings. Externally, the building would remain largely unchanged as a result of the proposed development, although timber boarding is proposed. It would still appear as a former service building, which would be incongruous with its usage as a residential unit.

Moreover, the likely proliferation of residential paraphrenia and vehicle(s) parked in the proposed parking / turning area would add to the incongruity of the proposed development in its context. This is particularly so as the new residential unit would be clearly separated from the nearby cluster of buildings referred to above. The presence of these domestic features and the associated noise and activity accompanying a residential use, would undermine the character of this quiet, tranquil riverside area. Harm to the character and appearance of the area would result.

The proposed development would remove some of the areas of hardstanding on site. Due to their low-lying nature and limited individual footprint, these concrete slabs do not significantly detract from the appearance of the area. In any event, a large number of slabs would remain, and the proposed development would additionally introduce a sizeable parking / turning area. The removal of these areas of hardstanding and any scheme of landscaping (which could be required via a planning condition) would not adequately off-set the harm identified above.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with the 2nd bullet point of the general principles set out in Policy OS2 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, all development should form a logical complement to the existing scale and pattern of development and/or the character of the area.

The proposed development would conflict with the 7th bullet point of the ‘Small villages, hamlets and open countryside’ section of Policy H2 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, new dwellings will only be permitted in the open countryside where they comply with the general principles set out in Policy OS2 and in certain circumstances including re-use of appropriate existing buildings which would lead to an enhancement of their immediate setting.

Policy E3 of the Local Plan (referenced in the Council’s decision notice), relates to, amongst other things, the re-use of non-traditional buildings for employment, tourism and community uses. As none of those uses are proposed in this appeal, Policy E3 is not directly relevant to the main issues above. Nevertheless, the policies of the development plan cited on each main issue above are sufficient for me to come to a view on each main issue.

The site is only approximately a few minutes walk away from the nearest residential development. It is not far away from other places, buildings or people. The site is not isolated in the terms of paragraph 84 of the Framework which provides that, amongst other things, planning decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside. This is a neutral matter, which does not alter the proposed development’s conflict with the relevant policies of the development plan, identified on the main issues above.

As the site is not located within a settlement, it would not benefit from the support given by the Framework for using suitable brownfield land for homes, found at paragraph 125 c) of the Framework. This is a neutral matter, which does not weigh in favour of the proposed development.

I have found above that the proposed development would not be in a sustainable location, meaning that the proposed development would not fulfil the requirement of paragraph 155 c) of the Framework. Thus, even if I were to find that the proposed development would develop grey belt land, as it would not meet all of the relevant requirements of paragraph 155, the support given by the Framework to the development of homes on grey belt land would not be applicable. This is also a neutral matter. [name] and Planning Balance

Paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged. It does not automatically follow that the policies which are most important for determining the appeal are out-of-date in substance. Neither does the Framework prescribe the weight which should be given to development plan policies. Rather, paragraph 232 of the Framework provides that, amongst other things, due weight should be given to policies, according to their degree of consistency with the Framework.

Policy H2 of the Local Plan provides the route by which existing buildings in the open countryside might be considered suitable for re-use as new dwellings. It can be seen, then, that the Local Plan does not prohibit such development in the open countryside.

The Regulation 10A Review2 found that Policy OS2 of the Local Plan remains consistent with the Framework in setting out a sustainable pattern of development based on a ‘hierarchal’ approach. The Review also found that the general approach of Policy H2 of the Local Plan is considered to remain broadly consistent with national policy which remains based on a presumption in favour of sustainable development and requires local plans to promote a sustainable pattern of development.

Development plan policies are not inconsistent with the Framework merely because they adopt a particular approach which is not specifically referred to in the Framework. These policies need to be consistent with national policy, but ultimately their value lies in their being reflective of local circumstances. In this regard, I have not been referred to any specific paragraph(s) in the Framework 2 West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 (Regulation 10A Review) (September 2023) which might indicate that the hierarchy of uses promoted by Policies OS2 and H2 is not a suitable policy response to the long-recognised need to restrict the development of housing in the open countryside. The development plan policies relevant to the main issues above are not inconsistent with the Framework. The weight attached to the proposed development’s conflict with these policies is not reduced on this ground alone. Paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is discussed further below.

The Council have stated that in the first half of 2024 it was established that the Council had a deliverable housing land supply of approximately 4.3 years. Although the Council has indicated that the housing land supply shortfall is likely to increase, the evidence indicates that the broad magnitude, of a deliverable housing land supply of approximately 4 years, reflects the current position. This is a tangible, but not significant shortfall. The proposed development would provide one new dwelling. This would, in principle, support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes (referred to at paragraph 61 of the Framework). In this regard, it would make a very minimal contribution towards addressing the shortfall.

The UU contains an obligation which would ensure that the development would consist only of SBCH, and that following construction, the commissioning or building household will occupy the plot as a principle residence for a minimum of 3 years. The Council has not queried the need or form of this obligation. As such, the evidence indicates that this obligation is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, is directly related to the development, and is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. Accordingly, the obligation meets the tests set out at Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) and paragraph 58 of the Framework.

The UU would ensure that it would comprise SBCH, which is supported by paragraph 73 b) of the Framework. The Council have queried whether or not the proposed development would assist in meeting demand on the SBCH register, which relates to the Council’s statutory duty under s2A of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended). However, even if it were to meet such demand, given that only one residential unit is involved its contribution to meeting this demand would be slight. In this particular case, this is not a matter which would materially alter the positive weight already accorded to the benefit of providing SBCH as required by planning policy.

Limited economic benefits would likely arise in the short-term due to the conversion works proposed to be undertaken. Any economic benefits arising from the spending of the future occupiers of the proposed development in the local area would likely be minimal, due to the single residential unit proposed. The proposed development would make an effective use of land on a former caravan site, which is supported by paragraphs 124 and 125 d) of the Framework. It has not been demonstrated that the benefits to the local area in this regard would be significant.

The proposed removal of hardstanding (approximately [address] metres (net)), the planting of additional trees/planting on site, and the inclusion of bird and bat boxes on site, would all combine to provide a net gain for biodiversity, and would assist with drainage on site. These matters are supported by both the Local Plan and the Framework, and could be secured via planning conditions (where required). However, few details have been provided to demonstrate that any gains in this regard would be significant over-and-above the present circumstances.

Taking account of the Council’s housing land supply position mentioned above and that only one SBCH residential unit is proposed, the collective benefits of the proposed development merit little weight in its favour.

The appellant has highlighted paragraph 34 of appeal decision [name]/D3125/W/21/3274197, issued in 2022, where the Inspector found that the Council at that time had fallen well short of granting suitable planning permissions to meet the identified SBCH demand. However, the evidence before me, in the form of the Council’s submitted [name], provides a number of compelling reasons which indicates that the SBCH register likely overstates real demand. I note that the appellant has not sought to rebut the substance of the Council’s arguments. On this basis, I consider that the position regarding the SBCH demand has likely moved on since appeal decision [name]/D3125/W/21/3274197 was issued. That appeal decision does not change my findings above.

The Council’s shortfall in housing land supply indicates that the hierarchy of uses imposed by Policy H2 of the Local Plan is potentially contributing towards the Council not meeting its aims with respect to the provision of housing. Considering that the broad magnitude of the shortfall is not significant, no more than moderate weight is given to the proposed development’s conflict with Policy H2 in relation to this hierarchy.

The poor accessibility of the site to services and facilities by sustainable modes of transport means that the proposed development would not contribute towards [name] 1, 4, and 11 of the Local Plan, which collectively seek to, amongst other things, reduce the need to travel (particularly by car), and maximise the opportunity for walking, cycling and use of public transport. Significant negative weight has been given to the proposed development’s conflict with the 7th bullet point of the general principles set out in Policy OS2 of the Local Plan.

The harm caused to the character and appearance of the area means that the proposed development would not contribute towards [name] 2 of the Local Plan which seeks to, amongst other things, ensure that new developments are well-designed to protect and enhance the individual form, character and identity of towns and villages as well as contributing to the quality of life in [name]. Significant negative weight has been given to the proposed development’s conflict with the 2nd bullet point of the general principles set out in Policy OS2 of the Local Plan.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole. Paragraph 12 of the Framework highlights that where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan, permission should not usually be granted. This finding weighs heavily against the proposed development. In reaching this conclusion, I have taken account of Corbett3, referred to by the appellant.

Paragraph 109 e) of the Framework provides that, amongst other things, development proposals should involve identifying and pursuing opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. The proposed development would not promote these opportunities, resulting in conflict with paragraph 110 of the Framework, which provides that, amongst other things, the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth in support of the objectives set out at paragraph 109 of the Framework.

The proposed development would also conflict with paragraph 115 a) of the Framework which provides that, amongst other things, in assessing specific applications for development, it should be ensured that sustainable transport modes are prioritised taking account of the vision for the site, the type of development and its location. As the proposed development would not promote sustainable transport, it would not constitute a ‘suitable site’ in the terms of paragraph 73 d) of the Framework.

The proposed development would conflict with paragraph 135 c) of the Framework which provides that, amongst other things, planning decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities).

Consequently, the proposed development would conflict with 3 of the key policies for directing development to sustainable locations as set out at footnote 9 of paragraph 11 d) ii. of the Framework. Taking account of the limited collective benefits of the proposed development, the adverse impacts of granting planning permission 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, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination. The proposed development would not benefit from the Framework’s presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Overall, none of the relevant material considerations indicate that this appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.