Appeal 6001930

The appeal is dismissed.

I am also considering another appeal (ref: 6002714) by the same appellant for a single dwelling and timber carport on the adjacent parcel of land (known as Land fronting [address]). Both appeal sites form part of a single paddock. That appeal is the subject of a separate decision.

As the appeal site is located within a conservation area and there are listed buildings nearby I am required under sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the settings of the listed buildings and to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area, respectively.

The main issues in this appeal are: • Whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Alvescot Conservation Area (the ACA); • Whether the proposal would preserve the settings of nearby listed buildings; and • The effect of the proposal on flood risk.

The appeal site occupies the south east corner of a larger flat triangular paddock of rough grassland that fronts the ‘[address]’ through the village of Alvescot. There is a low stone wall along the site’s frontage with the road. The appeal site and the larger paddock it forms part of is a prominent, open parcel of land on leaving and entering the village. The appeal site itself is adjacent to the existing more recent property [address] Farm. The aforementioned other appeal is for a single dwelling and car port on the remainder of the triangular paddock.

The appeal site lies within the ACA. From the submitted evidence, including the Alvescot Conservation Area Character Appraisal (the [name]) there is reference to the village in the [name]. In the 14th century the plague is thought to have accounted for the disappearance of three of the associated communities but Alvescot survived and grew, due in part to the establishment of a church and a manor. It was principally a small farming community and the nearby towns of Burford and Witney provided local markets for produce. By the late 18th century the village took the form and built character largely recognisable today, with an unusually high proportion of 18th century properties. There are a number of agricultural buildings with two early farms, [address] and [address], and an outlier in the form of [address] Farm to the south (adjacent to the appeal site).

I also saw a number of open parcels of land in and around the village. The ACA Appraisal acknowledges that these form “valuable components of the character area” which allows cross-views in some places. The Appraisal goes on to describe that the “mature trees and areas of open land have given parts of Alvescot a fragmented quality, and the village as a whole a noticeably varied rural character”. As a result the village has both linear and dispersed elements with a loose-knit character that lacks a strongly defined edge.

I saw there were a variety of buildings of different designs, sizes and ages in the village, largely unified by their vernacular architecture and use of local stone. Most dwellings along this part of [address] front the road, but are set back from it, although there are a few examples of properties close to the pavement edge, such as the nearby The Plough Inn and [address]. Due to mature trees and the open parcels of land in and around the village, there is a verdant and spacious character and appearance to the village.

From the evidence before me and my own site visit observations, I consider the character and appearance, and thus special interest and significance, of the ACA, insofar as it relates to this appeal, are in part derived from the architectural richness and variety of its surviving historic buildings and street patterns and the relationship of its buildings and open spaces that together reflect the history of the village and its social and economic changes. The various parcels of open land are visible and tangible reminders of the village’s agrarian past.

The appeal site, and the rest of the larger triangular parcel to the north, form one of the open parcels of land and hence is an important component of the ACA. The submitted map regressions show the appeal site, and the adjacent larger open parcel, as having remained undeveloped. However, due to its more enclosed nature and proximity of other buildings and nearby mature trees, the site does not provide cross-views nor is it one of the ‘significant views’ identified in the [name], such as some of the other open parcels by The Green or the Church for example.

Nonetheless, the appeal site and paddock provide a break in the built form along the western side of [address] and is open and fully visible on driving through and entering and leaving Alvescot. It thus serves to reinforce the rural character and appearance and agricultural links of the village. Even though the paddock is a little unkempt and the more recent dwelling, [address] Farm, has already eroded part of the paddock, the appeal site and the larger parcel it forms part of, provide an attractive, distinctive and prominent feature of open space in the village at this transition point. Whilst the various open spaces in the village make differing contributions to the character and appearance of the ACA, due to their particular nature and locations, the undeveloped nature of the appeal site positively contributes to the open and rural setting and character and appearance of the ACA, and to the understanding of the evolution of Alvescot and its agrarian past, and hence to the significance and special interest of this heritage asset.

The appeal proposal would involve the erection of 2no. two-storey, 4-bedroomed detached dwellings that would be located between the existing dwelling [address] Farm and the road. The physical presence of built development on the appeal site would reduce the openness and rural character of this open parcel of land at this northern approach/exit that is important to the rural character and appearance of the ACA.

The dwellings would be accessed off [address] and would read as a row of cottage-like properties with [address] Farm. Whilst the dwellings would give a nominal nod to a vernacular style, with simple forms and use of local stone and stone roof slates, the proposal would extend built development much closer to the [address] and the corner of the paddock, making them unduly prominent. This would be exacerbated by the largely blank gable and side elevation and long roof line in close proximity to the road. This form of development would be at odds with the prevailing pattern of development in the village whereby most properties face the road. There would also be a dominance of car parking as 3 parking spaces per dwelling would be provided in a line along the front of the dwellings. This would be visually intrusive on this prominent corner. It would further result in an unduly suburban form of development that results from the development’s unsympathetic response to the prevailing pattern of development and rural character and appearance of the site.

In addition, the rear garden boundaries, whilst they would align with that of [address] Farm, would introduce an arbitrary division of the wider paddock, even if some attempts are made to plant hedges, and would fundamentally change the rural character and appearance of the paddock into residential. The gardens would likely introduce domestic paraphernalia, such as outdoor seating, greenhouses/sheds, play equipment and washing lines, to the paddock setting, particularly for Plot 2 whose private garden would extend up to the site boundary and the low stone boundary wall along [address]. Any hedge planting would take time to grow and would do little to screen the dwellings and reduce the visual intrusion to this part of the village.

Drawing all the above points together, the physical presence of two dwellings on the site would see the loss of a prominent and important parcel of undeveloped open land that would materially erode the open rural character and appearance of the village, even if this parcel does not offer the cross-views that some of the others do. Furthermore, the proposal would introduce an unduly suburban form of development in the rural village setting that would be at odds with the prevailing pattern of development and would not ‘round off’ or ‘successfully turn the corner’, as the appellant alleges. As the appeal site is an integral part of the ACA it follows that the contribution the appeal site makes to the character and appearance of the ACA, and hence to the special interest and significance of the ACA, would be diminished. The proposal would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the ACA as a whole and would harm the significance of this designated heritage asset.

The other live appeal proposal for a single dwelling on the larger part of the paddock, running parallel to but set back from the road, if allowed, either in isolation or in addition to this appeal for two dwellings, would result in an even greater loss of open space that would cause greater harm to the ACA and would result in a piecemeal and disjointed form of development across the entire site.

The decision notice refers specifically to harm that would be caused to the settings of nearby [name] listed buildings associated with Shill House1 (which includes the separately listed gatepiers, stone wall and railings)2 and Manor Farmhouse3.

[address] dates from around the early-mid 18th century, with 19th century rear wing. It is two storey with a stone porch with attached fluted Doric columns and open pediment hood, rendered parapet and moulded cornice and stone slate roof, and dressed quoins and window surrounds. From the evidence before me, and my own observations, I consider that the special interest and significance of [address] is largely derived from its architectural and historic interest in illustrating an early-mid 18thcentury vernacular higher status dwelling prominently located within a rural village.

[address] is set back from the road behind a low stone wall and railings along the back edge of the pavement, with gatepiers either side of the driveway entrance. The two 18th century rusticated ashlar gatepiers, with moulded cornice and ball finials are attached to the dwarf boundary wall and metal railings. They have their own architectural and historic interest but also add to the context and understanding of [address] as a high status dwelling as part of the history of the village. Hence the gatepiers, wall, railings and [address] have group value.

[name] and attached barn, now two dwellings, is an early 18th century house with earlier wing, possibly 16th century, which is located south east of the appeal site and adjacent to [address]. It is specifically mentioned in the [name] as one of the village’s two early farms. Its special interest and significance are largely derived from its architectural, archaeological and historic interest reflecting an historic farmstead and the agrarian past and evolution of the village.

Relevant to this appeal, the special interest and significance of these designated heritage assets also stem in part from their settings, namely, the surroundings in which they are experienced. As the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states, setting can change as an asset and its surroundings evolve.

The primary space from which [address] and [name] are experienced is from their immediate settings within their well-defined and bounded private grounds that give a sense of enclosure. [address] in particular is more enclosed behind the listed stone wall and railings, behind which is a tall yew hedge. 1 National Heritage List for England: list entry number 1198165 2 National Heritage List for England: list entry number 12839630 (25 metres west of [address]) and 1053587 (20 metres south west of [address]). 3 National Heritage List for England: list entry number 1053588

In terms of the wider settings, all of the listed buildings are experienced from [address] as one travels through the village and there are times when the properties and the appeal site are seen together. They have group value as part of the historic street scene.

The main space from which the gatepiers, wall and railings are experienced is also from [address]. The appeal site, although not public land, allows the heritage merit of [address], and associated gatepiers, wall and railings to be appreciated in their historic street scene context, even with the tall hedge currently limiting inter-visibility with [address] itself.

[address] Farmhouse sits more directly opposite the landscaped grounds of [address], the open paddock that is the appeal site can be viewed kinetically with it and helps in the agrarian understanding of fields and farms located within the heart of the village.

Furthermore, as the listed buildings are all on the same side of the road, the openness of the appeal site is further appreciated and provides an open setting that positively contributes to the special interest and significance, and to the authenticity of these listed buildings as part of the village, particularly as the appeal side of the road in this part of the village has largely remained unchanged over time.

The proposal would not affect the physical fabric of any of the heritage assets nor their immediate settings and the meaningful contribution these elements make to their heritage merit.

Even so, building two houses on the appeal site, and taking built form closer to the road and closer to the listed buildings, and which would face towards [name], would erode the open space and historic street scene in which these assets are appreciated. This in turn would lessen the understanding and authenticity of the historic and wider rural and village setting of these listed buildings. Hence the wider settings of these listed buildings would not be preserved and their significance would be harmed.

The Framework states that great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets, as they are an irreplaceable resource. It goes on to state that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification.

Given the nature and extent of the proposal against the advice in the Framework and the national Planning Policy Guidance (the PPG) I find the harm to the significance of the ACA as a whole would be towards the middle of ‘less than substantial’ and the harm to the settings of the listed buildings would be towards the lower end of ‘less than substantial’, taking the cumulative harm of the proposal towards the mid-point of less than substantial. Even so, a finding of ‘less than substantial’ harm still carries considerable importance and weight and does not equate to a less than substantial planning objection. In finding less than substantial harm the Framework requires the harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Public benefits, as described in the PPG can be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental objectives and do not have to be visible or publicly accessible.

There would be some public benefits arising from the provision of 2 dwellings in a village where limited new housing within the built up area is acceptable in principle, subject to certain criteria and satisfying other policies in the Local Plan. The Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing land, with a position stated as being 4.3 years. Therefore the two dwellings would help address this shortfall. There would be some short-term economic benefits to the wider local economy from jobs and the supply chain during the construction phase and some longer-term spend from future occupiers, at least some of which would likely be spent locally. The land may be somewhat overgrown, but that is easily rectified with basic land management practices without the need to develop the site for housing and is not justification for developing the land.

Taking into account the scale of the proposal for only two dwellings the totality of these public benefits, whilst weighing in favour of the proposal, are not sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight I attach to the harm that would be caused to the designated heritage assets. There is no clear and convincing justification for the harm. Thus the proposal would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the Framework.

The proposal would also conflict with Policies OS2, OS4, H2, EH2, EH7, EH9, EH10, EH11 and EH13 of the Local Plan. Collectively these seek, amongst other things, to ensure development conserves and enhances the character, appearance and distinctiveness of [name] historic environment, the special interest and character and appearance of conservation areas and is sympathetic to the listed buildings and their settings, and that in villages development does not involve the loss of areas of open space or other features that make important contributions to the character and appearance of the area and conserve and enhance the natural, historic and built environment.

It would also be contrary to the [name] already discussed, and the [name] that provides a range of design advice, in particular section 6 on Conservation Areas, section 7 for listed buildings and section 11 for new development and context, whereby, amongst other things, development should be designed in sympathy and meaningfully with its surroundings and context so that the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of listed buildings is not harmed.

Policy EH7 of the Local Plan is a broad policy that seeks to avoid and reduce flood risk and manage any residual risk. The supporting text states that development should not result in an increase in surface-water run-off. Drainage systems should, amongst other things, reduce pressures on sewer infrastructure.

The appellant submitted a [name] and Layout with the application. Infiltration testing revealed that the site cannot accommodate soakaways and hence surface and foul water will need to both discharge to the sewer network. [name] confirmed that the sewerage network does not currently have capacity, but that upgrading works to the network at nearby Carterton are due to be completed in late 2025.

In a letter dated 6 November 2025 [name] state that, in relation to surface water for 3 dwellings across the whole site, written approval from the lead local flood authority is required to confirm that the sequential approach for the disposal of surface water has been followed, and that if flows are restricted to 2 l/s and if modelling confirms sufficient capacity, then [name] would not have any objection to the proposal.

There is no updated information about whether [name] have carried out, or when they will carry out, the upgrades to the sewerage system. The Council’s drainage engineer has confirmed4, whilst still having some concerns about the classification of the sewer and the need for [name] to resolve the inconsistency, that the sequential approach has been followed.

[name] planned upgrades to the nearby drainage network and confirmation that the sequential approach has been followed, I am satisfied that a suitably worded drainage condition could be imposed that requires confirmation from [name] that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate foul and surface water flows from the development, and that surface water can be adequately dealt with and would not result in increased flood risk. On that basis, with appropriate mitigation, the proposal would accord with the requirements of Local Plan Policy EH7.

I note the Inspector for the previous appeal for a single dwelling on the wider parcel found differently. However, that was over 3 years ago and matters appear to have moved on.

There is no dispute between the parties that the settings of the nearby [name] listed buildings the Granary5 and Butlers Court6 would be preserved and their significance would not be harmed.

The Granary is a small late-18th/early-19th century rendered, half-hipped, building still resting on its staddle stones. Its special interest and significance in relation to this appeal primarily stem from its architectural and historic interest in terms of its built form as a rare example of a particular type of agricultural building. Special interest and significance are also derived, in part, from the asset’s rural village context. However, this has been somewhat compromised by the buildings immediately surrounding the Granary that have been converted to residential use, thus lessening the contribution that the asset’s setting makes to its heritage merit. Given the above and bearing in mind the location of the proposed development in relation to the Granary, I find that this asset’s setting would be preserved and its significance would not be harmed.

[address] lies some distance south of the appeal site, set within its own extensive grounds some distance from the road behind a boundary wall, mature landscaping and landscaped lawn. Said to be of 16th century origin, but with earliest surviving structural features dating from the 17th century, its special interest and significance stem largely from its historic and architectural interest as well as from its immediate surroundings with which it is historically associated. Special interest and significance are also drawn to a limited degree, from the asset’s wider rural village setting. Having regard to the above, in conjunction with the lack of inter-visibility and any formal relationship between the asset and the appeal site, I find 4 Email dated 5 January 2026 5 National Heritage List for England: list entry number 1053586 known as “Granary adjacent to house known as the Granary, [address]”. 6 National Heritage List for England: list entry number 1053590 that the proposal would preserve this listed building’s setting and would not harm its significance.

There would be harm to a number of designated heritage assets and I have found the public benefits would not outweigh that harm. There would also be conflict with a number of development plan policies such that the proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole. The lack of harm with regard flood risk carries neutral weight in the planning balance.

However, the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply. Therefore, having regard to footnote 8 of the Framework, paragraph 11d) is engaged.

Nonetheless, with reference to footnote 7 of the Framework, given my conclusions above, the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance, which includes designated heritage assets, provides a strong reason for refusing the proposed development.

Therefore, overall there would be conflict with the development plan as a whole and this conflict is not outweighed by the other material considerations as identified above, including the Framework. Therefore, for the reasons set out above the appeal should be dismissed.