Appeal 6002714

The appeal is dismissed.

A previous scheme for a larger dwelling and garaging on a larger part of the site was dismissed on appeal1 (the previous scheme). [name] understand the scheme has been amended for the current appeal and includes a reduction in the site area and size of the dwelling to now two storeys and 4 bedrooms; repositioning the dwelling further back from the road and relocating the site entrance, I am not comparing the schemes but considering the current appeal proposal as it stands before me.

There is a live appeal (ref: 6001930) for two dwellings on the adjacent parcel of land (known as Land at [address]) for the same appellant that forms part of the wider paddock. This live appeal site formed part of the site for the ‘previous scheme’. The live appeal for 2 dwellings is the subject of a separate appeal

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 setting of nearby listed buildings; 1 Appeal ref: App/D3125/W/22/3301411 dated 15 November 2022 • The effect of the proposal on the likely long-term effect upon trees to be retained in the vicinity of the site; and • The effect of the proposal on flood risk.

The appeal site is a large 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, and a line of mature [name] trees on adjacent land along the site’s western boundary. There are also a couple of [name] trees on the roadside boundary near the site’s northern end. It is a prominent, open site on leaving and entering the village. The site for the aforementioned live appeal for 2 dwellings would occupy the rectangular south-east corner of the wider paddock, adjacent to the existing and more recently built property [address] Farm.

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 [name] 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 forms 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 provides 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 smaller part for the other live appeal) 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 proposed development would involve the erection of a two-storey, 4-bedroom detached dwelling with detached car port to its northern side, with space to park 2 vehicles under cover. A new vehicular access would be created by forming an opening in the roadside stone boundary wall close to the northern corner of the site, close to the existing access track that leads to [address] House. From the road, a new driveway would then lead south through the site, beneath the canopy of some of the [name] trees. The dwelling would be located approximately in the middle of the site, but closer to the trees on the western boundary than to the [address].

The dwelling and car port would be aligned along the site, parallel to [address], and set back from it, and the design of the dwelling would give a nominal nod to a vernacular style, with simple forms and use of local stone and stone roof slates.

Nonetheless, the physical presence of a dwelling, car port and a long hard surfaced driveway would reduce the openness and rural character of this open parcel of land at this northern approach/exit of the village that is important to the rural character and appearance of the ACA. From my site visit observations, the timber car port is a somewhat prominent and uncharacteristic form of development for domestic settings in the village.

In addition, a boundary would be created to demarcate the open frontage and the private rear garden. The CGI image shows a close boarded timber fence boundary would extend from the side of the dwelling towards the southern site boundary (and where it could meet the rear garden boundaries of the proposed 2 dwellings in the other live appeal). Whilst means of enclosure and additional landscape planting could be conditioned, creation of garden space would likely introduce domestic paraphernalia to the site, such as outdoor seating, washing lines and play equipment, as the dwelling is 4-bedrooms and could well attract a family with children. There would be nothing to prevent future occupiers or their visitors parking vehicles in the drive, beyond the confines of the car port. These aspects would further exacerbate the domestication of this open undeveloped parcel of land and loss of rural character and appearance.

Furthermore, with an open-sided car port there would be no screening of domestic/gardening/car-related miscellaneous items and clutter. Hence future occupiers would likely reasonably need a shed of some kind to store various items and equipment, such as lawn mowers, garden tools, hosepipes, other DIY items and bicycles. Whilst permitted development rights could be removed to later control the erection of ancillary structures in the garden, there would be an increased pressure to erect them. The erection of any such structures would further erode the rural character and appearance of the site.

Drawing all the above points together, the physical presence of built development 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. 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 thus 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 two dwellings on the southern part of the wider paddock, if allowed, either in isolation or in addition to this appeal, 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 paddock.

Shill House2 and the gatepiers, stone wall and railings3 are all [name] listed buildings and are located directly opposite the appeal site. [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. 2 National Heritage List for England: list entry number 1198165 3 National Heritage List for England: list entry number 12839630 (25 metres west of [address]) and 1053587 (20 metres south west of [address]).

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] is experienced is from its immediate setting within the well-defined and bounded private grounds behind the stone wall, railings and tall yew hedge.

In terms of the wider setting, all of the listed buildings are experienced from [address] as one travels through the village and are seen in the same view with the appeal site opposite. 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 behind the stone wall currently limiting inter-visibility with [address] itself.

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, erecting a dwelling and car port on the appeal site 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 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 then 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 one dwelling 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 [site address] Local Plan 2031 Local Plan (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 one dwelling 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 one dwelling the totality of the 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 [site address] ’s 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 [site address] [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.

There is a group of mature [name] trees that lie outside the appeal site but run along its western boundary. Even though the trees were not in leaf at the time of my visit, I saw that they provided an attractive and imposing landscaped backdrop to the appeal site in this part of the ACA, contributing to the sylvan and verdant character and appearance of the village. Indeed in the [name] the line of trees, and those on the road frontage at the site’s northerly corner, are identified as ‘[name] and Tree Groups’. Some of the submitted photographic evidence of the site were taken in the summer and this reinforces my view of the positive contribution the trees make to the amenity and the character and appearance of ACA.

The submitted [name] shows that the proposed new access and hardstanding driveway would go through the root protection area (RPA) of the two trees on the road frontage (T1 and T8) and trees T2 and T3 along the western boundary, but no-dig construction methods could be utilised, and conditioned. The footprint of the car port would fall within the RPA of Tree T3, but due to a small encroachment the survey finds there would be no damage to the tree. The house itself would be outside, but in very close proximity to, the RPA of the remaining trees. No trees would be felled as a result of the development and protective barriers would be installed to protect the trees during construction, and this could be conditioned. Nonetheless, the siting of the buildings in such close proximity to a number of RPAs does not appear to provide for tree growth or maintenance and would leave the trees vulnerable.

To address matters in the previous scheme the proposed dwelling and car port would be sited further away from the road. However, as a result the dwelling and car port would be placed closer to the western boundary and line of protected trees. The house had been pegged out, approximately, on the site for my visit. The property’s private garden area would be to the rear of the house. With a depth of less than 10 metres I could see that much of the rear garden would be located beneath the combined tree canopy of the [name] trees T3 – T7. This would mean that most of the private garden area would be susceptible to the ‘nuisance’ of fallen leaves and potentially fallen branches. Furthermore, the trees are about 19- 22 metres tall and due to the proximity of the dwelling, they would be within ‘strike’ distance of the dwelling should any of these trees fall.

Moreover, the trees sit to the west and southwest of the plot. Considering the path of the sun and short depth of the rear garden, there would likely be overshadowing of the only area of private garden for significant parts of the day and year. This would be particularly the case when the trees would be in leaf, which would be generally in sunnier and warmer weather when future occupiers would be more likely to be outside using their garden. Furthermore, the habitable rooms at the rear of the house, namely an open-plan dining room/kitchen and a lounge, both with bi-fold doors onto the rear garden, and 2 bedrooms at first floor, would have reduced daylight throughout the day and much of the year, particularly when the trees would be in leaf. Whilst the trees are deciduous and there would be seasonal differences, overall the combined effect of the shading from the trees and the reduced depth of the rear private garden would make the garden and some habitable rooms darker and potentially unattractive to future occupiers.

These factors, alone and in combination, would likely lead to an increased pressure from future occupiers to prune or even fell the trees. Their reduction and loss of significant trees would have a consequential harmful impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. Whilst the trees are in third party ownership and protected such that future occupiers would need consent to do works to the trees and any request for works would be subject to the Council making an appropriate assessment, this does not remove the likely potential pressure on the Council and on the trees and harm the significance of the ACA.

Accordingly the proposal would be contrary to Local Plan Policies OS2, OS4, EH9 and EH10. Collectively these seek, amongst other things, to ensure that development respects the landscape character and features of the locality, does not involve loss of features that make an important contribution to the character and appearance of the area, particularly where heritage assets would be harmed. It would also be contrary to the [name], as already mentioned above.

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 or current 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 scheme 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 are a number of other [name] listed buildings in the vicinity of the appeal site that I am required to consider.

Manor Farmhouse5 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 two early farms in the village. Its special interest and significance in relation to this appeal are largely derived from its architectural, archaeological and historic interest reflecting an historic farmstead and the agrarian past and evolution of the village. The primary space [name] is 4 Email dated 5 January 2026 5 National Heritage List for England: list entry number 1053588 known as “[name] with barn attached to north”. experienced is from its immediate setting within its well-defined and bounded private grounds that give a sense of enclosure. Special interest and significance are also drawn from the asset’s wider rural village setting, which is mainly from [address] with the landscaped grounds of [address] directly opposite. Having regard to this, the separation distance and the set back of the proposed dwelling on the site, I find that the proposal would preserve the setting of [name] and would not harm its significance.

The Granary6 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, this asset’s setting would be preserved and its significance would not be harmed.

Butlers Court7 lies to the 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, the separation distance and in conjunction with the lack of inter-visibility and any formal relationship between the asset and the appeal site, I find 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 be likely pressure on protected trees that would potentially harm the ACA. 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. 6 National Heritage List for England: list entry number 1053586 known as “Granary adjacent to house known as the Granary, [address]”. 7 National Heritage List for England: list entry number 1053590

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.