Appeal 6003006

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against South Oxfordshire District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The application is in outline to include access. All other matters of Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale would be subject to separate reserved matters applications should outline planning permission be granted. I have treated the appeal in the same way.

The written description of the development above, taken from the application form, makes no reference to it being an outline application because the application form had a ready-printed header stating, “Application for outline planning permission with some matters reserved”. At the Hearing it was agreed, that for the avoidance of doubt and to provide a more meaningful stand-alone description, that it be amended to read “Outline application to include access for the erection of 25 dwellings with associated accesses, works to [address], landscaping and parking”. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The parties agreed on the plans to be considered, and those that would appear in the plans’ condition, should planning permission be granted. A submitted Masterplan (drawing 1005-SK [name]) is illustrative but nonetheless provides a useful guide as to how the site could be developed.

It is common ground between the parties that the emerging development plan is still at an early stage of preparation and carries limited weight.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land. The Council’s Housing Land Supply Statement of December 2025 found there was a supply of 4.46 years. The appellant contends there are deliverability issues with a number of sites and that as a result the housing land supply position is 3.91 years.

However, during the determination of this appeal another appeal decision was issued for a site at Charlgrove1. After hearing evidence for some 15 disputed housing sites at an Inquiry, the Inspector found the Council’s housing land supply (HLS) position to be between 3.64 and 3.81 years (depending on whether Oxford’s unmet need is included). That appeal decision was issued only two and a half weeks before this Hearing. It is common ground between the parties that for the purposes of this appeal the current HLS position is 3.81 years, which equates to a deficit of 1,542 homes.

The application was refused for three reasons. Reasons 2 and 3 both relate to the lack of a legal agreement2 to secure 40% affordable housing and a financial contribution towards monitoring on-site biodiversity net gain (BNG) respectively. At the [name] was presented with a final draft of a [name] (UU) planning obligation. A signed and dated final version has subsequently been submitted after the Hearing by agreement.

The Council confirms the UU satisfactorily addresses the affordable housing and would provide £9,617.29 financial contribution towards a BNG monitoring fee. As a result, the second and third reasons for refusal are now overcome. From the evidence before me I have no reason to take a different view.

The UU would also secure the provision of 2 bus shelters at the existing bus stops at the [address]/A4155 junction and pedestrian improvements to them from [address], including a pedestrian crossing refuge island on the A4155. There would also be financial contributions of £34,100 towards the longer-term improvements to the bus service on the Henley-Shiplake-Caversham-Reading route; £268 per 10 dwellings towards the provision of street names and numbers within the development; £212 per dwelling towards the provision of waste and recycling bins within the development; £2,547 for improvements to household waste and recycling centres serving the development, and the provision of Public Open Space and [name] and their transfer, including of any [name] (SuDS), to a Management Company. There would also be monitoring fees payable to both the County Council (updated figures added) and District Council. I have taken the agreed UU into account in the determination of the appeal. 1 APP/Q3115/W/25/3370273 dated 20 February 2026 2 Pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

In light of the above, I have confined my assessment to the first refusal reason and its various components, such that the main issues in this appeal are: • Whether the appeal site would be a suitable location for housing with regard to local and national policies; • Whether the site is in an accessible location in relation to transport and infrastructure; and • The effect of the proposal on the rural character of the area.

Policy STRAT1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011-20353 (the Local Plan) sets out the overall spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy to support sustainable patterns of growth in locations that help reduce the need to travel. Major new development is to be focused on [name], Didcot Garden Town and Culham, with other targeted strategic allocations elsewhere. The strategy also supports the roles of the market towns of Henley-on-Thames (close to the appeal site), Thame and Wallingford. In addition, villages have been categorised as being either “[name]” that have a wide range of services and facilities in sustainable locations, or “[name]” that have a more limited range of services. “[name]” are at the bottom of the settlement hierarchy being hamlets or very small settlements with very limited or no services.

The countryside will be protected and enhanced by ensuring that outside of the towns and villages any change relates to very specific needs, such as those of the agricultural industry or enhancement of the environment. The Council’s vision and objectives recognise the rural nature of the district and the importance that rural settlements contribute to what makes [name] “such a beautiful and prosperous place to live”.

The spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy approach is broadly in accordance with the aim of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) to promote sustainable patterns of development and reduce the need to travel, whilst recognising there are different needs between rural and urban areas.

[site address] and [name], which are two distinct and physically separate settlements that make up Shiplake, are both defined as ‘[name] in Appendix 7 of the Local Plan.

Local Plan Policy H1 states that residential development on sites not allocated in the development plan will only be permitted according to a number of criteria, most relevant of which to this appeal is criterion (iv) where development is on infill and brownfield sites within Smaller and [name].

Local Plan Policy H8 supports housing in ‘[name] in accordance with Local Plan Policy H16. Where a Parish Council wishes to prepare a Neighbourhood Development Plan and make allocations within it to support further growth, the Council will support this where levels of growth are commensurate to the size of the village. The supporting text explains that [name] have no 3 [name] 2020 defined requirement, beyond windfall and infill development, to contribute towards delivering additional homes to meet the overall housing requirements of [name].

Local Plan Policy H16 goes on to state that within [name] and [name], development should be limited to infill and the development of previously developed land or buildings. It defines infill development as “the filling of a small gap in an otherwise continuous built-up frontage, or on other sites within settlements where the site is closely surrounded by buildings...”.

Policy SV1 of the recently made [name] Plan4 (the SNP) is a local interpretation of Policy H16. The built-up area (the BUA) of [site address] is demarcated with a boundary as shown in figure 12 of the SNP. There is no dispute between the parties that the appeal site lies outside, but adjacent to, the defined BUA. At the Hearing the Council confirmed that in the decision notice, reference to Shiplake should in fact refer to the village of [site address] where the appeal site is located, as both settlements have their own separate BUA boundaries. Hence the proposal would be contrary to Local Plan Policies STRAT1, H1, H8 and H16 and SNP Policy SV1.

Lying outside the BUA the site therefore lies in the countryside in planning policy terms. SNP Policy SV2 will only support additional dwellings in the open countryside if they are necessary or suitable for a countryside location, consistent with policies in the Local Plan. The proposed 25 dwellings do not fall within any of the listed categories of acceptable countryside development. Hence the proposal is contrary to Policy SV2.

That said, the appellant pursues the matter of the appeal site lying within the village and points to a number of local housing developments5 that have been granted planning permission by the Council or allowed on appeal that lie outside the BUA of [site address] . As a result, the appellant contends the BUA of [site address] has not kept pace with change and does not reflect the built situation on the ground and hence is out of date. In particular, they claim the BUA boundary should have been extended to include the retirement village at [name] on the northern edge of the appeal site as it had already been approved, although not built, when the SNP was ‘made’ in 2022. Taking this into account the appellant argues the appeal site now lies within the village of [site address] .

The defined BUA boundary for [site address] is a planning tool to guide the location of development. It does not have to correspond to the administrative area of the village or even follow the physical limits of existing buildings or sites that have planning permission. As development and neighbourhood plans are made periodically, and the SNP was made just over 3 years ago, its BUA boundary cannot be, and does not need to be, constantly re-drawn to reflect new developments granted or built. There may be exceptional reasons or particular circumstances that have led to a development proposal being allowed outside the BUA. For example for the [name] scheme the SNP had not been made; there was no BUA boundary; there was a different Local Plan in force at the 4 [name] 2022 5 95 dwellings at [address] APP/Q3115/W/16/3161733 dated 2 August 2017; 40 dwellings at former [name] ref: P18/S0951/O granted 23 November 2019; 65 retirement homes (now [name]) APP/Q3115/W/19/3220425 dated 14 October 2019; 7 dwellings at [name]/Q3115/W/19/3219984 dated 26 June 2019; 4 dwellings at [address]; 2 dwellings adj [address] APP/Q3115/W/19/3229352 dated 27 March 2020; and 11 dwellings at [name]/Q3115/W/22/3297007 dated 15 September 2022. time and the Inspector was satisfied there was a high need for the provision of extra care housing. Furthermore, the Neighbourhood Plan Examiner6 noted there had been no direct challenge to the definition of the boundaries of the built-up areas of the [site address] and [name].

Even if the BUA boundary was revised, it does not necessarily follow that the retirement village or any of the other developments or indeed the appeal site would be included within a revised boundary. Moreover, the appeal before me does not seek to review the local or neighbourhood plan - that is a separate process - and therefore it is beyond my remit to re-draw the BUA boundary for [site address] as part of this appeal.

In pursuing the BUA point, the appellant also draws my attention to some of the previously mentioned housing decisions where Inspectors considered the sites formed part of the village, even though they lay outside them. In the Crossways appeal (see footnote 5) the Inspector firstly had to ascertain whether the site lay within the village for planning purposes, taking into account the site’s setting and relationship with the village. However, this step was only necessary because there was no BUA or settlement boundary and the site lay within the adjacent Parish of Henley & Harpsden, whose Neighbourhood Plan was emerging. That scheme was thus determined under a different policy context. Taking into account the site’s context in relation to the houses on the opposite side of the road (the A4155) and other housing permissions that had commenced along the same stretch of road, that Inspector formed the view that the site would be seen as part of the village. These sites have a different locational context, including being on the main A4155 Henley to [address], and are thus not directly comparable to the appeal site. In any event, I must consider the appeal before me on its own merits and against relevant development plan policies.

The appellant’s reference to the [name] court case7 found that consideration of the boundary of a village defined in a local plan to be relevant, but not necessarily determinative, such that regard should also be had to the situation on the ground as well as any other policies. However, the [name] case was in relation to proposed housing in the Green Belt where the Framework exception is for ‘limited infilling in villages’. The exception does not specify what type or category of villages can have limited infill or that infill must occur within defined settlement boundaries imposed through a development plan. Hence the Green Belt exception requires the decision-maker to first establish if the site lies within the village, including looking at the situation on the ground, and which might not necessarily correspond with a village boundary defined for planning purposes.

For the appeal scheme before me I do not need to establish if the site lies within the village, because the site is not in the Green Belt and because the recently made SNP clearly identifies a BUA boundary for the village of [site address] for planning purposes and shows the appeal site lies outside it.

In trying to argue the appeal site lies within a BUA which the appellant seeks to re-draw, they then seek to explore whether the proposal constitutes infill development. However, consideration of whether a proposal would be infill 6 A report to South Oxfordshire District Council on the Shiplake Neighbourhood Development Plan – by [name] dated 11 May 2022 7 [name] v SSCLG and Gravesham Borough Council [2015] [name] 195 development can only occur if the site lies within the BUA. As the appeal site clearly lies outside the BUA, there is no need for me to consider the matter of infill.

To conclude on this main issue, as the appeal site lies outside the defined BUA boundary of [site address] , the proposal would conflict with the Council’s spatial strategy and hence would not be a suitable location for housing regarding local and national policies. Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to Local Plan Policies STRAT1, H1, H8 and H16 and [name] SV1 and SV2, whose aims are set out above.

Local Plan Policy TRANS5 sets out considerations for development proposals. These include matters such as providing safe and convenient access for all users to the highway network; providing safe and convenient routes for cyclists and pedestrians; and be designed to facilitate access to high-quality public transport routes that include safe walking routes to nearby bus stops.

The Framework seeks to promote sustainable patterns of development and opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport by limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. At the same time it recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. The Framework also seeks to ensure that sustainable transport modes are prioritised and safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved.

From the submitted evidence and what I saw on my site visit, there are a good range of services/facilities between [site address] and [name], that are generally within acceptable walking and cycling range of the appeal site, with distances agreed in the Statement of [name].

Existing and future residents would still need to leave the village to access higher order services and facilities such as secondary schools, health and medical facilities, certain leisure activities, shops and places of employment. The nearest secondary school, Gillots, is over 4.5kms away, but there are school coaches. [name] there is a Tesco supermarket and Pharmacy, a doctor’s surgery, [name] and [address] Employment Area, plus a range of other shops and town centre uses. Whilst they are generally accessible by bus and train, the use of the car to access some of these facilities would be likely.

However, distances to facilities/services themselves are not the only factor when considering accessibility and suitability of a location. The nature and type of route will also influence their suitability and likelihood of them being used.

I saw that [address], the route to the primary school, nursey and [name] with its various outdoor sports facilities, has no pavement (until one gets near the [name] and housing towards the school) or street lighting. I saw there was a steady stream of vehicles, especially around school opening/closing time, with vehicles slowing down in places to pass each other, although the appellant suggests that it represents light traffic conditions. [name] walked part of the road one needed vigilance of traffic in both directions and it was not conducive to walking or cycling, particularly if one was with children and pushchairs and in the dark or inclement weather. The permissive path behind the hedge along [address] follows the edge of a field. Whilst traffic-free, it is unlit and it would require sensible shoes or boots to walk it, and would be more difficult in muddy conditions, inclement weather or in the dark, and not suitable for those with impaired mobility. Whilst this might not be a problem for recreational walkers, this route is unlikely to be a realistic walking option that future occupiers would use to access services and facilities. Therefore, the overall opportunities for walking/cycling to [name] are already limited for existing residents of [site address] . I heard at the Hearing that most existing residents drive to the school and facilities at the [name] in [name].

The appeal proposal does not include any improvements to [address] to make it safer for pedestrians or cyclists to use. Hence the appeal proposal is unlikely to change the status quo in this regard and future residents would also likely drive to these facilities in [name].

In terms of access to public bus services, existing residents wanting to walk to/from the bus stops at the junction of [address]/A4155 near [address] currently have to walk along the largely unmade and poorly maintained [address]. Then on meeting [address], they either walk on the grass verge or in the road and then try and cross the busy A4155 if wanting the northbound bus service. On my site visits I experienced for myself that the A4155 is not a nice road to cross at this point, even in a 30mph zone, with a hill and several turnings all in close proximity to the bus stops.

However, the proposal includes some highway improvements to improve the connectivity of the appeal site with public bus services. Bus shelters are proposed for the two existing [address] junction bus stops, that provide regular and frequent services to Henely and Reading. To get to them, there would be new footways around the bell mouth of [address] with the A4155. This would allow footway access to a new pedestrian crossing refuge to facilitate safer crossing of the road.

The Parish Council has doubts that the pedestrian refuge would be suitable, considering the narrow width of the road at this point, the incline of the road and based on previous attempts to get a crossing installed. They also question pedestrian behaviour to use the lengthier route than the more direct desire line straight across the road. I stood and watched the traffic in the vicinity of the proposed pedestrian refuge and could appreciate the Parish Council’s concerns. However, the Highway Authority has not raised any technical objection and the proposed highway works feature in the UU. In the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to take a different view to the Highway Authority as a statutory consultee.

Therefore, the 2 bus shelters, proposed footway improvements and pedestrian refuge have the potential to improve pedestrian accessibility to the bus stops on the A4155 by [address] junction and help encourage use of public transport. However, these measures would be unlikely to improve walking/cycling opportunities to [name] due to the existing environment of [address], as already discussed.

However, it is the nature of [address] itself that causes greatest issue. [address] is a private, unadopted, unmade, uneven, heavily pot-holed road that varies in width, although is generally straight. At the time of my visit the large pot holes were filled with water and the verges were muddy.

[address] is demarcated by white wooden picket gates at its entrances at [address] and where it meets [address] in the village, with an advisory speed limit of 20mph. Its ownership is unknown, but the [address] & [address] Management Committee are involved with maintenance, although have not been approached by the appellant. [address] is of variable width. Across the site it varies in width between 4.9-6 metres and to the west the tarmacked section varies between 3.4m-5.4m. Two vehicles could just about pass in places with care, although there are some muddy verges and a few informal muddy passing places. There is no dedicated footway, although this is not uncommon in rural villages, including many roads around [site address] , and so operates as a shared surface with vehicles, pedestrians and any cyclists. Most of the route passes between fields on either side and is lined by hedgerows and trees, and there are no street lighting. I saw a number of domestic and business vehicles using it in both directions, slowly weaving their way around the pot holes. I also saw a number of local walkers, some with dogs, coming in either direction. The appellant’s transport evidence8, from a weeklong travel survey carried out at the [address] site frontage, showed weekday average of 26 vehicles movements per day and 129 pedestrian/cycle movements per day (although it is unclear if these are two-way movements).

Some end sections of [address] are tarmacked. At the western end, there is tarmac from the junction with [address] as far as the properties [address]/[name]. At the [name] heard that 5 properties at this end of [address] laid the tarmac at their own expense. Thereafter, [address] is unmade until it reaches properties [address]/Fairfield where the tarmac resumes and continues into the village.

The appellant proposes to extend the existing tarmac section at the west end of [address] by about 65 metres to just beyond the new entrance that would serve the larger of the appeal parcels for 23 dwellings – the end of the tarmac would be demarcated with granite setts. There would be no changes or resurfacing to the remaining [address]. The smaller appeal parcel for 2 dwellings would exit/enter onto part of the remaining unmade section of [address].

The proposal would see an increase in usage of [address] by pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. The appellant’s Transport evidence9, based on surveyed traffic flows and forecast development demand, shows that traffic flows on [address] to the west of the access will result in 35 two-way vehicle movements during the 7am- 10am peak period and 26 two-way vehicle movements during the 4pm-7pm peak period. There are no pavements or street lighting proposed along [address] and so there would potentially be increased pedestrian/cyclist/vehicle conflict with no safe or dedicated routeway for pedestrians, apart from the informal muddy verges, on a road that would become a main access route to 25 new homes. The appellant’s submitted “pedestrian and cycle envelope” plan10 indicates [address] is wide enough so as not to cause significant conflict. However, the ‘envelope’ does not necessarily imply that [address] can adequately operate as a regular shared surface.

Even if vehicle speeds are low, due to the poor condition of the unmade sections of [address] and substandard width, there would still be potential conflict. The residents of the larger field parcel would have to walk/cycle the longer unmade 8 Table 2.2 of the [name] dated 13 December 2024 9 Transport Assessment Addendum dated 18 June 2025 10 Drawing ITB19614-GA-[address] into the village, without street lighting or a dedicated pavement. This would do little to encourage walking or cycling into the village, particularly for those with mobility issues or pushchairs having to negotiate the uneven, muddy, pot-holed surface, especially in the dark or in inclement weather.

Furthermore, the tarmacked section to the west of the site entrance serving the 23 dwellings would likely encourage future residents to use their cars and drive westwards away from the village, in preference to walking or cycling. Asked at the Hearing why the whole section of [address] would not be surfaced, the appellant said it was a deliberate move to dissuade residents from using [address] as a short cut.

A Stage 1 [name] on the proposed access and crossing interventions has found that the proposal would be unlikely to generate significant highway impacts. Whilst the Highways Authority do not maintain a technical objection to the use of [address], they have expressed their concerns that future residents’ perceptions of safety and security may discourage walking and cycling to local amenities. This reinforces my concerns regarding the lack of pedestrian infrastructure in particular, and the suitability of [address] as a main access route for new dwellings. The limited improvements to [address] would likely have little effect on encouraging existing and proposed residents to walk to the bus stop at the junction with [address], as the unmade, muddy, potholed sections of [address] would still need to be negotiated.

I accept that there are villages and country areas where there are no pavements and residents have to walk in the road, much as the existing residents of [site address] do. However, [address] is used more as a recreational route than a main vehicular access route to the village, simply because there are very few dwellings along it. The appeal proposal would alter that balance, but without significant betterment.

From the submitted evidence, what I heard at the Hearing and my own site observations, I am of the view that the proposal would not actively encourage walking and cycling and that the proposal would fail to prioritise pedestrian/cyclist movements, fail to materially improve the pedestrian and cycling environment to make it safe and attractive for all users and thus the site’s location would not be sustainable in terms of transport infrastructure. Accordingly the proposal would conflict with Local Plan Policy TRANS5 and the Framework.

The appellant submitted a Landscape and [name] (LVA) with the application. The Parish of Shiplake lies between the [name] and the Chilterns National Landscape (formerly known as the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). The site also lies within Natural England’s National Character Area 110 Chilterns. At the district level it lies within Landscape Character Area LCA 4A: [name] and Valleys, located to the south of the Chilterns dip slope. Its key characteristics include a rural landscape with undulating plateaux dissected by an irregular pattern of shallow small-scale valleys, heavily wooded with extensive areas of Ancient Woodland and an irregular pattern of arable and pasture fields defined by hedgerows creating an enclosed wooded farmland character. Typical settlement pattern of small villages, hamlets and farms connected by winding rural roads and a generally rural landscape. The majority of LCA 4A is also located within the Chilterns National Landscape to the north west, but the site itself is not within it.

I walked the permissive footpaths from near the [name] northwards across the fields and around the eastern edge of [name], which lie within the Chilterns National Landscape. From here I could stand at [address] 6, identified on figure 21 of the SNP as one of the important views of the local character area PLCA3 (which I discuss in more detail later). From here I could look eastwards across the fields towards the site and pick out the ‘crooked tree’ that residents at the Hearing had identified for me as a reference point, as this tree stands on the site boundary with [address]. Some of the rooftops of the retirement village in the dip were visible. From the footpath across the fields, I could also see moving traffic on the A4155. Whilst illustrative, the masterplan shows most of the proposed dwellings would be on the higher part of the appeal site, with the lowest area by the retirement village shown illustratively as potential open space and free of built development. Whilst there is some dispute as to levels and heights, the parameters plan shows that proposed dwellings would be up to 2 storeys in height. I consider that some of the proposed dwellings and rooftops, particularly the central circle and crescent of houses shown on the illustrative masterplan in the middle of the site and occupying the higher parts of the slope and site, would be more discernible.

However, from the edge of [name] looking across open fields I saw that the large modern farm buildings of the intervening farm dominated the foreground and the hills on the horizon beyond the site. Any users of the footpaths around these fields and woods would have their long distance views towards the site and the proposed housing distracted and views filtered by existing trees closer to the site and between the retirement village. Consequently, I find the proposal would not be unduly visible in the wider landscape and hence would not impact on the setting of the National Landscape or the valued characteristics of LNA 4A. The smaller eastern appeal parcel was hidden from view by the existing mature boundary planting, even at this time of the year when trees are not in full leaf. However, the field to the west of the appeal site, adjacent to the A4155, was much more noticeable in the overall vista, but this is not proposed for development.

Locally, the site falls within the Parish Landscape Character Area PLCA3: [name], one of four Parish landscape areas. This extends from the western edge of the village and wraps around the southern aspects of [name] and helps retain a distinct pastoral setting to both villages and ensures they maintain their distinct settlement patterns.

The Council is concerned that the development would conflict with the core objective and policies of the neighbourhood plan to conserve and enhance the essential rural character of the parish. There are a number of core objectives of the neighbourhood plan. The first seeks to “Conserve and enhance the essential rural character of the parish and its villages by growing the villages through small infill development and individual houses that will form part of the established pattern of development, allowing the villages to grow organically, preventing further creep or elongation of the village into the open countryside...”.

SNP Policy SV7 seeks to ensure that development proposals preserve or enhance features which positively define the character of the Parish. Local Plan Policy DES2 seeks to ensure that development reflects the positive features that make up the character of the area and should physically and visually enhance and complement the surroundings reflecting this objective.

The appeal site, with its two separate parcels, occupies an attractive rural location along [address], the unmade lane linking the main built up area of [site address] to the surrounding countryside. There is a distinct sense that one has left [site address] progressing westwards along [address]. The smaller eastern appeal parcel is rough grass enclosed by dense and mature trees that make a distinct separation from the adjacent housing. The larger western parcel is arable and has a much more open aspect with less dense hedgerow and trees around its shared east and west boundaries and along [address]. This larger parcel is relatively flat near [address] but then slopes steeply down towards the retirement village and [address] in the small valley dip - the rooftops of the retirement village are visible. The northern boundary with the retirement village and the rear gardens of [address] comprises a timber post and rail fence. This parcel has now been more urbanised by the presence of the nearby retirement village. Nonetheless, both appeal parcels positively contribute to the rural character and appearance of [address] and the rural surroundings and setting of the village.

The erection of 25 houses, 23 of which would be arranged on the larger parcel as a housing estate, would see the loss of open rural and agricultural land that currently forms the countryside and helps give [site address] its essential rural character. The development would remove this and instead introduce buildings, roads, driveways, garden boundaries and domestic paraphernalia to what are currently a paddock and an arable field and urbanise [address]. Despite retention of the roadside hedgerow and some additional planting the proposal would erode and reduce the intrinsic rural character of the site and [address] and elongate the village out into the countryside.

From the larger appeal parcel and the gaps through the hedge and gates along [address] there are currently views westwards towards [name], which sit on elevated land. The parameters plan and illustrative masterplan do not demonstrate any particular retention of such views for the users of [address] to continue to enjoy. Indeed the parameters plan and masterplan show a main access route through which would open up views of the retirement village.

The proposal would harm the rural character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, the proposed development would be contrary to Local Plan Policy DES2 and SNP Policy SV7, whose aims are outlined above.

Whilst the Council does not refer to policies within its reason for refusal, I am looking at the scheme as a whole and have taken account of the relevant policies that have been referred to in the Council’s report to the Planning Committee and where landscape and rural character are discussed and were also referred to at the Hearing.

Whilst all applications are assessed on their merits and circumstances, I am of the view that allowing development on the appeal site would make it harder for the Council to resist development proposals on the other field parcels along [address].

The location of the proposed development would conflict with and undermine the Council’s spatial strategy for the location of new housing development, and would be contrary to Local Plan Policies STRAT1, H1, H8, H16 and [name] SV1 and SV2. However, the agreed current 3.81 year HLS and the housing shortfall of some 1,542 homes indicates that the Council’s spatial strategy, as part of a plan-led system, is not delivering enough homes. Hence, I give limited weight to the conflict with the spatial strategy. The site would not be a suitable location for housing with regards transport and infrastructure contrary to Local Plan Policy TRANS5. This policy accords with the requirements of the Framework and I give this harm significant weight. It would also cause harm to the rural character and appearance of the area, contrary to Local Plan Policy DES2 and SNP Policy SV7, to which I give moderate weight taking into account its impact is at a local level rather than affecting national designations.

I have therefore found conflict with a number of development plan policies such that the proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole.

However, the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land. For applications involving the provision of housing and where there is a lack of a 5-year HLS, footnote 8 of the Framework directs that the policies which are most important are out-of-date. This engages Framework paragraph 11d), the so called ‘tilted balance’. This means that planning permission should be granted unless “any adverse impacts of doing so 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 and securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination”. There are no protected areas or assets of particular importance to trigger Framework footnote 7 and provide a strong reason for refusing against matters such as Green Belt or a designated heritage asset.

In situations where the presumption in paragraph 11d) applies to applications involving the provision of housing, and the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with a neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, the neighbourhood plan must first comply with Framework paragraphs 14a) and 14b). The SNP is almost three and a half years old, so is less than the 5-year limit and hence meets the requirement of Framework paragraph 14a).

Paragraph 14b) requires the neighbourhood plan to have both policies AND allocations [my emphasis] to meet its identified housing requirements. The SNP does not contain any allocations for housing sites. As a result, the lack of housing allocations in the SNP means that Framework paragraph 14b) cannot be met. Therefore, paragraph 14 as a whole does not apply in this instance.

I am cognisant of the Council’s view that paragraph 14 does apply because the Local Plan states that [name] do not have to contribute to the district’s housing requirement. As both villages have a zero housing requirement, they do not need to have housing allocations. Furthermore, considering the recent amounts of new housing development that have been delivered in the Parish, particularly to [site address] , and the villages having a zero housing requirement, the Parish Council decided there was no need for the SNP to allocate land for housing. It is entitled to adopt this position and the Neighbourhood Plan Examiner found this acceptable.

However, to benefit from paragraph 14 the SNP must have housing allocations, in addition to policies to meet the housing requirement, so that both parts of paragraph 14 are met. They are not here. Indeed, the ‘paragraph 14’ situation will continue whilst South Oxfordshire District Council is unable to demonstrate a 5- year HLS and the SNP, and any other neighbourhood plan, do not have housing allocations.

The result of paragraph 14 not applying, is that the normal ‘tilted balance’ of Framework paragraph 11d) continues to be engaged. The appeal proposal would deliver a number of benefits when considered against the Framework.

The provision of 25 homes would help reduce the Council’s housing deficit and accord with one of the Framework’s aims of boosting the supply of homes. The provision of a policy-compliant 40% affordable housing, secured by the UU, would meet the Framework’s aim to offer a mix of tenure for housing needed for different groups in the community. The scale of the proposal would also recognise that small and medium sized sites, such as the appeal site, can make an important contribution to meeting housing requirements; that they are essential for Small and [name] housebuilders, and are often built out relatively quickly. I therefore give the provision of housing and the 40% affordable housing significant weight.

There would also be some associated short-term socio-economic benefits from jobs and the supply chain during the construction phase, and some longer-term spending by future occupiers, at least some of which would be spent in the local area and help support local services to a modest degree, although I am not aware that local services/facilities are under threat from lack of patronage. Nonetheless, based on the quantum of development this benefit would attract moderate weight. Based on the scale of development, a 10% on-site biodiversity net gain would also attract moderate weight. The provision of public open space would attract limited weight.

The provision of two bus shelters at the existing bus stops at the end of [address] and highway works for the provision of pedestrian footways and refuge around the junction [address]/A4155 would improve pedestrian safety and improve opportunities to use public transport for existing and future residents. I give the highway improvements moderate weight.

On the other side of the balance, the proposal would conflict with the Framework’s aims of promoting sustainable patterns of development for the location of housing; seeking opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport, and limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes, whilst recognising that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. The Framework also seeks to ensure that sustainable transport modes are prioritised and safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved. As already described, the appeal proposal would not do this.

The harm to the rural character and appearance of the area and [site address] ’s essential rural character would fail to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, which the Framework seeks to protect. It would also be contrary to the Framework’s aims of achieving good design that should be sympathetic to local characteristics, including the surrounding built development and landscape setting.

Collectively, the harms I have identified would mean 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 as listed.

There would be conflict with the development plan as a whole. This conflict is not outweighed by the other material considerations, including the Framework, I have identified. Therefore, for the reasons set out above the appeal should be dismissed.

Shiplake Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011-2035 – [name]

Final draft [name] planning obligation

Summary of [name] (prepared by [name])

Land Use Plan 3273A120IPRA (submitted with appeal, but missing from

Parish Council Statement of Case (submitted with appeal but missing from

Extract from Parish Council & Landscape Character Assessment

Speech read out by [name] (at various times)

Council rebuttal to Costs application

Final list of conditions

Appellant’s final response on Costs DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AFTER THE HEARING by agreement.

A signed, dated and executed [name] planning obligation.

Residents’ Appeal Statement & appendices (submitted with appeal but missing from Inspector’s documents).

Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment (submitted with appeal but missing from Inspector’s documents).