Appeal 6003217

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for residential development comprising a minimum of 8 and maximum of 9 custom / self-build dwellings at Land rear 79a and [address], Chinnor [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P25/S3048/PIP, dated 29 September 2025.

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

The proposed development section of the application form describes the site address as land to the rear of Walnut Tree Close. However, in the site address field on the application form it is identified as land to the rear gardens 79a and [address], Chinnor [postcode] . I have therefore used the latter in the banner heading above and I have also removed the address reference from the description as it is not development.

The proposal is for Permission in Principle (PIP). The Planning Practice Guidance advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The PIP consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second ‘[name] (TDC) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for PIP is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent TDC application if PIP is granted.

As identified on the application and the submissions, the proposal is for Self-build and custom housing (SBCH) and I have determined the appeal on this basis. The PPG is clear that at the PIP stage it is not possible to secure a planning obligation or to impose conditions. Nonetheless, the PPG advises that the TDC must accord with the relevant PIP. As such, a subsequent TDC to this PIP would need to demonstrate how it would deliver the proposal as SBCH.

I am aware that PIP for a similar number of dwellings, at the appeal site was refused by the local planning authority and subsequently dismissed on appeal (ref. APP/Q3115/W/25/3365193).

Although there is no formal decision from the Council, a putative reason for refusal has been provided. Based on this and the considerations for PIP, the main issue is whether the appeal site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development.

The appeal site comprises part of a paddock on the edge of Chinnor, which is identified as a Larger Village in the South Oxfordshire Local Plan (SOLP). Access would be taken from a new road off [address], to be provided in connection with development permitted on appeal for 9 dwellings.

The Chinnor Neighbourhood Plan 2011–2035 (CNP) defines a settlement boundary. The appeal site lies outside this boundary.

Policy STRAT1 of the SOLP sets out the spatial strategy for the district, directing the majority of development to the main towns and larger villages in order to achieve sustainable patterns of growth, while seeking to safeguard the countryside. As the appeal site lies outside the defined settlement boundary, the proposal would not accord with this spatial strategy and therefore conflicts with that Policy. However, the strategy recognises the role of [name], including Chinnor, in accommodating growth and supporting services and facilities. Having regard to the nature and scale of the scheme, and the ‘Other considerations’ in this Decision, these factors weigh in favour of the proposal despite the identified conflict.

Policy H16 of the SOLP relates to backland and infill development and redevelopment. [name] 1 of the Policy applies to Smaller and [name] and is therefore not directly applicable to Chinnor as a Larger Village, the Policy provides an indication of the characteristics expected of such development. Infill generally comprises the development of a small gap within a built-up frontage and backland relates to land behind an existing residential frontage.

In this case, the appeal site does not comprise a small gap within a built-up frontage and instead forms part of a wider area of open paddock land. The proposal would therefore represent backland development that would extend the built limits of the settlement. As such, it would not align with the underlying objectives of this Policy, which seek to ensure that development represents small-scale infill within an established frontage and does not extend the built limits of the settlement through backland development.

For the reasons given below, I am not satisfied that the wider paddock and the appeal site as a whole comprise previously developed land. Therefore, the proposal does not accord with Policy H1 of the SOLP taken as a whole, which supports the residential development of previously developed land within or adjacent to the built-up area of [name].

CNP Policy CH H7, supports development outside the settlement boundary only where it is necessary or suitable for a countryside location, or constitutes infill development as defined in CNP Policy CH H1, and where it accords with the development plan. CNP Policy CH H1, defines infill as development within the settlement boundary that does not extend built limits. Read together, these CNP policies give rise to some tension, as CNP Policy CH H7 also allows for infill outside the boundary.

In this context, the reference to infill in CNP Policy CH H7 must be applied as a matter of planning judgment, having regard to the site’s physical and spatial characteristics; otherwise, that limb of CNP Policy CH H7 would be ineffective.

Although the appeal site is bounded on three sides by existing or committed development, it forms part of a wider area of predominantly open paddock land and does not represent such a gap. The proposal would introduce backland development across this undeveloped area rather than occupy a discrete space within the established frontage. It would therefore amount to an outward extension of built form rather than infill and would not constitute infill development for the purposes of CNP Policy CH H7.

Turning to the ‘suitable’ or ‘necessary’ limbs of CNP Policy CH H7, I acknowledge a shortfall in both general housing provision and SBCH delivery. While the Council suggests that future provision will be met through allocations and windfalls, there is limited evidence before me of delivery trajectories or firm commitments, and no specific SBCH allocation within the CNP.

By contrast, the proposal would deliver up to 8–9 SBCH plots (subject to TDC) making a meaningful contribution towards meeting an identified and ongoing need.

While there is a clear shortfall in SBCH provision and the appeal site is well-related to a Larger Village which contains a range of day-to-day services and facilities, this does not demonstrate that the proposal is necessary or suitable for a countryside location as required by CNP Policy CH H7, which generally relates to development that requires a countryside location, and no such justification has been demonstrated.

Furthermore, for the reasons already given, the proposal would conflict with other development plan policies. Consequently, the proposal is not supported by CNP Policy CH H7.

Although these policy conflicts indicate that the appeal site is not in a suitable location in policy terms, this is not determinative. The proposal’s contribution to housing delivery, including SBCH, and its relationship to the existing settlement are material considerations which I take into account in the planning balance below.

The Council considers the appeal site to be in agricultural use, having regard to the extant planning permission for a field shelter for horses and livestock.

The appellant relies on a [name] indicating that the stable block and paddock have been used for keeping horses for recreational purposes, supported by the presence of a building consistent with a stable forming part of that equestrian use, together with associated hardstanding.

However, the evidence indicates that the paddock has not been consistently used for equestrian purposes, with parts periodically grazed by sheep. I therefore find that the land has been subject to mixed and relatively low-intensity use and does not function as a clearly defined equestrian unit within which the stable block would be integral.

Moreover, having regard to the definition of previously developed land set out in Annex 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), I find that only the stable block, its associated hardstanding, and a limited area closely related to its use fall within that definition, which is confined to land occupied by a permanent structure and its curtilage. Whilst the stable block and hardstanding relate to stabling associated with equestrian activity, the wider paddock remains predominantly undeveloped in character, and the extent of any curtilage should not be assumed to be developable.

The limited extent of built development is clearly subordinate and does not define the character of the paddock as a whole. The appeal site in its entirety cannot therefore reasonably be regarded as previously developed land for the purposes of Policy H1 of the SOLP.

Nevertheless, in the context of PIP, the key consideration is the suitability of the appeal site for the proposed land use. The appeal site’s largely undeveloped countryside characteristics weigh against the proposal, although the extent of any harm is moderated by its relationship to surrounding development.

Taking account of these site-specific factors, including the contained nature of the appeal site, I find that they do not, in themselves, preclude the site’s suitability for residential use in principle.

The proposed level of 8–9 dwellings represents a proportionate and efficient use of the appeal site. Given the absence of specific constraints, there is nothing at this stage to suggest that the appeal site is not capable of accommodating development of this scale. Any concerns regarding layout or relationship with the surroundings would have to be appropriately addressed at the TDC stage.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land. There is some dispute between the main parties over the extent of this. Even on the basis of a supply of approximately 4.46 years, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged.

Along with being contained, the appeal site is not subject to any landscape, ecological or heritage designations. Development would be read in the context of surrounding built form and would not appear as a visually prominent or isolated projection into the countryside. There is no evidence that the appeal site could not accommodate development without unacceptable visual harm. A portion of the paddock retained would maintain a clear transition to the wider countryside. These factors limit the overall harm arising from the proposal and moderate the extent of policy conflict.

Significant weight is given to the delivery of 8–9 SBCH plots addressing a clear shortfall and the associated benefits. Additional weight is given to the site’s accessible location and the resulting economic and social benefits. Taken together, these considerations attract considerable weight in favour of the proposal.

Due to the appeal site’s proximity to a Larger Village, future occupiers would have realistic opportunities to access local services and facilities on foot, by cycle, or via shorter journeys, thereby reducing reliance on the private car and supporting more sustainable patterns of movement. In turn, the scheme would help to sustain and support existing local services and facilities through increased patronage.

There would also be economic benefits arising from local expenditure associated with both the construction phase and subsequent occupation of the dwellings. Taken together with the social and environmental benefits identified, these considerations align with the economic, social and environmental objectives of the Framework and strongly weigh in favour of the proposal.

Paragraph 14 of the Framework is engaged, as the neighbourhood plan is less than five years old and contains policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement. This indicates that conflict with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. However, the evidence before me indicates that the plan’s housing allocations have largely been delivered and its ability to respond to ongoing and emerging housing needs, particularly in respect of SBCH, is therefore more limited. In these circumstances, I find that the degree to which paragraph 14 indicates that conflict should significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits is reduced. Accordingly, I afford moderate rather than full weight to this conflict in the overall planning balance.

Third parties question the extent to which the proposal reflects local housing need. Even so, national and local policy supports a wide range of housing types, including SBCH.

Matters have also been raised regarding highway capacity and safety, drainage and groundwater flooding, biodiversity, and the effect on local infrastructure. However, there is no substantive evidence that these would preclude development in principle, and where relevant such matters can be addressed at the TDC stage or through other regulatory controls.

The potential for further development on adjoining land is speculative and carries limited weight, as any such proposals would be determined on their own merits.

As already stated, I have had regard to the previous appeal decision for the appeal site. However, that scheme differed materially, particularly as it did not involve SBCH, and was determined on a different evidential basis. I therefore attach limited weight to it in this case.

The proposed residential use and scale of development are acceptable in principle. However, the appeal site lies outside the defined settlement boundary and the proposal conflicts with the spatial strategy of the development plan, extending development into the countryside. This conflict goes to the heart of the plan-led approach and attracts substantial weight.

The proposal would cause some encroachment, but the site is largely enclosed on three sides and partly retains the paddock, so it would not stand out as an isolated feature in the countryside. Any resulting harm is therefore limited.

Significant weight is given to the delivery of 8–9 SBCH plots addressing a clear shortfall and associated benefits. Further weight is given to the appeal site’s accessible location and associated economic and social benefits. Taken together, these considerations attract considerable weight in favour of the proposal.

Weighing all matters in the round, and applying paragraph 11(d) of the Framework, I have had regard to the additional weight to be given to neighbourhood plan conflict under paragraph 14 of the Framework. Even so, I find that the adverse impacts would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The presumption in favour of sustainable development therefore indicates that the appeal should be allowed and PIP be granted.