Appeal 6003586

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for residential development comprising 1 dwelling at Land to rear gardens of 79a [address], Chinnor [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 25/S3804/PIP, 13 November 2025.

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.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development.

The appeal site forms part of a paddock on the edge of Chinnor, identified as a Larger Village in the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 (SOLP). Access would be taken from a new road off [address], to be provided in association 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 the policy. However, the appeal site contains a small area of built development, the extent to which this comprises previously developed land is considered below, and is a relevant factor in assessing the extent of that conflict.

Policy H16 of the SOLP is not directly applicable in this case, as its primary restriction in Part 1 relates to Smaller and [name] rather than [name] such as Chinnor. Nevertheless, it provides an indication of the characteristics expected of infill and backland 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 regard, the appeal site does not represent a small gap within a built-up frontage and, although physically related to existing development, it lies outside the defined settlement boundary and would extend built form beyond this. As such, the proposal would not align with the underlying objectives of Policy H16, 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.

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. Infill generally comprises the development of a small gap within a built-up frontage.

Although associated with existing development, the appeal site forms part of a larger open paddock and does not represent such a gap. The proposal would introduce built form into this space rather than occupy a discrete gap and therefore would not constitute infill for the purposes of CNP Policy CH H7.

There is no substantive evidence that the proposal is necessary for a countryside location under CNP Policy CH H7. However, it would utilise a small area of previously developed land closely associated with an existing building and hardstanding, which weighs in favour of its ‘suitability’ in principle.

Overall, notwithstanding this factor, and for the reasons already given, including conflict with the spatial strategy, the proposal would not fully accord with CNP Policy CH H7. The site is also not allocated for housing under CNP Policy CH H6.

The Council considers the site to be in agricultural use, having regard to the extant 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 building 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.

In this case, the appeal proposal relates only to a small parcel of land closely associated with that built development. Having regard to its scale, physical relationship, and functional association, including for access, it is reasonable to treat this land as forming part of the curtilage of the building for the purposes of this proposal.

Policy H1 of the SOLP supports the residential development of previously developed land within or adjacent to the built-up area of [name].

Although outside the defined settlement boundary, the appeal site is closely related to the built form of Chinnor. It is contained by existing development and adjoins land with extant permission, forming part of the committed pattern of growth at the settlement edge.

In this context, whilst the proposal would extend built form into the countryside, it would be largely confined to the existing developed footprint and would not materially extend into the wider paddock. It would therefore not result in a significant incursion into the countryside.

As development on previously developed land in a location closely related to a Larger Village, the proposal attracts support under Policy H1 of the SOLP. The extent of conflict with the development plan is therefore reduced when read in the round and having regard to the site-specific characteristics.

These characteristics indicate that the site is suitable in principle for residential development, notwithstanding the conflict with the spatial strategy. The implications of this conflict are considered further in the overall planning balance.

The proposal would introduce residential use on a small and defined parcel of previously developed land, without materially extending into the surrounding undeveloped paddock.

The Framework supports the effective use of previously developed land. In this case, the proposal would not significantly undermine the character or function of the surrounding countryside beyond the existing developed footprint.

Notwithstanding the conflict with the spatial strategy, there are no inherent characteristics of the site that would render it unsuitable for residential use in principle.

Given that the proposal is largely confined to the existing developed part of the site and is of a modest scale, it is appropriate in principle.

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

The proposal would provide a single dwelling and would therefore make a limited contribution towards housing supply. I attach modest weight to this benefit.

The appeal site is well-related to a Larger Village which contains a range of day-to-day services and facilities. Future occupiers would have realistic opportunities to access these by non-car modes, supporting more sustainable patterns of movement and local provision. Economic and social benefits would also arise from construction and occupation. Taken together, these benefits carry modest weight 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 is therefore more limited. In addition, the conflict with CNP Policy CH H7 is not absolute, given that the proposal utilises a small area of previously developed land and aligns in part with the underlying objectives of this Policy. 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 whether the proposal reflects local housing need. Even so, national policy supports a wide range of housing types, and small sites can make a contribution to overall supply.

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.

I have had regard to the previous decision relating to development on a larger site that included the appeal site, which was dismissed on appeal (ref. APP/Q3115/W/25/3365193). However, that scheme proposed a greater quantum of development over a wider area. As the current proposal relates to a single dwelling on a smaller site, I attach limited weight to that earlier decision.

The proposal would utilise a small and defined area of previously developed land and would not materially extend into the surrounding undeveloped paddock. As such, the appeal site is in a suitable location for a single dwelling, in principle. However, the appeal site lies outside the defined settlement boundary of Chinnor and therefore the proposal conflicts with the spatial strategy in the development plan, which seeks to direct development to within settlements.

This conflict goes to the heart of the plan-led approach to managing growth and attracts substantial weight, although that weight is moderated by the site-specific circumstances identified above.

The proposal attracts support under Policy H1 of the SOLP as development on previously developed land. In this context, the use of such land also weighs in favour of the proposal’s suitability under Policy CH H7 of the CNP. This reduces the extent of overall policy conflict and weighs in favour of the proposal in the overall

Modest weight is given to the delivery of an additional dwelling and its associated benefits. This would make a modest contribution towards addressing the District’s housing shortfall, in a location well-related to a Larger Village where services and facilities are accessible.

Taken together, these considerations attract moderate weight in favour of the proposal.

Weighing these matters in the round and in 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. I find that the adverse impacts of the proposal would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits. The presumption in favour of sustainable development therefore indicates that permission should be granted.

I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.