Appeal 6003590

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] on behalf of Butler and Duke Ltd against Vale of White Horse District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

I have used the Council’s description of development as it more accurately describes the proposed development.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, and • whether the proposed dwellings would meet the definition of self-build dwellings.

The appeal site is a large parcel of land that is accessed by a long track that runs between Highbury and [name]. The appeal site contains several agricultural buildings that are single storey and sporadic. The area close to the appeal site is predominantly residential with properties being generally large, occupying large plots and follow a linear pattern that fronts the roads. The wider area is mostly open fields which results in an open and verdant character and appearance.

The appeal site contains low profile agricultural buildings which are generally inconspicuous and in keeping with other agricultural buildings located nearby within the large rear gardens of dwellings. The proposed development would remove the agricultural buildings from within the site and construct four dwellings.

The proposed dwellings would be a mix of one and two storeys and would be concentrated together in a courtyard layout. The concentration of the dwellings combined with their overall height would be jarring in the context of the open and verdant character and appearance of the area. The courtyard layout, combined with the large set back distance from the road would result in an urban appearance which would be contrary to the layout of other dwellings which predominantly front the road.

The dwellings would benefit from large gardens which would be positive for future occupiers, however, the gardens of plots 1, 2 and 3 would be visible from [address] and would enable large areas to be used for domestic paraphernalia which would further highlight the development and its uncharacteristic layout.

The proposed dwellings would include large windows, which would particularly highlight the dwellings when viewed from [address]. When viewed from [address] it is clear that the appeal site forms part of the more agricultural character on the edge of Longworth. The overall height of the dwellings when viewed from [address], combined with the large bulk as well as the amount of light spill would result in the dwellings standing out as odd features within the context as they would be set back a long distance from the road and would be contrary to the linear patter of development in the wider area.

I acknowledge that the wooded area on the appeal site does screen some views, however, there is little screening to the rear of the site which opens up views from a distance. I am mindful of the landscape and visual impact assessment1 and while the majority of viewpoints used are considered to have negligible impacts as a result of the development, the two viewpoints used from [address] are considered to have a moderate/medium magnitude and impact from year 1.

The Landscape and visual impact identified that the magnitude of change and impact would reduce to slight/low, however, this is after a 15-year period and relies on tree and hedge planting maturing which is not guaranteed. In any case, I am not convinced that additional and enhanced landscaping would mitigate the harm, particularly due to the proposed dwellings overall height, position and light spill from the window design that would pierce through the landscaping.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to Policies CP1, CP4 CP37 and CP44 of the Local Plan 2031 Part 1 [name] and [name] 2016 (LP), Policy 2 of the Longworth Neighbourhood Plan 2015-2031 [name] 2016 and guidance contained within the Joint Design Guide Supplementary Planning [name] in June 2022. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development responds positively to the site and its surroundings and sustain and enhance the distinctive character of each part of Longworth village. 1 007_ [site address] , Longworth landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA) _02_Visual Assessment Result Document 2 of 3 June 2025 Rev - P1

The Council have alleged conflict with Policy CP3 of the LP1 and Policy DP1 of the Local Plan 2031 Part 2 [name] and [name] (LP2), however these relate to settlement hierarchy and self and custom-build which are not relevant to this main issue.

Self-build dwellings are defined under the [name] and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (The Act). Amongst other things, in order to constitute a self-build dwelling, it must be demonstrated that the initial owner of the home will have primary input into its final design and layout.

Planning Practice Guidance2 provides further advice which includes that off-plan housing, homes purchased at the plan stage prior to construction and without input into the design and layout from the buyer, are not considered to meet the definition of self-build and custom housing.

As the application has been submitted in full with details of the design and appearance of the dwellings included it is clear that no buyers have had any input into the design and layout. While any prospective buyer could request that changes are made to the design and layout, any such changes would be contrary to the approved plans and would require a separate application which there is no guarantee of this happening.

The appellant considers that the delivery of self-build housing has evolved and that they operate a self and custom build plot and build delivery mode. In this regard, the appellant suggests that they typically acquire land, secure planning permission, and then sells a serviced plot to an individual owner. The purchaser then commissions the appellant under a tailored build contract to design and construct the dwelling to their specific requirements. However, this does not change that the full design of the dwellings are before me as part of this appeal and as such, the approach would conflict with the Act.

I am also mindful that there is no completed planning obligation before me and as such, even if I found the dwellings would meet the definition of a self-build dwelling the provision of self-build dwellings would not be secured. No condition has been put to me; however, I am mindful that a planning condition is unlikely to meet the tests outlined in Planning Practice Guidance to secure self-build dwellings.

I therefore conclude that the proposed dwellings would not meet the definition of self-build dwellings. It would be contrary to Development Policy 1 of the LP2 which seeks to support the provision of plots for sale to self and custom builders.

The appellant has put forward a fallback position in the form of extant planning permission for change of use and associated works to existing buildings to form 5 no. dwellings. I accept that the fallback position is available.

I also accept that there is a greater than theoretical possibility that the fallback would be implemented should the appeal scheme be dismissed. It is therefore a material consideration in the assessment of the proposal. 2 Paragraph: 016 [name]: 57-[phone]

However, for significant weight to be afforded to a fallback position there needs not only to be a real possibility of it being carried out, but it would also need to be equally or more harmful than the appeal scheme.

The fallback position would utilise existing buildings within the appeal site, be reflective of the character and appearance of the area and would be of a reduced scale when compared to the appeal proposal before me which I have found to be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, while the Council is able to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing, the fallback would result in an additional house being constructed which is a benefit to the fallback scheme in supporting the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes.

The appellant has outlined the benefits of the appeal proposal when compared to the fallback scheme which include a reduction in movements, improved energy efficiency, reduced running costs, improved living conditions for future occupiers, improved layout, consolidated parking and improved biodiversity enhancements. However, these benefits would not outweigh the harm I have found to the character and appearance of the area and conflict with the self-build aspect of the appeal before me.

I therefore find that the appeal scheme would be more harmful than the fallback position. Consequently, for these reasons considered cumulatively, the fallback position carries no weight in favour of the proposal.

The appellant has referred to other developments in an attempt to justify their case. I do not have the full details in respect of such examples so I cannot be sure of the circumstances. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits, based on the evidence before me.

In regard to Orchard View3, I have been provided with little information in regard to these applications, however, from the sections of the plans provided these appear to relate to the erection of three dwellings and also the conversion of an existing barn. The appeal before me does not relate to the conversion of buildings and in regard to the layout of the three dwellings, this is a linear pattern which is reflective of the wider character and appearance of the area rather than the layout of the scheme before me.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.