Appeal 6003709

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal scheme relates to an outline proposal, with access to be considered at this stage, and with all other matters reserved for future consideration. I have considered the appeal accordingly. A plan has been submitted as part of the appeal which indicates how two dwellings could be accommodated on the site. I have taken this plan into account for indicative purposes only.

The Council refused the application for four reasons as set out in the decision notice dated 26 November 2025. The fourth reason relates to the loss of the hedgerow, and was based in part on a lack of justification for the loss. Further information has been provided by the appellant as part of the appeal process, and the Council has indicated that, subject to an appropriate condition requiring a replacement hedgerow to be put in place, it does not wish to defend this reason for refusal. I am satisfied that, were the appeal to succeed, a suitable condition could be imposed and I have not therefore considered this matter as part of the appeal.

A Neighbourhood Development Plan for the [name] with Southmoor area is in the process of preparation, with the statutory pre-submission consultation on the draft plan having ended on 30 March 2026. Given the early stage in the Neighbourhood Development Plan’s adoption I afford it limited weight.

The main issues are: • whether the site is an appropriate location for housing with respect to the Council’s spatial policies; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and, • the effect of the proposed development on flood risk.

[name] with Southmoor is a Larger Village defined by Policy CP3 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2016 (the Local Plan). Policy CP4 gives a presumption in favour of sustainable development within the built-up area of [name]. Development outside of existing built up areas of settlements will be permitted where it is allocated in a Neighbourhood Development Plan or Local Plan. Policy CP4 goes on to state that development within the open countryside will not be appropriate unless specifically supported by other relevant policies in the Development Plan or national policy.

The appeal site is not allocated in the Local Plan, nor in the draft Neighbourhood Development Plan. There is no defined settlement boundary to Southmoor in the Local Plan, however at my site visit I observed that to the west of Southmoor, to the south side of [address], there is a clear boundary to the settlement established by the development along [address], immediately to the east of the appeal site. This view is supported by the draft [name] with Southmoor Neighbourhood Development Plan which proposes the settlement boundary along the eastern edge of the field, of which the appeal site forms a part.

Policy DP1 of the Local Plan supports the provision of plots for sale to self and custom builders, with the supporting text stating that opportunities for self and custom build would be supported where they are in accordance with Policies CP3 and CP4 of the Local Plan and the Development Plan taken as a whole. The proposed development would conflict with Policies CP3 and CP4, so Policy DP1 does not support the development, as self-build, in open countryside.

Notwithstanding the relative proximity of the appeal site to the village and its facilities, making it a relatively accessible location, it is outside the built up area of the settlement of [name] with Southmoor and therefore, in policy terms, in an area defined as open countryside. For these reasons, the site is not an appropriate location for housing with respect to the Council’s spatial policies, and conflicts with Policies CP3 and CP4 of the Local Plan. I have not been provided with details of any Development Plan or national policy in support of the application which would lead me to a different view.

The appeal site is part of a field to the west of the village of Southmoor, to the south of [address]. It is currently used as a paddock and there are open fields to the rear of the site and to the north side of [address]. To the west of the site there is further open countryside: although there is a loose group of detached houses around [address], to the west of the field of which the appeal site forms a part. Immediately to the east of the appeal site is a series of new houses to [address], referred to as the [address] development.

Its open, rural character is derived, in part, from its use as a paddock, and it contrasts markedly with the urban character of the housing immediately to the east of the site. Whilst there is more of a transition between the open countryside and the village of Southmoor to the north of [address]; to the south of the road the change between the village and open fields, which are an important characteristic of its setting, is more abrupt.

Development of the appeal site with two dwellings would harm its open, rural character: a key feature of the site. It would extend the urban form of the village into open countryside. Although a section of the field would remain undeveloped, the proposed development would lessen the important gap between Southmoor and the loose cluster of houses around [address]. It would, therefore, erode and harm the landscape setting of the village of Southmoor, which policy CP44 of the Local Plan particularly seeks to protect.

Although the appeal proposal is in outline with all matters reserved except for access, the proposed development is described as being for two good sized dwellings with ample gardens which would complete the [address] development. The illustrative site layout shows similar plot sizes and building footprints to those of the adjacent development. [address] development has a distinct urban character, which contrasts markedly with the open rural character of the setting of Southmoor village. Setting the houses back from [address], or the provision of additional landscape planting, as indicated would not mitigate the harm identified.

For these reasons, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policies CP37 and CP44 of the Local Plan, which seek to deliver high quality design which responds positively to the site and its surroundings and enhances the landscape settings of settlements. The proposed development would also be contrary to Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks to deliver development which maintains a strong sense of place.

The site is in [name] 1: an area with a low probability of flooding. Policy CP42 of the Local Plan requires all development to be assessed against the Vale of [name] and South Oxfordshire Flood Risk Assessment and a site-specific flood risk assessment for development which may be subject to other forms of flooding.

In response to the application the Council’s drainage engineer identified that the western portion of the site is shown to be at high risk of groundwater flooding, whereas the eastern and central portion are at low risk, and therefore a more detailed flood risk (FRA) assessment is required.

However, groundwater flood risk mapping submitted in evidence by the Council shows that the entire appeal site is in an area identified as being at low risk of groundwater flooding, and that the area of high risk lies some way to the west of the appeal site. I therefore conclude that the evidence indicates that the appeal site is at low risk from flooding and that a more detailed FRA would not be required. [name] find no conflict with Policy CP42, or Paragraphs 170 and 175 of the Framework.

[name] have found no conflict with the Local Plan with regards to flood risk, there would be harm to the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore the appeal site would not be an appropriate location for housing with respect to the Council’s spatial policies drawing the proposal into conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 places a duty on local authorities to ensure that sufficient planning permissions are granted to meet the identified demand for such housing. The Monitoring Reports provided indicate a shortfall in self-build plots in the District. Hence the provision of 2 dwellings, secured by legal agreement, weighs in favour of the proposed development as well as contributing to the housing land supply in a relatively accessible location.

Furthermore, there would be economic benefits during construction and from the contribution of future occupants to the local economy. However these modest benefits are not sufficient to outweigh the harm I have found in this case and consequently the conflict with the development plan.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.