Appeal 6003969

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for residential development comprising of a minimum of two and a maximum of four dwellings, at [site address] , Oxfordshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P25/S1545/PIP.

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

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle 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 permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

My attention has been drawn to the emerging [name] and Vale of White Horse Joint Local Plan 2041, which has been submitted for examination. However, as the evidence does not show that the examination has been completed, I have given it limited weight in my determination of the appeal.

The main issues are whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, land use and the amount of development proposed, with particular consideration as to: • Whether the appeal site is grey belt and whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), including the effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; and • Whether the location is suitable having regard to the spatial strategy in the

The appeal site (the site) is a roughly rectangular area of land described as being around 0.27 hectares in area, and which is located to the south side of the A415 [address], from which it takes its vehicular access. The site is at the very western end of Burcot, a settlement defined as a smaller village in Appendix 7 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011-20135 Adopted (2020) (SOLP), and which is washed over by the Oxford Green Belt.

The site is located around 1.5 kilometres west of the village of Berinsfield, which is defined as a larger village in Appendix 7 of the SOLP. The village of [name], which is defined as a smaller village by the SOLP, lies around 800 metres west of the site. The Culham Science Centre Campus lies around 1 kilometre further west of [name].

In spatial policy terms, Policy STRAT1 of the SOLP, directs development to the hierarchy of cities, towns and villages within the area, directing major new development to the [name] and Didcot Garden Town areas. The appeal site lies within the area defined as the [name] on the plan accompanying Policy STRAT1. Policy STRAT6 of the SOLP controls development in the Green Belt, and supports the Green Belt aims of the Framework.

The Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Certain forms of development are, however, not inappropriate and are listed as specific exceptions.

The primary issue to determine is whether the proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Paragraph 154 of the Framework sets out exceptions to inappropriate development. The site would not comply with exceptions 154(a), 154(b), 154(c), 154(d), 154(f) or 154(h). With regards to 154(g) - limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL), there is no evidence before me which defines the site as being within the curtilage of the [name] property immediately to the south. The site is a mix of lightly wooded land and field/paddock area, with no visible evidence of previous structures or hard standing areas which would meet the definition of PDL in Annex 2 of the Framework. I find it would not meet the 154(g) exception.

Exception 154(e) relates to limited infilling in villages. The Framework does not define limited infilling. Housing in smaller villages is controlled by Policy H8 of the SOLP, which allows development in smaller villages in accordance with Policy H16, via support for redevelopment of PDL and for limited infilling. Policy H16 defines infilling 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. The scale of infill should be appropriate to its location’. In the absence of any other definition, it is reasonable to use that given in the development plan.

The site is bounded to the south by the property known as [name], together with a small number of properties which lie further south and south-east behind it. To the east is a property known as [address], though this property bounds onto the A415, as a former gate lodge to a property known as [address], which lies around 150 metres further south, separated by substantial grounds which abut the eastern boundary of the appeal site. There is no development to the west of the site, which is an open field.

Opposite the site, on the other side of the A415 is agricultural land, though my attention has been drawn to an appeal decision1, which relates to approval of a substantial solar farm, on much of the land opposite. However, the development would be set back some distance, with farmland being retained between the development and the A415 highway, maintaining openness.

My attention has also been drawn to a further Permission in Principle application2 which was approved, on a site adjacent to the [name] property. The appellant contends that the Council’s consideration of that site, as being infill within the envelope of development of the village settlement, gives weight to the appeal site being considered in the same manner. However, in that case, there was the [name] property west of the proposed site, together with adjacent development to the south and east. That site also consisted of the redevelopment of garage and hard standing areas associated with surrounding properties; it therefore met the conditions defined in Policy H16 of the SOLP.

By contrast, the appeal site would not represent a small gap within continuous built-up frontage, as there are no properties to its west or north, nor would it be closely surrounded by buildings. Therefore, I find it would not meet the conditions for limited infilling defined in Policy H16 of the SOLP and would therefore be contrary to this policy. Consequently, it would also not meet the exception of paragraph 154(e) of the Framework for limited infilling in villages. The proposal would therefore not comply with any of the exceptions identified in paragraph 154.

There is disagreement between the main parties as to whether the appeal site constitutes grey belt land. Paragraph 155 of the Framework states that the development of homes in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where it utilises grey belt land subject to four criteria (a to d). Annex 2 of the Framework defines grey belt as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes a), b), or d) in paragraph 143 of the Framework. It also excludes land where the application of policies relating to areas or assets in footnote 7, (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.

I have already found that the site would not represent previously developed land, it is therefore necessary to assess if, as any other land, it would strongly contribute to any of purposes a), b), or d) in paragraph 143 of the Framework, or whether areas or assets covered by footnote 7 policies are present, and whether it would therefore be Grey Belt land. 1 APP/Q3115/W/24/3350890 2 P23/S0493/PIP

Paragraph 143 - Purpose a) is to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) notes3 that villages should not be considered large built-up areas. As the appeal site is located at the western end of Burcot, defined in the SOLP as a smaller village, it would not represent a large built-up area. Accordingly, the appeal proposal would not strongly contribute to the unrestricted sprawl of a large built-up area.

Paragraph 143 - Purpose b) is to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another. Again, the PPG is specific that this purpose relates to the merging of towns, not villages. The nearest settlement to the east is Berinsfield, classified as a larger village in the SOLP. The nearest settlement to the west is [name] which is classified as a smaller village in the SOLP. As neither of these settlements are towns, in accordance with the PPG, development of the appeal site would not strongly contribute to the merging of towns.

The Council have referred me to the Oxford Green Belt Study (May 2024) and the presence of the appeal site within parcel CH3 in that study. They suggest that the newly inset [name] and its adjacent (to the west) strategic site allocation, and the newly inset Berinsfield urban area with its strategic site allocation to its east, represent new neighbouring towns. They note that loss of openness in the CH3 parcel would increase the connection of Berinsfield with Burcot, or [name] with [name], increasing the fragility of the gap between neighbouring towns.

Having examined this, I find that as the appeal site lies 800m east of [name], it could not have an effect of increasing the connection between [name] and [name]. Similarly, as the appeal site is located at the western extremity of Burcot, its development could not affect the gap between Burcot and Berinsfield, as Berinsfield lies to the east of Burcot.

Further, the designation of Berinsfield, [name] and Culham in the SOLP are as larger village and smaller villages respectively. The PPG is clear that in assessing whether a site is grey belt, the effect of development of a site on the purposes of paragraph 143 b) of the Framework, that the restriction relates to the merging of towns, not villages.

Paragraph 143 - Purpose d) is to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. The site is not located within a historic town, nor is it within proximity to a historic town where development may affect the historic towns setting. It would, therefore, not strongly contribute to this purpose.

There is no evidence before me which indicates that the application site is located within an area where any of the restrictions identified in footnote 7 of the Framework are present. Accordingly, I therefore find that the appeal site, as other land that does not strongly contribute to any of purposes a), b), or d) outlined in Paragraph 143 of the Framework, and with no footnote 7 restrictions present, would represent Grey Belt land for the purposes of this appeal. It is now necessary to consider if the appeal proposal would meet tests a) to d) contained in paragraph 155 of the Framework. 3 Paragraph: 005 [name]: 64-005-20250225

Criterion a) requires that development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes, taken together, of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. The proposal would utilise grey belt land. The envelope of residential development within the village, would project further west and south than the appeal site. There would, therefore, be limited encroachment into surrounding countryside, the proposal would be read as the western extremity of development within the village. Combined with its modest size, the proposal would, therefore, not fundamentally affect the ability of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan, from serving all five of the Green Belt purposes. Therefore, I find the proposal would satisfy paragraph 155 a) of the Framework.

The proposal would provide between two and four dwellings. The Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply as required by the Framework. There is, therefore, a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. The proposal would therefore accord with criterion b) of paragraph 155.

Turning to criterion c) of paragraph 155 of the Framework, the Parish Council and the Oxfordshire County Council highways officer consider the appeal site is in a sustainable location. At my visit, it was apparent that whilst there are some limited services within Burcot itself, the site would be within [address] or cycle of the facilities available in [name], including a shop, church, pub, [name] and primary school, via a continuous footpath alongside the A415, though this is unlit. There were bus stops available within 250 metres of the site entrance to provide access to Berinsfield and Abingdon, where further services and facilities would be available to future occupants of the appeal site at these settlements classified as a larger village and town respectively.

Accordingly, I find that the proposal would represent a sustainable location, having particular regard to the requirements of paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. Therefore, I find criterion c) of paragraph 155 would be met.

As the proposal is not major development as defined by Annex 2 of the Framework, the requirement of criterion d) to comply with the ‘[name] is not applicable. As the proposed development would satisfy all the relevant criteria of paragraph 155 of the Framework, I therefore conclude that it would not comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the Framework. This would also accord with Policy STRAT6 of the SOLP, which requires development in the Green Belt to be assessed in accordance with the Framework.

For the avoidance of doubt, the exception at paragraph 155 does not expressly state a need to assess the development’s effect on the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore, in line with footnote 55 of the Framework, the proposal should not be regarded as being harmful to openness. Further, as I have concluded that the proposal would not amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, I do not need to examine other considerations and whether these amount to very special circumstances.

The extent of consideration for permission in principle applications, and therefore related appeals, is limited to location, land use and amount of development. The appeal site is not within the built-up area of Burcot village, its land use is therefore that of open countryside within the Green Belt, with development subject to the controls of national Green Belt policy along with Policy STRAT6 of the SOLP.

[name] have found the appeal site to be grey belt land as defined by the Framework, and the proposal not to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, it follows that the appeal proposal would not be contrary to the Framework or Policy STRAT6 of the SOLP in terms of location and land use.

However, with regards to the development plan, new housing is, in part, controlled by policies H1, H8 and H16 of the SOLP. Policy H1 restricts development in smaller villages, such as Burcot, to infilling and brownfield sites (H1(3)(iv)), or on PDL within or adjacent to existing built-up areas in smaller villages (H1(4)). This is covered in more detail in Policy H8, which identifies that development of housing in smaller villages will be supported in accordance with Policy H16, with support for Parish Council’s to prepare Neighbourhood Development Plans. Burcot is covered by the Burcot & Clifton Hampden Neighbourhood Plan 2011-2035, though no housing allocation was made as part of that plan that is relevant to the appeal site.

Policy H16 of the SOLP covers infill and backland development. Within smaller villages it limits development to infill and the redevelopment of PDL. I have already determined the appeal site is not PDL, and that the proposal would not represent infilling and would therefore be contrary to Policy H16. Therefore, in development plan terms, I find the appeal site’s location and land use would be contrary to Policies H1, H8 and H16 of the SOLP.

With regards to the amount of development, in terms of the extent of development proposed relative to the size of the site, I find that it would provide sufficient space to accommodate the range of development proposed. The existing access from the A415 [address] bisects the appeal site, providing access to the existing [name] and other properties further south. Matters of access, turning and parking would be for consideration at the TDC stage, were the appeal allowed. This is also the case for the provision of external amenity space for future occupants.

Whilst the Council have raised concerns regarding the potential impact of development on trees, groups of trees and woodland, and concerns have been raised by residents in relation to overlooking, wildlife and ecology impacts, the narrow access lane and the safety of the access to the A415 highway, these are all matters that would be addressed at the TDC stage were the appeal to be allowed.

The appeal site is located within flood zone 1. It is therefore in a low flood risk area, so there is no fundamental problem in relation to the location on this basis. Concerns have been raised by residents in relation to localised surface water flooding. Again, this is a matter that could be addressed at the TDC stage were the appeal to be allowed.

The Council have identified that they cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land as required by the Framework. Accordingly, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged for decision making purposes. As the site is within the Green Belt, the policies within paragraph 11(d)(i) and Footnote 7 of the Framework are of relevance. However, the proposal would utilise grey belt land and would accord with the provision of paragraph 155 of the Framework. I have therefore found the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. As such, it would not provide a strong reason for refusing the proposed development.

Accordingly, paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework is engaged, which indicates that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The proposal would provide additional housing in a sustainable location which would support the government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. The proposal is for between two and four dwellings, which would make a modest but important contribution towards overall housing supply. The proposal would provide local economic benefit, both in the construction phase and in the longer term with future occupiers supporting local businesses and services within the area. It would also be CIL liable, which would make a valuable contribution to the local infrastructure. Cumulatively these are benefits that attract significant weight.

I have found that harm would arise from conflict with the spatial strategy in the SOLP. However, owing to the Council’s lack of 5-year housing land supply, the weight given to this conflict is reduced.

Consequently, I conclude that the adverse impacts of the proposal, would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies, which is a material consideration that weighs heavily in favour of allowing the appeal.

There is a default time limit duration of 3 years from the date of the decision for permission in principle. It is not possible for conditions to be attached to a grant of permission in principle.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan, but the material considerations, including policies in the Framework, would justify determining other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.