Appeal 6005283

The appeal is dismissed.

In addition to being located within a Scheduled Monument (SM), the appeal site sits within the setting of listed buildings and is within the Eynsham Conservation Area (CA). In reaching my decisions, I have therefore considered the statutory duties under sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 (the Act).

Additional drawings have been provided with the appeal. These are (SP02) a site plan and [name] image which both illustrate the context of the proposal in relation to other built form. Neither alter the proposal in any way, and so there is no harm to natural justice in my accepting these drawings

The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposal on the SM, whether or not it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [name], and whether the proposal would preserve the settings of the [name]* listed Church of [name] and [name] listed The Shrubbery.

The appeal site lies adjacent to the property named The Nursery, within the settlement of Eynsham. The appeal site consists of a substantial L shaped parcel of open grassland which contains two small timber outbuilding, accessed off the existing access way off [address] adjacent to [name].

The site is surrounded by mature trees which mostly obscures it from view from most directions.

[name] is a SM1and former medieval monastic site key to the formation and evolution of the settlement of Eynsham. SM’s are identified within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) as designated heritage assets of the highest significance. The Abbey has rich archaeological remains that provide evidence of the life and development of the monastic use.

It survives primarily as buried remains, and the Abbey site lies within the rural green space on the edge of the settlement, which Historic England state comprises open paddocks and expansive gardens. Historic England further set out that the proposed development site lies within the north-eastern area of the SM and entirely within the early Abbey precinct, and the appeal site is indeed included within the boundary set out in the asset mapping. This is not disputed by the appellant and from the evidence submitted and from what I have observed, I have no reason to dispute this.

Archaeological excavations and geophysical survey have also demonstrated a significant evidential value, identifying multiple phases of occupation within the area dating back to at least the [name].

The open space allows the position of the Abbey on the periphery of the settlement to be appreciated. This is particularly evident with the conjunction between the Abbey site and the remaining complex of fishponds adjacent to the south but is also apparent from the open land to its west. Much of this undeveloped space contains the archaeological remains and features of the Abbey which are crucial to the understanding of the development, phasing and use of the location from the prehistoric to the post-medieval period. This includes its use as an agricultural resource to support the Abbey, as indicated by aerial photographs and historic maps2.

Historic England sets out that the surrounding open space ‘retains a tranquil character that reflects the meditative monastic life of the monks that once lived here’, and I observed that much of the surroundings have a quiet, peaceful character. This adds to the site’s significance, as does the evident functional and spiritual connection of the open space with the agricultural and spiritual use of the site.

From the information presented and my observations on site therefore and, relevant to the appeal, the significance of the SM is primarily derived from its archaeological interest but also in part from its historic interest.

The appeal site is open and undeveloped (apart from two small outbuildings). I observed that the appeal site is also a quiet and peaceful parcel of land that is closely connected to the open land to its rear and west. The submitted aerial photographs3 from 1999, 2009 and 2018 suggest that at that time the appeal site was not formal garden area and was closely related to the verdant surrounding undeveloped land. Even if it became part of the (substantial) garden of No 6, it does not have a particularly domestic character. 1 Scheduled Monument List Entry Number: 1006332 2 Set out in the submitted Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) by [name] 2025 3 Appendix 1a of Council’s statement of case

Whilst obscured from view by vegetation and trees from most directions therefore, the site plays an important part and contributes positively to the open, rural character of the surroundings.

The appellant sets out that there is no evidence to suggest important heritage assets exist in this part of the SM area, however the planning statement confirms that ‘The area surrounding the site has demonstrated some evidence for Prehistoric archaeological remains including a [name] enclosure with possible Neolithic origins’. Its conclusion that the appeal site is considered to have ‘low potential’ for archaeological features is based on a geophysical magnetometer survey undertaken in 2020.

However, this is a non-invasive technique which has limitations in establishing the presence or otherwise of archaeological remains. It is reasonable therefore to conclude that there is potential for archaeological remains on the appeal site, particularly given the absence of modern development within this specific part of the wider scheduled monument site.

Eynsham is a historic village that has numerous impressive listed and non-listed buildings, including the above-mentioned grade II* Church of [name] located in the village square and the former mediaeval [name].

The CA boundary encompasses the historic core of the settlement, together with substantial areas of adjoining agricultural land to the south extending to the B449 highway and southeast to include the abbey site.

The old centre of Eynsham, near the church, retains much of the character of a small market town, with cottages set around a square and narrow and irregular streets and alleys, first developing around the Abbey.

I observed that the significance of the CA as a whole largely derives from this surviving core of the village, street pattern and the rich variety of historic buildings that denote its evolution. In addition, whilst the historic core is clearly of some importance then, the undeveloped open land within the CA also preserves a rural character and ensures the important historic functional role the open land contributed to the way that the village operated historically and to its development is appreciated. As such, this undeveloped land within the CA also contributes positively to the character and appearance of the surroundings and the significance of the CA.

The Church of [name] is an Anglican parish church and a [name] * listed building4 with a late 13th century chancel and south aisle, and a north aisle and west tower of circa.1450, restored in 1856 by [name] and 1892 by [name]. It is constructed of coursed limestone rubble, with squared stone to the west tower. It has gabled stone and a Welsh slate roof. It was listed in 1955, and its graveyard includes a number of separately [name] listed tombs5. It is stated that the [name] was likely part of the original Abbey and likely built by the Abbey, and as such there is a historic connection in this regard. 4 [name]: 1048964 5 [name] : 1198757, 1368274, 1283707, 1048966 & 1048965

The special interest and significance of the listed building are mainly derived from its architectural interest and fabric, as a fine example of ecclesiastical architecture that has evolved and been restored over time. Pertinent to the appeal, the Church’s setting also however contributes to its heritage merit.

Its siting within the settlement and prominent frontage provide a clear landmark off the [address], however the spire it also apparent from distance views to the south and west. The extensive churchyard at the rear, with stone tombs set amongst grass and trees, contributes to the sense of space behind the road at this part of the settlement, and provides a tranquil haven away from the busy [address]. This space around the building in addition to the surrounding open space ensures a visual separation that increases the prominence of the listed building when viewed from this direction and the space allows the building and its merit to be appreciated.

Additionally, the pastoral open landscape to its rear and side also provides a visual and functional link to the historic experience of the surrounds of the Church, and its historic connection to the Abbey. In this respect, whilst not the primary surroundings within which the building is experienced, this landscape also contributes to the wider setting of the Church, and also, in part, supports and contributes in a positive way to its special interest and significance.

The appeal site, as set out above, sits within the Abbey site, which provides a functional historic connection to the Church. In addition, by virtue of its quite open character, it contributes positively to the landscape and setting of the Church.

The Shrubbery is an early 16th century [name] listed large, detached dwelling facing the [address]. Remodelled in late 16th and 17th centuries and with further 19th and 20th century additions, it is constructed of coursed limestone rubble with roughcast front and a gabled stone slate roof. It was listed6 in 1955 and has a large rear garden that is mainly in the [name] and backs onto the open land.

Given the above, I find that the special interest and significance of the listed building to be primarily associated with its historic and architectural interests as a good illustration of a 16/17th century vernacular domestic architecture that has evolved and extended over time. Important contributors in these regards which are pertinent to the appeal are the extant historic fabric and key historic features and detailing.

The setting of the property includes its significant rear garden, as well as the other dwellings facing the [address]. These properties provide the domestic and village setting for the property. Whilst it has evolved over time, with additional more modern dwellings constructed nearby, its prominence from the [address] remains clear, and along with its large rear garden allows its merit to be appreciated and is key to the way the heritage asset is experienced.

Given the evolution of the surroundings and the domestic nature of the dwelling, there no longer remains a tangible connection to the wider rural setting.

Nevertheless, the immediate setting of the building makes a positive contribution to its significance. 6 [name] 1048982

It is proposed to erect a detached dwelling and garage sited next to and in line with No 6 (the Nursery). The dwelling would be single storey with accommodation in the roof space.

The planning statement acknowledges that ‘it will be necessary to validate and ground truth the findings through a process of archaeological evaluation intended to clarify the nature and potential sensitivity of archaeological deposits within the site’. The submitted HIA also concludes that, in relation to the required further archaeological works, ‘the need for and nature of any archaeological works should be agreed with Historic England prior to commencement.’ This is also confirmed by the comments received from the Oxfordshire County Council Archaeological Services. In this regard, it is noteworthy that Historic England have raised detailed objection relating to the potential for significant remains to be impacted by the construction of the house and garage foundations, services and landscaping, and setting out that insufficient information has been submitted.

Given that SM consent is required from Historic England, this also has consequences for the possibility of conditioning further archaeological evaluation. This is because the doubt about whether such consent would be forthcoming means that such a condition would not meet the test of reasonableness.

The Framework requires that where a site has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, then an appropriate desk-based assessment and where necessary a field evaluation should be submitted. Policy EH15 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 (2018) (LP) sets out that ‘Nationally important archaeological remains (whether scheduled or demonstrably of equivalent significance) should be preserved in situ.’

Given the established potential of significant archaeological remains and the potentially adverse consequences of allowing the proposal before this matter has been resolved, and having regard to the high status of the asset, a precautionary approach is appropriate. This is particularly the case where the risk of harm is not established and given the policy context for any significant remains to remain in place.

I cannot be certain therefore that the development would not lead to some harm to potential archaeological remains on site. In this regard, the appellant has not therefore adequately demonstrated that there would not be harm to the significance of the asset.

In addition, the erection of a new dwelling in this site would alter its character. It would urbanise the site and introduce significant built form and associated domestic paraphernalia in previously open space. The tranquil nature of the site would be compromised, and the functional and spiritual connection of the open space to the SM would be diminished.

The ability to experience, appreciate and understand its significance would be reduced. Whilst the proposed dwelling would be sited nearby to other modern or relatively recent dwellings, the further erosion of this open space would cause harm to the significance of the SM.

Given the two elements of harm, I find that this amounts to a moderate level of less than substantial harm.

As part of the open undeveloped parcel immediately adjoining the built form of the settlement within the CA, the appeal site contributes positively to the significance of the CA.

As such, the addition of built form and its urbanising effect would lead to some harm to the contribution the site makes in terms of the partly rural character and appearance of the CA. Given the functional link of the open land to the evolution of the settlement, there would also be diminishing of this historic connection.

Given the nearby dwellings, the siting of the proposed built form and retention of much of the open space, this harm to both character and appearance and function link would be modest. This would amount to a low level of less than substantial harm.

There are dwellings closer to the Shrubbery than the prosed dwelling would be. The setting of this asset has therefore significantly evolved over time, and the primary way of experiencing the asset is from the highway, and its extensive rear garden.

The proposed dwelling would not affect this, and its distance from the asset means that it would not compete with nor obscure the architectural qualities of the property. The development would not affect the authenticity of how The Shrubbery is experienced not alter the ability to appreciate its significance.

The Church of [name] has a historic link to the Abbey and the appeal site sits within the Abbey site, and as such, given the harm identified above to the significance of the Abbey, there is a residual harmful effect to the setting of the Church. Moreover, again, the instruction of built form in previously open space would diminish the tranquil nature of the site, and the functional and spiritual connection of the open space to the Church would be diminished.

Whilst not visible from the site of the dwelling, the extensive rear garden area would extend some distance to the rear where I observed views of the Church was possible. Moreover, this southern part of the garden is visible from the Church graveyard. As such, the domestication of the site, which could include various domestic paraphernalia, would be evident from the Church site. Whilst these views would be in the distance, the development would affect the authenticity of how the Church is experienced and, in this way, would alter the ability to appreciate its significance.

Given the fairly localised nature of the works relative to the setting of the Church as a whole, I find the harm to this heritage asset to be at a minor level of ‘less than substantial’ but nevertheless is of considerable importance and weight.

As set out above, I find the harm to the SM at a moderate level of ‘less than substantial’. I find the harm to both the CA and to the Church of [name] to be, individually and cumulatively, at a minor level of ‘less than substantial’ but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight.

The development would add a dwelling to the district’s housing stock. Whilst only 1 dwelling, given the housing land supply of the district, as set out below, this carries moderate weight. There would also be associated social and economic benefits related to the construction of the development and the contributions of future occupiers to services and facilities in the area. I attach modest weight to these benefits.

It is not clear how the layout of the dwelling, with bedrooms on the first floor, is particularly suitable for occupiers with limited physical ability, nor how adapting it for such users would be easier than any other typical dwelling layout. Moreover, there is no substantive evidence submitted that there is a short supply of property in Eynsham suitable for elderly or physically challenged occupants. As such, this public benefit caries little weight.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework indicates that, when considering the impact on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. On balance, in giving considerable importance and weight to the harm to the significance of these designated heritage assets, I find that this would not be outweighed by the public benefits that the proposal would generate.

Consequently, the harm identified to the significance of the designated heritage assets has not been supported by clear and convincing justification. As such, the proposal would conflict with the statutory presumptions set out in sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Act and would not comply with the provisions within the Framework which seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment. There would also be conflict with [name] OS2, OS4, EH9, EH10, EH11, EH13, EH15 and EW10, and Policies ENP2 and ENP14 of the Eynsham Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2031 (2020), which collectively, amongst other matters, seek to ensure high quality design and the protection of character and heritage assets, including archaeological remains.

LP Policy H2 is concerned with the delivery of new homes, and required compliance with other plan policies. Given the lack of five year housing land supply there is some debate as to the weight given to this policy, however in of its self, conflict with this policy is not determinative on the main issues. For the same reason, LP Policy H5, concerned with custom and self-build homes, is also not determinative in this regard.

The appellant has raised a number of issues relating to procedural imbalance and factual inaccuracy in regards to the planning committee of 13 October 2025. These are matters for local government accountability, not for this appeal, and I have based my decision on the written submissions before me and what I observed on site. this is also the case in relation to any lack of site visit from Historic England.

The site lies in a red zone for great crested newts, protected species buffer for bats and Wychwood Project Area. The site also lies in the [name] of Influence and [name] of Influence.

Given that I am dismissing the scheme for other reasons, I have not addressed this matter further.

The Framework supports small sites coming forward for self-build and custom-build housing. However, notwithstanding that there is no evidence before me that the Council is failing in its statutory duty to meet the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding, no mechanism is before me to secure the development. As such, I cannot give this matter any wight in favour of the proposal.

It is common ground that the Council is not able to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Paragraph 11d of the Framework is applicable due to the Council’s housing supply position. It sets out that permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed.

In this light, Footnote 7 of paragraph 11 of the Framework specifically refers to designated heritage assets. This includes scheduled monuments which are identified within the Framework as designated heritage assets of the highest significance. The policies in the Framework that seek to conserve and enhance heritage assets set out clearly that great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets, in particular to nationally significant sites of exceptional significance. In this context, the individual and cumulative harm identified above to the SM, [name]* Listed Building and CA provides a strong reason for refusing the development. The Framework does not therefore indicate in favour of the scheme.

Nevertheless, as stated above, the proposal would result in 1 additional unit of accommodation which would contribute to the Government’s broader objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. Given the location of the site, it has good access to services and facilities.

The proposal would also result in a short-term economic benefits arising from the construction process. Economic and social benefits are also likely to arise from the occupation of the new dwelling. However, given the quantum of development in this case, each of these benefits would be modest.

Whilst the Framework supports efficient use of a site, given the scale of the proposed plot, one dwelling would be efficient in this regard.

As set out above, the benefits of the layout and the general need of accessible dwellings in Eynsham is not demonstrated. As such, this benefit caries little weight.

A lack of any identified harm in relation to matters such as design, residential amenity and access are not matters in favour of the proposal.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would harm heritage assets. These matters attract substantial weight against the appeal. The modest benefits outlined above do not outweigh these identified harms.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan. There are no material considerations which indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.