Appeal 6005309

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the application form. I have not included the reference to retention and modification as these are not development. However, from the evidence submitted, and from my site visit, the development has commenced. I have, therefore, dealt with the appeal on a retrospective basis.

The Council has referred to the Ardington and Lockinge Neighbourhood Plan

However, although the site lies within the area covered by this document it is still at the consultation stage and, therefore, has limited weight.

The Council has also referred to the Joint Local Plan for [name] and Vale of [name] which has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for examination. However, I do not have compelling evidence that there are not outstanding objections to the policies in the Joint Local Plan and I cannot be certain if any policies are to be modified or when it is likely to be adopted. I, therefore, only give limited weight to the emerging policies.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the North Wessex Downs National Landscape.

The appeal site is a strip of land leading from the highway to [site address] . From the evidence before me the access from the road was previously a field gate and [site address] was served off the same access as [address]. The appeal site slopes up from the road before levelling out across the paddocks. The roadside is enclosed with metal estate style railings and occasional trees.

The site lies within the North Wessex Downs National Landscape (the NL), within the open countryside, and also within the Landscape Character Area LCT 6A: Wessex Downs Chalk Escarpment Footslopes. Core Policy 44 of the Vale of White Horse District Council Local Plan 2031 Part 1 [name] and Policies (Part 1 of the LP) recognises the national importance of the NL, gives high priority to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the NL, and requires planning decisions to have regard to its setting.

The South Oxfordshire and Vale of [name] Assessment seeks to maintain the open rural character of the landscape and gaps between settlements, and also seeks to minimise the effect of new development on local character. Contrary to the appellant’s assertions, the paddocks are part of the open countryside. They are rural in nature and appearance. The post and rail fencing and small field shelters are not dissimilar to agricultural development and there is not a significant difference in their appearance to the surrounding arable fields. That paddocks have been considered as previously developed land does not equate to them not being open countryside. Moreover, the paddocks contribute positively to the open and verdant character of the rural area around the houses.

Section 245 of the [name] and Regeneration Act 2023 (the LURA) amended the duty in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 in relation to National Landscapes to require relevant authorities, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Landscape to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of it.

The LURA has imposed a more rigorous requirement in the NL than that set out in Core Policy 44. However, there would be overlapping considerations between the requirements of the LURA and the policy, and the policy remains in keeping with the thrust of the LURA. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in the NL. It also advises that the scale and extent of development in these areas should be limited.

The North Wessex Downs National Landscape – An Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2025-2030 (the NLMP) identifies the special qualities of the NL as, amongst other matters, the sense of remoteness and tranquillity from the undeveloped and rural quality, and the modest villages. The NLMP reiterates the LURA in requiring development in the NL to further the purpose of the NL to conserve and enhance the natural beauty and seeks to ensure that development maintains the rural character and valued qualities of the NL by preventing the over-development of sites and the erosion of local character.

The driveway laid at the appeal site is cut across land that was previously paddocks. Although the parking area is close to the house and on land which was previously hard standing the driveway is not. The appeal proposal would alter the surface finish to gravel and also enclose it with post and rail fence. However, due to the slope of the land and the roadside boundary treatment, it is not just the immediate access point that is visible from the highway. The extent of what can be viewed from the road is not minimal and, even with a gravel surface, the driveway would be prominent in views from the road and, therefore, harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Vehicles travelling along the driveway would be visible from the highway and would exacerbate the harm. Overall, even if I were to agree that the development is not overly urbanising it would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and would not further the purpose of the NL.

From my observations the driveway at the appeal site is more visible from the highway than the previous hard standing at [address] would have been and more visible than the driveways associated with [address], [address], and [name]. The other large driveway, outside the village, to which my attention was drawn, appears more like a junction of two roads than a driveway across paddocks. The appeal proposal is also materially different to the two appeals referred to by the appellant at Yelfords Cottage1 and Oak Tree Farm2. The track at [address] was proposed as scalpings in the wheel tracks with grass down the middle and was not visible from the road or any public viewpoints due to hedges and the topography. Moreover, the Inspector concluded that there was harm from the access at [address] but that the harm was outweighed by the ecological benefits. No such benefits are proposed in the appeal before me.

The track at [address] was not within a National Landscape and there would not have been any close, or far reaching, views of it. It is, therefore, materially different to the appeal before me. However, I also accept that the appeal before me is materially different to the appeal at Satwell House3 as that scheme included more urbanising features such as stone pillars and cast iron gates, a tree-lined driveway, and included removal of a section of existing roadside hedge.

The Council has accepted that there are other long driveways in Ginge. Although many of these are associated with older Farmhouses and Manor houses, including the driveway approved at [address], I also noted the length of the existing driveway to [address], which lies to the side of the appeal site. [address] is neither a large Farmhouse nor a [address] and is similar in size to [site address] . Nevertheless, from the evidence before me that driveway previously served both [address] and [site address] prior to their conversion to two separate dwellings and also, afterwards. It was an established access serving farm buildings and also serves as a public right of way. Moreover, that existing access, although more of its length is visible from the access point, is not as visually prominent as the appeal proposal.

I also accept that the refusal of the previous application for the same development on the same site did not specifically refer to the effect on the NL. Nevertheless, the officer report did advise that the development would result in erosion of the character of the rural area, within the designated NL. The reference to limited harm was on the wider effect on the landscape quality of the NL, as a whole. I have, however, considered the appeal on its own merits and reached my decision on the basis of the evidence provided and my own observations.

The benefits of having separate driveways for [address] and [site address] and improving the living conditions of both properties are private matters. I have no compelling evidence that the level of disturbance from the crossover of vehicle traffic on the original driveway was such that it was a significant problem or harmful to the wider area. I am, therefore, not convinced that the proposed 1 APP/J9497/D/21/3287028 2 APP/J9497/D/21/3287028 3 APP/J9497/D/21/3287028 development and the associated change of use is functionally necessary, even with the letters of support received. Even though post and rail fencing would not be out of keeping in the area, and even if the effect on heritage, biodiversity and parking is neutral, the benefits are not sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified.

For the above reasons, I find that the appeal proposal would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the North Wessex Downs National Landscape. It would, therefore, fail to comply with Policies CP37 and CP44 of Part 1 of the LP which, taken together, require development to be of high quality that responds positively, physically and visually integrates with its surroundings, protects and, where possible, enhances key features that contribute to the nature and quality of the landscape, and gives high priority to conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the NL.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.