Appeal 6005595

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the Chilterns National Landscape.

The site lies in the Chilterns National Landscape, a designation of national importance. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that great weight be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes, among other designated areas, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. Section 85 of The CRoW Act1 requires all relevant authorities to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes when performing their functions.

The South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2020 (the LP) at Policy ENV1 reiterates that the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, now the National Landscape, has the highest level of protection and states, among other things, that development in this area will only be permitted where it conserves, and where possible, enhances its character and natural beauty. The site lies within the area of the [site address] Neighbourhood Development Plan 2021- 2035 (the SCNDP) of which Policy RENV2 supports development which would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the landscape setting of the village and which delivers the key duties of conservation and enhancement of the special qualities of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Several studies have described the landscape character which encompasses the appeal site, as set out by the appellant. Notably the [name] 1 The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, amended by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Character Assessment describes key characteristics including a distinctive pattern of winding rural roads, irregular field boundaries and scattered rural settlements, as well as a generally rural and unspoilt character, but with some suburbanising influences within rural settlements and along main roads.

The site forms part of the gap between [site address] and [name]. [site address] has a distinctly rural character, derived from its narrow and unlit nature and enclosure by trees and hedgerows. The surrounding woodland and open fields, visible in gaps in the hedgerow, contribute to the break between the built up areas and their appreciation as rural settlements. There are other structures and buildings in the vicinity of the site, including the adjacent nursery which is somewhat of an anomaly in the pattern of development in the gap. I also observed other uses and structures to the east of the appeal site, including the football club and associated storage and parking areas. These entail dispersed features across a wide area, set back from the road and closer to the edge of [site address] . Taken together these features do not detract from the area’s rural and verdant character.

While there are some existing structures and remnants of buildings across the appeal site, including brick chimneys on the southern part of the site, the appellant accepts they have limited prominence which is consistent with the findings of my site visit. The low level building which remains on the northern part of the site is visible primarily from a gap in the damaged fence to the east of the site and the growth of vegetation has helped with its assimilation into the surrounding verdant character. Overall, the two parts of the appeal site continue to contribute to feelings of openness in the locality and the existing structures are not significant detractors from the local character set out above.

The proposed pitch would be positioned in the southwestern corner of the site, close to the adjoining nursery building. Despite the findings of the appellant’s LVA2, some visibility of the pitch would occur from the road around the point of access and in glimpses through the hedgerows, particularly given the position and height of the dayroom. The removal of the close board timber fencing around the public footpath would also open up views across the site, allowing visibility of the pitch, albeit reducing over time to glimpses as the hedgerow becomes established. In those views the structures on the pitch would appear very heavily at odds with the landscape character.

The plans show the rest of the site would be reinstated to mixed shrubland and grazing, enclosed by indigenous hedging. This would provide visual benefit to the northern part of the site which would be experienced by those using the public footpath once the timber fencing were removed. The removal of the tunnel-like fencing would also improve the experience of users of the footway. While the land behind the proposed pitch would be planted and landscaped, this part of the site would inevitably read as part of the context of the new structures and the extent of benefit would be limited.

It is therefore clear that the proposal entails elements of both benefits and detriments to the landscape character. However, given the findings above surrounding the effects of the existing structures, when considered as a whole the development would cause harm to the landscape character. It would cause a 2 Landscape and [name] by Scarp, dated December 2024 reduction in its openness and a loss of rural character as a result of the new pitch and associated residential activity and paraphernalia, at odds with and harmful to the surrounding landscape character. While limited to localised effects and views from the road and public footpath, the scale of that harm would nonetheless be significant. I do not agree that such significant harm could only arise from a longer-distance impact as suggested.

In conclusion on this main issue, the proposal would neither conserve nor enhance the landscape character or scenic beauty of the National Landscape, nor further its statutory purposes. In turn the proposal would conflict with policies ENV1 of the LP and RENV2 of the SCNDP summarised above. It would also conflict with LP Policy H14 insofar as it requires Gypsy and Traveller pitches not to have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the landscape.

The Council accept that it is unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites. The provisions of paragraph 11d) of the Framework are therefore relevant to the appeal. However, in applying 11d)i. for the reasons given, the application of policies in the Framework which protect National Landscapes provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. It is not apparent that the planning objections here could be overcome using planning conditions or obligations. The proposal does not therefore benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development. There are, however, other material considerations advanced by the appellant.

The proposal would contribute towards the identified shortfall of deliverable sites for Gypsies and Travellers. The appellant asserts the shortfall could be as much as 34 pitches for this five year period, rising to 64 pitches over the period of 2028 to 2039. While not disputed by the Council, it accepts that the shortfall is significant. It is therefore clear that there will be a reliance on windfall sites, for which the circumstances are set out in LP Policy H14. While the contribution of this proposal would be limited to one pitch, it would nonetheless make an important contribution and could be delivered quickly as evidenced by the various offers to purchase the land. There would also be some economic benefit arising from the construction process and ongoing expenditure by future occupants into the local economy, as well as considerable biodiversity benefits.

Having regard to the current definition of [name] (PDL) in the Framework, I have no strong reason to doubt that the site was developed lawfully at the time when the remaining structures and infrastructure were built, and that these were permanent structures. Despite finding they have little visual prominence, neither have the remnants of the structures blended into the landscape. For these reasons the site falls within the definition of PDL. I am mindful of the conclusion of an earlier Inspector in 2017 on this matter3, although the definition has changed since that time. The proposal would therefore make use of PDL, which is acknowledged by the Planning Policy for [name] (PPTS) as a consideration which should be given weight and this weighs in favour of the development. 3 APP/Q3115/W/16/3165089

In addition, the site is close to [site address] and occupants of the site would be capable of accessing its services and facilities using the public footway. This is consistent with the findings of the previous Inspector4. As a consequence the pitch would not be away from existing settlements and nor would it dominate that settlement, as described in paragraph 26 of the PPTS. The site would also promote a healthy lifestyle, with ample soft landscaping.

Having regard to the other considerations set out in paragraph 25 of the PPTS, in the absence of details of the intended occupiers, the availability of alternative accommodation, personal circumstances and the best interests of any children, are not factors which attract additional weight in favour of granting planning permission.

Nonetheless, the above factors represent important benefits of the appeal scheme which together attract moderate weight in favour of granting planning permission, given the scale of the development. However, they would not outweigh the harm which would arise to the landscape character and nationally designated landscape set out, to which I give significant weight.

I am aware that dismissing the appeal would deny Gypsies or Travellers of an authorised place to reside and the opportunity to foster relationships with the local community. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act imposes a positive obligation to facilitate the gypsy way of life. The development would meet the needs of those persons with a relevant protected characteristic, by reason of race, and so, as required by section 149(1) of the Equality Act 2010, the public sector equality duty is applicable. There is therefore a need to have due regard to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations.

The human rights interference associated with this conclusion is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society to protect environmental interests which is a legitimate objective. The public interest cannot be achieved by means that cause less interference with the potential occupant’s rights. Therefore dismissing the appeal is a proportionate response in these circumstances and a violation of rights under Article 8 would not occur.

In accordance with the public sector equality duty, due regard has been paid to minimising the disadvantages suffered by potential occupiers of the site, assuming they are without a permanent home and to meeting their needs in so far as they are different to those without a relevant protected characteristic. Whilst ultimately the appeal is to be dismissed, these considerations have been at the forefront of the decision-making process and given the nature of the objection identified here, the outcome is a proportionate one.

I have considered whether to grant temporary planning permission. However, the development would still present harmful effects on the National Landscape, particularly during a limited period given the timescales required for the planting to become established and begin to provide screening. Conflict with the development plan and the statutory purposes of the designation would remain, even if temporarily. The benefits in that instance would similarly not be sufficient to outweigh the harm caused by a temporary development. 4 APP/Q3115/W/23/3319460

I am mindful of the other issues raised by interested parties. However it is not necessary to address those issues further since they would not alter the outcome of the appeal.

For the reasons given, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are not material considerations of sufficient weight which indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.