Appeal 6006499

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has two stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle, and the second (‘technical details consent’) stage 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 technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

An applicant can apply for permission in principle for a range of dwellings by expressing a minimum and maximum net number of dwellings as part of the application. In this instance, permission in principle has been sought for a minimum of four and a maximum of five dwellings, although I note the reference in the description of development for apartments.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development, with particular regard to the character of the area and the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

The appeal site comprises a parcel of land to the side of the host dwelling, [site address] . There is a small area of land within the site which is level with the road and the garden of the host dwelling. The site thereafter slopes away steeply to another area of flat land at the lower level before dropping again to the watercourse. It is within the settlement of Botley. There are other houses, including others on [address] which are on sloping plots and others, on Hillside and [name], which are on lower land. The road and houses on [name] slope down and the houses have been set to follow the slope. Most of the houses I saw at my visit were two storey, pitched roofed, properties. However, there are also single storey and one and a half storey properties in the area, including the host dwelling and [address].

Albeit within the urban area, the area has a semi-rural and transitional feel. The sloping topography and the trees and vegetation are the dominant characteristics of the area. The appeal site forms one of several gaps between houses which positively contribute to the character and appearance. [address] the appeal site is enclosed with close boarded fences. Nevertheless, it is seen as a gap in the built development and views of the roofs of other houses can be seen from the pavement. The appeal site itself is green and verdant, albeit overgrown.

Although the layout of the proposed development is a matter for the [name], I have to assess the appeal as proposed, which is defined as a minimum of four units and a maximum of five. Even though there is a flat area, which the appellant contends is approximately a 10-metre circular area, the sloping nature of the site and the size of the site as a whole, would likely result in the need to cut into the slope and provide retaining structures. Based on the application being for a minimum of four units and a maximum of five, I am not convinced that the site could accommodate this number of units, even in a single building, in a form and layout which would respect the existing character and built form or allow the development to integrate with the existing housing around the site.

The design details suggested by the appellant of an innovative design with a flat, sedum roof and the provision of planting are not part of the current permission in principle application. These matters, therefore, do not weigh in favour of the proposal and are not capable of overcoming the harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant also contends that there are other developments approved along [address]. However, I have not been provided with the details of any other schemes, and I am not able to determine whether they are similar in terms of the topography and constrained size of the site. In any event, I have considered the appeal on the basis of the evidence submitted and my own observations.

For the above reasons, the proposed land use, and the amount of development, would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. The development would, therefore, be contrary to Policy CP37 of the Vale of White Horse District Council Local Plan 2031 Part 1 – [name] and Policies (LP1) which, amongst other matters, requires new development to be of high quality design that responds positively to the site and its surroundings, that physically and visually integrates with its surroundings, and requires the height, density, grain, massing, type, details and materials be appropriate for the site and surrounding area.

For the same reasons the development would also fail to comply with Policies DBC1 and DBC3 of the Cumnor Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan 2021 to 2031. Collectively these policies seek to ensure that developments have regard to the essential character of the local area, sensitively integrating new development into the landscape and topography, and, where in an identified low-density area, require development to reflect the small-scale and fragmented building patterns, including maintaining visual gaps between buildings.

The main consideration of the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties would be for the second stage of the permission in principle process. There are existing dwellings surrounding the site on [name] and Hillside. I saw that a number of these have windows facing towards the appeal site and gardens between their properties and the site. The appeal site is currently appreciated by these properties as a green and verdant area and the steep slope up to the road is part of the general views from the area.

Albeit that this matter would be considered at the technical details stage, the appeal before me is for a minimum of four units and a maximum of five. Even if these are provided as apartments in a single building it would result in one large building. Given the steeply sloping nature of the site and the relationship of it with the surrounding properties I cannot be certain that the appeal site can be developed for the quantum of units proposed without adversely affecting the outlook from the neighbouring properties.

For the above reasons, the proposed land use and the amount of development, would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and be contrary to Policy DP23 of the Vale of White Horse District Council Local Plan 2031 Part 2 – [name] and [name] (LP2) which requires development to demonstrate that they will not result in significant adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring uses, including considering dominance or visual intrusion.

The Parish Council and interested parties have raised concerns that land near to [site address] is subject to a compulsory purchase order to allow embankment stabilisation works along the road. [name] have dismissed the appeal on other matters this concern is not determinative in my decision.

I have had regard to the other concerns raised by interested parties. However, a permission in principle is not a planning permission in itself and my consideration of the case is limited to very specific matters. Issues such as highways and parking arrangements, drainage, and the effect on biodiversity, among other things, must be considered at the subsequent [name] stage.

The appellant has also referred to pre-application advice provided by the Council. However, it is not clear whether advice was sought on the appeal development as the dates referred to relate to other previous proposals on the site. Pre-application advice is not binding and the evidence before me shows a clear justification for the decision. Moreover, I have found harm, as detailed above.

I also acknowledge the benefits of new housing, especially with the government objectives of boosting the supply of new homes. There would also be socio-economic benefits from increased local expenditure, and economic benefits from employment opportunities during construction. Although the proposed apartments would be more affordable than houses, the properties are not proposed as affordable housing. I have, therefore, not given the provision of these units as affordable dwellings weight in the decision. I give moderate weight to the benefits. Nevertheless, the benefits would not outweigh the harm caused, to which I attribute great weight.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.