Appeal 6007978

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission is refused for “proposed development comprises the construction of eight affordable residential dwellings on Plots 5 and 6, off [address], [site address] , [site address] . The combined plot area is 0.2 hectares, and the development is intended to meet identified local housing needs through the Rural Exception Site policy framework. The housing mix includes: 4 x 3-bedroom homes, 4 x 2-bedroom homes. Each dwelling will be provided with two allocated parking spaces, and the layout will be designed to reflect the rural character of the area, with consideration for scale, massing and integration into the surrounding landscape”.

The appeal relates to an application for permission in principle that was not determined by the Council within the prescribed period. I note that the Council would have refused to grant permission in principle should it have made a decision on the proposal. I have had regard to the parties’ submissions in establishing the main issues, which I set out below.

The Council considers that the proposed development would: not represent sustainable development given its location and access to services and facilities; harm the character and appearance of the area; result in the loss of good quality agricultural land; and not qualify for consideration as an affordable housing rural exception site.

The proposal is for permission in principle. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent has 2 stages: the first (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. The appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development proposed. 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 and have considered the submitted layout plan as indicative.

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 8 dwellings on the appeal site.

Having consideration to the above, the main issues are 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: • whether the site would be a suitable location for the proposed development, in respect of the spatial strategy in the Development Plan, and accessibility to services and facilities; and • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

Positioned to the eastern corner of a larger field, the appeal site is located near to [site address] , which is not listed under the settlement hierarchy given in table 4b of the [site address] Local Plan 2031 (WOLP) and therefore falls under the category of ‘small villages, hamlets and open countryside’.

WOLP Policy OS2 states that development in small villages, hamlets and the open countryside will be limited to that which it requires and appropriate for a rural location. In terms of residential development in such locations, WOLP Policy H2 lists a number of circumstances where new dwellings will be permitted. As the appellant is presenting an affordable housing scheme, the first circumstance including the ‘rural exception site’ approach for permanent affordable dwellings is relevant.

The Enstone Housing Needs Survey [name] 2026 (HNS) found, based on the households that responded, a level of affordable housing need, including broad support for a small development of homes for those in affordable need with local connections to Enstone. Although there is the possibility of a greater demand in the parish and as a result of nearby developments, the HNS covered Enstone Parish and refers to the village of Enstone, which is listed under the WOLP’s settlement hierarchy. There is limited information before me as to the extent of the area covered by Enstone Parish and how it relates to [site address] and the appeal site. Consequently, I am not persuaded that there is a specific local housing need in the locality of the proposed development.

Furthermore, WOLP Policy H3 requires such homes to remain affordable in perpetuity to people in housing need who have a local connection with the parish or appropriate adjoining parishes. However, as the proposal relates to a permission in principle, this requirement could not be achieved since planning conditions or obligations cannot be included. Therefore, the proposal does not meet the rural exception site approach for permanent affordable dwellings.

WOLP Policy H3 also states that the Council will work with partners to identify additional suitable rural sites for small scale affordable housing schemes to meet specific local housing needs which cannot be met in any other way. However, the appeal site has been neither identified nor promoted by the Council for such a purpose.

Limited information has been provided in relation to the availability of funding for affordable housing and whether it would relate to this specific proposal as well as the findings of the district level housing assessment. As such I have attributed this limited weight in the planning balance.

Even if a specific local need were to be sufficiently demonstrated and the affordable housing secured by a suitable mechanism, WOLP Policy OS2 also requires development to respect the intrinsic character of the area. Moreover, WOLP Policy H2 stipulates compliance with the general principles set out in WOLP Policy OS2. This includes the provision of safe vehicular access and safe and convenient pedestrian access to supporting services and facilities.

In determining an appeal1 for a new dwelling to the north of the current appeal site within the same wider field, the Inspector found that [site address] has limited services and facilities, and that appeal site would not be in a location with convenient access to a good range of services and facilities. It is noted that [name] OS1 and H2 allow for new housing development in small villages and hamlets, irrespective of the level of services and facilities available. However, the current appeal scheme is materially different in that it is located further to the south at a greater distance from [site address] along a particularly narrow and uneven section of [address].

[address] and [address] differ in terms of their width and the amount of vehicular traffic they carry, neither have, in the vicinity of the appeal site, a footpath or street lighting. Whilst these road conditions may be suitable for confident walkers and cyclists, they would not be an attractive option to all including those with mobility issues, particularly during adverse weather and hours of darkness.

My attention has been drawn to the provision of bus stops in [name] / Enstone, via a public right of way (PROW). Whilst the PROW is established, its unlit and unmade surfaces, with steep slopes, and a walkway over a watercourse would not be suitable for all. 1 Appeal Decision Ref: APP/D3125/W/24/3352523

Therefore, due to a lack of genuinely sustainable travel choices including safe and convenient pedestrian access, the occupants of the proposed houses would be heavily reliant on private motor vehicles to access services and facilities on a regular basis, and I find the site to be isolated from a settlement.

An argument that without local housing workers would travel into the area resulting in longer journeys, greater reliance on private vehicles, higher emissions and increased traffic has not been substantiated and has not swayed me away from my findings.

Although appearing not to be currently used for agricultural purposes, there is no compelling evidence that the appeal site is not good quality agricultural land. Claims that the wider field have been subdivided into smaller plots and do not form part of an intact or productive agricultural holding are noted. However, this does not mean that it is no longer, and could not function as, agricultural land.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal site is not a suitable location for the proposed development, in respect of the spatial strategy in the Development Plan, and accessibility to services and facilities, contrary to [name] OS2 and H2. It would also not accord with [name] OS1, H1, T1, and T3, which collectively seek to, amongst other things, set out the spatial strategy for the district, promote sustainable development including convenient access to a range of services and facilities, as well as maximise opportunities for sustainable travel.

Further general principles contained within WOLP Policy OS2 include: forming a logical complement to the existing scale and pattern of development and/or the character of the area; as far as reasonably possible protect or enhance the local landscape and the setting of settlement/s; and not involve the loss of an area of open space or any other feature that makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

There is a noticeable gap of undeveloped land between the appeal site and the small village of [site address] . Forming part of a larger field, which, along with adjoining fields, creates an attractive undulating rural landscape that is a significant contributing factor to the setting of [site address] as well as the character and appearance of the surrounding open countryside. This includes the Glyme Valley, as identified in the [site address] Landscape Assessment.

The indicative layout shows the provision of 8 dwellings in a small cul-de-sac arrangement with access off the southern section of [address]. The development of the site for 8 houses, with associated access and hardstanding, would erode the existing open and rural nature of the site and introduce a significant urbanising effect. It would be highly visible from the PROWs that run close to the north and west of the site, where there would be elevated and unrestricted views of the development. Moreover, views would be possible by users of [address] and [address], through breaks in the vegetation along the boundaries of the wider field to these roads.

Consequently, due to the detached nature of the proposal in relation to [site address] , it would introduce a prominent and incongruous pocket of development on part of an existing open field, which would fail to complement the existing pattern of development. It would also harm the character of the area, including the local rural landscape and the setting of [site address] .

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, contrary to [name] OS2 and H2. It would also conflict with WOLP Policy EH2, which includes a requirement for new development to conserve and, where possible, enhance the intrinsic character, quality and distinctive natural and man-made features of the local landscape.

Representations have been received relating to concerns including, but not limited to, access, drainage, contamination, design, landscaping and ecology. These are all matters for the second, technical details stage of the process.

I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns over the Council’s handling of the application. However, this is not a matter that I can consider under a Section 78 planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal.

The Framework states that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. I give significant weight to the conflicts with [name] OS1, OS2, H2, EH2, T1 and T3, which are broadly consistent with the Framework in ensuring that housing development in the countryside reflects local needs, is sympathetic to local character, and promotes sustainable transport.

There is no dispute that the Council currently does not have a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites and the Council’s evidence states a supply of 4.3 years. Therefore, paragraph 11d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is applicable. Paragraph 11 d) ii) of the Framework identifies that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to certain key policies including directing development to sustainable locations, securing well-designed places and providing affordable housing.

Whilst there is synergy between WOLP Policy H1 and the Framework in terms of establishing a housing requirement for the plan period, considering the lack of a 5- year housing land supply, the weight I afford to this conflict is limited. Nevertheless, due to the conflict with [name] OS1, OS2, H2, EH2, T1 and T3, I find that there is conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The proposed development would make a positive contribution in the delivery of 8 dwellings, and there would be associated social and economic benefits during the period of construction and once the dwellings are occupied. Given the scale of the development, these benefits carry moderate weight in favour of the appeal scheme. I have considered the emphasis given in the Framework to the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes.

In terms of the provision of affordable housing, for the reasons I have already explained, this cannot be secured as part of a permission in principle. As such, in the absence of certainty on this matter, I afford this limited weight.

On the other side of the balance, the proposal would not be in a suitable location, having regard to the spatial strategy in the Development Plan, and accessibility to services and facilities, as well as having an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to paragraphs 82, 84, 110, 115 and 135 of the Framework. Given the long-lasting nature of the effects, I attribute significant weight to this conflict.

Therefore, I conclude that the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As such the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in paragraph 11 d) of the Framework does not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.