Just over one year after the Planning Inspector gave her Decision to uphold the Council’s decision to reject original planning application, the Applicants have applied for “Permission in Principle” for a development of 3 to 5 houses on the same field (https://planningregister.cherwell.gov.uk/planning/Display/25/01615/PIP).
In the intervening months, there has been no material change to the location of the application site to effect a change of decision based on the Planning Inspectorate’s final decision.
Relevant paragraphs from the Planning Inspectorate’s Decision that you may find helpful for your objection are:
NO.
Paragraph 15: ….Consequently, the appeal site lies beyond the built-up limits of the settlement, sitting firmly within the landscape setting of Hook Norton. (this has not changed and is relevant to this application)
Paragraph 16: Consultation responses during preparation of the HNNP, summarised in the supporting text to Policy HN-H2, identify Burycroft Road/Croft’s Lane and the fields either side of the stream as being unsuitable locations for housing growth. While this text does not have the force of policy, these responses are consistent with my conclusion that the appeal site is beyond the built-up limits of the village. (this has not changed and is relevant to this application)
Paragraph 29: Even if I were to conclude that there is a shortfall in housing land supply on the scale suggested by the Appellant and/or the Heyford Park decision, paragraph 11d in the Framework requires consideration of whether the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. (this has not changed and is relevant to this application)
NO.
Paragraph 17: I accept that part of the site boundary adjoins the ribbon of built development along Burycroft Road, but this connection is weak and would remain so given the design of the development. The proposed dwelling would stand in a spacious plot, separated from the nearby housing by its garden and the open land to be retained alongside the PROW. (this has not changed and is relevant to this application)
Paragraph 18: There have been changes to the character of Burycroft Road because of development broadly opposite the appeal site. Still, the appeal site’s relationship with the PROW and frontage development adjacent to it is such that development on the opposite side of the road does not change my conclusions with regard to the location of the built-up limits for the purposes of this appeal. (this has not changed and is relevant to this application)
Paragraph 19: The Council has not alleged any harm to the character and appearance of the area, based on the design approach adopted, but the encroachment of development beyond the built-up limits, into an area which forms part of the surrounding countryside, would be harmful in principle, notwithstanding the quality of the design approach. (this has not changed and is relevant to this application except that now the detail would be considered at a later stage but with 3-5 dwellings would inevitably involve more, “standard” design buildings and a concentration of development on a greenfield site)
Paragraph 47: Set against the benefits are the conflict with the development plan, the harm arising from encroachment into the countryside and the site’s somewhat compromised access to services and facilities. I recognise that neither the CLP nor the Framework impose a ceiling on housing delivery in rural areas and that appeal decisions cited by the Appellant concur that no upper limit should be imposed. Nevertheless, having found based on the circumstances of this particular case that the Council’s spatial strategy is consistent with the Framework’s approach to rural housing, I give significant weight to the conflict with the development plan and the associated harm. (this has not changed and is relevant to this application)
Paragraph 48: Even if I were to find that the Council’s housing land supply is at the lower end of the figures presented to me, and paragraph 11d of the Framework were engaged, I conclude that the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, the proposal would not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in paragraph 11d)ii. Nor would it comply with the similar requirements in Policy PSD1 of the CLP. (this has not changed and is relevant to this application)
Paragraph 49: That being the case, while I have had close regard to the evidence provided by both parties, it is not necessary for me to reach a firm conclusion on the level of housing land supply in this case. Similarly, while I have had regard to arguments presented by both parties as to whether a 4 or 5 year housing land supply is required, and the appropriate approach to Oxford’s unmet needs, it is not necessary for me to consider these matters further, since the outcome would be the same. (this has not changed and is relevant to this application)
Inspectors Conclusion:
Paragraph 50. The proposed development would conflict with the development plan. No other material considerations, including the Framework’s provisions with regard to housing land supply, indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. (this has not changed and is relevant to this application)
NO.
Paragraph 24: The proposed dwelling would not be isolated for purposes of Framework paragraph 84. However, as a result of the site’s location outside the built-up limits of Hook Norton, the encroachment of development into the surrounding countryside and the relationship of the site to local services and facilities, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the spatial strategy as articulated in Policies H18, PV1 and PV2 and in HNNP Policies HN-N1 and HN-N2. (this has not changed and is relevant to this application, in fact it will be far worse with 3-5 Dwellings)
Paragraph 25. Consequently, the proposed development would not provide a suitable location for housing, having regard to the Council’s spatial strategy and accessibility to services and facilities. Having concluded that the Council’s spatial strategy is consistent with the Framework’s approach to rural housing, the conflict with the development plan and the related harm is a matter to which I give significant weight. (this has not changed and is relevant to this application)
A worthwhile mention here also is how will the development achieve a 10% net gain of biodiversity when the hedgerow will have to be removed. Hard standing for car parking. Concrete for foundations. More likely a net loss overall.