Case Reference: 3261691

Appeal Decision
Hearing (Virtual) Held on 8 April 2021
Site Visit made on 20 April 2021
by Mr Andrew McGlone BSc(Hons), MCD, MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 28 May 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/V3120/W/20/3261691
Land off Lower Road, Chilton, OX11 0RR
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Vale
of White Horse District Council.
• The application Ref P20/V0857/O, dated 20 March 2020, was refused by notice dated
13 August 2020.
• The development proposed is the provision of 6 serviced plots for self and custom-build
dwellings, all matters reserved except access and layout.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. The application was submitted in outline with all matters reserved for future
consideration, except for access and layout.
3. Due to discussions at the Hearing about suggested planning conditions, I asked
both parties to review, discuss and agree the draft list of planning conditions
having regard to the six tests set out in paragraph 55 of the National Planning
Policy Framework (the Framework). If, having discussed the merits of the
suggested conditions, agreement could not be reached, I invited written
comments from either party to explain their respective position. I have had
regard to the revised suggested planning conditions and the submissions made
by each party in reaching my decision.
The plans, revisions and whether prejudice would be caused to interested parties
4. The planning application made to the Council included a proposed illustrative
masterplan, an access plan and a site location plan1. These plans were
subsequently consulted upon. In response to this, the Highway Authority
explained that any proposed access would need to link to adjacent pedestrian
infrastructure to the west. As such, a new footway was sought but the effect of
this on existing trees was highlighted.
5. Revised plans2 were submitted on 6 July 2020 to the Council along with
supporting technical information concerning trees and transport matters. The
revised plans included a footpath to the west of the proposed access and a
potential alternative footpath to the east. The footpath to the east largely falls
1 Plan Ref: BIR.5094_03_03_Rev G, JNY8238-03 Rev A and BIR-5094_01 Rev A
2 Plan Ref: BIR.5094_03_03_Rev H and BIR.5094_10
within the site edged red whereas the footpath to the west does not. Further
comments were provided by the Highway Authority and the Forestry Team on
the revisions and the Council proceeded to refuse planning permission based
on the merits of the revised plans. Residents were not, however, despite the
description of development being updated, re-consulted on the revised plans
nor was the site edged red amended to reflect the proposed footpath.
6. The appellant company submitted evidence with the appeal to address the
Council’s third and fourth reasons for refusing planning permission. They also
confirmed that the footpath to the east is no longer part of their proposal as
the gradient that the link would need to overcome from the road would not be
suitable for all. Instead, their submissions include a revised site location plan,
illustrative masterplan, illustrative footpath proposals and several engineering
drawings3 which relate to the footpath to the west. The former two plans alter
the site edged red to include the western footpath. The illustrative footpath
plan is more detailed than the revised scheme determined by the Council.
7. The appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, but there would be
no material change to the scheme considered and refused by the Council. That
said, residents are concerned about highway safety on Lower Road and they
have not been given an opportunity to comment on any proposed footpaths or
the amended site edged red. They were informed of the appeal and given the
opportunity to comment further should they have wished to, but the
consultation letter does not draw residents’ attention to the amended plans or
the detail submitted about the footpath which they were not consulted upon by
the Council after the scheme was revised. In the interests of fairness and
natural justice, I consider interested parties would be prejudiced by the
consideration of the proposed footpath. The main parties’ common position
about the Council’s third and fourth reasons for refusing planning permission
based on the information submitted as part of the appeal does not change this.
8. Thus, I have considered the appeal based on the plans originally submitted to
the Council. I will explore the merits of the scheme having regard to these
plans and the points put to me about the proposal’s effect in the main issues.
Main Issues
9. The main issues in this case are: (a) whether the development would accord
with development plan policies relating to the location of development in the
District, including the provision of self-build and custom-build dwellings; (b)
whether the proposed development would conserve and enhance the North
Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB); and (c) the effect
of the proposed access arrangements, having regard to protected trees,
hedgerows and accessibility.
Reasons
Location of development and self-build and custom-build dwellings
10. Chilton is identified as a Smaller Village in Policy CP3 of the Local Plan 2031
Part 1 Strategic Sites and Policies (Local Plan). Smaller Village’s have a low
level of services and facilities, where any development should be modest and
proportionate in scale and primarily be to meet local needs. The market town
3 Plan Ref: BIR.5094_Rev B, Plan Ref: BIR.5094_03_03_Rev J, BIR.5094_38-B and Statement of Common
Ground, Paragraph 2.9
of Wantage, accessible by a local bus service, offers a wider range of facilities
and services while Harwell Oxford Science Centre is situated around 1.5 miles
to the north-west of the site and provides employment opportunities in addition
to a small parade of shops which includes a newsagents, bank and a nursery.
11. The appeal site is a paddock which adjoins the settlement of Chilton. The site is
not isolated. Residential properties to the south of Lower Road extend to the
south and west of the appeal site and are read as being part of the village.
However, this does not necessarily mean that the site ought to be developed to
mirror that extent. The village hall and playing fields are to the north of the
site. To the west of the appeal site, is further paddock. Beyond here and Lower
Road, are allotments. The site is enclosed by a mixture of hedgerows,
hedgerow trees and a linear tree belt to the north. Whilst the site’s boundaries
are not delineated on the ground to the north and west, it is enclosed to the
south and east by the existing pattern of the settlement.
12. The character of the village varies in terms of the age, style and finish of
properties, but also in terms of the layout, as the settlement pattern is not
wholly linear, though this is a strong component of Chilton. However, the
proposed dwellings, while of a lower density, would be laid out in a manner
that would not resonate with the tighter grain, and thus, character of the
village which is evident on Main Street and Lower Road near to the site. The
site also lies outside of the proposed settlement boundary of the Chilton
Neighbourhood Development Plan, but this is emerging and yet to be
examined. Even so, the site is visually understood as being on the edge of, but
outside of the village. This is reinforced by the frontage development on High
Street backing onto the site, by the tree belt that separates the wider parcel of
land with the village hall and playing fields to the north, and the allotments to
the west which are not uncommonly found at the edge of village settlements.
As such, despite the presence of the A34, the site lies in the open countryside.
13. The modest and proportionate scale of the proposal and any potential for it to
meet local needs does not change this. Even if I am wrong about the site’s
location, the proposal would not be infill development as paddock would remain
to the west. Policy CP4 states that development in open countryside will not be
appropriate unless specifically supported by other relevant policies as set out in
the Development Plan or national policy. The focus in this case is Policy DP1 of
the Local Plan 2031 Part 2 Detailed Policies and Additional Sites (Local Plan 2)
which supports the provision of plots for sale to self and custom builders.
Self-build and custom build housing
14. The Council has a duty under the Self Build and Custom Housing Act 2015 (as
amended by the Housing and Planning Act) (‘the Act’) to keep a register of
persons who are interested in acquiring a self-build or custom-build plot, and to
also grant enough suitable development permissions for serviced plots to meet
this demand. Framework paragraph 61 is supportive of this type of housing.
15. There is no dispute between the main parties about the number of persons who
have been added to the register in each base period since December 2015. The
demand for each base period must be met by 30 October 3 years after the end
of that period.
16. For the purposes of meeting the demand, the Act defines a development
permission is suitable if it is a permission in respect of development that could
include self-build or custom housebuilding. The Planning Practice Guidance (the
Guidance) outlines examples of how authorities could determine whether an
application, permission or development is for self-build or custom
housebuilding4.
17. The Council accepts that it has not granted enough suitable planning
permissions to address the demand arising from the first two base periods (70
and 109 entries respectively) which was to be met by 30 October in 2019 and
2020. It is continuing to assess whether other planning permissions have been
granted which could count towards the first, second or third base periods. This
work is ongoing, and I must reach my decision based on the current situation.
18. Notwithstanding the demand established by the register, the Council speculates
on what the ‘actual’ demand is for this type of housing if they were to apply a
local eligibility test and financial solvency test. This is an academic exercise as
neither test has been subject to public consultation as advised by the
Guidance. The Council confirmed at the Hearing that it does not operate a two-
part register. In any event, information from the various sources identified by
the appellant company could point to a potentially higher level of demand
compared to that established by the register.
19. Regardless, the proposal would contribute towards meeting the demand arising
from the third base period (80 entries). As of 24 February 2021, the Council
confirmed that 7 suitable permissions have been granted. This figure was
unchanged at the time of the Hearing. The Council has until 30 October 2021
to meet this demand and fulfil its duty for the third base period, but the Council
recognised that it would, based on current progress, not be likely to meet the
demand for the third base period. I am aware of an appeal at Steventon5 for 7
self-build and custom build houses and as part of that Hearing there was
anecdotal evidence of a further proposal on another site in the District, but
even if all these were granted planning permission, there would still a good
number of suitable permissions to grant and there is no evidence to suggest
that there are other schemes either being considered or likely to be considered
or determined by the Council before the end of October.
20. A planning condition would secure this type of housing. Hence, the proposal
would contribute towards addressing the demand arising from the third base
period. This provision would be of a substantial benefit given the period of time
left for the Council to meet the demand for the third base period.
21. Discussion at the Hearing centred on how the under delivery of self-build and
custom build houses against the established demand from the first two base
periods should be dealt with. The number of suitable permissions granted by
the Council for these base periods varies between the main parties with either
47 (appellant) or 53 (Council) suitable permissions granted for the first base
period, and either 24 (appellant) or 25 (Council) for the second base period.
22. Legislation, planning policy or guidance does not set out how any under supply
of this type of housing should be dealt with. However, not accounting for past
under delivery would seem to be, when considered in the context of the duties
placed on local authorities in the Act, Framework paragraph 61, Local Plan 2
Policy DP1 and Government’s encouragement for this type of housing, illogical.
Approaches to unmet demand, which is a relevant consideration, have been
4 Paragraph: 038 Reference ID: 57-038-20210508
5 Appeal Ref: APP/V3120/W/20/3265465
considered in several appeal decisions6. However, if I did take it into account,
the substantial weight that I set out above would not change due to the
proposal’s scale. Nevertheless, the unmet demand would only confirm the
weight that I have given to the provision of this type of housing.
23. The main parties agree that the development plan is not out-of-date as the
Council can demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. A
different stance is taken by the appellant in the Steventon case, so I address
the point out of consistency. Local Plan Policies CP3 and CP4 appear to be
fulfilling their purposes based on the level of housing supply in the District.
These policies must be read alongside other policies in the development plan,
such as Policy DP1. Jointly, these policies support self-build or custom build
housing schemes or with elements thereof if in line with the settlement
hierarchy and the strategy for housing delivery. There is not a specific
exception to the Council’s strategy that allows this type of housing to come
forward in the open countryside. But, evidently the mechanics of policy or the
application of it are not yielding the number of suitable permissions required.
However, the position could change once further robust work is completed by
the Council. Given this and considering how Policies CP3, CP4 and DP1 can
operate together, I am content that they are not out-of-date.
Conclusion on this main issue
24. The provision of self-build and custom-build dwellings would accord with Local
Plan 2 Policy DP1. However, it does not ‘specifically support’ development of
this type of housing in the open countryside which is the wording used in Local
Plan Policy CP4. This leads me to conclude that the development would not
accord with Local Plan Policies CP3 and CP4 and Local Plan 2 Policy DP1 which,
when taken together, relate to the location of development in the District,
including the provision of self-build and custom-build dwellings. This is the
approach set out in the explanatory text to Local Plan 2 Policy DP1.
North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
25. Chilton, including the appeal site is located within the AONB. Framework
paragraph 172 explains that great weight should be given to conserving and
enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in an AONB. This is the primary
purpose behind the AONB designation. Framework paragraph 172 goes onto to
say that the scale and extent of development within AONB’s should be limited
even though I agree with the main parties that the appeal scheme would not
be ‘major development’. Local Plan CP44 is consistent with the Framework in
giving high priority to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty
of the landscape and resisting harmful development.
26. The AONB Integrated Landscape Character Assessment locates Chilton within
the Downs Plain and Scarp landscape character type, characterised by a large
scale, open arable landscape. The appeal site and Chilton do not seem to make
a significant contribution to this character type. From the wider landscape,
Chilton has a wooded setting which is mainly experienced from elevated views
surrounding the village. Consequently, the proposal would have a negligible
impact when viewed from long distance views.
27. Chilton lies within the Hendred Plain character area and the appeal site shares
some of its identified characteristics of undulating landscape, shelter belt
6 Appeal Decision Refs: APP/G2435/W/18/3214451; APP/W0530/W/19/3230103; and APP/C1570/W/19/3234530
planting and equestrian activity. The site abuts Chilton, which means that the
visual effect of the appeal scheme would be experienced locally in this context.
Lower Road connects a number of public rights of way that allow movement
between the village and the wider AONB.
28. The appeal scheme is for a different type of housing, for a lower number of
units and the layout is not the same as that which was dismissed at appeal in
20167. The appeal site may be a small component of the AONB, but it was
expressed in this decision that a localised experience of the site ‘does not imply
that the site is unimportant to the AONB. The site is an attractive, open area
that forms part of the immediate setting of the western edge of Chilton and
enhances its local character.’ Both landscape experts agreed that the baseline
has not changed from 2016.
29. As I set out earlier, the layout of the proposed dwellings, while of a lower
density, would not resonate with the tighter grain, and thus, character of the
village near to the site. The individual design of each of the dwellings, the scale
of the development and the use of a design code would mitigate this to some
extent, as would the retention of existing boundaries and further planting,
though the latter would take some time to establish. Even so, the proposed
layout would have a suburban feel that would not sit comfortably as an
extension to the village given that the site acts as a transition between the
built form and the rural countryside. Despite the localised effect, the proposal
would be out of keeping and it would affect two of the characteristics of the
character area of an undulating landscape and equestrian activity.
30. By forming a new access from Lower Road an initial adverse impact would be
felt due to the removal of around 28 metres of hedgerow. The access would
create a new visual break in what is otherwise a consistent stretch of trees and
hedgerow. Despite the driveways on Lower Road of a comparable width to the
proposed access, the new access would be a new urban feature.
31. I note the conclusion of the appellant’s Landscape and Visual Impact
Assessment and the Council’s assessment. However, in my own view, the
proposed development would be likely to lead to a large localised magnitude of
change to this attractive, open area that is part of the immediate setting of the
western edge of Chilton which enhances its local character.
32. Unlike the previous appeal scheme, T5 is proposed for retention. By not
removing any soil from or needing to regrade the verge will help achieve this,
though the access would be formed partly into its root protection area. Even
so, I consider that it could potentially be retained. New landscaping within the
site, and near to or next to the proposed access could mitigate the loss of the
hedgerow and potential loss of T5 if it were to be affected by the new access. It
would also soften the development to some extent and help it respond to the
character of the area. Over time this would develop, but the proposal would
still likely amount to a moderate adverse effect which would be a harmful
visual impact to the landscape’s character. Planting would be highly unlikely to
mitigate this impact. Hence, the proposal would not conserve and enhance the
land which positively contributes to the landscape character and setting of
Chilton and by extension the AONB.
33. I conclude that the proposed development would not conserve and enhance the
7 Appeal Decision Ref: APP/V3120/W/16/3153209
AONB which means that conflict would occur with Local Plan Policies CP37 and
CP44 and Framework paragraph 172. Jointly these seek high quality designed
development that responds positively to the site and its surroundings with a
high priority given to conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of
the AONB.
Effect of proposed access arrangements
Footpath provision
34. The scheme originally submitted to the Council did not include any footpath
provision either along Lower Road or within the site or adjoining land. However,
development either on the appeal site or the wider parcel of land that the site
forms part of has been proposed through various schemes. In these schemes,
each scheme has included a foot/cycle path running behind the trees and
hedgerow that line Lower Road to provide a link between the existing footway
provision to the east and west of the site.
35. The Highway Authority’s stance about a new footway is consistent with earlier
schemes. While the appellant company did revise their proposals to show a
footpath to the west, they stated at the Hearing that the footway to the west
was not part of their original scheme and that I may need to consider whether
it is necessary or not if I did not accept the revised plans.
36. The section of Lower Road extending across the site’s frontage is narrow and
has no footway. The road is used by pedestrians, including children attending
the nearby primary school, cyclists, horse riders, and a variety of vehicles
including buses. The road is a country lane and while the road offers good
visibility in either direction, is subject of a 30 mph speed limit and does not
seem to be heavily trafficked, I recognise the potential conflict that could arise
between different road users and the effect this could have on their safety. A
link parallel to and bypassing the narrow part of the road would remove this
potential conflict. However, previous schemes were for a different number of
dwellings spread across the entire parcel of land that would have resulted in a
considerably greater number of movements by vehicles or other road users
than the 6 dwellings now proposed.
37. A partial footpath link would mean that vulnerable road users would still need
to share Lower Road for a section that dips slightly between the proposed
access and existing footway around the junction of Lower Road and
Thorningdown when travelling in a easterly or westerly direction. The scale of
the proposal would result in an increase in vehicle movements, but not to an
extent that I consider they would dominate Lower Road at the expense of other
modes of transport or cause Lower Road to not provide for safe movement.
Hence, notwithstanding my view about a comprehensive foot/cycle link, the
need for a footpath to the west that does not resolve the potential conflicts on
Lower Road is not there.
38. There was considerable debate between the main parties at the Hearing about
the use of a Grampian condition to secure the western footpath. However, such
a condition would not be necessary for the reasons set out.
Effect of footpaths on trees and hedgerow
39. Despite the Council’s concerns relating to the effect of the footpaths to the east
and west of the access on existing trees and hedgerow, no such issues would
occur based on the proposal originally submitted and consulted upon.
Effect of the proposed access on trees and hedgerow
40. The proposed access from Lower Road into the site has not changed since the
appellant company’s original submission. This can, based on the technical
responses submitted by the appellant company, be formed without incurring
into the roof protection areas of any protected trees that extend along Lower
Road. Nor would the access affect the stems of these trees either from its
construction or the formation of visibility splays in either direction which would
not rely on the removal of any highway verge either. However, the construction
of the access would result in the loss of a section of hedgerow and potential
loss of T5 to the east of the access. These could be mitigated by suitable
replacement planting being brought forward at reserved matters stage and
controlled through a planning condition.
Conclusion on this main issue
41. I conclude that the proposal would accord with Local Plan Policies CP37 and
CP44 which, among other things, seek new development to be of high-quality
design, well connected to provide safe and convenient ease of movement by all
users and to integrate it into the landscape character of the area.
Other Matters
42. The communal areas of the appeal site not set aside for individual plots would
be formed first to enable each plot to be sold as a service plot. They would not
be areas of public open space even though a large part of the site includes a
new attenuation pond. I note the Council’s concerns about how foul and surface
water drainage is managed and maintained between the communal areas being
finished, up to the final plot being occupied and in the long term so that they
function effectively. However, based on the evidence before me, I am of the
view that they could be addressed through planning conditions.
43. Various other planning conditions have been discussed and agreed between the
main parties as part of the appeal, and while these have been drafted having
regard to the six tests, they do not overcome the harm that I have identified in
respect of the first two main issues.
Conclusion
44. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that
applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with
the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
45. The proposal would accord with the Government’s objective to significantly
boost the supply of housing and it would widen the type and size of housing in
the area. This would be a limited social benefit. Specifically, the proposal would
help meet the demand for self-build and custom-build housing. The provision of
this type of housing is a social benefit that carries substantial weight for the
reasons set out above. Even so, the proposal would still conflict with the
District’s strategic approach to the delivery of housing as it does not
‘specifically support’ development of this type of housing in the open
countryside. The statutory duty of the Act to meet the demand for this type of
house and the Framework’s support for a range of house sizes, types and
tenures do not outweigh this significant conflict.
46. I attach significant weight to the scheme’s conflict with policies relating to the
AONB due to great weight that should be afforded to conserving and enhancing
the landscape and scenic beauty of this designation. Future occupiers would be
likely to use and support local services, local facilities and local businesses,
albeit the village has a low level of services and facilities. The development of
each house should also create opportunities for local builders, tradesmen and
builder’s merchants leading to local employment opportunities. The proposal
would offer social and economic support the wellbeing of the community, but
they would not outweigh the conflict that the scheme would cause with the
aims of conservation and enhancement of the AONB. No harm would be caused
by the proposed access arrangements.
47. Having regard to the merits of this case, I conclude that these considerations,
including the provisions of the Framework, do not outweigh the scheme’s
conflict with the development plan as a whole. Nor do they indicate that I
should take a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.
48. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.
Mr Andrew McGlone
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Paul Hunt Howes Percival
Jeremy Peachey Pesgasus Group
Andy Moger Tetlow King
Richard Brown Richard Brown Planning
Oliver Brown Richard Brown Planning
Stuart Wand Pegasus Group
Andy Warren Cotswold Wildlife Surveys
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Celina Colquhoun 39 Essex
Tracy Smith South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils
Ryan Hunt South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils
Joe Smith South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils
Clare Roberts South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils
Luke Veillet South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils
Martin Deans South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils
Peter Radmall Landscape Consultant
Alex Tait 39 Essex
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Alan Liddle
Martin Edwards
Chris Broad, Chair, Chilton Parish Council
Andre Botha, Albright Dene Ltd
DOCUMENTS:
1 - Policy DP1 of Local Plan 2031 Part 2 Detailed Policies and Additional Sites
2 - Appeal Note, Ref: 4129-6311-1213
3 - Draft s106 – Open Space
4 - Chilton Draft Conditions Schedule
5 - Supplementary Note, Vale of White Horse District Council
PLANS:
BIR.5094_03_03_Rev J
BIR.5094_38-C
BIR.5094_Rev B