Case Reference: 3265465

Appeal Decision
Hearing (Virtual) Held on 15 April 2021
Site Visit made on 19 and 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/20/3265465
Land behind 31-33 The Causeway, Steventon OX13 6SE
• 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 P19/V2459/O, dated 7 October 2019, was refused by notice dated
17 June 2020.
• The development proposed is an outline application for provision of self-build and/or
custom housebuilding plots for 7 detached dwellings, with all matters reserved except
for access and layout.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for outline application
for provision of self-build and/or custom housebuilding plots for 7 detached
dwellings, with all matters reserved except for access and layout at Land
behind 31-33 The Causeway, Steventon OX13 6SE in accordance with the
terms of the application, Ref P19/V2459/O, dated 7 October 2019, subject to
the conditions in the attached schedule.
Preliminary Matters
2. The application was submitted in outline with all matters reserved for future
consideration, except for access and layout.
3. The main parties agree that a revised layout to plot 7 submitted as part of the
appeal is minor in detail. The dwelling is now shown to be positioned further
away from the eastern boundary, and the gable end facing the driveway has
been moved to the rear of the house. Both parties agree that the consideration
of the amended plans as part of the appeal would not prejudice interested
parties. I agree and thus I have considered the appeal on this basis.
4. In my Pre-Hearing Note, I identified the provisional main issues in this case.
The fourth of these concerned local bus transport and biodiversity. Along with
the land to the east, the site is a Priority Habitat as a Traditional Orchard.
Three fruit trees on site are a remnant part of this habitat. To address a net
loss of biodiversity, it is common ground between the main parties that a
planning condition would mitigate the effects of this. Moreover, they agree that
landscaping details could be addressed at reserved matters stage so that the
proposed development would not have a significant biodiversity impact.
5. A signed and dated Section 106 Deed of Agreement (s106) has been submitted
which includes a contribution towards public transport services. As a result, the
Council accepts that the fourth reason for refusing planning permission has
been addressed. I agree, and I am satisfied that this would meet the tests of
the Framework and Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure (CIL)
Regulations. The s106 also includes provisions in respect of self-build and
custom housebuilding and a waste strategy. I shall consider the merits of these
shortly. A Unilateral Undertaking mirroring the provisions of the s106 was also
submitted by the appellant in case the s106 was not executed in accordance
with the deadline that I set for its submission. However, as the s106 has been
signed and dated by all parties, I have reached my decision based on the s106.
6. To reflect the party’s points made at the Hearing, I have adjusted the third
main issue compared to the version that I read out at the start of the event.
Main Issues
7. The main issues are: a) whether the proposed development would preserve or
enhance the listed buildings at 39 The Causeway, 35/37 The Causeway, Pound
House, The Cottage, the Raised Causeway, Station House and Brook House,
and character or appearance of the Steventon Conservation Area; b) 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; and c) whether the proposed development would
provide suitable access arrangements and adequate provision for on-site
waste management.
Reasons
Heritage assets
8. Steventon is an historic, extended village that has evolved along two historic
routes: The Causeway which runs roughly west to east and joining it, on its
southern side, High Street, which runs roughly south to north. The village is
characterised by domestic and commercial development. The appeal site is
located near to the centre of the village, to the west of the junction of The
Causeway and High Street. The site itself mostly lies behind the detached
dwellings at 31 and 33 The Causeway. It comprises of improved grassland with
an area of dense scrub with four mature sycamore trees on the southern
boundary. Beyond here is a field extending to Ginge Brook and the buildings of
Station Yard which lie near to the Great Western Railway line. Access to the
site is between Nos 29 and 31. To the west of the site is Bargus Close, which
contains 15 static caravans. To the east is a rectangular shaped orchard.
Dwellings accessed from High Street adjoin its eastern boundary.
9. The proposed access and the upper part of the site lie within the Conservation
Area whilst most of the site lies outside, but next to the larger of part of the
Conservation Area which is focussed around the historic core of the village and
its listed buildings. The smaller part of the Conservation Area is to the south of
the site around the former railway station, Station House, Brook House and the
20th century development at Station Yard that abuts the railway line.
10. The early development of the village took place along the length of the ‘Raised
Causeway’ which is an ancient, raised cobbled Grade II* listed pathway lined
by mature trees that extends alongside The Causeway. Buildings within the
Conservation Area range from 15th and 16th century timber framed houses to
19th brick vernacular and mid-20th century housing. The village has a high
number of Grade II and II* listed timber framed houses that extend along the
Raised Causeway towards the Grade I listed parish church found at the western
end of The Causeway. Fields and paddocks do abut, extend up to and between
parts of the village, and in turn the Conservation Area. Some then give way to
a character that is more readily associated as open countryside. This reflects
the village’s rural heritage.
11. Several of the historic buildings along this part of The Causeway are listed,
including Nos 35/37 (Grade II), 39 (Grade II*), Pound House and The Cottage
(both Grade II). Pound House and The Cottage are the closest to the appeal
site. The latter of the two is an exposed timber frame two storey building with
a two-storey bay window with a jettied roof over. Pound House is of a
roughcast construction on timber-framing with a plain tile roof and a brick
chimney stack above the ridge to the right of centre of this two-storey
dwelling. To the rear of Pound House is a long orchard/paddock.
12. Nos 35/37 is next to the junction of Bargus Close with The Causeway. This
two-storey timber framed building is now two dwellings and has a rendered
cross-wing to the left-hand side. Next door is No 39 which is a two-storey
detached dwelling dating from around late 14th century with additions in later
years. The building is rendered with a timber frame and a cross-wing.
13. The appeal scheme would not physically affect any of the listed buildings and
not fall within the setting of Station House and Brook House which were
constructed for use by the Great Western Railway. These buildings are a
reasonable distance from the site, separated by other development which is
more reflective of the village’s vernacular and associated with the arrival of the
railway to Steventon in 1840. Hence, no harm would arise to their significance.
The proposal would also not harm the setting, and thus the significance of the
southern part of the Conservation Area.
14. No appraisal or management plan associated with the Conservation Area has
been produced as per Policy CP39 of the Local Plan 2031 Part 1 Strategic Sites
and Policies (Local Plan). The setting of the Conservation Area extending along
The Causeway varies according to the development or space next to it or how
it is experienced. In turn this influences its significance, albeit it remains an
irreplaceable resource and great weight should be given to its conservation.
Nevertheless, I agree with the appellant’s assessment that the eastern and
western ends of The Causeway are areas of very high heritage significance, and
that there are pockets of 20th century development next to or to the east of the
site that don’t positively contribute to its significance. The listed buildings
either side of the proposed access in tandem with the Raised Causeway do,
however, still positively contribute to the overall significance of the
Conservation Area, though the varied type, form and age of development along
this stretch of The Causeway displays how the village has evolved over time.
15. Gaps between buildings fronting The Causeway between High Street and
Stocks Lane are not uniform in their size or frequency. Nor do they always
allow views beyond due to alignment of built form or the presence of
outbuildings. These gaps, when travelling by car or on foot in either direction
on The Causeway, are not readily perceived due to the speed of travel, the
need to focus on oncoming or parked vehicles, or the close proximity of the
footway to the frontage development. So, while there are limited glimpsed
views, the undeveloped land behind parts of the frontage development is not
readily apparent or sensed. The projection of development at Bargus Close and
outbuildings associated with nearby dwellings also influences matters.
16. However, the experience differs from the elevated Raised Causeway which is
set back on the northern side of The Causeway. Users speed of travel allows for
the site’s surroundings to be appreciated. Mature trees lining the Raised
Causeway inhibit views to some extent, especially whilst in leaf, but there are
pockets of elevated views through some gaps and above boundary treatments
to the undeveloped land beyond. This positively reflects the village’s rural
heritage, historic pattern of development and evolution. At times, the views
include Steventon Hill. Some gaps also include views of the static caravans on
Bargus Close, Timsbury House, the development next to the railway line and
the electrified lines themselves. The ridgeline of Steventon Hill prevents views
to the wider countryside beyond.
17. The proposal would introduce development behind the predominate frontage
development lining The Causeway, despite the development at Bargus Close
and on and behind High Street. While the proposed layout would allow views
down the access road to the land beyond, the access would be a long formal
arrangement. The use of a design code would inform any reserved matters
application so that the dwellings are of a high-quality design and responsive to
their surroundings, but even with bespoke designs, the proposal would erode
the sense of open space that the appeal site positively contributes to and which
informs the sense of being within a rural village. The loss of this space would
adversely affect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area as a
whole and harm the rural setting, and thus significance of the listed buildings
at Nos 35/37, 39, Pound House, The Cottage and The Raised Causeway.
Location of development
18. Local Plan Policy CP3 details the settlement hierarchy in the District. Steventon
is a ‘Larger Village’. Local Plan Policy CP4 outlines the Council’s strategy for
meeting housing needs through the allocation of strategic sites, and
development within the ‘built area’ of the larger settlements such as Larger
Villages. The appeal site is not allocated for development by the Local Plan or
by a neighbourhood plan. There is no defined settlement boundary for Larger
Villages, such as Steventon. Consequently, it is a matter of judgement1 as to
whether or not the appeal site lies within the built area of Steventon.
19. Bargus Close could be viewed as an anomaly in the context of the historic
pattern of development nearby, but it has been part of the village for a long
period of time. Built form has also been added to the east of the site over the
20th century. The appeal scheme would mirror the length of Bargus Close and
extend as far as the development at Timsbury House.
20. Collectively, the existing development on The Causeway, High Street (including
that set behind and accessed from High Street) and Bargus Close provides a
sense of enclosure to three sides of the site even with the adjacent orchard
separating the site to the development to the east. The dense scrub and trees
on the site’s southern boundary add to the sense of enclosure, but their
retention cannot be relied upon in perpetuity. Between here and the buildings
at Station Yard is a field leading to Ginge Brook. While this physically ‘loops’
around to the other side of Bargus Close and a wider field/paddock, this is not
appreciated from within the site, from The Causeway or High Street. The
railway line beyond Station Yard is a strong physical feature with Steventon Hill
rising up beyond and of a more rural countryside character. The perception
from within the site is one of enclosure, but it does have a transitional feel
1 Julian Wood v SSCLG, Gravesham Borough Council [2015] EWCA Civ 195
between the development fronting The Causeway and the open countryside
beyond Station Yard and the railway line. However, the site does not have the
same open character as the land beyond the railway line or benefit from its
openness due to the built form adjoining the site or near to it.
21. The relationship between and point at which built form becomes open
countryside varies physically and visually across the village. The appeal site
has a greater degree of enclosure and far fewer physical and visual links to the
open countryside than the Brewers Close2 site which affects how it is
experienced. Hence, the two sites are not directly comparable. I have also
noted the context to 97 The Causeway3, but this differs to the appeal site due
to the cohesive block of undeveloped backland spaces that extend between the
development on The Causeway and Castle Street. There is not the same sense
of enclosure as that which influences the appeal site. Therefore, I consider, on
balance, that the appeal site lies within the built area of Steventon.
Self-build and custom housebuilding
22. 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. Policy DP1 of the Local Plan 2031 Part 2 Detailed Policies and
Additional Site (Local Plan 2) and Framework paragraph 61 are generally
supportive of the provision of plots for sale to self and custom builders in the
District. Framework paragraph 61 reflects this.
23. 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.
24. 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, but I must reach my decision based on the current situation.
25. Despite 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 Planning
Practice Guidance. The Council confirmed at the Hearing that it does not
operate a two-part register.
26. In any event, the proposal would help meet the demand arising from the third
base period (80 entries). As of 24 February 2021, the Council had granted 7
suitable planning permissions. This figure was unchanged by 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. The Council accepted in the Chilton4 hearing
that it would, based on current progress, not be likely to meet the demand for
2 Appeal Decision Ref: APP/V3120/W/16/3160879
3 Appeal Decision Ref: APP/V3120/W/18/3208949
4 Appeal Ref: APP/V3120/W/20/3261691
the third base period. A different view was expressed by Ms Smith at the
Hearing relating to this case, but consistency is important in decision-making. I
am aware of the 6 self-build and custom build houses proposed at Chilton and
anecdotally of a further proposal on another site in the District, but even if all
these were granted planning permission, and suitable, there would still a good
number of 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. The proposed 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.
27. Notwithstanding this, the appellant considers Policies CP3, CP4 and DP1 are out
of date due to the under delivery of this type of housing. The number of
suitable permissions granted by the Council for the first two base periods varies
between the main parties with either 30 (appellant) or 53 (Council) suitable
permissions granted for the first base period, and either 13 (appellant) or 25
(Council) for the second base period.
28. Legislation, planning policy or guidance does not set out how any under supply
of this type of housing against the established demand should be dealt with.
However, not accounting for past under delivery of this type of housing 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 considered in
several appeal decisions5. If I were to take unmet demand into account, the
scale of the proposal would not change the substantial weight that I have set
out above, nevertheless, the position would only confirm my opinion about the
weight that I have given to the provision of this type of housing.
29. Local Plan Policies CP3 and CP4 outline the approach to housing development in
the district, where it ought to be located and how much. They don’t specifically
refer to self-build or custom build housing, so they must be read with other
development plan policies such as Policy DP1. As the Council can demonstrate
a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, Policies CP3 and CP4 appear to
be fulfilling their purposes. Jointly Policies CP3, CP4 and DP1 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 for housing delivery that allows self-
build and custom build housing to come forward. 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
30. I conclude, in respect of this issue, that the proposal would 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.
5 Appeal Decision Refs: APP/G2435/W/18/3214451 and APP/W0530/W/19/3230103
On-site waste management
31. Local Plan Policy CP43 seeks developments to make adequate provision for the
recycling of waste on site. Local Plan 2 Policy DP28 adds that development will
not be permitted if recycling and refuse provision that meets the requirements
set out within the policy cannot feasibly or practicably be provided. Proposals
must ensure that there is sufficient space for recycling and refuse containers;
access is safe for existing users/residents and for refuse and recycling
collection vehicles; and the location and design of recycling and refuse
provision should be integral to the design of the proposed development, having
regard to the level and type of provision.
32. The width and length of the proposed access would mean that the Council’s
large refuse vehicles would not be able to access the site to undertake
household refuse and recycling collections. It would also not be practical or
reasonable for future occupiers to move refuse, recycling and food waste
receptacles to the kerb on The Causeway for collection due to the distance and
number of containers involved. The latter would be likely to block or hinder
pedestrian access along the footway and/or affect potentially affect the safety
of vehicles using the road. A communal collection point nearer to the highway
is also not an option due to the width of the proposed access as this would
comprise the ability of users to pass one another safely.
33. The appellant submitted an option agreement during the Hearing. This may
allow the access to be widened, but it is not the scheme before me and both
parties agreed that it was a matter of fact and that I was not being asked to
grant planning permission on this basis.
34. Given the practical issues of a Council waste collection, the s106 proposes a
private waste collection to mirror the Council’s own service in terms of bin
provision and the frequency of collection for refuse, recycling and food waste.
35. The evidence shows that a private waste contractor could use a vehicle to
access the site, collect refuse and recycling, turn around and leave in forward
gear. Moreover, each property could have separate refuse and recycling
containers to match the size of those used for Council collections. There is
sufficient space for these to be accommodated on each plot. The key difference
would be that future occupiers would need to pay for this service. While this
would be an extra financial commitment on top of Council Tax, this would not
be prohibitively expensive for future occupiers.
36. The Council also collects food waste weekly. This is line with the proposals
within the Environment Bill which is yet to receive Royal Assent. The evidence
of the potential private waste operator confirms that they would be unable to
offer a weekly food waste collection. Therefore, to match the Council’s service,
the appellant suggests two options. The first is that the Council collect food
waste. A partial collection service may not be normal practice, but it is possible
based on the size of the vehicle currently used. However, this size of vehicle
could well change. Hence, Council food waste collections are uncertain over the
lifetime of the development.
37. The second option would be a composting bin for each dwelling. This could be
of a benefit to the environment in mitigating the effects of climate change, and
financially beneficial to future occupants as they could re-use composted
material in their gardens. Otherwise future occupiers would either dispose of
their food waste in refuse collections, need to pay for food waste to be
collected or they would need to dispose of it themselves. It is therefore a
sustainable waste management measure that would encourage future
occupiers to recycle their food waste. While the Council are concerned about its
potential use, and I recognise that it would be a choice for future occupiers,
this is no different to the choice that residents have in using the Council food
waste collection. The Environment Bill may change matters, but my decision is
based on the current situation and adopted development plan policy.
38. The Council are worried about future occupiers expecting a Council run
collection service and the associated costs of responding to queries such as
this, but there is no substantive evidence of what, if any, costs there would be
to the Council based on a private waste collection service.
39. Insofar as the s106, I consider that the proposed waste strategy would meet
the tests of the Framework and CIL Regulation 122. Consequently, I conclude
that the proposed development would provide suitable access arrangements
and adequate provision for on-site waste management and would as a result
accord with Local Plan Policy CP43 and Local Plan 2 Policy DP28. These policies
collectively seek development to make adequate provision of the recycling of
waste on site and ensure safe access for existing users/residents.
Other Matters
40. Points are raised by residents about the use of The Causeway, highway safety
and the effect of additional parking. The proposal would provide off-street
parking for each plot and the access could be used by the majority of vehicles,
including fire tenders. There would not be any specific visitor parking, but there
are no parking restrictions along this stretch of The Causeway which allows for
good forward visibility in either direction. Although vehicles do need to wait to
pass oncoming vehicles, the proposal would not change this or make matters
worse in highway safety terms.
41. I have had regard to the points raised about the effect of the proposal’s
construction on existing built form, but there is no substantive evidence before
me to support the concerns. Any existing damage will not be because of the
proposal as no development has commenced.
Planning Balance
42. 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.
43. The Government’s objective is to significantly boost the supply of housing and
the proposal would accord with the strategic plan-led approach set out in the
Development Plan and provide 7 modern self-build and custom-build dwellings
in a location with adequate access to facilities and services.
44. No harm would be caused by the proposed waste strategy and the s106 would
mitigate the scheme’s impact on public transport services and biodiversity.
These matters do not weigh in favour or against the proposal.
45. I have found that the character and appearance of the Conservation Area
would not be preserved and that the proposal would harm to the setting of the
listed buildings at Nos 35/37, 39, Pound House, The Cottage and The Raised
Causeway which would be contrary to the respective duties of Sections 66(1)
and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
(as amended).
46. In terms of the Framework, the degree of harm to the special interest and
significance of the heritage assets would be at the lower end of less than
substantial harm. Even so, I give it great weight and importance. Policies DP36
and DP37 along with Framework paragraph 196 require such harm to be
weighed against the public benefits of the proposal which require clear and
convincing justification. Policy DP37 states insofar as the Conservation Area
that the development should make an equal or greater contribution in terms of
public benefit.
47. The provision of self-build and custom-build houses would be a public benefit
as they would help the Council meet its duty, help address the established
demand for this type of house and widen the type and size of housing in the
area. These are substantial social benefits. The s106 would secure the
provision of the self-build or custom-build houses and satisfy the relevant
tests. Future occupiers would be very likely to use and support local services,
local facilities and local businesses. Consequently, the proposal would make a
positive contribution to the local economy. The development of each house
should also create opportunities for local builders, tradesmen and builder’s
merchants leading to local employment opportunities, especially given that
construction is the third highest employment type in Steventon6. These
economic benefits carry moderate weight. Council Tax is mitigation not a public
benefit. Collectively, in this case, I consider these public benefits would
outweigh the less than substantial harm that I have identified. Accordingly, the
proposal would accord with Local Plan Policies CP1, CP37 and CP39, and Local
Plan 2 Policies DP36, DP37 and DP38 and Framework paragraph 196.
48. I note the Corner Mead7 appeal decision, but the issues in this case differ.
Concerns are expressed about a precedent being set, but my decision is based
on the specific circumstances of the site, its surroundings and the merits of the
case itself. It would be for the Council to consider any other development
proposal based on its own merits in the first instance but having visited the
village I am satisfied that my decision would not set a precedent.
Conditions
49. Conditions in respect of the reserved matters for the individual plots and the
shared area of the site are necessary due to the nature of the scheme before
me and to ensure the site is developed in accordance with the details
submitted. I understand the points about the length of time which the
development could take place over and to strike a balance between this and
the type of housing that would be pursued by individuals, I have adjusted the
timescale for submission of the reserved matters for each individual plot. An
approved plans condition is necessary in the interests of certainty. Whilst
allowing for flexibility in the design of each self-build and custom-build
dwelling, a design code condition is necessary so secure a coherent and high-
quality development that conserves or enhances the surrounding historic
environment. For the same reason, conditions to secure tree protection
measures and landscaping of the shared area are necessary.
50. A condition to secure a detailed sustainable drainage scheme for foul and
6 Appellant Statement of Case, Appendix C
7 Appeal Decision Ref: APP/H1840/W/19/3241879
surface water is necessary to prevent pollution and flooding. To ensure the
construction of the development does not adversely affect highway safety, the
living conditions of residents and the historic environment, I have imposed a
condition for a construction traffic management plan. Conditions have been
imposed in respect of car parking provision, turning areas and the access in the
interests of highway safety. To compensate and mitigate for the net loss of
biodiversity resulting from the development I have imposed a condition to
secure off-site biodiversity enhancements. To minimise the impacts of the
development on biodiversity, I have imposed a condition requiring the
recommendations of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal to be implemented. A
permitted development restriction is necessary for extensions, roof additions or
alterations and outbuildings due to the size of the plots, neighbouring residents
living conditions and so that future development accords with the design code.
A permitted development restriction is also necessary for gates, fences, walls
or other means of enclosure to ensure compliance with the design code.
Conclusion
51. The proposal would accord with the Development Plan as a whole and there are
no other considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that I should
take a different decision.
52. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
Mr Andrew McGlone
INSPECTOR
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS
1) Within two years of the date of this planning permission an application for approval
of the initial reserved matters for the Initial Phase of the development involving all
elements of the scheme not comprised within the individual dwelling plots shall be
submitted, to include the following details:
• the site access works comprising the access to The Causeway generally in
accordance with, but not limited in detail to the application drawings, such
including the removal or relocation of the existing telegraph post;
• the shared access driveway and shared surfaces;
• all car parking facilities and manoeuvring areas to be provided within the site
in accordance with Oxfordshire County Council's standards (Transport for New
Developments Parking Standards for New Residential Developments 2017
design guide document or any superseding document);
• any external lighting in these areas;
• site boundary treatments and structures;
• landscaping not incorporated within a residential plot curtilage including
shared open space and associated tree planting; and
• the identification of plot boundaries
All subsequent reserved matters for each individual plot or plots must be submitted
not later than three years from the date of this planning permission and
development must be begun not later than two years from the date of the approval
of the last reserved matter for the Initial Phase.
2) Approval of the details of the scale and appearance of buildings and landscaping
within any particular plot (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be in
accordance with the approved Design Code for the site and shall be obtained from
the Local Planning Authority in writing before the development of the dwelling on
that plot is commenced. The development of each plot shall be carried out as
approved.
3) That the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans, A-02-102; A-01-101 Appeal Revision – Plot 7;
Parameters for 7 plots Rev A; 333675-1; P850-03; P850-04; and P850-02a, except
as controlled or modified by conditions of this permission.
4) No reserved matters applications shall be submitted until such time as a Design
Code for the entirety of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The Design Code shall reflect guidance in the Vale of
White Horse District Council Design Guide (March 2015) and include details, but
not be limited to;
• the form, massing and scale of the buildings;
• plot coverage and plot parameters;
• maximum building and storey heights for each plot;
• building appearance;
• building openings
• material palette and detailing;
• boundary treatments, soft and hard landscaping;
• vehicle parking reflecting parking provision as per the approved initial
reserved matters
• cycle parking facilities;
• external lighting;
• water and Waste Water (including SUDs);
• sustainable Construction (standards and design principles);
• gross Internal Floor Areas meeting the Local Government's Technical Housing
Standards - Nationally Described Space Standard Level 1 in the case of any
one or two-bedroom dwellings; and
• facilities for the storage of household waste and recycling;
All reserved matters applications shall include a statement providing an explanation
as to how the design of the development complies with and responds to the details
approved in the Design Code. The development shall thereafter be carried out in
accordance with the approved details.
5) Prior to the commencement of any site works (including site clearance) a protected
area shall be designated for all existing trees which are shown to be retained, and
the trees shall be protected in accordance with a scheme which complies with the
current edition of BS 5837: "Trees in relation to design, demolition and
construction" that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by,
the Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be kept in place during
the entire course of development.
6) No development shall commence until a detailed sustainable drainage scheme for
foul and surface water along with a programme and phasing plans for these works
has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy
shall be based on Version 3 of the Flood Risk Assessment prepared by Water
Resource Associates dated October 2019 and the information contained within
letter reference WRACS02 dated 06/12/2019. The scheme shall have full
consideration for the hydrogeological situation of the site and be based on latest
sustainable drainage principles. No dwelling shall be occupied until all drainage
required to serve that dwelling has been constructed in accordance with the
scheme. The scheme shall include;
• infiltration tests to be undertaken in accordance with BRE365;
• proposed discharge rate limited to greenfield QBar (if attenuation based) and
details of flow control;
• SUDS features, attenuation requirements and detail drawings;
• detailed drainage layout with pipe/chamber/soakaway numbers & sizes;
• maintenance and management plan for SUDS;
• detailed network calculations to include climate change allowances;
• ground investigation report;
• proposed site levels, floor levels and an exceedance plan;
• site emergency response plan based on Environment Agency warnings with
safe access and egress routes highlighted.
7) No development hereby permitted shall commence until a Construction Traffic
Management Plan (CTMP) is submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
Authority. The CTMP shall include details of:
• parking arrangements for all vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors
and mechanisms to ensure no vehicles of site personnel, operatives and
visitors are parked on The Causeway;
• the arrangements for the loading and unloading of plant and materials on to
the site for the duration of the works;
• the storage of all plant and materials on the site;
• on-site turning for construction vehicles;
• hours of construction and operation of machinery of deliveries;
• confirmation that no deliveries of plant or materials to/from the site shall take
place between the hours of 0730 – 0930 hours and 1500 – 1800 hours;
• point of contact details for site manager during initial construction phase and
prior to the construction of individual units;
• details of where the approved CTMP will be displayed on site for all site
personnel, operatives and visitors to observe;
• details of wheel washing facilities and their location on the site;
• a plan showing the route to and from the site along the highway network for
delivery vehicles; and
• details of how access to the site will be controlled (e.g. a banksman).
The approved CTMP shall be implemented prior to any works being carried out on
site and shall be maintained throughout the course of the development and the
development of each individual plot.
8) Subsequent to the initial reserved matters application, a scheme for the
landscaping of the site in communal areas, including boundary treatments and the
planting of live trees and shrubs, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include the building up of the
eastern stone boundary wall and schedules of new trees and shrubs to be planted
(noting species, plant sizes and numbers/densities), the identification of the
existing trees and shrubs on the site to be retained (noting species, location and
spread), any earth moving operations and finished levels/contours, and a
implementation and maintenance programme.
The approved scheme shall be commenced prior to the first occupation of any
dwelling and implemented in accordance with the approved implementation
programme. Thereafter it shall be maintained in accordance with the approved
scheme and maintenance programme. In the event of any of the trees or plants so
planted within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are
removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, such trees or plants shall be
replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.
9) No development shall commence until details of all car parking facilities and
manoeuvring areas to be provided within the site have been submitted as part of
the initial reserved matters and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The approved car parking and manoeuvring facilities shall be provided
before first occupation and shall thereafter be retained at all times for the use of
the development.
10) No development shall commence until details of the proposed works to the existing
access to the site have been submitted as part of the initial reserved matters and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no part of the development
shall be occupied until those works have been constructed in accordance with the
approved details. Thereafter, prior to the first occupation of any dwelling, the
entire means of access to and shared surface drive within the site (except for the
final surfacing thereof) shall be laid out, constructed, lit and drained and if
required, temporary or permanent traffic calming shall be put in place in
accordance with the previously approved details.
11) No development shall commence unless and until a certificate confirming the
agreement of an Offsetting Provider to deliver a Biodiversity Offsetting Scheme
totalling a minimum of 0.82 biodiversity units has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The written approval of the Council shall
not be issued before the certificate has been issued by the Offset Provider. The
details of biodiversity enhancements shall be documented by the Offset Provider
and issued to the Council for their records.
12) The development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with all the
recommendations made in section 6 of the supporting Preliminary Ecological
Appraisal (Ecology By Design Ltd, 18/04/2019, Project Code: EBD000803).
13) Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A, B, and E of Part 1 Schedule 2 of the
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order
2015 (or the equivalent provisions of any order revoking and re-enacting that
Order), there shall be no extension to any of the dwellings hereby permitted and
no incidental buildings or structures shall be erected within the curtilage of any
dwelling without the prior grant of planning permission.
14) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development Order) (England) 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-
enacting that Order) the erection or construction of gates, fences, walls or other
means of enclosure as described in Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A of the Order shall
not be undertaken without obtaining planning permission from the Local Planning
Authority.
END OF SCHEDULE
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Karen Cooksley W Legal
Andre Botha [APPELLANT]
Nichola Burley Heritage Vision
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Celina Colquhoun 39 Essex
Tracy Smith South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils
Samantha Allen South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils
Ryan Hunt South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils
Lisa Selby South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils
Kate Morris South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils
Luke Veillet South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils
Paul Harrison Oxfordshire County Council
Nick Hill South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils
Alex Tait 39 Essex
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Lesley Lovell
Alexandra Freeman
Dr C Wilding Steventon Parish Council
Angela Einon Steventon Parish Council
DOCUMENTS
1 - Suggestion walking route for site visit
2 – Two photographs of Council food collection vehicle
3 - Option agreement
4 – Revised wording to suggested condition no. 7
5 – Unilateral Undertaking
6 – Section 106 Dead of Agreement