Case Reference: 3272377

Appeal Decision
Inquiry opened on 17 August 2021
Accompanied site visit made on 23 August 2021
by Philip Major BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 15th September 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/Q3115/W/21/3272377
Land at Lady Grove, Didcot OX11 9BP
• 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 South Oxfordshire
District Council.
• The application Ref: P20/S1577/O, dated 4 May 2020, was refused by notice dated 6
October 2020.
• The development proposed is the erection of up to 150 dwellings including public open
space comprising a country park, a LEAP and additional green infrastructure provision
with all matters reserved other than access.
Preliminary Matters
1. The original application was made for up to 176 dwellings. The change to no
more than 150 dwellings was offered by the Appellant. I confirmed that this
was a change which I was prepared to accept at the Case Management
Conference held on 14 June 2021 since the change would not result in
prejudice to any party.
2. In the period between the refusal of planning permission and the opening of
the inquiry a number of matters have been agreed between the Appellant,
South Oxfordshire District Council, and Oxfordshire County Council. This has
helpfully resolved a number of issues and reduced the matters of
disagreement. Statements of Common Ground on several matters set out the
agreed positions and note the reasons for refusal which are no longer pursued.
3. The development plan includes the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 (LP)
which was adopted in December 2020. It is agreed that the most important
policies within the development plan for the determination of this proposal are
STRAT1, STRAT3, H1 and H2. I deal with those policies later in this decision.
4. Recent appeal decisions relating to land at Little Sparrows, Sonning Common1,
and land to the east of Sandringham Road, Didcot2 have been referenced in
this case. These cases differ materially from the case before me. At Sonning
Common the appeal site was within the AONB. At Sandringham Road the
topography is dissimilar, with an open boundary to the AONB. The latter was
determined prior to the adoption of the Local Plan and both with different
evidence relating to housing land supply. These differences mean that the
1 APP/Q3115/W/20/3265861
2 APP/Q3115/W/20/3255846
cases are of limited relevance in my overall deliberations. I have determined
this case on the basis of the evidence before me.
Decision
5. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of up
to 150 dwellings, public open space comprising a country park, a LEAP and
additional green infrastructure provision with all matters reserved except for
access at land at Lady Grove, Didcot OX11 9BP in accordance with the terms of
the application, Ref: P20/S1577/O, dated 4 May 2020, subject to the conditions
set out in the schedule at the end of this decision.
Main Issues
6. In light of the agreements reached on several matters as noted above the main
issues in this case are now:
i) Whether the Council can demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable
housing land;
ii) The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the
landscape and the setting of the adjacent Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty (AONB);
iii) The relationship of the proposal with the spatial strategy for the area, and
the planning balance.
Reasons
Housing Land Supply
7. In the latest monitoring report (of June 2021) the Council claims to have a 5
year housing land supply (5HLS) of some 5.33 years. The Appellant assesses
supply at no more than about 4.2 years. The discussion at the inquiry took the
form of a round table session in which disputed sites were closely examined. I
will deal with the most important of those below, but it is worth emphasising
that my consideration of this matter necessarily differs from that of the
Inspector who determined the Sonning Common appeal noted above. That is
largely because the evidence before me has been prepared in light of the latest
monitoring report, which was not available to the Sonning Common Inspector.
In addition further documentation has been provided in relation to some sites,
and the list of disputed sites is different. Hence, although the Sonning
Common decision is a material consideration here, I have reached my own
assessment of the current situation relating to 5HLS. In this appeal there is a
total of 16 disputed sites.
8. Much was made at the inquiry of the fact that to be included within a 5HLS a
site should have a realistic prospect of housing delivery, and not a certainty of
delivery. This is clearly explained in both the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). It is self-evidently
logical to me that certainty would be too high a bar to set, and that the best
expert assessment based on robust and up to date information and sound
judgement will provide the most cogent evidence of likely delivery. With that
in mind I turn to those sites which I regard as the most critical to an
assessment of future housing delivery and where, in my judgement, delivery is
likely to fall short.
Sites with no current planning permission
9. The Benson NDP Site 2 (Site No 1929) has an undetermined outline application
at present. It is in due course expected to provide 80 units, and the Council
expects a total of 60 units over years 4 and 5 of the current 5 year period. But
as pointed out by the Appellant issues remain unresolved in relation to
agreements with the County Council. Part of the site has now been sold, and
this may well affect any subsequent applications for the approval of reserved
matters. Although this is an allocated site in a Neighbourhood Development
Plan (NP) it seems to me that there are significant imponderables which might
affect future timings of permissions, applications, agreements and lead-in
times. As a relatively small site delays might be expected to be shorter than
for larger sites, but nevertheless I do not have sufficient information here to be
confident (that is for me to reach a point of accepting a realistic prospect of
delivery) that this site will deliver as quickly as predicted. The Council was
unable to give any indication of when a reserved matters application might be
submitted. I do not rule out some delivery within the 5 year period but the
evidence is not strong enough to support the Council’s case in its entirety. A
more realistic viewpoint, in my judgement, is to expect perhaps half of the
delivery predicted by the Council. I therefore deduct 30 dwellings from this
site.
10. Newnham Manor (1561) has a resolution to grant outline planning permission,
but is required to be referred back to the Planning Committee. It is a site
which is expected to deliver 100 dwellings. A S106 agreement is expected in
winter 2021. It therefore seems likely that the delays which have so far been
acknowledged would bring the issuing of any planning permission close to the
beginning of year 2 of the 5 year period. The application has been with the
Council for a considerable period of time and although I accept that the Council
is seeking to work with the developer I have too little in the way of firm
evidence to persuade me of the realistic prospect of this entire site being built
out in the 5 year period. There would inevitably be some time required after
planning permission (outline or reserved matters) was granted before building
could commence on site. Rather than delivery commencing in year 3 it seems
to me that year 5 would be more likely. I therefore discount 80 dwellings.
11. Ladygrove East (1011) is a site which has planning applications outstanding
and is expected in due course to provide upwards of 700 dwellings. It is an
allocated site. There have been issues relating to the provision of the northern
perimeter road, but it seems that at least 250 dwellings could be provided prior
to that road being completed. The Appellant has conceded that in light of
recent activity some delivery on site is possible within the 5 year period. But
the Council’s view that delivery is likely to commence in year 3 seems too
optimistic. On a site of 250 plus dwellings which at present has no planning
permission I consider that a more realistic timeframe would be year 4 onwards
at least. I have noted the comments made on behalf of the prospective
developer of that site, but those comments do not assist in predicting when
delivery on site is likely. For the reasons above I discount 80 dwellings from
the Council’s assessment.
12. Didcot Gateway South (1010) is acknowledged to be a site with several
interested parties involved (including Homes England). There is no planning
permission and the latest intentions have been sent out for consultation. I
acknowledge that the inclusion of Homes England is likely to give delivery some
fresh impetus, but there is little in the way of firm information which suggests
when any delivery might commence. Total units over time are expected to
number 300 and the Council has suggested delivery of 91 can be expected over
years 4 and 5 of the 5 year period. However, it seems that the site has been
beset by delays over the years and although Homes England will no doubt
assist in bringing a scheme or schemes forward there is at present no
indication of when that might be. A masterplan has been commissioned and
some demolition has been authorised. But I have no tangible evidence of
significant progress towards the preparation or submission of planning
proposals. In my judgement this scheme is not likely to make any contribution
to the delivery of dwellings over the 5 year period. I therefore discount the 91
suggested by the Council.
13. Watlington NDP B & C (1938 and 1939) do not have planning permission as yet
and await a S106 agreement. Pre application discussion for reserved matters
have been held, but it is clear that the outline permission has already been
significantly delayed by the current lack of a S106 agreement. Given that
developer trajectories were based on earlier dates for the S106 agreement it
seems likely that there will be some delay. Each of these sites is expected to
contribute 60 dwellings, with first deliveries in year 3 and full build out within
the 5 year period. Given current delays and the evidence before me I consider
that to be overly optimistic. However, I do accept that some delivery is likely
on these sites and I therefore discount the Council’s expectations by a total of
60 units (50%).
14. Bayswater Brook, Elsefield (1895) is an allocation made in the South
Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 (LP) for 1100 dwellings. A hybrid planning
application is expected in early 2022. The difference between the parties
relates to predicted trajectories. On a large site such as this evidence suggests
that lead-in times are elongated (as reported in the document authored by
NLP3 and submitted by the Appellant). That leads the Appellant to conclude
that no delivery is likely on this site in the 5 year period. I agree with that
position. Indeed the Council only predicts delivery commencing in year 5 and
in my judgement that is overly optimistic (albeit that the Council is not as
optimistic as the developers). I recognise that the trajectory before me formed
part of the evidence base for the Local Plan Examination in 2020, but I must
deal with the information now. From what I have read and heard I consider
that the Appellant’s evidence is more compelling in this case. I discount 50
dwellings from supply for this reason.
15. Northfield, Garsington (1894) is similar to the previous site in being an
allocation of the LP, in this case for 1800 dwellings. My comments on this site
mirror those on the previous site, but in this case I note that the rate of
progress is reported as being slower, and this leads me to discount the 50
dwellings predicted by the Council.
16. On the basis of the above I discount a total of 431 dwellings from sites which
currently have no planning permission. The Council’s supply position therefore
reduces from 6101 to 5670. With an agreed requirement of 5727 that equates
to a supply of 4.95 years. I turn now to consider, briefly, one of the other
disputed sites on which I am not satisfied delivery will take place at the pace
predicted by the Council.
3 Start to Finish, How Quickly do Large-Scale Housing Sites Deliver? Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners (November
2016)
17. Wheatley Campus (1418) is still occupied by Oxford Brookes University. An
outline planning permission has been granted. Although the University has
indicated its intention to dispose of the site and vacate it over time, there is no
firm evidence of the timescale for this other than an intention to fully exit the
site by 2024. I accept that some facilities may well have moved already, but
the information before me is that the site has not yet been marketed. Any
timescales for reserved matters application(s) are therefore unknown. The
trajectory suggested by the Council would see delivery begin in the year of
2024/25. That seems unlikely, certainly on the scale suggested, unless the
University had moved out earlier than intended. On the balance of evidence
before me I accept the evidence of the Appellant as being more persuasive
here. This results is a further 168 dwellings being discounted from delivery.
That would leave the supply position at about 4.8 years.
18. In light of this finding I do not need to consider in detail the other sites in
dispute. Suffice to say that I do find the Appellant’s evidence cogent in many
respects, but not necessarily to the extent that all of the predicted shortfall in
delivery would occur. Inevitably, as is often the case in situations such as this,
the actual outturn is likely to be somewhere between the respective
assessments of the Council and the Appellant. However, I lean towards the
more cautious approach of the Appellant. For that reason it is my considered
judgement that the Council is not in a position to demonstrate that it has a 5
year supply of deliverable housing land. In reality it is likely to be somewhat
short of the, roughly, 4.8 years I have indicated above, but not as low as the
4.18 years calculated by the Appellant.
19. The lack of a 5 year supply is significant, of course, in that it triggers the ‘tilted’
balance as set out in paragraph 11 of the NPPF. The policies that are most
important for determining the appeal are deemed to be out of date. That does
not mean that they carry no weight, however, and I deal with that point in
considering the other main issues.
Character and Appearance
20. The appeal site itself is made up of 5 fields. The southern 4 fields are relatively
narrow and elongated, are currently pastureland, and have a strong east to
west orientation. They are divided by vegetation consisting mainly of mature
trees and significant hedgerows. The northernmost field is in arable use and is
more open, being wider, although it is also surrounded by vegetation. Land
immediately to the east of the site forms part of the North Wessex Downs
AONB, albeit that Hadden Hill Golf Club adjoins much of the appeal site and is
atypical of the character of the AONB. The site is well enclosed and there is
little impression of the surrounding landscape from within it.
21. The area falls within the ambit of various landscape studies, the most relevant
of which deal with the finer grain of this particular locality. Key characteristics
of the area are described in terms such as gently rolling topography, medium
to large fields bounded by hedgerows, predominantly rural and arable
character but with intrusions of built form at Didcot, some tree cover and
woodland blocks, comparatively strong landscape structure, extensive views
from hilltops, and intervening transport corridors. These descriptions are
applicable in large part to the wider landscape around the appeal site, and to
the northernmost field. However, the 4 southern fields have a more intimate
feel. They are strongly enclosed and, although clearly never part of a formal
parkland composition, have something of the feel of parkland.
22. A landscape capacity study from 2017 assessing sites on the edge of towns,
including Didcot, found the western part of the appeal site (with land further
north) to have medium visual, landscape and wider landscape sensitivity.
Overall landscape sensitivity of the study area is assessed as being
medium/high partly as a result of being in the setting of the AONB. However,
it is interesting to note that the study finds that the southern part of the site
studied (which is the western part of the appeal site) has a distinct character.
Potential impacts of development of the study area include some matters which
would not result from the proposed development, such as the loss of views
across open fields to Wittenham Clumps, and loss of views of the listed
farmhouse to the north. Other impacts would result from the appeal proposal,
including the loss of pasture and meadow.
23. The Appellant has assessed the landscape susceptibility and sensitivity of the
appeal site as medium to high. This accords with the landscape capacity study
noted above, albeit that the appeal site would extend further to the east. That
seems to me to be a reasonable conclusion. I am less convinced that the
appeal site warrants an assessment of high susceptibility and sensitivity.
Similarly I do not agree that the landscape of the site should be afforded high
value, rather than the medium value assessed by the Appellant. None of the
site is within a designated landscape, and though the pastoral fields are not
common hereabouts, they are not so distinctive that they could be said to bring
the site into the category of a valued landscape in the terms set out in the
NPPF. There is nothing in the assessment of the appeal site which suggests
that it has any characteristics which take it beyond the ordinary and into the
category of being valued. The presence of a large number of protected trees is
of course a visual benefit, and adds to the attraction of the site, but it does not
add sufficient to elevate the site to something which is atypical and more
valuable than the general landscape hereabouts.
24. The adjacent AONB has little intervisibility with the appeal site. Any views to
and from the AONB are limited to a narrow section in the north-east corner of
the appeal site. Elsewhere topography, strong boundary vegetation and the
planting on the golf course limit any visible interaction. The character of this
part of the AONB is well set out in the Integrated Landscape Character
Assessment. The section dealing with the Moreton Plain includes descriptors
similar to those used in other studies, such as large arable fields, clumps of
woodland, and the influence of Didcot. The assessment also notes that the
scale of landform is not as dramatic as that to the south. A key issue is the
potential for development to impinge on AONB boundaries, particularly at
Didcot.
25. Drawing these various threads of study and evidence together I have little
difficulty in accepting that the landscape character of the appeal site is of
medium value and sensitivity. The value of the AONB immediately to the east
is, of course, very high (by definition). Hence this proposed development, in
the setting of the AONB, must pay due regard to that situation.
26. The appeal site has advantages in that it is well enclosed by topography and
vegetation. The development proposed, as set out on the parameters plan,
would not directly impinge on the AONB. Intervisibility would be minor in
nature. Furthermore, that intervisibility would include the strong influence of
Didcot itself, such that the appeal development would not add to that influence
on character in any material way. The magnitude of change to the setting of
the AONB would be small, and I agree with the Appellant’s assessment that the
effect on the character of the AONB and its setting would be at worst minimal.
The Council’s suggestion that the effect would be moderate and adverse is not
borne out by the evidence or my site visits.
27. There is much agreement between the main parties in relation to landscape
effect in the wider area, including land to the north, south and west which is
not within the AONB. Landscape effects are assessed as being negligible, and I
agree with those assessments. Of course the site itself would change and the
landscape effect here would be greater. However, given the nature of the
proposals and the retention of high levels vegetation I am satisfied that the
effect would be no more than minor to moderate and adverse.
28. There is also a measure of agreement in relation to the visual impact of the
proposal. Because of the limited extent of the intended built area on site, the
retention and supplementing of vegetation, and the limited public access, from
the majority of viewpoints effects are assessed as no more than minor to
moderate adverse levels. The public footpath which crosses the north of the
site and links into the AONB provides the most critical viewpoints. The
sensitivity of receptors here is high to very high. When crossing into the AONB
and venturing further to the east the tranquillity of the area becomes greater,
and the sensitivity of the receptor to change increases. However I do not
consider that this occurs immediately on leaving the appeal site since the
influence of the urban area of Didcot (albeit that this is behind the receptor) is
still important. The development of the dwellings in north-east Didcot will
enhance this influence to a greater degree over time.
29. Those walking the public footpath in an easterly direction will be anticipating
the AONB and would pass the proposed development quite quickly, its visual
influence waning rapidly. In the alternative, walking towards the west, the eye
is drawn to the built up area of Didcot, and the proposed development would
appear as a minor and relatively unobtrusive element of the town. There
would be a moderate and adverse impact on visual amenities in the short term,
but over time as the proposed open space and landscaping matures the impact
would reduce to a minimal level. Similarly I consider that the impact from the
bridleway to the east of the golf course would be minor at any stage of
development. My assessment therefore differs from that prepared by the
Council, which in my judgement overstates any adverse impacts.
30. Taking this issue in the round it is my conclusion that the proposed
development would have some short term adverse impact of a minor to
moderate nature, but in the longer term the impact would be mainly restricted
to the site itself. The overall effect on the character and appearance of the
landscape generally, and the setting of the AONB in particular, would be small.
I accept that the development has been designed to date, and could be further
developed, in a manner which ensures the minimisation of impacts on the
AONB setting, in accordance with the advice of the NPPF.
31. LP Policy ENV1 does not strictly follow the advice of the latest NPPF in that it
sets a higher bar for development in the setting of an AONB. It is therefore
inconsistent with the NPPF to a degree, and this lessens the weight I attach to
the policy. In any event the proposal would accord with part 2 of ENV1 as it
would, amongst other matters, for example, make provision for the protection
and enhancement of trees and vegetation, and would not materially impact on
skylines or perceptual features. Given the inconsistency of Policy ENV1 with
the NPPF the minor nature of the conflict with it (first bullet point of part 1 of
the policy only) the conflict is of little weight in this appeal. I do not subscribe
to the suggestion that part ix) of Policy STRAT 1 (which has an overall
objective of protecting and enhancing countryside and areas within the AONB)
can be read separately. ENV1 is logically a more detailed development of
STRAT1 and in my judgement should be read as the primary policy dealing with
landscape matters in this case.
Spatial Strategy and Planning Balance
32. As noted above the most important policies for determining the appeal are out
of date. This is notwithstanding the relatively recent adoption of the Local
Plan. The overarching objectives of the LP are set out in Policy STRAT1. This
includes that major new development should be focussed in the Science Vale,
including sustainable growth at Didcot Garden Town (DGT). Policy STRAT 3
deals with DGT itself. This policy sets out detailed objectives for development
within the DGT masterplan area. The masterplan area is identified clearly and
the boundary is uncontentious. The appeal site falls within it and is shown as
an undesignated area in the DGT delivery plan, though with various aspirations
for some woodland on the land. It was described as ‘white land’ at the inquiry
but I have not seen any suggestion that this is a formal status. The DGT
delivery plan is not intended to be prescriptive and indicates that it is not a
rigid blueprint, and that flexibility is critical given the delivery period expected
of some 15 years. The delivery plan has no formal status and its aspirations
therefore carry limited weight. Nonetheless it identifies the area of north-east
Didcot to the west of the site (where housing delivery is underway) and
Ladygrove East, which is an allocated site, a short distance to the south of the
appeal site.
33. Policy STRAT3 (part 2) indicates that housing allocations in Didcot are made in
Policy H2 (to which I refer below) and that development in the masterplan area
will be expected to follow the masterplan principles (part 6). I am satisfied
that the proposal would be capable of following those principles, which largely
deal with the physical form of development. Furthermore I consider that there
is nothing in the appeal proposals which conflicts with any part of the policy as
a whole save for the potential to be in breach of part 2.
34. LP Policies H1 and H2 are most important. H1 is permissive of housing on
allocated sites (some caried forward from previous plans). If not allocated the
policy sets out a number of criteria which any proposed development should
meet. The appeal proposal does not satisfy any of the criteria. Furthermore it
is not encompassed by any other part of the policy; the proposal therefore
conflicts with Policy H1. That conflict is acknowledged by the Appellant. Policy
H2 seeks to make provision for new housing in Didcot. The appeal site is not
one of the allocated sites and gains no support from that policy. But in any
event Policy H2, although providing for the delivery of 6339 homes on named
sites, does not deal specifically with other sites (those are dealt with by Policy
H1). The weight attaching to those policies is reduced as they are out of date.
35. There is nothing in the LP which specifically rules out development on non-
allocated or not currently committed sites albeit that the most important
policies are clearly seeking to direct housing delivery to certain locations. I
note that the Inspector who found the LP sound indicated that it would not be
appropriate to indicate that housing would be permissible anywhere within the
DGT area as it is necessary to maintain control over the spatial and phasing
aspects of the DGT growth. But that was against the background of the then
expected delivery rates and maintenance of a 5HLS, which has not been shown
to be occurring. So whilst there is no housing provision policy support for the
proposals, they must nevertheless be considered on the basis of their own
merits against a shortfall in the 5HLS. An indisputable element of any
determination of a planning proposal is that other material considerations are,
depending on the facts, capable of outweighing conflict with the development
plan.
36. In essence it seems to me that the judgement which has to be made in this
case is quite simple. If the proposed development is in conflict with the
development plan, and there is no 5HLS so triggering the tilted balance, it is
necessary to make a judgement on whether the adverse impact of the
development plan conflict, and any other identified harms, significantly and
demonstrably outweigh any benefits of the proposal. I have taken account of
the judgement in Crane4 when the lack of a 5HLS was not sufficient in itself to
justify development on a non allocated site adjacent to a village. This proposal
seems to me to differ in that it relates to a site within the DGT masterplan area
and the Science Vale, where development is to be concentrated. It has marked
differences to Crane, which was considered in the context of a recently made
Neighbourhood Plan. In any event the judgement and balance made in the
Crane case decision was made on the facts of that case. That is the procedure
I follow here – the case before me has its own specific considerations.
37. To summarise here on the most important policies and their impact on the
proposal, I accept in part the case put by the Appellant. The essential reason
for the refusal of permission in relation to the spatial strategy is that the site is
not allocated. However in this regard it does not offend Policies STRAT1,
STRAT3 or H2 in any different way to the conflict with H1. The point of conflict,
if accepted for all those policies, is the same point of non-allocation and that it
has not been intended for development. However, any conflict with STRAT1 is
in my judgement of limited weight since one of its objectives is to concentrate
development in the Science Vale and DGT, which this development would
achieve. Similarly, any conflict with STRAT 3 is essentially the same as conflict
with H1. I therefore agree that conflict with the development plan is quite
narrow but is nevertheless important in my consideration of this proposal. The
development plan is the starting point for any decision, and in my judgement
the development plan retains a significant degree of weight despite the most
important policies being out of date.
38. I note here that with regard the aspirations of the DGT masterplan, which are
to be treated flexibly, that these are being addressed in just such a manner to
the west of the appeal site. Here, an area of land at Ladygrove Farm, shown
as retained open land on the masterplan, is being treated as an opportunity to
provide housing. I do not accept that it was mistakenly shown on the
masterplan as open land since this occurred on multiple different iterations of
4 Crane v SoS For Communities and Local Government and Harborough DC [2015] EWHC 425
the illustrations. The DGT delivery team has not objected to the development
of this land and it indicates that the masterplan is indeed being treated with
the intended flexibility. Although no decision has been made on that proposal
it is included in future housing supply (at least in part) in the Council’s 2021
monitoring report. Thus, in accepting a site for development previously being
put forward as open space in the DGT masterplan it is clear that other material
considerations are legitimately being taken into consideration. Whether or not
the Ladygrove Farm site was or was not always intended as part of the housing
provision of North-East Didcot (which seems unlikely given the evidence
available) it is apparent that it has now been brought into play as a housing
site to assist with delivery. A balanced judgement to reach that position must
have been taken. In contrast, the Council’s planning evidence in the case
before me concentrated on the conflict with the development plan and failed to
adequately address other material considerations in any meaningful way. In
any case the development at Ladygrove Farm is not determinative in my
consideration of this case.
39. I therefore turn to deal with those the other considerations which are put
forward as benefits of the scheme. The need for housing in South Oxfordshire
is not disputed. This proposal would bring a significant number of homes into
the supply in a mix which accords with the aspirations of the development plan.
The unmet need for housing remains nationally, and the NPPF retains in its
latest iteration the desire to significantly boost the supply of housing. In this
particular locality the need for housing to support the local economy in the
Science Vale is not challenged and delivery has not so far been achieved at the
rate required. I am not persuaded that sites will come forward at a sufficiently
rapid rate in the future to make up for the initial lack of delivery. As a result I
afford significant weight to the delivery of up to 150 homes.
40. In addition, the appeal site would deliver up to 60 affordable homes. This was
a matter which was afforded substantial weight in a recent decision by the
Secretary of State relating to a site in South Oxfordshire5. In that case the
levels of affordability (or lack of) were described as ‘eye-watering’. There is
nothing before me which suggests that affordability has become any easier in
the intervening period. Indeed, the Council accepts that the need is acute and
has grown since that appeal decision. Lack of affordable housing also has an
impact on the local economy. I agree that the provision of affordable housing
here in accordance with the development plan should be afforded substantial
weight.
41. As I have noted above the DGT delivery plan aspires to provide woodland on at
least a part of the appeal site. There is, though, no identified mechanism by
which to deliver that aspiration. In the event that planning permission for
development is not granted it seems unlikely that any woodland would be
provided in the foreseeable future. The scheme before me, however, would
provide extensive areas of open space and the potential for significant tree
planting. This would go some way towards meeting the DGT delivery plan
aspirations. The scheme itself has been described as landscape led, and to a
large extent I accept that description. The retention of trees and hedgerows,
and the integration of housing into the landscape, would lead to a largely green
edge to this part of Didcot. This ability to assist with the aspiration for creating
a green buffer for the town incorporated within over 8 hectares of public open
5 APP/Q3115/W/19/3230827
space carries significant benefit. It also accords with the advice of the NPPF,
which seeks to support the provision of high quality open spaces.
42. Alongside the provision of open space and the opportunity for extensive
landscaping the Appellant has calculated a biodiversity gain in excess of 50%
using current metrics (V2), and almost 30% using likely future metrics (V3).
That far exceeds the current target of 10% and is a further consideration which
weighs moderately in favour of the scheme.
43. It is axiomatic that the provision of new homes on the land would bring some
economic benefits, but this would be true of any development on any site in
South Oxfordshire. This is therefore a benefit of limited weight in relation to
this specific site.
44. The appeal site is itself locationally acceptable. It is about a 20 minute walk
from Didcot railway station (a little more from the farthest reach of the site)
and the town centre. It is an easy walking route and would be made more so
by the provision of highway crossings (which is covered by the S106
Agreement I deal with later). Similarly access by cycle would be readily
achieved. I afford this locational suitability moderate weight.
45. That the homes proposed would be deliverable, at least in part, within 5 years,
is not contentious. In order to facilitate that the Appellant has offered to
accept a condition reducing the time available to make reserved matters
applications. I am not aware of any technical impediments to an expeditious
implementation of the scheme, and this is a matter in its favour to which I
afford additional weight.
Overall Balance
46. The proposed development is in conflict with the development plan. The most
important policies of the development plan are of reduced, but still significant,
weight because of the lack of a 5HLS. There would be minor harm in respect of
the impact on character and appearance. On the other hand the material
considerations weighing in favour of the proposed development are of greater
weight. The weight to the provision of market housing is significant, whilst
affordable housing provision is a substantial benefit. The provision of a large
area of open space is also of significant weight, and sits alongside other
benefits including biodiversity gain and economic benefits. In my judgement
the adverse impacts of granting planning permission (conflict with the
development plan and limited landscape harm) do not significantly and
demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal. For that reason the
proposal is sustainable development and the appeal succeeds.
Conditions
47. A list of conditions was provided at the inquiry which was largely agreed in the
event of planning permission being granted.
48. In order that the development would have the greatest impact on housing
delivery I agree that a reduced timeframe for the submission of reserved
matters would be reasonable in this case. It is also reasonable that the
reserved matters application(s) should be accompanied by a design code in
order to ensure a high quality development. Further details required at
reserved matters stage can be ensured by necessary conditions.
49. Conditions to ensure biodiversity enhancement, landscape management, bat
mitigation measures and construction management are necessary and
reasonable to ensure the development is satisfactorily assimilated into the local
environment.
50. A number of pre-commencement conditions are necessary to ensure that the
development can be delivered to a suitable standard and in order to mitigate
any potential harmful effects. Other conditions are necessary to ensure that
prior to first occupation of the dwellings they have suitable access, adequate
services, suitable energy efficiency and electric vehicle charging points.
Additional conditions are reasonable in order to protect the living conditions of
occupants of the development and those surrounding. Conditions specifying
the maximum number of dwellings on site and the mix of market dwellings are
reasonable and necessary in order to ensure the development is satisfactory.
Planning Obligation
51. An agreement pursuant to S106 of the 1990 Act has been submitted which
deals with a number of matters. Contributions would be paid to the District
Council to enable the provision of refuse containers and for street naming and
numbering. Further contributions would be made to the County Council to
facilitate the provision of education provision, public rights of way
improvement, improvement to public transport, highway improvements and a
travel plan monitoring contribution. In addition the obligation requires the
provision of highways improvements and crossings, affordable housing to meet
development plan requirements, and the establishment of a management
company to provide for the maintenance of the open space and equipped play
area. All associated drawings and plans are specified in the obligation.
52. I have been provided with comprehensive compliance statements detailing how
the various strands of the obligation meet the tests of the community
infrastructure regulations. Based on those statements I am satisfied that the
obligation meets those tests and can therefore be fully taken into account by
me in reaching my decision.
Other Matters
53. I understand the position of the DGT delivery team, and the Didcot Town
Council. Each is concerned that housing growth, though necessary, should be
managed in a structured way. Nevertheless, the lack of a demonstrable 5 year
supply of deliverable housing land is a significant situation. It does not mean
that housing could, or should, be provided anywhere, but it does mean that
suitable sites should be given proper consideration. In this case it is my
judgement that in order to enhance delivery of much needed housing this site
is acceptable and would not cause unacceptable harm to the objectives of the
development plan or the delivery of the wider DGT.
Overall Conclusion
54. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
Philip Major
INSPECTOR
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS
1) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale (hereinafter
called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority before any development takes
place and the development shall be carried out as approved.
2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the
local planning authority not later than 18 months from the date of this
permission.
3) The development hereby permitted shall take place not later than 2 years
from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be
approved.
4) The development hereby permitted shall comprise no more than 150
dwellings.
5) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with
the following approved plans:
Site Location plan SLP-01 Rev P1
Parameter Plan MANO190729 PP-01 P7
Site Access Option 195072 A03 Rev A
Proposed Toucan Crossing 196072-A2-01
6) The reserved matters application shall be accompanied by a Design Code,
which shall have previously been approved in writing by the local
planning authority in advance of the submission of the reserved matters.
The Design Code shall include illustrations, sections and block testing to
demonstrate the development principles of the development and shall
follow the overarching principles set out in the North East Didcot Design
Code. The reserved matters application shall demonstrate how it accords
with the Design Code.
7) The reserved matters for the scheme shall be designed to secure the
following mix of market dwellings:
- 1 bed - 6%
- 2 bed - 27%
- 3 bed - 43%
- 4 bed - 24%
or in accordance with a mix that shall be set out for approval as part of
the reserved matters submission to reflect the latest housing needs
assessment.
8) The following additional details shall be submitted with the reserved
matters application:
• Details of vehicle and cycle parking for all dwellings;
• Details of recycling/waste storage for all dwellings;
• Details of all boundary treatments;
• Details of all street lighting and street furniture;
• Tree planting on estate roads;
• Existing and proposed ground levels.
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
details.
9) Concurrent with the submission of the reserved matters application, a
Biodiversity Enhancement Plan (BEP) shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the local planning authority. The BEP should be broadly in
accordance with the outline details of habitat enhancements outlined in
section 6 of the supporting Ecological Appraisal (Aspect Ecology,
30/04/2020). The BEP should include:
• Details of habitat creation or enhancements (this could cross
reference relevant landscape plans) and include suitably detailed
drawings and cross sections as required;
• Details of species enhancements including relevant scale plans and
drawings showing the location, elevation and type of features such
as bat and bird boxes etc. as appropriate;
• Selection of appropriate strategies for creating/restoring target
habitats or introducing target species;
• Selection of specific techniques and practices for establishing
vegetation;
• Sources of habitat materials (e.g. plant stock) or species
individuals;
• Method statement for site preparation and establishment of target
features;
• Extent and location of proposed works;
• Full details of a biodiversity metric assessment to demonstrate a
biodiversity net gain.
Thereafter, the biodiversity enhancement measures shall be developed
on site and retained in accordance with the approved details. All
enhancements shall be delivered prior to the final occupation of the
development.
10) Concurrent with the submission of the reserved matters, a maintenance
schedule and a long-term management plan (for a minimum period of 20
years), for the soft landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the local planning authority. The Landscape Management
Plan shall include:
• Details of long-term design principles and objectives;
• Management responsibilities, maintenance schedules and
replacement provisions for existing retained landscape features
and any landscape to be implemented as part of the approved
landscape scheme including hard surfaces, street furniture within
open spaces and any play/youth provision;
• A plan detailing which areas of the site the Landscape Management
Plan covers and also who is responsible of the maintenance of the
other areas of the site;
• Summary plan detailing different management procedures for the
types of landscape on site e.g. Wildflower meadows, native or
ornamental hedgerows.
The schedule and plan shall be implemented in accordance with the
agreed programme
11) The reserved matters submission shall be accompanied by a site-wide bat
mitigation strategy, consistent with the recommendations made in
section 4.4 of the supporting Bat Activity Survey Report (Aspect Ecology,
16/09/2020), which shall previously have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The site-wide bat
mitigation strategy shall:
• Identify existing habitats and features on site of importance to
roosting, commuting and foraging bats which must be retained and
protected on site;
• Identify areas on site where habitat creation and enhancement will
take place to benefit the local bat population;
• Identify areas where external lighting on site must be avoided or
minimised (dark corridors); and
• Set parameters for external lighting in areas outside of dark
corridors to minimise the impacts of light spill on foraging and
commuting bats.
The reserved matters application shall accord with the approved
provisions in the site-wide bat mitigation strategy.
12) Concurrent with the submission of the reserved matters application, a
scheme of mitigation measures to protect future residents from noise
from the adjacent B4016 shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority. The development shall be built in
accordance with the approved scheme prior to first occupation of any of
the dwellings to which the noise mitigation relates. The approved
mitigation measures shall be retained thereafter.
13) Prior to the commencement of the development (including vegetation
clearance) a Construction Environmental Management Plan for
Biodiversity (CEMP: Biodiversity) shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP (Biodiversity) shall
include the following:
• Updated ecological surveys for relevant habitats and species.
Updated surveys shall follow national good practice guidelines;
• Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities;
• Identification of “biodiversity protection zones”;
• Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working
practices) to avoid, reduce or mitigate the impacts on important
habitats and protected species during construction;
• The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to
biodiversity features;
• The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be
present on site to oversee works;
• Responsible persons and lines of communication;
• Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.
The approved CEMP (Biodiversity) shall be adhered to and implemented
throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the
approved details.
14) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved an
Energy Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The Energy Statement shall include Standard
Assessment Procedure (SAP) calculations in line with the recognised
methodology set by Government, demonstrating how the development
will achieve at least a 40% reduction in carbon emissions compared with
code 2013 Building Regulations.
15) Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed surface water
drainage scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. This shall be based on the Flood Risk and
Drainage Assessment by Martin Andrews Consulting reference 277‐FRA‐
01‐B dated April 2020, sustainable drainage principles and an assessment
of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development. The
scheme shall also include:
• A compliance report to demonstrate how the scheme complies with
the “Local Standards and Guidance for Surface Water Drainage on
Major Development in Oxfordshire”;
• A range of SuDS techniques throughout the site to manage water
quantity and maintain water quality;
• Full drainage calculations for all events up to and including the 1 in
100 year plus 40% climate change;
• Infiltration tests to BRE 365;
• A Flood Exceedance Conveyance Plan;
• Detailed design drainage layout drawings of the SuDS proposals
including cross sections as appropriate;
• SUDS and drainage construction details to include flow controls,
headwall and trash screen details;
• A condition survey of the culvert taking the watercourse below the
adjacent highway and any watercourse along boundaries or within
the confines of the site along with any maintenance remedial
proposals necessary for the effective drainage of the site;
• Detailed maintenance management plan in accordance with
Section 32 of CIRIA C753 including maintenance schedules for
each drainage element; and
• Details of how water quality will be maintained during construction.
No dwelling shall be occupied until the surface drainage works to serve
that dwelling have been carried out and completed in accordance with the
approved details.
16) Prior to the commencement of the development, a detailed foul water
drainage scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details and no dwelling shall be occupied
until the foul water drainage works to serve that dwelling have been
completed.
17) Prior to the commencement of the development, a Construction Traffic
Management Plan (CTMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority. 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.
18) Prior to the commencement of the development a professional
archaeological organisation acceptable to the local planning authority
shall prepare an Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation, relating
to the application site area, which shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority.
19) Following the approval of the Written Scheme of Investigation referred to
in condition 18 and prior to the commencement of the development
(other than in accordance with the agreed Written Scheme of
Investigation), a programme of archaeological mitigation shall be carried
out by the commissioned archaeological organisation in accordance with
the approved Written Scheme of Investigation. The programme of work
shall include all processing, research and analysis necessary to produce
an accessible and useable archive and a full report for publication which
shall be submitted to the local planning authority within two years of the
completion of the archaeological fieldwork.
20) No operations shall take place within the construction exclusion buffer
zone as shown on the parameter plan unless previously notified to and
authorised in writing by the local planning authority. Such operations
shall take place strictly as approved. Any unauthorised operations which
take place within the construction exclusion buffer zone shall cease
immediately and be reported in writing within 2 working days to the local
planning authority.
21) Prior to the commencement of the development a phased risk
assessment shall be carried out by a competent person in accordance
with current government and Environment Agency Guidance and
Approved Codes of Practice such as CLR11 Model Procedures for the
Management of Land Contamination and BS10175 Investigation of
potentially contaminated sites. Each phase shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Phase 2, if required, shall include a comprehensive intrusive investigation
in order to characterise the type, nature and extent of contamination
present, the risks to receptors and if significant contamination is
identified to inform the remediation strategy.
Phase 3, if required, shall include a remediation strategy which is to be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority to
ensure the site will be rendered suitable for its proposed use.
22) The development shall not be occupied until any previously approved
remediation strategy has been carried out in full and a validation report
confirming completion of these works has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority.
23) Prior to the first occupation of each dwelling hereby approved, a
verification report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The verification report shall demonstrate (with
photographic evidence) that the energy efficiency measures approved in
the energy statement for that dwelling have been implemented in
accordance with the approved energy statement. These measures shall
be retained and maintained as such thereafter in accordance with the
energy statement and verification report.
24) Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, a
scheme outlining mitigation measures to address any adverse impacts on
local air quality shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The mitigation measures shall be implemented in
accordance with the approved details prior to occupation, or in
accordance with a programme agreed in writing by the local planning
authority.
25) Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted, a scheme
to provide each house with on-plot electric vehicle charging points shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The scheme shall also include electric vehicle charging points for
communal parking and on-street parking and shall be implemented as
approved and retained thereafter.
26) Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, details
of the means by which the dwellings may be connected to the utilities to
be provided on site to facilitate super-fast broadband connectivity shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
details.
27) Prior to occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted the proposed
means of access onto the B4016 shall be formed and laid out and
constructed strictly in accordance with the local highway authority's
specifications and all ancillary works specified shall be undertaken.
28) Before any of the initial 70 dwellings hereby permitted are first occupied,
the estate roads and footpaths (except for the final surfacing thereof)
serving those 70 dwellings shall be laid out, constructed, lit and drained
and if required temporary or permanent traffic calming shall be put in
place in accordance with Oxfordshire County Council's specifications.
29) Before any of the dwellings after the initial 70 have been occupied, are
first occupied, the whole of the estate roads and footpaths (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 Oxfordshire County Council's specifications.
30) Prior to the commencement of development details and specification for
estate access, driveways and turning areas shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The proposed
vehicular accesses, driveways and turning areas shall be constructed, laid
out, surfaced and drained in accordance with approved details prior to
first occupation of any dwellings.
31) Prior to the first occupation of the development a residential travel plan
for the encouragement of the use of sustainable modes of transport shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
It shall include a travel plan statement and details of a travel information
pack to be provided to the first residents of each dwelling upon
occupation. The travel plan shall be implemented upon occupation of the
first dwelling and thereafter updated upon 50% occupation (75th
dwelling). It shall be monitored and reviewed in accordance with details
to be set out in the approved plan.
32) If proposed, no piling shall take place until a piling method statement
(detailing the depth and type of piling to be undertaken and the
methodology by which such piling shall be carried out, including
measures to prevent and minimise the potential for damage to
subsurface water infrastructure, and a programme for the works) has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. Any piling shall be undertaken in accordance with the terms of
the approved piling method statement.
33) The dwellings hereby approved shall meet the following requirements:
• all affordable housing and at least 15% of market housing shall be
designed to meet the standards of Part M (4) Category 2:
accessible and adaptable dwellings;
• at least 5% of affordable housing dwellings shall be designed to
meet the standards of Part M (4) Category 3: wheelchair accessible
dwellings; and
• all affordable housing and 1 and 2 bed market housing dwellings
shall be designed to meet the Nationally Described Space
Standards.
Upon completion of the development evidence of construction to these
standards shall be provided to the local planning authority if requested.
34) Construction works shall take place only between 07.30 and 18.00 on
Mondays to Fridays, and between 08.00 and 13.00 on Saturdays.
Construction works shall not take place at any time on Sundays or on
Bank or Public Holidays.
35) No more than 50 dwellings shall be occupied until confirmation has been
provided that either:
• All water network upgrades required to accommodate the
additional flow have been completed; or
• A development and infrastructure phasing plan has been agreed
with Thames Water to allow additional development to be
occupied. Where a development and infrastructure phasing plan is
agreed no occupation of those additional dwellings shall take place
other than in accordance with the agreed development and
infrastructure phasing plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Mr T Cosgrove Queen’s Counsel
He called
Mr L Robertson MA Independent Chartered Town Planner.
Dip(UD) BSc(Hons)
MRTPI
Mr P Radmell MA BPhil Independent landscape practitioner – took part in
CMLI the landscape round table session.
Mrs T Smith BA(Hons) South Oxfordshire District Council – took part in
BTP MRTPI the housing land supply round table session.
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Mr Richard Ground Queen’s Counsel
Mr B Du Feu Of Counsel
They called
Mr G Armstrong Director, Armstrong Rigg Planning – gave
BA(Hons) MRTPI evidence and took part in the housing land
supply round table session.
Ms S Gruner BHons Associate Landscape Architect, CSA
(landscape Architecture) Environmental - took part in the landscape round
CMLI table session.
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Mr A Sabato Didcot Garden Town Project Officer.
Dr N Hards Local Resident.
Cllr D Rouane Didcot Town Council
Officers of Oxfordshire County Attended for the discussion relating to the S106
Council Agreement.
Mr J Bancroft Vectos – attended on day 1 for the Appellant to
answer any questions on the agreed highway
position.