Case Reference: 3274197

Appeal Decision
Hearing Held on 8 March 2022
Site visit made on 8 March 2022
by Jonathon Parsons MSc BSc(Hons) DipTP Cert (Urb) MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 11 July 2022
Appeal Ref: APP/D3125/W/21/3274197
Land to the rear of Brock Cottage, Burford Road, Brize Norton OX18 3NR
• 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
West Oxfordshire District Council.
• The application Ref 20/01915/OUT, dated 20 April 2020, was refused by notice dated
3 November 2020.
• The development proposed is “outline application for the provision of Self-Build and/or
Custom Housebuilding plots for 2 detached dwellings, with all matters reserved except
for access.”
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for “outline
application for the provision of Self-Build and/or Custom Housebuilding plots
for 2 detached dwellings, with all matters reserved except for access” at Land
to the rear of Brock Cottage, Burford Road, Brize Norton OX18 3NR in
accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20/01915/OUT, dated 20
April 2020, subject to the following conditions on the attached schedule A.
Procedural Matters
2. This outline application has access to be determined at this stage, and all other
matters reserved for future consideration. During the Council’s determination
of the application, the width of the long access drive was altered as shown on
plan drawing number: A-02-101 Rev B. This plan also shows access onto
Burford Road and an internal access drive leading to rear parking and turning
areas, and the access matter has been considered on this basis.
3. Block and layout plans, drawing numbers A-02-100 Rev B and A-02-102 Rev A
show the indicative plotting of two dwellings to the rear of the site at the end of
the long access and beyond the internal parking and turning areas. A site
section plan, drawing number A-04-110 shows indicative one and half storey
dwellings sunken down below surrounding land levels. Topographical, existing
structure and aerial photographic plans are considered for information purposes
only.
4. A Unilateral Undertaking (UU) dated 21 March 2022 has obligations relating to
Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding (SBCH). In relation to the UU, further
comments by the Council and the appellant have been taken into account in
this decision. Prior to the Hearing, evidence of title, the West Oxfordshire
District Housing Land Position Statement 2021-2026 and a Statement of
Common Ground was submitted.
Main Issues
5. The main issues are the effects of the proposal on (a) the character and
appearance of the area and (b) whether adequate provision has been made for
the delivery of SBCH in accordance with policy and legislative requirements.
Reasons
Character and appearance
6. The appeal site is irregularly shaped given its long narrow access from Burford
Road. The rear wider area is located behind frontage dwellings along the road,
including a group of three grouped cottages at Brock Cottage, Reynand Cottage
and Poplar Cottage. The site has remnants of buildings and a partially sunken
area below cliffs associated with previous horticultural and quarrying uses.
There are many well-established trees within the site, mainly close to
boundaries. There are two attractive large trees visible from the public domain
within the rear wider part of the site, closest to the road.
7. The site is located at one end of a stretch of ribbon housing where the typical
pattern of development is frontage dwellings set back from the road with long
rear gardens. There are examples of backland development along Burford
Road but these are the exceptions to the prevailing development pattern, and
in any case, are located further along the road. On one side of the appeal site,
there is landscaped land, including an embankment for the B4477 “Brize
Norton” bypass, whilst on the other side, there are the extensive rear gardens
of the properties at Malt House and Chelford House. Opposite the site, there is
open land and beyond the new estate housing at Carterton.
8. Policy OS2 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan (LP) 2031, adopted 2018, states
that development in small villages, hamlets and open countryside will be
limited to that which requires and is appropriate for a rural location and which
respects the intrinsic character of the area. Amongst its general principles, all
development should form a logical complement to the existing scale, pattern of
development and character, and be of a proportionate and appropriate scale to
its context. Under LP Policy H2, new dwellings in areas identified above will
only be permitted in certain specified and justified circumstances, and where
they meet the general principles. LP Policy H5 states that proposals for SBCH
should be approved in suitable, sustainable locations subject to compliance
with LP Policies OS2 and H2.
9. The plans show indicative siting of two detached dwellings within the rearmost
part of the plot and within the cliff faces of the former quarry. Plot site levels
are generally between 3 and 5 metres lower than the higher surrounding land.
Indicative plans show how the site might be developed. However, the access
matter details would strongly indicate a form and siting of development as
indicatively shown.
10. Frontage ribbon housing does prevail within the area and the dwellings would
be a significant distance from this, including the grouped cottages. The
residential development would not be a logical complement to the pattern of
development within the area, conflicting with a general planning principle under
LP policies. Even if only a single dwelling was located behind the carparking
and turning areas (instead of the two shown) and one dwelling located further
forward in relation to the road, this would still not be a logical complement.
11. Nevertheless, the dwellings, hard surfacing and associated domestic
paraphernalia would be discretely located due to the sunken nature of this part
of the site. The cross-section plan shows only the roofs of dwellings visible
from surrounding adjacent land to the side and rear. For the closest residential
property at Brock Cottage, there is additional vegetation, including an
evergreen hedge, separating it from the new development. There would also
be little visibility of the new housing from Burford Road and properties along it,
due to separation distance. Furthermore, the large size of the appeal site
would give rise to a spacious nature of development in keeping with that along
Burford Road.
12. There is no guarantee that existing screening vegetation would remain
indefinitely, despite the appellant’s clear intentions, because, for any number of
reasons, such as storm damage and disease, vegetation can disappear. During
winter, the largely deciduous nature of vegetation would expose more of the
site to view. A dwelling positioned forward of the existing parking and turning
area would be closer to Burford Road. However, much of the screening is
provided by the quarry cliffs and although reserved for further consideration,
provision could be made for additional landscaping, including evergreen.
13. In a 2008 decision1 for housing on the site, the Inspector dismissed an outline
proposal for housing despite the previous commercial use, the lower rear
ground levels due to the quarrying, the screening provided by trees and
hedgerows, and the secluded nature of the location. Along with this decision
there have been appeal decisions on this and along Burford Road2, where
Inspectors have additionally referred to the rural character and appearance of
the area.
14. However, the appeal proposal is for two dwellings with greater detail of site
levels and on the land on the other side of Burford Road, there is new housing,
Brize Meadow, part of the expansion of Carterton. Although there is a gap
between this housing and the road, the dense and elevated nature of this
housing is a significant intrusion into the area and change in circumstance.
Many of these appeal decisions were also considered against previous local and
national plan policies. Such considerations demonstrate that every proposal
must be considered on its particular planning merits. For these reasons,
limited weight is given to these appeal decisions. The widening of the access
drive would result in the removal of a low-level stone boundary wall and
replacement with a post and rail fence, but its removal would not be a
significant loss given its lack of prominence within the street scene.
15. In summary, the proposed development would not be a logical extension of the
pattern of development along Burford Road and would not respect intrinsic
character. Nevertheless, the adverse impact would be small and localised.
There would be conflict with Policies OS2, H2 and H5 of the LP.
1 APP/D3125/A/08/2079575 Rear of Brock Cottage dated 29 October 2008.
2 APP/D3125/A/09/2112011 (2009 Malt House appeal), APP/D3125/A/12/2185848 (2013 Quarry Dene appeal),
APP/D3125/A/12/2184939 (2013 St Ives appeal), APP/D3125/A/12/2189413 (2013 Apple Acre appeal),
APP/D3125/A/13/2209002 (2014 Rocky Banks appeal), APP/D3125/W/14/2328840 (the 2014 Cottage Garden
appeal), APP/D3125/W/17/3168524 (2017 Quarry Dene Appeal), APP/3125/W/W/21/327244 (2021 Quarry Dene
appeal).
Self-build and Custom Housebuilding
16. To support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of
homes, paragraph 60 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the
Framework) states that it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of
land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with
specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is
developed without unnecessary delay.
17. The SBCH Act 2015 introduced a duty on local authorities to keep a register of
individuals, and associations of individuals, who wished to acquire serviced
plots of land to bring forward for SBCH projects. Councils are required to have
regard to those registers when carrying out planning functions. The Housing
and Planning (HP) Act 2016 provided a duty that Councils must give ‘suitable’
planning permissions to meet the demand for SBCH. Planning Practice
Guidance (PPG)3 states registers are likely to be material considerations in
decisions involving proposals for SBCH.
18. In accordance with the statutory duties, entries of SBCH interest have been
collated for different 12 month base periods; 254 for First Base Period (30
October 2016), 163 for the Second Base Period (30 October 2017), 82 for Third
Base Period (30 October 2018), 193 for Fourth Base Period (30 October 2019),
76 for Fifth Base Period (30 October 2020) and 109 for the Sixth Base Period
(30 October 2021). At the end of each base period, relevant authorities have 3
years to permit an equivalent number of “suitable” permissions for SBCH, as
there are entries for that base period.4
19. The Council has detailed issues of double counting in the entries and lack of
scrutiny over whether the entries are genuine. However, as part of the
registration process relevant authorities can request applicants to provide
additional information, local connection and financial viability tests. A charge
for entry onto the list can also be made. The Council introduced the local
connection test in the Sixth Base Period. In the absence of any detailed and
compelling evidence to the contrary, the recorded entries are the best evidence
before me of demand.
20. There are not enough ‘suitable’ planning permissions to match the SBCH
register entry demand. There is disagreement over the extent of shortfall. LP
Policy H5 also requires all housing developments of 100 or more dwellings to
provide to provide SBCH plots. The Council also considers that replacement
dwellings, conversion and available plots with permissions in general would
contribute to meeting this demand.
21. The legislation also does not define ‘suitable’ planning permissions but the
SBCH in the Framework definition states, housing built by an individual, a
group of individuals, or persons working with them or for them, to be occupied
by that individual. The PPG5 provides further explanation, that relevant
authorities must be satisfied that the initial owner of the home will have
primary input into its final design and layout. This reflects the definition within
HP Act sections 1(A1) and 1(A2).
3 Paragraph:014 Reference ID: 57-014-20105008.
4 Paragraph:023 Reference ID: 57-023-201760728.
5 Paragraph:016 Reference ID: 57-016-201707208.
22. HP Act section 2.A(6)(c) states that a planning permission is suitable
development if it could include SBCH. Although this is looser definition, a lack
of meaningful assurance about SBCH provision would run counter to the aims
of providing such housing. To ensure SBCH provision, there has to be certainty
that the owner or buyer occupies the house for themselves and has had
principal control over the plans and specifications of the house. As the Council
has not adopted a Community Infrastructure Levy, exemption certificates by
SBCH cannot be considered.
23. In terms of supply, there were 0, 7, 61, 13 and 0 planning permissions for
SBCH in the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Base Periods based on
central government published data but there is no detailed evidence by the
Council showing which permissions may be suitable. The appellant’s analysis
of the Council’s Annual Monitoring Reports shows suitable planning permissions
in the Second and Third Base Periods to be 67 and 24, higher than the
published data. Such an assessment takes an optimistic view of suitability for
counting as SBCH permissions, that includes potential SBCH developments and
replacement dwellings. On the balance of evidence before me, the appellant’s
is more compelling, and it can only be concluded that there is a substantial
shortfall in provision during the different periods. In summary, two SBCH
dwellings would make a small, albeit valuable contribution, to meeting demand,
if it was secured by the UU.
Unilateral undertaking
24. The UU seeks the approval of an ‘appropriate’ Marketing Strategy (MS) to
secure the construction and the first occupation of each residential unit as
SBCH. If the SBCH MS is unsuccessful for one or both plots, there is a Release
Procedure mechanism that would enable the applicant/owner to offer the plots
to the Council or at the Council’s discretion, a housing provider. Failure to
reach agreement would result in the owner/applicant being released from their
SBCH obligations.
25. Within the UU, there is no dispute resolution mechanism to consider the pricing
of the plots. Over-priced plots could result in SBCH development not coming
forward. As well as a lack of a dispute mechanism, the obligation indicates the
deemed approval of the MS of the SBCH plots within specified time periods and
there is no explicit provision to accommodate the scenario of the Council
refusing the MS scheme.
26. However, the schedule requires the construction of each residential unit to be
for SBCH and that first occupation of each residential unit shall be by a Self
Builder. The definition of SBCH is set out in the interpretation part of the UU
where it must be constructed by a self builder who intends to live in the
residential unit. Additionally, prior to the legal purchase of a residential unit,
the self builder shall submit details and contact addresses, and the name of the
architect and/or custom builder which the self builder proposes to commission
in relation to the design and development of the SBCH dwelling. Whilst such
requirements are subject to the provisions of the schedule, development of the
plots for general residential could only take place if the 24 month MS for SBCH
was unsuccessful and there was no agreement by the Council or provider in
purchase of the plots or site.
27. UU also specifies that the ‘appropriate’ MS would be for SBCH with plot
passport details, with a reputable estate agent in Oxfordshire and a national
online property sales website, under the ‘Interpretation’ part of the UU.
Furthermore, the Release Procedure mechanism, enabling the offer of plot(s) to
the Council or housing provider, shall include sale terms at open market value
in accordance with the valuation of not less than two RICs qualified surveyors
of not least than 10 years’ experience. This mechanism would ensure that the
plots are being offered fairly to the Council or provider, and this would in turn
deter the over-pricing of the plots for SBCH during the initial 24 month
marketing of the plots. In this regard, an owner/applicant would be strongly
deterred from over-pricing the plots during the extensive time period of the
MS, if there is a corrective mechanism (the Release Procedure mechanism),
after this, which would ensure the offer of the plot(s) to the Council or provider
at a realistic market price.
28. A SBCH occupier could occupy their dwelling and then sell it onto another
occupier shortly afterwards, but such a scenario would be unlikely. The
attractiveness of SBCH is that occupiers invest time and expanse in
construction and designing their homes themselves for permanent occupation.
Importantly, there is no evidence that this scenario occurs based on other
SBCH schemes. Whilst the Council has numerous objections to the UU, it has
to be read as a whole and for all the reasons indicated, the obligation
requirements would ensure provision of SBCH based on the evidence before
me. Accordingly, the obligation would meet the statutory tests of the
Community Infrastructure Regulations 2012 (as amended) and paragraph 57 of
the Framework. In particular, the requirements are necessary to make the
development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development
and are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to it.
Other matters
29. The Council has an undisputed 5 year housing land supply and it has a housing
Delivery Test result of 100%, January 2022, but such targets are not maximum
quotas for housing. The contribution of two dwellings would make a small
contribution to boosting supply. Such small-scale housing would be likely to be
built quickly and would provide a wider choice in housing. It would also
provide a boost to the local economy through its construction and local spend
of residents. New residents would improve social cohesion through the
expansion of the community. Such economic and social benefits would weigh
in favour of the proposal.
30. Brock Cottage has a rear garden and swimming pool to the rear which would
be adjacent to the main part of the appeal site. This amenity area would also
adjoin the access drive leading to the proposed dwellings. To the side of this
neighbouring dwelling and its neighbours, there would also be a passing area
on the access drive. However, the dwellings would be likely to be a significant
distance away from this property and whilst there would be traffic associated
with the development, the frequency and level of vehicle movements for two
dwellings would be small. Consequently, there would be no significant harm to
the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties.
31. Under Articles 8 and 1 (of the First Protocol) of the European Convention on
Human Rights, as enshrined in Human Rights Act 1998, there would be
interference with the occupier’s rights in respect of private and family life, and
the peaceful enjoyment of possessions respectively. These are qualified rights
whereby interference may be justified in the public interest but the concept of
proportionality is crucial. Legitimate and well-founded planning policy requires
the planning system to provide living accommodation for future generations
and for the above reasons, the loss of privacy to the neighbours would not be
significant. In the circumstances, the interference is therefore necessary and
proportionate, and there would not be a violation of the residents’ rights under
Articles 8 and 1.
32. Based on the latest revised plans, there would be a turning area, within the
main part of the site to be developed for the housing, and a widening of the
access drive. Given this, the turning and passing areas would be acceptable.
Any construction hindrances due to a telegraph pole and well would be matters
for any developer of the site. There have been many proposals for housing in
the area. However, proposals are considered on their particular planning
merits, taking into account their particular nature, and therefore, if permission
was to be granted, this decision for SBCH would not create a precedent for
proposals elsewhere in the area.
Planning Balance
33. There would be harm to the character and appearance of the area in conflict
with Policies OS2, H2 and H5 of the LP, and the LP’s strategy of directing
development to settlements with greater facilities and services. There would
be conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. Planning law requires
that applications for planning permission to be determined in accordance with
the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The
Framework makes clear that the planning system should be genuinely plan-led.
34. However, the Council has fallen well short of granting suitable planning
permissions to meet the identified SBCH demand. Although the contribution to
SBCH supply would be small, the extent of the shortfall, the statutory SBCH
duty, and the identified economic and social benefits would cumulatively
amount to substantial weight in the balance. For the reasons indicated, the
harm to the character and appearance of the area would be small. As a result,
material considerations would be of sufficient weight to indicate that the appeal
should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the development plan
and planning permission should be granted.
Conditions
35. Suggested conditions have been considered in light of the advice contained in
Planning Practice Guidance. Some have been amended, shortened and
amalgamated in the interests of clarity and precision taking into account the
guidance. There are pre-commencement condition requirements for the
approval of details where they are a pre-requisite to enable the development to
be constructed. The appellant has raised no objection to these.
36. Conditions are attached limiting the life of the planning permission and set out
the requirements of the submission of reserved matters in accordance with the
Act. As access is a matter to be considered, a condition requiring the
development to be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the
plans is necessary in the interests of proper planning and for the avoidance of
doubt. A design code condition requirement is necessary to ensure satisfactory
Plot Passport details as part of the MS contained in the UU, and the provision of
SBCH. To safeguard trees on the site, a protection plan during works is
necessary.
37. In the interests of biodiversity, conditions are required to prevent harm to
wildlife during development works, provision of bat and bird wall integrated
features, lighting details and ecological management of site features. Such
conditions have been simplified and tailored proportionately given the scale of
the development. In the interests of health and well-being of people, and the
environment, a contamination condition is required to prevent pollution if found
on the site. To prevent surface water flooding, a condition is necessary to
secure acceptable drainage. In the interests of highway safety, conditions are
necessary to require the provision of access, parking and other related matters,
and a construction traffic management plan.
38. A ground/slab level condition is not necessary as this relates to the scale
reserved matter. In the absence of any compelling evidence, it is not
necessary to impose a condition requiring further details on sewage connection,
electricity, foul water disposal and capacity. Public utility connections are
essential living condition requirements that developers have to secure as a
matter of course and, in this case, the provision of this is a technical matter
between them and the utility companies. The satisfactory provision of
broadband is a matter for future residents. A condition requirement relating to
the provision of boundary treatments relates to the landscaping matter and
therefore, it is not necessary. A condition requiring the occupiers of the
dwellings to meet the definition of SBCH is not necessary given this is
contained within UU.
Conclusion
39. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I
conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
Jonathon Parsons
INSPECTOR
Schedule A
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 3 years 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 be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plans: A-01-001 Rev A; A-02-100 Rev B; A-
02-101 Rev B and A-02-102 Rev A (in so far as they relate to the means
of access).
5) No development shall commence until a Development Design Code has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The Development Design Code shall set out the guiding
principles to be applied in the design of any dwelling, associated
structures, hard surfaces and landscaping to be constructed pursuant to
this planning permission. The code shall include maximum building
height, built form, appearance, materials, plot coverage, set back from
plot boundaries, boundary treatment, access and parking facilities,
protection of existing trees and hedges. The design of each dwelling the
subject of this permission shall be developed in accordance with the
approved Development Design Code.
6) No development shall commence until details of ecological protection
measures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The measures shall specify details that seek to
prevent the killing or injuring of small mammals, nesting birds, reptiles
and amphibians when the site is developed. All works, including
demolitions and site clearance, shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved measures.
7) No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place until
a scheme for the protection of retained trees, including fencing and
appropriate working methods, shall have been submitted to and approved
in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be
strictly adhered to during the course of the works on the site. No
unauthorised access or placement of goods, fuels or chemicals, soil or
other materials shall take place inside the fenced tree protection area of
the approved scheme.
8) No external walls shall be erected until details of integrated bat roosting
and nesting bird nesting features within the walls of the new buildings
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The details shall include drawings showing the type of
features, their locations within the site and their positions on the
elevations of the buildings. For each dwelling, the approved details shall
be implemented before first occupation and retained thereafter.
9) No external walls shall be erected until details of external lighting have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the
specifications and locations within the approved details, and shall
thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved details. No
other external lighting shall be installed without the prior written consent
of the local planning authority.
10) Before development is commenced, details of an landscape and
ecological management plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the local planning authority. Such a plan shall include:
(i) Description and evaluation of ecological features to be managed,
including locations shown on a location plan;
(ii) Management aims and objectives;
(iii) Management Scheme, including details of how aims and objectives
are to be achieved;
(iv) Maintenance regimes, including a work schedule (i.e.an annual work
plan or matrix/table) capable of being rolled forward over a 5 to 10
year period);
(v) Details of how the management aims and objectives of the LEMP will
be communicated to the occupiers of the development.
All works, including demolitions and site clearance, shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved LEMP. The site shall thereafter be
managed in accordance with LEMP.
11) In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out
the permitted development, it shall be reported in writing immediately to
the local planning authority. Thereafter, no further works shall take place
on the site and until an investigation and risk assessment has taken
place. Where remediation is necessary, no further works shall take place
on the site and no dwelling shall be occupied until details of a
Remediation Scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the
intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings
and other property has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. Thereafter, the development, hereby permitted,
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Remediation
Scheme.
12) No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a
full surface water drainage scheme has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include
details of the size, position and construction of the drainage scheme and
results of soakage tests carried out at the site to demonstrate the
infiltration rate. A management plan shall set out how the drainage asset
is to be maintained. The development shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved details prior to the first occupation of any of the
dwellings hereby permitted and shall be maintained in accordance with
the management plan thereafter.
13) No dwelling shall be occupied until the vehicular accesses, driveways, car
and cycle parking spaces, turning areas and parking areas to serve that
dwelling have been constructed, laid out, surfaced, lit and drained in
accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority.
14) Occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted shall not take place until
the means of access onto Burford Road has been constructed in
accordance with the approved details. The visibility splays shown on the
approved plans shall be kept free of any obstruction to visibility above
0.9m in height.
15) No development shall take place until a Construction Traffic Management
Plan (CTMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The approved CTMP shall be adhered to throughout
the construction period of the development.
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT
K Cooksley W Legal
M Grimshaw W Legal
C Bellinger Consultumhome
J Mcdermott Allbright Dene Ltd
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY
C Wood West Oxfordshire District Council
R Riding West Oxfordshire District Council
THIRD PARTY
T Merriman Local resident
H Merriman Local resident
Councillor L Gobles Brize Norton Parish Council
T Hinchly Local resident
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT OR AFTER THE HEARING
1. Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Forms (Fourth to Sixth Base Periods).
2. Draft_S.106_Deed_Brock_Cottage_Land 042022 A3 Layout (002)
08.03.2022.docx
3. Draft_S.106_Deed_Brock_Cottage_Land_1024988-V4.docxs.
4. Draft_S.106_Deed_Brock_Cottage_Land_1024988-V4-clean.docx.
5. Draft_S.106_Deed_Brock_Cottage_Land_04222_A3 Layout
(002)08.03.022.docx (another version).
6. West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2021, adopted June 2018.
7. Local Planning Authority Decision notice 08/0276/P/OP -Change of use from
nursery to residential, dated 31 March 2008.
8. Dismissed appeal decision APP/D3125/A/08/2079575, reference Local Planning
Authority decision 08/0276/P/OP, dated 29 October 2008, with plans.
9. Draft_S.106_Deed Brock_Cottage_Land_1024988-V5-CLEAN (002).pdf.
10. Attendance List for Hearing, submitted 11 March 2022.
11. Completed Unilateral Undertaking dated 21 March 2022 with Obligations
relating to Self-Build and Custom Build Dwellings.
12. West Oxfordshire District Council (WODC) comments on the UU dated 4 April
2022.
13. Appellant’s comments on WODC comments, dated 14 June 2022.