Case Reference: 3236860

Appeal Decision
Site Visit made on 28 July 2021
by David Wyborn BSc(Hons) MPhil MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 10 September 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/Y3940/W/19/3236860
Land north of St George's Road, Semington BA14 6JN
• 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 Wiltshire Council.
• The application Ref 19/02147/OUT, dated 26 February 2019, was refused by notice
dated 6 August 2019.
• The development proposed is a residential development of up to 26 dwellings (of which
50% would be affordable) with associated car parking, access, internal roads, public
open space (including retention of the existing WWII Pill Box), landscaping, drainage
and other associated infrastructure.
• This decision supersedes that issued on 17 November 2020. That decision on the appeal
was quashed by order of the High Court.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission granted for a residential
development of up to 26 dwellings (of which 50% would be affordable) with
associated car parking, access, internal roads, public open space (including
retention of the existing WWII Pill Box), landscaping, drainage and other
associated infrastructure at land north of St George’s Road, Semington BA14
6JN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 19/02147/OUT, dated
26 February 2019, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.
Preliminary Matters
2. The application has been made in outline with all matters reserved for future
consideration. Indicative layout and landscaping plans have been submitted
and I have had regard to these plans as to what the appellant has in mind for
the development of the site.
3. The application was refused for five reasons. However, following the
submission of further ecological information and the planning agreement, the
Council confirmed that this addressed the fourth and fifth reasons for refusal.
4. This appeal is a redetermination following the quashing of the previous appeal
decision. I have had regard to the previous appeal letter, where material. That
decision was linked with another appeal for up to 20 dwellings of entry level
affordable housing on part of the present appeal site and was granted outline
planning permission. That decision was not challenged and the permission is
extant1.
1 APP/Y3940/W/20/3253180 dated 17 November 2020
5. As part of this redetermination a deed of variation to the original legal
agreement has been submitted. I will consider these matters later.
6. A revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published
on 20 July 2021. The main parties have been given the opportunity to make
any comments on the implications of the revised Framework to this appeal and
I have taken the comments into account in my considerations.
Main Issues
7. The main issues are:
• whether the development plan would support the proposed residential
development in this location, and
• the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Reasons
Whether the development plan would support the proposed residential
development in this location
8. The development plan includes the Wiltshire Core Strategy (adopted January
2015) (Core Strategy) and the Wiltshire Housing Site Allocations Plan (Adopted
February 2020) (Site Allocations Plan). Core Policy (CP) 1 of the Core Strategy
establishes the settlement strategy for the plan area which includes Principal
Settlements, Market Towns, Local Service Centres, and Large and Small
villages. Large Villages are defined as settlements with a limited range of
employment, services and facilities.
9. Policy CP1 explains that development at Large (and Small) Villages will be
limited to that needed to help meet the housing needs of settlements and to
improve employment opportunities, services and facilities. The accompanying
text says that the settlement boundaries at Large Villages will be reviewed as
part of the Site Allocations Plan and that development outside the settlement
boundary will be strictly controlled. Within those boundaries it is explained that
development will predominantly take the form of small housing and
employment sites and that a small housing site is defined as sites involving less
than 10 dwellings.
10. Policy CP2 of the Core Strategy sets out the delivery strategy and again
explains, subject to some limited exceptions, that development will not be
permitted outside the defined limits, effectively the settlement boundary.
11. Policy CP15 of the Core Strategy establishes the spatial strategy and housing
distribution for the Melksham Community Area and identifies Semington as a
Large Village. The settlement boundary for Semington was fairly recently
reviewed and forms part of the Site Allocations Plan.
12. The appeal site lies outside the defined settlement boundary and, therefore, is
located on land considered to be countryside for planning purposes. In
particular, the southern boundary of the appeal site adjoins the settlement
boundary in St George’s Road, opposite the housing, and a small section of the
appeal site, near the pill box, adjoins that part of the settlement boundary for a
short section.
13. The proposal is not advanced as a rural exception site and the scheme would
not accord with any other policy exception for development outside a
settlement boundary. In any case, the site is for up to 26 dwellings and beyond
the definition of a small housing site, even if it was within the development
boundary. Accordingly the scheme would not comply with the approach set out
in the Core Strategy for the development of housing at Large Villages.
14. It follows that I conclude that the development plan would not support the
proposed residential development in this location and, in particular, it would
conflict with Policies CP1, CP2 and CP15 of the Core Strategy which establishes
the strategy for the distribution of development across the plan area.
Character and appearance
15. The appeal site consists of about the top half of an agricultural field than runs
between St George’s Road and Pound Lane. On the other side of St George’s
Road is a reasonably modern housing estate and the Grade II Listed former St
George’s Hospital. On the eastern side of the site is a public right of way
behind an established hedge and then a garden/orchard, tennis courts and
parking area. In the corner of the site is a World War II pill box, a non-
designated heritage asset. The appeal site merges seamlessly with the rest of
the agricultural field to the north and beyond this field are other fields that
border the Kennet and Avon Canal. There is a poor quality field boundary to the
west of the site, beyond which are further fields and open countryside.
16. The appeal field is effectively the first open land outside the settlement on the
western side of this part of Semington. It has an open and agricultural
character and slopes gently from the south, down to the broadly north. This
slope allows clear views of the site from sections of the public rights of way
network to the broadly north, such as from right of way (SEMI 6) that
diagonally crosses the field near the Kennet and Avon Canal and from the
Canal tow path including from and near the swingbridge. In these views the
field forms a prominent element in open and expansive views of the wider
countryside. However, the field is also seen in the context of the St George’s
Hospital building, the adjoining housing on the higher land and some of the
housing nearby in Pound Lane.
17. The illustrative plan with the landscaping strategy shows an option for the
development of the site. This approach would create a landscaped boundary to
the north edge of the appeal site, reinstating a previous boundary, would
incorporate the strengthening of the western boundary planting and would
provide open space and planting within the site. I am satisfied that the extent
of housing proposed would allow, with appropriate details at the reserved
matters stage, generous space for a landscaping scheme. An appropriate
landscaping scheme, once matured, would likely soften the impact of the
housing in the views from the broadly north.
18. It would also be possible at the reserved matters stage to ensure that the ridge
heights of the new dwellings did not exceed the existing buildings on the other
side of St George’s Road such that these buildings would still form a backdrop.
Nevertheless, the slope of the site would mean that the extent of the proposed
buildings, which would step down the appeal site, would still be apparent in the
wider public views from the broadly north.
19. A generous landscaping scheme would also assist in providing some transition
from the built form of the settlement to the open countryside beyond.
However, the effect of the scheme would still appear as an incursion of
development into undeveloped countryside extending the presence of the
settlement in the landscape. The change in the character of the landscape in
these views from the broadly north, including along sections of the tow path,
would be quite marked. Even taking into account all the circumstances I have
found, and the ability to mitigate some of the impact with landscaping and the
presence of some other built development, I consider that the harm to the
character and appearance of the area, in the views from the broadly north,
would be fairly significant.
20. In this way the scheme would not meet with the Framework policy approach
that decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local
environment by recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the
countryside.
21. I have taken into account all the landscape evidence from the main parties and
also had regard to the analysis and conclusions from the two previous
Inspectors who have considered development proposals on this field in the
past. The up to 50 dwellings scheme2 covered the whole field and is a different
scale of development with a different impact on the countryside at the edge of
this village. Whilst taking into account all this background, I have,
nevertheless, formed my own views of the merits of the proposal based on the
evidence before me and my site visit.
22. Notwithstanding my analysis and the conclusions set out above, I am also
conscious that the appeal for up to 20 dwellings of entry level affordable
housing succeeded and therefore part of the appeal site benefits from a
planning permission for residential development. This permission, subject to
approval of the reserved matters, would be capable of being implemented. The
appellant in the further statements as part of this redetermination has
commented that even if this appeal was to be dismissed then the site would
still be developed for housing. The approved scheme for up to 20 dwellings has
a real prospect of being implemented and is a material consideration of
substantial weight. This fallback position effectively changes the baseline
against which the impact of the appeal scheme on the character and
appearance of the area should be judged.
23. The up to 20 dwelling scheme has a smaller site area than the present appeal
proposal, very broadly about half the size. The permitted housing would be
located within the top section of the field adjoining St George’s Road and an
illustrative plan was submitted with a possible layout. Comparatively, to the
present appeal scheme, the up to 20 dwelling scheme would be a denser
development and would have, in all likelihood, less scope for landscaping as a
proportion of the application site. With the approved scheme, the boundary
with the remainder of the field to the north would be irregular and would not
appear as a characteristic feature of the landscape. While more of the field
would remain undeveloped, the presence of the built form would still extend
out into the countryside and have a harmful presence.
2 APP/Y3940/W/16/3164255 - The application was originally submitted as a scheme for 72 dwellings. This was
reduced to 50 dwellings prior to the appeal.
24. The appeal proposal would have up to six more dwellings and because the
scheme would include open market housing, some of the dwellings are likely to
be larger than those within the up to 20 dwelling scheme as all those units
would be for entry level affordable housing. Nevertheless, the size of the
appeal site is proportionately greater and this would allow a more extensive
landscaping scheme, would provide the scope for a gentler transition at the
edge of the settlement and also would have a more characteristic and linear
boundary with the remainder of the field. Taking all these matters together, I
consider that the appeal scheme would, on balance, be more harmful than the
up to 20 dwelling scheme because of the likely size of buildings and the extent
of built coverage on a larger site, although the appeal scheme is not without its
comparative benefits. On this basis and in these views from the broadly north,
the comparative harm to the landscape, having regard to the approved
development, would be likely to be moderately greater.
25. While the views from the broadly north are very important, there are also other
important landscape issues to consider including that the site would be viewed
from the adjoining section of St George’s Road and from the public right of way
to the side of the site.
26. St George’s Road passes along part of the frontage of the site as far as the
junction with St George’s Place. The existing housing, however, extends further
to the west and would be broadly opposite the extent of the appeal site. Within
St George’s Road, while the hedge to the front of the site provides a feature
that softens the appearance of the street scene, the road has a fairly built up
feel. This appearance is formed by the surroundings including housing, the
large St George’s Hospital building, the tennis courts and associated parking
area, and the road itself with a footway and street lighting. The introduction of
housing on the appeal site would not markedly alter the character of this
section of St George’s Road and, in any case, the permitted up to 20 dwelling
scheme would, in all likelihood, have a broadly similar presence as the appeal
proposal.
27. A public right of way (SEMI 9) connects St George’s Road with Pound Lane. It
seems that the boundary hedge adjoining the appeal site has been allowed to
grow up and there are now reasonably limited views from the right of way out
towards the countryside. The long open views which the Inspector refers to in
her decision of December 2017 were not especially evident to me at my site
visit. The route is also influenced by the chain link fence adjoining the
garden/orchard area and by the tall fencing that borders the existing housing.
As a consequence, the route is not one with an entirely countryside feel.
Nevertheless, the presence of built development within the field would be likely
to be perceptible to walkers, particularly at times of the year when the leaves
may not be on the vegetation. Taking all these matters into account, including
the visual effect that the up to 20 unit scheme would have if constructed, there
would be a moderate loss of rural character experienced by users of the right
of way which would result from the appeal proposal.
28. Other evidence shows how Semington has grown organically over time,
particularly with the development of parcels of land to the west of the main
core of the settlement. This includes the development of St George’s Place
which has pushed development further to the broadly south west. Also, once
the permitted housing on the land to the east of the St George’s Hospital is
constructed this open space would be lost and a more continuous developed
appearance within St George’s Road would result. The development of the
appeal site would be a further incremental growth of the settlement area and
form a further incursion into undeveloped countryside. However, given the
pattern of the built form and, in particular, the position and visual influence of
St George’s Place on the other side of the road, the appeal site would not be
out of scale or unduly alter the pattern of the built form of the settlement as a
whole.
29. Drawing all these matters together, the scheme would extend development
into undeveloped countryside and the character of this field at the edge of the
settlement would change. However, the site is already experienced in the
context of some other surrounding built form and a permission exists for
residential development on part of the site. The appeal site would be of
sufficient size to allow a comprehensive landscaping scheme at the reserved
matters stage that would help to soften the transition of the development with
the adjoining open fields. However, the extent of built form and size of the
appeal site would result in a noticeable incursion of buildings away from the
edge of the settlement. Overall, I conclude that this would cause moderate
additional harm to the character and appearance of the area compared to the
approved scheme for up to 20 dwellings. Accordingly, the proposal would not
comply with Policies CP51 and CP57 of the Core Strategy which seek, notably,
that development should protect, conserve and where possible enhance
landscape character.
Other Matters
30. I have taken into account all the letters of representation, including the
objections from local residents and the Parish Council. A wide range of
concerns have been raised. The objections include the size of the site and
related number of dwellings and the sustainability of the location in terms of
access to services and facilities. These are matters which I consider later in this
decision.
31. St George’s Road is reasonably narrow in places and has pinch points. While
the development would increase traffic movements, the Highway Authority has
not raised objection to the scheme on safety or other grounds and this does
not form a reason for refusal. I have found no reason to disagree with this
assessment.
32. The proposal is in outline and details at the reserved matters stage should be
able to address the requirements regarding drainage capacity and surface
water. Any substantive issues in relation to capacity at the local school and
impact on play areas would be addressed by the planning agreement.
33. I am satisfied that issues regarding the ecological impact of the development
have now been adequately addressed and can be the subject of conditions in
any approval.
34. Representations set out in detail the findings that led to the previous decisions,
including appeal decisions, on this land. In particular, I have had regard to the
analysis and conclusions of those Inspectors who determined appeals on the
site in reaching my overall conclusions. However, I am required to assess the
scheme on its merits, based on the situation before me with this scheme for up
to 26 dwellings, including the latest position on housing land supply and in the
light of the approval for residential development on part of the site.
35. St George’s Hospital is a Grade II listed building. I am mindful of the duty to
have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings, their
setting and features of special architectural or historic interest which they
possess. This was a matter which was considered as part of the 2017 appeal
which included the present appeal land. I have carefully considered the present
proposal and its effect on this heritage asset and I am satisfied that there
would be no harm to the setting of St George’s Hospital in this case.
36. The pill box is located in the corner of the site and can be considered a non-
designated heritage asset. It was constructed as part of a network of WWII
defences along the canal. The indicative layout shows that the proposal is likely
to maintain the visual link from the pill box to the canal and therefore the
proposal would not adversely affect this asset.
Planning Agreement
37. Originally a planning agreement, dated 20 October 2020, was submitted. This
set out obligations in respect of education, open space, play areas, leisure and
waste facilities and maintenance of open space. Policies CP3, CP43 and CP52 of
the Core Strategy and Policy LP4 of the Leisure and Recreation Development
Plan Document (2009) requires all new housing development of this scale to
address the demand for these provisions that would result from the proposal.
38. I am satisfied that these obligations are necessary to make the development
acceptable in planning terms, are directly related to the development and are
fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
Consequently, they would meet the tests set out in Regulation 122 of the
Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.
39. As part of these appeal proceedings a deed of variation to the original
agreement revises the affordable housing contribution and has been signed and
dated by all parties. This now specifies that at least 50% of the residential units
shall be affordable housing. This accords with the description of the
development. Policy CP43 of the Core Strategy sets out the policy approach to
the delivery of affordable housing. The site falls within the 30% zone where
schemes of five or more dwellings should provide at least 30% of the units as
affordable housing.
40. The policy does not preclude delivering more than 30% and the present
scheme has an obligation for the 50% delivery of affordable units, which would
equate to up to 13 dwellings in this case. For the reasons I shall explain later in
this decision, I consider that this level of affordable housing, as set out in the
agreement, is necessary in terms of the overall planning balance. I therefore
find that this obligation meets the Framework tests for obligations. In
particular, the obligations in respect of affordable housing are necessary to
make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the
development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the
development. The affordable housing obligations would meet the tests set out
in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. I
therefore attribute this and all the other obligations, full weight.
Planning Balance
41. The appeal proposal would be contrary to Policies CP1, CP2 and CP15 of the
Core Strategy because, in particular, of the size of the development and the
location of the site outside the settlement area. Furthermore, it would be
contrary to Policies CP51 and CP57 of the Core Strategy because of the harm
that would be caused to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly,
I consider the proposal would conflict with the development plan when taken as
a whole.
42. It is accepted by the main parties, that the Council is unable to demonstrate a
5 year supply of deliverable housing land. The Council has indicated that the
latest position demonstrates a housing land supply of 4.56 years. This situation
has worsened slightly compared to the previous Council calculations of 4.62
years. The appellant has previously calculated that the supply was at 4.40
years. While this range may be considered a modest shortfall, nevertheless, in
these circumstances, the presumption in favour of sustainable development as
set out in paragraph 11d of the Framework is engaged. This indicates that
planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so
would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed
against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.
43. In the light of this position, I need to consider the weight that should be
attached to the conflict with the development plan policies. As a starting point,
Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy specifies the settlement strategy which links to
the housing requirement for Wiltshire in the period 2006 to 2026 for the
provision of at least 42,000 homes. Policy CP2 identifies the minimum
requirement of 24,740 homes in the North and West Wiltshire Housing Market
Area (HMA), in which Semington is located.
44. Policy CP15 of the Core Strategy addresses the Melksham Community Area and
explains that over the plan period approximately 2,370 new homes are to be
provided of which about 2,240 should occur at Melksham with approximately
130 elsewhere in the Community Area.
45. The supporting text to the Core Strategy explains that the HMAs will form the
appropriate scale for disaggregation across Wiltshire. It is explained that the
indicative requirements for each Community Area are intended to allow a
flexible approach to respond positively to opportunities without being inhibited
in an overly prescriptive, rigid approach which might otherwise prevent
sustainable development proposals that can contribute to maintaining a
deliverable five year housing supply.
46. The Housing Land Supply Statement (Published December 2020) shows that
the housing supply within the North and West Wiltshire HMA is 4.29 years, the
lowest of the three HMAs. Within the Melksham Community Area the data
indicates that with delivered housing and commitments the indicative housing
figures would be met. However, while this Community Area is meeting its
indicative figures, it would not provide a strong rationale in itself to prevent
further development because the strategy approach is based on the HMA,
where there is only 4.29 years of housing land, and those in need of housing
could move to the community area to access housing that might not otherwise
be available in the wider HMA.
47. I have been referred by both parties to a number of appeal decisions, many
within the Wiltshire area and others beyond, which it is argued should establish
in this appeal the approach and weight that should be attached to the various
housing considerations. These decisions are of varying age and circumstance
and with some of the Wiltshire sites the decision was made at a time when the
Council was able to demonstrate a five year housing supply. For instance, this
was the case in 2017 when the appeal proposal for up to 50 dwellings at the
site was determined. These decisions provide broadly relevant information but
are not directly instructive because they have been determined in the light of
all their site specific and locational circumstances at that time. I therefore
attach them limited weight and I have determined this appeal based on the
evidence before me and the particular circumstances that are now present with
this site.
48. I am also conscious that the settlement boundary for Semington was recently
confirmed in the Site Allocations Plan and that the Site Allocations Plan also
identifies land for development to assist with meeting the required housing
land supply. I have taken into account the Council’s information that more sites
are coming through the system and that the permissions have been granted
but not yet built out. However, at the present time the Council is not able to
demonstrate the required housing land supply and this is, I consider, in part
due to the restrictions placed on housing development by the settlement
strategy and settlement boundaries in the approach set out in Policies CP1 and
CP2 of the Core Strategy.
49. In terms of possible locations where development could be located to help
address the housing shortfall, the village of Semington does have some
services and facilities, and these include the primary school, public house,
village hall and church. There is no shop, significant employment opportunities,
medical centre or secondary school. I noted the position of the bus stops in
relation to the appeal site at my site visit. The level of the bus service appears
to be reasonable during the working day but not so in the evenings and
weekends. I have also had regard to the letter from Stagecoach on the nature
of the service and the available connections to adjoining towns and
employment sites. I consider that the bus service would provide an option for
some occupants of the site to access services and facilities outside the village
on some occasions. There is also a cycle route that would allow access to
Melksham and the industrial estate at Bowerhill, a large source of employment
land.
50. Semington has Large Village status as identified in Policy CP15 of the Core
Strategy and benefits from the bus service and cycle link. Nevertheless, it is
also likely that occupants of the proposed housing would have, to a fairly
reasonable extent, a dependence on the private vehicle to access many
services and facilities. The scheme would also be larger than the scale of
development, being over 10 units, that is considered appropriate, even within
the settlement area for a Large Village.
51. By way of other considerations, the case of the approved development for 24
units to the east of St George’s Hospital has been raised. That outline
permission was approved in 2017 and the extracts of the officer report indicate
that the Council concluded at that time that Semington was an acceptable
location for this level of housing. The Council has explained that there was a
different planning judgement and site specific balance of considerations
involved with that decision including that the scheme would not cause
landscape harm. I accept that each decision needs to be decided on its merits
and that the decision does not set a precedent. Nevertheless, that proposal is
of a similar scale to the present scheme, within the same road, also located
outside the settlement boundary and was determined under the present Core
Strategy, such that the principle involved with that approval does lend some
support to the appellant’s arguments in favour of the present appeal scheme.
52. Drawing all these matters together, due to the Council’s housing supply
situation, the location of the site outside the settlement area and the size of
the proposal is not definitive in this case. Importantly, the site would be
towards the edge of the settlement and occupiers would have some ability to
sustainably access some local services and facilities although there would be a
dependence on the private vehicle for most journeys. In any case, a
development of up to 20 dwellings, with the resulting residents and travel
movements, could already be built on part of the site. I therefore attribute the
conflict with the locational policies of the Core Strategy, in particular Policies
CP1, CP2 and CP15 of the Core Strategy, limited weight.
53. In terms of landscape impact, Policies CP51 and CP57 of the Core Strategy are
generally Framework compliant and I attribute the scheme’s conflict with these
policies substantial weight. However, for the reasons explained, because of the
presence of the fallback position resulting from the approved housing scheme
on part of the appeal site, the additional harm to the landscape by comparison
would be moderate.
54. In terms of the benefits of the scheme, the provision of the open market
dwellings would accord with the Framework intention to significantly boost the
supply of housing. I attribute this matter substantial weight.
55. In relation to the affordable housing, the Council explain that the affordable
housing need for Semington has already been met by the scheme for 24 units
to the east of St George’s Hospital. However, the information in the Statement
of Common Ground indicates that there has been a substantial shortfall with
the delivery of affordable housing across Wiltshire in the past3 and that this has
worsened since the appeal decision for up to 50 units in December 2017. The
delivery of affordable housing on the site is, therefore, an important benefit to
the area in general.
56. The approved housing scheme already permits up to 20 units of entry level
affordable dwellings. This scheme was justified under a different policy regime,
gaining support from the now paragraph 72 of the Framework.
57. The present scheme, if it was to deliver 26 units in total and meet the
minimum policy requirement under Policy CP43 of the Local Plan of 30% of
affordable dwellings, this would deliver only about 8 units of affordable
accommodation. This would not compare favourably with the fallback option on
the site. Consequently, the proposal to deliver 50% of the appeal scheme (up
to 13 units) as affordable dwellings is a valuable improvement above the policy
minimum, even though it would not attain the same numerical number as the
approved scheme if all 20 units were constructed. Indeed, I consider that the
higher percentage of affordable housing is a necessary element of the scheme
to make the development acceptable in planning terms. The planning
agreement provides for this requirement. On the basis of the delivery of 50%
of the units as affordable I attach the provision of affordable housing on the
site substantial weight.
3 The Council and the appellant agree that there has been a -52% shortfall in delivery compared to identified
needs, totalling -5,760 affordable homes across the period 2009 to 2017/18.
58. In terms of other benefits, the provision of the public open space, biodiversity
benefits and other financial contributions through the planning agreement,
some of which mitigate the effects of the development, would be valuable but
modest in extent. I attribute them limited weight.
59. There would be economic and social benefits from the construction of the
development and the subsequent occupation of the housing. The spend locally
from the additional residents would be fairly limited but would make a
worthwhile contribution, and would assist with maintaining the vitality of this
village community. Paragraph 81 of the Framework requires that significant
weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and
productivity. The expenditure and employment from the construction is
therefore a matter of significant weight, although this is tempered by the
temporary nature of the build period.
60. When examining all the various planning considerations, the harm that I have
identified, including with the conflict with the development plan and the harm
to the character and appearance of the area, needs to be balanced against the
fairly considerable benefits of the scheme which I have outlined above. Given
my analysis of the respective weights attributed to the harm and the benefits
of the scheme, I conclude that the adverse impacts of granting planning
permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits,
when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole. On this
basis, the scheme would benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable
development and this weighs heavily in favour of the development.
61. In the light of the above analysis I consider that other material considerations
are of such weight in favour of the scheme that they indicate that a decision
should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.
Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.
Conditions
62. I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council and the advice in
the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. I have amended the wording
where necessary in the interests of clarity or to meet the tests in the Guidance.
The statutory outline time limits are required and a condition specifying the
approved plans is necessary in the interests of certainty.
63. The recommended conditions on the timing for the provision of the soft
landscaping and the landscape maintenance plan relate to the landscaping of
the site. As this is a reserved matter, these details would be covered by the
subsequent submissions and, if such conditions are necessary at that stage,
they can be attached to the approval at that time.
64. A condition is necessary to ensure that surface and storm water is satisfactorily
dealt with in interests of preventing flooding and the provision of adequate
drainage. The condition does not need to be a pre-commencement condition
and I have revised the wording accordingly.
65. A condition requiring a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan is
necessary to identify responsibilities for on-going management of features of
landscape and ecological importance. A condition requiring a Construction
Environment Management Plan is necessary to protect sensitive ecological
areas during construction. The details of both these Management Plans need to
be agreed and implemented from the outset. Consequently, it is necessary that
these requirements are pre-commencement conditions.
66. A condition is necessary to ensure adequate mitigation is agreed and
implemented to safeguard protected species with regard to lighting.
Biodiversity enhancement measures are necessary to be secured by condition
to ensure that biodiversity objectives for the development are met. A condition
is necessary to secure the provision of a footpath to the east of the access in
the interests of highway safety.
67. The pill box lies within the development site. It is necessary in the interests of
conserving this non-designated heritage asset that a condition specifies and
requires the conservation and interpretation of this building.
Conclusion
68. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
David Wyborn
INSPECTOR
Schedule of Conditions
1) Details of the access, 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: OXF-221-SUR-001 Rev A (Site
Location Plan) and 160237 (Topographical Survey).
5) No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until surface water
drainage works (including surface water from the access and driveways)
shall have been implemented in accordance with details that shall first
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. Before any details are submitted to the local planning authority
an assessment shall be carried out of the potential for disposing of
surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system, having regard
to Defra's non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage
systems (or any subsequent version), and the results of the assessment
shall have been provided to the local planning authority. Where a
sustainable drainage scheme is to be provided, the submitted details
shall:
i) provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the
method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged
from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the
receiving groundwater and/or surface waters;
ii) include a timetable for its implementation; and,
iii) provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the
development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by
any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other
arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its
lifetime.
6) No development shall take place until a Landscape and Ecological
Management Plan (LEMP) has been submitted to, and approved in writing
by the local planning authority. The content of the LEMP shall include, but
not necessarily be limited to, the following information:
i) Description and evaluation of features to be managed;
ii) Landscape and ecological trends and constraints on site that might
influence management;
iii) Aims and objectives of management;
iv) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives;
v) Prescriptions for management actions;
vi) Preparation of a work schedule including an annual work plan
capable of being rolled forward over a five year period;
vii) Details of the body or organisation responsible for implementation of
the plan;
viii) Ongoing monitoring and remedial measures;
ix) Details of how the aims and objectives of the LEMP will be
communicated to future occupiers of the development.
The plan shall also set out how contingencies and/or remedial action will
be identified, agreed and implemented where the results from monitoring
show that the conservation aims and objectives of the LEMP are not being
met. The LEMP shall be implemented as approved.
7) No development shall take place (including any site clearance or ground
works) until a Construction Environment Management Plan has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
Plan shall provide for:
i) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities;
ii) Identification of any biodiversity protection zones;
iii) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working
practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be
provided as a set of method statements);
iv) The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to
biodiversity features;
v) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be
present on site to oversee works;
vi) Responsible persons and lines of communication;
vii) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works or
similarly competent person;
viii) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs; and
ix) Ongoing monitoring, including compliance checks by a competent
person(s) during construction and immediately post-completion of
construction works.
The approved Construction Environment Management Plan shall be
adhered to throughout the construction period for the development.
8) No external lighting shall be installed on site until plans showing the type
of light appliance, the height direction and position of fitting, illumination
levels and light spillage in accordance with the appropriate Environmental
Zone standards set out by the Institute of Lighting Engineers in their
publication Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light (ILE,
2005), or any updated version of the guidance, have been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submission
shall:
i) Identify those areas within the vicinity that are particularly sensitive
for foraging or commuting bats;
ii) Show how and where external lighting will be installed (through the
provision of appropriate lighting contour plans and technical
specifications, including a Lux plot) so that it can be clearly
demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent bats
using their territory or having access to their breeding sites and
resting places; and
iii) Specify luminaries, heights and positions of fittings, direction and
other features, e.g. cowls, louvres or baffles.
The approved lighting shall be installed and shall be maintained in
accordance with the approved details and no additional external lighting
shall be installed.
9) Prior to or alongside the submission of the reserved matters, details of
biodiversity enhancement measures to be undertaken within the site shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The agreed scheme shall be implemented in full within a timeframe to be
agreed in writing with the local planning authority and maintained
thereafter.
10) No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until a properly
consolidated and surfaced footpath of two metres width has been
provided across the site frontage to the east of the access.
11) No dwelling shall be occupied until a scheme and timetable for the
conservation and interpretation of the heritage asset (historic pillbox) has
been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The
works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
End of Schedule