Case Reference: 3296251

Our ref: APP/Q3115/W/22/3296251
Adam Day
Wardell Armstrong LLP
Sir Henry Doulton House
Forge Lane
Etruria 10 October 2023
Stoke on Trent
ST1 5BD
Dear Sir
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION S.78
APPEAL MADE BY [APPELLANT]
LAND OFF PAPIST WAY, CHOLSEY, OXFORDSHIRE OX10 9PA
APPLICATION REF: P21/S1503/O
This decision was made by Rachel Maclean MP, Minister of State for Housing and
Planning, on behalf of the Secretary of State
1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the
report of PW Clark, MA(Oxon), MA (TRP) MRTPI, MCMI, who held a public local inquiry
on 31 August, 1, 2, 6-9 and 13 September 2022 into your client’s appeal against the
decision of South Oxfordshire District Council to refuse your client’s application for
planning permission for a Mixed Use development comprising up to 350 C3 residential
dwellings, C2 Care and Assisted Living, E(a) retail, E(g) employment space, F2
Community Building, E(e) Daycare Nursery, Open Space and Landscaping, in
accordance with application Ref. P21/S1503/O dated 24 March 2021.
2. On 25 August 2022 this appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State's determination,
in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country
Planning Act (TCPA) 1990.
Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision
3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be dismissed.
4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s
conclusions, except where noted, and agrees with his recommendation. He has decided
to dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission. A copy of the Inspector’s report
(IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to
that report.
Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities Email: PCC@levellingup.gov.uk
Phil Barber, Decision Officer
Planning Casework Unit
Environmental Statement
5. In reaching this position, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental
Statement which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental
Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and the environmental information submitted
before the inquiry opened. Having taken account of the Inspector’s comments at IR2-7
the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Environmental Statement and other additional
information provided complies with the above Regulations and that sufficient information
has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the proposal.
Matters arising since the close of the inquiry
6. A number of changes have occurred since the close of inquiry. The Secretary of State
referred back to parties on 24 August 2023. He sought the parties’ views of the
implications, if any, of a decision on a planning appeal at Land off the B480, Chalgrove,
dated 5 May 2023, any other changes to housing land supply (HLS), including, but not
limited to, the grant of planning permission for 100 dwellings at Newham Manor
P16/S3852/FUL and 19 dwellings at Land adjacent to the Orchard, Benson, Oxfordshire
P21/S0882/O; and the adoption by the Council on 3 January 2023 of the South
Oxfordshire Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule and the Developer
Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).
7. Replies were recirculated on 18 September 2023 and 26 September 2023. The Secretary
of State’s conclusions on these matters are set out at paragraphs 20-25 and 38-39
below.
8. A number of other representations on the case have been received since the inquiry. The
Secretary of State is satisfied that the issues raised do not affect his decision, and no
other new issues were raised in this correspondence to warrant further investigation or
necessitate additional referrals back to parties. A list of all representations which have
been received since the inquiry is at Annex A. Copies of these letters may be obtained on
request to the email address at the foot of the first page of this letter.
Policy and statutory considerations
9. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (PCPA) 2004 which requires that proposals be
determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations
indicate otherwise.
10. In this case the development plan consists of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local
Plan Part 1 – Core Strategy, South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011-2035 (SOLP), and the
Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan (CNP) made on 11 April 2019 and the reviewed Cholsey
Neighbourhood Plan made on 13 October 2022. The Secretary of State considers that
relevant development plan policies include those set out at IR25-27.
11. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include
the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) and associated planning
guidance (‘the Guidance’). A new version of the Framework was issued on 5 September
2023; however as the changes relate solely to onshore wind development, and are not
relevant to this appeal, the Secretary of State has not taken them into account in
reaching his decision.
12. In accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the
desirability of preserving those listed buildings potentially affected by the proposals, or
their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may
possess.
Emerging plan
13. The Secretary of State has had regard to the fact South Oxfordshire and Vale of White
Horse District Councils have agreed to work together to produce a Joint Local Plan. An
‘Issues Consultation’ concluded in 2022, and the Councils next expect to publish a Joint
Local Plan ‘Preferred Options’ consultation document that will set out proposed policies
and any proposed sites for development.
14. Paragraph 48 of the Framework states that decision makers may give weight to relevant
policies in emerging plans according to: (1) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan;
(2) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies in the
emerging plan; and (3) the degree of consistency of relevant policies to the policies in the
Framework. Given the early stage of preparation, the Secretary of State concludes that
that the emerging Joint Local Plan carries very little weight.
Main issues
Character and landscape
15. For the reasons given at IR318-329 the Secretary of State agrees at IR329 that there
would be no significant visual effects on the landscape in terms of long distance views or
of views from the Chilterns and North Wessex Downs Areas of Outstanding Natural
Beauty (the AONBs) and their setting. He further agrees that there would only be minor
or moderate adverse effects on the limited extent to which the site is visible in medium
distance views, and so, only similar limited effects on the setting of the village of Cholsey.
He further agrees that the transformational effects on the site itself would eliminate views
enjoyed by private households but would provide some public benefits to the appearance
of the edge of Cholsey and to the physical integration of its parts, albeit moderated by the
severance which would be caused by the large road junctions to access the scheme
required by the local authorities. He further agrees that the overall effect on landscape
character would be neutral (IR329). He agrees with the Inspector that because the CNP
defines a settlement boundary for the village, the site is defined as countryside and so, by
definition, its development would contradict SOLP policy STRAT1 (IR329). He considers
it would also be in conflict with CNP policy STRAT 1 (now policy CNP1) due to the
conflict with the spatial strategy, which seeks to restrict inappropriate development in the
countryside outside the village built up area boundary (IR344). The Secretary of State
also agrees that the proposal would represent sustainable development in terms of its
effects on landscape character and would be consistent with SOLP policy ENV1 (IR329).
16. Paragraph 176 of the Framework states that great weight should be given to conserving
and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs, and that development within
their setting should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse
impacts on the designated areas. The Secretary of State has taken this into account. In
light of his conclusions above, he considers that the impact of the proposal on the
character and appearance of the area, including the impact on the setting of the AONBs,
is neutral in the planning balance.
Education
17. For the reasons given at IR339 and IR386, the Secretary of State agrees that the
proposal’s policy-compliant contribution to education premises would not represent
sustainable development in terms of its effects on social infrastructure. He further agrees
for the reasons given at IR340 and IR385 that these social effects represent harm which
would result from the development not complying with the spatial strategy set out in the
Council’s development plan (IR340). He agrees at IR386 that this is a manifestation of
the proposal’s conflict with the spatial development strategy of the SOLP (policy
STRAT1), and CNP policies STRAT1 And EMP2).
Development Strategy
18. For the reasons given at IR341-342, the Secretary of State agrees that for the purposes
of the development plan strategy this appeal scheme is to be classed as a large-scale
major development, which is intended to be focused at Didcot and Culham, not at
Cholsey. The proposal therefore conflicts with SOLP Policy STRAT1.
19. The Secretary of State agrees at IR343 that Cholsey has supported a locally appropriate
level of housing growth in the village, in accordance with objective (now policy) CNP
STRAT1 and has front-loaded its achievement of that target. For the reasons given at
IR343-345 the Secretary of State agrees that two of the circumstances set out in
paragraph 14 of the Framework apply, as the reviewed neighbourhood plan has become
part of the development plan two years or less before the date on which this decision has
been made (paragraph 14(a)), and the neighbourhood plan contains policies and
allocations to meet its identified housing requirement (paragraph 14(b)) (IR382).
Housing delivery and HLS
20. The Secretary of State agrees that the Council’s housing delivery since the start of the
Local Plan period has been in excess of requirements and, whatever the accuracy of its
forecasts, delivery over the previous three years has been well in excess of the 95%
threshold indicated in paragraph 76 of the Framework (IR346). He therefore agrees that
the circumstance set out in paragraph 14(d) of the Framework applies, i.e. that the local
planning authority’s housing delivery was at least 45% of that required over the previous
three years (IR382).
21. The Secretary of State has gone on to consider the question of housing land supply. He
agrees with the Inspector’s approach as set out in IR347-353.
22. As set out in paragraph 6 above, the Secretary of State sought parties’ views on the
current HLS position in the light of a number of decisions since the inquiry. In response
the Council submitted a copy of the HLS Statement for South Oxfordshire Council, dated
September 2023, which sets out the position that the Council can demonstrate a 4.2 year
supply of housing land. The appellant put forward an assessment that on the evidence of
delivery of a number of sites within the HLS Statement, HLS is no more than 3.1 years. It
is therefore the position of both parties that the current HLS in South Oxfordshire is less
than 5 years but more than 3 years. The Secretary of State agrees. He considers that the
HLS is in the range of 3.1-4.2 years. He does not consider it is necessary, for the
purposes of this appeal, to reach a more exact figure.
23. The Secretary of State has therefore proceeded on the basis that a 5-year HLS has not
been demonstrated, and that the presumption in favour of sustainable development set
out in paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is triggered. Given the agreed position that
there is a more than 3-year HLS, the Secretary of State has further proceeded on the
basis that paragraph 14(c) of the Framework is met.
24. He has gone on to consider whether paragraph 14 of the Framework applies overall. He
has found that this is a situation where the presumption (at paragraph 11(d)) applies to
an application involving the provision of housing. He has concluded at paragraph 19
above that the provisions of paragraph 14 (a) and 14(b) of the Framework have been
met, and has concluded at paragraph 20 above that the provisions of paragraph 14(d) of
the Framework have been met. As all elements of paragraph 14 of the Framework have
been met, the Secretary of State finds that the adverse impact of allowing development
that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits. He returns to this matter in paragraphs 48-49 below.
Contribution to housing supply
25. For the reasons given at IR358 and IR389, the Secretary of State agrees that the local
authority area is not deficient in terms of the allocations within its plan which are well in
excess of requirements. He agrees that the new homes would make a significant
contribution to housing supply. While the Inspector found that this was a benefit of
moderate weight, that was against a finding (IR389) that the shortfall that was so
marginal as to be barely identifiable. Given that on the evidence of the parties the HLS is
at best 4.2 years, and at worst 3.1 years, he concludes that the shortfall is more than
marginal, and that as such the benefit of the contribution to housing supply should be
afforded significant weight.
26. For the reasons given at IR359 and IR390, the Secretary of State agrees that the benefits
of affordable housing which the proposal would provide would comply with SOLP policy
H9 and should be afforded significant weight.
27. He further agrees, for the reasons given at IR360, that the provision of self-build housing
plots would comply with SOLP policy H12 and should be afforded significant weight.
28. He also agrees, for the reasons given at IR361-363 and IR390, that significant weight
should be given to the provision of extra care older person’s housing.
Employment, retail and community uses
29. For the reasons set out at IR364-366 and IR391, the Secretary of State agrees that while
the provision of employment space would be contrary to SOLP policies STRAT1 and
EMP2, any harm would be limited (IR364). He further agrees (IR365) that there is no
substantive evidence to show that the provision of retail floorspace would be harmful or
contrary to any SOLP policy. He further agrees that the provision of a community building
would cause no harm, but offers no special benefits (IR366). Overall, he agrees with the
Inspector at IR391 that these matters are neutral in the planning balance.
Transport
30. For the reasons given at IR367-371, the Secretary of State agrees that adequate
information has been provided to demonstrate safe vehicular and pedestrian access to
the development, and that there is compliance with SOLP policies TRANS2, 4 and 5
(IR367). He agrees at IR368 that the bus infrastructure and contribution towards
improving the local bus service which has been secured would be a public benefit, albeit
sustainable location, having a good train service on the edge of the village but a
somewhat poorly designed bus service. He attributes limited weight to this benefit. The
Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR368 that overall the transport proposals
associated with the development accommodate and reinforce a dependence on less
sustainable transport methods characteristic of Cholsey.
Green infrastructure and open space
31. For the reason set out at IR372-374, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s
conclusions on these matters.
Heritage
32. The Secretary of State agrees with the Council at IR205 that harm to the listed milestone
arising from its relocation would be ‘less than substantial’. He has taken into account the
provisions of s.66 of the LBCA and paragraph 199 of the Framework, including the
requirement to give great weight to the conservation of a designated heritage asset, and
has also taken into account the benefits that would arise from its maintenance and
restoration, as set out in IR95. Overall, in the particular circumstances of this case, the
Secretary of State considers that limited weight attaches to the ‘less than substantial’
harm to the milestone. In line with paragraph 202 of the Framework, the Secretary of
State has weighed the ‘less than substantial’ harm to the significance of this designated
heritage asset against the public benefits of the proposal. He has concluded that the
harm is outweighed by the public benefits, and therefore the heritage test at paragraph
202 is favourable to the proposal. He agrees at IR375 that the milestone’s restoration
would be in accordance with SOLP policy ENV7.
Minerals
33. For the reasons given at IR376 the Secretary of State agrees that the proposal would
comply with SOLP policy EP5 and with Oxfordshire Mineral and Waste Local Plan Part 1
policy M8.
Water and sewerage
34. The Secretary of State agrees at IR377 that this issue can be addressed by condition 14
such as to ensure compliance with SOLP policy INF1(4).
Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
35. For the reasons given at IR378-379 and IR385, the Secretary of State agrees that the
loss of BMV agricultural land would conflict with SOLP policy DES7(Vii). He notes that all
parties agree that the loss is a significant effect, and agrees that this is a significant
material harm (IR379). He considers that in the circumstances of this case, and given the
quantum of BMV land involved, this harm should attract significant weight.
Economic benefits
36. The Secretary of State has taken into account the Inspector’s comments at IR388. He
considers that the economic benefits of the proposal carry moderate weight. The other
benefits of the proposal have been addressed in paragraphs 25-28 and 30 above.
Planning conditions
37. The Secretary of State has given consideration to the Inspector’s analysis at IR272-314,
the recommended conditions set out at the end of the IR and the reasons for them, and
to national policy in paragraph 56 of the Framework and the relevant Guidance. He is
satisfied that the conditions recommended by the Inspector comply with the policy test
set out at paragraph 56 of the Framework. However, he does not consider that the
imposition of these conditions would overcome his reasons for dismissing this appeal and
refusing planning permission.
Planning obligations
38. The Secretary of State has had regard to the Inspector’s analysis at IR261-271, IR330-
338 and IR369-371, the deed of planning obligation dated 30 September 2022,
paragraph 57 of the Framework, the Guidance and the CIL Regulations 2010, as
amended, and has also taken into account the South Oxfordshire CIL Charging Schedule
which was adopted on 3 January 2023. He has had further regard to the representations
of the parties on this matter in response to his reference back letter.
39. The Secretary of State agrees with the Council that the monitoring fees it is seeking are
justified, and notes that the appellant accepts these in relation to their proper application
to the proposed development scheme. He further agrees with the appellant that there
would be no impact on the signed s.106 agreement which would necessitate an updated
document to be produced.
40. The Secretary of State considers that the deed of planning obligation complies with
Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations and the tests at paragraph 57 of the Framework,
with the exception of the Secondary School Transport Contribution, for the reasons given
by the Inspector (IR337-8). Under the clauses in the deed of obligation referred to at
IR262, this part of the deed of obligation therefore has no effect.
41. In particular, the Secretary of State considers that the Secondary Education Contribution,
the Special Educational Needs Contribution, the Bus Infrastructure Contribution and the
Bus Service Improvement contribution 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, for the reasons given by the
Inspector (IR330-336 and IR369-372). He notes the Inspector’s comments about these
contributions only being necessary to the extent that such contributions are reduced in
parallel with any contribution which outturns show to have been made from CIL funding
and that the planning obligations concerned are a material consideration in determining
this appeal only to that extent (IR336 and IR370). However, he further notes the
‘clawback’ provisions of Schedule 8 (referred to at IR271) and considers that nothing
further is required in this regard.
42. Overall, the Secretary of State does not consider that the deed of obligation overcomes
his reasons for dismissing this appeal and refusing planning permission.
Planning balance and overall conclusion
43. The Secretary of State has found that the appeal scheme is not in accordance with SOLP
policies STRAT1, EMP2 and DES7(vii) and CNP policy STRAT1. Given the fundamental
conflict with the spatial development plan strategy, he considers that the proposal is not
in accordance with the development plan overall. He has gone on to consider whether
there are material considerations which indicate that the proposal should be determined
other than in line with the development plan.
44. As the Secretary of State has found that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year HLS,
paragraph 11(d) of the Framework indicates that planning permission should be granted
unless: (i) the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of
particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or
(ii) any adverse impacts of doing so significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits,
when assessed against policies in the Framework taken as a whole.
45. Weighing in favour of the proposal are the market housing which attracts significant
weight, affordable housing which attracts significant weight, self-build housing which
attracts significant weight, and older people’s housing, which also attracts significant
weight. The improvements to bus infrastructure and service attract limited weight, while
the economic benefits attract moderate weight.
46. Weighing against the proposal is the loss of BMV land, which attracts significant weight,
and the identified ‘less than substantial’ harm to the significance of the listed milestone,
which in the circumstances of this case carries limited weight.
47. The Secretary of State has found that the heritage balancing exercise under paragraph
202 of the Framework is favourable to the proposal. The Secretary of State considers
that in terms of paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework, there are no protective policies
which provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed.
48. In considering paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework, the Secretary of State has taken into
account his policy at paragraph 14 of the Framework, his finding at paragraph 24 above
that the circumstances of paragraph 14 all apply and that the proposal conflicts with the
neighbourhood plan.
49. The Secretary of State finds that the adverse impacts of allowing this development
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against policies in
the Framework taken as a whole. The presumption in favour of sustainable development
is therefore disapplied.
50. Overall, in applying s.38(6) of the PCPA 2004, the Secretary of State considers that the
conflict with the development plan and the material considerations in this case indicate
that permission should be refused.
51. The Secretary of State concludes that the appeal should be dismissed and planning
permission refused.
Formal decision
52. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State agrees with the
Inspector’s recommendation. He hereby dismisses your client’s appeal and refuses
planning permission for a Mixed Use development comprising up to 350 C3 residential
dwellings, C2 Care and Assisted Living, E(a) retail, E(g) employment space, F2
Community Building, E(e) Daycare Nursery, Open Space and Landscaping, in
accordance with application Ref. P21/S1503/O dated 24 March 2021.
Right to challenge the decision
53. A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the
Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged. This must be done by making an
application to the High Court within 6 weeks from the day after the date of this letter for
leave to bring a statutory review under section 288 of the TCPA 1990.
54. A copy of this letter has been sent to South Oxfordshire District Council and Cholsey
Parish Council, and notification has been sent to others who asked to be informed of the
decision.
Yours faithfully
Phil Barber
Decision Officer
This decision was made by the Minister of State for Housing and Planning, Rachel Maclean
MP on behalf of the Secretary of State, and signed on her behalf
Annex A
SCHEDULE OF REPRESENTATIONS
General representations
Party Date received
South Oxfordshire District Council 8 August 2023
Elizabeth Haydn 24 August 2023
South Oxfordshire District Council 9 October 2023
South Oxfordshire District Council 9 October 2023
Representations received in response to the Secretary of State’s reference back letter of 24
August 2023
Party Date received
Wardell Armstrong on behalf of the appellant 5 September
2023
Cholsey Parish Council 14 September
2023
Wardell Armstrong on behalf of the appellant 15 September
2023
South Oxfordshire District Council 15 September
2023
Representations received in response to the Secretary of State’s recirculation letter of 18
September 2023
Party Date received
Wardell Armstrong on behalf of the appellant 25 September
2023
Cholsey Parish Council 25 September
2023
Report to the Secretary of State for
Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
by P W Clark MA(Oxon) MA(TRP) MRTPI MCMI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Date 12 January 2023
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
APPEAL BY [APPELLANT]
SOUTH OXFORDSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL
Inquiry Held on 31 August, 1, 2, 6-9 and 13 September 2022
Land off Papist Way, Cholsey, Oxfordshire OX10 9PA
File Ref: APP/Q3115/W/22/3296251
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AIA Arboricultural Impact Assessment
ALC Agricultural Land Classification
AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
BBOWT Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust
BMV Best and Most Versatile
CCB Chilterns Conservation Board
CD Core Document
CIL Community Infrastructure Levy
CNP Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan
CO₂ Carbon Dioxide
CROW Countryside and Rights of Way
DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
DfE Department for Education
DGT Didcot Garden Town
EA Environment Agency
EBDOG Educational Building and development Officers’ Group
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ES Environmental Statement
EV Electrical Vehicle
GI Green Infrastructure
GP General Practitioner
GVA Gross Value Added
IAQM Institute of Air Quality Management
LAP Local Area of Play
LCA Landscape Character Area
LCT Landscape Character Type
LEAP Local Equipped Area of Play
LNR Local Nature Reserve
LVIA Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 1
LWS Local Wildlife Site
NHLE National Heritage List for England
NP Neighbourhood Plan
NPPF National Planning Policy Framework
OCC Oxfordshire County Council
POS Public Open Space
PV Photovoltaic(s)
RM Reserved Matters
SEN Special Educational Needs
SLOAP Space Left Over After Planning
SOCG Statement of Common Ground
SODC South Oxfordshire District Council
SOLP South Oxfordshire Local Plan
SPD Supplementary Planning Document
SPRU Strategic Planning Research Unit
SuDS Sustainable Drainage System(s)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 2
File Ref: APP/Q3115/W/22/3296251
Land off Papist Way, Cholsey, Oxfordshire OX10 9PA
• 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 P21/S1503/O, dated 24 March 2021, was refused by notice dated 4
February 2022.
• The development proposed is a Mixed Use development comprising up to 350 C3
residential dwellings, C2 Care and Assisted Living, E(a) retail, E(g) employment space, F2
Community Building, E(e) Daycare Nursery, Open Space and Landscaping.
Summary of Recommendation: The appeal be dismissed
Procedural Matters
1. The application is made in outline. The Secretary of State is asked to determine
some details of two accesses to the site now1. Other details of pedestrian and
cycle access to the site and all access within the site, appearance, landscaping,
layout and scale would be reserved for later consideration if permission is given.
2. The proposal exceeds all three thresholds for screening for the need for an
Environmental Impact Assessment set out in Schedule 2 of the Environmental
Impact Assessment Regulations and so, a Screening Opinion was sought2. This
determined that an Environmental Impact Assessment is required3.
3. Consequently, the application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement
and three Parameter Plans covering movement (drawing number 5775 4.2 SK-
003 Rev C), landscape and open space (drawing number 5775 4.2 SK-004 Rev C)
and land use and density (drawing number 5775 4.2 SK-005 Rev C)4. In
accordance with decisions of the courts5 these parameter plans must be applied
by condition, if permission is granted, so as to establish an envelope within which
the detailed design and discharge of reserved matters can proceed, irrespective
of whether or not they would be otherwise required to make the development
acceptable.
4. Following comments made by Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) in June 2021,
additional information relating to transport matters was supplied in July 2021 and
in June 2022.6 Further information adjusting proposals to off-site highway works
1 The most recently submitted detailed drawings IPD-16-386-132 revision C and IPD-16-386-
133 revision C may be found attached to an e-mail dated 7 September 2022 in folder 12,
Inquiry Documents, within folder 0, Inspector File of the Inspectorate’s electronic file. They
are also attached to the signed s106 agreement as part of Appendix 3, which may be found in
folder 07, Planning Obligation within folder 0 Inspector File of the Inspectorate’s electronic
file.
2 CD 1.12
3 CDs 1.13 and 1.14
4 CDs 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.7-1.84
5 R v Rochdale MBC ex parte Tew and Others [1999] 3 PLR 74 and R v Rochdale MBC ex parte
Milne [2000] EHWC 650 (Admin)
6 CDs 2.1-2.7, 2.15 and 16.2.1. Appendices A, B and C of CD 2.15 duplicate CDs 2.1-2.7 as
does Appendix K of CD 16.2.1
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 3
on Ilges Lane were submitted to the County Council on 5 August 20227. In July
2021 the appellant submitted an updated Biodiversity Offsetting Assessment in
response to DEFRA’s updated Biodiversity Metric v2.0.8 In September 2021, the
appellant made a response to comments received from the District Council’s
Landscape Officer and from the Chilterns Conservation Board.9 The appellant
took the view that none of these additional submissions made any material
difference to the submitted Environmental Statement but was advised, and
accepted the advice, to consult on the additional information as widely as the
Council had consulted on the originally submitted Environmental Statement. The
additional consultation was carried out in July 202210. There were five
substantive responses11.
5. During the Council’s consideration of the application, the details of the two
vehicular accesses and one pedestrian access proposed, together with
consequential adjustments to facilities for pedestrians to cross Reading Road
were amended. These revised details were consulted upon as part of the
appellant’s consultation on additional information supplementing the
Environmental Statement, described above. These details of access continued to
be amended during the Inquiry as details of the s106 agreement were
negotiated. The final amendments were not the subject of public consultation
but the Parish Council made clear its objection to some aspects of the details and
I report on these below, so I do not consider that the failure to consult on the
amendments has prejudiced consideration of the objections.
6. From first submission, the appellant made clear an intention to secure elements
of the proposal by means of a s106 planning obligation. An obligation was
negotiated during the course of the appeal and a draft was discussed during the
Inquiry but a signed and dated obligation was not received until after the
conclusion of the oral Inquiry sessions. The Inquiry was held open and closed in
writing after the receipt of the completed agreement.
7. When the Council first registered the application, it omitted to consult with
Natural England, a statutory consultee12. The omission was brought to notice
before the Inquiry took place and the omission rectified. Natural England’s
comments, and the comments of other statutory consultees and others who
commented on the Environmental Statement are not distinguished from
comments made on the application as a whole13. The Environmental Statement,
comments made upon it, the additional information and comments made upon it,
form the environmental information which is required to be taken into account in
determining this appeal. This has been done in writing this report. I am satisfied
7 CD 16.2, paragraph 2.11. The drawings referred to may be found in an attachment to an e-
mail dated 7 September 2022 in folder 12, Inquiry Documents, of the Inspectorate’s file.
8 CD 2.10
9 CD 2.17, duplicated at CD 8.6
10 CD 5.2
11 These may be found as an attachment to an e-mail from the appellant, dated 26 August
2022 filed as App ES Consultation - APP_Q3115_W_22_3296251.msg in folder 10 EIA of the
Inspectorate file
12 Cholsey Parish Council Proof of Evidence (CD 13.1), paragraph 2.2
13 Natural England’s comments are filed apart from other comments received in the routine
way and may be found as LPA - Natural England response referred to by Ms Guiver in folder
12 Inquiry documents of the Inspectorate file.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 4
that the legal requirements for Environmental Impact Assessment have been
met14.
8. Although an Environmental Impact Assessment has been required, no potential
adverse effect on a European Site has been identified and so no Habitats
Regulations Assessment is required.
9. The Council refused the application for six reasons15. These can be briefly
summarised as;
i. Outside the settlement boundary and not an allocated site so contrary to
development strategy
ii. Intrusive and out of character with the rural landscape
iii. Inadequate information to assess impact on highway capacity
iv. Inadequate information to demonstrate safe vehicular and pedestrian
access and effect on listed milestone
v. No planning obligation to secure affordable housing
vi. Effects on secondary school provision
10. Various Statements of Common Ground (SOCG) were submitted, more or less as
the Inquiry opened16. Other than in relation to highways matters17 and
affordable housing, they resolve very few issues which were in contention and
are more useful for setting out the points of dispute between the parties.
11. A case management conference was held on 5 July 2022, in accordance with the
recommendations of the Rosewell report18. Based on the Council’s reasons for
refusal, its committee report, the appellant’s statement of case and comments
made at the case management conference, main issues in this appeal were then
identified as follows;
Whether the proposal represents sustainable development in terms of its effects on;
Economic matters; Best and Most Versatile agricultural land
Mineral reserves
The provision of employment
*Transport infrastructure (including highway safety)
The strategy for the development of land
Social matters; A five-year supply of housing land
* The need for and supply of affordable housing
The need for and supply of specialist housing for older
people
Social infrastructure in terms of secondary schooling
Environmental matters; Landscape character
14 A pro-forma detailing how this conclusion has been reached is included in the EIA folder of
the Inspectorate’s file
15 CD 3.2
16 CDs 16.2 – 16.16.5 and 16.8
17 CD 16.2
18 CDs 18.1-18.3
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 5
*Heritage assets
Biodiversity
By the time the Inquiry came to be held some of these matters, (marked *) had
come to be agreed between the two main parties but they nevertheless remained in
contention with third parties. Additional issues concerning green infrastructure and
open space provision arose otherwise unpresaged out of discussions on landscape
character.
12. By letter dated 25 August 2022, in pursuit of powers under section 79 and
paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the
Secretary of State directed that he will determine this appeal instead of an
Inspector. The reason given for this direction is that the appeal involves
proposals for residential development of over 150 units or on a site of over 5
hectares, which would significantly impact on the government’s objective to
secure a better balance between housing demand and supply and create high
quality, sustainable, mixed and inclusive communities.
13. The Inquiry followed normal procedures of evidence, cross examination and re-
examination except for a session on landscaping, which was held as a round table
discussion on an agenda suggested by the two main parties. The Inquiry sat on
31 August, 1, 2, 6-9 and 13 September 2022 but was then held open until 19
October 2022 for a signed planning obligation to be submitted and for
information to be submitted about the making of a reviewed Neighbourhood Plan.
An accompanied site visit took place on 8 September 2022. An unaccompanied
site visit was made on 30 August 2022.
The Site and Surroundings
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 6
14. The site and its surroundings are described in numerous places in the evidence19.
Photographs are provided20 although their accuracy is challenged by the
Council21. The site is located adjacent to the village of Cholsey, in the Thames
Valley, about 4km south of the centre of Wallingford and about 8km east of
Didcot. The site has a field access at its north-east corner, onto a byway to its
north and thence onto Reading Road which comprises part of the A329 running
south from Wallingford towards Reading.
15. The site is approximately 29.26 ha in extent22. Its shape is irregular,
approximating to a trapezoid with a square removed from one corner. Its
longest boundary (the base of the trapezoid) is its north side running along Ilges
Lane (and its eastward extension as a by-way) to Reading Road. This boundary
has a belt of trees for about two-thirds of its length. The Reading Road forms the
eastern boundary of the site, with a tree belt along its full length. The tree belts
total 15,200 sqm in extent23 and are protected by Tree Preservation Orders. The
site’s southern boundary is formed partly by Papist Way, divided from the site by
a hedgerow, and partly by an area of housing which backs onto the site and
which forms the square cut from the trapezoid. The western boundary of the site
also backs onto housing with little or no screening.
19 The Environmental Statement (CD 1.7), paragraphs 3.3.1 - 3.5.6 and 9.4.1 – 9.4.11,
9.4.13 – 9.4.14, 9.4.19, 9.4.25 – 9.4.28, 9.4.31 – 9.4.53, 9.4.55 – 9.4.56, 9.4.58, 9.4.60,
9.4.62 – 9.4.67, 9.5.21 - 9.5.22 and 9.9.3 to 9.9.7; the Environmental Statement non-
technical summary (CD 1.8 (and its updated version CD 5.1)) paragraphs 2.1.1 – 2.2.7; the
Screening Request (CD 1.12) page 2; the EIA Analysis and Screening Proforma (CD 1.15),
box e; the Scoping Report (CD 1.16) paragraphs 2.1.1 – 2.1.6; the Circular Economy
Statement (CD 1.19) paragraphs 2.1.1 – 2.1.3; the Landscape Capacity Assessment for Sites
on the Edge of the Larger Villages of South Oxfordshire (CD 1.35) page 216 (also found at CD
11.8, page 32); the Green Infrastructure and Recreation Strategy (CD 1.44) pages 7 and 10;
the Geophysical Survey report (CD 1.47) paragraph 2.3; the Archaeological Evaluation (CD
1.48), paragraph 2.1; the Soils and Agricultural Land Classification (CD 1.52), paragraphs
1.2.1 to 1.2.3; the Energy Strategy (CD 1.62), paragraph 1.1.2; the Geo-Environmental Desk
Study (CD 1.64) paragraphs 1.2, 2.5 and 2.7; the Updated Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
(CD 1.66) paragraph 1.2.1; the Bat Survey Report (CD 1.67) paragraph 1.2.1; the
Biodiversity Offsetting Report (CD 1.68) and its Update (CD 2.10), paragraph 1.2.1; the
Design and Access Statement (CD 1.88), pages 2-25; the Planning Statement (CD 1.90),
paragraphs 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and 3.2.1; the Transport Assessment (CD 1.91) paragraphs 3.1 –
3.57; the Framework Travel Plan (CD 1.92), paragraphs 5.1 to 5.34; the Safer Routes Study
(CD 2.5), paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3; the Crime Prevention Statement (CD 2.8), paragraphs
2.1.1 to 2.1.3; the Council’s officer report (CD 3.1) paragraph 1.1; the appellant’s Statement
of Case (CD 10.3), paragraphs 2.1.1 – 2.1.3; the Council’s Statement of Case (CD 12.1)
paragraph 2.1; Mr Radmall’s evidence (CD 12.7) paragraphs 2.1 – 2.15; Beryl Guiver’s
evidence (CD 13.1) (and the Parish Council’s Statement of Case (CD 13.3)) paragraphs 3.26
and 4.1; the Landscape Statement of Common Ground (CD 16.3) paragraphs 1.2.1 and
1.2.3; and Katharine Ellinsfield’s evidence (CD 19.2) paragraphs 3.1 – 3.18.
20 CD1.39
21 In Mr Spence’s evidence. This can be found attached to an e-mail dated 7 September in
folder 12 Inquiry Documents of the Inspectorate file.
22 CD 1.7 paragraph 1.1.4; CD 1.86, paragraph 1.2.2. Some other documents give a different
figure.
23 Table 3 of Arboricultural Impact Assessment (CD 1.86)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 7
16. The western part of the site is relatively flat and elevated slightly above the
adjacent housing. The ground then slopes down to the east24 by about 7.5m to
its lowest point at its north-east corner. The southern area of the site had
formerly been used as a quarry during the nineteenth century25. A topographical
map on page 3 of the submitted Design and Access Statement conveys well the
feel of the site26.
17. The site comprises Best and Most Versatile agricultural land27 and is used for
arable farming. It is used by wildlife28 but fringe areas are unremarkable for
their ecological value29. The site hosts low bat activity and no roosts and is of
low value to reptiles and nesting birds30. It is surrounded on three sides and part
of the fourth by residential development. What might be described as the
traditional village of Cholsey (though including some very recent housing
development) borders its south, west and about one third of its northern
boundary. To its east, the recent development of Cholsey Meadows, largely
converted, with additional infill, from the former Fairmile Hospital, stands beyond
the landscaped buffer of its grounds. More of its grounds (a registered Historic
Park and Garden) extend as far as the River Thames. Only to the north is the
appeal site adjoined by other arable farmland.
18. The traditional part of Cholsey is a nucleated village with a cluster of shops and
services at its historic centre now geometrically (because of the development of
modern housing to east and south) somewhat off-centre. A primary school,
church and community/sports centre are just to the west of the commercial
centre31. The village benefits from a railway station at its south-western
extremity, about twenty minutes’ walk from the appeal site. There is a generally
half-hourly service of trains between London Paddington and Didcot. A bus
service to Wallingford and beyond to Benson, generally running hourly, Monday-
Saturday but not evenings, circles the village in a one-way loop passing the
site32.
19. The entire site falls within the Environment Agency (EA) Very Low Risk (former
Flood Zone 1) category; very low probability, land with a less than 0.1% (1 in
24 Contrary to what is stated in paragraph 1.1 of the Council’s officer report (CD 3.1)
25 Archaeological Evaluation (CD 1.48), paragraphs 2.1 and 2.3; Geo-Environmental Desk
Study (CD 1.64) table 2 and paragraphs 4.1 and 7.10
26 The Design and Access Statement (CD 1.88) can also be found within the Appellant’s Initial
Documents folder of the Inspectorate’s file
27 Although provisional ALC mapping suggests Grade 2, the appellant’s unchallenged Soils and
Agricultural Land Classification (CD 1.52) established that the site is predominately ALC
subgrade 3a with a small area of Grade 2 to the north-east of the site
28 Public representations include photographs of deer on site (eg from Mr Kees Luteijn), also
seen on my site visit.
29 Environmental Statement (CD 1.7), paragraphs 16.6.11 to 16.6.16
30 Environmental Statement (CD 1.7), paragraphs 16.6.25 to 16.6.28
31 Table 3.1 of the transport assessment (CD 1.91) repeated at table 5.1 of the Framework
Travel Plan (CD 1.92) summarises local facilities within walking distance of the site but the
details of bus services in paragraph 3.28 of the Transport Assessment and table 5.2 of the
Framework Travel Plan are out of date; there is no Sunday service at present.
32 The summaries of bus services in the Transport Assessment (CD 1.91) and in the
Framework Travel Plan (CD 1.92), reporting a Sunday service, are out of date
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 8
1000) probability of fluvial flooding in any one year, as depicted on the EA's flood
mapping information on its internet site33.
20. There is a statutorily listed milestone within the site. Parts of the Cholsey
Meadows development across Reading Road from the site (the former Fairmile
Hospital) are listed buildings and its grounds comprise a registered historic park
and garden but there is no suggestion from any party that the development
proposed would have any effect on the significance of these, or any other
heritage asset within the neighbourhood other than the milestone within the site
itself34.
21. About 700m from the site to the north-east is Cholsey Marsh, a Local Wildlife Site
(LWS) and a Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and the Pond to the North of Cholsey
Marsh LWS. Land immediately to the south of the site, including the residential
development fronting Papist Way, forms part of the designated North Wessex
Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). This rises in hills to the
south of Cholsey on the west bank of the River Thames. About 700m to the east
of the site, on the far side of the River Thames, is the designated area of the
Chilterns AONB which rises in hills to the east of Cholsey. Other statutory or
non-statutory ecological or environmental designations within the hinterland of
the site are not significant to the outcome of this appeal35.
Planning Policy
22. The development plan in force in the area comprises the Oxfordshire Minerals
and Waste Local Plan Part 1 – Core Strategy adopted by Oxfordshire County
Council in September 2017, South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011-2035,36 (SOLP)
adopted on 10 December 2020, and the Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan,37 (CNP)
made on 11 April 2019. Consultation on a review of the Neighbourhood Plan
concluded whilst the Inquiry was sitting and a reviewed Cholsey Neighbourhood
Plan was made on 13 October 2022. The parties volunteered their comments on
the significance of the reviewed Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan once made.
23. Mutatis mutandis (having changed what has to be changed) by the passage of
time, the only substantial change in the policies of the reviewed Neighbourhood
Plan is to take on board the requirements of National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF) paragraph 153 requiring a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting
to climate change. Amongst other matters, there is however a new section of
four paragraphs (110-113) and an addition to Appendix 1 providing evidence on
Housing for Older and Disabled people. a change to paragraph 165, endorsing
the Chilterns Management Board’s Position Statement on Development affecting
the Chilterns AONB and a new paragraph 171 recommending to developers the
Parish Council’s Treescape Opportunity Report and its Climate Emergency Action
Plan which are relevant to issues in this appeal.
33 Environmental Statement (CD 1.7) paragraph 12.4.19 and Appendix 12.1 (Flood Risk
assessment (CD1.53)), paragraphs 1.4 and 2.3 onwards
34 CD1.45 and CD1.84
35 CD1.37 and CD 1.66, section 3
36 CD 4.1
37 CD 4.4
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 9
24. The examiner found that although the reviewed plan included material
modifications they did not change the nature of the plan, and so references in
this report to the Neighbourhood Plan continue to be to the version used by
participants in the Inquiry (ie the now superseded version made in April 2019)
with specific notation of any variance with the now made reviewed plan.
25. Paragraph 5.3.5 of the appellant’s Planning Statement38 and paragraph 2.2.9 of
the Environmental Statement39 list the objectives of SOLP which the proposal is
considered to relate to, including but not limited to;
• OBJ 1.1 – Notes that to support the settlement hierarchy, the vitality of
villages will be supported.
• OBJ 1.3 - Meet identified housing needs by delivering high-quality,
sustainable, attractive places for people to live and work.
• OBJ 2.1 – Deliver a wide range of housing options to cater for community
needs (including self-build and older persons’ accommodation).
• OBJ 2.2 – Support the regeneration of housing and facilities to strengthen
communities and address deprivation issues.
• OBJ 2.3 – Help meet the economic and housing needs of Oxfordshire as a
whole.
• OBJ 3.1 – Improve employment opportunities and land provision, providing
high quality local jobs to retain workers.
• OBJ 3.2 – Reduce commuting distances through supporting business
growth in locations close to existing business areas and transport
connections.
• OBJ 3.3 – Ensure economic and housing growth are balanced, to support
sustainable journeys to work.
• OBJ 3.4 - Support the retail and service sectors as well as low and high-
tech industries.
• OBJ 3.7 – Encourage tourism by protecting our built and natural assets,
such as the Thames, and providing services and facilities for visitors.
• OBJ 4.1 – Ensure that essential infrastructure is delivered to support our
existing residents and services as well as growth.
• OBJ 4.2 - Make sustainable transport, walking and cycling an attractive
and viable choice for people.
• OBJ 5.1 - Deliver high quality, innovative, well designed and locally
distinctive developments in sustainable locations with regard to the South
Oxfordshire Design Guide.
38 CD 1.90
39 CD 1.7
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 10
• OBJ 5.2 – Support development that respects the scale and character of
our towns and villages, enhancing the special character of our historic
settlements and the surrounding countryside.
• OBJ 6.2 - Provide access to high quality leisure, recreation, cultural,
community and health facilities.
• OBJ 6.3 – Ensure all communities have access to the services and facilities
they value, supporting access to sport and recreation and the health and
wellbeing of everyone.
• OBJ 7.1 – Protect and enhance the natural environment, including
biodiversity, the landscape, green infrastructure and our waterways,
placing particular importance on the value of the Oxford Green Belt, our
two Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the River Thames.
• OBJ 7.2 – Conserve and enhance our rich and varied historic assets and
their settings, celebrating these as some of our strongest attributes.
• OBJ 8.1 – Minimise carbon emissions and other pollution such as water,
air, noise and light, and increase our resilience to the likely impact of
climate change, especially flooding. Lower energy use and support an
increase in renewable energy use. Support growth in locations that help
reduce the need to travel.
Paragraphs 5.4.1, 5.4.5, 5.4.7, 5.4.10, 5.4.13, 5.4.16, 5.4.18 and 5.4.20 of the
appellant’s planning statement40 and paragraph 2.2.21 of the Environmental
Statement recognise relevant objectives of the Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan;
• Objective HO1 – To provide sufficient market and affordable housing to
meet local Cholsey needs as identified in the emerging South Oxfordshire
Local Plan 2033 (2035 in reviewed plan). To secure an appropriate range
and mix of homes for specific groups in the community including for self-
build, older people, those with special needs, younger or first time buyers.
• Objective HO2 - To ensure that opportunities for suitably sited new homes
in the village are allowed, and that the countryside around the village is
protected to avoid unsustainable and inappropriate development. To
provide an attractive rural setting for Cholsey and to retain the separate
identities of Wallingford and Cholsey.
• Objective HO6 - To ensure new housing sites provide a good (reviewed
plan; “decent”) quality environment for existing and new residents, and
appropriate infrastructure and services for the increased population.
• Objective EO1 - To ensure that new development in Cholsey is mindful of
its sensitive setting in and adjacent to both the Chilterns and North
Wessex Downs AONBs. New housing should be at an appropriate density
and of a good design with green infrastructure at its heart, acknowledging
and enhancing the rural character of Cholsey, and should accord with
policies for the AONBs.
• Objective EO2 - - To prioritise the protection and enhancement of:
40 CD 1.90
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 11
o the River Thames including the Thames Path National Trail
o the Agatha Christie Trail
o key views
o AONBs
o biodiversity
o existing green spaces.
• Objective EO3 - To ensure that rural areas are protected to avoid
unsustainable development, to provide an attractive rural setting for
Cholsey and to retain the separate identities of Wallingford and Cholsey.
• Objective E04 - To enable residents and visitors to enjoy Cholsey’s special
riverside location and capacity for water-based recreation.
• Objective E05 - To ensure that our heritage and historic environment is
retained within an appropriate environment for future generations to
appreciate and value.
• Objective IO1 - To provide a range of sports, leisure and social facilities to
meet the needs of the whole Cholsey community.
• Objective IO5 - To require that new housing sites contribute to improving
provision for recreation for teenagers (reviewed plan omits last two
words).
• Objective TO1 - To promote walking, cycling and public transport as the
first-choice travel options for Cholsey residents and ensure that new
development connects to and where possible improves the walking and
cycling network.
• Objective TO3 - To support the development of facilities that encourage
the use of public transport including the improvement of the railway
station through the provision of access for the disabled and secure and
adequate cycle parking.
26. Paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of the Council’s officer report41 list development plan
policies of relevance to this proposal, as do paragraph 7.2.1 of the Appellant’s
Statement of Case42 and paragraphs 2.2.10 to 2.2.17 of, and several of the
Appendices to, the appellant’s Environmental Statement43. Paragraphs 5.3.6 to
5.3.57 and 5.4.4, 5.4.6, 5.4.8, 5.4.9, 5.4.11, 5.4.12, 5.4.14, 5.4.15, 5.4.17 and
5.4.19 of the appellant’s Planning Statement44 evaluate the proposal against the
policies it considers relevant. There is a measure of agreement between the
41 CD 3.1
42 The appellant’s Statement of Case may be found in folder 2 (Statement and Appendices) of
the Appellant’s Initial Documents folder (Folder 01) in the Inspectorate file
43 CD 1.7 and Appendices, particularly Appendices 7.1 (CD 1.23), 9.1 (CD 1.32), 9.11 (CD
1.44) page 4; 10.1 (CD 1.45) paragraph 2.1.13; 10.5 (CD 1.49), paragraph 1.1.16; 11.1 (CD
1.50), paragraphs 11.3.2 and 11.3.4; 12.2 (CD 1.54), paragraph 1.2.4; 13.1 (CD 1.57), 14.1
(CD 1.60), pages 6 – 9; and 15.1 (CD 1.63), paragraphs 15.1.9 and 15.1.10
44 CD1.90
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 12
Council and the appellant on the development plan policies applicable to this
appeal but also differences of emphasis not only between the appellant and the
Council but also between different Council documents and between various of the
appellant’s documents. Policies referenced in the reasons for refusal are marked
with an asterisk *. Those underlined are considered by the Council to be the
most important in the determination of the appeal45;
SOLP policies
• * STRAT1 - The Overall Strategy
• STRAT2 - Housing and Employment Requirements
• (Appellant ES46 only) STRAT4 – Strategic development
• STRAT5 - Residential densities
• H1 - Delivering New Homes
• H4 - Housing in the Larger Villages
• * H9 - Affordable Housing
• H11 - Housing Mix
• H12 - Self build and Custom housing
• H13 - Specialist housing for older people
• (Council only) H14 - Provision for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling
Showpeople
• (Appellant ES47 only) - EMP1: The Amount and Distribution of New B-class
Employment Land
• EMP2 - Range, size and mix of employment
• (Appellant only) EMP10 Development in Rural Areas
• * INF1 - Infrastructure Provision
• INF448 - Water Resources
• (Appellant ES49 only) TRANS1b – Supporting Strategic Transport
Investment
45 But the Council was not consistent in its identification of the policies most important in the
consideration of the appeal. The Council’s Statement of Case (CD 12.1), paragraph 4.9 and
Tracy Smith’s Proof of Evidence paragraph 2.6 (CD 12.5) differ in that the latter instances
Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan policies CNP H2, CNP E1 and CNP I8 and SOLP policies H4, H13
and EMP13, which the former does not, whereas the former includes SOLP policies H9, INF1,
TRANS5, ENV7 and CF5 and Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan policy CNP H1 which the latter does
not include.
46 ES paragraph 7.23 (CD 1.7) and Appendices 7.1 (CD 1.23), 14.1 (CD 1.60), 14.3 (CD 1.62)
and 15.1 (CD 1.63)
47 ES Appendix 13.1 (CD 1.57)
48 The appellant recognises the relevance of this policy in ES Appendix 12.2 (CD 1.54)
49 CD 1.7, paragraph 6.2.5
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 13
• * TRANS250 - Promoting sustainable transport and accessibility
• * TRANS4 - Transport Assessments, Transport Statements and Travel
Plans
• * TRANS5 - Consideration of Development Proposals
• * ENV1 - Environment & Countryside
• ENV251 - Biodiversity - Designated Sites, priority habitats and species
• ENV3 – Biodiversity
• (Appellant ES52 only) ENV4 - Watercourses
• ENV5 - Green Infrastructure in new developments
• (Appellant only) ENV6 Historic Environment
• * ENV7 - Listed Buildings
• (Appellant ES only) ENV8 – Conservation Areas
• (Appellant only) ENV9 Archaeology and Scheduled Monuments
• (Appellant only) ENV10 Historic Battlefields, Registered Parks and gardens
and Historic Landscapes
• (Appellant ES53 only) ENV11 Pollution impact on new development
• (Appellant only) ENV12 Pollution impact from new development
• (Appellant ES54 only) – TC1 Retail and Services growth
• TC255 - Town Centre Hierarchy
• (Appellant ES56 only) - TC3: Comparison Goods Floorspace Requirements
• EP1 - Air Quality
• (Council only) EP3 - Waste collection and recycling
• EP4 - Flood Risk
• (Appellant only57) EP5 – Minerals Safeguarding Areas
• DES1 - Delivering High Quality Development
50 The appellant recognises the relevance of this policy in ES Appendix 13.1 (CD 1.57)
51 For the appellant, only in the statement of case and in paragraph 16.2.5 of the
environmental statement (CD 1.7)
52 Appendix 12.2 (CD 1.54), paragraph 1.2.4
53 The appellant recognises the relevance of this policy in ES paragraph 7.2.3 (CD 1.7) and
Appendices 7.1 (CD 1.23) and 15.1 (CD 1.63)
54 The appellant recognises the relevance of this policy in ES Appendix 13.1 (CD 1.57)
55 The appellant recognises the relevance of this policy in ES Appendix 13.1 (CD 1.57)
56 The appellant recognises the relevance of this policy in ES Appendix 13.1 (CD 1.57)
57 In Mr Stoney’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.1)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 14
• DES2 - Enhancing Local Character
• DES3 - Design & Access Statements
• DES4 - Masterplans for Allocated sites and Major Development
• DES5 - Outdoor Amenity Space
• DES6 - Residential Amenity
• DES758 - Efficient use of resources
• DES8 - Promoting Sensible Design
• (Appellant ES59 only) DES9 – Renewable Energy
• DES1060 - Carbon Reduction
• (Appellant ES61 only) - CF1: Safeguarding Community Facilities
• CF2 - Provision of Community Facilities and Services
• (Appellant ES62 only) - CF3: New Open Space, Sport and Recreation
Facilities
• *63 CF5 - Open space, sport and recreation facilities in new residential
development
CNP policies
• * CNP STRAT 1 - Overall Strategy64 (now CNP1. “a reworking of the
strategy in the made plan” which adds the aim of reducing greenhouse
gases to previous elements of the strategy)
• CNP H1a and b65 Sites and Minimum density (The reviewed plan
substitutes a reference to optimising the use of land for a reference to a
minimum density)
• CNP H266 - Built-up area boundary
• CNP H367 - Custom and self-build homes
58 The appellant recognises the relevance of this policy in ES Appendices 11.1 (CD 1.50), 14.1
(CD 1.60), 14.3 (CD 1.62) and 15.1 (CD 1.63) and in Mr Stoney’s Proof of Evidence (CD
19.1)
59 The appellant recognises the relevance of this policy in ES Appendices 14.1 (CD 1.60) and
14.3 (CD 1.62)
60 The appellant recognises the relevance of this policy in ES Appendices 14.1 (CD 1.60) and
14.3 (CD 1.62)
61 The appellant recognises the relevance of this policy in ES Appendix 13.1 (CD1.57)
62 The appellant recognises the relevance of this policy in ES Appendix 13.1 (CD 1.57)
63 Paragraph 1.9 of the Council’s Statement of Case (CD 12.1) asserts that this policy should
have been referred to in the reasons for refusal.
64 The appellant points out that in the Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan made in 2019 this is an
Objective, not a Policy. In the made Reviewed Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan it is a Policy.
65 See also footnote 35 above for the Council’s recognition of the relevance of this policy.
66 The appellant recognises the relevance of this policy in ES Appendix 13.1 (CD 1.57)
67 The appellant recognises the relevance of this policy in Mr Stoney’s proof (CD 19.1)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 15
• CNP H4 - Affordable Housing (The reviewed plan adds a dwelling mix
requirement to the policy)
• CNP H5 - Requirements for new housing (The reviewed plan adds
requirements for a 10% net gain in biodiversity and for electric vehicle
charge points)
• CNP H668 - Parking (The reviewed plan omits minimum requirements)
• CNP E1 - Landscape and countryside
• (Appellant ES69 only) – CNP E3 – Cholsey Conservation Area
• (Appellant only) CNP E4 – Heritage (This is redrafted in the reviewed plan
in simpler English)
• CNP I1 - Contributions towards facilities
• (Appellant ES70 only) CNP I2 - support GP surgery in the village
• CNP I3 – Drainage
• (Appellant ES71 only) - CNPI6 - recreation ground facilities
• (Appellant ES72 only) - CNP I7 - enable working from home
• CNP I8 - Business uses
• (Appellant ES73 only) CNP I9 - allotment provision
• CNP T1 - Walking and Cycling
• (Appellant ES74 only) - CNP ED1 - expansion of Cholsey Primary school
(Omitted from reviewed plan)
27. The only identified relevant policy of the Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local
Plan Part 1 – Core Strategy is policy M8 – Safeguarding Mineral Resources75.
Planning History
28. As the Council’s officer report76 notes, a proposed residential development of land
known as Village Field was refused planning permission on 5 March 1965
(reference P65/R3080). A proposed residential development of the land was
refused permission on 4 November 1971 (reference P71/R4592). Neither of
these earlier decisions was otherwise referenced as part of the appeal
documentation or during the Inquiry.
68 Recognition by the appellant is in paragraph 7.2.2 of the Statement of Case only
69 ES Appendices 9.1 (CD 1.32), 10.1 (CD 1.45) and 10.5 (CD 1.49)
70 ES Appendix 13.1 (CD 1.57)
71 ES Appendix 13.1 (CD 1.57)
72 ES Appendix 13.1 (CD 1.57)
73 ES Appendix 13.1 (CD 1.57)
74 ES Appendix 13.1 (CD 1.57)
75 Summarised at paragraph 3.2 and included in full at Appendix 1 of ES Appendix 2.5
(Mineral Resource Assessment (CD 1.18))
76 CD 3.1
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 16
29. A Listed Building Application (reference P21/S1451/LB) for repositioning of the
listed milestone on site 1.27m back from its existing position was refused on 28
May 2021. The reason given was that the milestone may only need to be
relocated if and when there is a legitimate planning permission in place for the
mixed-use development to the west of the milestone but until such time there is
no need to move the milestone. As such, there is insufficient justification to re-
locate the milestone at present and without adequate justification the harm to
the historic asset is not outweighed by any public benefit. The proposed works
would not preserve the special interest of the listed structure contrary to Section
66 of The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Policy
ENV7 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 and Policy E4 of the Cholsey
Neighbourhood Plan and advice contained in the NPPF. During the current
Inquiry, the Council made its view clear that, if permission were given for the
current proposal, the provisions for the restoration of the milestone contained
within the s106 agreement would represent a public benefit which would
outweigh the harm caused by its relocation77.
30. Of greater significance is the fact that, at an early stage of the preparation of the
Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan, the site was put forward as allocation CHOL2.78 Its
removal from subsequent iterations of the Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan is
explained in the Chairman’s foreword to the Winter 2018 v2.02 of the Plan;79
“In the last consultation we suggested around half of the land (15ha) between
Fairmile and Celsea Place known as CHOL2 should be used for 250 homes and
a shop and community buildings including a pre-school.
“Despite an initial openness to developing the site in line with community
views the landowners and developers have now said they are only interested
in building out the whole 28ha of CHOL2 with around 350 homes, 130 older
peoples’ homes and a 64 bed nursing home together with a neighbourhood
centre with shops and a community building (Approximately 650 new homes).
We do not believe this fits with the communities’ wishes for this site or the
village, it will also put severe pressure on services including the primary school
and medical facilities.
“The steering group has reconsidered our approach and compared this option
with other options in Cholsey. We have decided that a package of smaller sites
will better fit with your aspirations as communicated to us through earlier plan
consultations.”
The appellant explains it differently80;
“The site was identified in Version 1 of the Draft Plan as ‘being suitable to
provide around 250 homes’ but was omitted in Version 2 in favour of an
77 But there are no provisions for the restoration of the listed milestone contained within the
signed s106 agreement,
78 See pages 31 and 79 of Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan summer 2017 v1.68 attached as
Appendix 3 to the Appellant’s Statement of Case. This may be found in folder 2 (Statement
and Appendices) of the Appellant’s Initial Documents folder (Folder 01) in the Inspectorate
file
79 CD 4.5
80 In paragraphs 2.2.24 and 13.5.31 of the Environmental Statement (CD 1.7)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 17
alternative site CHOL1 that was allowed on Appeal within the plan-making
timescale.”
The Proposals
31. There are numerous places in the documentation where a description of the
proposed development is provided more detailed than that of the application
form.81 It is intended to be a mixed-use development comprising both market
and affordable private dwellings, supported living accommodation, employment
space and community facilities. The details of these elements are as follows:
• Up to 350 residential dwellings82;
• Plots for custom and self-build housing;
• an Elderly Care Village83 of up to 8084 care and assisted living units (C2
compliant) providing “Extra Care”85 and restricted to occupation by
persons over a defined age86;
81 In paragraphs 3.1.1 to 3.1.4 of the appellant’s Statement of Case which may be found in
the Inspectorate file; in paragraphs 4.2.1 to 4.4.2 and 5.3.14 to 5.3.26 of the Environmental
Statement (CD 1.7); in paragraphs 2.3.1 to 2.3.5 of the ES Non-Technical Summary (CD
1.8); on pages 2 and 5 of the Screening Request (CD 1.12); in paragraphs 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of
the Scoping Report (CD 1.16); in paragraphs 2.2.1 to 2.2.2 of the Circular Economy
Statement (CD 1.19, duplicated at CD 1.87); in paragraph 3.1 of the Flood Risk Assessment
(CD 1.53); in section 6.2 of the Design and Access Statement (CD 1.88); in paragraphs 4.1 to
4.15 of the Framework Travel Plan (CDs 1.19 and 1.87); in paragraphs 4.1 to 4.20 of the
Transport Assessment (CD 1.91); in paragraphs 1.2 – 1.4 of the Council officer’s report (CD
3.1); in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.5 of Mr Stoney’s evidence (CD 19.1); in paragraphs 2.2 and 4.1
to 4.7 of Katherine Ellinsfield’s Proof of Evidence (CD 19.2); in paragraph 2.2 of the Highways
and Transport Statement of Common Ground (CD 16.2)
82 Notwithstanding the outline nature of the application, a detailed breakdown of dwelling mix
is provided at paragraph 2.2.2 of the Circular Economy Statement (CD 1.19, duplicated at CD
1.87). Paragraphs 13.8.2 and 13.11.4 of the Environmental Statement (CD 1.7) canvass the
imposition of a condition to secure a housing mix compliant with development plan policy.
83 Planning Statement (CD 1.90), paragraph 2.5.2
84 During the presentation of his evidence, Mr Stoney canvassed the possibility of increasing
this number to 120 whilst reducing the employment floorspace component from 3,000 sq m
to 500 sq m. In the signed s106 agreement, the definitions of Extra Care Housing and of
Extra Care Housing Land refer to up to 80 units.
85 Planning Statement (CD 1.90), paragraph 2.5.2. In paragraph 71 of her closing
submissions, Nina Pindham, for the appellant emphasised that the Parish Council “is mistaken
to consider the scheme would deliver sheltered housing. The two are different types of
accommodation, as defined in CD 16.4 Statement of Common Ground on Older Persons’
Housing at paragraph 2.1. The terms of the s.106 agreement make clear, as the Appellant
has confirmed throughout the inquiry, that extra care accommodation will be provided. Care
will be available 24/7 and residents will be required to register for a minimum care package.”
The definition of “Qualifying Person” in the second schedule of the s106 agreement aligns with
Nina Pindham’s comments.
86 Age 55 according to paragraph 3.1.2 of appellant’s Statement of Case. Age 65 according to
paragraph 2.2 of Mr Stoney’s evidence (CD 19.1) and paragraph 2.3 of Statement of Common
Ground on Older Person’s Housing Need and Supply (CD 16.4) and in definition of ”Qualifying
Person” in the second schedule of the s106 agreement.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 18
• Up to 3,000 sqm87 of employment floorspace88;
• Up to 250sqm convenience89 and 200sqm comparison retail;
• 500 sqm day nursery;
• A building suitable for community group activities90; and
• On-site public open space and green infrastructure.
32. Although the application is made in outline with all matters except for details of
two vehicular and one pedestrian access reserved for later consideration, the
submitted parameter plans reflect a preferred approach to development
described in the Design and Access Statement.91 The majority of residential
development would be located towards the central and western parts of the site,
with a medium density adjoining the existing dwellings in the settlement. The
highest residential density and the mixed-use employment, retail and community
uses would be in the centre of the site. The lowest residential density and the
care village would be towards the north and eastern portions of the site. At this
stage the exact height of the dwellings is unknown, however they will not exceed
the maximum height of 2– 3 storeys (9.6m – 12.2m) as set out on the
Parameters Plans.
33. There would be a significant area of open space abutting the eastern boundary,92
corresponding more or less with the part of the site adversely affected by traffic
noise from Reading Road93. Two other areas of open space would be provided
within the housing areas. The total open space will include approximately 8.72ha
of Green Infrastructure, including sustainable drainage systems features
87 During the presentation of his evidence, Mr Stoney canvassed the possibility of decreasing
the employment floorspace component from 3,000 sqm to 500 sqm whilst increasing the
number of extra care units from 80 to 120. Condition 48 of the suggested conditions
submitted by the parties (document 16.6) would have limited the employment floor space to
500 sq m in accordance with Local Plan policy EMP2 but, during the round table discussion on
conditions it was agreed that it should remain as 3,000 sq m in accordance with paragraph
1.1.1 of the submitted Planning Statement (CD 1.90)
88 Six office units, according to the Circular Economy Statement (CDs 1.19 and 1.87),
arranged in single and two-storey “barns” according to the Planning Statement (CD 1.90)
89 Paragraph 2.2.2 of the Circular Economy Statement (CDs 1.19 and 1.87) and paragraph
3.1 of the Flood Risk Assessment (CD 1.53) say 200 sqm convenience and 50sqm non-retail
but other documents refer to 250 sqm convenience floorspace. In a mixed-use block
according to paragraph 1.1.1 of the Planning Statement (CD 1.90)
90 400 sqm in extent according to the Circular Economy Statement (CDs 1.19 and 1.87), the
Transport Assessment (CD 1.91) paragraph 4.2 and the Environmental Statement (CD 1.7),
paragraph 13.6.31
91 Paragraphs 5.5, 5.6, 6.1 – 6.6 and 7.1 – 7.4 of CD 1.88
92 The Environmental Statement (CD 1.7), paragraph 10.6.2 claims this feature is a response
to both landscaping and heritage considerations, in deference to the open space of the
Registered Park and Garden fronting the opposite site of Reading Road. The same point is
made on page 28 of the Green Infrastructure and Recreation Strategy (CD 1.44) and in
paragraph 6.1.4 of the Heritage Statement (CD 1.45)
93 Compare figures 7.2 to 7.9 of the Environmental Statement (CDs 1.71 to 1.79) with
Parameter Plan Landscape and Open Space (CD 1.4)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 19
designed for biodiversity gain94. The green infrastructure would comprise 5.80ha
of Public Open Space (POS), 2.00ha of retained woodland, 0.50ha of proposed
new woodland and 0.42ha of proposed structural landscape belts within the
developable area95. There would be a Local Area of Play (LAP), a Local Equipped
Area of Play (LEAP) and a kick-about area with shelter and trim trail, suitable for
use as an informal sports pitch96. There would also be an ecology enhancement
area, including woodland edge enhancement, species-rich meadow grassland
margins and a wildlife pond.97 A management and maintenance strategy and a
Landscape Biodiversity Management Plan (which would also make provision for a
number of bat boxes and bird boxes) are envisaged to ensure that the benefits
remain available.98
34. Approximately 2,977 sqm of the eastern tree belt (representing about 20% of
both tree belts)99 would be removed to allow the construction onto Reading Road
of the two proposed accesses and their associated visibility splays.100 The
remainder of the northern and eastern tree belts would be retained and an
additional woodland belt and belt of hedgerow and trees would be planted within
the site101.
35. The road network would provide a bus route through the site. Pedestrian / cycle
routes would be provided through the open space that connect to the footpath
running along the site’s northern boundary, to Cholsey Meadows (former Fairmile
Hospital) via a new crossing of Reading Road and to Papist Way in the south.
94 Environmental Statement (CD 1.7), paragraphs 4.2.9 and 16.9.24 and Flood Risk
Assessment (CD 1.53), paragraph 1.7
95 Environmental Statement (CD 1.7) paragraphs 4.2.7 and 13.6.25 and Inquiry Document
ID6. The signed s106 agreement provides for a minimum area of 6.19 hectares of open
space defined as allotments (defined separately as 0.33 ha), Parks and Gardens Amenity
Space (defined separately as 1.53 ha), Play area (defined separately as 1600 sqm) and SuDS
(extent undefined). Paragraphs 16.9.14 to 16.9.16 of the ES, page 16 of the Screening
Request (CD 1.12), paragraph 3.4.14 of the Scoping report (CD 1.16) and paragraph 4.2.2 of
the Updated Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (CD 1.66) claim the green infrastructure assists
in mitigating the impact of the development on Local Wildlife Sites, biodiversity and ecology.
96 Planning Statement (CD 1.90), paragraph 5.4.13; Environmental Statement (CD 1.7)
paragraphs 4.2.8 and 13.6.25; Non-technical Summary (CD 1.8), paragraph 4.9.4 Green
Infrastructure and Recreation Strategy (CD 1.44), pages 24 and 25
97 Environmental Statement (CD 1.7), paragraph 16.9.23; Non-technical Summary (CD 1.8),
paragraph 4.12.4; Screening Request (CD 1.12), page 13; Green Infrastructure and
Recreation Strategy (CD 1.44), pages 18 - 21; Updated Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (CD
1.66), paragraphs 5.2.1 to 5.2.3; Biodiversity Offsetting Report (CD 1.68), paragraphs 4.1.2
and 4.1.3 and its Update (CD 2.10), paragraphs 4.1.2, 4.1.3 and 4.1.4
98 Environmental Statement (CD 1.7), paragraphs 13.8.2, 13.11.4, 16.9.23, 16.9.32
and16.9.37; Non-technical summary (CD 1.8), paragraph 4.12.5; Screening Request (CD
1.12), page 16; Updated Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (CD 1.66), paragraph 5.3.1; Bat
Survey Report (CD 1.67), paragraph 5.1.1; Biodiversity Offsetting Report (CD 1.68),
paragraphs 5.1.3 and 5.1.4 (not referenced in its Update (CD 2.10)
99 Table 3 of Arboricultural Impact Assessment (CD 1.86)
100 Paragraph 5.1.5 of submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment (CD 1.86)
101 Updated Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (CD 1.66), paragraph 4.3.2). Paragraph 9.6.3 of
the Environmental Statement claims these to have been designed as features integral to the
proposal which would mitigate its impact on the landscape.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 20
Additional pedestrian and cycle connections to Agatha Christie Way are proposed,
subject to agreement with adjoining landowners102.
36. A number of details are indicated in the supporting material. These would have
to be secured by condition or planning obligation if thought to be necessary for
the development to be acceptable. They include a Design Code for five street
types, boundary treatments, built form and materials, car and cycle parking and
four key character areas,103 a Tree Protection Plan and recommendations for the
protection of the trees and hedgerows that are to be retained.104 An Affordable
Housing Statement makes proposals for the provision of 40% of all dwellings as
Affordable Housing within both the C3 and C2 Use Classes.105 Notwithstanding
that this is an outline application, a Circular Economy Statement claims that the
detailed design of the site has included careful consideration of eight principles of
waste minimisation and avoidance106. It goes on to describe how waste could be
managed during construction107 and during subsequent occupation.108 A
Framework Travel plan contains suggestions for the appointment of a travel plan
coordinator, the setting of objectives and targets and for measures which could
be implemented.109
37. There would be off-site mitigation of traffic impacts on the local highway network
(increasing the traffic capacity of roundabouts on the A4130 Wallingford by-pass
and A4074 Port Way Road),110 and improving conditions for pedestrians along
Ilges Lane.111 To mitigate the impact on the two nearby Local Wildlife Sites, the
development is committed to supplying a travel pack to all new residents, which
will reference a list of recreational walking routes. The pack will also include
advice relevant for visitors to the LWSs and dog walkers to include keeping dogs
on a lead, littering, and removing dog waste. The reasons why such steps are
necessary will be set out to ensure greater compliance112. There would also be a
financial contribution to the Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife
102 Paragraphs 6.6.1 to 6.6.5 of the Environmental Statement (CD 1.7) and paragraphs 4.2.3
and 4.2.4 of the Non-technical summary (CD 1.8)
103 Section 8 of the Design and Access Statement (CD 1.88)
104 Arboricultural Impact Assessment paragraphs 5.1.6 and 5.1.7, Appendices 6, 7 and
drawing ST15372-009 revision B. These are also recommended as mitigation measures in
the Landscape and Visual Impact Analysis included within the Environmental Statement (CD
1.7, paragraphs 9.6.2 and 9.6.3).
105 Paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 of CD 1.85. Paragraph 13.8.2 of the Environmental Statement
(CD 1.7) canvasses the imposition of a condition to secure affordable and accessible homes in
line with development plan policy
106 Circular Economy Statement (CDs 1.19 and 1.87), paragraphs 5.2.3 and 5.2.4
107 Paragraphs 6.1.1 to 6.1.4, 6.2.2, 7.1.1 to 7.4.5, 9.1.8, 9.1.9, 9.1.14, 9.1.15 and 10.1.1 to
10.1.12 of the Circular Economy Statement (CDs 1.19 and 1.87)
108 Paragraphs 5.2.5, 8.1.3, 9.1.1 to 9.1.7 and 9.1.10 to 9.1.12, 9.1.16 and 9.1.17 of the
Circular Economy Statement (CDS 1.19 and 1.87)
109 CD 1.92, sections 6, 7 and 8
110 Environmental Statement (CD 1.7), page 6-17, paragraph 6.6.8 to page 6-19, paragraph
6.6.2 (paragraph numbering is discontinuous); Screening Request (CD 1.12), pages 7-8;
Scoping Report (CD 1.16), paragraphs 4.4.1 to 4.5.2; Transport Assessment (CD 1.91)
section 8 (pages 57 – 63), Highways and Transport SOCG paragraph 2.2 (CD 16.2).
111 Paragraph 2.11 of the Highways and Transport SOCG (CD 16.2)
112 Environmental Statement (CD 1.7), paragraph 16.9.13; Non-technical Summary (CD 1.8)
paragraph 4.12.3; and Updated Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (CD 1.66), paragraph 4.2.2
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 21
Trust (BBOWT) for effective site management to discourage dogs from sensitive
areas of the LWSs.113
38. Although the Environmental Statement envisaged financial contributions towards
provision of primary and secondary school place where capacity is lacking, in line
with an up-to-date assessment of need by Oxfordshire County Council 114, in fact
both the need for these contributions and their quantity were contested during
the Inquiry. The s106 agreement provides for an index-linked Secondary
Education Contribution of £1,402,950, an index-linked Special Educational Needs
contribution of £263,888 and a Secondary School Transport Contribution of
£385,700.115
39. Mitigation measures to counter noise and vibration during construction are
recommended, to be incorporated into a Construction Environmental
Management Plan (CEMP).116 Mitigation measures including the installation of
1.8m fencing and the selection specification of glazing, ventilation and building
fabric to achieve acceptable sound levels both internally and externally within the
completed development are recommended for certain areas of the
development.117 An energy consumption strategy is envisaged to ensure homes
can offer low cost energy while addressing the climate change agenda.118
Embedded mitigation to minimise CO₂ equivalent emissions to achieve
compliance with local policy and the Future Home Standard presumes that the
proposed development will incorporate improvements in fabric efficiency above
Building Regulations, wastewater heat recovery technology, deployment of solar
PV, and the installation of heat pumps to achieve an 80% reduction in carbon
dioxide (CO₂) emissions over the 2013 Building Regulations requirements.119 It
is envisaged that Electric Vehicle (EV) charging would be deployed across the
site; one 7kw charging point for every dwelling and 12 EV charging points to
meet the needs of users of the commercial properties.120
40. Mitigation measures recommended by IAQM guidance to counter adverse effects
from construction on Air Quality are endorsed.121 The application of mitigation
113 Environmental Statement (CD 1.7), paragraph 16.9.17. Provision is made within the s106
agreement.
114 Environmental Statement (CD 1.7), Paragraph 13.8.2
115 With provisions for variation in the event of the number of dwellings completed exceeding
the number envisaged in the outline application.
116 Environmental Statement (CD 1.7), paragraphs 7.5.14, 7.5.18, 7.6.1 to 7.6.7, 13.8.2 and
13.11.4; Non-technical summary (CD 1.8), paragraphs 4.3.2 and 4.8.3. The CEMP is also
intended to avoid and minimise the effect of the proposed development on ground and
surface waters (ES paragraphs 12.6.5 and 12.6.6), CO₂ emissions (ES paragraph 14.10.2)
and land contamination (ES paragraphs 15.5.2 and subsequent paragraph numbered 15.5.1)
117 Environmental Statement (CD 1.7), paragraphs 7.6.8 to 7.6.20; Non-technical summary
(CD 1.8), paragraph 4.3.5
118 Environmental Statement (CD 1.7), paragraphs 13.8.2 and 13.11.4; The submitted Energy
Strategy (CD1.62) canvasses options rather than proposing a definitive scheme.
119 Environmental Statement (CD 1.7), paragraphs 14.6.2, 14.7.2 – 14.7.5; Non-technical
summary (CD 1.8) paragraphs 4.10.2 and 4.10.3; and Energy Strategy (CD 1.62), paragraph
2.4.17
120 ES Appendices 14.2 (CD 1.61), paragraph 1.3.19 and 14.3 (CD 1.62), paragraph 5.1.1
121 Environmental Statement (CD 1.7), paragraph 8.5.4 and Appendix 8.4; Non-technical
summary (CD 1.8), paragraph 4.4.2
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 22
measures set out in South Oxfordshire District Council (SODC) guidance is
required to counter the effect of the completed development on Air Quality.122
41. Section 9.6 of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (contained within
the Environmental Statement123) identifies features (which it describes as integral
to the design of the proposal) which would need to be secured as mitigations of
its landscape effects. It also makes observations about the design of lighting to
protect bats124. Also integral to the proposal is reinstatement of the listed
milestone which would have to be moved back to accommodate the alignment of
one of the entrances to the development.125 A programme of archaeological
mitigation leading to preservation by record is envisaged as a condition of any
planning permission,126 as is a scheme of intrusive site investigation to determine
the extent of risk of ground gases emanating from the infilled former quarry on
site and to inform the choice of foundation design.127 It is assumed that the
standard good practice measures for soil management will be implemented in
accordance with a Soil Management Plan during the construction of the proposed
development.128 Precautionary working measures are recommended to prevent
incidental harm to any reptiles on site.129 To protect nesting birds, site clearance
works would be undertaken outside the active nesting season.130
42. A drainage strategy is envisaged, including a fully managed maintenance
strategy, which would replicate the existing greenfield runoff rate from the site
and direct storm water flows towards infiltration by Sustainable Drainage System
techniques.131 Foul water would drain to the lowest point of the site at its north-
122 Environmental Statement (CD 1.7), paragraph 8.5.13; Non-technical Summary (CD 1.8),
paragraph 4.4.6
123 CD 1.7, paragraphs 9.6.2 and 9.6.3
124 CD 1.7, paragraphs 9.7.39 and 16.9.30. So too do the Non-technical summary (CD 1.8),
paragraph 4.12.5; Screening Request (CD 1.12), page 13: the Updated Preliminary Ecological
Appraisal (CD 1.66), paragraph 4.4.5 and the Bat Survey Report (CD 1.67), paragraph 5.1.1
125 Environmental Statement (CD 1.7), paragraph 10.6.12; Non-technical summary (CD 1.8)
paragraph 4.6.4; Heritage statement (CD 1.45), paragraph 6.1.4
126 Environmental Statement (CD 1.7), paragraphs 10.6.18 and 10.6.20
127 Scoping Report (CD 1.16), paragraphs 3.4.19 and 3.4.20; Geo-Environmental Desk Study
(CD 1.64), paragraphs 6.24, 7.1, 7.8, 7.10 and 8.5
128 Environmental Statement (CD 1.7), paragraphs 11.5.1 to 11.5.3; Non-technical summary
(CD 1.8), paragraph 4.7.4; Scoping Report (CD 1.16), paragraph 9.5.2
129 Environmental Statement (CD 1.7), paragraph 16.9.35; Non-technical summary (CD 1.8),
paragraph 4.12.6; Screening Request (CD 1.12) page 14; and Updated Preliminary Ecological
Appraisal (CD 1.66), paragraphs 4.4.6 to 4.4.7
130 Environmental Statement (CD 1.7), paragraph 16.9.38; Non-technical summary (CD 1.8),
paragraph 4.12.7; Screening Request (CD 1.12), page 13; and Updated Preliminary Ecological
Appraisal (CD 1.66), paragraph 4.4.8
131 Environmental Statement (CD 1.7), paragraphs 12.4.21 and 12.6.7 to 12.6.11; Non-
technical summary (CD 1.8), paragraph 4.8.2 Green Infrastructure and Recreation Strategy
(CD 1.44), page 23 and Flood Risk Assessment (CD 1.53), paragraphs 1.7, 5.1 to 5.9 and 7.4
to 7.5. An IPaD Technical Note dated 7 July 2021 (CD 2.11) makes it clear that development
will not connect the storm water to any watercourse or gravity sewer off site; the storm water
proposal is for the site to be entirely independent and for no flows generated by the
site to leave the site. In this way the site will act in the same way as existing situation.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 23
east corner from which it would be pumped to one of two locations, as advised by
Thames Water132.
The Case for the appellant133
Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
43. The appellant explains that the site is a single field, detached by seven miles
from the main farm holding. This causes practical issues, such as transporting
farm machinery and is a distraction from the main business focus. The crop is
economically marginal but the field is open to public trespass and anti-social
behaviour and therefore diversification has had to be ruled out. The field
represents a high financial risk to the undertaking.134
44. Any development around Cholsey involves the use of Best and Most Versatile
(BMV) agricultural land. The site is mostly of a lower grade than indicated on
public mapping. There is potential for other sites to be of a higher agricultural
quality than identified at the Site.135 As a highly constrained authority, the
Council accepts that some BMV land will have to be developed in order to meet
the District’s housing needs.136
Housing Need
45. The appellant makes reference to national policy on housing supply, noting
particularly that the policy objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes
and the need to ensure that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come
forward has been included in all iterations of the NPPF. The requirement to be
able to demonstrate a five-year land supply has also been a constant feature of
government policy.137
46. Policy STRAT2 of the Local Plan sets out a housing requirement for the district of
900 homes per annum from 2011/12 to 2025/6, rising to 1,120 homes per
annum from 2026/7 to 2031/2, then reducing to 1,110 homes per annum from
2032/3 to 2034/5.138 The Council’s Housing Land Supply Statement for South
Oxfordshire July 2022 notes that these rates total 4,720 dwellings for the current
five-year period which, allowing for earlier shortfalls in delivery of 874 dwellings
and the 5% buffer required by the Housing Delivery Test, results in a five-year
requirement of 5,874 dwellings.139 The Council claims an identified supply of
132 Green Infrastructure and Recreation Strategy (CD 1.44), page 23 and Flood Risk
Assessment (CD 1.53), paragraphs 5.10 and 5.11
133 This section of the report represents the Inspector’s understanding of the appellant’s case.
It should not be taken as representing the Inspector’s own view of the merits of the case.
134 Letter from Joe Blackstone, Head of Agriculture, J D Leavesley Estates, attached as
Appendix 2 to Mr Stoney’s evidence (CD 19.1)
135 Soil and Agricultural Land Classification (ES Appendix 11.3 (CD 1.52)), paragraphs 5.1.4
and following paragraph (incorrectly numbered 5.1.1). NPPF footnote 58 advises that where
significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer
quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality.
136 Tracy Smith in cross-examination, noted in Nina Pindham’s closing remarks
137 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply Proof (CD 19.4), paragraphs 3.1 to 3.9, particularly
3.6
138 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply proof (CD 19.4), paragraph 2.2
139 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply proof (CD 19.4), paragraphs 4.4 to 4.7
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 24
6,551 dwellings, representing a supply of 5.58 years, or a surplus of 677
dwellings for the current five-year period.140
47. But the Council has made similar claims in recent appeals, which have not been
endorsed by Inspectors141. A comparison of Council five-year plan supply
projections with actual completion rates over the fourteen years in which it has
issued forecasts shows a track record varying between 67% and 148% reliability,
over-estimating completions in most years142.
48. The Council’s claimed 5.58 years supply of deliverable housing sites is unreliable
and overestimated143 because of
• The effects of Biodiversity net gain
• Inaccurate calculation of build-out rates
• Inaccurate calculation of windfalls
• Overoptimistic expectations of deliverability
49. Although the forthcoming mandatory requirement to achieve a net gain in
biodiversity of 10% will not come as a surprise, the evidence is that developers
working on strategic sites are having issues in trying to accommodate it. Natural
England’s assurances on the cost implications do not stand up to scrutiny. The
presumption that additional costs will be absorbed by landowners is not a
certainty. Uncertainties will affect both the viability of development (ie, whether
it is started at all) and the speed of its delivery.144
50. The Council’s evidence is that the average build-out rate for sites of 100 to 499
dwellings is 45 dwellings per annum145, which aligns with industry-wide figures
for a single developer146. Yet, for large sites, it applies a build-out rate of 132
per annum. Unless it is known that there would be more than one outlet per site,
the build-out rate of 45 dwellings per annum should apply, a correction to six
sites in the Council’s identified supply which would reduce the calculation of the
Council’s five-year supply by 884 dwellings.147
140 During the Inquiry, the Council accepted that one of its identified sites (Chiltern Edge top
Field) is not deliverable and so, its identified supply is reduced to 6507 dwellings and its
surplus is reduced to 633 dwellings
141 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply proof (CD 19.4), paragraphs 2.4 to 2.6 and 5.4 to
5.7 quoting the appeal decision at Little Sparrows, Sonning Common
(APP/Q3115/W/20/3265861) (CD 6.4), paragraph 25, finding a 4.21 year supply and the
appeal decision for Land at Lady Grove, Didcot (APP/Q3115/W/21/3272377) (CD 6.3),
paragraph 17 finding a 4.8 year supply at most
142 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply proof (CD 19.4), paragraphs 5.2, 5.3 and Table 1
143 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply Proof of evidence (CD 19.4), paragraph 6.2
144 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply Proof of evidence (CD 19.4), paragraphs 6.10 to
6.15 and in cross-examination with reference to CD 12.4 Biodiversity Net Gain final report by
Vivid economics
145 Housing Land Supply Statement for South Oxfordshire District Council July 2022 (CD
9.26), page 196
146 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply Proof of evidence (CD 19.4), paragraph 6.194
147 Paragraph 30 of Nina Pindham’s closing remarks, summarising Mr Bolton’s evidence and
cross-examination. This figure is included within the overall figure for overoptimistic
expectations of deliverability, reported below.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 25
51. It is agreed that all small sites constitute windfall sites.148 Those which are
known about (ie those with planning permission) are included in the first three
years of the Council’s identified supply (although in fact, some delivery will
actually roll over into years 4 or 5)149. Those which are not known about are
estimated for years 4 and 5. In its 2021 Housing Land Supply statement the
Council state that a windfall contribution of 200 dwellings to the five-year supply
would be appropriate (CD 9.25 paragraph 4.21). On the same evidence
(completions 2011-2021) the updated statement now suggests a windfall figure
of 308 dwellings (CD 9.26) although both are based on the same ‘compelling’
evidence.150
52. In fact, the evidence shows that the average rate of small site completions over
five years has been 158 dwellings per annum, or 790 dwellings over the five-year
period. For the forthcoming five-year period, the Council’s 2022 statement
specifically identifies 675 dwellings from small sites with planning permission.
Deducting the dwelling numbers of the specifically identified sites from the five-
year average leaves a figure of 115 dwellings which should be used as the
windfall allowance instead of the Council’s 308 dwellings.151 Therefore the
calculation of the Council’s five-year supply should be reduced by 193
dwellings.152
53. The debate between the two main parties on the size of the Council’s five-year
housing land supply rests primarily on the application of judgment on what
should be considered “deliverable”.153 The appellant refers to the requirement (in
the definition of deliverable in the Glossary to the NPPF) that a site falling within
part (b) of the definition should only be considered deliverable where there is
clear evidence that housing completions will begin on site within five years.154
The Council relies on an outdated test of what is deliverable.155
54. The Council is at times relying upon responses of promoters and developers to
determine progress on sites, contrary to opinions expressed by Inspectors in
earlier appeal decisions.156 The Council should not accept uncritically forecasts of
148 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions paragraph 31, referencing Tom Rice’s cross-
examination
149 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply Proof of evidence (CD 19.4), paragraph 7.7
150 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply proof of evidence (CD 19.4), paragraph 7.2. In fact,
paragraph 4.36 of the Council’s Housing Land Supply Statement for South Oxfordshire District
Council (July 2022) (CD 9.26) states a figure of 340 for windfall sites during the five-year
period, not 308
151 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply Proof of evidence (CD 19.4), paragraphs 7.1 to 7.26,
particularly paragraphs 7.24 and 7.25 and table 5
152 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions paragraph 32 says 213 but Mr Bolton’s proof (CD
19.4), paragraph 7.26 says 193
153 Nina Pindham’s opening remarks, paragraph 9
154 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply Proof of evidence (CD 19.4), paragraphs 2.7 and
3.12 to 3.16
155 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply Proof of evidence (CD 19.4), paragraphs 6.3 to 6.5
156 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply Proof of evidence (CD 19.4), paragraphs 3.16 to
3.22, referencing appeal decisions APP/R3325/A/12/2170082 (CD 6.5), paragraph 18,
APP/X3025/A/10/2140962 (CD 6.6) paragraphs 171 to 184, W1145/W/19/3238460 (CD 6.7),
paragraphs 56 and 57, APP/Q3115/W/20/3265861 (CD 6.4), paragraph 21,
APP/J2210/W/18/3216104 (CD 6.8), paragraph 23, APP/R3650/W/19/3227970 (CD 6.9)
paragraphs 10 to 27
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 26
lead in times and build out rates from promoters and developers. An e-mail or a
completed pro-forma is not clear evidence; clear evidence must be something
cogent, as opposed to mere assertions.
55. An objection from a statutory consultee means that the evidence does not meet
the requisite tests. It cannot be said that there is any, let alone a realistic
prospect of a site being delivered within five years in the face of an objection
from a statutory consultee.157 A decision maker must look at whether the
Council has produced any evidence on how that objection would be overcome. A
realistic assessment of not just planning but also technical, legal and
commercial/financial factors concerning delivery should be considered. It is not
sufficient to rely on average lead in times of cases which have involved
objections because those average times only relate to sites where the objections
were resolved, not to those where they were insurmountable.158
56. On this basis, the appellant considers that thirteen sites should have their
contributions to the Council’s calculation of deliverable housing supply reduced or
deleted.159 In detail, the thirteen sites and the reasons for their deletion or
reduction are as follows;
i. Chiltern Edge Top Field. Objection from Sport England to the loss of a
playing field with no mitigation identified. Delete site; 44 dwellings.160
ii. Wyevale Garden Centre. Two outstanding requests for information. Two
outstanding objections. Reserved matters consent expected within generic
lead-in times would lead to first completions in July 2024. But Council has
accepted developer’s assertion of completions a year earlier. Delete 40
dwellings.161
iii. Wheatley Campus. Little progress since Lady Grove appeal decision.162
The Council assumes that the site can be cleared between September 2024
and April 2025 and completions delivered some 6 months later for a
complex site with a mix of building including high rise. Presumed build-out
rate of 132 dwellings per annum contradicted by promoter’s advice of 96
dwellings per annum. Remove 174 dwellings.163
157 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 28
158 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply Proof of evidence (CD 19.4), paragraph 3.23 and in
cross-examination. See also, Nina Pindham’s closing submissions paragraphs 23 to 27
159 Originally, 15 sites were in dispute but Mr Bolton, for the appellant, conceded that two,
and part of a third, were in fact deliverable. The Council concedes that one of the thirteen is
not deliverable, so twelve remained in dispute at the end of the Inquiry.
160 The Council accepts that this site should be removed from its list of identifiable deliverable
sites.
161 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply Proof of evidence (CD 19.4), paragraphs 6.226 to
6.233 concludes by suggesting removal of 20 dwellings but his tables 3 and 4 and Appendix 1
and Nina Pindham’s closing submissions refer to removal of 40 dwellings
162 In which the site was discounted from the Council’s list of identifiable deliverable sites
163 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply Proof of evidence (CD 19.4), paragraphs 6.133 to
6.153 concludes by suggesting removal of 198 dwellings, 24 more than the Council has
included. Nina Pindham’s closing submission refers to 174 dwellings as do Mr Bolton’s tables
3, 4 and Appendix 1.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 27
iv. West of Wallingford site B. Build out rate achieved was 18 per annum for
first two years and it is a single outlet site yet Council presumes delivery
rate of 132 pa, implying a multiple outlet site. Remove 236 dwellings.164
v. Didcot Gateway. Although progress has been made since the Lady Grove
appeal decision which discounted the site’s inclusion within the supply of
identified deliverable sites, a new outline application has no consent but
has outstanding objections on highway access as well as on scale and bulk
of development. There is a limitation on development until foul sewer
capacity is increased. A reasonable trajectory between outline application
and first completion on a site of this size is 3.5 years, so first completions
should not be expected until 2027. Remove 111 dwellings.165
vi. Didcot North-East. This is actually a conglomeration of seventeen
individual sites or phases all at differing stages of progress. The Council’s
information about the site’s total delivery is contradictory and inconsistent.
It is not even clear which sites or phases are included in each year of the
trajectory. The average rates of delivery proposed by the Council are
much higher than both national or local comparisons would suggest and
about double that actually achieved in the last year. Only the dwellings
that have reserved matters should be included in a five-year housing land
supply. Remove 658 dwellings.166
vii. Ladygrove East. A previous inspector’s conclusion discounting the
Council’s supply figure by 80 dwellings was based on a planning application
for 250 dwellings which is no longer being pursued. On this site there is
still not even an outline consent. Looking at the average time to first
completion for sites of this size, 6.4 years, with an outline application
submitted March 2019 first completion should be expected by July 2025.
There is nothing to indicate a different approach should be taken here.
Further, the developer still has to agree the design of the Didcot North
Perimeter Road, gain consent for it, and pay for it without it unacceptably
impacting viability (as the s.106 agreement is not yet agreed). Remove
237 dwellings.167
viii. Land at Lady Grove. Average lead in times would suggest completions in
2.4 years. When seeking planning permission on appeal, the appellant
made a very public commitment to a quick delivery but the developer has
164 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply Proof of evidence (CD 19.4), paragraphs 6.215
concludes by suggesting removal of 234 dwellings. Nina Pindham’s closing submission refers
to 236 dwellings as do Mr Bolton’s tables 3, 4 and Appendix 1.
165 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply Proof of evidence (CD 19.4), paragraphs 6.56 to
6.75 and Nina Pindham’s closing submissions paragraphs 43 and 44, referencing pages 70
and 195 of the Council’s July 2022 Housing Land Supply Statement (CD 9.26).
166 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply Proof of evidence (CD 19.4), paragraphs 6.76 to
6.100 conclude by suggesting removal of 698 dwellings. Nina Pindham’s closing submission
refers to 658 dwellings. The difference is explained by the fact that Mr Bolton accepted the
deliverability of 40 units on a site known as Croudace Phase B. However, paragraph 16 of
Appendix 1 to Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions claims that Mr Bolton accepted that
he had discounted two parcels twice so there was double counting of 152 units, which would
reduce the appellant’s discounted dwellings for this site to 546.
167 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply Proof of evidence (CD 19.4), paragraphs 6.114 to
6.128 and paragraph 49 of Nina Pindham’s closing submissions
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 28
not responded to the Council’s pro-forma and, the submission of one
(condition 6) of a number of pre commencement conditions is by itself not
clear evidence that a site will deliver in the next five years. Remove 81
dwellings.168
ix. Newnham Manor. Little has changed since two previous inspectors either
deleted the site entirely from the list of identifiable deliverable sites or
reduced its contribution by 80%. There is no consent. It is not an
allocation. It is not on the Council’s brownfield register. It is therefore not
within the definition of deliverable sites. Remove 100 dwellings.169
x. Land west of Fairmile. A detailed application made in July 2019 has an
outstanding highways objection. No clear evidence of deliverability.
Remove 60 dwellings.170
xi. South of Wallingford, site E. Like Didcot North-East, this is actually a
conglomeration of several individual sites or phases all at differing stages
of progress. The site has already surpassed the average lead-in time of
6.4 years from outline submission to first completions, so start date is too
ambitious and should be put back a year. Developer has contradicted
Council’s assumed build out rate of 132 pa, suggesting 86, still double the
average rate for a single sales outlet. Remove 137 dwellings.171
xii. The Orchard. The Brightwell-cum-Sotwell Neighbourhood Plan Policy BCS2
envisages 20 dwellings on this site. The site has two proposals. One is for
13 units with outline permission and an application to discharge some
reserved matters. The other is a detailed application for 20 units but
requiring a s106 agreement, not yet drafted. Both are subject to
objections. No clear evidence that objections can be overcome. Remove
20 dwellings.172
xiii. Bayswater Brook. This is an allocated site, but there is no application.
The promoters have indicated that they wish to promote a larger site both
in terms of area and also in terms of a more than 30% increase in the
number of dwellings. There are a lot of issues. Three scoping requests led
to a scoping opinion that the scoping report was unsatisfactory in relation
to seven issues. The Local Plan indicates a number of constraints:
Oxford’s historic setting, other heritage assets, nature conservation
designations, hydrology, air pollution and nutrient deposition issues;
archaeological impact on a known Roman settlement, and constrained road
capacity to the east of Oxford. There is a planning performance
agreement, but it is only in relation to the submission of an outline
168 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply Proof of evidence (CD 19.4), paragraphs 6.129 to
6.132 and paragraphs 50 and 51 of Nina Pindham’s closing submissions.
169 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply Proof of evidence (CD 19.4), paragraphs 6.154 to
6.166
170 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply Proof of evidence (CD 19.4), paragraphs 6.167 to
6.177
171 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply Proof of evidence (CD 19.4), paragraphs 6.187 to
6.198
172 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply Proof of evidence (CD 19.4), paragraphs 6.199 to
6.214
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 29
application, it does not cover anything beyond that; it only sets out an
agreement for the three relevant councils to work together because of the
complexity of the site.
Then, even once all that work is done – and it has only been scoped right
now – EIA must be carried out, an outline application has to be drawn up
on the basis of the results of the EIA, then there is the determination of
that very significant major application, then the developer must discharge
any necessary conditions, then the developer has to draw up a reserved
matters application, then they must discharge any pre-commencement
conditions pursuant to that consent, then they must carry out site
preparation work, and only then may they go on to build out the site.
Astonishingly, the Council is projecting completions within two years.
Mr Rice accepted that the Council has never seen a site of this size deliver
completions so quickly. The quickest local time from submission of outline
to first completion is 4.4 years. The local average is 6.4 years for a site of
this size. The national average is 6.9. The same promoter achieved 6
years on a similar sized development in neighbouring Cherwell District.
Given the multiple complexities with this site, even once an application has
been submitted, to expect completions within 6.4 years is probably overly
optimistic; but whatever the longer-term prospect there is no prospect of
any completions on this site within the next five years, let alone within 24
months. Remove 375 dwellings.173
57. As a result of this assessment, 2273 dwellings should be removed from the list of
identifiable, deliverable major sites, together with 193 from windfalls. The
Council’s identified deliverable housing land supply would then represent 4085
dwellings, or 69.54% of the requirement. Even if sites were included where
reserved matters applications have been made, the supply would still only be
4.15 years174. It cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land as
required by paragraph 73 of the NPPF.175 Whenever a five-year housing land
supply cannot be demonstrated, paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF means that
relevant policies are automatically rendered out of date and planning permission
should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and
demonstrably outweigh the benefits176. The provision of market housing should
be given very substantial weight.177
Affordable housing
58. For the Council, Tracy Smith rightly agreed that the country is still in the midst of
a national housing crisis. She agreed that this is especially acute and pressing in
South Oxfordshire. She also agreed that South Oxfordshire's residents,
especially those on low wages, are bearing the brunt of this crisis more than
173 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply Proof of evidence (CD 19.4), paragraphs 6.17 to
6.42 concludes that the supply should be reduced by 350 dwellings but his tables 3 and 4 and
Appendix 1 (his Scott Schedule) refer to 375 dwellings. Paragraphs 59 to 61 of Nina
Pindham’s closing submissions refer to 375
174 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply Proof of evidence (CD 19.4), paragraph 8.6
175 Roland Bolton’s Housing Land Supply Proof of evidence (CD 19.4), paragraph 8.7
176 Nina Pindham’s opening remarks, paragraph 11
177 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 64
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 30
national average: South Oxfordshire is within the 20% most expensive Districts
in the country, and that figure includes London. The affordability ratio is 13.07;
the effect of this is that someone earning the average wage who doesn’t have the
benefit of the bank of mom and dad can only afford 0.7% of the houses sold in
South Oxfordshire last year. This is both outrageous and unacceptable178.
59. Tracy Smith also agreed that the picture is of real social harm being caused right
now because market housing in the District is out of reach for those earning
average incomes. The situation is so bad that Inspector Young179 described the
affordability crisis in South Oxfordshire as “eye-watering”. He went on to say,
“this has put the aspiration of owning a home out of reach for many and is the
very embodiment of the national housing crisis.”
60. Some 271 households in total on the affordable housing waiting list have
expressed a preference for a home in Cholsey180. This is data from 2022, so
whatever the provision of affordable housing in the past (Ms Guiver, for the
Parish Council, indicated in oral evidence that Cholsey has recently benefitted
from 75 affordable units, though that was further unevidenced) there is no plan
for future development able to meet this rising need.
61. That is important. Matters are getting progressively worse, not better. At the
time of the Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan a local survey said the need in Cholsey
for affordable housing was 48181. That has grown to at least 63 by 15 August
2022182. Looking at the wider trajectory of need in South Oxfordshire, in 2019
there were 2,421 households on the register waiting for an affordable home. In
2021 that grew to 2,685. Now in 2022 it has ballooned further to 2,844.183
62. Ms Smith accepted that there is a need for a significant number of affordable
homes in the District, that the need is growing year on year both in Cholsey and
in the wider District, and to tackle this situation the Council has to accelerate the
provision of affordable housing rapidly.184 Ms Smith also fairly and rightly
accepted that because affordable housing relates to some of the most vulnerable
members of society, providing this rapid acceleration of the provision of
affordable homes has to be a priority for the Council.185
63. This is a greenfield site with no technical constraints, and the Appellant has
accepted an early start condition. It will deliver quickly, on a meaningful scale.
Considering the total absence of a forward plan for development able to deliver
178 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 62 and 65, referencing Tracy Smith’s
cross-examination and paragraphs 5.5 to 5.11 of Appendix 3 to Roland Bolton’s Older
Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.4A). The same points are made in paragraphs 6.1 to 6.3 and
9.4 to 9.6 of Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof itself (CD 19.5)
179 In paragraph 13.97 of appeal report APP/Q3115/W/19/3230827 (CD 6.2)
180 Ms Smith’s Rebuttal evidence at CD 12.10 confirms that as of 15 August 2022, 271
households on the affordable housing register have expressed a preference for Cholsey, of
which 63 record Cholsey as their first choice
181 Made Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan (CD 4.4), page 38, paragraph 128
182 Tracy Smith’s rebuttal proof of evidence (CD 12.10), page 7, paragraph 2.11
183 Tracy Smith’s rebuttal proof of evidence (CD 12.10)
184 In cross-examination
185 In cross-examination
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 31
166 affordable homes in Cholsey this is indeed a significant benefit of the
scheme.186
Self-build housing
64. It is agreed that the benefit of the provision of self-build and custom homes
should be given significant weight. Policy H12 supports the provision of self-built
homes187 and the Council is under a statutory duty to provide sufficient land for
homes on the self-build registry.188 Ms Smith accepted the Council is not
currently meeting that need.189 The Council is failing to meet that need by some
margin: the self-build register had 102 entries but only 54 are recorded as
having been delivered.190
Specialist Older Person’s Housing
65. Specialist Older Persons Housing (as distinct from sheltered housing or care
homes) provides public benefits over and above its value as housing191;
• Improved quality of life by virtue of on-site support, better social
networks, safer environment, repairs and maintenance, being independent
for longer192
• An average saving of some £550 to other services for each older person
living in specialist housing
• Delay or prevention of a move into residential care providing cost savings
to the public purse in the long term of, on average, £28,080193
• Health and social care provision can be streamlined within specialist
housing using visiting health professionals.
• Benefits local economies because older persons make greater use of local
facilities
• Reducing fuel poverty
• Releasing larger homes for families to occupy.
186 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 69
187 CD 4.1 page 109, policy H12(1): “Council will support proposals for self-build…”
188 Section 2A(2) of the Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015
189 In cross-examination
190 Stephen Stoney’s Proof of Evidence (CD 19.1), paragraph 8.8, data taken from Council’s
Annual Monitoring Report; see also Tracy Smith Proof of Evidence (CD 12.5), page 36 Table
16
191 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5), paragraph 4.2, referencing CD
9.1, Housing in Later Life; CapGemini (2009) Cost-benefit analysis of the Supported People
programme and Fit for Living Network (2010) Position Statement, HACT.
192 Housing in Later Life Toolkit (CD 9.1) referenced in paragraph 77 of Nina Pindham’s
closing remarks
193 Details of potential savings to the NHS of £121,264 per annum resulting from this appeal
proposal are set out in paragraphs 9.17 to 9.22 of Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing
Proof (CD 19.5)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 32
66. The benefits have been noted in other appeal decisions.194 The benefit of freeing
up family sized housing is recognised in a series of Council documents.195 It was
expressly noted as one of the six key benefits of specialist older persons housing
by the Council in its Background Paper 4196. The provision of specialist older
persons housing also promotes a more efficient use of existing housing stock: the
Demos report “Top of the Ladder” labelled older people “generation stuck”,
concluding that the government needs to have a ‘whole chain’ view of the
housing market, because helping the private sector serve older people at the top
of the ladder releases supply which in turn benefits those at every other step of
the ladder197. Other national research reports have noted the benefits198.
67. Government advice is that the need to provide housing for older people is critical.
It is the only housing need so described.199
68. The relevant Local Plan policy is H13. This confirms that encouragement will be
given to developments which include the delivery of specialist housing for older
people in locations with good access to public transport and local facilities200.
Local Plan policy H1 (3) (ii) provides that residential development on sites not
allocated in the development plan will only be permitted where it is for specialist
housing for older people in locations with good access to public transport and
local facilities201. Cholsey is a location with good access to public transport and
local facilities.
194 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5), paragraphs 4.3 to 4.5, and 9.23
referencing appeal decisions APP/Q3115/W/20/3265861 (Little Sparrows, Sonning Common)
(CD 6.4), paragraph 112; APP/B1930/W21/3279643 (Burston Nursery, St Albans) (CD 6.10),
paragraph 70: APP/P3610/W/21/3276483 (Epsom General Hospital) (CD 6.11), paragraph
103.
195 Listed in paragraphs 2.15 to 2.19 of Appendix 3 to Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing
Proof (CD 19.4A): CD 9.21, the Joint Housing Delivery Strategy for South Oxfordshire and
Vale of White Horse 2018-2028, page 10, paragraphs 29 and 30, task reference 8; CD 9.22,
the Housing Delivery Strategy for South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse Background
Paper 1, paragraphs 6.24 and 6.27
196 CD 9.23, page 5, paragraph 2.16
197 CD 9.11
198 Paragraphs 3.1 to 3.21 of Appendix 3 to Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD
19.4A) reference the All Party Parliamentary Group on housing and care for older people
report HAPPI 3 (CD 9.12), the Strategic Society Centre report Valuing Retirement Housing
(CD 9.13), the Demos report Unlocking the Housing Market (CD 9.14), the Legal and General
report last Time Buyers (CD 9.15), Professor Les Mayhew’s report Too Little, Too Late? (CD
9.16) and the Chain Reaction report (CD 9.17)
199 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5), paragraphs 3.1 to 3.36,
referencing several passages in National Planning Practice Guidance, the Levelling Up White
Paper (CD 9.3), the House of Commons publication “Housing and ageing population: a
reading list”, the Government Office for Science publication “Future of an Ageing Population”,
the White Paper Fixing Our Broken Housing Market, the Local Government Association’s
publication “Housing our Aging Population”, the House of Lords Built Environment Committee
1st Report of Session 2021-22 HL Paper 132 Meeting Housing Demand and the government’s
response to it
200 Stephen Stoney’s Proof (CD 19.1), paragraph 5.18
201 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5), paragraphs 5.1 to 5.5 and
Stephen Stoney’s Proof (CD 19.1) paragraphs 5.10 and 5.18-19
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 33
69. However, the development plan gives no indication with regard to the level of
need of older persons housing nor is there any reference to the nature of need in
terms of type or tenure202. Previous appeal decisions have commented on this
deficiency203. The plan’s main evidence base simply rolled forward the existing
rates of local and national provision to identify a range of net need of between
1,309 and 2,094 specialist units of older persons for South Oxfordshire. In fact,
current provision in South Oxfordshire has subsequently reduced to 130 units per
thousand people aged 75 and over.204 This figure is for all types of older person’s
housing and tenure, not just for Extra Care housing.205
70. Oxfordshire County Council and the Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group
have jointly published Oxfordshire’s Market Position Statement 2019 -2022206.
This uses a figure of 25 units per 1,000 people aged 75 and over to calculate the
future need for Extra Care but explicitly excludes privately owned provision from
its definition, so is a target for social care provision only.207 The Oxfordshire
Market Position Statement Extra Care Housing Supplement 2019 -2022208
encourages the provision of extra care housing schemes independent of the
County’s commissioning plans but retains its target for social care provision
only.209
71. An appeal decision in June 2021210 endorsed a provision rate of 45 extra care
units per 1,000 people aged 75 and over, split one third for social rented (15 per
1,000) and two thirds for sale (30 per 1,000), but noted that the Council
accepted that it was underplaying the scale of potential need .211
72. The appellant’s consultants have carried out their own research to determine a
target. They note that the population aged 75 and over in South Oxfordshire is
projected to rise by 53% from 2021 to 2041.212 They note an imbalance between
socially rented and market provision of specialist older persons housing.213 They
note that in South Oxfordshire a higher proportion of market householders aged
75 or more occupy dwellings with three or more bedrooms than the average for
England.214 The same is true of market householders aged 55 or more215. These
are the drivers of need for older person’s market housing in the district.216
202 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5), paragraph 5.6
203 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5), paragraph 5.27 referencing
appeal decision APP/Q3115/W/20/3265861, Little Sparrows Sonning Common (CD 6.4)
204 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5), paragraphs 5.9 to 5.12
205 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5), paragraph 5.11
206 CD 9.19
207 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5), paragraphs 5.13 to 5.22
208 CD 9.20
209 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5), paragraphs 5.23 to 5.26
210 APP/Q3115/W/20/3265861, Little Sparrows Sonning Common (CD 6.4), paragraph 38
211 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5), paragraphs 5.28
212 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5) paragraph 6.4
213 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5) paragraphs 6.5 – 6.9
214 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5) paragraphs 6.10 – 6.12 and 9.7 to
9.10
215 And so, as paragraph 99 of Nina Pindham’s closing submissions points out; although the
Covid pandemic has recently diminished the proportion of the population currently aged 75 or
more, because the cohort of people aged 55 or more shows the same characteristics, the
covid epidemic is not a useful input into any model of long term need.
216 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5) paragraph 6.13.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 34
73. It is recognised that the target rates in older research still have currency but
their base data is over two decades old. The Housing in Later Life report217
proposed an uplift to 30 units per 1,000 persons aged 75 and over for market
sector extra care provision.218 This is much lower than the figure of 69 units per
1,000 persons aged 75 or more developed by Professor Michael Ball in 2011.219
74. The consultant’s model is published in detail in the SPRU research report “The
Older Persons Specialist Housing Needs Model”.220 Unlike the recent appeal
decision221 relied upon by the Council, the resulting rate is evidence-based and
tested against other indicators of need and found to be reasonable222. It reviews
a number of surveys undertaken to illustrate the likely demand for specialist
housing for older persons. None are definitive but all suggest that the level of
potential demand for specialist older person housing is in the range of 250 to 470
units per 1,000 persons aged 75 and over.
75. Three types of projection have been considered by the appellant’s consultant.223
The rates which they suggested for market housing were moderated to equalise
rates between tenures.224 Consideration was given to needs arising from people
with poor health, indicating a substantial level of unmet need.225 Generic
conclusions have been reached,226 including
• The rate of provision of all kinds of older person housing has not kept pace
with population growth
• The rate of provision of specialist accommodation is 8 times greater in the
social rented sector than in the market sector
• But the market sector is catching up in terms of new provision
• Extra Care is the fastest growing type of specialist accommodation across
both tenures
• Market Extra Care is growing faster than Social Extra Care and is growing
exponentially
• Growth in provision is still not keeping pace with population growth, except
for ownership and shared ownership units, particularly in extra care
• If growth continues, the rate of provision for Enhanced Sheltered housing
and for Extra Care housing in the market sector could catch up with
provision in the social sector
217 CD 9.1
218 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5) paragraphs 7.5 – 7.6
219 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5) paragraph 7.7 referencing Housing
markets and independence in old age: expanding the opportunities by Professor Michael Ball
May 2011 (University of Reading)
220 CD 9.2
221 APP/M2270/W/21/3289034 (CD 6.36)
222 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraphs 100 to 105
223 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5) paragraph 7.16. Nina Pindham’s
closing submissions, paragraph 85
224 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5) paragraph 7.17
225 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5) paragraphs 7.18 and 7.19
226 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5) paragraphs 7.20 and 7.21
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 35
• It will never match rates of provision in the USA, Australia or New Zealand
• It could return to levels of provision experienced in the 1990s
• The market-based housing options have both the most capacity for growth
and the proven potential for growth
• Extra Care has demonstrated the most potential for growth across all
tenures.
76. The national rates for the provision of older persons housing derived from the
projections were moderated for market units where the projected growth would
lead to a supply of market units exceeding the social rented supply rate, even
though there are a number of sources which suggest that higher projections are
plausible.227 National rates are proposed for five different types of older persons
housing; age exclusive228, sheltered housing, enhanced sheltered housing, extra
care housing and provision for dementia.229 The proposed rate for owned extra
care housing is 44 per 1,000 people aged 75 and over.230
77. The research then adjusts the national rate to reflect local circumstances relating
to house prices, tenure, property size and occupancy rates to arrive at a local
rate applicable to South Oxfordshire.231 The result is then tested for plausibility
by considering the number of dwellings sold for £350,000 or more by people
aged 75 or over (considered to be the minimum level of equity needed to enter
into extra care home ownership)232. A final sense check is made by comparison
with international comparators.233 Having followed this process, the proposed
local rate for provision of owned extra care housing is 62 per 1,000 persons aged
75 or more (within an overall rate (for all types of older person’s housing) of 354
units per 1,000 persons aged 75 or more).234 This translates to a need for 964
owned extra care units at the present time in South Oxfordshire, rising to 1,465
units by 2041.235
227 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5) paragraphs 7.24 and 7.25. This
equalisation process is described in Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 88
228 This would include homes made adaptable under part M of the Building Regulations but, as
Nina Pindham points out in paragraph 97 of her closing submissions, they do not provide care
and so, the Council’s point that their provision would reduce the need for extra care housing
is irrelevant to the estimation of market need for extra care housing.
229 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5) paragraph 7.27
230 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions paragraph 88
231 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5) paragraphs 7.28 to 7.33. Nina
Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 89 and 90. Nina Pindham’s closing submissions
paragraph 98 confirm that Mr Bolton did look at using overall poor health as a metric to
adjust the need locally but, in contrast to its use in setting the national rate, because of the
gross mismatch between those in market housing with poor mobility and health and the
actual very low provision of market extra care in his view it couldn’t be used as a metric to
calculate need.
232 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 93
233 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 94
234 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5) paragraphs 7.34 to 7.37 and table
4 and Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 106
235 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5) paragraph 7.38 and table 5.
Paragraphs 7.40 to 7.47 point out that this figure is based on the 2018 subnational population
projections forecast of a 2021 population rather than the 2021 census. Use of the census
would reduce the current need figure by 41 units
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 36
78. A comparison is then made with existing supply and developments in the
pipeline.236 This demonstrates that there is currently a shortfall in South
Oxfordshire of at least 663 extra care housing units, rising to 1,164 by the year
2041.237
79. Applying the model to Cholsey suggests a locally based need for 61 units now.238
It is expected that about 60% of future residents of the facility (ie 48 residents)
would originate from within about ten miles of the facility.239 Yet there is
currently no extra care facility at all in Cholsey. And because there is no further
development proposed in the area at all for the rest of the plan period, there is
no prospect outside of the appeal scheme for extra care housing for residents of
Cholsey who wish to stay in their community as they age and their care needs
change.
80. The people of Cholsey clearly benefit from a very strong sense of community
spirit but do not benefit from somewhere they can move to within their beloved
community when they would like accommodation with support. This is a need
expressly recognised by the people of Cholsey. Supported accommodation was
the top scoring type of development people said they wanted when they were
surveyed for the Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan.240 Within that type of
development, what is proposed here – extra care – was itself the top scoring,
with 69% of residents expressing a preference for accommodation with care
support, i.e. an extra care facility.241
Employment, retail and community uses
81. Local Plan Policy EMP2242 supports the provision of employment space. It is
accepted the scheme provides for more employment space than is provided for
under this policy. As Mr Stoney confirmed243, the quantum proposed in the
application was informed by the Bidwells Commercial Strategy report244 which
sets out the scale of employment space needed to create a critical mass as a
meaningful entity.245 It did not relate to the overall viability of the development.
82. However, it must be noted the maximum quantum of proposed employment
space does not conflict with the development plan. Policy EMP1 sets out a
minimum quantum of employment space, and the policy itself does not preclude
the provision of employment land in larger villages. Indeed, the provision of
further employment land in Cholsey is one of the specified aims of the
Neighbourhood Plan. The objective246 underpinning Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan
policy I8 is to support those who work from home – who formed a sizeable
proportion of the economically active residents of Cholsey even before the
236 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5) paragraphs 8.1 to 8.20
237 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5) paragraph 8.20
238 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5) paragraph 7.39
239 Roland Bolton’s Older Person’s Housing Proof (CD 19.5) paragraph 10.13
240 Made Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan (CD 4.4) page 36, paragraph 113
241 Nina Pindham’s closing submission, paragraph 72
242 CD 4.1 page 128
243 Stephen Stoney’s Proof (CD 19.1), paragraph 6.7
244 CD 10.1
245 Stephen Stoney Evidence in Chief
246 CD 4.4, page 67, paragraph 251
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 37
pandemic accelerated more flexible working patterns.247 The Cholsey
Neighbourhood Plan goes on to confirm “[w]e encourage and support sustainable
economic growth in Cholsey”.248
83. Policy I8249 then duly supports the provision of business uses, even when outside
the settlement boundary adjacent to the village, provided the scale of the village
and its wider landscape setting are respected and the development satisfies other
policies in the development plan.250 This scheme satisfies these criteria.
84. Local Plan Policy EMP10251 provides support for local shops as well as the social
benefits of community facilities such as the day nursery and community
building252. These services and facilities are also noted as desirable in the Cholsey
Neighbourhood Plan: the local shops are to be “retained to maintain a thriving
rural economy”,253 to which additional residents will contribute, and
“new…community and leisure facilities, which are important to the social fabric of
the Parish”254 are supported. Once again, this development will deliver exactly
these complementary services and facilities desired by the local community.255
85. Mr Stoney confirmed the community building will be provided by the extra care
facility, but the aim is for this space to be well used by the wider community in
order to integrate residents of the extra care units into the community. This has
win-win benefits for all concerned and will lead to a cohesive community with
broad social ties, strongly aligned with the aim of creating sustainable
communities256.
Development Strategy
86. No party at this appeal opposes the development of the site in principle257. The
opposition is in relation to the scale of development, even though 29.8% of the
site will be natural green infrastructure. Sustainable sites in sustainable locations
must optimise and make the most efficient use of land258. There is no dispute
that Cholsey is a sustainable location. The development is consistent with the
overall strategy as set out in policy STRAT1, which is to support and enhance the
roles of larger villages such as Cholsey as local service centres259. Some 70% of
growth in the District is directed to the Science Vale, towns and larger villages260.
247 CD 4.4 page 67, paragraph 252 notes the 2011 census found 6% of Cholsey’s residents
worked from home and 12% were self-employed
248 CD 4.4 page 67, paragraph 255
249 CD 4.4 page 68
250 CD 4.4, page 68, paragraph 257, policy I8
251 CD 4.1 page 129
252 Stephen Stoney’s Proof (CD 19.1), paragraph 5.21
253 CD 4.4 page 20, paragraph 50
254 CD 4.4 page 21, CNP STRAT1 fourth bullet point
255 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 10.
256 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 19
257 Beryl Guiver in cross-examination, Stephen Stoney’s Proof (CD19.1), paragraph 5.36 and
Peter Radmall’s Proof of evidence (CD 12.7) page 48, paragraph 8.21 “particularly if it
improves the somewhat abrupt character of the existing settlement edge”
258 NPPF paragraph 125(c) and Local Plan (CD 4.1) page 37, policy STRAT5
259 Stephen Stoney’s Proof of evidence paragraphs 5.3 to 5.5
260 Local Plan (CD 4.1) page 20, paragraph 3.8
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 38
87. Cholsey is clearly the largest and arguably most sustainable settlement, with
areas of well-located developable unconstrained land in what is otherwise a
relatively constrained district261. It was agreed that, in principle, development
such as the provision of a range of market and specialist housing, retail,
employment and community uses does support the role of Cholsey as a local
service centre262. The answer could hardly have been any different given the
Local Plan itself confirms that “growth supports the services and facilities that
sustain large villages”263.
88. Policy STRAT1 also seeks to protect and enhance the countryside264. A degree of
harm is inevitable when developing greenfield land, but here it will be more than
offset by the extensive landscaping mitigation proposed and the improvement to
the appearance of the settlement edge of Cholsey in this location, leading to
better visual integration of the settlement into its setting265.
89. The only conflict with the development plan is because the site is not allocated.
As Inspector Major characterised it in the Lady Grove appeal, this is a “narrow”
conflict266. In his closing submissions, Mr Neville sought to argue that paragraph
32 of this decision distinguished it from the current appeal because Didcot
Garden Town (DGT) masterplan encompassed the site. That is incorrect; later on
in the decision at paragraph 35 Inspector Major confirms “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” and at
paragraph 38 Inspector Major confirms “the Council’s planning evidence in the
case before me concentrated on the conflict with the development plan” As there,
so in this case, this conflict is of limited weight since one of the objectives of
STRAT1 is to concentrate development in larger villages.267 The strategy
expressly confirms it is “directing development to the Larger Villages to
complement the spatial strategy”.268
90. It follows that the development of the site is entirely in line with the overall
strategy for the development of land in the District and the aspirations within the
Local Plan and Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan. Beryl Guiver was helpfully candid in
her response as to what happened to the original proposal to allocate the site in
the Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan: ‘community sentiment’.269 A certain scale of
development should not be viewed as a challenge; it is an opportunity. It allows
for comprehensive placemaking and masterplanning, rather than piecemeal ad
hoc development, and only development above a certain scale will be able to
viably provide such an extensive range of benefits. Tracy Smith accepted that
small scale infill development will never provide 140 affordable homes.270 This
also comes alongside specialist care for the elderly, a community building, self
261 Stephen Stoney’s Proof (CD 19.1), paragraph 5.12
262 Tracy Smith, in cross-examination
263 Local Plan (CD 4.1) page 94, paragraph 4.17
264 Local Plan (CD 4.1) page 23, paragraph iv
265 Nina Pindham closing submissions, paragraph 14
266 Appeal ref AP/Q3115/W/21/3272377 (CD 6.3) paragraph 37
267 Local Plan (CD 4.1) STRAT1(1)(iv), see also paragraph 3.8
268 Local Plan (CD 4.1) page 23, paragraph 3.14
269 Beryl Guiver in cross-examination
270 Tracy Smith in cross-examination; note quantum is 166 if social extra care units are
included
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 39
and custom build plots, a day nursery, employment space, local-scale retail,
highways improvements, recreational trails, new cycle routes, natural greenspace
and a community park.271
91. Further, critical aspects of the scheme are considered so important that they
warrant express exceptions to the policy restricting the development of land to
areas within settlement boundaries. One of those is the provision of specialist
housing for the elderly, for which an exception is set out at Local Plan policy
H1(3)(ii). The Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan also accepts new business
development outside of settlement boundaries under policy I8, provided the
criteria are satisfied.272
92. Given that the development plan does not plan for any further housing
development in Cholsey over the entirety of the plan period – to 2035 - there are
no other means by which the 271 people who selected Cholsey amongst their
priority choices as a location for an affordable home would have a realistic
prospect of securing a home there, no other means by which the residents of
Cholsey would secure an extra care facility, and no other means by which the
additional benefits of the development would accrue for the people of Cholsey
and the wider area.273
Transport
93. All highways and transport related considerations have been agreed.274 The plans
upon which the highways authority removed its objection are secured by way of
the s.106 agreement.275
94. The Parish Council objects, though Ms Guiver fairly accepted that this meant she
disagreed with the highways authority. Overall, the scheme will provide wider
benefits to the community through an improved pedestrian route along Reading
Road, something expressly desired by the community as set out in the Cholsey
Neighbourhood Plan,276 a shorter and more attractive route through parkland
across the site to the centre of the village for residents of Fairmile as well as to
the east and south of the site, and an improved pedestrian and cycle route for all
along Ilges Lane. There is scope for consultation and refinement of the road
improvements along Ilges Lane during the detailed design stage, as confirmed by
Mr Pettitt and Mr Arnold.277 There will be junction improvements, albeit with
some accepted change of character along Reading Road. This is a very busy road
and so whilst possibly considered to be visually charming, the interests of
highway safety have to take precedence. The Appellant has sought to design the
access junctions with an absolute minimum of tree loss and to more than make
up for that by planting within the site.278
271 Nina Pindham closing submissions, paragraph 16
272 Nina Pindham closing submissions, paragraph 17
273 Nina Pindham closing submissions, paragraph 18
274 Highways Statement Of Common Ground, (CD 16.2) paragraph 5.1
275 Section 106 agreement seventh schedule
276 CD 4.4 page 39, paragraph 136
277 Mr Pettit is the Appellant’s transport consultant. The potential for further design work was
confirmed during Beryl Guiver’s cross examination and during s.106 discussion. Geoff Arnold
for the highways authority confirmed consultation on Ilges Lane works will take place.
278 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraphs 11 and 12
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 40
Heritage
95. The proposed access arrangements will entail the relocation of a listed milestone
on Reading Road279. Reason for refusal 4 has fallen away following Tracy Smith’s
concession that there is in fact overall heritage betterment,280 which she also
agreed should be given significant weight in the planning balance.281 At present
the milestone is unmaintained and largely invisible to the passing public by virtue
of it being surrounded by overgrown vegetation.282 Its restoration would correct
a structural lean and could pick out its legend in an appropriately coloured
paint.283 The Heritage Statement also demonstrates further benefits as part of
the proposals through the painting of the lettering and numbering of the
mileposts to the north and the south (NHLE references 1193746 & 1285987)
which could be restored to achieve aesthetic parity with that to be reinstated to
the milestone. This would, given their shared historic function, offer
enhancement to their individual and collective significance.284 The milestone can
be satisfactorily relocated in a manner supported by the Council’s Conservation
Officer, with necessary works secured through an appropriate condition.285
Landscape
96. The appeal site is ordinary; attractive but unremarkable. It is a single
agricultural field with limited features. Mr Radmall confirmed the site itself has
“no internal features of note”.286 The “overwhelming” sense of the site being
open is because it is a field. All fields are open. That is the very nature of a
field287.
97. In the appellant’s view, there is no objection to the development of this specific
field in principle. It is fully in line with the Local Plan. Paragraph 7.8 of the
SOLP, supporting policy ENV1, confirms that compliance will be assessed using
the Council’s Landscape Capacity Assessment, amongst other documents.288 This
document confirms the overall landscape character sensitivity of the site is
medium/low and the site is suitable for development.289 Mr Radmall correctly
emphasizes “the Council is not seeking to argue that no development should take
place in this location.”290 This is entirely in line with the conclusion of the
279 Stephen Stoney’s Proof (CD 19.1), paragraph 5.26
280 See conservation officer’s consultation response appended to Stephen Stoney’s evidence
(CD 19.1) Appendix 1
281 Tracy Smith’s cross examination with reference to the requirement to pay “special regard”
to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special
architectural or historic interest which it possesses under s.66(1) of the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
282 Stephen Stoney’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.1), Appendix 1
283 Environmental Statement Appendix 10.1 (Heritage Statement) (CD 1.45), page 29,
paragraph 6.1.4
284 Stephen Stoney’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.1), Appendix 1
285 Stephen Stoney’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.1), Appendix 1. See recommended condition
10
286 Peter Radmall in round table discussion
287 Nina Pindham’s closing submission, paragraph 125
288 Local Plan (CD 4.1) page 166, paragraph 7.8
289 Landscape Capacity Assessment for Sites on the Edge of the Larger Villages of South
Oxfordshire (CD 1.35) page 281 of 857, paragraph 3
290 Pater Radmall Proof of evidence (CD 12.7), page 3, paragraph 1.14
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 41
Council’s Landscape Capacity Assessment that the site can acceptably
accommodate development. 291
98. Just as with the Council’s acceptance that they do not dispute the development of
the site in principle, the Parish Council’s position was fair. They initially allocated
the site, which is an eminently sensible location given the AONB and flood risk
constraints around Cholsey elsewhere. Ms Guiver then confirmed the site was
removed from the Neighbourhood Plan as an allocation based on community
sentiment regarding development at this scale.292
99. It is visually enclosed by the harsh edge of urban development on three sides
and part of the fourth. Tree belts enclose it further to the north and east, in
contrast to the more typically open landscape of the surrounding countryside293.
The site is generally flat. Its elevation above sea level is typical of the rest of
Cholsey.294
100. In brief, the Site is generally well enclosed by the surrounding development
and established vegetation, with wider potential for visibility restricted by the flat
landform within the Thames plains to the north and west. Consequently, the
area from within which the development would be potentially visible is limited to
an area extending approximately 3km to the south and east and up to 2km to
the north and west. There are limited medium to long distance views from
elevated positions on rising ground to the south and east where views are not
impeded by intervening landscape features295.
101. The site’s rural setting will be retained. Mr Radmall accepted that the area to
the north of the site is of the same character. Thus, the rural landscape setting of
Cholsey will remain intact. The site is otherwise enclosed by existing built
development to the east, south, west, and the remaining section of the north
side. This site has a close relationship with the village edge: that is how the site
is experienced.296 Being associated with an existing village, the scheme would
not alter the frequency of settlement within the landscape.297 The scheme does
not introduce development into a landscape where this does not already exist:
indeed, Cholsey is a notable settlement in the ‘Wessex Downs and Western Vale
Fringes’ and the proposed development is directly adjoined to the west and south
by the built village edge298. It is not experienced as unspoilt open countryside.299
102. In locations where it is visible, the existing edge of Cholsey is dominant at
close range and an identifiable feature within long distance views. The current
eastern edge of the village is an ‘abrupt’ feature in views, with domestic
291 Landscape Capacity Assessment for Sites on the Edge of the Larger Villages of South
Oxfordshire (CD 1.35) page 220 of 857
292 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 129
293 Katharine Ellinsfield’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.2), paragraphs 2.9, 3.1 to 3.3, 3.9, 3.24
and 6.12, Nina Pindham’s opening remarks, paragraph 23 and Nina Pindham’s closing
submissions, footnote 24 and paragraph 125
294 Katharine Ellinsfield’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.2), paragraph 3.6 and 3.32
295 Katharine Ellinsfield’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.2), paragraphs 3.21 to 3.23, 3.32, 6.13,
6.15 and 6.19, bullets 6 and 7
296 Katharine Ellinsfield in round table discussion
297 Katharine Ellinsfield’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.2), paragraph 6.19, bullet 3
298 Katharine Ellinsfield’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.2), paragraph 7.5
299 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 128
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 42
boundary fencing, dwellings backing or siding on, and limited or no structural
planting to soften views of built form. From elevated locations looking towards
the Site at longer distances, Cholsey forms the backdrop to the Site from the
east, and partially screens the Site from the south300.
103. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been carried out.301
The Council was invited to agree the viewpoints appraised.302 Thirteen receptors
were chosen for analysis.303 Most are illustrated with photoviews. Four are
illustrated with photomontages of a block-form model of the scheme (created by
applying the maximum building heights indicated on the relevant parameters
plan).304 The techniques used in the photographs and the photomontages were
criticised by Mr Spence for the Council but Katherine Ellinsfield asserted that all
were prepared in accordance with adopted Landscape Institute Technical
Guidance Note TGN 06/19 ‘Visual Representation of Development Proposals’.305
104. The development will create a more attractive, appropriate settlement edge
within the rural setting for Cholsey compared to the existing situation306. The
appeal proposal will achieve the objectives of the Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan in
this respect. 307 The objective underpinning policy H2 of the Cholsey
Neighbourhood Plan is to “ensure that opportunities for suitably sited new homes
in the village are allowed, and that the countryside around the village is
protected to avoid unsustainable and inappropriate development. To provide an
attractive rural setting for Cholsey and to retain the separate identities of
Wallingford and Cholsey.”308 The development meets all these aspirations whilst
also providing the benefit of a significant landscaped improvement of the
settlement edge. Even Mr Radmall accepted that visually the edge of the village
is “a bit raw”.309 That will be improved not only with sympathetic planting but
with extensive parkland planting, deliberately designed to reflect what everyone
has accepted is the successful landscaping at Fairmile.310
105. In terms of the separation of Cholsey from Fairmile, a substantial gap between
the two is not in line with the nucleated character of Cholsey and the Cholsey
Neighbourhood Plan’s aspiration to retain Cholsey’s “compact” village form (as
set out in policy CNP STRAT1 as part of the very first point of the overall
300 Katharine Ellinsfield’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.2), paragraph 3.24 and 3.32
301 Included within chapter 9 of the Environmental Statement (CD 1.7) and summarised in
Katharine Ellinsfield’s Proof of Evidence (CD 19.2), paragraphs 6.1 to 6.18
302 Katharine Ellinsfield’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.2), paragraphs 3.25 and 6.2 to 6.19
303 Katharine Ellinsfield’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.2), paragraph 3.26. The choice was made
without the benefit of a calculated Zone of Theoretical Visibility but that made no difference
according to Nina Pindham’s closing submissions paragraph 121
304 Katharine Ellinsfield’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.2), paragraphs 6.5 and 7.5 and Appendices
B, C, D and E
305 Katharine Ellinsfield’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.2), paragraph 3.29, 6.4, 6.6 and 6.7 and
Nina Pindham’s closing submissions paragraphs 122 to 124.
306 Katharine Ellinsfield’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.2) paragraphs 4.4, 5.9 and 6.19, bullet 4
307 Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan H2: objective page 33
308 Made Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan (CD 4.4) page 33 of 128, paragraph 97
309 Peter Radmall in round table discussion
310 Katharine Ellinsfield in round table discussion; Mr Reed, Mr Radmall and Mr Leaver all
noting with approval the landscaping of Fairmile along Reading Road
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 43
aspiration of the Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan).311 Mr Radmall’s attempt to draw
a distinction between Fairmile and the site in fact makes exactly the Appellant’s
own point. He confirmed the Fairmile development is well screened.312 This
means the undisputed evidence is that because mitigation landscaping is
successful at Fairmile, mitigation landscaping can and will be successful on the
appeal site. Katharine Ellinsfield confirms that the green infrastructure proposed
at the eastern frontage of the appeal scheme is designed to be outward facing
towards the green infrastructure, much in the same vein as Fairmile. There will
still be a degree of visual separation because of the tree belt along Reading Road,
which will be mostly retained, as well as the significant additional parkland
planting proposed at the eastern section of the site.313
106. The Council has complained about the imposition of large building blocks, but
that is a matter of design, layout and scale: something that falls for consideration
at reserved matters stage. The Council’s closing submissions at paragraph 116
assert there is no condition limiting storeys or heights. There is. The parameters
plan will be conditioned.314
107. Reason for refusal 2 also alleges the large extent of development proposed
would adversely affect the sparsely settled character of the landscape. Ms
Ellinsfield gave evidence that the density proposed on the development took this
into account, and local character determined the proposed quantum of
development on the site. It is noted that the Landscape Capacity Assessment
assessed that the site could accommodate 345 dwellings at the now unacceptably
low overall density of 25 dwellings per hectare.315 This demonstrates that the
Appellant has designed a scheme that provides abundant green infrastructure
which respects the character of the surrounding settlement, while also making
the most efficient use of land.316
108. The Green Infrastructure and Recreational Strategy was an additional bespoke
document that was not required by planning policy or EIA scoping. It was
produced in order to demonstrate the quality and multifunctional performance of
the green infrastructure and the thought put into the landscaping proposals to
ensure a successful landscaping scheme could be accommodated within the
scheme.317 It responds to the character and features of the site and its setting
through
• Analysis of local landscape character which informs the distribution of built
form and green infrastructure
• Allowing the retention of most tree cover and existing hedgerows providing
habitat diversity and a connection with adjacent countryside
• A range of open spaces providing varied opportunities
311 Made Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan (CD 4.4) page 21 of 128, first bullet point under
STRAT1
312 Peter Radmall in round table discussion
313 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 126
314 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions paragraph 133
315 Landscape Capacity Assessment for Sites on the Edge of the Larger Villages of South
Oxfordshire (CD 1.35) page 220 of 857
316 Nina Pindham’s closing submission, paragraph 120
317 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions paragraph 130
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 44
• The largest open space area integrates retained woodland, field boundary
hedgerows and interconnected green spaces offering multifunctional
spaces including equipped play areas, a space large enough to serve as a
sports pitch, ecologically focused areas and informal walks, complementing
the similar landscape structure at the Fairmile Registered Park and Garden
on the opposite side of Reading Road and thus integrating the site into its
setting
• A “gateway” space to the north-west, connecting with walking routes into
the village and visually to the farmland to the north
• Smaller informal spaces within the development itself incorporating new
habitat, planting, pedestrian / cycle links and natural children’s play.
• Surfaced and informal walks and cycle routes connecting with existing
routes in the area.318
109. Mr Radmall says giving 19% of the site to green infrastructure “is not
enough”.319 In reality, the total volume of green infrastructure proposed is
29.8%.320 This has to be viewed in light of the NPPF advocating the efficient use
of land at paragraphs 124, 125, and at paragraph 125(c) telling planning
authorities to refuse applications that do not make efficient use of land. It is
supported by the Local Plan saying “planning permission will only be granted
where it can be demonstrated that the proposal optimises the use of land and
potential of the site”.321
110. The criticism that the scale of provision of green infrastructure is inadequate is
baseless. Katharine Ellinsfield cut and pasted figures from the environmental
statement for her summary note, submitted in an attempt to help322. 8.72
hectares will be provided. She then excluded woodland from the calculation on
the grounds that it is not accessible in the same way as open fields and
recreational space, even though that is expressly classified (obviously) as green
infrastructure in the relevant guidance. The resulting figure of 5.8 hectares
exceeds the 5.75 ha requirement generated from an application of the Fields in
Trust guidance323. The bottom line is that there is significant over provision of
green infrastructure beyond what is required.324 There will be a slight biodiversity
318 Katharine Ellinsfield’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.2), paragraphs 4.5, 5.9 – 5.12, 5.14 and
6.10- 6.11
319 Peter Radmall in round table discussion: referring to public open space
320 Green Infrastructure and Recreation Strategy (CD 1.44) page 6 and Katharine Ellinsfield’s
Proof of evidence (CD 19.2) paragraph 2.2 separating out what qualifies as public open space
321 Local Plan (CD 4.1) policy STRAT5(1) page 37
322 Written response on the provision of green infrastructure and open space. Inquiry
document ID6
323 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 131 observe that the Council’s closings
allege that this guidance “forms no part of the Council’s policy and has not been referred to
throughout the inquiry” (closing, paragraph 218). The Council seems to have missed the
s.106 session, in which the Fields in Trust guidance is expressly referred to at pages 48, 49
and 50 in the s.106 itself and is the document by which the provision of open space is
measured by the Council itself in the fifth schedule.
324 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 131
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 45
net gain of 0.69%. This warrants some weight as a benefit in the planning
balance325.
111. The point claimed by the Council that ponds and SuDS open space is not
inclusive and accessible is not understood. Planning Practice Guidance makes it
clear that they are, and Ms Ellinsfield’s note confirms that the relevant guidance
produced by the Council also includes SuDS as green infrastructure.326
112. Ms Ellinsfield confirmed the SuDS features have been specifically designed to
allow the potential for different depths to the SuDS feature as well as space for
an ecological pond with scrub planting. This has scope to generate a variety of
habitats to maximise the biodiversity gains. The proposed mitigation has been
designed from ecological, recreational, and landscape viewpoints. The actual
experience of the users of the site also fed into the design, in that the
recreational routes have been designed with on the ground experience in mind.
The proposed green infrastructure and recreation strategy goes far beyond just
visual aspects and far beyond just responding to context.327
113. The objective underpinning Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan policy E1 is to “ensure
that new development in Cholsey is mindful of its sensitive setting in and
adjacent to both the Chilterns and North Wessex Downs AONBs. New housing
should be at an appropriate density and of a good design with green
infrastructure at its heart, acknowledging and enhancing the rural character of
Cholsey, and should accord with policies for the AONBs.”328 Local Plan policy
ENV1 requires consideration of the AONB management plans329.
114. There is no objection based on impact on the AONBs and all landscape experts
who gave evidence confirmed that whilst the impact should be taken into
account, it is acceptable in light of the nature of the expansive views from the
AONBs in which the site blends with Cholsey in those views.330 The scheme
would not break the skyline or block views out of the AONB, nor would the
scheme block views from the Public Right of Way (PRoW) along the north of the
Site looking east towards the AONB.331 The special qualities of the AONB directly
fed into the design of the proposed green infrastructure.332 The development will
not unacceptably harm the landscape setting of Cholsey and complies with
Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan policy E1, insofar as that policy is relevant.333
Minerals
115. It is agreed that the borehole evidence demonstrates that there are no mineral
resources on the site itself.334 The dispute concerns the effect of adding sensitive
325 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 137
326 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 132 referencing Inquiry Document ID6
paragraphs 2.8 to 2.10
327 Katharine Ellinsfield in round table discussion
328 Made Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan (CD 4.4) page 46 of 128, paragraph 157
329 Katharine Ellinsfield’s Proof of Evidence (CD 19.2), paragraph 5.2
330 Katharine Ellinsfield’s Proof of Evidence (CD 19.2), paragraphs 5.5 to 5.8
331 Katharine Ellinsfield’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.2), paragraph 7.10
332 Katharine Ellinsfield in round table discussion
333 Made Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan (CD 4.4), page 50, paragraphs 178-180
334 Tracy Smith in cross examination referring to the Mineral Resource assessment (CD 1.89),
page 3, paragraph 3.3 (evidence from boreholes) and paragraph 3.4 (conclusion)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 46
receptors to a Mineral Consultation Area surrounding the deposits which lie to the
north. The simple and obvious point is that because there is already
development to the north of the site along Caps Lane (which is within the Mineral
Safeguarding Area, in contrast to the site, which is not)335 the southern area of
the deposit is already sterilised by existing development. The development of
the site therefore would make absolutely no difference in terms of the
sterilisation of the mineral deposit in this area.336
Education
116. The appellant’s case has three strands. One is that the request for a financial
contribution through a s106 obligation would be contrary to Community
Infrastructure Regulation 122. The second is that any contribution is
unnecessary because the education system has sufficient capacity. The third is
that the financial contribution sought is not justified by the costs of providing the
education facilities.
117. Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010
provides that planning obligations must only be sought where they meet all of
three tests. One test is whether the obligation is necessary. An obligation is not
necessary if the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) provides the funding.
118. The Council’s current CIL Spending Strategy (April 2021) states that 50% of
CIL available (after deducting administrative costs and the contributions to Parish
Councils) is to be passed to Oxfordshire County Council to spend on education,
transport, libraries and household recycling centres.337
119. For the Council, Barbara Chillman raised the point that CIL was never intended
to fully fund projects on the infrastructure list and so there is a funding gap,338
but reg. 122 constrains what decision makers can do in such circumstances. It is
the law, and it provides that an obligation is not to be taken into account where it
is not compliant with reg. 122.339 The Council’s own SPD on contributions
confirms that CIL, not s.106, will fund education infrastructure including
specifically secondary education and SEN.340 The Council consulted on a draft
revision to this document in February 2022 paragraph 4.20 of which confirms
335 Stephen Stoney’s Proof (CD 19.1), paragraphs 5.29 and 7.5. For plan of Mineral
Safeguarding Area vs. Mineral Consultation Area see Tracy Smith’s Appendix 2
336 Nina Pindham closing submissions, paragraph 5
337 Ben Hunter’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.3), paragraph 2.10, referencing the South
Oxfordshire District Council Community Infrastructure Levy – Spending Strategy – April 2021
(CD4.8), paragraph 14, also attached as Appendix 2 to Mr Hunter’s Proof, page 2, paragraph
14 (i) and page 3 table 1 and page 6 paragraph 31 (ii).
338 Barbara Chillman in cross-examination
339 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 108
340 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions paragraph 109, referencing the Section 106 Planning
Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 1 April 2016)(to be found filed in the
Supplementary Guidance folder within the LPA Questionnaire folder in the Inspectorate’s file);
Table 2 on page 12 confirms alternatives, one or the other, never both, and page 14 –
confirms education relating to non-strategic sites and not including the provision of land are
to be funded by CIL not s.106 obligation. See also footnote 2 “sites that are not strategic
sites will raise monies for education from CIL”, and page 26 paragraph 10 “Other education
facilities will be funded through CIL. Sites that are not strategic sites will raise monies for
education from CIL”
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 47
that whereas education provision on strategic sites will be funded through s106
payments, “with other developments, financial contributions collected through
CIL could also be used to fund education facilities where necessary.”341
120. Department for Education guidance342 advises that “Developer contributions for
education are secured by means of conditions attached to planning permission, a
planning obligation under Section 106 of The Town and Country Planning Act
1990, or the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).”343 (emphasis added in Nina
Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 109). It continues; “Alternatively, a
Section 106 planning obligation secures a contribution directly payable to the
local authority for education (or direct provision of a school ‘in kind’)”,344
121. The local authority has calculated its requested s106 contribution based on the
estimated cost per pupil place based on the full child yield of the development.
Therefore, if any CIL funding collected from this development is spent on
Education infrastructure, the appellant would have paid twice over. That would
not be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and so
would fail the test of CIL regulation 122.345
122. This conclusion is confirmed by legal opinion346 and by a previous Secretary of
State decision, where the Secretary of State approved of the Inspector’s
recommended reduction of the s.106 obligation by an amount necessary to set
off any possible duplication with CIL funding.347 If there is a shortfall, then
Oxfordshire County Council has Basic Need funding to pay the difference. This
means that nothing should be payable by the appellant for education
development mitigation beyond the payment of CIL.348
123. The matter of the request to fund school transport with a s106 contribution
was not raised as an issue in principle by the Appellant349 but Wallingford School
lies within the statutory distance parameter and so no transport costs would be
341 Paragraph 4.20 of South Oxfordshire Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning
Document Draft For Public Consultation, attached as Appendix 10 to Ben Hunter’s Proof of
Evidence
342 Securing Developer Contributions for Education (November 2019) (CD 7.3, also found as
Appendix 5 to Ben Hunter’s Proof), page 5, paragraph 1
343 CD 7.3 page 5, paragraph 1 quoted by Ben Hunter in his proof, paragraph 3.17
344 Emphasis added by Ben Hunter in his proof, paragraph 3.21
345 Ben Hunter’s proof (CD 19.3), paragraphs 3.25 and 3.28
346 Paper by Jonathan Easton and Philip Robson of Kings Chambers; “The end of double-
dipping. The practical implications of the Removal of Reg 123 of the CIL regulations”
attached as Appendix 7 to Ben Hunter’s Proof of Evidence (CD 19.3A), referenced in
paragraphs 4.2-4.5 of Ben Hunter’s proof of evidence and paragraph 110 of Nina Pindham’s
closing submissions.
347 The Siege Cross appeal ref APP/W0340/W/15/3141449. Extracts are attached as
Appendix 9 to Ben Hunter’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.3A), but do not include the passages
from the Secretary of State’s decision (page 7, paragraph 47) referred to in paragraph 111 of
Nina Pindham’s closing submissions. Paragraph 109 of the extract appears to be from the
Inspector’s report on the suggested reduction of the s106 obligation. A claimed link to the
full decision in footnote 7 of Ben Hunter’s proof in fact links to a different decision entirely.
The full decision can be found attached as Annex 1 to Barbara Chillman’s Rebuttal Proof of
Evidence (CD 12.9)
348 Ben Hunter’s Proof of Evidence (CD 19.3) paragraph 4.9
349 It was raised in questioning by the Inspector
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 48
incurred. In response to the Inspector’s question the appellant responded that
reg. 122 applies to planning decision makers irrespective of what the parties say
about it. Mr Hunter pointed out that reg. 30 of the Local Government Act 2003
already provides for funding for school transport and there is a real question as
to whether the County Council is also seeking double funding in relation to school
transport costs.350
124. There is no dispute about primary school capacity. The dispute concerns
secondary school provision. School funding rules mean that it is in schools’ best
interests to maximise intake, so they take from a wide catchment area and some
enrol over capacity351. Catchment areas only operate to limit admissions where a
school is oversubscribed352.
125. There is one state-funded, non-selective academic trust school accommodating
Secondary School aged pupils within a three-mile radius of the development site:
Wallingford School. This school forms its own Educational Planning Area
(Wallingford Secondary Planning Area) within the Oxfordshire County Council
administrative area353.
126. The school is being expanded up to a total capacity of 1,500 pupils but cannot
be expanded further. The County Council says that this is only anticipated to be
enough for the scale of housing growth already planned but that does not take
into account the extent to which the school takes pupils from outside its
designated area.354
127. The response to a Freedom of Information request to Oxfordshire County
Council shows that 15% of its pupils are currently attending the school from
outside its designated area.355 This amounts to 196 pupils, more than double the
forecast child yield of the development.356 In year group 7, likely to reflect the
effects of new housing development, the figure is 17%357, so the number of out-
of-catchment students is growing, not falling.358 When out-of-catchment pupils
contribute so significantly to numbers on the roll, there is a strong case against
helping to fund a continuation of the over-capacity.359
128. Forecasts show that there would be no excess over capacity until at least the
2026/27 academic year. It is not clear whether the forecasts imply a reduction
of pupils from outside catchment but the likelihood is that Wallingford School is
likely to be able to accommodate the child yield of the development,360 as they
350 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 112.
351 Ben Hunter’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.3), paragraph 5.1
352 Ben Hunter’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.3), paragraph 5.2
353 Ben Hunter’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.3), paragraph 5.4
354 Ben Hunter’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.3), paragraph 5.8
355 Ben Hunter’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.3), paragraph 5.14
356 Ben Hunter’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.3), paragraph 5.15
357 Ben Hunter’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.3), paragraph 5.16
358 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions paragraph 114
359 Ben Hunter’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.3), paragraph 5.17, quoting paragraph 21 of appeal
decision APP/Y3425/A/04/1156382, annexed as Appendix 12 of his Proof
360 Ben Hunter’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.3), paragraphs 5.19 – 5.20
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 49
will be given priority in the admissions criteria over those attending from out of
the catchment.361
129. If there is displaced pupil demand, it could be accommodated at north-east
Didcot where the education authority is already planning a new school to cope
with planned development and which could be built larger than currently
planned362. Forecasts for the Didcot Secondary Planning Area show 415 places
spare capacity in the 2027 academic year.363 Oxfordshire County Council
forecasts that the roll will exceed the capacity at some point in the 2040s, but
the County Council has a track record of significantly overpredicting child yield
from development.364 On the basis of the above, the need for Secondary School
planning obligations is highly questionable on the basis of significant spare
capacity.365
130. Turning now to the Cost Multipliers requested by OCC, the County Council is
requesting funding at the following rate:
• £33,237 per Secondary School aged pupil place; and
• £114,733 per SEN place
131. DfE’s Best Practice Guidance Securing Developer Contributions for Education
(paragraph 15, page 9)366 advises that the assumed cost of mainstream school
places be based on national average costs published in the DfE school place
scorecards. The DfE further advises367 that the rate per place should be uplifted
by around 10% to meet improved sustainability standards. This would lead to a
figure of £32,261 per new Secondary School place for new buildings.368
132. The costs are not now significantly different between the two parties; this is
because the County Council reduced the sum they were requesting from its
original amount.369 Mr Hunter fairly conceded that this is not a huge issue for the
Appellant in terms of substance but the matter is rather one of principle because
here the County Council is asking developers to pay more than what the
government itself considers reasonable. He queries why that is considered to be
fair. Education is funded on a “per pupil” basis, and so costs should be based on
what is being paid for, not who is paying.
133. Turning now to SEN: Hampshire County Council, East Riding of Yorkshire
Council, the DfE, Local Government Association, National Association
Construction Frameworks, and the Educational Building and Development Officers
361 Nina Pindham’s closing remarks, paragraph 114. See Wallingford School’s admissions
criteria at paragraph 5.9 of Ben Hunter’s proof (CD 19.3) and also Appendix 11 (CD 19.3A)
362 Ben Hunter’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.3), paragraphs 5.21 and 5.22
363 Ben Hunter’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.3), paragraph 5.26
364 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions paragraph 115 and Ben Hunter’s Proof of evidence
(CD 19.3), paragraph 5.27
365 Ben Hunter’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.3), paragraph 5.28
366 Attached as Appendix 5 to Ben Hunter’s Proof of Evidence (CD 19.3)
367 DfE Basic Need allocations 2023-2024 and 2024-2025: Explanatory note on methodology,
attached as appendix 14 of Ben Hunter’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.3A)
368 Ben Hunter’s Proof of evidence (CD 19.3), paragraph 6.6
369 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions paragraph 117 referencing Ben Hunter in cross-
examination
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 50
Group (EBDOG), collectively published National School Delivery Cost
Benchmarking for Primary, Secondary & SEN Schools in May 2021370. This states
that the average cost for a new SEN place is £76,184 (page 25). Applying the
regional weighting, you get £85,326 per pupil place. OCC is therefore requesting
funding for a SEN place at £29,407 per pupil more than national benchmarking,
which is clearly excessive.371
134. The sum requested by the County Council is the highest figure anyone at Ben
Hunter’s consultancy has ever seen by some substantial way. He suggested a
proportionate sum was that set out in Figure 11 of the scorecard (accepting the
funding in this case was for a new school, and so Figure 10 was not relevant).
The Council’s closings at paragraph 170 note Mr Hunter’s point that because SEN
students benefit from bespoke plans it is difficult to directly link a planning
obligation to the requisite reg. 122 tests in advance, but Mr Hunter was stating a
fact, not challenging the principle. There is comfort in the s.106 clawback clause
in this respect, because if there is no spend on bespoke SEN, that money is
returned. Further and in any event, the provision of SEN facilities is to be funded
by CIL, just as the provision of secondary school facilities for the reasons set out
earlier.372
The planning balance and economic benefits
135. In the appellant’s view, the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year
housing land supply and so paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF applies373. It is agreed
that if paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF applies, the policies most relevant to the
determination of the appeal are automatically out of date374. Then, within the
tilted balance, it is agreed that insofar as one of those policies is seen to restrict
development that is otherwise acceptable, less weight should be given to it375.
136. That is the Appellant’s contention in relation to policy STRAT1: it is accepted
that the development proposal partially conflicts with Local Plan Policy STRAT1
and Neighbourhood Plan overall strategy STRAT1; the site is not allocated, but
the Local Plan policy does indicate that defined Larger Villages (including
Cholsey) can be supported through the provision of appropriate development376.
Less weight should be given to these policies because they restrict what is
sustainable development applying the test set out in the tilted balance.377 It
does not offend housing policies in any other substantive way378. That sole policy
conflict is insufficient to justify the conclusion that the proposal is contrary to the
development plan when read as a whole. But, in any event, the appellant’s view
370 Attached as Appendix 16 to Ben Hunter’s Proof of Evidence (CD 19.3A)
371 Ben Hunter’s Proof of Evidence (CD 19.3) paragraphs 6.9 and 6.10
372 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 118, summarising Ben Hunter’s Proof,
paragraphs 6.10 to 6.12 and referencing Ben Hunter’s cross-examination
373 Stephen Stoney’s Proof of Evidence (CD 19.1), paragraph 8.2
374 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 140, referencing Tracy Smith’s cross-
examination
375 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 140, referencing Tracy Smith’s cross-
examination
376 Stephen Stoney’s Proof of Evidence (CD 19.1), paragraph 8.2
377 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 140, Stephen Stoney’s Proof of Evidence
(CD 19.1), paragraphs 10.1(i) and 10.1(iii)
378 Stephen Stoney’s Proof of Evidence (CD 19.1), paragraph 8.2 and 10.4
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 51
is that the proposals do accord with the development plan overall, with no
identified impacts which would outweigh the significant benefits of the proposals.
The substantial benefits of the proposal are material considerations that justify
any departure from the development plan.379
137. The scheme provides a significant contribution to housing in general and
affordable housing, self-build housing and extra-care accommodation in
particular.380 The principle of acceptability in traffic and transport terms has
been achieved.381 It is accepted some BMV will have to be lost, and this is a
harm, however there is no viable economic use for the field in its own right nor is
it versatile in terms of its agricultural uses382.
138. The development would have a Gross Value Added (direct, indirect and
induced) of £140.7 million. There would be 2629 direct, indirect and induced
construction jobs created. There would be annual operational benefits of 389
operational net jobs created (direct, indirect and induced). The total net
operational related GVA (direct, indirect and induced) would be £20.8 million. It
would generate £0.7 million per annum in Council tax and a New Homes Bonus of
£2.5 million. The local area would retain £3.3m of expenditure from new
residents. The annual savings to the health service by provision of extra care
housing would be £0.12 million383. In terms of wider economic benefits, Ms
Smith’s planning balance did not include any of these benefits beyond job
creation.384
139. Ms Smith’s planning balance for the Council did not give any weight to the
benefits of provision of green infrastructure on the site for the public in terms of
parkland area, additional cycle routes, recreational trails, all of which will be
maintained and provided for public use. She did not give any weight to the
benefit of biodiversity net gain, even though she accepts this is a benefit. She
accepts she was wrong to give heritage harm any weight, and now gives heritage
a significant positive weight. She is wrong to consider mineral sterilisation is
even an issue, let alone to give it moderate weight as an identified harm385.
140. Ms Smith only gives the provision of community space limited weight, but this
is a desire expressed by the community in the Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan itself,
and so it should be given more than limited weight. Her planning balance does
not take account of the provision of a day nursery: she accepted this benefit
should be added as a moderate weight to her planning balance. In terms of
education, because there is no chance that education will not be funded it is
wrong to attribute any harm to the provision of education in the planning
balance.
379 Stephen Stoney’s Proof of Evidence (CD 19.1), paragraphs 8.1, 8.3, 8.11, 10.1(ii) and
10.3
380 Stephen Stoney’s Proof of Evidence (CD 19.1), paragraphs 8.5 to 8.10, 9.2 to 9.4, 10.5 to
10.7 and 10.9
381 Stephen Stoney’s Proof of Evidence (CD 19.1), paragraph 10.8
382 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions paragraph 142
383 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions paragraph 143 referencing the Economic Impact
Assessment attached as appendix 3 to Stephen Stoney’s Proof of Evidence (CD 19.1).
384 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions paragraph 143
385 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions paragraph 140
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 52
Conclusion
141. The appeal scheme proposes 350 dwellings, which includes affordable housing,
as well as self-build housing, specialist housing for older persons (and possibly
additional facilities such as a pool and wellness centre for the community),386
local-scale retail, employment, community facilities, recreational trails linked to
the wider landscape and community, and wider transport improvements that will
benefit all the people of Cholsey. It also gives the Council an opportunity to
carry out a comprehensive masterplanning exercise to ensure the development
delivers as many public benefits as possible in a high quality well-designed
addition to the settlement, as opposed to the historic trend of smaller piecemeal
development that has failed to halt the worsening affordability trends, failed to
provide essential facilities for the people of Cholsey in the form of extra care
housing, and failed to provide development which enhances the appearance of
the settlement edge, properly integrating the edge of the settlement into its rural
context387
142. A healthy society protects and looks after its most vulnerable members. That
is not happening, and matters are getting worse, not better, in South
Oxfordshire. Those on the affordable housing waiting list are languishing, their
numbers swelling year after year after year. This has real impacts on real lives.
Further, the elderly who would like safe and secure housing with 24/7 care
immediately available cannot access that. And this need is set to skyrocket. If
solutions to addressing need on this scale were easy the problems would be
resolved. There are no easy solutions. The reality is that people are going to
have to accept new development in their communities if we are to meet the
needs of the present population and resolve the ongoing housing crisis.388
143. This appeal scheme, however, presents an easier choice than most. This is an
unremarkable field which both the Council and the Parish Council accept is
suitable for development in principle. They just don’t want as much
development. But this is what is needed to provide all of these substantial
benefits whilst striking the right balance between making the most efficient use
of land and respecting the rural setting of Cholsey.389
144. The appeal scheme represents high quality development, the scheme being
very carefully developed in light of local community aspirations as well as the
guidance provided by Homes England on ensuring development is sustainable
and suitable for its location. This is a scheme that meets the aims and objectives
of the development plan as a whole and provides substantial benefits that are not
outweighed by any harm. The Appellant respectfully requests that the appeal be
allowed.390
The Case for South Oxfordshire District Council391
386 Steve Stoney Evidence in Chief when referring to trade-offs if employment space is
reduced and C2 use is increased from 80 to 130
387 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 135
388 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 147
389 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 148
390 Nina Pindham’s closing submissions, paragraph 149
391 This section of the report represents the Inspector’s understanding of the Council’s case.
It should not be taken as representing the Inspector’s own view of the merits of the case.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 53
The development strategy
145. Government policy endorses a genuinely plan-led system.392 The Council
benefits from a recently made development plan adopted in December 2020.393
That sets out a clear spatial strategy to determine where sustainable
development should and should not go.394 The proposal conflicts with that
strategy.395 A Neighbourhood Plan has been made for Cholsey. This proposal
also conflicts with policy CNP STRAT 1 of that plan.396 The policies are definitive,
not permissive, even without words saying that conflicting proposals will not be
allowed397. Conflict with a recently made spatial strategy alone is capable of
constituting substantial harm sufficient to outweigh benefits even if there were a
lack of a five-year housing land supply (which is denied).398
146. The strategy is to focus major new development (200 or more dwellings, or
1,000 sqm or more of industrial, commercial or retail floor space) in the Science
Vale area and at Didcot Garden Town.399 It also supports and enhances the roles
of the Larger Villages but this is not an open-ended invitation for major new large
scale development on their edges400. Local Plan policy H4 (Housing in the larger
villages) and table 4 does not countenance development in Cholsey because,
through its Neighbourhood Plan, it has already committed to more housing
growth than the strategy envisages401. There is no outstanding requirement for
Cholsey let alone an addition of 430402 homes which represents more than 60%
more housing for the village which is demonstrably an unsustainable level of
growth.403
147. Local Plan policy H1 permits exceptions to the strategy only if a site falls within
the ambit of its subsections. The policy exception in paragraph 3(iii) of policy H1
plainly envisages specialist housing comprising 100% of the proposed
development, whereas the current proposal has extra care housing as an addition
392 Emmaline Lambert’s opening submissions, paragraph 5, referencing NPPF paragraph 15,
her closing submissions paragraphs 53 and 54, referencing NPPF paragraphs 8, 9 and 12 and
her closing submissions, paragraph 229
393 Council’s statement of Case (CD 12.1), paragraph 5.4. Emmaline Lambert’s opening
submissions, paragraph 6 and her closing submissions, paragraph 52
394 Emmaline Lambert’s opening submissions, paragraph 6 and her closing submissions
paragraph 56
395 Emmaline Lambert’s opening submissions, paragraph 6
396 Emmaline Lambert’s opening submissions, paragraph 8
397 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 57 and 58 (iv) and (v), referencing
Crane v SofS [2015] EWHC 425 (Admin) (CD 6.33)
398 Emmaline Lambert’s opening submissions, paragraph 12 and her closing submissions
paragraphs 58 to 60, referencing Crane v SofS [2015] EWHC 425 (Admin) (CD 6.33)
399 Council’s statement of Case (CD 12.1), paragraph 5.5; Emmaline Lambert’s closing
submissions, paragraph 62
400 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraphs 63 and 64
401 Council’s delegated report (CD 3.1), paragraphs 6.3 to 6.5; Council’s Statement of Case
(CD 12.1) paragraphs 5.6 to 5.8 and 5.10 to 5.15; Tracy Smith’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.5),
paragraphs 3.5 to 3.15
402 350 dwellings in Use class C3 and 80 extra-care dwellings in use class C2
403 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraphs 71 and 72
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 54
to a scheme for 350 dwellings plus other uses.404 By contrast, policy H13
encourages developments which include the delivery of specialist housing and so
encompasses the current proposal but is subject to other development plan
policies including policy H1 and STRAT1 and so, does not trump them.405 A
similar argument applies to policy H12 which encourages the provision of self-
build housing plots.406
148. The Local Plan Strategy provides for employment space, linking employment
provision to housing. A minimum of 39.1 hectares is required. 47.94 hectares
are allocated, none in Cholsey407. The employment space proposed exceeds that
supported by the Council. Even with the reduction to 500sqm canvassed in the
discussion on the s106 agreement408, the overall employment space proposed
(retail, plus nursery plus business units) exceeds the cap in Local Plan policy
EMP2.
149. Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan policy I8 provides for business uses in or adjacent
to the village which respect its scale and its wider landscape setting and meet
other policies in the development plan. The supporting text to this policy states
that the Plan anticipates that any such new developments would be of 0.5ha or
less in site area, so the scale of the proposed employment development, at 0.3
ha, would not be out of scale with the village409 but it is inappropriate to
encourage large scale economic growth requiring in-commuting410.
150. Local Plan Policy EMP10, enlisted by the appellant, is directed towards the
growth of existing businesses in rural areas, not the introduction of new sites.
The community needs a doctor’s surgery and a dentist, not a second retail
service centre competing with existing businesses.411 A children’s nursery would
be acceptable.412 Reading STRAT1, H1, H13, EMP1 and EMP2 together, it is plain
that the appeal proposal in its totality conflicts with the development plan spatial
strategy413.
151. There is no such thing as an out-of-date development plan. Section 38(6) of
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act is to be applied in any event414.
There has been no suggestion from the appellant that any development plan
policies are not consistent with the NPPF or are out of date other than through
challenging the Council’s five-year housing land supply.415
404 Council’s Statement of Case (CD 12.1), paragraphs 5.15 to 5.18; Tracy Smith’s Proof of
Evidence (CD 12.5), paragraph 2.23; Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraphs 65
to 68
405 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 69
406 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 70
407 Tracy Smith’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.5), paragraphs 2.26, 3.26 and 3.27
408 Which does not appear to have been taken forward into the signed s106 agreement.
409 Council’s delegated Report (CD 3.1), paragraph 6.12
410 Tracy Smith’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.5), paragraph 3.28
411 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraphs 78 to 80.
412 Council’s delegated Report (CD 3.1) paragraph 6.18
413 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 81
414 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 4, referencing Peel Investments
(North) Limited v SoSHCLG [2020] EWCA Civ 1175 para 55 and Monkhill Limited v SOSHCLG
[2019] EWHC 1993 (Admin) para 45 (CD 6.34) and her closing submissions paragraph 226.
415 Emmaline Lambert’s opening submissions, paragraph 9 and her closing submissions
paragraphs 6, 51 and 55.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 55
Housing Land Supply
152. The Council’s local housing need has been calculated at 12,540 homes over
the plan period 2011-2035. After taking on board an apportionment of Oxford
City’s unmet need, the Local Plan sets the housing requirement as 23,550. In
fact, the supply expected from the Local Plan for the plan period is 27,749
homes416. That is 18% above the housing requirement and 121% above the
local housing need figure.417
153. NPPF paragraph 74 advises that local authorities should identify and update
annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of
five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement418. The current
five-year period is agreed to be 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2027. The requirement
for that period is 5874 dwellings.419 Whilst two recent420 appeal decisions have
found that the Council does not have a five-year housing land supply, none
report it as low as the appellant’s calculations. The Council has applied the
lessons learnt from those two decisions and can currently demonstrate a 5.53
year supply.421
154. The difference between the two main parties relates to the deliverability of
twelve sites422 and to windfalls. Deliverability requires only the demonstration of
a realistic prospect of delivery, not a certainty or even a probability as the
appellant seems to expect. There is a distinction between deliverability and
delivery.423 The Council does not build houses and cannot force developers to
build424. The ‘clear’ evidence referred to in the NPPF in the context of
deliverability must accordingly be understood in that context and the matter
approached with common sense and judgment.425 The Appellant interprets
“realistic prospect” such that it is almost impossible to demonstrate
deliverability.426
416 Tracy Smith’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.5), paragraph 2.22 quoting Local Plan table 4c
says 30,056
417 Emmaline Lambert’s opening submissions, paragraph 7 and her closing submissions
paragraphs 15 and 16, referencing Hallam Land Management Ltd v SofSCLG [2018] EWCA Civ
1808 (CD 6.32)
418 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 10
419 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 8 referencing the Housing Statement
of Common Ground (CD 16.8)
420 APP/Q3115/W/19/3230827 in April 2020 and APP/Q3115/W/21/3272377 in September
2021
421 Emmaline Lambert’s opening submissions, paragraph 9 and her closing submissions
paragraph 19 and footnote 22, modifying Tracy Smith’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.5),
paragraph 2.12
422 Reduced from 15 in the Housing Statement of Common Ground
423 Emmaline Lambert’s opening submissions, paragraph 10 and her closing submissions
paragraphs 10 to 14, referencing St Modwen Developments Ltd v SofS and others both at first
instance [2016] EWHC 968 (Admin) and at appeal [2017] EWCA Civ 1643 (CD 6.30) and
East Bergholt Parish Council v Babergh DC [2019] EWCA Civ 2200 (CD 6.31)
424 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 49
425 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 22
426 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 21
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 56
155. Mr Bolton’s Table 1 compares the Council’s forecasts of deliverability with
completions (actual delivery) from 2008 to 2021427. This demonstrates that,
since the start of the plan period (2011) the actual average delivery has been
102% of that projected by the Council.428
156. National Planning Practice Guidance429 advises that, amongst other indicators,
a written agreement between the local planning authority and the site
developer(s) which confirms the developers’ delivery intentions and anticipated
start and buildout rates can be evidence of deliverability. For the appellant, Mr
Bolton agreed that the Council’s proformas used in its most recent Housing Land
Supply Statement430 comprise such evidence. Developer feedback is endorsed by
the Secretary of State.431
157. The proformas are completed by the Council. They are sent to developers and
landowners for comment but the comments are critically assessed and not all
accepted. A range of sources has been interrogated and new analyses of local
build-out rates and average site lead-in times undertaken.432 The commonly
accepted Lichfields report recommends that its national figures are only used
where there is no local evidence.433
158. The detail of the originally fifteen disputed sites can be summarised434 as
follows;
i. Chiltern Edge Top Field. Subsequent to drafting Thomas Rice’s Proof of
Evidence435, the Council accepts that this should be removed from the
supply because there is currently no clear method to address an objection
from Sport England.
ii. Wyevale Garden Centre436. An allocated site with an outline permission.
Reserved maters expected to be determined by the end of 2022.
Experienced developer on board, who agrees with the Council’s trajectory.
Issues not insurmountable for a ten unit start in 2023/4, forty in total.
iii. Wheatley Campus437 An allocated site with an outline permission.
Reserved matters application expected by April 2023. Permission for
development allowing student accommodation to move to City granted 4
July 2022. Oxford Brookes University website confirms campus relocation
by September 2024. Site being marketed. Promoter describes Council’s
trajectory as cautious. Realistic prospect well beyond probable.
427 Roland Bolton Proof of Evidence (CD 19.4), paragraph 5.3
428 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 27
429 Paragraph: 007 Reference ID: 68-007-20190722
430 CD 9.26
431 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraphs 24 and 33, referencing appeal
decisions APP/B3030/W/17/3169436 and 3179732 (CD 6.29), paragraph 15
432 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraphs 29 to 35, referencing appendices D
and E of the July 2022 Housing Land Supply Statement (CD 9.26)
433 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraphs 34 and 35, referencing the report
Start to Finish by Lichfields (CD 9.18)
434 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, Appendix 1
435 Thomas Rice’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.8), paragraphs 5.2 to 5.20
436 Thomas Rice’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.8), paragraphs 5.75 to 5.77
437 Thomas Rice’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.8), paragraphs 5.49 to 5.52
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 57
iv. West of Wallingford site B438. Site under construction. Outline permission
for remainder. No ownership or infrastructure constraints. Developer
agreed Council’s trajectory on 27 June 2022. Unrealistic to expect
developer to walk off and stop building.
v. Didcot Gateway439 Reduced site now wholly owned by Homes England.
Demolition completed. Remaining highways objection being addressed
before application expected to be determined by year’s end. Council’s
assessment of delivery rates agreed by developer.
vi. Didcot North-East440 This is an allocation divided into four elements; one
being a main outline consent for 1,880 dwellings with twelve phases of
which seven441 are either under construction or have submitted reserved
matters applications and three other elements (known respectively as
Reserved Farmland, Pearith Farm and Hughes Land) for which consents
are expected to be issued in September 2022442. The trajectory of the
remaining phases is based on the approved phasing plan443. For the five-
year period, a total projected delivery of 1,081 homes across the entire
site is expected444. Developers are on site and building. The main
infrastructure is completed445. The trajectory is based on average build-
out rates applied to each parcel rather than to the site overall, resulting in
a high build-out rate for the overall site but one comparable to recent
experiences on another site.446 The appellant’s criticisms of proformas is
inconsistent and contradictory.447
vii. Ladygrove East448 Since the Lady Grove appeal decision, a resolution to
grant outline consent was made in March 2022. Concerns over
infrastructure and potential highways impact have been resolved. The
Council and the County Council have discussed triggers for s106
contributions. The information exists to ensure a comprehensive draft
agreement. The Council expects to grant planning permission in December
2022. The developer is experienced and considers that the Council’s
trajectory is pessimistic.449
viii. Land at Lady Grove450 Permission was given on appeal, during which a
public commitment was made to a quick delivery. The permission has a
condition requiring an early start. The promoter sold the site to a
438 Thomas Rice’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.8), paragraphs 5.72 to 5.74
439 Thomas Rice’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.8), paragraphs 5.21 to 5.27
440 Thomas Rice’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.8), paragraphs 5.28 to 5.34 and
Appendix 2
441 Now eight, as a further reserved matters application for Willowbrook Park Phase 3 was
submitted on 6 August 2022; see Inquiry document ID1
442 Outline consent in two cases, detailed consent in the third, according to Appendix 2 of
Thomas Rice’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence
443 Thomas Rice’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.8), paragraph 5.30
444 Thomas Rice’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.8), paragraph 5.29
445 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, Appendix 1, paragraph 18
446 Thomas Rice’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.8), paragraphs 5.31 to 5.33
447 Thomas Rice’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.8), paragraph 5.34(a)
448 Thomas Rice’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.8), paragraphs 5.40 to 5.44
449 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions Appendix 1, paragraph 22
450 Thomas Rice’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.8), paragraphs 5.45 to 5.48
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 58
developer in August 2022. There is thus a realistic prospect of
deliverability within five years.
ix. Land south of Newnham Manor451 Since the Lady Grove appeal decision,
the Crowmarsh Neighbourhood Plan has been made on 7 October 2021. It
includes the site within the settlement boundary within which it supports
development. A resolution to grant planning permission was made in
December 2021. A draft s106 is in circulation. Permission is expected in
October 2022. Subsequent to the publication of the Council’s Housing
Land Supply Statement, the developer has confirmed the accuracy of the
Council’s proforma452.
x. Land west of Fairmile453 Site is allocated within Neighbourhood Plan. The
Council and the applicant are working to resolve one outstanding highways
objection, unlikely to prevent delivery within five years. Detailed
permission is expected to be issued in April 2023.
xi. Land south of Wallingford site E454 Council’s expected build out rate has
been reduced in response to developer’s comments. An application for
approval of reserved matters and discharge of conditions in relation to 128
dwellings was submitted on 7 July 2022. At the time of the Inquiry,
consultee responses were supportive. It is unrealistic to expect that
application for the remaining 44 dwellings will not be made.
xii. The Orchard455 Since the Lady Grove appeal decision, an application for full
planning permission has been made in November 2021. Council officers
are minded to approve the application subject to agreement of the final
wording of the s106 agreement and pre-commencement conditions.
Permission is expected to be issued in September 2022. The trajectory for
the site is therefore realistic and informed by clear evidence.
xiii. Land north of Bayswater Brook456 This is a site allocated in the Local Plan.
Since the Lady Grove appeal decision, the site promoter has carried out
two public consultations and a Planning Performance Agreement has been
signed (June 2022), providing finance for dedicated officer support in the
three Councils involved. The Council’s comments on the Scoping Opinion
represent progress in identifying issues early in the application process.
None are insurmountable. The Upper Heyford site in Cherwell District is a
remote, brownfield site requiring decontamination and front-loading of
infrastructure and so, not comparable with Bayswater Brook, which is a
greenfield site with lesser constraints. Even so, once the developer, who is
common to both sites and has a proven track record of achieving
completions on technically challenging sites, was involved at Upper
Heyford, first completions in 2014/5 followed an outline application
submitted in 2010. There is therefore a realistic prospect that housing
completions will take place on this site in the five-year period.
451 Thomas Rice’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.8), paragraphs 5.53 to 5.58
452 See appendix 5 to Thomas Rice’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence
453 Thomas Rice’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.8), paragraphs 5.59 and 5.60
454 Thomas Rice’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.8), paragraphs 5.63 to 5.65
455 Thomas Rice’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.8), paragraphs 5.66 to 5.71
456 Thomas Rice’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.8), paragraphs 5.2 to 5.12
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 59
xiv. Land west of Hale Road457 This site has detailed consent for 84 units and
Mr Bolton for the appellant agreed that it was deliverable further to the
evidence submitted on Day 1 of the Inquiry458 which demonstrates that the
Council’s assessment is sound.
xv. Land off Pyrton Lane, Watlington, Mr Bolton for the appellant agreed in
cross-examination that this site was deliverable.
159. The forthcoming requirements for biodiversity net gain will not have an
adverse effect on viability (and hence, deliverability) because there is strong
evidence that on-site mitigation is possible for little or no cost for the majority of
housing developments. They have been anticipated for some time and are now
integrated into viability assessments.459
160. NPPF paragraph 71 allows for a realistic windfall allowance justified by the
compelling evidence of historic delivery rates and expected future trends.460 The
Council has made an analysis of ten years’ worth of data. It shows an average of
158 windfalls per year, with more than 170 in five years out of ten, but recent
years’ outturn affected by Covid.461
161. The newly adopted Local Plan has a more permissive approach to infill sites
and can be expected to deliver more windfalls. Recent changes to permitted
development will increase windfalls. Consequently, the Council makes an
allowance for 170 dwellings per annum from windfall sites but only in years 4 and
5 of the five-year supply, so as to avoid double counting those sites with known
planning permissions, resulting in a contribution of 340 units to the supply.462
162. The Council accepts that there is a need for housing but it is submitted that
there is no shortfall in its housing land supply. In light of the over provision in
the Local Plan, the weight to be given to housing provision should be
moderated.463
163. The Council recognises that there is now a condition (finally agreed during the
appeal and after the evidence of the Council had closed) requiring an application
for approval of Reserved Matters (RM) made not later than 18 months from the
date of permission, if given. The Council welcomes this but notes that it is a
contradictory position of the Appellant to suggest that their site is deliverable and
will meet short term needs when Mr Bolton discounted from the Five-Year
Housing Land Supply sites with outline planning permission with or without RM
applications in many instances. Other reasons for doubting any early
contribution is that the Appellant is not a housebuilder and there is none on
board and there is no agreement with a provider for older person’s housing. The
457 Thomas Rice’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.8), paragraphs 5.35 to 5.39
458 Inquiry document ID1
459 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 26 referencing Roland Bolton’s cross-
examination and Tom Rice’s rebuttal proof (CD 12.8), paragraphs 4.6 and 4.7
460 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraphs 36 to 38
461 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 41
462 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraphs 36, 40, 42 and 43.
463 Tracy Smith’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.5), paragraphs 4.27 to 4.32; Emmaline Lambert’s
closing submissions, paragraph 204, referencing appeal decisions APP/R5510/W/21/3279371
(appendix 4 of Tracy Smith’s Proof (CD 12.5A)), paragraph 36 and
APP/M2270/W/20/3247977 (Appendix 5 of Tracy Smith’s Proof (CD 12.5A)), paragraph 107
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 60
Council does therefore have doubts about the early contribution to housing that
this site might make in contrast to its own allocations and the Cholsey
Neighbourhood Plan allocations464.
Extra care Housing
164. It is accepted that there is a significant need for specialist older person’s
housing over the plan period465. Its provision should be given significant
weight466. The Council has not sought to calculate the requirement/need for
extra care housing in the district, nor has it allocated sites, as it considers that
Local Plan policies H1 and H13 are supportive of all types of specialist
accommodation to come forward467.
165. The “need” that is pressed upon the decision maker is not always a need – it is
often choice468. The table relied upon by Mr Bolton469 “People’s preferences
should they need care” (Table 2) shows that what most people want is
overwhelmingly to stay in their own home whether with support from friends and
family (62%) or from carers (56%). Other options which still do not involve extra
care housing were moving to a smaller home, moving to sheltered housing with a
warden, moving in with son or daughter, move to private residential home. There
are a range of options. The Council does not dispute a need but the Council does
dispute the overplayed level of need put forward470.
166. There is no standard method for assessing the need for extra care housing.
There are a number of on-line toolkits, each only as good as its built-in
assumptions. There is no national guidance about those assumptions.471
167. The adjustments made within the appellant’s model are open to challenge472.
Alternative adjustments leading to a much lower rate of need would be a true
local adjustment.473
168. The conventionally accepted rate of need (45 units per 1,000 population aged
75 and over) applied to the existing population would require an increase in
provision of 2.8 times existing provision (16 units per 1,000 population aged 75
and over). Population growth would require an even greater quantity of
provision to maintain a rate of 45 units per 1,000 population aged 75 and over.
The appellant’s figure of 62 per 1,000 population aged 75 and over would require
464 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 207
465 Council’s Delegated report (CD 3.1), paragraph 6.14; Tracy Smith’s Proof of Evidence (CD
12.5), paragraph 3.23 and 4.10; Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 180
466 Tracy Smith’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.5) paragraph 4.11 and her Rebuttal Proof of
Evidence (CD 12.10), paragraph 3.55
467 Tracy Smith’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.10), paragraphs 3.4, 3.15 and 3.16
468 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 200
469 His Older Persons Housing Need Model (CD 9.2) table 2 on page 32
470 Tracy Smith’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.10) paragraphs 3.5, 3.12, 3.30 to 3.34,
3.37 and 3.52; Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraphs 181 and 201
471 Tracy Smith’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.10), paragraphs 3.10 – 11 and 3.38;
Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraphs 183-186
472 Tracy Smith’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.10), paragraphs 3.44 to 3.48; Emmaline
Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 189
473 Tracy Smith’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.10), paragraphs 3.22 to 3.29 and 3.49;
Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 190
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 61
an increase in provision of 4 times current provision for the current population.
Population growth would require an even greater quantity of provision to
maintain a figure of 62 per 1,000 population aged 75 and over. It is simply out
of step with reality.474
169. The Sonning Common Appeal decision of June 2021475 used a rate of need
provided by an expert with a track record accepted by several Inspectors. By
contrast, the appellant’s new research is entirely different and has not been
tested at appeal or accepted by any decision maker or formed part of any
publication for peer review.476 Other recent appeal decisions are based on a
much lower rate of need.477
170. Within South Oxfordshire there is an existing supply of housing for older
persons and a pipeline supply and a wholly supportive policy framework for that
type of housing and for accessible and adaptable dwellings which provide other
options for people.478 It should not be a hook, on which appellants can achieve a
housing estate outside a village.479 In terms of the suggested knock-on benefits,
those put forward are wide ranging, sometimes unsubstantiated, and all are a
by-product of meeting housing needs in general480.
Affordable housing and self-build housing
171. Policy H9 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan requires schemes with a net gain
of 10 or more homes to provide 40% of the total number of dwellings on the site
as affordable housing. For a site of 350 units this would equate to 140 affordable
homes481. The Council is satisfied that the proposed s106 agreement would
secure policy compliant affordable housing482. Although the appellant has
miscalculated the increasing demand for affordable housing483, the need is not
disputed and its provision is given significant weight484.
172. However, the Appellant had not noted the evidence of Mrs Guiver and the Rule
6 Party that 75 affordable homes would be provided in Cholsey as a result of
474 Tracy Smith’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.10), paragraphs 3.36 to 3.43; Emmaline
Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraphs 192 and 193
475 APP/Q3115/W/20/3265861 (CD 6.4)
476 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 187
477 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 188, referencing appeal decisions at
Homebase Walton on Thames (APP/K3605/W/20/3263347 (CD 6.22), paragraph 87 – Ms
Lambert’s footnote reference to CD 6.16 paragraph 45 is incorrect), Edenbridge Golf Club
(APP/G2245/W/21/3271595 (CD 6.21 – Ms Lambert’s reference to CD 6.12 is a typo),
paragraph 45. She concluded (at paragraph 194) by commending the Sandown Park appeal
(APP/M2270/W/21/3289034, (CD 6.36)), paragraphs 76 to 80
478 Tracy Smith’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.10), paragraphs 3.18, 3.19 and 3.51;
Emmaline Lambert’s opening submissions, paragraph 11 and her closing submissions
paragraph 198
479 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 202. She observes that other appeal
decisions referred to are for specialist housing alone.
480 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 203
481 Council’s delegated report (CD 3.1), paragraph 6.8
482 Emmaline Lambert’s opening submissions, paragraph 4. Tracy Smith’s Proof of Evidence
(CD 12.5), paragraph 1.25
483 Tracy Smith’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.10), paragraphs 2.4 to 2.6
484 Tracy Smith’s Proof of evidence (CD 12.5), paragraph 4.9
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 62
allocations and commitments made. Given that 63 people on the Council’s
housing needs register chose Cholsey as their first choice (out of 219 who
expressed it as a preference485), Cholsey is well placed to deal with affordable
housing need without the appeal proposal486. Furthermore, unlike in the Lady
Grove appeal487, there is not the same link between a lack of affordable housing
and an impact on the local economy (despite the Appellant’s attempt to make
that link in written evidence488) as there is no link between housing in Cholsey
and employment in the Science Vale489.
173. Fourteen self-build plots would be an important contribution to supply and is
given significant weight490.
Landscape
174. Although a Landscape Capacity Assessment identified some of the site as
appropriate for development, it specifically did not recommend its development in
full491. It was an exercise in assessing “what could be accommodated with the
least harm if you had to”492. The site is located outside the village of Cholsey and
is therefore located within the open countryside.493
175. NPPF paragraph 174 advises that the intrinsic character and beauty of the
countryside should be recognised. That means “protect”.494 NPPF paragraph 176
provides that development within the setting of AONBs should be sensitively
located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated
areas. Protection and enhancement of the rural character, landscape and setting
of Cholsey is a common theme of the objectives and policies of both the Local
Plan and the Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan. Landscape character assessments are
key to the operation of these policies.495
176. The appellant’s LVIA accords with prevailing guidance but contains some
fundamental flaws496. No Zone of Theoretical Visibility is defined to inform view-
point selection. There is an absence of visualisations from the closest range
485 Tracy Smith’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.10), paragraphs 2.8 to 2.10
486 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 205
487 APP/Q3115/W/21/3272377 (CD 6.3), paragraph 40
488 Steven Stoney’s Proof of Evidence (CD 19.6), paragraph 8.6
489 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 206
490 Tracy Smith’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.5), paragraphs 3.18 and 4.13
491 Emmaline Lambert’s opening submissions, paragraph 13; Council’s delegated report (CD
3.1), paragraph 6.26; Council’s Statement of Case (CD 12.1), paragraphs 5.26 and 5.28
492 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 103. Peter Radmall’s Proof of
Evidence (CD 12 .7), paragraph 1.14 states; “I should emphasize that the Council is not
seeking to argue that no development should take place in this location.”
493 Council’s Statement of Case (CD 12.1) paragraph 5.9; Emmaline Lambert’s opening
submissions, paragraph 3
494 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 85, referencing Cawrey Ltd v SofSLG
and others [2016] EWHC 1198 (Admin) (CD 6.28), paragraph 49
495 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraphs 82 to 84
496 Peter Radmall’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.7), paragraph 1.6; Emmaline Lambert’s closing
submissions, paragraph 86. Nevertheless, Peter Radmall states at paragraph 5.2; “My own
fieldwork indicates that the ES provides an accurate overview of the potential visual influence
of the site and of the relevant receptors”.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 63
views, particularly from the northern edge of the site.497 The sensitivity of the
site has been confused with the sensitivity of its setting.498 Guidance in relation
to residential receptors has not been followed.499
177. The visualisations are wrong, have no credibility and no weight can be placed
upon them500. The key issues with the visualisations are as follows501:
(a) The visualisations are not presented in accordance with the standard
guidance
(b) The centre of some of the photographs is in the sky/not in the correct
location
(c) Technical information provided is inaccurate. For example, View Point D
Sheet 2 of 4 states 39.6 degrees. It cannot be.
(d) As a result, the 3D modelling which works with geometry, is wrong
No winter visualisations are provided502.
178. The openness of the site itself is valued. As would be expected, the most
severe effects of the development would be experienced by the appeal site itself
and by its associated landscape features and experiential qualities503. There
would be substantial/major adverse landscape effects within the site itself
comprising the loss of a parcel of open rolling downland, sections of the tree-belt
that defines the Reading Road frontage of the site, and the rural character of the
eastern edge of the village504. The completed development would have an
overwhelmingly urbanizing effect on the site, which would cease to be perceived
as part of the countryside, becoming instead an extension to the village505.
179. It qualifies as a parcel of relatively attractive landscape which is representative
of the Open Rolling Downs and contributes to the setting of the village506. Its
development would represent a large extension of the built-up area into the open
countryside507. There would be moderate adverse effects for the character of
Cholsey. This is partly due to the sheer scale of development, which amounts to
an approximately 25% increase in the number of households. But it is also due
to the provision of this increase in the form of a single extension, as opposed to a
series of incremental developments508.
497 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraphs 86 to 88
498 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 89
499 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 90
500 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 107, referencing Michael Spence’s
comments in the round table discussion on landscaping
501 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 110, summarising Michael Spence’s
evidence
502 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 113
503 Peter Radmall’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.7), paragraph 7.6
504 Peter Radmall’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.7) paragraph 1.16
505 Peter Radmall’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.7), paragraph 6.10
506 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 93, referencing Peter Radmall’s Proof
of Evidence (CD 12.7), paragraph 1.15
507 Emmaline Lambert’s opening submissions, paragraph 13. Peter Radmall’s Proof of
Evidence (CD 12.7), paragraph 7.7
508 Peter Radmall’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.7), paragraph 6.12
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 64
180. Whilst the Fairmile site is within the Built-Up Area Boundary of Cholsey, it is
not perceived to form part of the “village proper” in landscape terms. The site
helps to maintain the perceived integrity of the settlement as a village by
providing separation from the outlying Fairmile Hospital development509. The
development of the site would cause coalescence.510 Impacts on Reading Road
will arise from (i) the creation of the junctions, the loss of trees from the roadside
tree belt and the opening up of views511. The site plays an important role in
defining the countryside setting of the village.512 In consequence, there would
be substantial adverse effects on Cholsey’s setting as the development would
expand Cholsey into its own setting513.
181. The Landscape Character Assessment for the Local Plan 2033514 analyses the
district in terms of Landscape Character Areas and Landscape Types. The Site is
type LCT14 and sits within LCA7. It is highly representative of three
characteristics in LCT14 and moderately representative of the remaining three.
It is moderately representative of 7 and highly representative of one
characteristic (out of 11) in LCA7515. The landscape effects of the development
would decrease substantially as the frame of reference increases516. There would
be minor/moderate adverse effects on the surrounding landscape character area
and medium/high impacts on several viewpoints.517
509 Peter Radmall’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.7), paragraph 2.15
510 Council’s delegated Report (CD 3.1), paragraph 6.27; Emmaline Lambert’s closing
submissions, paragraphs 95-98, referencing Peter Radmall’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.7),
paragraphs 2.12, 3.9 and 6.13
511 Council’s Delegated report (CD 3.1), paragraphs 6.33 to 6.35; Emmaline Lambert’s closing
submissions, paragraph 105
512 Emmaline Lambert’s opening submissions, paragraph 3
513 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 98
514 CD 8.11
515 Council’s Statement of Case (CD 12.1), paragraph 5.27; Emmaline Lambert’s closing
submissions, paragraph 100, referencing Peter Radmall’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.7),
paragraphs 3.3 to 3.6
516 Peter Radmall’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.7), paragraph 7.8
517 Emmaline Lambert’s opening submissions, paragraph 14, referencing Mr Radmall’s
evidence. Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 102. The Council’s delegated
report (CD 3.1), paragraph 6.25 makes particular reference to view 8. Peter Radmall’s
evidence (CD 12.7), paragraphs 5.10 and 5.11 record his own assessment of the existing role
of the site in the assessment views, in terms of its degree of prominence
(high/medium/low/not visible) and its influence on the perceived character of each view. The
results may be summarised as demonstrating that it is in the close-range views that the site
is most prominent. It is hardly prominent at all from viewpoint 8. As viewing distance
increases, it is the tree belts that become the most prominent. It is seen as part of an arable
landscape and also in association with the built-up area of Cholsey and Cholsey Meadows
(Fairmile Hospital). Longer-distance views reinforce the high degree of inter-visibility
between the two AONBs, across the Thames Valley, and the location of Cholsey within the
middle-ground of many of these views. He summarises the effects of the development on
these views at paragraph 7.2 and comments in paragraph 7.3 that he generally agrees with
the appellant’s assessment of impact on the longer-range views (7-11), with the exception of
VP8, for which he rates the Year 1 impact slightly higher. For the short- to medium-range
views (1-6), he considers the LVIA to have generally under-stated the magnitude of change
and over-stated the effectiveness of the likely mitigation.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 65
182. Absence of designation does not mean absence of value518. Although the
Council does not allege any harm to the two AONBs519, the site’s relationship to
their settings suggests that the landscape of which it forms part, and which
includes a degree of inter-visibility between them across the Thames valley,
should be regarded as possessing substantial value520. Its development would
cause obvious landscape harm within the setting of two separate Areas of
Outstanding Natural Beauty.521
183. The underplaying of value and sensitivity and the overplaying of mitigation
combined with the disregard for effects at local and site-specific levels and the
issues with visualisations and viewpoints all combine to reduce the credibility of
the Appellant’s evidence and demonstrate that the predicted effects of the
development are significantly worse than estimated in the LVIA.522 The Council is
not opposed to some form of residential development on this site, particularly if it
improves the somewhat abrupt character of the existing settlement edge.
However, the appeal proposal is considered to be excessive, thereby creating
more landscape harm than it resolves.523
184. The achievement of only a 0.6% biodiversity net gain is shocking and
disappointing in equal measure. Much of the mitigation is harmful in itself,
introducing the suburban character of amenity space replacing countryside. Even
in the appellant’s case, there is still a residual moderate adverse effect on the
site (assessed as major adverse by Peter Radmall)524.
Green infrastructure
185. The appeal proposal will deliver public open space which will include equipped
areas of play, multi-use games area and allotments. It is primarily to be
mitigation for future occupiers, not a social benefit. No weight should be
afforded this aspect of the scheme in the determination of this appeal525.
186. On the Appellant’s case over 70%526 of the site will be covered by urban
development with the potential for 3-storey development527 by virtue of the
parameters plan and there is no condition limiting storeys or heights. Mr Stoney
518 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 99, referencing Peter Lambert’s Proof
of Evidence (CD 12.7), paragraph 4.5
519 Peter Radmall’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.7), paragraph 1.18
520 Council’s Statement of Case (CD 12.1), paragraph 5.25; Peter Radmall’s Proof of Evidence
(CD 12.7), paragraph 4.5, although his paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4 note that in practice, inter-
visibility between the site and these designated areas is limited. As a result, potential views
are confined to the more elevated parts of the AONB, broadly in the vicinity of Port Way
(B479), over distances of c2km.
521 Emmaline Lambert’s opening submissions, paragraphs 3 and 13. Yet, Peter Radmall’s
evidence (CD 12.7), paragraph 7.9 records; “no material harm to the setting of either AONB
has been identified.”
522 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraphs 115 to 118. Peter Radmall’s Proof of
Evidence (CD 12.7), paragraph 7.12
523 Council’s Statement of Case (CD 12.1), paragraph 5.28; Peter Radmall’s Proof of Evidence
(CD 12.7), paragraph 8.21
524 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraphs 116-117
525 Tracy Smith’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.5) paragraph 4.24
526 Peter Radmall’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.7), paragraph 6.4 says more than 80%
527 Peter Radmall’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.7), paragraph 6.5
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 66
set out in his evidence that the policy requirement for open space was for 6.19
hectares. The note provided to the inquiry (on Day 7 of the inquiry without any
notice) and later circulated via email on Friday 9th September (“the Appellant’s
GI Note”)528 states that the demand generated by the proposed development
based on occupancy rates is 5.75 hectares. According to the Appellant’s GI Note
the public open space provides for 5.80 hectares and therefore over provides by
0.05 hectares. This is wrong529.
187. The Table on page 4 of the Appellant’s GI Note has removed “Allotments”. If
these are included (which they should be as per the Council’s policy
requirements), the requirement for Open Space is 6.19 hectares and the appeal
proposals provide only 6.13 hectares. Furthermore, at 16.09 hours on 12th
September, the Appellant confirmed that SuDS (Sustainable Drainage systems)
have been included in the Public Open Space calculation (0.34 hectares). Whilst
the Appellant’s GI Note sets out a definition from the 2015 “Fields In Trust”
document, this forms no part of the Council’s policy and has not been referred to
throughout the Inquiry530.
188. The Council’s position is that SuDS is not part of Public Open Space for the
following reasons531:
• Local Plan Policy CF5 provides that “New residential development will be
required to provide or contribute towards inclusive and accessible open space
and play facilities having regard to the most up to date standards set out in
the open Spaces Study….” – SuDS is not inclusive and accessible open space.
• The Draft South Oxfordshire District Council Developer contributions SPD
provides that “All open space should …be usable have a purpose and be of a
size, location and form appropriate for the intended use, avoiding space left
over after planning (SLOAP) requirements or pushing open space to the
periphery of development…” – SuDS is not usable open space.
• The PPG defines “Green infrastructure” as including sustainable drainage
features532 but the paragraphs on “Open space, sports and recreation facilities”
do not include SuDS533.
189. The Appellant’s GI Note states that the overall GI figure includes the 5.80
hectares of POS and 2.92 hectares of “additional GI”. However, the additional GI
includes 2.0 hectares of existing retained woodland. That is already there. That
is not additional GI. It also provides for 0.92 hectares of new woodland
belts/blocks and landscaping within the development area. Furthermore, it
includes 0.34 hectares of SuDS. The Council asked on Friday 9th September
2022 in open inquiry how the 0.34 hectares of SuDS was calculated. Nothing
was provided. It asked again on Monday 12th September and the response was
an unhelpful reference to the Flood Risk Assessment. The bottom line is that
nothing has been provided so that the Council can verify the size. The Council
528 Document INQ6
529 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 217
530 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 218
531 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 218
532 National Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 8-004-20190721
533 National Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 37-001-20140306
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 67
has checked the FRA and there is nothing to assist hence why the question was
asked in the first place – the Council could not understand how the Appellant had
calculated the size of the SuDS and still does not understand534.
190. The Appellant’s GI note, with sources unpublished (such as how the
0.34hectares of SuDS comes about) and based on documents not before the
inquiry and provided on the penultimate day of the inquiry has the appearance of
scrabbling around for greenery on the Site. It has not altered the Council’s
position. In a development of 29 hectares, the new GI being provided (especially
given the loss of trees of Reading Road) is, again, woeful. The Appellant’s GI
Note is a poor and inaccurate document which has not been adequately explained
and it is disappointing that it was introduced after evidence had closed given how
it has raised questions rather than answered them. Like the visualisations, no
weight can be placed on this document535.
Education
191. It is agreed that the development would generate 92 secondary school and
sixth form aged pupils536. The appellant eventually agreed that the costs of
providing their places should be mitigated via a contribution of some
description537 but disputes the method of the funding538.
192. The Siege Cross decision,539 relied upon by the appellant, where the Secretary
of State approved of the Inspector’s recommended reduction of the s.106
obligation by an amount necessary to set off any possible duplication with CIL
funding predates the 2019 amendments to the CIL regulations. As such, it is
over 5 years old, relates to a different era with different CIL Regulations and
different guidance in place, is of no relevance to this appeal and no weight should
be placed on it.540
193. It used to be the case that local authorities published a list (the Regulation 123
list) of “relevant infrastructure” which would be funded by CIL and so not eligible
to be funded through s106 agreements. The purpose was to prevent a local
authority from “double dipping” by requiring a developer to pay twice over from
both sources for the same piece of infrastructure. But regulation 123 was
abolished in the 2019 amendments to the CIL regulations and with it, the
regulation 123 list.541 The same piece of infrastructure can now be funded from
both sources.
194. It is correct that, in accordance with the Council’s current CIL Charging
Schedule542, contributions to fund school places will be sought via CIL and not via
534 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 220
535 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 221
536 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 121; Barbara Chillman’s Proof of
Evidence (CD 12.6), paragraph 4.1
537 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 121
538 Emmaline Lambert’s opening submissions, paragraph 16
539 Appeal ref APP/W0340/W/15/3141449 attached as Annex 1 to Barbara Chillman’s Rebuttal
Proof of Evidence (CD 12.9)
540 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 127(d)
541 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraphs 128 to 138 and 147; Barbara
Chillman’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.6), paragraphs 7.2 to 7.17
542 CD 4.14
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 68
s.106. However, that CIL Charging Schedule is dated April 2016. Not only are
the charging rates out of date but it was adopted prior to the 2019 Amendments
to the CIL Regulations543. A replacement draft CIL Charging Schedule544 has
been submitted and was the subject of an examination hearing in August 2022.
It updates CIL rates for South Oxfordshire and, importantly, is now silent as to
CIL funding education infrastructure. It is expected to be adopted by the end of
the year.545 Moreover, the Council’s Draft Developer Contributions
Supplementary Planning Document546 (consulted upon between February 2022
and March 2022 and due to be adopted in the Autumn of 2022) sets out at policy
“DEV 2 Education” that in relation to residential development, contributions
towards educational facilities will be secured through s106 monies547.
195. The reason is because there is an infrastructure funding gap. The Council’s
Draft Infrastructure Funding Gap Statement dated February 2022548 shows that
the CIL income expected up to 2035 at the new higher rate to the end of the plan
period is £70,370,850. Even if the County Council were to get 50% of that
expected CIL funding (which it will not because it gets 50% of what is left after
payments are made to town councils etc.), it would get nowhere near its needs
just for highways infrastructure alone. There is a funding gap for transport and
highways infrastructure amounting to £219,597,636.549 Consequently, all
Education infrastructure is assumed to be funded through “other sources of
funding….including Section 106”.550
196. Wallingford School is the catchment area secondary school for the
development site551. Its annual intake increased from 190 to 216 in 2019 and
will rise to 242 starting in 2022/23552 but its site area is not considered to offer
potential for further expansion.553
197. Displacement of out of catchment children, combined with current spare
capacity would mean 368 places potentially available for in-catchment growth in
the current year.554 But housing development commitments imply the generation
of 482 additional pupils by 2031/32.555 These pupil forecasts show that by 2026
543 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 139; Barbara Chillman’s Proof of
Evidence (CD 12.6), paragraphs 7.19 and 7.27
544 CD 4.11
545 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 140; Barbara Chillman’s Proof of
Evidence (CD 12.6), paragraph 7.21
546 CD 4.10
547 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 141; Barbara Chillman’s Proof of
Evidence (CD 12.6), paragraph 7.2; Barbara Chillman’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.6),
paragraph 7.20.
548 CD 4.12
549 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraphs 149 and 150.
550 Barbara Chillman’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.6), paragraph 7.22
551 Council’s Statement of Case (CD 12.1), paragraph 5.49; Barbara Chillman’s Proof of
Evidence (CD 12.6), paragraph 4.2
552 Council’s Statement of Case (CD 12.1), paragraph 5.49; Barbara Chillman’s Proof of
Evidence (CD 12.6), paragraph 4.3
553 Council’s Statement of Case (CD 12.1), paragraph 5.50; Barbara Chillman’s Proof of
Evidence (CD 12.6), paragraph 4.4
554 Barbara Chillman’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.6), paragraph 4.8
555 Barbara Chillman’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.6), paragraphs 4.9 and 4.10
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 69
demand in year 7 would exceed Wallingford’s capacity, even without the
proposal556.
198. The additional secondary school pupils generated by the development would
displace future pupils from within Wallingford School’s catchment to alternative
schools. This would harm community cohesion and parental choice and
unsustainably increase travel times and distances.557 That is the harm that the
development would cause. It is a harm not even recognised by the appellant558.
It is not possible in abstract to identify exactly which parts of the catchment
would be unsuccessful at securing a place, but they could include the proposed
development559.
199. Demand displaced from Wallingford could be directed towards Watlington or
Didcot560. For Cholsey pupils, Didcot would be nearest location. It is fair to say
that OCC has had challenges forecasting for Didcot because one of its four
schools is new and because large scale housing development makes forecasting
more difficult than when mostly driven by demographics but those factors will
settle over time561. DfE advice is that if a new school opens in a single phase
below its full capacity while it awaits pupils moving to the development, this does
not represent an available surplus for other developments assessing their own
impact and mitigation, unless the development delivering the new school will not
be completed or generate enough pupils to fill the school562.
200. Current pupil forecasts, reinforced by analysis of GP registration data563, show
that demand for intake Year 7 places in Didcot would be expected to exceed the
combined Published Admission Numbers of the town’s schools by 2027/28,
excluding the impact of the appeal proposal, with a shortage of five Year 7 places
forecast in 2027/28 (the extent of the validated forecasts) and with demand for
places still rising564. Housing growth will continue beyond current school places
forecasts. The scale of longer-term growth is such that another new secondary
school will be required.
201. A site for this has been secured within the development now underway at
North-East Didcot. This school would become the nearest alternative school for
556 Council’s Statement of Case (CD 12.1), paragraph 5.51; Emmaline Lambert’s closing
submissions, paragraphs 153 and 155; Barbara Chillman’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.6),
paragraph 4.6
557 Emmaline Lambert’s opening submissions, paragraph 15; Tracy Smith’s Proof of Evidence
(CD 12.5), paragraph 4.23; Barbara Chillman’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.6), paragraph 4.12;
Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 177
558 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraph 210
559 Barbara Chillman’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.6), paragraph 5.3
560 Barbara Chillman’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.6), paragraph 5.5
561 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions paragraph 156
562 Barbara Chillman’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD12.9), paragraph 4.1; Emmaline
Lambert’s closing submissions paragraph 159, referencing Securing Developer Contributions
for Education (CD 7.3), paragraph 33
563 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, referencing Barbara Chillman’s Rebuttal Proof of
Evidence (CD 12.9), figure 1
564 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions paragraph 161; Barbara Chillman’s Proof of
Evidence (CD 12.6), paragraph 5.6
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 70
Cholsey pupils unable to attend Wallingford School565. The County Council’s
current plan is to build the new school as a 600-place school in the first instance,
with an option on additional school land having been secured to enable the school
to be expanded up to 1,200 places as it becomes necessary. This delivery profile
will be kept under review as the local population grows, and it may be that the
school is instead built at a larger size from the outset. The new school would
then be able to accommodate the additional pressure on school places which
would be generated by this proposed appeal development, and it therefore
represents a solution to mitigating its impact but without avoiding the harm to
community cohesion and sustainable travel described earlier.566
202. Government advice is to base estimates of school building costs on its school
place scorecards. But, for new-build schools (as opposed to expansions567), the
scorecards are based on small sample sizes. This understates the cost of building
smaller than average schools and overstates the cost of building larger than
average schools. The contribution to funding sought is therefore based on a full
review of school building costs carried out in 2019 by Gleeds, a leading global
property and construction consultancy, the results of which were reviewed to
ensure their robustness by Mott MacDonald, a global engineering, management
and development consultancy.568 On this basis, a contribution of £33,237 per
place is sought569. These figures include loose furniture, equipment, school start-
up costs and project management costs not included in the DfE scorecard
calculations and so are lower than the DfE scorecard figures when those
differences are eliminated.570
203. Government guidance is that funding for Special Educational Needs should be
sought in direct proportion to the needs arising from planned housing
565 Council’s Statement of Case (CD 12.1), paragraph 5.52; Barbara Chillman’s Proof of
Evidence (CD 12.6), paragraph 5.7
566 Council’s Statement of Case (CD 12.1), paragraph 5.53; Barbara Chillman’s Proof of
Evidence (CD 12.6), paragraph 5.8; Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions paragraph 177
567 Incorrectly used by Mr Hunter, as pointed out in Barbara Chillman’s Rebuttal Proof (CD
12.9), paragraph 5.7
568 Barbara Chillman’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.6), paragraphs 6.3 to 6.6
569 In Barbara Chillman’s Rebuttal Proof of Evidence (CD 12.9), paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2, there
is the suggestion that the whole of the contribution sought would be provided by the
Ladygrove East scheme, if that development commenced prior to the current appeal scheme
but that if the current appeal scheme commenced first, then it would bear the whole of the
contribution sought. As originally drafted the s106 agreement embodied that suggestion. I
pointed out that such an arrangement gave both developers a multi-million pound incentive
not to start development before the other and requested that the parties consider an
equalisation arrangement for both developments to share the financial contribution equably.
In the event, the signed s106 obligation submitted after the close of oral evidence provides a
secondary education contribution of £1,402,950, not qualified by any reference to the
Ladygrove East development. This may represent either a contribution of £15,249 for each of
the 92 secondary and sixth form pupils generated by the development, or a contribution of
£33,237 for each of a lower number of 42 pupils. The basis by which the contribution is
calculated is not explained but it is reasonable to presume that, in response to my request, an
apportionment has been made between the appeal site and the Ladygrove East development.
570 Barbara Chillman’s Rebuttal proof of Evidence (CD 12.9), paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5;
Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions paragraph 167
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 71
development applying the same principle to SEN provision as to mainstream.
This results in a figure of £114,733.571.
204. The Council also seeks a contribution to the costs of providing Secondary
School Transport at a cost of £290 per day for 190 days per school year for 7
years, a total of £385,700.572 This cannot be provided by CIL because it is not
infrastructure and so, can only be provided through s106 monies.573 If pupils
need to travel from Cholsey to Didcot to access a school place, transport costs
will be covered by OCC because the pupils are travelling more than 3 miles. In
the unlikely event that pupils are lucky enough to travel to Wallingford from
Cholsey, transport costs will be covered by OCC because the journey is deemed
an unsafe walking route. In either case, parents will not fund school transport
and so a contribution should be made as required by OCC.574
Other matters, planning balance and conclusion
205. Highways matters have been satisfactorily resolved575 but mitigation does not
amount to a benefit576. Harm to a listed milestone would be less than substantial
and would be outweighed by public benefits but must still be taken into
account.577 Although not reasons for refusal, there are further harms in the loss
of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land and potential impact on the working
of minerals which are relevant in the planning balance.578
206. The development of the Site would result in the permanent loss of
approximately 26.25 ha of BMV land, described by the Environmental Statement
supporting the application as a ‘significant’ effect which cannot be fully mitigated.
The harm that this loss represents is to be factored into the planning balance579.
207. The loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land was justified in a letter
written on headed notepaper of the JD Leavesley Estate, part of the same group
as the Appellant. The author, Joe Blackstone, is Head of Agriculture of JDL
Estates i.e. an employee of a company closely connected to the Appellant. His
letter was not in the form of a witness statement. It was not in the form of a
statutory declaration. He did not appear to be questioned. The letter contained
no detail as to the numbers so that the Council and third parties could interrogate
whether what was being said was true or reasonable. As residents stated, there
are no issues of security as they have seen equipment left on site on “numerous
occasions”. The point was well made that 3 incidents reported by Mr Blackstone
571 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions paragraph 170, referencing Securing Developer
Contributions for Education (CD 7.3) paragraph 11; Barbara Chillman’s Proof of Evidence (CD
12.6), paragraph 6.8.
572 Barbara Chillman’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.6), paragraph 2.7
573 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions paragraph 173
574 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions paragraph 174
575 Emmaline Lambert’s opening submissions, paragraph 4. Tracy Smith’s Proof of Evidence
(CD 12.5) paragraphs 1.12 to 1.22
576 Tracy Smith’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.5), paragraph 3.37
577 Council’s Statement of Case (CD 12.1), paragraphs 5.34 to 5.37; Emmaline Lambert’s
opening submissions, paragraph 17 and her closing submissions paragraph 224
578 Emmaline Lambert’s opening submissions, paragraph 18 and closing submissions
paragraph 214; Tracy Smith’s Proof of Evidence (CD 12.5), paragraphs 3.40 to 3.48
579 Council’s Delegated report (CD 3.1), paragraph 6.84; Tracy Smith’s Proof of Evidence (CD
12.5), paragraphs 3.40 to 3.43
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 72
in 30 years is hardly a security hazard. It was also noted that there are various
options open to the Appellant such as offering the land to more local farms of
which there was no evidence. The long and short of it is that the letter was
entirely self-serving and lacking in substance and did not on any level justify the
loss of BMV farmland which is in active production580.
208. There will be short term economic benefits for the local economy via
construction jobs. Economic benefits in the form of additional full and part time
jobs will come forward on other schemes in appropriate locations. There is likely
to be job creation via the specialist older persons accommodation, the
employment space, retail and day nursery.581. The Appellant produced no
evidence to show that South Oxfordshire had a higher level of unemployment
than the rest of Oxfordshire or the rest of the UK such that this benefit should be
elevated in weight582.
209. Items like Council Tax and the New Homes Bonus included by the Appellant583
are not economic benefits to be weighed in the balance. Council Tax pays for
services. The New Homes Bonus, as a ‘local finance consideration’ for the
purposes of s.70(2) of the 1990 Act, can only be taken into account as a material
planning consideration when it is demonstrated that it could help to make the
development acceptable in planning terms. No such link is made in this
proposal584.
210. Open Space is not a reason for refusal but this is not a benefit as the Appellant
attempts to pray in aid. The Public Open Space, even if the Appellant is right,
provides a marginal over provision. However, on the Council’s calculations it
under-provides. This is hardly surprising given how much land take there is for
development585. The community building proposed to be provided is plainly to
serve the development as Cholsey is already well served for a village of its
size586. The community of Cholsey expresses no desire for it – indeed, quite the
contrary587. In the overall balance, the benefits of housing (market, affordable
and for older people) are not unique to this site and would not outweigh the
environmental and social harms the development would cause.588
211. The scheme is in the wrong place at the wrong time. The NPPF advises that
the planning system should be genuinely plan-led. The development plan
includes the Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan, advanced and supported by the
Cholsey community. It does not allocate and has rejected this site.
580 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions paragraph 222
581 Tracy Smith’s Proof of evidence (CD 12.5), paragraph 3.33
582 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions paragraphs 211-12
583 In Appendix 3 of Stephen Stoney’s Proof of Evidence (CD 19.1)
584 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions paragraph 213, referencing National Planning
Practice Guidance Paragraph: 011 Reference ID: 21b-011-20140612
585 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions paragraph 219
586 Council’s Delegated Report (CD 3.1), paragraph 6.18; Tracy Smith’s Proof of Evidence (CD
12.5), paragraph 4.25
587 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions paragraph 209
588 Emmaline Lambert’s opening submissions, paragraph 20 and her closing submissions,
paragraph 208, 227 and 228
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 73
Development on sites such as this would make a farce of the local plan process
which government advocates and which local people trust.589
The Case for Cholsey Parish Council590
212. The development plan must be read as a whole. Individual policies which may
appear to support a proposal should not be cherry picked and read in isolation591.
213. The development plan comprises the South Oxfordshire District Council Local
Plan and the Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan. A review of the latter is at
examination stage and it is expected that the reviewed plan will be made by the
Council by the end of September 2022.592 At that point, the four criteria of NPPF
paragraph 14 will have been met and so the adverse impact of allowing
development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan should be regarded as
significantly and demonstrably outweighing its benefits593.
214. The Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan was made in July 2019. It sets out the
planning policies for the village, including the allocation of 189 new homes, 75 of
which are to be affordable.594 The appeal scheme is a major development, to be
focused in the Science Vale, including growth at Didcot and Culham. It is not an
allocated site in either of the development plan documents. It was not allocated
in the Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan because its scale would have exceeded the
capacity of local services and infrastructure595 It lies outside the built-up area
boundary shown on the Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan proposals map. It therefore
does not accord with the spatial strategy for housing within the district and
conflicts with Local Plan policies STRAT 1 and H1 and Cholsey Neighbourhood
Plan policies STRAT1 and H2596. Location adjacent to a settlement identified for
proportionate growth does not of itself make the appeal scheme sustainable.597
215. The community worked hard to prepare the Neighbourhood Plan in advance of
the Local Plan. That enabled housing delivery 18 months earlier than would
otherwise have occurred. The community has great pride in its neighbourhood
589 Emmaline Lambert’s closing submissions, paragraphs 229 and 230
590 This section of the report represents the Inspector’s understanding of the Parish Council’s
case. It should not be taken as representing the Inspector’s own view of the merits of the
case.
591 Cholsey Parish Council’s Proof of Evidence (CD 13.1), paragraphs 0.1 and 5.1; Statement
of Case (CD 13.3), paragraphs 0.1 and 5.1; opening statement paragraph 1; closing
statement, paragraph 1.1
592 The reviewed Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan was made on 13 October 2022. See paragraph
22 above.
593 Cholsey Parish Council’s Proof of Evidence (CD 13.1), paragraph 2.22; Statement of Case
(CD 13.3), paragraph 2.24; closing submissions, paragraphs 2.2 to 2.7 and 5.5
594 Cholsey Parish Council’s opening submissions paragraph 2; closing submissions paragraph
1.3
595 Cholsey Parish Council’s Statement of Case (CD 13.3), paragraph 2.40
596 Cholsey Parish Council Proof of Evidence (CD 13.1), paragraphs 0.3, 2.32 and 5.3;
Statement of Case (CD 13.3), paragraphs 03, 0.4, 2.33 to 2.39 and 5.3; opening submissions
paragraphs 3 and 4; closing submissions paragraphs 1.4, 3.4 and 3.11 to 3.15
597 Cholsey Parish Council closing submissions, paragraph 5.2
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 74
plan and its current update and seeks its respect. To allow the appeal would
undermine faith in the plan-led system.598
216. There were 271 objections to the original application. 296 objections to the
appeal have been sent directly to the Inspectorate. A local petition objecting to
the proposal has over 1,600 signatures, representing 55% of the adult population
of Cholsey599. A children’s voice document has more than 50 representations600.
217. The Local Plan proposes 15% growth in Larger Villages. In fact, Cholsey has
already identified 691 new dwellings and commitments by 2020, compared to the
target of 612; 13% more than required601. The Local Plan itself will deliver some
30,000 new homes compared to a requirement of 23,550. Although the short-
term land position may be tight, over the plan period, more than enough market
housing is being provided in Cholsey and the wider district.602 To allow the
appeal would undermine the exceptional circumstances justifying the allocation in
the Local Plan of sites in the Green Belt around the edge of Oxford603. Cholsey
has come up with 75 affordable homes through its Neighbourhood Plan, dealing
with the immediate need identified by the 63 names on the Council’s affordable
housing register who nominated Cholsey as their first-choice location.604
218. A scheme that would deliver an additional 70% growth on top of Cholsey’s
targets cannot be seen as sustainable.605 There is no requirement to
accommodate shortfalls from other Larger Villages as 8% more homes above
target have been delivered across all Larger Villages within 18 months of Local
Plan adoption606.
219. The appeal scheme is an outline application for a site of strategic size. If
allowed, reserved matters submissions would have to be prepared, submitted
and approved, pre-commencement conditions discharged and pre-occupation
conditions and off-site works carried out before housing completions could occur.
There are no guarantees that this appeal site could contribute any completions to
the Council’s housing supply within the next five-years607.
598 Cholsey Parish Council Proof of Evidence (CD 13.1), paragraph 2.31; Statement of Case
(CD 13.3), paragraph 2.36; opening submissions, paragraph 16; closing submissions,
paragraphs 4.53 and 4.54
599 Inquiry Document INQ3
600 Inquiry Document INQ4
601 Cholsey Parish Council Proof of Evidence (CD 13.1), paragraphs 0.2 and 2.33 and 2.34;
Statement of Case (CD 13.3), paragraphs 0.2 and 2.42 and 2.43; closing submissions
paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6
602 Cholsey Parish Council Proof of Evidence (CD 13.1), paragraphs 2.23 to 2.25, 2.29, 2.30
and 5.2; Statement of Case (CD 13.3), paragraphs 2.25 to 2.27, 2.31, 2.32 and 5.2; closing
submissions paragraph 4.25
603 Cholsey Parish Council Proof of Evidence (CD 13.1), paragraph 2.28; Statement of Case
(CD 13.3), paragraph 2.30
604 Cholsey Parish Council closing submissions paragraph 4.29 to 4.31
605 Cholsey Parish Council’s Proof of Evidence (CD 13.1), paragraph 2.34; Statement of Case
(CD 13.3), paragraph 2.43; closing submissions paragraph 3.8
606 Cholsey Parish Council closing submissions paragraphs 3.9 and 3.10
607 Cholsey Parish Council’s Proof of Evidence (CD 13.1), paragraph 2.26; Statement of Case
(CD 13.3), paragraph 2.28; closing submissions paragraphs 4.26 and 4.27
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 75
220. There are doubts about the precise nature of the specialist housing for older
people to be provided and the speed of its delivery.608 There is no immediate
need in the local area for such housing. There is already an appropriate
mechanism for its delivery609. Local Plan policy H13 requires such developments
to have good access to public transport. Yet the only bus service runs hourly on
a circular route which does not provide a return service from the village centre or
railway station. The latter is a mile away and lacks disabled access. It is
therefore questionable whether good access to public transport is provided.610
221. The development would result in the permanent loss of Best and Most Versatile
Agricultural Land, chosen, without following a sequential test of prioritising
poorer quality land, for reasons of security and anti-social issues which are
disputed. Yet, it would be developed at an inefficiently low density, contrary to
Local Plan policy STRAT5.3.611
222. Local Plan Policy EMP10 does not support business growth adjacent to, or
outside a village or as part of an unallocated site outside of a settlement
boundary. Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan supports proposals in or adjacent to the
village which respect its scale and wider landscape setting. The proposal is for
3,000 sqm of business use, disproportionate to the context and scale of the
village. There is no evidence of its need or demand. The proposed retail use
would be comparable to the existing village centre supermarket. Duplication of
facilities already available in the village centre would undermine them to the
detriment of the village as a whole.612 Job creation during construction would not
be unique to this appeal proposal.613
223. The Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan movement policies and proposals set out in
CNP STRAT1, CNP T1 and CNP T2 seek to minimise car travel and discourteous
behaviour and to improve walking and cycling routes and public transport
facilities. The proposal omits to provide a designated cycle route to Wallingford.
Its proposed roundabout capacity enlargements would be to the detriment of
pedestrians and cyclists. Proposed pedestrian improvements to Ilges Lane have
not been discussed with residents. There are practical objections to their
608 Cholsey Parish Council opening submissions paragraph 9 and closing submissions,
paragraphs 4.32, 4.33 and 4.38
609 Cholsey Parish Council’s Proof of Evidence (CD 13.1), paragraphs 0.7, 3.8 to 3.13 and 5.7
and Appendix 1; Statement of Case (CD 13.3), paragraphs 0.8, 3.8 to 3.13 and 5.8 and
Appendix 1; opening submissions paragraph 9; closing submissions, paragraph 4.37
610 Cholsey Parish Council Proof of Evidence (CD 13.1), paragraphs 2.12 to 2.18, 3.6 and
3.14; Statement of Case (CD 13.3), paragraphs 2.12 to 2.18, 3.6 and 3.14; closing
submissions paragraphs 4.34 to 4.36
611 Cholsey Parish Council’s Proof of Evidence (CD 13.1), paragraphs 0.11, 2.1 and 5.11;
Statement of Case (CD 13.3), paragraphs 0.12, 2.1 and 5.11; opening submissions
paragraphs 5 and 12 and closing submissions paragraphs 4.1 to 4.8 and 4.24
612 Cholsey Parish Council’s Proof of Evidence (CD 13.1), paragraphs 0.7, 2.3 to 2.5, 3.26 to
3.28 and 5.7; Statement of Case (CD 13.3), paragraphs 0.8, 2.3 to 2.5, 3.26 to 3.28 and 5.8;
opening submissions paragraph 7 and closing submissions paragraphs 4.9 to 4.13
613 Cholsey Parish Council’s closing submissions, paragraphs 4.21 to 4.23
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 76
implementation. The pedestrian and cycle links to Cholsey Meadows (Fairmile
Hospital) do not follow natural desire lines.614
224. The children generated by the development will displace from Wallingford
School those within its catchment area, such as at Moulsford, not even
considered by the appellant’s witness. The development has no regard to the
social or environmental harms caused by having to send children from Cholsey to
Didcot, some 10miles and a 30-minute drive away615.
225. Both water supply and sewage disposal are deficient in Cholsey616. There are
inadequate facilities available or capable of being made available to support a
development of this scale in Cholsey617. Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan sets out
clearly that the village’s most desired additional facilities would be a doctor’s
surgery and a NHS dentist but the Clinical Commissioning Group believes satellite
surgeries are unsustainable. It is not clear how CIL payments could be used
immediately to mitigate the problem.618
226. Neighbourhood Plan policy I1 seeks provision for sport, including playing
pitches, on site. Local Plan policy CF5 has similar requirements. Cholsey is in
need of larger playing pitches to support the sports teams who battle with
insufficient capacity at the Recreation Ground. The five-a-side pitch proposed by
the appellant does not meet the needs of the local community.619
227. The appellant’s LVIA is unreliable620. The appeal scheme does not reflect the
developable area identified in the Landscape Capacity Study621 to mitigate impact
on the landscape. The “low density residential and care village” area on the Land
Use parameters plan sits to the northern and eastern end of the site, an area
specifically identified by the Landscape Capacity Study to have the most
landscape harm. The two junctions and accesses into the site are designed by
reference to Manual for Roads and Bridges rather than the Manual for Streets,
resulting in larger dimensions and considerable amounts of tree removal causing
a harmful impact on Reading Road and the village edge. The proposal represents
a 25% increase in the land coverage of the village. It is clearly immensely out of
614 Cholsey Parish Council’s Proof of Evidence (CD 13.1), paragraphs 0.6, 2.8, 2.19 and 5.6;
Statement of Case (CD 13.3), paragraphs 0.7, 2.8, 2.11, 2.19, 2.20 and 5.7; opening
submissions paragraph 8 and closing submissions paragraphs 4.14 to 4.20
615 Cholsey Parish Council’s Proof of Evidence (CD 13.1), paragraph 3.15; Statement of Case
(CD 13.3), paragraph 3.15; closing submissions, paragraphs 4.39 to 4.43
616 Cholsey Parish Council’s Proof of Evidence (CD 13.1), paragraphs 3.19 to 3.25; Statement
of Case (CD 13.3), paragraphs 3.19 to 3.25
617 Cholsey Parish Council’s Proof of Evidence (CD 13.1), paragraphs 0.5, 3.16 to second
paragraph 3.17 and 5.5; Statement of Case (CD 13.3), paragraphs 0.4, 3.16 to second
paragraph 3.17 and 5.6.
618 Cholsey Parish Council’s Proof of Evidence (CD 13.1), paragraph 3.17 and Appendix 2;
Statement of Case (CD 13.3), paragraph 3.17 and Appendix 2; closing submissions,
paragraphs 4.44 to 4.46
619 Cholsey Parish Council’s Proof of Evidence (CD 13.1), paragraph 3.18; Statement of Case
(CD 13.3), paragraph 3.18; closing submissions, paragraphs 4.47 to 4.50
620 Cholsey Parish Council’s Proof of Evidence (CD 13.1), Appendix 3; Daniel Leaver’s Proof of
Evidence (CD 13.2), paragraphs 2.3.1 to 2.3.9
621 Landscape Capacity Assessment for Sites on the Edge of the Larger Villages of South
Oxfordshire by Kirkham Landscape Planning Ltd (CD 1.35); Daniel Leaver’s Proof of Evidence
(CD 13.2), Appendix 6
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 77
scale. It will block or interfere with views into and out of the Chilterns AONB
(though Daniel Leaver’s evidence classes both landscape and visual effects as
“not significant”622), break the skyline, lose tranquillity by the introduction of
lighting, introduce a significant change to landscape character, lose biodiversity,
put pressure on the Cholsey Marsh Local Wildlife Site and result in significant
harm to the wider landscape and to the setting of the North Wessex Downs and
Chilterns AONBs623.
The case for others who appeared at the Inquiry624
Professor Richard Harding
228. The adopted Local Plan has an ambitious housing target for 23,550 new
dwellings between 2011 and 2035, including unmet need from the City of Oxford.
It represents an increase in household numbers of nearly 50%. To achieve this
target, the Plan allocates land for in excess of 30,000 dwellings – a very large
margin of excess.
229. The target is predicated on the idea that by building excess houses, their price
reduces. That does not seem to have worked in South Oxfordshire where more
dwellings than the increase in households were built between 2011 and 2021 but
house prices rose by 50%. Natural population growth in South Oxfordshire is
less than 200 persons per year and decreasing so the new developments are not
for local people. They will be occupied by people from London or the north of
England. This is not consistent with the government’s “Levelling up” agenda.
230. The strategy is to concentrate housing at high densities into the “Science Vale”
between Didcot and Oxford and at Strategic Sites in a band around Oxford, not
low density housing in villages. Larger villages should also take a sustainable
and balanced share. For Cholsey, this is 619 dwellings. As of the year 2000 (sic,
presumably 2020 is meant), Cholsey has allocated land for 690 houses.
231. The Local Plan and Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan were extensively consulted on
and debated. Local people cannot be expected to participate in the process if the
plans are turned on their head within eighteen months. The appeal proposal is
an affront to local democracy.
232. Underlying the overall housing strategy is the use of high densities in the
market towns and close to Oxford city. Low density housing in villages is not
appropriate; it would be an inefficient use of resources. Every house will release
at least 100 tons of carbon dioxide in its construction. To build more housing
than is needed is disastrous to attempts to limit carbon emissions. The appeal
site comprises Best and Most Versatile agricultural land, which could produce
enough grain for over half a million loaves of bread a year, enough for the entire
622 Daniel Leaver’s Proof of Evidence (CD 13.2), paragraphs 2.3.6 and 2.3.7
623 Cholsey Parish Council’s Proof of Evidence (CD 13.1), paragraphs 0.4, 0.13, 4.3 to 4.12,
5.4 and 5.14 and Appendix 3; Statement of Case (CD 13.3), paragraphs 0.5, 0.14, 4.3 to
4.13, 5.5 and 5.14; opening submissions paragraphs 6 and 14; closing submissions
paragraphs 4.56 to 4.67; Daniel Leaver’s Proof of Evidence (CD 13.2), paragraphs 3.1.1 to
3.1.7 and Appendices 2 and 3
624 This section of the report represents the Inspector’s understanding of the case for others
who appeared at the Inquiry. It should not be taken as representing the Inspector’s own
view of the merits of the case.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 78
population of Oxfordshire for a week. Its loss would damage our capability to
feed ourselves. It would clearly damage the setting of two Areas of Outstanding
Natural Beauty and the rural nature of Cholsey.
Liz Nixon
233. Due diligence carried out before moving to the village confirmed that the Local
Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan both showed no further development. She
believed its surroundings were protected.
234. Two things kept her working for the NHS through the Covid pandemic; her
colleagues and the thought of returning home to peace and quiet.
235. She observed that the World Health Organisation defines health as a complete
state of physical and mental well-being. Research by MIND (the mental health
charity), published in the magazine NATURE shows a close relationship between
nature and mental health. The Covid epidemic showed how nature and the
outdoors was needed. The development would remove from many people a
fundamental right. The loss of the field and ten years of building would have an
unimaginable effect.
Ginnie Herbert
236. Planetary heating is caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Huge reductions in
carbon emissions need to be made. The 2008 Climate Change Act sets a legally
binding target, referenced in the NPPF and carried through into the Local Plan.
Cholsey Parish Council has an action plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to
enhance biodiversity and to increase carbon sinks.
237. Cholsey’s estimated carbon emissions are 32,000 tonnes of CO equivalent625
2 ,
representing 18.8 tonnes per annum, nearly 50% higher than the national
average. The construction of 350 houses would result in an estimated additional
35,000 tonnes of carbon emissions, more than Cholsey’s total for a year. As
good agricultural land, the site is presently a carbon sink. The development
would be unsustainable due to harm from carbon generation and altered land
use.
238. The development plan for Cholsey makes more than adequate provision for
both market and affordable housing. Sufficient provision for older persons
housing can be made on allocated strategic sites. The appellant’s claim that
Cholsey is a sustainable location appears to derive from the provision of rail
transport but in fact, rail accounts for just 3% of all trips. Overprovision of
housing on a greenfield site resulting in carbon generation and loss of a carbon
sink is irrational and inappropriate.
Sam Park
239. She remarked that local businesses might be expected to welcome the
increase in population which the development would bring but, in fact, they
believe it would do more harm than good. Demand for car parking already
exceeds supply. If the development were to go ahead, availability would reduce
further, losing a substantial amount of business.
625 Data from www.impact-tool.org.uk
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 79
240. She noted that the development would reserve space for commercial retail
uses. But Cholsey is not big enough to support two retail centres. Small
businesses in the existing centre provide essential services for many residents
but would not be able to compete with a larger store in the new development and
so would go out of business.
241. Her entire customer base has expressed their concerns about the
development. That has emboldened her to host a petition, signed by 1634
residents supporting Cholsey Parish Council and South Oxfordshire District
Council in objecting to the Leavesley development of the field between Papist
Way, Reading Road and Ilges Lane.626
242. As a parent, she is concerned that her children would be unlikely to be able to
attend Wallingford School and would be separated from their Primary School
friends. To send them to school by public transport would make her
uncomfortable. To drive them to school would require a later opening of her
shop. To move out of the village would be a likely outcome, a perverse result of
a development intended to allow young families to reside in Cholsey.
Judy Collins
243. The Localism Act 2012 aims to give local people a say in the development of
their area. Cholsey has defined its local Neighbourhood Plan, supporting a locally
appropriate level of growth and restricting inappropriate development beyond the
village boundary. The plan was subject to consultation, with significant
engagement. Put to a referendum in March 2019, over 95% of voters supported
it.
244. A group of volunteers and councillors has invested almost 1,000 hours of effort
into updating the plan. Its aims and its village boundary do not change. It has
just completed its consultation phase. The democratic view of the community
has been expressed through this Neighbourhood Plan, through the Parish and
District Councils, through the County Councillor and the local MP, all of whom
oppose the development.
245. The democratic view of the community that this development should not
proceed is also evidenced by
• The petition627 signed by 85% of those approached, representing about
55% of the adult population
• The Children’s Voice628 comprising 60 contributions
• The objections to the development, amounting to about 10% of the
population
• The public protest in July 2022, attracting over 100 local residents, and
• The attendance at the Inquiry629
626 Inquiry Document INQ3
627 Inquiry Document INQ3
628 Inquiry Document INQ4
629 The attendance lists include all parties; 93 names on day 1; 55 on day 2; 23 on day 3; 27
on day 4; 21 on day 5; 19 on day 6; 15 on day 7; 33 on day 8
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 80
Dr Duncan Reed
246. The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management requires its
members to adhere to a Code of Ethics. Two of its 16 clauses are to act
honestly, objectively and impartially and to consider the needs of the community.
247. Adjoining the appeal site is a development by Linden Homes, now Agatha
Christie Way. Its development caused disruption to the existing sewer system in
Kennedy Crescent and Queens Road. There has been a subsequent blockage and
a foul sewerage flood. These are instances of what happens when ever more
development is plugged into a sewer network designed in a much earlier period
of village expansion.
248. The drainage strategy for the development indicates that sewage would be
pumped to join the existing village network in Ilges Lane. But the small size of
the sewer in the upper part of Ilges Lane is not documented. It could not
accommodate the sewage from 350 homes.
Val Bolt
249. The Cholsey community has been positive about the proportionate growth
proposed through the South Oxfordshire Local Plan and the Cholsey
Neighbourhood Plan. However, the development of first, Cholsey Meadows
(Fairmile Hospital) and subsequently, East End Farm has given the community
direct experience of the difficulty of integrating large numbers of new residents
into a community, which continues ten years after most of the houses were built.
250. The developments caused disruption, noise and road closures during
construction, with increased traffic and congestion in the village. There was
stress on school places, doctors, dentists and other healthcare provision. The
local Wallingford Medical Practice closed its books to new patients for more than
six months.
251. The effects on residents’ quality of life were accepted as part of the fair
allocation of new housing agreed upon. The appeal proposal is likely to have
even greater impact, particularly for health, education, water, drainage and
longer build-out time. This will greatly harm community relations and the
integration of new residents into the wider community.
Cllr Dr Sue Roberts
252. The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that we meet the UK’s carbon
budgets. The Oxfordshire Growth Deal will use up almost all of the local carbon
budget. Leavesley proposes to lose another carbon sink, create CO -using homes
2
and release greenhouse gas emissions during construction.
253. The site is Best and Most Versatile agricultural land. In the light of global
events, we should not lose our food security.
254. It is dismaying to discuss housing supply in such immense detail. The
Council’s housing supply is so tight because it was forced to plan for twice the
number of homes needed.
255. The Environment Act specifies a 10% biodiversity net gain. This proposal
would result in a decrease in biodiversity; quite an achievement when starting
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 81
from near nothing on industrially farmed land. Humankind depends on insects to
support the food chain.
Joanne Baker (written submission following late request to speak)
256. Despite lying just one mile south of the appeal site, no consideration appears
to have been given to its effects on Moulsford village. Existing developments
around Cholsey and Wallingford have already had the effect of excluding
Moulsford children from Wallingford School necessitating complex travel
arrangements to Didcot schools. The villagers had been assured that the now
completed expansion of Wallingford School would address the issue. But the
proposed development would place 350 homes, almost 50% more than the whole
of Moulsford, closer to the school and so, continue to exclude Moulsford children
from Wallingford School and require their continued difficult commuting journey
to Didcot.
257. Moulsford Parish Council is also concerned that little or no consideration has
been given to the effects of the development’s additional traffic movements on
the A329 road running south of Cholsey through Moulsford. It will exacerbate
existing congestion in the village at peak times.
Written Representations630
258. Two hundred and forty-nine written representations were sent to the
Inspectorate in response to notification of the appeal. Seven were from
individuals who spoke at the Inquiry and whose views have been reported above.
Others commented on flooding, the lack of village infrastructure, leisure, health
and education provision, Best and Most Versatile agricultural land, traffic, parking
congestion in the village, retail provision undermining existing shops, shift in the
village’s centre of gravity, the lack of walking, cycling and public transport
options, loss of wildlife (photographs were submitted of deer using the site),
hedgerows as a critical habitat for rare white-letter hair streak butterflies,
inadequate water supplies and sewage disposal, the effect on the Local Nature
Reserve, AONBs and views to and from them, housing targets already met, the
experience of previous attempts to introduce commercial uses and a nursery at
Fairmile Hospital (Cholsey Meadows), care home and community facilities not
needed, CO generation, disproportionate increase in size of village, loss of
2
privacy to houses in Agatha Christie Way, Charles Road and Lapwing Gardens.
Of these representations, the Chilterns Conservation Board’s summary of its
original representation to the Council, together with its additional comments
made to the inspectorate are worth quoting in full;
“This application falls within the setting of the Chilterns AONB and also the
North Wessex Downs AONB. Those settings relationships would be harmed.
This harm is readily demonstrated in the landscape and visual impact section
of the Environmental Statement (ES). Photomontage viewpoint C very clearly
illustrates how views from the Wallingford - Goring and Wallingford - Woodcote
corridor are impacted. The CCB would ask that the assessment of setting is
given full weight and the duties in the CROW Act 2000, section 85 are applied
630 This section of the report represents the Inspector’s understanding of the cases made in
written representations by those who did not appear at the Inquiry. It should not be taken as
representing the Inspector’s own view of the merits of their cases.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 82
when calibrating the planning balance (i.e. impacts upon the special qualities
arising from development outside the AONB).
“This application seeks to re-open the Neighbourhood Plan assessment, in
which site CHOL 2 was not supported by the neighbourhood planning body,
nor the Local Planning Authority. The sensitivities of this site within the setting
of two AONBs was considered in the assessment of sites and roundly
dismissed. The assessor agreed with the Parish Council's assessment and
concluded the site allocations were based on 'clear evidence' (7.47 of the
assessor’s report).
“In the discharge of the planning balance, the CCB would ask that the LPA
gives weight to the settings implications (clearly illustrated in the applicant's
photomontage viewpoint C), the sweeping and majestic views of the dipslope
landscape from higher ground south east of Mongewell and the landscape
character assessment in the Lepus study of November 2019. Lighting within
the development will serve to further exacerbate these harmful impacts.
“From the standpoint of AONB impact this application is contrary to
Development Plan policy in the Local Plan ENV 1 (setting and AONB
Management Plan) and Neighbourhood Plan EO1 and EO2, contrary to AONB
Management Plan policy DP4 (setting) and the CCB's Position Statement on
the Setting of the AONB. The CROW 2000 at section 85 gives legal force to
setting when assessing impacts. The NPPF 2021 consultation revisions include
the setting of an AONB as a material matter of importance. This revision may
be in force by the time this application is determined.
“We would like to make the following comments in supplement to our previous
objection (as below):
“(1). Intervisibility and common ground. That comment [sic; presumably
common is meant] ground exists between the appellant and us, when
assessing visual impact, sometimes referred to in the papers as intervisibility.
In the applicant’s additional LVIA commentary (3rd Sep 2021) the landscape
consultants make the point, ‘The LVIA recognises that long views are possible
in many directions from the fringes of the Chilterns (CA6) including some
intervisibility with the site’.
“We would add that such intervisibility also applies from views within the
Chilterns, looking towards and across the appeal site. Photomontage
viewpoint C demonstrates this (taken near the A4074 Walllingford-Reading
Road). This higher ground on the plateau above Woodcote, enjoys expansive
views to the west, towards the Thames and with the North Wessex Downs.
“The key assessment of visual impact, as opposed to matters of landscape
character, will be the extent to which that impact is harmful and impacts upon
the perception of the landscape when walking the public rights of way network
and enjoying the landscape. The LVIA commentary describes this impact as
‘fleeting’ and, in effect, a small part of a wider panorama when viewing the
proposal from the more elevated rights of way in the Chilterns. We disagree.
When walking the landscape and looking down upon the site, the applicant’s
desire to extend development to the east will be clear in the wider view. The
extent, scale and layout would be readily apparent and somewhat ‘blocky’.
Winter/dusk will bring inevitable light spill and glare. This would further
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 83
highlight the fact that development had been permitted outside the reasonable
limits of a settlement envelope. Appropriate policy restraint would have been
breached, as contained within the Neighbourhood Plan, Local Plan, NPPF and
AONB Management Plan. Further, the SODC Landscape Capacity Study 2015
and AONB Settings Position Statements would resist this eastern ‘spill’ of
development into the wider setting.
“CCB key submission: We recommend for the appointed Inspector’s site visit
that an assessment of the visual impacts from within the AONB can be taken
from the A4074 ‘Port Way’ where a bridleway runs to the southwest (linking
with the Springs Hotel and then North Stoke). The topography falls away
towards the river. The site is directly in the view. The applicants present this
as viewpoint C.
“(2). AONB Policy. The setting of the AONB is now a matter of increased
importance, following its incorporation into revisions to the NPPF 176 in July
2021. Such a revision chimes with the SODC Local Plan at ENV1, the 2019-
2024 AONB Management Plan at policy DP 4 and with the CCB’s own position
statement on setting (2011). Whilst we accept that setting must be assessed
on a case-by-case basis, the visual impact in this case is well documented by
the applicant in their photomontage (part 2 as posted to the SODC portal) at
viewpoint C. The CCB’s planning adviser has walked this route on several
occasions and formed the view that the magnificent sweep of landscape
looking southwest from the plateau landscape, would be harmed by this
comprehensive eastern extension of Cholsey. The development proposed
would look very ‘out of place’ and cannot be meaningfully mitigated. This
proposal would negatively alter perception of the Chilterns and North Wessex
Downs landscape, when viewed within the AONB.
“We note the point in the statement of case (8.8.3) that reason for refusal 2
does not mention the AONB explicitly. That does not invalidate a consideration
of its merits and we would respectfully ask that weight is given to the setting
of two AONBs as a material issue. The Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW)
Act section 85 also applies to setting (any function ‘so as to affect’). The
combined effect of CROW, NPPF, Development (Local) Plan and AONB
Management Plan is to raise the importance of landscape setting from within a
highly valued nationally protected landscape and looking out towards another
AONB (the North Wessex Downs AONB).
“CCB key submission: When attributing weight and discharging the planning
balance, the CCB would ask that great weight is given to the setting of the
AONB and, following CROW, that regard is paid to the purpose of conserving
and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty.
“(3). Special Qualities of the AONB. We note from the papers the appellants
will deal with the June 2021 planning appeal decision at Little Sparrows,
Sonning Common (also in SODC and PINS reference
APP/Q3115/W/20/3265861). Planning permission was granted for this
proposal within the AONB, as opposed to land within its setting. The merits of
these cases are very distinguishable. What unites them is their impact upon
the special qualities of the AONB. These qualities are set out in the 2019-2024
Management Plan (pages 10 and 11) and include panoramic views, unspoilt
countryside, and relative tranquillity. In this case we would respectfully invite
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 84
the appointed Inspector to give weight to these features when viewing the site
from the public rights of way network.
“CCB key submission: That the special qualities of the AONB is key to any
assessment and that in this case the panorama of unspoilt countryside and its
relative tranquillity would be negatively impacted.”
259. In addition, two hundred and eight representations made to the Council at
application stage need to be taken into account. The Council’s committee report
records two hundred and thirteen but this figure includes instances where the
same objector has made more than one submission. Eight representations were
from individuals who spoke at the Inquiry and whose views have been reported
above. One representation supports the proposal, with caveats. The remainder
oppose the development on grounds which are summarised within the Council’s
delegated report as follows631;
Matters of principle
• Contrary to the Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan - The Cholsey Neighbourhood
Plan does not support development in the area proposed. The proposed
development falls outside of the Built-up Area in the NP.
• The village not only met but exceeded the required quota of houses
already.
• The South Oxfordshire Local Plan does not allocate the site for
development.
• Cumulative impacts with developments in Cholsey in recent years e.g: the
Fairmile development, Yew Tree development, Poppy Fields development,
Agatha Christie development and infill housing at Deanfield Place.
• The size of the development is completely out of proportion with the
existing village of Cholsey.
• The field is Grade 2 listed arable farmland which surely should be utilised
to continue to grow food to feed all the people that live in our ever-
growing population, not concreating over it.
Landscape/wildlife impacts
• The land the application is proposing building on is also used by a wide
variety of wildlife including but not exhausting bats, deer, birds and
rabbits. The proposed development will result in a loss of natural habitat
and biodiversity.
• The proposed development would affect the setting of two Areas of
Outstanding Natural Beauty - the Chilterns and the North Wessex Downs.
Impacts on Infrastructure
• The effects of a development this size would have a significant impact on
the village whose infrastructure is already under pressure with the current
increasing level of homes.
631 CD 3.1
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 85
• An additional 300 homes will lead to over 300 more cars on the streets of
Cholsey and surrounding areas.
• Papist Way is already a busy road providing the main access to the village
centre and parking is unrestricted along most of this. There is a potential
increase in traffic along this road as a result of the development.
• The centre of the village does not have the level of retail required for the
current population or adequate space for parking.
• No provision for doctors or dentist, the development will increase number
of patients at clinics in Wallingford that are already busy (and will have
additional members due to the other developments).
• No school provision people are already struggling to get their children into
the local school.
• The local secondary school in Wallingford will likely not have sufficient
capacity.
• The increase of cycle and pedestrian usage will add overwhelming pressure
on the existing paths and Ilges Lane.
• Will the drainage system cope with so many additional houses?
• Cholsey already has frequent challenges with water pressure.
• The village has no bus transport access after 1730hrs and a reduced train
service.
Masterplan/uses concerns
• Question the need for a Nursery.
• The master plan shows limited space between properties and green areas
and large areas of concrete. This will contribute to faster run-off during
rainfall.
• Question the need for a Care home.
• The development is also considerably unneighbourly to the adjoining
properties on Charles Road, Papist Way, Agatha Christie Way, Ashfield
Way, Lapwing Lane, Rowland Road and Ilges Lane.
• Impact on privacy to existing properties.
• The developer proposes to rely heavily on parking courts.
• The development appears to hinge on the necessity of affordable housing;
therefore the development should offer a greater allocation of shared
ownership houses.
260. Not noted in the Council’s report is a representation commenting that light
pollution would restrict amateur astronomical observations supporting the public
outreach programmes of the Newbury Astronomy Society and the Abingdon
Astronomical Society.
Obligations
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 86
261. The section 106 agreement dated 30 September 2022 consists of a set of
definitions followed by thirteen sections setting out recitals and making
provisions as to statutory provisions, covenants, interest, general provisions,
reasonable behaviour, costs, third party rights, data protection, value added tax,
jurisdiction, general and delivery. There are eight schedules. The first five are
for the benefit of the District Council. They deal with Affordable Housing, Extra
Care, contributions to the District Council, self-build and custom build units and
Open Space, each starting with its own set of additional definitions. The sixth
and seventh schedules are for the benefit of the County Council. They deal with
Contributions, annexed to which is a matrix by which the Special Educational
Needs contribution is calculated according to the number of dwelling units of
varying bedroom numbers and Highway Works, each commencing with its own
set of additional definitions. The eighth schedule sets out the Councils’
obligations to the developer. Appendix 1 provides a location plan. Appendix 2
provides a draft s278 agreement. Appendix 3 provides plans of the works to be
carried out to the highway.
262. Clauses 6.14, 6.14.1 and 6.14.2 provide that if the Secretary of State in his
decision letter states that an obligation is not a material consideration or is
incompatible with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations,
then that obligation shall have no effect. I report on the compliance of the
provisions of the planning obligation with the CIL regulations in my conclusions
below.
263. The four clauses of section 8 of the agreement provide that the owner shall
pay the District and County Council’s legal expenses and costs reasonably
incurred in the preparation of the agreement and its enforcement and shall pay
the District Council £3,248 and the County Council £15,527 for administration
and monitoring.
264. Schedule 1 provides that 40% of the total number of dwellings (other than
extra care units) shall be provided as general needs affordable housing, of which
40% shall be affordable rent, 35% social rent and 25% shared ownership. It
provides that 40% of the extra care units shall be provided as affordable extra
care units, of which 75% shall be affordable rent units and 25% shall be shared
ownership units. It also specifies the dwelling mix (by size) of each type of
affordable housing and requires all the general needs affordable housing to
comply with Category M4(2) of part M of the Building Regulations 2010 and 5%
of the general needs affordable housing to be built as wheelchair accessible
dwellings in accordance with Category M4(3) (but not as flats not on the ground
floor). It also requires that all the affordable housing in any phase of
development must be completed and sold to a registered provider before more
than 75% of the general market housing in that phase is occupied and that the
extra care affordable housing may not be occupied by anyone other than
someone who qualifies for extra care housing and their partner.
265. Schedule 2 extends the limitation on occupancy to all the extra care housing.
It defines a person who qualifies for extra care housing as someone over 65
years old, assessed as needing at least 2 hours of Personal Care per week, who
has contracted to receive the Minimum Care Package and for whom an Assistance
Plan is produced and maintained at least annually. It requires the engagement of
an Extra Care Provider to provide the necessary Personal Care before any Extra
Care Unit is occupied. It establishes a Care Village Management Company to
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 87
operate the Care Village Community building. Any profit is to be used to offset
the service charge payable by the individual owner of each Extra Care unit.
266. Schedule 3 provides a payment to the District Council of £186 per dwelling
(index-linked) towards the provision of waste and recycling bins, £229 per
dwelling (index-linked) towards the provision of street naming and numbering
within the development and £17,019 (index linked) to pay for fencing at Cholsey
Marsh Nature Reserve.
267. Schedule 4 provides for the location, programming and marketing of self-build
plots, a Design Guide for their execution, a certification process for their
completion and a process for releasing self-build plots from the obligation in the
event that they are unable to be sold.
268. Schedule 5 provides for a minimum area of 6.19 Ha of Open Space comprising
allotments, Parks and Gardens (including a minimum of 1.53 ha as recreational
open space), Amenity space, Play Area and SuDS. A specification is included for
0.33 ha of land to be provided as allotments, for a Local Equipped Area of Play of
600 sq m, and a Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play of 1,000 sq m. Provision
is made for a Management Company to maintain and manage the open space,
funded by a service charge on each dwelling. It requires the LEAP and NEAP to
be provided before more than 150 dwellings are occupied and the allotments and
parks and gardens to be provided before 75% of the dwellings are occupied.
269. Schedule 6 provides for the payment to the County Council of £5,271 to
monitor the travel plans associated with the development, £17,852 (index-linked)
for bus stop infrastructure, £451,930 (index-linked), payable in three
instalments, for bus service improvements, £1,402,950 (index-linked), payable in
two instalments, towards the costs associated with providing a new secondary
school in north-east Didcot, £385,700, payable in two instalments, towards the
cost of providing school transport and £263,888, payable in two instalments,
towards the cost of providing a new special school serving Didcot. It specifies a
formula, based on the number of dwellings of each size, by which a greater
financial contribution towards special educational needs provision could be
payable.
270. Schedule 7 provides a s278 agreement to be entered into for the construction
of the first new vehicular access to the site, a pedestrian improvement scheme
along Ilges Lane, a toucan crossing of Reading Road, relocation of bus stops in
Reading Road, the provision of pedestrian and cycle facilities as described in the
appellant’s Safer Routes Study and capacity improvements at three roundabouts
on the Wallingford bypass prior to the occupation of any development on site and
for the second access to the site to be constructed before the occupation of more
than 100 dwellings.
271. Schedule 8 requires the Councils to apply the financial contributions to the
purposes intended and to return unspent monies, with interest, on request, after
ten years.
Conditions
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 88
272. The parties prepared a list of 51 suggested conditions for use in the event of
the appeal being allowed632. My observations on these are set out below. I
distinguish between suggested conditions (those suggested by the parties), and
recommended conditions (those which I recommend to be used). Although my
recommendation is to dismiss the appeal a schedule of recommended conditions
is attached for use in the event that the Secretary of State decides to allow the
appeal.
273. The parties’ first three recommended conditions reflect statutory requirements
for conditions to place time limits on the validity of the permission, adjusted to
reflect the fact that the development is likely to be carried out in phases and to
reflect the intention to secure an early start on site as a benefit of the scheme.
Further adjustments are necessary to reflect the fact that the proposal does not
include details of all access matters and that further details remain a reserved
matter and also to impose start dates for phases subsequent to the first.
274. The fourth suggested condition (mistakenly numbered 3 in the parties’ draft) is
necessary to limit the development to the quantities evaluated in the
Environmental Assessment.
275. The first of the two suggested conditions numbered 4 in the parties’ draft
would require the submission of a masterplan showing land uses and quantities
of development, a design and access parameter plan, a movement framework
including a layout and street type hierarchy, phasing, a design code and details
of key green infrastructure. But much of this information is required anyway by
condition 1 requiring details of reserved matters to be submitted including
access, appearance, landscaping layout and scale, by conditions 5, 6 and 7
imposing parameter plans and suggested condition 7 requiring a phasing plan,
(which I recommend as condition 8) so I consider that this suggested condition is
not necessary and do not include it amongst the recommended conditions.
276. The second of the two suggested conditions numbered 4 in the parties’ draft
specifies the approved plans with which the development must comply. This
includes the three submitted parameters plans which, by virtue of court rulings,
must be applied so as to set a context for the submission of reserved matters.
However, two of these include both specific and indicative provisions. The latter
do not meet the test of precision set out in NPPF paragraph 6 so I recommend
that condition 5 refer only to the detailed access plans and the land use and
density parameter plan which is sufficiently detailed to meet the test of precision.
I recommend conditions 6 and 7 which contain specifications of the matters
which are shown on the other parameter plans with which the development must
comply.
277. Suggested condition 5 would require reserved matters to include information
about utilities and services, parking for vehicles and bicycles, landscaping and
levels. But landscaping is a reserved matter, details of which are required in any
event by condition 1. The other matters do not appear to fall within the
definition of reserved matters and so I recommend condition 9 to ensure that
details are submitted for approval.
632 CD 16.6
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 89
278. There is no suggested condition number 6. Suggested condition number 7 has
been discussed earlier. Suggested condition 8 would require a Housing Delivery
Document to be submitted for the whole site and for each phase, detailing
dwelling mix and tenure, accessible and wheelchair housing and prescribing the
use of Nationally Described Space Standards. The application of Nationally
Described Space Standards in 1 and 2 bedroomed market housing is prescribed
by Local Plan policy H11 (4) in any event and so does not need to be additionally
prescribed by condition. The policy simply needs to be applied to reserved
matters applications as they are made. For affordable housing, this condition
would largely duplicate the provisions of the first schedule of the s106 agreement
discussed earlier and so is to that extent, unnecessary, but overall, the details of
tenure and accessible housing would not be obtained through reserved matters
applications and are needed to evaluate compliance with sub-clauses (1), (2) and
(5) of Local Plan policy H11 on Housing Mix. It is therefore recommended that
the requirements be included within recommended condition 9.
279. Suggested condition 9 would require the internal layout of the site to provide
and accommodate a bus route and bus stops but this would simply duplicate the
provisions of the Parameters Plan for Movement, applied by recommended
condition 7 and so is unnecessary.
280. Suggested condition 10 would require for each phase of development the
submission of a Biodiversity Enhancement Plan, to accord with the submitted
amended Biodiversity Offsetting Assessment July 2021.633 But, in fact the
Biodiversity Offsetting Assessment does not contain proposals; it is, as its title
suggests, an evaluation of the proposals contained within the two parameter
plans Landscape and Open Space and Land Use and Density634 and is submitted
to justify the proposals contained therein. The application of the content of the
two parameter plans is required in any event by recommended conditions 5 and
6; the submission of details of landscaping is required by condition 1, so there is
no need for a condition requiring further submissions. All that is required is for
the local planning authority to evaluate the submissions which result from that
and other conditions, to establish the extent to which they comply with Local Plan
policy ENV3 which requires a net gain in biodiversity where possible and for
supporting evidence to demonstrate a biodiversity net gain using a recognised
biodiversity accounting metric.
281. Suggested condition 11 would require the submission of a maintenance
schedule and management plan for soft landscaping works. But landscaping is a
reserved matter. Until details of landscaping have been submitted, it is not
possible to ascertain that they will need a maintenance schedule and
management plan. If none is submitted with the reserved matters application, it
would be for the local planning authority to determine the acceptability, or
otherwise, of the reserved matters application, with or without a condition
applicable at that stage and to determine it accordingly. At this stage, suggested
condition 11 is unnecessary.
282. Suggested condition 12 would require the submission of a surface water
drainage scheme for the site. But this suggestion duplicates the need for
633 CD 2.10
634 Paragraph 1.1.2 of the Biodiversity Offsetting Assessment July 2021 (CD 2.10)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 90
drainage details set out in suggested condition 5 and which has been included in
recommended condition 9. A separate condition is therefore unnecessary.
283. Suggested condition 13 requires details to be submitted of lighting. This
information would not be forthcoming in response to reserved matters
applications and so needs to be included as an item in recommended condition 9.
284. Suggested condition 14 seeks two things; first the submission of a landscaping
scheme and secondly, the identification of existing trees and shrubs to be
retained. The first requirement simply duplicates the requirement in
recommended condition 1 for the submission of a landscaping scheme as a
reserved matter and so is unnecessary. The second requirement can be met by
a condition (recommended condition 11) requiring the implementation of the
Tree Protection Plan included with the submitted Arboricultural Impact
Assessment635 and the recommendations for tree protection included at
paragraph 5.1.7 of that document.
285. Suggested conditions 15 and 16 would require details to be submitted of car
parking and bicycle parking. These duplicate the provisions of suggested
condition 5 which I have included in recommended condition 9. Separate
conditions are therefore not necessary.
286. Suggested condition 17 would require the submission of an energy statement
for each phase of development. The submitted Energy Strategy636 is not
acceptable to the Council637 and so a new statement is required. I recommend
that this requirement be included within condition 9.
287. Suggested condition 18 would require a method statement to be submitted for
the relocation of the listed milestone. This would tend to duplicate the
requirements for Listed Building Consent which is needed in any event and so
appears to be unnecessary but, as noted earlier (footnote 77), the requirement
to restore the milestone has not been included in the s106 agreement as had
been envisaged and so it is necessary to impose a condition to ensure that the
works are carried out (recommended condition 10).
288. Suggested condition 19 would require a Construction Environmental
Management Plan for Biodiversity for each phase. It is not clear why this would
be required in addition to the Construction Management Plan discussed below in
relation to suggested condition 30. It is recommended that a single Construction
Management Plan be enforced.
289. Suggested condition 20 would require a Construction Environmental
Management Plan for Soils for each phase. Although requested by Natural
England in its response to consultation, it is not clear why this would be required
in addition to the Construction Environmental Management Plan for Biodiversity
discussed above in relation to suggested condition 19 or the Construction
Management Plan discussed below in relation to suggested condition 30. It is
recommended that a single Construction Management Plan be enforced.
635 CD 1.86
636 CD 1.62
637 Tracy Smith, in discussions on conditions
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 91
290. Suggested condition 21 would require the submission of a Construction Traffic
Management Plan. It is not clear why this should be required in addition to the
Construction Management Plan discussed below in relation to suggested condition
30. It is recommended that a single Construction Management Plan be enforced.
291. Suggested condition 22 seeks a Woodland Management Plan for the
management of the existing woodland on site. The existing woodland exists and
is protected by Tree Preservation Orders. The Landscape and Open Space
Parameters Plan, imposed by recommended condition 6 shows it to be retained.
Although a Management Plan is good practice, it is not clear why it is relevant to
the development proposed or should become necessary to make the
development acceptable except that paragraph 5.1.6 of the appellant’s
Arboricultural Impact Assessment638 recommends that the plantation be
selectively thinned. Condition 12 is recommended accordingly.
292. Suggested condition 23 seeks a scheme to provide for electric vehicle charging
points. Several Local Plan policies are quoted in support but none make specific
reference to the need for electric vehicle charging. Support for the concept is
found in NPPF paragraph 107(e) but, with effect from 15 June 2022, part S of
Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations requires the provision of infrastructure for
the charging of electric vehicles in new development. Consequently, this
suggested condition is unnecessary.
293. Suggested condition 24 seeks a three-phase risk assessment to manage
potential land contamination. But the suggestion overlooks the fact that a phase
1 Geo-environmental Desk Study639 has already been carried out which finds
“that contamination is unlikely to pose a significant risk to the proposed
residential development of the site”.640 Nevertheless “it is recommended that a
targeted Phase 2 intrusive site investigation be undertaken to establish baseline
chemical and geotechnical properties of the site, and to allow advice to be given
on foundations, and the suitability of near surface soils for re-use within future
developments.”641 The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer commented
that “the content of the report satisfactorily addresses the requirements for
submission of a Phase 1 contaminated land preliminary risk assessment.” It is
not clear therefore why the recommended condition requires this phase of
investigation to be repeated. I therefore recommend an adjusted requirement be
added to condition 9.
294. Suggested condition 25 would require the submission of a foul water drainage
scheme. This duplicates the requirement included in suggested condition 5 and
in recommended condition 9 and so is not separately necessary.
295. Suggested conditions 26 and 27 would require an Archaeological Written
Scheme of Investigation to be carried out. Yet, an archaeological evaluation of
the site has been carried out following a trial trench evaluation and was
638 CD 1.86
639 CD 1.64
640 Paragraph 8.3 of report by Wardell Armstrong dated November 2018; LAND QUALITY
ASSESSMENT: PHASE I GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL DESK STUDY (CD 1.64)
641 Paragraph 8.5 of report by Wardell Armstrong dated November 2018; LAND QUALITY
ASSESSMENT: PHASE I GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL DESK STUDY (CD 1.64)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 92
submitted with the application as part of the Environmental Statement.642
Notwithstanding this evaluation, the County’s archaeologist, in noting the results
of the evaluation, comments that “whilst these recorded heritage assets are not
demonstrably of such significance that would constrain/preclude proposed
development, it will result in impact on these archaeological features as
recognised in the submitted Environmental Statement, and as such, they will
require further investigation and record in advance of development should
consent be granted.” I therefore recommend an appropriate bullet point in
condition 9.
296. Suggested condition 28 would require submission of details of materials to be
used in the external construction and finishes of the development. But
appearance is a reserved matter, details of which are anyway required by
condition 1. The definition of appearance in s2(1) of the Town and Country
Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 includes
materials and so this suggested condition would be a duplication, not separately
necessary.
297. Suggested condition 29 would require details of refuse and recycling storage to
be provided. These would not otherwise be provided through the submission of
reserved matters and so the condition is necessary to comply with Local Plan
policy EP3. I recommend the addition of a further bullet point to condition 9 and
a clause requiring provision before occupancy.
298. Suggested condition 30 would require a construction management plan to be
submitted for approval. As discussed above in relation to suggested conditions
19, 20 and 21 regarding suggested Construction Environmental Management
Plans for Biodiversity, Soils and Traffic, it is recommended that condition 13
seeks the submission of a consolidated Construction Management Plan.
299. Suggested condition 31 calls for a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan.
To some extent its requirements for details of the mechanism for long-term
management of landscaping would duplicate arrangements set out in the s106
agreement and so, are unnecessary but, in any event, unless a landscaping
scheme (required to be submitted by virtue of condition 1) is submitted without a
management plan, there can be no certainty that this condition is necessary. At
this stage it would be premature and so is not recommended.
300. Suggested condition 32 would secure details of the layout and equipment to be
included in the children’s play space and a timetable for their implementation.
But this would duplicate paragraphs 2.1 and 2.3 of, and the definitions of LEAP
and NEAP in, the fifth schedule to the s106 agreement and so is unnecessary.
301. Suggested condition 33 would secure the implementation of the approved
energy efficiency measures before occupation. Instead of a separate condition, I
recommend the addition of a clause to condition 9 requiring implementation
before occupancy.
302. Suggested condition 34 would secure a BREEAM rating of excellent for non-
residential buildings. But such a condition would pre-empt the energy efficiency
measures required to be submitted by suggested condition 17 (recommended to
642 CD 1.48
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 93
be imposed as a clause within condition 9). The required certification would
duplicate the compliance clause of condition 9. Such duplication is unnecessary
and so is not recommended.
303. Suggested condition 35 would require certification that the SuDS drainage
scheme has been installed in accordance with approved details. The requirement
presupposes that the details of surface water drainage to be submitted as
required by condition 9 would be a SuDS scheme and so pre-empts that
condition. The required certification would duplicate the compliance clause of
condition 9. Such duplication is unnecessary and so is not recommended.
304. Suggested condition 36 would require certification of the completion of any
land decontamination works required to be carried out. It is recommended that a
compliance clause be added to condition 9 instead of a separate condition.
305. Suggested conditions 37 and 47 are included at the request of Thames Water
to secure the coordination of development with any necessary upgrades of the
off-site water supply and sewerage network. They are necessary to make the
development acceptable but are recommended to be included as a consolidated
condition 14.
306. Suggested conditions 38, 39 and 40 would require all pedestrian and cycle
accesses and all works and means of access along Reading Road to be provided
before any part of the development could be occupied. Until a phasing plan is
agreed, it is not clear that all could be provided before the first phase to be
completed is ready for occupation and so the conditions would not be reasonable.
Moreover, the suggested conditions largely duplicate and partly conflict with the
provisions of paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 of the seventh schedule of the s106
agreement which set out a programme by which occupation of parts of the
development is limited to the completion of highway works (including pedestrian
and cycle facilities), specifically permitting a degree of occupation before the
second access onto Reading Road is completed, and so, to that extent, would be
both unnecessary and contradictory. Consequently, no condition is
recommended.
307. Suggested conditions 41 and 42 would secure Travel Plans for the various uses
within the development. A Framework Travel Plan has already been submitted
with the application643 but the document fails to meet Oxfordshire County
Council’s criteria and needs to be amended in accordance with the Council’s
guidance (Transport for New Developments – Transport Assessments and Travel
Plans, March 2014). The others are necessary to make the development
acceptable and compliant with Local Plan policy TRANS5. It is recommended that
a consolidated condition (15) be imposed.
308. Suggested condition 43 seeks the submission of details of noise controls to be
applied to commercial premises. However, the need for noise controls has not
been established, so there is no evidence that this condition in this form is
necessary at this stage. Similar to suggested condition 43, suggested condition
44 seeks details of odour control for premises which may be preparing food and
suggested condition 45 seeks details of proposed hours of use of each of the
commercial premises. There is no condition proposed limiting the use of the non-
643 CD 1.92
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 94
residential uses proposed to preclude noise-generating uses or the preparation of
food (which could be on an ancillary basis).
309. Information to identify the operating hours of the non-residential uses and to
identify which premises might be generating noise or preparing food would not
be provided through reserved matters applications and so conditions are
necessary to ensure that this information is submitted so as to enable the local
authority to consider whether it would be necessary to impose limiting conditions
when considering detailed matters. I recommend condition 16 to secure this
information accordingly.
310. Furthermore, recommended condition 1 requires details of layout and
appearance (which includes materials to be used) to be submitted before the
development commences. At that stage a judgement could be made about
whether the layout and juxtaposition of differing or noise-sensitive uses proposed
or the use of acoustically transmissive materials would necessitate the
submission of a scheme for protecting noise sensitive uses from potential noise -
generating uses and a condition imposed requiring the submission of such a
scheme. Conditions could also be used to control the hours of operation of a
noise-generating use if the detailed layout suggested that it would otherwise give
rise to unacceptable noise conditions for noise-sensitive uses.
311. Suggested condition 46 would seek details of broadband connectivity. But,
this would duplicate suggested condition 5 (recommended as condition 9) which
requires details of utilities and service layouts to be submitted for approval. I
recommend that a clarification be inserted into condition 9 to make it clear that it
applies to the provision of broadband.
312. Following suggested condition 46 in the parties list of suggested conditions is a
second suggested condition numbered 38 which would seek to ensure that the
route for a bus service through the site (though not the service itself, which is
covered by Schedule 6 of the planning obligation) is made available before more
than 150 dwellings are occupied. Although recommended condition 7 would
require the development to be carried out in accordance with the parameters
plan which shows a route for a bus to be provided, it does not impose any time
limit by which that should happen. Likewise, clause 2.3 of the seventh Schedule
to the s106 agreement requires that the second access off of Reading Road be
constructed before 100 dwellings are occupied but it does not require the bus
route through the site to be completed by any particular time. The bus route
provision is regarded as one of the benefits of the scheme and so I recommend
that condition 17 is necessary to secure that benefit.
313. Suggested condition 47 has been discussed earlier in conjunction with
suggested condition 37. Like recommended condition 4, suggested condition 48
is necessary to limit the development to the quantities and uses evaluated in the
Environmental Assessment. As originally drafted, it omitted to refer to the
community building proposed as part of the development. The parties originally
suggested that the employment floor space be limited to 500 sqm but, during the
round table discussion on conditions, it was agreed that it be retained at 3,000
sqm to accord with the quantities of development set out in paragraph 1.1.1 of
the Planning Statement submitted with the application, on which the
Environmental Assessment was based. It is recommended that the condition be
combined with condition 4.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 95
314. Suggested condition 49 would seek to require infrastructure to be provided at
two bus stops within the site. But this condition would duplicate the provisions
within paragraph 2.4 of the sixth schedule of the s106 agreement for a financial
contribution (the Bus Infrastructure Contribution) to be made to the County
Council for just such infrastructure to be provided. The condition is therefore
unnecessary.
Inspector’s Conclusions
315. References in this section in square brackets [thus] are to previous paragraphs
of this report.
316. During the course of the Inquiry, contentions arose around matters which were
not reasons for refusal but which were raised in third party cases and written
representations and in the appellant’s case. These include the use of Best and
Most Versatile agricultural land, the safeguarding of mineral reserves, the five-
year supply of housing land and the need for and supply of specialist older
persons housing. Issues concerning green infrastructure and open space
provision arose, otherwise unpresaged, out of discussions on landscape
character. Nevertheless, I report on these below.
317. Of the six original reasons for refusal, three (highways impact, heritage asset
and affordable housing) had been agreed between the two main parties by the
time of the Inquiry. Nevertheless, they remain contentious. Of the three
remaining original reasons for refusal, a technical solution to the provision of
social infrastructure in terms of secondary schooling has been identified, although
its desirability remains in contention and may be seen as a manifestation of the
consequences which would flow from the second contentious issue which is
compliance with the development plan strategy for the development of land. The
third most contentious issue is the effect of the proposal on the landscape
character of the area which, as noted above, morphed into a debate about the
adequacy of green infrastructure and open space provision.
Character and landscape
318. Although this issue reached no resolution during the Inquiry, between the
three experts who gave evidence on the subject, who mainly focussed their
disagreements on the quality of the appellant’s Landscape and Visual Impact
Assessment and its accompanying photographs and montages [103, 176, 177,
183, 227], there was a surprising degree of agreement about the substantive
impacts of the proposed development on the landscape character of the area.
319. Although Mr Leaver, for the Parish Council, appears ambivalent [227], both
main parties agreed that any effect on the two Areas of Outstanding Natural
Beauty neighbouring Cholsey and their setting would be acceptable [114, 182
and footnotes 517, 518]. I concur. I visited most of the viewpoints identified in
the appellant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Analysis report and found that,
whatever their technical deficiencies, the photographs and photomontages did
not give a misleading impression of the real world. Although I found more
distant objects somewhat more prominent in reality than they appear in the
photographs, that is as likely to be a function of my eyesight as much as any
technical deficiencies in the photography.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 96
320. Consistent with NPPF paragraph 176, paragraph 157 of the Cholsey
Neighbourhood Plan exhorts us to be mindful of its sensitive setting in and
adjacent to two AONBs [113, 175] as do other contributions in the evidence
[113, 114, 117, 182, 227, 258,]. Viewpoint 8, from the Chilterns plateau at the
junction of the A4074 Portway with a bridleway leading down towards North
Stoke, encapsulates the concerns expressed forcefully on behalf of the Chilterns
Conservation Board [258], which are representative of others. This is a
panoramic 180˚view. Yet the site would represent only about 5˚ of that 180˚
view and about one-third of the vertical extent of the facing hillside within that
small segment of the view. It is a wide view of a settled landscape in which the
settlement of Cholsey, amongst others, figures slightly. That settlement would
be slightly larger, if the appeal were allowed. Presence in a view does not
obstruct or ruin it. In my opinion the landscape experts have correctly identified
the visual impact of the proposal on the view from the Chilterns AONB as not
significant. Consequently, whilst acknowledging the strongly argued views of the
CCB, my advice is that the development would not harm the setting of the AONB.
321. I also visited Wittenham Clumps which had been identified by one of the third
parties as a location from which a view would be affected by the proposed
development. This is an even more panoramic view (probably about 270˚) than
viewpoint 8, from which the village of Cholsey can be identified between the
enclosing hillsides of the Thames Valley. It is possible to discern the gable ends
of dwellings in Agatha Christie Way from there, as well as other buildings within
Cholsey. Once again, Cholsey is within the view, as are other settlements such
as Benson and Wallingford but only as a small element. It does not rise above
the skyline. If the development were permitted, it could no doubt be seen within
the view as part of Cholsey but, in my opinion, its effect would not be of any
significance. My conclusion is that the development would be such a small part
of the overall view that concerns that it would adversely affect its setting are
overstated and consequently, whilst recognising the vehemence with which they
are held, I do not share them.
322. The landscape experts are also agreed that the site has only limited visibility in
the medium range [99, 100, 101, 179, 181, footnote 517] with minor/moderate
adverse effects. I concur. That conclusion reinforces my judgement that the
effects of the proposal on the landscape setting of Cholsey would be acceptable.
323. The main landscape character effects would be at local level; on the site itself
and in the relationship between historic Cholsey and the more recent conversion
of Fairmile Hospital into an adjunct to the village (Cholsey Meadows). Although
there is presently a continuous line of development from the historic village,
along Papist Way, into Ferry Lane and onto Cholsey Meadows and considerable
efforts have been made to integrate the two communities socially [249-251], the
latter’s formal grounds fronting on to Reading Road tend to combine with the site
and its tree belts to form a physical separation between historic Cholsey and
Cholsey Meadows.
324. The proposal would tend to integrate the two physically, although there would
still be a degree of separation [105, 180]. Some people regard this as a harm to
a traditional relationship. I regard it as a benefit which would reinforce the
efforts which have been made to bring about social integration. I agree with
Cholsey Parish Council that the pedestrian and cycle links connecting the two
would not follow natural desire lines [223], because the internal layout of Cholsey
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 97
Meadows results in ingress and egress being focused on Rotherfield Road and
Newlands Way at its northern and southern extremities rather than at what was
the main entrance to the former hospital which appears to be the object of the
appeal scheme’s links. Consequently, the physical integration would not be as
effective as intended.
325. Moreover, the generously-sized accesses to the appeal scheme would tend to
accentuate the severance caused by Reading Road. Although the whole length of
Reading Road adjacent to the appeal site is within a 30mph speed limit,
indicating that it lies within an urban area, the two junctions into the site have
been designed using the parameters of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges,
more appropriate to an inter-urban trunk road than to what would become an
intra-urban street were the appeal to succeed. I am not convinced by the claim
that the dimensions of the junctions are necessitated because they would be
used by turning buses; no other junction within Cholsey used by the bus route
has similar right-turning lanes. The consequence would be a loss of protected
trees transforming the character of the highway from a rural main road contained
by tree belts into an expansive traffic intersection unwelcoming to pedestrians,
alien to any other junction within Cholsey. However, the outcome would result
from what the two local authorities involved have sought.
326. It is unarguable that the development would transform the character and
appearance of the unremarkable site itself [96, 178]. This would have two
consequences. It would have the benefit of replacing the present, somewhat raw
edge of Cholsey, comprising rear or side elevations and domestic boundary
fencing [102], with a more planned face to the edge of the settlement [104]. On
the other hand, it would deprive fifty or so dwellings in Rowland Road, Lapwing
Lane, Agatha Christie Way, Ashfield Way and Charles Road of a view across the
agricultural site towards the Chilterns AONB on the far side of the Thames Valley.
327. The affected views are not ones enjoyed by members of the public from a
public vantage point and so, their retention would not be a public benefit to be
secured by the exercise of public authority. Conventionally, in planning
philosophy, there is no right to a view, only to an adequate outlook, so the issue
is one of protecting the private interests of a sizeable number of households
[235].
328. Furthermore, it needs to be recognized that both the local authority and the
Parish Council have previously accepted the suitability of the majority of the site
to be developed to an extent which would have caused a similar transformation
of the site and a loss of view to local residents [97, 98, 174, 183, 227].
329. I conclude that there would be no significant visual effects on the landscape in
terms of long-distance views or of views from the AONBs and their setting.
There would only be minor or moderate adverse effects on the limited extent to
which the site is visible in medium-distance views and so, only similar limited
effects on the setting of the village. The transformational effects on the site itself
would eliminate views enjoyed by private households but would provide some
public benefits to the appearance of the edge of Cholsey and to the physical
integration of its parts, albeit moderated by the severance which would be
caused by the large road junctions to access the scheme required by the local
authorities. The overall effect on landscape character would be neutral. Because
the Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan defines a settlement boundary for the village,
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 98
the site is defined as countryside and so, by definition its development would
contradict Local Plan policy SRAT1 which seeks to protect and enhance the
countryside [88]. Nevertheless, the proposal would represent sustainable
development in terms of its effects on landscape character and would be
consistent with Local Plan policy ENV1.
Education
330. There is no dispute that recently expanded Primary School provision within
Cholsey would be able to accommodate the numbers of primary school children
arising from the development [124]. Although the appellant was able to show
that Wallingford School would be likely to accommodate the secondary school
pupils arising from the development, that would only be possible by displacing
children living more distant from within the school catchment, or from without its
catchment [125 – 128, 196 - 199].
331. Even the appellant’s figures do not show spare capacity at schools within
Didcot, to which displaced children would be sent, beyond the 2027 academic
year [128, 129, 200, 201] which is when the effects of the development are
likely to be felt. Accordingly, it is right that the appellant should be expected to
make a financial contribution towards the costs of providing additional secondary
school accommodation [191, 201].
332. When account is taken of project management costs, start-up costs, loose
furniture and equipment, the County Council’s estimates of the cost of providing
a new school place are lower than those of the appellant [130-132, 202].
Although high, the County Council’s basis for calculating the cost of Special
Educational Needs premises appears to be well-founded [133, 203]. I therefore
find that the Secondary Education Contribution and the Special Educational
Needs Contribution (and the formula for calculating the Revised Special
Educational Needs Contribution) set out in the sixth schedule of the s106
agreement to be directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably
related in scale and kind to the development.
333. The Council’s currently operative CIL Spending Strategy is quite clear that
50% of CIL available will be passed to Oxfordshire County Council to spend on
education infrastructure amongst other matters [118, 194]. The Council’s
existing supplementary planning documents confirm that stance and although
policy DEV2 of its draft Developer Contributions SPD replacement refers only to
s106 payments, paragraph 4.20 indicates that on non-strategic sites (such as the
appeal site), financial contributions such as CIL could also be used to fund
education facilities where necessary [119, 194 and footnotes 342 and 343].
There is therefore a legitimate expectation that it should only be necessary for a
s106 contribution to be made if CIL is inadequate to provide the funding [117].
334. The Council’s evidence is that indeed, that is the case. There is a huge
funding gap, for transport alone greater than the whole of the expected income
from CIL [195]. The Council’s draft revision to its CIL Spending Strategy (which
is likely to be adopted before the Secretary of State takes the decision on this
appeal) is silent on whether CIL would fund education infrastructure. The
Council’s replacement Draft Developer Contributions SPD is ambiguous, as noted
above, but its Draft Infrastructure Funding Statement of February 2022 is quite
clear that even if all the County’s share of CIL money goes to Highways, there
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 99
would still be a funding gap and that all Education infrastructure funding would
be through s106 payments [195].
335. Legislative changes in 2019 mean that both CIL and s106 monies can be used
to contribute to the same piece of infrastructure [193]. Although the evidence
shows that it is most unlikely to happen in practice, there remains a theoretical
possibility that the Council could choose to use CIL funding to contribute to the
new Didcot school. In the event that that were actually to happen, there needs
to be a mechanism to ensure that, although contributions from both sources
would be acceptable, the appellant does not pay for the same piece of
infrastructure twice over (once in full through CIL and once in full through s106)
[121]. Such a mechanism was used in the Siege Cross appeal decision referred
to by the parties [122, 192].
336. I therefore recommend that the Secondary Education Contribution and the
Special Educational Needs Contribution (and the formula for calculating the
Revised Special Educational Needs Contribution) set out in the sixth schedule of
the s106 agreement be found to be necessary to make the development
acceptable in planning terms only to the extent that such contributions are
reduced in parallel with any contribution which outturns show to have been made
from CIL funding and that the planning obligations concerned are a material
consideration in determining this appeal only to that extent.
337. Until I questioned the matter, there was no dispute between the parties over
the Secondary School Transport Contribution [123, 204]. There is no suggestion
that capital infrastructure is required to provide this service as a result of the
development. It is a service funded through revenue expenditure and provided
across the County, not just to the appeal development. Undoubtedly, there
would be an increase in demand for the service as a result of the development
for the reasons discussed earlier but this would not arise before the development
is occupied. At that point, the resident population would begin to contribute to
the Council’s revenue funding to pay for the service both for the development
and for the entire county, either directly through Council tax or indirectly through
national subventions to the local authority, paid through national taxation, to
which the residents of the development would proportionately contribute.
338. A financial contribution to revenue expenditure through a s106 agreement
would be reflected in the price residents would have to pay to purchase their
houses and so would represent paying twice over for the same service. This
seems to me to be incompatible with the tests for a planning obligation set out in
paragraph 57 of the NPPF and so I recommend that the Secretary of State attach
no weight to the Secondary School Transport Contribution in determining this
appeal.
339. Although the Secondary Education Contribution and the Special Educational
Needs contribution would provide a formula by which educational infrastructure
necessary to serve the additional demand generated by the development would
be provided and so would to that extent comply with Local Plan policy INF1, it
would be a sub-optimal solution because it would result in some children being
displaced to travel to schools some distance from their home. It would result, as
noted above, in an increase in travel demand, an increase in time spent by some
children in commuting to school and a possible disconnect in their social lives to
the extent that their secondary schooling is distant from their home community
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 100
[198, 224, 242, 256]. These are harms which are not mitigated by financial
contributions. To that extent, the proposal’s policy-compliant contribution to
education premises would not represent sustainable development in terms of its
effects on social infrastructure.
340. These social effects represent, in practical terms, harm which would result
from the development not complying with the spatial strategy set out in the
Council’s development plan, a matter to which I now turn.
Development Strategy
341. Paragraph 3.8 of the Council’s Local Plan explains that the strategy is to focus
development principally at Science Vale and sustainable settlements (which
include Towns and Larger Villages). The components of that strategy are stated
equally; there is no hierarchy which gives precedence to the Science Vale over
the Larger Villages. So, it is correct to state that the location of this appeal
proposal at the largest of the Larger Villages is locationally consistent with the
development strategy [86, 87, 89].
342. However, when the Strategy is translated into policy STRAT1, a hierarchy of
scale is introduced. Major new development is to be focused in Science Vale,
including Didcot and Culham. Paragraph 4.18 of the Plan explains that
development in the Larger Villages should be proportional (amongst other
considerations). Major development (large scale) is defined in the plan’s glossary
as one where the number of residential dwellings to be constructed is 200 or
more or 1,000 sqm of industrial, commercial or retail floor space. It is clear
therefore that for the purposes of the development plan strategy this appeal
scheme is to be classed as a large-scale major development, which is intended to
be focused at Didcot and Culham, not at Cholsey [214]. I therefore conclude
that the proposal would conflict with Local Plan policy STRAT1.
343. Paragraph 4.23 of the Local Plan states that the strategy for housing
distribution in the Larger Villages such as Cholsey is for each settlement to grow
proportionally by around 15% from the 2011 base date. Paragraph 4.28 of the
Plan suggests that unconstrained villages, such as Cholsey, might aspire to a
higher growth figure. Cholsey has done so by supporting a locally appropriate
level of housing growth in the village, in accordance with objective (now policy)
CNP STRAT1 and has front-loaded its achievement of that target. There is no
need to do more [146, 217, 218, 230]. The identification of sites for further
growth might be expected to await the next update of the Local Plan.
344. As the NPPF points out, planning law requires that applications for planning
permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless
material considerations indicate otherwise. Other things being equal, the
proposal’s conflict with Local Plan policy STRAT1 and with Cholsey Neighbourhood
Plan objective (now policy) CNP STRAT 1 would render it an unsustainable
development. It would indicate that the appeal should be dismissed because of
its conflict with the development plan strategy [145]. But, before that conclusion
is reached, there are other things to be considered.
345. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable
development. NPPF paragraph 11 explains that for decision-taking, this means
that where the policies which are most important for determining the application
are, or are to be regarded as, out-of-date, (for example where the local planning
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 101
authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites),
permission should be granted unless either of two defined considerations indicate
otherwise, one of which is a balance of benefits against adverse impacts. [136]
Paragraph 14 of the NPPF explains that the adverse impacts are likely to
outweigh the benefits significantly and demonstrably where four circumstances
apply. Two of those circumstances are met by the recent making of the
Reviewed Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan. The other two concern housing delivery
and housing land supply, to which I now turn.
Housing delivery and housing land supply
346. The Council’s housing delivery since the start of the Local Plan period has been
in excess of requirements and, whatever the accuracy of its forecasts, delivery
over the previous three years has been well in excess of the 95% threshold
indicated in NPPF paragraph 76 [46, 155]. Attention therefore turns to housing
land supply.
347. I am not convinced by the appellant’s pessimism about the impact of
biodiversity net gain on the deliverability of the Council’s five-year housing land
supply [48, 49]. The opening words of the Vivid economics research report
referred to in the appellant’s evidence are that “Biodiversity net gain is possible
at little or no cost on most housing development sites.” Its table of financial
viability effects in a variety of scenarios show that the impact of biodiversity net
gain costs on post-development land values range from 0.75% to 1.45%. Its
conclusions on economic impact start with the observation that “There is strong
evidence that on-site mitigation is possible at little or no cost for the majority of
housing developments.” [159]
348. I am not convinced by the appellant’s argument on build-out rates [50]. It is
commonly accepted that a single sales outlet can achieve an outcome of 45
dwellings per annum but that multiple sales outlets on a large site will achieve
more. Although it is correct that, at this moment in time, it cannot be known for
certain that any large site not yet started will have more than one outlet,
experience shows that some do and some don’t. In calculating a realistic five-
year housing land supply, it is unrealistic to presume (as the appellant argues)
that no large sites would be built out with more than one outlet. It would be
equally unrealistic to presume that all large sites would be built out with more
than one outlet. The Council’s approach neither presumes one outlet in all cases,
nor presumes multiple outlets in all cases but takes an average based on past
records [50, 157 (footnote 432)], applying that average build-out rate to all large
sites. That seems a realistic approach to obtaining a realistic assessment of
future housing land supply, even if its average is derived from only a limited
number of large historic sites.
349. I am not convinced by the appellant’s argument on the windfall allowance [51,
52]. The appellant’s approach is to take the five-year average for small sites and
to deduct from it the number of dwellings projected to arise over the next three
years from small sites with planning permission, leaving a residual figure for the
final two years. But that residual figure for the final two years would be 115, or
57.5 pa, barely more than one third of the average actually achieved over the
past five years. That is implausible. What the appellant’s evidence actually
shows is that the average for the identified small sites for the first three years of
the five-year period is 225 pa. Whilst it is correct that there is no new evidence
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 102
to justify an uplift from the 200 of the 2021 Housing Land Supply Statement to
the 340 of the 2022 Statement, the appellant’s own evidence, that the average
rate of small site completions over five years has been 158 dwellings per annum
and is projected over three years to be 225 per annum, shows that the 2021
estimate was too low [160]. Two years at an average rate of 158 dwellings per
annum is 316. That suggests that the Council’s estimated allowance of 340
[161] is realistic, even without taking account of the recently adopted Local
Plan’s policy framework which is more supportive of windfall development.
350. The debate between the two main parties on the size of the Council’s five-year
housing land supply rests primarily on the application of the judgment on what
should be considered “deliverable” [53]. But, that debate focused on the
requirement (in the definition of deliverable in the Glossary to the NPPF) that a
site should only be considered deliverable where there is clear evidence that
housing completions will begin on site within five years [54, 55]. That insistence
on clear evidence downplays the requirement in the first clause of the definition
that there be a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within
five years.
351. Of their nature, sites falling within part (a) of the NPPF’s definition (e.g those
with detailed planning permission) will have to be started within the first three
years of a five-year period (though they will continue to deliver in subsequent
years) because their permission will be likely to have expired if not started within
that time. Sites which are to start within years 4 and 5 of the five-year period
will inevitably fall within part (b) of the NPPF’s definition because any planning
permission existing now will have expired by the fourth or fifth year of the period.
352. At this distance in time, clear evidence of what will happen four or five years’
ahead, and whether an event will happen within four years and three hundred
and sixty-four days, rather than five years and one day, is inherently
problematic. The level of clear evidence of completions beginning on site within
five years which the appellant was seeking (eg Mr Bolton’s assertion that “only
the dwellings that have reserved matters should be included in a five-year
housing land supply” [56(vi)]) would tend to result in there being no sites
identified commencing within years four or five of the five-year supply. That is
implausible, as the appellant’s witness accepted in response to one of my
questions. If insisted upon, it would therefore result in an unrealistically low
assessment of the supply of housing deliverable within five years.
353. It is therefore inevitable that a more probabilistic approach should be taken to
those components of a five-year supply which are to start within years four and
five of a five-year supply. National guidance is that evidence, to demonstrate
deliverability, may include:
• current planning status – for example, on larger scale sites with outline or
hybrid permission how much progress has been made towards approving
reserved matters, or whether these link to a planning performance
agreement that sets out the timescale for approval of reserved matters
applications and discharge of conditions;
• firm progress being made towards the submission of an application – for
example, a written agreement between the local planning authority and
the site developer(s) which confirms the developers’ delivery intentions
and anticipated start and build-out rates;
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 103
• firm progress with site assessment work; or
• clear relevant information about site viability, ownership constraints or
infrastructure provision, such as successful participation in bids for large-
scale infrastructure funding or other similar projects.
Nevertheless, the clear evidence which is sought for years four and five of a five-
year period will inevitably include evidence based on averages and indices of
typical experiences in similar situations, rather than a contract for delivery
specific to each and every site [54, 55, 154, 156, 157].
354. With that in mind, my verdict on the fifteen sites originally in contention [56,
158 and footnote 156] is as follows;
i. Chiltern Edge Top Field. Both parties agreed that this site should be
regarded as undeliverable [56(i), 158(i)] (44 dwellings to be removed).
ii. Wyevale Garden Centre. I concur with the Council’s view that the issues
are not insurmountable for an experienced developer. [158(ii)]
iii. Wheatley Campus. There has been progress on essential prerequisites
which persuades me to agree with the Council’s view that there is a
realistic prospect of delivery. [158(iii)]
iv. West of Wallingford site B. This is an example of the distinction between
deliverability and delivery [154]. Although the Council demonstrates that
the site could be delivered within its trajectory, the historic build-out rate
is not encouraging and the Council’s build-out rate presumes multiple
outlets which does not accord with what has happened, so there isn’t the
clear evidence that housing completions will begin on site within five years
as required by the NPPF. A single outlet rate should be presumed for an
accurate prediction of delivery which would indicate 225 dwellings over five
years instead of the 417 predicted by the Council (192 dwellings to be
removed). [56(iv), 158(iv)]
v. Didcot Gateway. The Council’s arguments are convincing [56(v), 158(v)].
Examination of the references in the appellant’s case shows that the
claimed limitation on development until foul sewer capacity is increased is
no more than a request by Thames Water that it be asked to confirm that
the necessary foul water network upgrades have been completed before
the development is occupied. A similar request is made in respect of the
current appeal proposal but that does not prove that the development
cannot be delivered, either in the current appeal proposal or in the case of
Didcot Gateway.
vi. Didcot North-East. The Council’s arguments are convincing. In particular it
addresses the point about delivery rates by responding that the trajectory
is not only based on average build-out rates applied to each parcel rather
than to the site overall but also on comparisons with Great Western Park, a
comparable site [56(vi), 158(vi)].
vii. Ladygrove East. The Council’s arguments are convincing. The appellant’s
assertion that the arrangements for the Didcot North Perimeter Road might
affect viability as they are not yet agreed is contradicted by the Council’s
assertion that these issues have now been addressed and that the
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 104
information exists to ensure a comprehensive draft s106 agreement will
allow permission to be granted in December 2022. I have no reason to
disbelieve either party’s assertion [56(vii), 158(vii)].
viii. Land at Lady Grove. The Council’s arguments are convincing. Although
the new owner may wish to review the planning permission, the fact that
the new owner is a housebuilder means that delay is unlikely. On the
appellant’s own evidence that an average lead in time would lead to
completions after 2.4 years, it is not unreasonable to expect a delivery of
81 dwellings within the remaining 2.6 years as that would only imply a
delivery rate of 31 dwellings per annum, somewhat less than the 45 which
the appellant accepts is average for a single-outlet site [56(viii), 158(viii)].
ix. Newnham Manor. Although the Council’s arguments are convincing,
technically, this site falls outside the NPPF definition of deliverable
because, at the close of this Inquiry, permission had not actually been
issued (although expected by the time the Secretary of State is likely to
make the decision) (100 dwellings to be removed). [56(ix), 158(ix)]
x. Land west of Fairmile. There is no dispute that a detailed application was
made in July 2019, revised in 2020 and in 2021 and that a further revision
is expected. The application is still not in a form for which the Council is
willing to grant permission. On that basis the appellant asserts that the
Council has failed to provide cogent evidence that this site will deliver
completions within the next five years. But the site is allocated in the
development plan, the proposal is only for about 60-70 dwellings which
could be delivered within about eighteen months of a permission and the
Council expects to be able to give permission in April 2023 which still gives
eighteen months leeway for further disagreements and negotiations before
the Council’s expectation of delivery within five years becomes
unconvincing. [56(x), 158(x)]
xi. South of Wallingford, site E. The Council’s arguments are convincing; the
build-out rate used is 86, not the 132 reported in the appellant’s evidence.
[56(xi), 158(xi)]
xii. The Orchard. The appellant asserts that there is no clear evidence that
objections can be overcome. The Council asserts that Council officers are
minded to approve the application subject to agreement of the final
wording of the s106 agreement and pre-commencement conditions and
that permission is expected to be issued in September 2022. Even if it is
not, such a small site is likely to be built out within a year and so three
years would remain for any lingering disputes to be settled before the
Council’s assertion becomes unconvincing. [56(xii), 158(xii)]
xiii. Bayswater Brook. The appellant’s arguments are convincing. The lead-in
time for a site of this size means that it is unlikely that more than a few
dwellings will be completed within five years, if any. (375 dwellings to be
removed) [56(xiii), 158(xiii)]
xiv. Land west of Hale Road. Both parties agreed that this site should be
regarded as deliverable. [158(xiv)] I concur.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 105
xv. Land off Pyrton Lane, Watlington. Both parties agreed that this site should
be regarded as deliverable. [158(xv)] I concur.
355. The Council originally claimed a surplus of identified deliverable land sufficient
for 677 dwellings over and above its housing requirements for the current five-
year period [46, 153]. The exercise carried out above would reduce this surplus
to a deficit of 34 dwellings. But that figure is well within the margin of error of
the process as my comments on sites (iv), (ix) and (xiii) demonstrate. Although
I have concluded that site (ix) should not be counted as deliverable, it would not
be unreasonable for the Secretary of State come to a different view which in turn
would lead to a different conclusion being reached on whether the Council can or
cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. To reach a
firm conclusion from the above exercise that the Council can demonstrate an
identified supply of deliverable housing land sufficient to meet only 99.4% of its
five-year housing land supply requirement and then to conclude therefore that its
relevant planning policies should be regarded as out of date would be unreliable
and possibly misleading [57, 135].
356. Unfortunately, footnote 8 to NPPF paragraph 11 does not envisage the
possibility that a conclusion on housing land supply may be unreliable because of
the inherent margins of error involved in the forecasting process. Consequently,
I must conclude that the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year
supply of deliverable housing sites. In turn, I must conclude that the policies
which are most important for determining the application must be regarded as
out-of-date (but not, necessarily, invalid). It also follows that, to accord with
government policy set out in NPPF paragraph 11, I must advise the Secretary of
State that planning permission should be granted by allowing the appeal unless
either the application of policies in the NPPF that protect areas or assets of
particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development
proposed by dismissing the appeal, or that any adverse effects of allowing the
proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when
assessed against the policies in the NPPF, taken as a whole.
357. To conduct either of those exercises, it is now necessary to look at other issues
that may lead to conclusions on whether there are policies protecting areas or
assets of particular importance which would provide a clear reason for dismissing
the appeal and on whether any adverse effects of allowing the proposal would
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the
policies in the NPPF, taken as a whole. I now turn to those matters.
The contribution to housing supply
358. For the second of the two alternate exercises envisioned by NPPF paragraph
11(d), it is necessary to identify and appraise the benefits which the proposal
would bring. Although the development of the appeal site may not be necessary
to make good any deficiency in the five-year housing land supply for South
Oxfordshire and is anyway, unlikely to make much contribution within five years
[163, 219], notwithstanding the imposition of recommended conditions 2 and 3
designed to encourage speedy progress, nevertheless there is a government
objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes [45]. The 430 new homes
which would be provided in this appeal proposal would contribute to the
attainment of this objective. That represents 37% of one year’s housing
requirement for South Oxfordshire. It would probably be built out over a number
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 106
of years and so, another way of estimating the benefit of the housing which
would be provided, is to note that it would represent about 7.3% of South
Oxfordshire’s five-year housing land supply requirement. Whichever way it is
looked at, it would be a significant contribution, albeit one which is more than is
needed, bearing in mind that the Local Plan allocates more land for housing than
its requirement [152, 162, 228, 238, 254].
Affordable housing
359. Although the appellant has not recognised the contribution to the supply of
affordable housing which the Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan might have made [60,
172, 217], the benefits of the affordable housing which the appeal proposal
would provide [58 – 63] are not disputed, could not be met by a succession of
small infill developments [90], would comply with Local Plan policy H9 and should
be given significant weight [171].
Self-build housing
360. There is no dispute between the two main parties that the fourteen self-build
housing plots to be provided would be an important contribution to this niche
market, would comply with Local Plan policy H12 and should be given significant
weight [64, 173]. I concur.
Specialist Older Person’s housing
361. Although the Council argues that the knock-on benefits of specialist older
person’s housing are those of housing provision in general [170], it is accepted
that specialist older person’s housing provides public benefits over and above its
value as housing [65- 67]. Both main parties are agreed that significant weight
should be given to the provision of extra care older person’s housing [137, 164].
I concur.
362. In light of that agreement, it seems unnecessary to try to resolve the dispute
between the two main parties over the quantity of extra care older person’s
housing needed in South Oxfordshire (and by inference, the degree of benefit
which would result from provision within the appeal proposal) [69-79, 165-169].
The appellant is understandably proud of the research which has been
commissioned into assessments of need for older person’s housing but although
a considerable amount of Inquiry time was spent on presenting and disputing its
findings, scrutiny of that research is more appropriately dealt with in a local plan
examination than in this s78 appeal.
363. Whether the need in South Oxfordshire is 2.8 times current provision, as the
Council accepts, or 4 times current provision, as the appellant argues [168], the
conclusion is the same; the proposal would make a significant contribution
towards meeting that need [80, 164]. It should be noted that the local planning
authority considers that Local Plan policies H1 and H13 are supportive of the
provision of all types of specialist provision for older people [68, 164]. If it stood
alone, although Cholsey is perhaps not an ideal location for such a facility [220,
238], the part of the proposal which provides for extra care older person’s
housing would perform well against the criteria of those two Local Plan policies.
But, it does not stand alone; it is the lesser part of a large-scale major mixed-use
development and so must be considered in the round [147, 170].
Employment, retail and community uses
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 107
364. As noted earlier, the 3,000 sq m of employment space proposed is one of the
components which places this scheme into the Local Plan category of large-scale
major development, to be focused in the Science Vale at Didcot and Culham, not
Cholsey and so, contrary to Local Plan policy STRAT1. Nevertheless, although
the employment space proposed would be six times the cap in Local Plan policy
EMP2 [81, 148], and the Parish Council considers the proposed floorspace
disproportionate [222], the Council accepts that it would not be out of scale with
the village and so would comply with Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan policy I8 [82,
83, 149]. It did not challenge the Bidwell’s Commercial Strategy report which
justified the quantity of employment floorspace as necessary to create a critical
mass [81]. The Council’s ambivalence leads me to conclude that although this
element of the proposal would be contrary to Local Plan policies STRAT1 and
EMP2, any harm would be limited.
365. There is no suggestion that the quantity of retail floorspace proposed would be
other than proportional to the residential floorspace of the appeal [84]. But it
would result in a second village centre to rival that of the historic village. It
would be more centrally sited in relation to the present geographical extent of
Cholsey and so better placed to be more successful [18, 150, 222, 239-241, 258]
but there is no substantive evidence to show that the outcome would be harmful
or contrary to any Local Plan policy.
366. Likewise, there is no suggestion that the community building would be other
than appropriate to serve the needs of the older person’s housing and so I
conclude that its inclusion would cause no harm. On the other hand, it offers no
special benefits because Cholsey is already well provided with community
meeting places [85].
Transport
367. By the close of the Inquiry, this issue had been resolved to the satisfaction of
the two main parties [93, 205], but not of the Parish Council [94, 223]. The
appellant provided sufficient information to assess the impact of the development
on the highway network, especially the roundabouts on the Wallingford bypass.
Funding for the identified improvements is enshrined in the s106 agreement.
Adequate information to demonstrate safe vehicular and pedestrian access to the
development has been provided. Arrangements for funding or carrying out the
accesses to the development, the improvement of pedestrian conditions on Ilges
Lane and a safe crossing of Reading Road are written in to the s106 agreement.
All these are mitigations of the effects of the proposals rather than planning
benefits meeting community desires [94, 205, 223] but they secure compliance
with Local Plan policies TRANS 2, 4 and 5.
368. Although not part of any reason for refusal, bus infrastructure and a
contribution towards improving the local bus service have also been secured,
which would be a public benefit, albeit not one altering the fundamental
characteristics of Cholsey as a less than ideally sustainable location having a
good train service on the edge of the village but a somewhat poorly designed bus
service [18, 220, 259]. Overall, the transport proposals associated with the
development accommodate and reinforce a dependence on less sustainable
transport methods characteristic of Cholsey [238].
369. The appellant did not challenge the potential duplication of payment from CIL
and from the s106 obligation in respect of transport matters as was done for
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 108
education [117-122], even though the Council’s current CIL Spending Strategy
states that 50% of CIL available is to be passed to the County Council to spend
on transport amongst other matters [118] and there is no suggestion that its
currently drafted revisions to policy would exclude transport from the benefit of
CIL funding. Nevertheless, the same considerations apply. Although, in the light
of the funding gap for transport, it is most unlikely that any of the transport
provisions of the s106 agreement would be fully funded from CIL, it is
nevertheless theoretically possible that the Council could choose to use CIL
funding to contribute to the transport matters listed in the s106 agreement. In
the event that that were actually to happen, there needs to be a mechanism to
ensure that, although contributions from both sources would be acceptable, the
appellant does not pay for the same matter twice over (once in full through CIL
and once in full through s106). Such a mechanism was used in the Siege Cross
appeal decision referred to by the parties [122, 192].
370. I therefore recommend that the Bus Infrastructure Contribution and the Bus
Service Improvement Contribution set out in the sixth schedule of the s106
agreement be found to be necessary to make the development acceptable in
planning terms only to the extent that such contributions are reduced in parallel
with any contribution which outturns show to have been made from CIL funding
and that the planning obligations concerned are a material consideration in
determining this appeal only to that extent.
371. It might be argued that the Bus Service Improvement Contribution should be
part of the Council’s general function of securing bus services; a service funded
through revenue expenditure and provided across the County, not just to the
appeal development. But the County Council’s Regulation 122 Compliance
Statement makes it clear that bus route 136 which serves Cholsey is funded by
s106 contributions from a number of developments to provide service
improvements and to provide “pump priming” until the service is viable. As such,
the s106 contribution is directly related to the development and fairly and
reasonably related in scale and kind in that the service improvement would not
otherwise take place. There is no question of the resident population
contributing to the Council’s revenue funding to pay for the service improvements
both for the development and for the entire county, as well as through the s106
agreement. Consequently, I am satisfied that the transport elements in the sixth
schedule of the s106 agreement meet the CIL regulation requirements and
should be a material consideration in the determination of the appeal.
Green infrastructure and open space
372. Although not a reason for refusal of the application, at a late stage in the
Inquiry a dispute emerged between the two main parties concerning the
adequacy of the green infrastructure and open space to be provided within the
proposal. There are inconsistencies in the information provided by the appellant
(eg concerning allotments, at one point confirming their omission but at another
point confirming their provision as the appellant responded to information from
the Parish Council, concerning their need, which changed over time) which led to
an accusation that the appellant was making up the case as the Inquiry
proceeded [108-112, 186-190].
373. That was unfortunate but it has to be remembered that the proposal is made
in outline, so it is unrealistic to expect firm detail at this stage. No quantification
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 109
of open space or landscaping is included within the description of development or
the parameters plans. Both landscaping and layout are reserved matters, details
of which are not supplied at this stage. Information within the Environmental
Statement suggests that a total of 8.72 ha of green infrastructure will be
provided [33, 34, 108 and footnotes 92-95] which was confirmed in evidence
[110-112]. The s106 agreement commits to a minimum of 6.19ha [268], which
would comply with the Council’s Local Plan policies ENV5 and CF5 requirements
[187].
374. What is clear is that both main parties are agreed that just over 70% of the
site would be covered by urban development [186], leaving just under 30%
available for green infrastructure [109]. That should be sufficient to provide
adequate green infrastructure in making detailed applications [107, 109] but it is
correct to say that it would be a mitigation of the effects of an additional
population, not a planning gain [185, 226]. The biodiversity net gain calculated
on the basis of the outline application is disappointing but Local Plan policy ENV3
simply requires a net gain where possible and does not specify a minimum
quantity, so the proposal would be policy compliant. Again, there should be
room for improvement in the submission of detailed matters [184].
Heritage
375. The reason for refusal relating to this issue concerned only a lack of
information; no positive harm was alleged. By the end of the Inquiry, sufficient
information had been supplied to convince the Council that, in terms of NPPF
paragraph 202, any less than substantial harm to the significance of the
milestone caused by the development would be outweighed by the public benefits
of its restoration [95, 205]. I concur and have recommended condition 10 to
secure the milestone’s restoration in accordance with Local Plan policy ENV7.
Minerals
376. The proposed development would not itself directly affect any identified
minerals deposit but its northern edge would lie within the consultation area of a
protected minerals deposit lying to the north of the site. There was concern that,
were the site to be developed as proposed, the protection of the new housing
from the effects of any minerals working of the identified deposit would stymie
the exploitation of the asset. But, in fact, it was shown that existing housing to
the north of the site would already have that effect and that approval of the
appeal proposal would make no difference to the situation [115]. The proposal
would therefore comply with Local Plan policy EP5 and with Oxfordshire Minerals
and Waste Local Plan Part 1 policy M8.
Water and sewerage
377. This issue was the focus of concerns by the Parish Council and local residents
[225, 246-248]. It can be addressed by recommended condition 14 [305] to
ensure compliance with Local Plan policy INF1(4).
Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 110
378. All parties accept that development of the site would result in the loss of
approximately 26.25ha Best and Most Versatile agricultural land [44, 206, 221].
Although not a reason for refusal, all parties agree that the loss is a significant
effect to be taken into account in the decision [205, 206, 232], in accordance
with NPPF paragraph 174 (b) which advises that planning decisions should
contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising the
wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services, including the
economic and other benefits of the Best and Most Versatile agricultural land. As
an agricultural field, it is a carbon sink [237, 252-253]. The difficulties of the
present owner in making the land financially viable [43] should not be a
consideration, since ownership, tenancy, or occupancy can change, leading to
potentially different circumstances of viability [207].
379. I conclude that the loss of the agricultural land would be a significant material
harm. Its economic and other benefits should be recognised in accordance with
NPPF paragraph 174 (b). Its loss would conflict with Local Plan policy DES7 (vii)
which requires new development to avoid the development of the Best and Most
Versatile agricultural land, unless it is demonstrated to be the most sustainable
choice from reasonable alternatives, by first using areas of poorer quality land in
preference to that of a higher quality.
The planning balance
380. In this section of my report, I undertake the analyses required by NPPF
paragraphs 11 and 14, referred to in earlier paragraphs (345, 356) of this report
to synthesise an overall conclusion.
381. Consideration of NPPF paragraph 176 indicates that the issue of landscape
character in terms of effects on the AONBs and their settings has the potential to
be a policy in the Framework which would provide a clear reason for refusing the
development proposed in accordance with NPPF paragraph 11(d(i)). Many third
parties take that view [258, 259]. But, my conclusions reached earlier in
paragraphs 320 and 329 (and shared by the landscape experts) are that such
would not be the case in this appeal. Consequently, the appropriate parameters
for a decision are NPPF paragraphs 11 (d(ii)), 12 and 14.
382. NPPF paragraph 11 (d(ii)) advises that planning permission should be granted
by allowing the appeal unless any adverse effects of allowing the proposal would
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the
policies in the NPPF, taken as a whole. NPPF paragraph 14 modifies that
presumption in circumstances where all of four circumstances apply. In this
case, the reviewed neighbourhood plan has become part of the development plan
two years or less before the date on which the decision is to be made [13, 22].
The neighbourhood plan contains policies and allocations to meet its identified
housing requirement [46, 214, 217, 230]. The local planning authority has at
least a three-year supply of deliverable housing sites (my conclusion, paragraph
355, already reached) and the local planning authority’s housing delivery was at
least 45% of that required over the three previous years [46, 155] (my
conclusion, paragraph 346, already reached) and so, all four circumstances apply
and so both NPPF paragraphs 11 and 14 are engaged. They require a balance to
be struck.
383. The development plan is the starting point for decision taking. The appeal
proposal complies with, or can be required to comply with, many of the relevant
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 111
development plan policies; H9, H12, H13, INF1, TRANS2, TRANS4, TRANS5,
ENV1, ENV3, ENV5, ENV7, EP5, and CF5. It would not comply with STRAT1,
EMP2, DES7(vii) and CNP STRAT1. In reporting on the various issues in this
appeal, a conclusion has been reached in each section, including a weighting for
the degree of harm or benefit identified. But not all issues are created equal;
some are inherently more important than others.
384. Landscape is undoubtedly a matter of some import (policy ENV1). But, the
overall effect of the proposal on landscape character would be neutral. The fifty
or so households who would lose an attractive view across the site does not
amount to a matter of public interest.
385. The loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land (policy DES7(vii) ought to
be a major consideration, even though not a reason for refusal. Its loss is
sometimes taken for granted, as though development cannot happen without
such a loss. In many cases, that is true. In South Oxfordshire it is a fact that
the Council’s development strategy includes a considerable amount of agricultural
land and that much agricultural land in South Oxfordshire is categorised as Best
and Most Versatile [44]. Even so, that should not cause us to overlook the
effects on food production and carbon reduction which ensue from its
development.
386. Education infrastructure is also a major consideration (policy INF1). There is a
technical solution to the provision of school buildings [140]. But, it would be, in
planning terms, sub-optimal; imposing travel demands, costs and time on
secondary school children who would be housed in the development as well as
those displaced by them from Wallingford School. That is a manifestation of its
conflict with the spatial development strategy of the Local Plan (policies STRAT1,
CNP STRAT1 and EMP2).
387. That conflict would be manifest in other ways too, as residents of the
development seek health, employment and other facilities not provided within
Cholsey itself [225, 251]. Again, there is a technical solution to the problem;
enlarging road capacity to accommodate the demand for increased travel arising
from the development identified by the appellant’s own transport studies and by
the County Highway Authority’s objections to the scheme [37, 93] (policies
TRANS 2, 4 and 5) but that flies in the face of the advice in NPPF paragraph 105
that significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be
made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine
choice of transport modes.
388. The fact of development itself is an economic and social benefit [138, 208] at
a time when the national economy is sluggish. The proposal has a critical mass
which provides it with a degree of self-sufficiency and an ability to contribute
somewhat to public benefits [90-92, 141].
389. Housing is important but the local authority area is not deficient in terms of
the allocations within its plan which are well in excess of requirements. [152,
217, not contested by appellant] The dispute is only about the deliverability of
what has been identified. Within the next five years it has a calculated
deliverability deficiency so marginal that it is barely identifiable and one to
remedy which the proposal is unlikely to be up and running in time to make
much contribution. So, although the size of the development would make its
contribution to housing supply significant, its value is moderate because this
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 112
particular development is not really needed at the present time. That may
change as the years pass but would be a matter for future iterations of the Local
Plan to judge.
390. The same cannot be said for affordable housing or for specialist older person’s
housing (policies H9 and H12). Although one might expect the former to be
delivered in proportion to the local authority’s general housing delivery, the
prevalence of small sites results in an inadequate delivery of affordable housing.
The proposal’s contribution to affordable housing supply would be both significant
and valuable but cannot be separated from the totality of the development as a
whole. The same is true of the extra care older person’s housing which forms the
lesser part of the scheme overall [142].
391. Other issues are of less import. The proposed employment, retail and
community uses do not stand out as particularly beneficial or as particularly
harmful, despite being contrary to policy EMP2; they offer some benefits but also
some harms. Overall, they make a neutral contribution to the outcome. Green
infrastructure is necessary to make a development acceptable (policies ENV5 and
CF5). This scheme would not fall short but neither would it offer substantial
benefits over and above what might be expected [139, 210]. Water and
sewerage would be provided (policy INF1(4)). No minerals assets would be
constrained (policy EP5). A small heritage asset would be restored (policy
ENV7). That would be a benefit but, in the grand scheme of things, would be a
trivial matter.
392. Overall, the matter can be seen to have weighty considerations on both sides.
The provision of affordable housing and extra care older person’s housing speak
volumes in favour of the scheme. But, it’s in the wrong place; added to the harm
from a loss of agricultural land (policy DES7(vii)) are the harms which flow from
the fact that Cholsey is not a well-endowed location, which is probably why the
development plan strategy does not allocate to it development of the scale
proposed in this appeal. Despite the proposal’s compliance with many specific
policies of the development plan, it cannot be said to accord with the
development plan taken as a whole if it is fundamentally at odds with the plan’s
strategy.
393. In terms of the issues as originally identified [11], I conclude that the proposal
would not represent sustainable development because of its effects on economic
matters such as Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land, sustainable transport
and the strategy for the development of land and on social infrastructure in terms
of schools. These adverse effects would significantly outweigh its positive effects
on social matters such as the supply of affordable housing and of specialist
housing for older people or by its neutral or mildly beneficial effects on other
components of sustainable development.
394. There is also an elephant in the room which has not been hitherto discussed.
That is, the effect on public faith in the plan-led system were this appeal to be
allowed. NPPF paragraph 15 advises that the planning system should be
genuinely plan-led. South Oxfordshire has an up-to-date Local Plan in which
considerable public involvement has been invested. Although complying with
some of its policies, the appeal proposal would be contrary to the strategy of that
Local Plan as well as to others of its policies. Cholsey has a Neighbourhood Plan
which has just been reviewed, which has engaged a considerable proportion of
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 113
the local population [211, 213, 214, 231,243-245] and which has preferred other
sites for development over the appeal site [30]. It would harm public confidence
in that process were this appeal to be allowed.
Recommendation
File Ref: APP/Q3115/W/22/3296251
395. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed.
P. W. Clark
Inspector
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 114
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS
1) Details of the access (other than those shown on drawings IPD-16-386-132
revision C and IPD-16-386-133 revision C), appearance, landscaping,
layout, and scale for each phase of the development hereby permitted,
(hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development
of the relevant phase takes place and the development shall be carried out
and thereafter retained as approved.
2) Application for approval of the reserved matters for the first phase of
development shall be made to the local planning authority not later than
eighteen months from the date of this permission and for other phases of
development not later than three years from the date of this permission.
3) The commencement of each phase of the development hereby permitted
shall take place not later than one year from the date of approval of the
last of the reserved matters to be approved relating to the phase
concerned.
4) The development hereby permitted shall comprise no more than 350
dwellings in C3 use and 80 units in C2 use (extra care) and no more than
the following non-residential floor space:
• 3,000sqm of employment floor space in Class E(g) (i) or (ii) use
• 250sqm of convenience retail and 200sqm comparison retail in class
E(a) use
• 500sqm children’s day nursery in Class E(e) use
• A Community building serving the C2 use but including communal
space suitable for group activities and events for the community
The creation of any additional floorspace within the non-residential
approved buildings shall not be undertaken without the prior written
consent of the local planning authority, by way of a further application for
planning permission.
The buildings/premises approved for the uses specified shall not be used
for any purposes other than the specified Classes of the Schedule to the
Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or any Order
revoking or re-enacting that Order).
5) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the following approved plans;
• IPD-16-386-132C Northern Access-Layout1
• IPD-16-386-133C Southern Access-Layout1
• Parameter Plan - Land Use and Density (5775 4.2 SK-005 Rev C)
6) The development hereby permitted shall reinforce the existing hedgerow,
retain the existing woodland belt and provide new woodland belt and
public open space in the fixed locations shown on Parameter Plan -
Landscape and Open Space (5775 4.2 SK-004 Rev C) and shall provide
public open space, public urban open space and new hedgerow and tree
planting approximately in the indicative locations shown on that Parameter
Plan.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 115
7) The development herby permitted shall be laid out to include a principal
street, vehicular access, pedestrian and cycle connection point and bus
route in the locations shown on Parameter Plan - Movement (5775 4.2 SK-
003 Rev C) and shall provide a pedestrian and cycle route, the potential for
a pedestrian and cycle connection to Agatha Christie Way and bus stops
approximately in the locations shown indicatively on that Parameter plan.
8) Prior to the submission of any Reserved Matters or details required by other
conditions, a Phasing Plan for the site shall be submitted for approval in
writing by the local planning authority. The Phasing Plan shall include a
spatial illustration of the quantities of development, phasing and timescales
in each phase for the delivery of the following:
• Numbers of dwellings and density, to include C2 extra care units
where relevant
• Open space including play areas
• Park and open space relative to the delivery of number of dwellings
• Non-residential elements of the development
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
Phasing Plan.
9) No development shall take place on any phase until the following
information shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority:
• The results of a targeted Phase 2 intrusive site investigation as
recommended in paragraph 8.5 of report Land Quality Assessment:
Phase 1 Geo-environmental Desk Study dated November 2018 by
Wardell Armstrong (Job number ST15372, report number 008) and,
if contaminated land is identified by that investigation, details of
measures to remediate the contamination.
• An Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation and a programme
of archaeological mitigation.
• A full site survey showing: the datum used to calibrate the site
levels; levels along all site boundaries; levels across the site at
regular intervals and floor levels of adjoining buildings.
• Full details of the proposed finished floor levels of all buildings and
hard landscaped surfaces.
• Details of parking provision for vehicles and bicycles
• Details of both surface water and foul drainage
• Details of refuse and recycling storage
• Details of utilities and services layout and runs, including broadband
• Details of street and amenity lighting
• Details of dwelling mix and of the 15% of market housing designed
to meet the standards of Part M(4) Category 2 of the Building
Regulations
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 116
• Details of energy efficiency measures and measures to reduce carbon
emissions to accord with Local Plan policies DES7 (1(iii)), DES8 and
DES10
The development shall be carried out and subsequently retained in
accordance with the approved details. No phase of development shall be
occupied until any remediation of contaminated land required by this
condition has been carried out and a validation report confirming
completion of remediation has been submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority. No building shall be occupied until provided
with its approved parking provision, drainage, refuse and recycling storage,
utilities and services and measures to secure energy efficiency and to
reduce carbon emissions.
10) No works to construct the accesses to the development shall take place
until the listed milestone within the site, on the verge of Reading Road, has
been relocated and restored in accordance with the fourth bullet point of
paragraph 6.1.4 of the Heritage Statement dated March 2021 prepared by
Wardell Armstrong (Job number ST15372, report number 005, version
v1.0) submitted with the application.
11) No development shall take place on any phase until the recommendations
of paragraph 5.1.7 of the Arboricultural Impact Assessment by Wardell
Armstrong dated March 2021 (Job number ST15372, report number 012
version V1.0) have been applied in accordance with the Tree Protection
Plan, drawing number ST15372-009 revision B appended to that
Assessment. The tree protection shall remain in place until the completion
of development on the relevant phase.
12) No development shall take place on any phase until details of the thinning
to the existing woodland on site, recommended in paragraph 5.1.6 of the
Arboricultural Impact Assessment by Wardell Armstrong dated March 2021
(Job number ST15372, report number 012 version V1.0), have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
development shall be carried out and subsequently retained in accordance
with the approved details.
13) No development shall take place on any phase, including any works of
demolition, until a Construction Method Statement for that phase has been
submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
Statement shall provide (amongst other matters) for:
i) the protection of biodiversity features, habitats and species during
construction;
ii) the stripping and storage of topsoil during construction;
iii) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;
iv) loading and unloading of plant and materials;
v) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;
vi) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative
displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate;
vii) wheel washing facilities;
viii) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction;
ix) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition
and construction works;
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 117
x) delivery, demolition and construction working hours.
The approved Construction Method Statement shall be adhered to
throughout the construction period for the development.
14) No part of the development shall be occupied until confirmation has been
provided to the local planning authority that either:- all off-site water
network upgrades and all off-site wastewater network upgrades required to
accommodate the additional flows to serve the development have been
completed; or - a development and off-site infrastructure phasing plan has
been agreed with Thames Water to allow development to be occupied.
Where a development and off-site infrastructure phasing plan is agreed no
occupation shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed
development and infrastructure phasing plan.
15) No phase of the development shall be occupied until Framework,
Residential (including Travel Information Pack) Retail, Nursery and
Workplace Travel Plans applicable to the phase concerned have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Thereafter, upon occupation, the agreed Travel Plans shall be fully
implemented and the first residents of each dwelling shall be provided with
a copy of the approved Travel Information Pack.
16) No non-residential premises shall be occupied until details of its operating
hours and the extent to which noise-generating activities would occur or
food would be prepared on the premises have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. No occupation shall
occur other than in accordance with the approved details.
17) No more than 150 dwellings shall be occupied before the route and
infrastructure for a bus service indicated on Parameter Plan - Movement
(drawing number 5775 4.2 SK-003 Rev C) is made available within the site.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 118
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Emmaline Lambert Of Counsel
She called
Thomas Rice BA Msc Principal Planning Policy Officer, South
MRTPI Oxfordshire District Council
Barbara Chillman BSc Pupil Place Planning Service Manager,
PGCE MA Oxfordshire County Council
Tracy M Smith BA BTCP Principal Appeals Officer, South Oxfordshire and
MRTP Vale of White Horse District Councils
Peter Radmall MA BPhil Principal, Peter Radmall Associates Ltd
CMLI
Michael Spence Founder, MS Environmental
BA(Hons), MLD, CMLI,
REIA, FRGS
Nichola Smith (SODC), Sarah Commins (SODC), Geoff Arnold (OCC) and Judith Cope
(OCC) took part in round table discussions on conditions and planning obligations
FOR THE PARISH COUNCIL:
John Neville BA MSc Director, Quin Planning
He called
Beryl Guiver BSc MSc Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group
DipTP MRTPI
Daniel Leaver BSc(Hons) Landscape Planning Associate Director,
BLD CMLI Stephenson Halliday
Kyn Pomlett took part in round table discussions on planning obligations
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Nina Pindham, of Counsel
She called
Roland Bolton Senior Director, DLP Planning Ltd and Head of
BSC(Hons) MRTPI Strategic Planning Research Unit
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 119
Stephen Stoney Technical Director, Wardell Armstrong LLP
BA(Hons) MRTPI DMS
Ben Hunter BA DipMS Associate Director, Education Facilities
Management Ltd
Katharine Ellinsfield Associate Director, Wardell Armstrong LLP
BSc(Hons) DipLA FLI
PIEMA
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Professor Richard Harding Chair, CPRE Oxfordshire and Chair, Cholsey
Community Development Trust
Liz Nixon Local resident
Ginnie Herbert Chair, Climate and Environmental Emergency
Working Group, Cholsey Parish Council
Sam Park Local businessperson
Judy Collins Local resident
Dr Duncan Reed Local resident and retired member of Chartered
Institution of Water and Environmental
Management
Val Bolt BEM Chair, Cholsey Community Development Trust,
Vice-chair of Cholsey Parish Council
Cllr Dr Sue Roberts South Oxfordshire District Councillor
Charles Lambert Local resident
Joanne Baker Moulsford resident and Parish Councillor
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 120
DOCUMENTS submitted during the Inquiry
INQ1 Summary of recent updates on major sites
INQ2 Letter dated 31 January 2022 from Leaders of Oxfordshire Councils to
the Rt Hon Michael Gove MP
INQ3 Petition; No to Leavesley housing development
INQ4 The objections of Cholsey children
INQ5 Covenant on Cholsey Meadows properties restricting display of posters
INQ6 Appellant’s written response on the provision of green infrastructure and
public open space
CORE DOCUMENTS referred to during the Inquiry
(NB, not all documents referred to during the Inquiry are listed as Core
Documents. Those not listed are referenced in footnotes to the text.)
1. Application Documents and Plans
CD 1.1 Site Location Plan (IPD-16-386-104)
CD 1.2 Illustrative Masterplan (5775 4.2 SK-002 Rev C)
CD 1.3 Parameter Plan - Movement (5775 4.2 SK-003 Rev C)
CD 1.4 Parameter Plan - Landscape and Open Space (5775 4.2 SK-004 Rev C)
CD 1.5 Parameter Plan - Land Use and Density (5775 4.2 SK-005 Rev C)
CD 1.6 Phasing Plan (IPD-16-386-150)
CD 1.7 Environmental Statement
CD 1.8 ES Non Technical Summary
CD 1.9 ES Appendix 1.1 Location plan – As CD1.1
‐
CD 1.10 ES Appendix 1.2 Parameter Plans – As CD1.3 to CD1.5
‐
CD 1.11 ES Appendix 1.3 Illustrative Masterplan – As CD1.2
‐
CD 1.12 ES Appendix 2.1 Screening Request
‐
CD 1.13 ES Appendix 2.2 Screening Opinion Decision Notice (PART A)
‐
CD 1.14 ES Appendix 2.2 Screening Opinion Letter (PART B)
‐
CD 1.15 ES Appendix 2.2 EIA ANALYSIS Report (PART C)
‐
CD 1.16 ES Appendix 2.3 EIA Scoping Report
‐
CD 1.17 ES Appendix 2.4 EIA Scoping Opinion
‐
CD 1.18 ES Appendix 2.5 Mineral Resource Assessment
‐
CD 1.19 ES Appendix 2.6 Circular Economy Statement
‐
CD 1.20 ES Appendix 2.7 Correspondence with OCC (Minerals and Waste)
‐
CD 1.21 ES Appendix 4.1 Phasing Plan @A1
‐
CD 1.22 ES Appendix 6.1 Copies of Relevant Correspondence
‐
CD 1.23 ES Appendix 7.1 Legislation Policy and Guidance
‐
CD 1.24 ES Appendix 7.2 Copies of Relevant Correspondence
‐
CD 1.25 ES Appendix 7.3 Methodology
‐
CD 1.26 ES Appendix 7.4 Construction Mitigation Measures
‐
CD 1.27 ES Appendix 8.1 Construction Dust Assessment Methodology
‐
CD 1.28 ES Appendix 8.2 Dispersion Model Inputs Verification and
‐
Performance
CD 1.29 ES Appendix 8.3 ‐ Emissions Impact Calcula‐tion
CD 1.30 ES Appendix 8.4 Construction Phase Mitigation
‐
CD 1.31 ES Appendix 8.5 Operational Phase Dispersion Modelling Results
‐
CD 1.32 ES Appendix 9.1 Legislation Policy and Guidance
‐
‐
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 121
CD 1.33 ES Appendix 9.2 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
Methodology
‐
CD 1.34 ES Appendix 9.3 (Part 1) OWLs Extracts
CD 1.35 ES Appendix 9.3 (Part 2) SODC Landscape Capacity Assessment 2015
‐
CD 1.36 ES Appendix 9.4 Landscape Character Plan
‐
CD 1.37 ES Appendix 9.5 Landscape Designations Plan
‐
CD 1.38 ES Appendix 9.6 Photoview Location Plan
‐
CD 1.39 ES Appendix 9.7 Photoview Tables
‐
CD 1.40 ES Appendix 9.8 Photomontage Viewpoint Location Plan
‐
CD 1.41 ES Appendix 9.9 Photomontages_Part1
‐
CD 1.42 ES Appendix 9.9 Photomontages_Part2
‐
CD 1.43 ES Appendix 9.10 Night time Views
‐
CD 1.44 ES Appendix 9.11 Green Infrastructure and Recreation Strategy
‐
CD 1.45 ES Appendix 10.1 Heritage Statement
‐
CD 1.46 ES Appendix 10.2 Historic Maps
‐
CD 1.47 ES Appendix 10.3 Geophysical Survey Report
‐
CD 1.48 ES Appendix 10.4 Archaeological Evaluation
‐
CD 1.49 ES Appendix 10.5 Legislation and National Planning Policy and
‐
Guidance
‐
CD 1.50 ES Appendix 11.1 Soils and Agricultural Land Policy and Guidance
CD 1.51 ES Appendix 11.2 Soils and Agricultural Land Assessment Methodology
‐
CD 1.52 ES Appendix 11.3 Soil and Agricultural Land Classification (November
‐
2018)
‐
CD 1.53 ES Appendix 12.1 Flood Risk Assessment (Part 1 & 2)
CD 1.54 ES Appendix 12.2 Water Related Legislation Policy and Guidance
‐
CD 1.55 ES Appendix 12.3 Consultee Correspondence
‐
CD 1.56 ES Appendix 12.4 Good Practice Guide and Guidance Documents to
‐
Protect the Water
‐
CD 1.57 ES Appendix 13.1 Relevant Policy
CD 1.58 ES Appendix 13.2 Consultation Extract
‐
CD 1.59 ES Appendix 13.3 - Methodology
‐
CD 1.60 ES Appendix 14.1 Relevant Climate Change Policy
CD 1.61 ES Appendix 14.2 Climate Change Assessment Methodology
‐
CD 1.62 ES Appendix 14.3 Energy Strategy
‐
CD 1.63 ES Appendix 15.1 Relevant Legislation Policy and Guidance
‐
CD 1.64 ES Appendix 15.2 Land Quality Assessment Phase 1 Geo
‐
Environmental Desk Study (2018) Pts 1 to 3
‐ ‐
CD 1.65 ES Appendix 15.3 Relevant Correspondence
CD 1.66 ES Appendix 16.1 Updated Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
‐
CD 1.67 ES Appendix 16.2 Bat Survey Report
‐
CD 1.68 ES Appendix 16.3 - Biodiversity Offsetting Report
‐
CD 1.69 ES Drawing ST15372 006 Agricultural Land Classification
CD 1.70 ES Figure 7.1 Sensitive Receptor Locations
‐
CD 1.71 ES Figure 7.2 Predicted 2020 External Daytime Noise Levels_dB
‐
LAeq_16 hours
‐
CD 1.72 ES Figure 7.3 Predicted 2020 Internal Night time Noise Levels_dB
LAeq_8 hours
‐ ‐
CD 1.73 ES Figure 7.4 Predicted Internal Night time Noise Levels dB LAmax
CD 1.74 ES Figure 7.5 Predicted 2035 External Daytime Noise Levels_dB
‐ ‐
LAeq_16 hours
‐
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 122
CD 1.75 ES Figure 7.6 Predicted 2035 Internal Night time Noise Levels_dB
LAeq_8 hours
‐ ‐
CD 1.76 ES Figure 7.7 Predicted 2035 External Daytime Noise Levels (With
Development) dB LAeq_16 hours
‐
CD 1.77 ES Figure 7.8 Predicted 2035 Internal Night time Noise Levels (With
Development) dB LAeq_8 hours
‐ ‐
CD 1.78 ES Figure 7.9 Predicted Internal Night time Noise Levels (With
Development) dB LAmax
‐ ‐
CD 1.79 ES Figure 7.10 Predicted LAeq_16hr dB_Sound Levels Across the
Proposed Development With Mitigation
‐
CD 1.80 ES Figure 8.1 Monitoring Locations
‐
CD 1.81 ES Figure 8.2 Construction Dust Buffers
‐
CD 1.82 ES Figure 8.3 Modelled Road Network and Human Receptors
‐
CD 1.83 ES Figure 10.1 Prehistoric Roman Early Medieval and Medieval
‐
Heritage Assets
‐
CD 1.84 ES Figure 10.2 Designated Heritage Assets
CD 1.85 Cholsey AHS v3
CD 1.86 AIA Cholsey FIN‐AL v1.0 05_03_21
CD 1.87 Circular Economy Statement
CD 1.88 5775 Cholsey Fields DAS V7 200820 (Design & Access Statement)
CD 1.89 Mineral Resource Assessment
CD 1.90 Planning Statement
CD 1.91 IPD-16-386 T.002c TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT Pts 1 to 12
CD 1.92 IPD-16-386 R.001a TRAVEL PLAN 2021-03-01 Pts 1 & 2
CD 1.93 Land off Papist Way Affordable Housing Statement
2. Additional/Amended reports and/or Plans submitted after validation
CD 2.1 IPD-16-386 OUTLINE CTMP PROFORMA 10.07.2020
CD 2.2 IPD-16-386-R010-RSA Stage 1 Response Report
CD 2.3 IPD-16-386-R011- Offsite Jct RSA Stage 1 Response Report
CD 2.4 IPD-16-386-R020-Cholsey Safer Routes Study Response Report
CD 2.5 SA2942 Leavesley Reading Road Cholsey Safe Routes Study Report
CD 2.6 SA2943 Leavesley Reading Road Cholsey S278 RSA1
CD 2.7 SA2985 J T Leavesley, Reading Road, Cholsey, S278 RSA1 Report
Offsite
CD 2.8 Cholsey Fields Crime Prevention Statement FINAL
CD 2.9 Air Quality Report Update
CD 2.10 Biodiversity Offsetting Report Update
CD 2.11 Drainage Response - IPaD Technical Note
CD 2.12 Forestry Response - IPaD Technical Note
CD 2.13 IPD-16-386-132b Northern Access-Layout1
CD 2.14 IPD-16-386-133b Southern Access-Layout1
CD 2.15 Transport-Highway Response - IPaD Technical Note
CD 2.16 Education Mitigation, Papist Way, Cholsey (P21/S/503/O)
CD 2.17 WA Response to LVIA-DAS comments re: P21/S/1503/O
CD 2.18 Education at Cholsey Fields Oxfordshire.pdf
3. Committee Report and Decision Notice
CD 3.1 Delegated Report
CD 3.2 Decision Notice
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 123
4. The Development Plan
South Oxfordshire District Council
CD 4.1 South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035
CD 4.2 SODC Local Plan Inspector’s Report
CD 4.3 SHMA Report 2014
CD 4.4 Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan (spring 2019 V3 (Made))
CD 4.4.1 Cholsey-Examiners-Report-19-12-2018
CD 4.5 Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan (submission version)
CD 4.6 Appellant’s representations to the submission version CNP
CD 4.7 Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan Review – Modification Statement
CD 4.8 South Oxfordshire CIL Spending Strategy April 2021
CD 4.9 South Oxfordshire Regulation 123 List August 2017
CD 4.10 South Oxfordshire District Council developer contributions SPD Draft
February 2022
CD 4.11 South Oxfordshire District Council Draft CIL Charging Schedule,
Submission Version (June 2022)
CD 4.12 South Oxfordshire District Council Draft Community Infrastructure Levy
(CIL) Infrastructure Funding Gap Statement (February 2022)
CD 4.13 S106 Planning Obligations SPD April 2016
CD 4.14 South Oxfordshire District Council CIL Charging Schedule April 2016
Oxfordshire County Council
CD 4.15 Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Part 1 – Core Strategy –
policy M8
CD 4.16 OCC Cycling Design Standards 2017
CD 4.17 OCC Walking Design Standards 2017
5. Additional material submitted after determination of the application
CD 5.1 Non-Technical Summary - July 2022 update
CD 5.2 ES Update Summary Statement - July 2022
6. Relevant Appeal Decision/Judgements
CD 6.1 Land at Crowell Road, Chinnor APP/Q3115/W/21/3289271 appeal
decision
CD 6.2 Land at Wheatley Campus APP/Q3115/W/19/3230827 appeal decision
CD 6.3 Land at Lady Grove APP/Q3115/W/21/3272377 appeal decision
CD 6.4 Little Sparrows Sonning Common Appeal decision
APP/Q3115/W/20/3265861 appeal decision
CD 6.5 Dancing Lane Wincanton Decision APP/R3325/A/12/2170082
CD 6.6 Picket Piece Andover Decision (determined by the Secretary of State
under recovery powers) (appeal APP/X3025/A/10/2140962
CD 6.7 Land at Caddywell Lane appeal (ref. W1145/W/19/3238460)
CD 6.8 Land off Popes Lane, Sturry, Kent appeal (ref.
APP/J2210/W/18/3216104)
CD 6.9 Land to the south of Cox Green Road Rudgwick, Surrey appeal (ref.
APP/R3650/W/19/3227970)
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 124
CD 6.10 Burston Nurseries Ltd, North Orbital Road, Chiswell Green, St. Albans
AL2 2DS Appeal Ref: APP/B1930/W/21/3279463
CD 6.11 Epsom General Hospital, Dorking Road, Epsom KT18 7EG
APP/P3610/W/21/3276483
CD 6.12 Land to the west of Leamington Road, Broadway, Worcestershire
APP/H1840/A/14/2224292
CD 6.13 Land to the rear of 237-259 London Road, West Malling, Kent ME19 5AD
APP/H2265/W/18/3202040
CD 6.14 The Knowle, Station Road, Sidmouth, Devon, EX10 8HL
APP/U1105/W/17/3177340
CD 6.15 Appeal Decision APP-Q3115-19-3220425 Lower Shiplake
CD 6.16 PC Building Supplies, 2 South Street, Hythe SO45 6EB
APP/B1740/W/18/3198347
CD 6.17 The Bailey, Branksomewood Road, Fleet GU51 4JU
APP/N1730/W/18/31997972
CD 6.18 Land at The Elms, Upper High Street, Thame OX9 2DN
APP/Q3115/W/19/3228431
CD.6.19 Beechmoor Garden Centre, Whitchurch Road, Great Boughton, Chester
CH3 5QD APP/A0665/W/18/3203413
CD 6.20 Site of the former Hazeldens Nursery, London Road, Albourne, West
Sussex BN6 9BL APP/D3830/W/19/3241644
CD 6.21 Kent and Surrey Golf and Country Club, Crouch House Road, Edenbridge
APP/G2245/W/21/3271595
CD 6.22 Homebase, New Zealand Avenue, Walton-on-Thames Surrey
APP/K3605/W/20/3263347
CD 6.23 Land to the North of Bath Road, Pickwick, Corsham
APP/Y3940/W/21/3276908
CD 6.24 Epsom General Hospital, Dorking Road, Epsom
APP/P3610/W/21/3272074 and APP/P3610/W/21/3276483
CD 6.25 Suffolk Coastal District Council (Appellant) v Hopkins Homes Ltd and
anor (Respondents) Richborough Estates Partnership LLP and anor
(Respondents) v Cheshire East Borough Council (Appellant) [2017]
UKSC 37
CD 6.26 Wavendon Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities
and Local Government 14 Jun 2019 [2019] WLR(D) 379, QBD
CD 6.27 Wavendon Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities
and Local Government - Viewing document - ICLR
CD 6.28 Cawrey Limited v SOSLG and others [2016] EWHC 1198 (Admin
CD 6.29 18-04-26_DL_IR_Land at Mansfield Road, Farnsfield, Newark NG22 8JH
CD 6.30 St Modwen Judicial Appeal Decision
CD 6.31 East Bergholt Parish Council v Babergh DC
CD 6.32 Hallam Land Management Ltd v SoS for Communities and Local
Government
CD 6.33 Crane v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
CD 6.34 Monkhill Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local
Government
CD 6.35 Solo Retail Ltd v Torridge DC
CD 6.36 Land at Sandown Park, Royal Tunbridge Wells
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 125
7. Education Core Documents
CD 7.1 Oxfordshire County Council Education Consultation Response 13th
January 2022
CD 7.2 Education Act 1996
CD 7.3 Securing developer contributions for education November 2019 Dept for
Education
CD 7.4 Basic Need Allocations 2023-24 and 2024-25: Explanatory Note on
Methodology
CD 7.5 National School Delivery Cost Benchmarking for Primary, Secondary &
SEN Schools May 2021
CD 7.6 MHGLG - Government response to [the consultation on] reforming
developer contributions (June 2019
CD 7.7 Building Bulletin 103 - Area Guidelines for Mainstream Schools
8. Landscape Core Documents
CD 8.1 Chilterns AONB Management Plan 2019-2024
CD 8.2 North Wessex Downs Management Plan 2019-2024
CD 8.3 Landscape Architect (South and Vale) Comments May 2021
CD 8.4 Landscape Architect (South and Vale) Comments Sept 2021.
CD 8.5 Chilterns Conservation Board Comments April 2021
CD 8.6 Response to LVIA-DAS Comments September 2022
CD 8.7 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA3),
LI/IEMA, 2013
CD 8.8 South Oxfordshire Landscape Assessment – November 2017: Landscape
Character Area 7, Wessex Downs and Western Vale Fringes
CD 8.9 TGN06/19: Visual Representation of Development Proposals
CD 8.10 CA108 Upper Thames Clay Vales.
CD 8.11 South Oxfordshire Landscape Character Assessment (SOLCA)
9. Housing Land Supply and C2 Documents as referred to by the Appellants and
SODC
National
CD 9.1 Housing in Later Life
CD 9.2 Older Persons Housing Need Model
CD 9.3 Putting people at the heart of care
CD 9.4 The House of Commons publication “Housing an ageing population: a
reading list”
CD 9.5 “Future of an Ageing Population” Government Office for Science 2016
CD 9.6 Fixing our broken housing market. February 2017
CD 9.7 “Housing our aging population” The Local Government Association 2017
CD 9.8 “Healthier and Happier - An analysis of the fiscal and wellbeing benefits
of building more homes for later living WPI Strategy 2019”
CD 9.9 Senior Living Survey – Senior Living Research, Knight Frank 2019
CD 9.10 House Of Lords Built Environment Committee 1st Report of Session
2021–22 HL Paper 132 Meeting housing demand
CD 9.11 Top of the Ladder.
CD 9.12 Housing Our Aging Population HAPPI3_Report_2016
CD 9.13 Valuing Retirement Housing
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 126
CD 9.14 Unlocking the Market Report - Demos
CD 9.15 Last Time Buyers 2015 Legal and General
CD 9.16 Too little too late June 2020
CD 9.17 Chain Reaction Report
CD 9.18 Start-to-finish what factors affect the build out rates of large-scale
housing sites.
Local
CD 9.19 Oxfordshire Market Position Statement 2019 – 2022
CD 9.20 Oxfordshire Market Position Statement 2019 – 2022 – Extra Care
Housing Supplement
CD 9.21 Joint Housing Delivery Strategy for South Oxfordshire and Vale of White
Horse 2018-2028
CD 9.22 Housing Delivery Strategy for SODC and VoWH Background Paper 1
CD 9.23 Housing Delivery Strategy for SODC and VoWH Background Paper 4
Five year land supply-local
CD 9.24 Interim post adoption of Local Plan Five-year housing land supply
statement – March 2021
CD 9.25 Housing Land Supply Statement for South Oxfordshire District Council
June 2021
CD 9.26 Housing Land Supply Statement for South Oxfordshire District Council
July 2022
DLP Report
CD 9.27 Economic Impact Assessment
Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities Report
CD 9.28 English Housing Survey Headline Report 2020-21
Elderly Accommodation Counsel
CD 9.29 EAC Data Products Guide July 2020
CD 9.30 EAC email 2022 Q2 data
CD 9.31 More Choice Greater Voice (MCGV)
10. Planning Proof
CD 10.1 Bidwells Commercial Strategy Report
CD 10.2 Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications 2020 (Modification MM30
extract)
CD 10.3 Appellant Planning Statement of Case
CD 10.4 Pre-app Officer Response P18/S2460/PEJ
CD 10.5 Pre-app Officer Response P20/S0828/PEJ
11. Rule 6 Miscellaneous Docs
CD 11.1 NPPF
CD 11.2 (NPPG extracts Not used)
CD 11.3 Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan Sustainability Appraisal
CD 11.4 Cholsey Neighbourhood Plan Site Assessment Evidence Document
CD 11.5 Cycling Standards
CD 11.6 Oxfordshire Strategic Water Cycle Study Phase 1 Scoping JBA
Consulting 2021
CD 11.7 Chilterns Conservation Board Position Statement – Development
affecting the setting of the Chilterns AONB June 2011
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 127
CD 11.8 Landscape character and capacity assessment Kirkham Landscape
Planning Ltd 2017 page 31
12. LPA/SODC Proofs of evidence
CD 12.1 South Oxfordshire District Council Statement of Case
CD 12.2 South Oxfordshire District Council SoC Appendix 1 H1
CD 12.3 South Oxfordshire District Council SoC Appendix 2 CF5
CD 12.4 Biodiversity Net Gain - Vivid Economics
CD 12.5 SODC Tracy Smith Planning and 5YHLS roof of Evidence
CD 12.5A Tracy Smith Planning & 5YHLS Appendices 1-6
CD 12.6 OCC Barbara Chillman Education Proof of Evidence
CD 12.7 SODC Peter Radmall Proof of Evidence
CD 12.8 SODC Tom Rice 5YHLS Rebuttal Evidence
CD 12.9 OCC Barbara Chillman Education Rebuttal Evidence
CD 12.10 SODC Tracy Smith Planning and Older Persons C2 Rebuttal Evidence
13. Rule 6 Party proofs of evidence
CD 13.1 Cholsey Parish Council Proof of Evidence June 2022
CD 13.2 Cholsey Parish Landscape Proof of Evidence
CD 13.3 Cholsey Parish Council Statement of Case August 2022
14. Heritage
CD 14.1 Milestone Historic England Listing Entry
15. National policy and guidance
CD 15.1 Housing needs of different groups: 24 May 2021
CD 15.2 Housing supply and delivery: 22 July 2019
CD 15.3 Housing for older and disabled people: 26 June 2019
CD 15.4 Natural Environment – Agricultural land, soil…; Landscape – 21 July
2019
CD 15.5 Planning Obligations September 2019
16. Inquiry documents
CD 16.2 Highways and Transport SoCG
CD 16.2.1 Transport Assessment Addendum 2022
CD 16.3 Landscape SoCG
CD 16.4 Older Persons Housing Need & Supply SoCG
CD 16.5 Education SoCG
CD 16.6 Draft Conditions
CD 16.7 SODC CIL Statement
CD 16.8 5 Years Housing Land Supply SoCG
CD 16.9 OCC CIL Statement
17. Miscellaneous documents
CD 17.1 Sonning Common – Design & Access Statement
CD 17.2 Sonning Common – Illustrative masterplan/layout
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 128
CD 17.3 Sonning Common – Proposed Site Block Plan
CD 17.4 Manual for Streets (DfT 2007)
CD 17.5 Manual for Street 2 (CIHT 2010)
CD 17.6 Inclusive Mobility (DfT 2005)
CD 17.7 Sub National Population Projections 2018 South Oxfordshire
18. Case Management Conference Documents
CD 18.1 Pre-Inquiry Conference Agenda
CD 18.2 Inspector’s Pre-Conference Note
CD 18.3 Note of Case Conference
19. Appellant Proofs of Evidence
CD 19.1 Appellant Planning Proof of Evidence Stephen Stoney
CD 19.2 Appellant Landscape Proof of Evidence Katharine Schofield
CD 19.3 Appellant Education Proof of Evidence Ben Hunter
CD 19.3A Education Proof Appendices 7-16
CD 19.3B Guide To Developer Contributions
CD 19.4 Appellant 5YHLS Proof of Evidence Roland Bolton
CD 19.4A 5YHLS Appendix 3 State of Market and need for Family Housing
CD 19.5 Appellant Older Persons Need Proof of Evidence Roland Bolton
CD 19.6 Appellant Errata Older Persons Housing Need and Supply PoE Roland
Bolton
CD 19.7 5 Year HLS Scott Schedule
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Page 129
www.gov.uk/dluhc
RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE DECISION IN THE HIGH COURT
These notes are provided for guidance only and apply only to challenges under the
legislation specified. If you require further advice on making any High Court challenge, or
making an application for Judicial Review, you should consult a solicitor or other advisor or
contact the Crown Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, Queens Bench Division,
Strand,London,WC2 2LL (0207 947 6000).
The attached decision is final unless it is successfully challenged in the Courts. The Secretary of
State cannot amend or interpret the decision. It may be redetermined by the Secretary of State only
if the decision is quashed by the Courts. However, if it is redetermined, it does not necessarily follow
that the original decision will be reversed.
SECTION 1: PLANNING APPEALS AND CALLED-IN PLANNING APPLICATIONS
The decision may be challenged by making an application for permission to the High Court
under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the TCP Act).
Challenges under Section 288 of the TCP Act
With the permission of the High Court under section 288 of the TCP Act, decisions on called-in
applications under section 77 of the TCP Act (planning), appeals under section 78 (planning) may
be challenged. Any person aggrieved by the decision may question the validity of the decision on
the grounds that it is not within the powers of the Act or that any of the relevant requirements have
not been complied with in relation to the decision. An application for leave under this section must
be made within six weeks from the day after the date of the decision.
SECTION 2: ENFORCEMENT APPEALS
Challenges under Section 289 of the TCP Act
Decisions on recovered enforcement appeals under all grounds can be challenged under section 289
of the TCP Act. To challenge the enforcement decision, permission must first be obtained from the
Court. If the Court does not consider that there is an arguable case, it may refuse permission.
Application for leave to make a challenge must be received by the Administrative Court within 28 days
of the decision, unless the Court extends this period.
SECTION 3: AWARDS OF COSTS
A challenge to the decision on an application for an award of costs which is connected with a
decision under section 77 or 78 of the TCP Act can be made under section 288 of the TCP Act if
permission of the High Court is granted.
SECTION 4: INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS
Where an inquiry or hearing has been held any person who is entitled to be notified of the decision
has a statutory right to view the documents, photographs and plans listed in the appendix to the
Inspector’s report of the inquiry or hearing within 6 weeks of the day after the date of the decision. If
you are such a person and you wish to view the documents you should get in touch with the office at
the address from which the decision was issued, as shown on the letterhead on the decision letter,
quoting the reference number and stating the day and time you wish to visit. At least 3 days notice
should be given, if possible.