Case Reference: 3309622

Appeal Decision
Inquiry Held on 14 February 2023
Site visit made on 22 February 2023
by S R G Baird BA (Hons) MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 5th May 2023
Appeal Ref: APP/Q3115/W/22/3309622
Land off the B480, Chalgrove, Oxfordshire
• 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 P22/S1381/O, dated 5 April 2022, was refused by notice dated
5 October 2022.
• The development proposed is the erection of up to 160 dwellings including affordable
housing, public open space, landscaping, a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) and
vehicular access.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. The application was submitted in outline with all matters other than means of
access reserved.
3. The application was refused for 5 reasons (RfR). These are, (1) conflict with
the development plan, (2) adverse landscape and visual impacts,
(3) inadequate information on below ground archaeology and (4 & 5) the
absence of S106 Agreements relating to affordable housing (AH) and
infrastructure. Prior to the inquiry opening, the local planning authority (lpa)
confirmed that RfR 3, 4 and 5 would not be pursued.
4. The inquiry was adjourned to allow for the completion of a S106 Agreement
with the lpa and Oxfordshire County Council (OCC). The inquiry was closed in
writing on 24 February 2023. The Agreement provides for: 40% AH;
allotments; landscaping/open space; creation of a management company and
off-site highway improvement works. In addition, financial contributions would
be made for: street naming; waste/recycling bins; primary, secondary and
special needs education; public transport services and infrastructure; and
administration/monitoring costs. The obligations have been reviewed in light
of guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework)
and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). All are reasonable, necessary, and
consistent with Regulation 21 of the Community Infrastructure Levy
Regulations 2010 abd as such have been taken into account.
Main Issues
5. These are, (1) whether the lpa can demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable
housing sites and (2) the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Development Plan
6. The development plan includes the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011-2035
adopted December 2020 (LP) and the made Chalgrove Neighbourhood
Development Plan 2018 to 2033 (NP). Of the policies listed in the Planning
Matters Statement of Common Ground1, the parties agree that the most
important policies for determining this appeal are, LP Policies STRAT1, STRAT2,
H1, H4 and ENV1 and NP Policy C1.
7. The emerging South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse Joint Local Plan 2021
to 2041 is an early stage of preparation. The parties agreed that the draft
policies cannot be afforded any weight when determining this appeal.
Reasons
Housing Land Supply
8. Framework paragraphs 60 and 74 say that to support the objective of
significantly boosting the supply of housing, lpa’s are required to identify and
update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a
minimum of 5-years’ worth of housing against their housing requirement as set
out in development plan policy.
9. The Framework Glossary defines Deliverable as sites that, amongst other
things, have a realistic prospect of housing being delivered within 5 years. The
Glossary identifies 2 types of sites, A and B. Here, consideration of Category A
sites is not needed. Category B are sites that (a) have outline permission for
major development, (b) are allocated in a development plan, (c) have a grant
of permission in principle, or (d) are identified on a brownfield register.
10. The 5-year period for calculating the HLS is 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2027 and
the requirement is 5874 dwellings. The lpa claims a deliverable supply of 6105
dwellings (5.2-years) whereas the appellant claims a supply of 4262 dwellings
(3.63-years). The dispute relates to 8 Category B sites and the scale of the
windfall allowance for small sites.
11. The Framework says that Category B sites should only be considered
deliverable where there is clear evidence that housing completions will begin on
site within 5 years. PPG2 expands on this requirement indicating that,
“…robust, up to date evidence needs to be available to support …planning
decisions” and provides an open list of the type of evidence required. It is
common ground that deliverability does not mean certainty or probability,
rather it requires the demonstration of a realistic prospect of delivery, based on
the exercise of planning judgment. That said, the use of words “clear, robust
and up-to-date” demonstrates that the judgement on deliverability must be
underpinned by a rigorous assessment based on clear articulated evidence.
1 7 February 2023.
2 Housing Supply and Delivery Paragraph: 007 Reference ID: 68-007-20190722.
Sites Without a Planning Permission
12. Bayswater Brook. Located close to Oxford, this is a large site allocated in the
LP (STRAT13) primarily to meet the housing requirement of Oxford City.
Whilst the HLS trajectory shows this site contributing some 375 dwellings
starting in Year 3, the appellant submits that it is unrealistic to say that any
units would be delivered in the assessment period.
13. STRAT13 identifies significant known constraints including, a sensitive Oxford
View Cone, on-site heritage and archaeological assets, proximity to a “fragile”
SSSI3 and an Ancient Woodland, highway capacity and the need for off-site
improvements. STRAT13 requires delivery in accordance with a comprehensive
Masterplan agreed in consultation with Oxford City Council and OCC.
14. The lpas have entered into a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) with the
site promoters, although, as a confidential document, no details were provided
as to its coverage. Applications have been submitted, albeit later than the PPA
envisaged. These are, a full application to Oxford City Council for substantial
infrastructure works and a hybrid application for up to 1570 dwellings and a
range of commercial and community uses, including works to Listed Buildings.
15. Whilst progress is being made on the delivery of the site, these are complex
planning applications at an early stage for a site with significant planning and
physical constraints. Although a draft Masterplan was consulted on in mid-
2022, there is no indication that it has been agreed by the stakeholders.
Whilst the lpa is currently consulting on the housing application, there is no
indication of the nature of the responses, particularly from technical consultees,
or progress on the application to Oxford City Council for the provision and
implementation of the significant enabling infrastructure works. For a site of
this scale and nature, the permissions will be subject to a comprehensive range
of pre-commencement conditions and S106 Agreements.
16. There is no indication of what conditions would be attached to the permissions,
the matters they would cover and when applications would be made to
discharge them or an indication that draft S106 Agreements are acceptable.
Given permission has yet to be granted, the suggestion that the first reserved
matters applications would be received in early 2023 is overly optimistic. The
lpa’s lead-in times for outline applications for sites of more than 500 units show
that, on average, it takes some 76 months between the application being
received to the first units appearing on-site. Although the lead developer has
experience on delivering problem sites, given the above, the clear, robust
evidence is not there to support a conclusion that there is a realistic prospect of
delivery, and 375 units are discounted.
17. Didcot Gateway. This site is the subject of an outline application by Homes
England for 111, mainly flatted units. The 2022 Position Statement identifies no
in principle planning objections subject to further information on highways,
surface water flooding, air quality, contaminated land and utilities. The lpa
advised that outstanding urban design objections had been resolved and
technical issues could be resolved through the imposition of pre-
commencement conditions. The application is slated to be considered by the
Planning Committee in March 2023. The HLS trajectory shows this site
3 Site of Special Scientific Interest.
contributing the 111 units in Year 5. The appellant submits that it is unrealistic
to say that any units would be delivered in the assessment period.
18. As the development would be largely flats, it is reasonable to assume that
completions would appear in a single monitoring year. It is normal for the
concerns of technical consultees to be dealt with by pre-commencement
conditions. However, there is no indication of the nature or scale of works
required for the discharge of the pre-commencement conditions. Homes
England is not the developer, rather the site would be marketed with the
benefit of an outline permission. In these circumstances, the potential
developer would need to assess what works would be required to discharge the
pre-commencement conditions, which absent of any detail represents a
significant unknown. Given the units are shown to the fall within Year 5,
slippage in terms of site disposal and/or discharge of conditions could take
delivery outside the assessment period. Based on this, the clear, robust
evidence is not there to support a conclusion that there is a realistic prospect of
delivery, and 111 units are discounted.
Sites Subject to a Resolution to Grant Permission
19. Ladygrove East. This site has been a development plan allocation since 1997,
and an outline planning application was submitted in March 2019 for up to 750
units and approved in March 2022 subject to a S106 Agreement. The HLS
trajectory shows this site contributing 237 dwellings starting in Year 3 -
2024/25 (18 units) with 87 in Year 4 and 132 units in Year 5. The appellant
submits that it is unrealistic to say that any units would be delivered in the
assessment period.
20. The 2022 Position Statement, whilst noting the developer’s agreement to the
S106 Heads of Terms, acknowledges that, “…the site promoters have
significant work ahead in order to sign the S106 Agreement and agree reserved
matters applications, and discharge pre-commencement conditions.” Although
the S106 Agreement has not been signed and matters relating to open space,
allotments, play area and a community centre are being discussed with Didcot
Town Council, who would take on these facilities, the lpa anticipates granting
permission in April 2023.
21. Notwithstanding the anticipation of a planning permission, there is no indication
of the extent or nature of any pre-commencement conditions, or of the works
needed to discharge them. Absent of this detail, I fall back to the lpa’s July
2022 comment that the site promoters have significant work ahead. Nothing
before me suggests that that position has changed. Similarly, I fall back on the
lpa’s lead-in times for outline applications, which, based on the likelihood of
permission being granted in April 2023, would suggest that the first houses
could appear on-site in Year 4. On this basis, it appears reasonable that the
trajectory should be rolled forward a year and 132 units discounted.
22. Land South of Newnham Manor. The HLS trajectory shows this site
contributing 100 units starting in Year 3. A hybrid application for 100 units and
a school was submitted in late 2016, a resolution to grant permission was
made in 2018 and again in December 2021. Although matters relating to open
space provision via a S106 Agreement are not yet resolved, the lpa expect a
permission to be granted in May 2023. The appellant submits that it is
unrealistic to say that any units would be delivered in the assessment period.
23. Notwithstanding the submission that permission is imminent, the lpa submitted
evidence to an inquiry4 in August 2022 that a permission was expected to be
issued in October 2022 and almost 6 months later the Agreement has not been
signed. Whilst a single issue may be delaying the S106 Agreement, no further
detail was provided by the lpa nor was there any indication of the extent and
nature of the pre-commencement conditions and the requirements necessary
to discharge them. Moreover, whilst the lpa indicated that it had agreement
with the developer over the development trajectory, no detail confirming this
was provided nor was the appellant’s submission that “coming soon” details of
the site did not appear on the developer’s website challenged. Based on this,
the clear, robust evidence is not there to support a conclusion that there is a
realistic prospect of delivery, and 100 units are discounted.
Sites with Outline Planning Permission.
24. North-East Didcot. This is a substantial site being built-out by several house
builders. The dispute here centres on build-out rates. The trajectory shows
the lpa’s assessment of build-out rates at 216 units per annum. The appellant
indicates that this rate far exceeds average build-out rates for sites of this size
(132 units) or suggested comparable sites that have been built-out.
25. The 132-unit build-out rate contained in the 2022 Position Statement is an
average and some sites do deliver more units per annum. However, here
absent of evidence from the developers and landowners promoting sites, the
lpa has not provided the clear evidence necessary to support what appears to
be an extremely optimistic build-out rate. On this basis, the average build-out
rate of 132 units per annum should be used and the 5-year total should be
discounted by 421 units.
26. Wallingford Site E. This is Phase 2 of an existing development where the
dispute relates to build-out rates. The trajectory shows a total of 272 units in
the assessment. As part of a larger site, the lpa would normally apply a build-
out rate of 132 units per annum. However, the lpa’s evidence indicates that
the developers advised that this was optimistic and suggested a build-out rate
of 86 units per annum. Whilst I would have liked to have seen documentary
evidence of discussions with the developer over build-out rates, I have no
reason to dispute the lpa’s submissions. Moreover, given the developer is a
volume house builder and is currently on-site with Phase 1, I have no reason to
conclude that development will not continue. Accordingly, I have not
discounted the projected contribution of this site.
27. Land at Wheatley Campus. The trajectory shows a total of 174 units in the
assessment period starting in Year 4. This differs from the 2022 Position
Statement that referred to 198 units delivered within the assessment period.
The site is a substantial, operational university campus and although it is to be
relocated, this will not happen until September 2024, at the earliest. In this
context, the appellant submits that it is unrealistic to say that any units would
be delivered in the assessment period.
28. Although outline planning permission was granted in April 2020, reserved
matters applications have not been made and that permission is due to expire.
An outline application for 500 units made in November 2022 remains
undetermined. The lpa advise that the applicant has submitted a pre-
4 APP/Q3115//22/3296251. Land off Papist Way, Cholsey.
application enquiry for an reserved matters application to be submitted before
April 2023 and is seeking to agree a PPA. No further information was provided.
Whilst the trajectory has been informed by the applicant, the University, there
is no known developer, who given the site will not be available until after
September 2024 and extensive demolition is required, may have other ideas.
29. The lpa’s confidence regarding implementation is based on the applicant, who
is not a developer, continuing to progress the site. However, the lpa’s position
and delivery is contradicted by the Environmental Statement accompanying the
November 2022 application, which refers to the first units being occupied post
April 2027, outside the current assessment period. Based on this, the clear,
robust evidence is not there to support a conclusion that there is a realistic
prospect of delivery, and 100 units are discounted.
30. Wallingford Site B. This site is being developed over several phases. Phases 1
to 3 are either under construction or the subject of full planning permissions.
Phases 4 to 6 have been the subject of pre-application discussions and the
indication is that a single reserved matters application is to be submitted.
Based on the manner the site has been developed, the lpa’s assumptions for
future development are reasonable and no units are discounted.
Windfall Sites Allowance
31. The dispute is over the scale of the allowance for minor sites. Framework
paragraph 71 indicates that, “Any allowance should be realistic having regard
to the strategic housing land availability assessment, historic windfall delivery
rates and expected future trends”. Regarding minor windfalls, the lpa’s
calculation is based on a review of completions from 2011 to 2021, which
produces an adjusted figure of 154 units per annum. The lpa identifies a
supply of 590 units with planning permission and assumes these will be
developed by Year 3; the time period for implementing a permission. For Years
4 and 5, the lpa uses the adjusted annual average rate of 154 units to reach a
total of 308 units. The appellant’s approach takes the unadjusted average rate
of 158 units per annum multiplying it by 5 and deducts the 590 units with
permission. This would provide for 200 units to be added for Years 4 and 5.
32. Both approaches are plausible and have been used elsewhere to determine the
contribution of windfalls to the HLS. On-balance, the lpa’s approach is
preferred in that it reflects the more permissive approach in the development
plan, which widens the scope allowable infill developments and trends identified
in the HLS Position Statement. Accordingly, no units have been discounted.
That said, even if I am wrong, the impact this would make on the calculation of
the 5-year HLS would not be significant.
Conclusion on the 5-year Housing Land Supply
33. The supply figure should be reduced by 1313 units to 4792 units. Based on an
agreed annual requirement of 1175, the supply would be some 4.1-years5.
Accordingly, the lpa cannot show a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites.
Landscape and Visual Impact
34. One element of the LP overarching spatial strategy (STRAT1) is the protection
and enhancement of the countryside. LP Policy ENV1 indicates that
5 This figure has been rounded-up to follow the approach adopted by the lpa and the appellant.
development will only be permitted where it protects and where possible
enhances features that contribute to the nature and quality of the landscape.
35. Of the various published character assessments referred to, the most relevant
is the South Oxfordshire Landscape Character Assessment November 2017.
Here, the site is located within Landscape Character Area 3 – The Clay Vale
(LCA). This LCA is subdivided into Landscape Character Types (LCT), where
the site spans 2 LCTs, Undulating Semi-Enclosed Vale and Flat Floodplain
Pasture. It is common ground that the site, comprising 2 parcels of arable land
separated by a mature central tree belt with established tree belts of varying
scale and maturity on most of the site boundaries is typical of the LCA 3
landscape and broadly representative of the localised LCTs. It is agreed that
the site, for the purposes of Framework paragraph 174 is not a valued
landscape or that development would adversely affect the setting of the AONB.
36. The appellant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) is robust and
consistent with current good practice. The differences between the lpa and the
appellant, particularly in relation to impacts, are narrow. Based on a range of
descriptors, the LVIA6 ascribes a Medium value to the quality, value and
sensitivity of the site and its surroundings, albeit the appellant acknowledged7
that those values could be at the upper end of Medium. The lpa, submits that
the sensitivity of the site and its surroundings is Medium to High.
37. The LVIA Tables set out broad definitions relating to quality, value and
sensitivity, which the lpa broadly agrees with. For each element, the bands of
Medium and High overlap to allow for variations across a wider landscape
designation. In terms of value, the LVIA does note that the southern part of
the site is, “of higher landscape value” but concludes overall the site is of
Medium landscape value. Given the central woodland block, the public
footpath with views out over the Chalgrove Brook, the southern part of the site
has more interest. Taking the above factors into consideration, which include
the presence of the well trafficked B480 and housing to the north-west, the
finding of a Medium to High landscape quality/value. The same approach
applies to sensitivity, based on the above, landscape sensitivity falls within the
Medium to High value.
Landscape Effects
38. Landscape effects are assessed at Year 1 and Year 15 based on the effect on
trees/hedgerows, watercourses, public footpaths, land use within the site,
landscape character of the site and surroundings and the wider landscape
character. There is a large measure of agreement on the effect at Year 1 and
Year 15. The differences largely relate to whether the effect would be
negligible (appellant) or slight (lpa). The key differences come in relation to
land use within the site, the landscape character of the site and the immediate
surroundings. The appellant considers the whole site, whereas in assessing
effect the lpa differentiate between the northern and southern parcels of the
site. In terms of land use within the site and landscape character, there is
agreement of a Moderate adverse effect at Year 15 for the southern parcel
whilst the lpa submit that 15 effects would remain Substantial adverse for the
northern parcel.
6 CD 1.5, Tables LE 1 – LE 3, Tables VE 1 & 2.
7 X-Examination of Mr Self.
39. Both the lpa and the appellant agree that at Year 1 for land use within the site
and the landscape character of the site the development would have a
Substantial adverse effect. The difference is that the appellant indicates that
by Year 15 the overall effects would reduce to Moderate adverse. The lpa,
however splits the Year 15 effects between the northern and southern parcels
indicating that the effects would remain Substantial adverse for the northern
parcel. The lpa’s assessment is based on the differences between the 2 parcels
and the degree of urbanisation that would persist despite the establishment of
the landscaping.
40. The northern part parcel is where the bulk of built development would be
concentrated, and the development would be a significant extension of the
village. Whilst there would be a fundamental change in land use and character
from arable agricultural land to residential, that is not inconsistent in how
Chalgrove as a linear village has developed in relation to its countryside
setting. There is no reason why, the lpa cannot achieve through the approval
of reserved matters applications a high-quality landscape scheme that builds
on the scale and nature of existing planting, particularly on the B480 frontage
and on the south-eastern boundary. Year 1 effects are in any scheme likely to
result in Substantial adverse effects. Whilst the urbanising influence of the
development along the B480 would persist, with careful execution and
maintenance of the new planting, both of which the lpa can control through the
suggested conditions, the landscape setting of the site like a good wine would
improve over time resulting in the land use and landscape character effects at
Year 15 being no higher than Moderate adverse.
41. The lpa also considers the landscape effects on openness, tranquillity, wildness
and rurality concluding that at Year 15 for most the effect would be Slight
adverse. Whilst I have no reason to disagree with those conclusions, in
landscape effect terms they are not significant. In terms openness, the lpa
submits that, as a result of the landscaping maturing, the effect would be
Substantial adverse by Year 15. However, this approach is contradictory, both
in terms of what a landowner can do without the need to seek permission, as
has happened on the south-eastern boundary of the northern parcel plant
where a new hedge has been planted and the stated objectives of the LP and
the 2017 LCA. LP Policy ENV1 seeks the enhancement of trees/hedgerows and
the guidelines for the enhancement/restoration of LCA 3 include strengthening
the hedgerow network and the judicious planting of trees and shrubs. In this
context, the effect on openness would not be significant.
Visual Effects
42. The parties agree that the visual influence of the site is largely confined to
close range and occasional medium range views. These include the approaches
on the B480, the public footpath where it enters the site from the Chalgrove
Meadows (CM) development the west and runs through the site and adjoining
field to where it meets the B480, public footpaths to the south of the site8, and
Rushy Furrows Lane/Monument Lane to the north and north-west. It is
acknowledged that in long distance views from the AONB the site/Chalgrove
are indistinguishable.
43. In terms of visual effects, the differences between the parties are narrow and
relate to the degree of effect. The key areas where the greatest visual effects
8 PROWs 155/13/20 Shakespeare Way and 155/12/10.
would be experienced are from the B480 approaches and the public footpath
where it runs through the site and the adjoining field (155/15/10). From all
other locations the visual effects of the development would not be significant.
Within the site at its western end where it would pass close to housing in the
southern parcel, the enduring effect would be substantial. Elsewhere on the
path, including where it crosses the field to the south-east, the enduring visual
effect would be Moderate adverse.
44. The recently completed development at CM provides a useful benchmark to
assess the effect on views from the approaches on the B480, albeit the access
to CM is from a roundabout whereas the appeal site would be accessed from a
simple T-junction and there appears to be limited hedgerow planting along the
B480 boundary. Whilst the development would require most of the existing
planting on the B480 it is largely of poor quality and the Illustrative Masterplan
shows its replacement by a substantial hedge. The nature, extent and height
of the replacement hedgerow would be the subject of a condition. I agree with
the lpa that the Year 15 the Moderate adverse effects would be limited to close
range views of the access and into the site.
45. The development would not have any material impact on the open space area
and dwellings within the adjoining CM development. The substantial separating
hedge/tree line even at its thinnest would limit intervisibility to glimpses.
Conclusion on Landscape and Visual Effects.
46. The landscape and visual effects of the development on the site and its
surroundings would have a limited and enduring Moderate adverse effect. As
such and as the appellant acknowledges the proposal would conflict with LP
Policy ENV1 – Landscape and Countryside. As such Moderate weight attaches
to the landscape and visual harm resulting from the development.
Other Considerations
47. The Chalgrove Brook, a priority habitat runs along the south-western boundary
of the site. The brook is a tributary of the River Thame and part of a globally
rare chalk stream. LP Policy ENV2 seeks to protect important ecological
receptors. Development will only be permitted where it protects and, where
possible enhances, features that contribute to the nature and quality of the
district. Policy ENV4 seeks to protect watercourses and requires new
development to be set back from watercourses.
48. Built development would be located to the north of footpath 155/15/10 some
80m from the brook and well beyond the buffer required by LP Policy ENV4.
Most of the area to the south of the footpath would be used for public open
space and unlikely to require minimal disturbance. To the south-west corner of
the site, an area would be laid out as an attenuation basin with a buffer of
some 20m to the brook. Following a revised Flood Risk Assessment, the lpa
has confirmed that it would be technically possible to drain the site without
offending LP Policy ENV4. Moreover, the development could be made the
subject of conditions relating to detailed drainage designs and a Construction
Environmental Management Plan that would put in place a comprehensive set
of avoidance measures to mitigate the risk of pollution.
49. The development would result in the loss of some 11ha of Grade 3 agricultural
land, which is regarded as good to moderate in terms of its quality. Grade 3
agricultural land has 3 subdivisions (a to c) of which Grade 3a is classed as the
best and most versatile (B&MV). LP Policy DES7 – Efficient Use of Resources
seeks to avoid the development of B&MV land. The lpa refer to the
classification of land having not been clarified and loss of potential B&MV
agricultural land had not been justified. That said, as far as I am aware the
appellant was never asked to provide a site-based land quality assessment and
loss of agricultural land does not feature in the RfR. In the Planning Officer’s
assessment of the application, this matter is prefaced by the comment that
residents raised the issue. Moreover, it is unclear what weight the Planning
Officer attached to this issue as no reference appears to it in the conclusions.
50. Now the lpa suggests that a precautionary approach should be adopted with
Moderate weight being attributed to the loss. Whilst the concerns raised by
residents regarding food security and loss of production capacity is noted, there
is nothing in the Framework to suggest that in this situation a precautionary
approach should or must be applied. Thus, whilst there is the potential for
conflict with the aims of the development plan and the Framework, there is
nothing to suggest that the loss of this field would have a detrimental impact
on the viability of the wider agricultural holding. Accordingly, limited weight is
attached to the loss of agricultural land.
51. The site is in an area of archaeological interest relating primarily to the
prehistoric and Romano-British period. The application was accompanied by a
largely desk-based archaeological assessment that acknowledges the potential
for remains from these periods, and possibly the medieval/post-medieval
periods. That said, a programme of archaeological investigation secured by an
appropriate condition would satisfy the requirements of LP Policy ENV9.
52. Further development has raised concern about the impact on local services,
particularly education and primary health care, and on the character and form
of the village.
53. At the time of the application OCC indicated that development at CM and
development to the west of the village, now under construction, would fill and
the exceed spare places at Chalgrove Primary School (CPS) and that expansion
would be required to meet the needs of the development. Expansion to a 1.5-
form entry school would provide sufficient capacity to meet the needs
generated by the development and a financial contribution has been agreed
with the appellant. That said, OCC has highlighted that any expansion of CPS
would require the agreement of the school’s governors and the Acer Academy
Trust, who are responsible for the school. CPS says that the contribution
identified by OCC would be insufficient in the longer terms indicating that a
move to a 1.5-form entry school would not be financially viable, detrimental to
the quality of education and it would resist any attempt to impose a 1.5-form
entry regime. There is an unquantifiable risk that expansion is not feasible in
the short term. Secondary education is provided by the Ickneld Community
College at Watlington. The college has expanded through the introduction of
temporary accommodation and the S106 contribution would be used to replace
this with permanent accommodation.
54. Primary health care is provided for by the Brook Surgery located within the
village. The practice comprises 2 surgeries one in Watlington and one in
Chalgrove. The Practice Manager advises that it would be “challenging” to cope
with potential demand from new developments in Chalgrove and the
Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group (OCCG) objected on the basis that
local capacity issues are significant. OCCG requests primary care infrastructure
funding to support local plans for surgery alterations or projects to support
patient services. The development would be liable to make a CIL payment,
which would contribute towards mitigating this concern. Whilst the Parish
Council asserts that the surgery does not have room to expand, this has not
been confirmed and it appeared that there may be scope for some limited
expansion.
55. Drawing this together, whilst the school and the OCCG have expressed
reservations, ultimately these are matters for OCC and OCCG to address. The
evidence does not show that the obligations to fund expansion through the
S106 and CIL would not meet the policy tests, nor has not been shown that
expansion would be incapable of being implemented.
56. Concern is also expressed regarding the wider effects of the development on
biodiversity. The ecology of site is dominated by its agricultural use and has
limited ecological value. A substantial part of which would be retained as open
space and the reinforcement and replanting of hedgerows provides the
potential for biodiversity enhancement and a net gain. These, matters could be
the subject of suitable conditions. In this context, the development would not
cause harm to the ecology of the area.
57. In terms of access to sustainable transport options and employment
opportunities, it is suggested that future residents would need to rely on the
private car for most of their needs, contrary to the objectives of the
Framework, the LP and OCC’s Local Transport Plan, Although Chalgrove is
classified as a larger village where the LP envisages proportionate growth, local
employment opportunities are limited to the small industrial estate next to the
former airfield. Local services are of a scale that essentially address the day-
to-day needs of residents, and the existing bus service is restricted. In this
context, there would be continued reliance on the private car. That said, whilst
the Framework seeks development in locations that offer the opportunity to
limit the need to travel and offers genuine choice of transport modes it
recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will
vary between urban and rural areas and this should be considered.
58. Pedestrian access to the village would be facilitated by the existing footpath
and improvements on High Street and Monument Road, which although
restricted by the nature and alignment of the road, particularly High Street,
would improve access to day-to-day services and encourage active travel. A
financial contribution (£1,133 per dwelling) would be made, towards public
transport services and £11,531 for public transport infrastructure which would
maintain the existing service in terms of service frequency and infrastructure.
59. The appellant and lpa address the benefits of the development under the 3
headings of economic, social and environmental, albeit there is some crossover
between social and environmental matters Both the appellant and the lpa
attach Moderate weight to the economic benefits of the development. I have
no reason to disagree with these conclusions.
60. Social benefits relate to the provision of AH and market housing, biodiversity
net gain (BNG) and access to public open space. My earlier conclusions on the
extent of the HLS shows that the lpa cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of
deliverable sites. I can understand the lpa’s reservations regarding an early
contribution to meeting housing needs given the appellant is a site promoter
and not a developer. However, the appellant’s willingness to accept materially
reduced times for the submission of reserved matters, 18 months, and
implementation, one year from approval of the last of the reserved matters
indicates a high level of confidence that this development would provide a
material contribution to the market housing needs of the district.
61. There is an acknowledged need for AH, which the Strategic Housing Market
Assessment concluded was a significant quantitative shortfall. In terms of
attaching weight to the benefit of AH, the lpa attaches Significant weight and
Moderate weight to the provision of market housing. The appellant attaches
Very Significant weight to the combined contribution of the AH and MH.
Overall, I consider that Significant weight attaches to the provision of AH and
market housing in the planning balance. Whilst the obligations contained in the
Agreement are generated because of the development, improvements to local
services and facilities could result in some wider public benefit. I attach limited
weight to those benefits.
62. Environmental benefits include material biodiversity net gains and the creation
of a substantial area of public open space. The combination of these
environmental benefits attracts Moderate weight.
Planning Balance and Conclusions
63. The most important policies for determining this appeal are, LP Policies
STRAT1, STRAT2, H1, H4 and ENV1 and NP Policy C1. LP Policy STRAT1 sets
the overall strategy, which seeks to focus development in the Science Vale, at
strategic allocations of which Chalgrove Airfield (STRAT7) is one and a series of
Larger Villages, which includes Chalgrove. LP Policy STRAT2 contains a
housing requirement of 23550 units for the period 2011 to 2035. The
requirement is to be met in accordance with the overall strategy and Part 5 of
the policy and the locations identified in LP Policy H1.
64. LP Policy H1 says that residential development will be permitted on sites
allocated by the LP, Neighbourhood Plans or on sites carried over into the LP.
Other sites will only be permitted if they meet the exceptions listed in Part 3 of
the policy. Policy H4 refers to Larger Villages accommodating a 15% growth in
dwellings, compared to 2011. The LP identifies that Chalgrove had completions
and commitments totalling 334 units against a 15% growth figure of 228.
Although 15% is not a ceiling to further development, with the development of
land to the west of Chalgrove and CM, there is no outstanding LP requirement
for Chalgrove. NP Policy C1 indicates that development will be supported
within the built-up area or on allocated sites. LP ENV1 relates to the
protection of the countryside from harmful development
65. As the appeal site is not: allocated, lies outside the settlement, not an LP Policy
H1 exception site and development would result in landscape and visual harm,
the appellant accepts that this proposal would conflict with the development
plan when read as a whole. Framework paragraph 2 indicates that a planning
proposal is to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless
material considerations indicate otherwise.
66. Here, one of the key material considerations is the absence of a 5-year HLS.
When there is a shortfall, Framework Footnote 8 says that the policies most
important for deciding the proposal are out-of-date. Framework paragraph 11d
(ii) says that where the most important policies for determining a proposal are
out-of-date, permission should be granted unless, any adverse impacts of
doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when
assessed against the policies of the Framework read as a whole, i.e., the tilted
balance. In that scenario, whilst acknowledging that the weight to be afforded
to the relevant policies is reduced, the parties agree that they are not aside.
67. Harm arising from conflict with the development plan, in particular the
overarching strategy on the location of development is fundamentally entwined
with public confidence in the planning system. Framework paragraph 15 refers
to the “…planning system being genuinely plan-led.” The LP is recently
adopted. Moreover, as the representations make clear, the NP is highly valued
as the vehicle for residents of Chalgrove to shape their surroundings
(Framework paragraph 29) and that it consumed considerable community
investment in terms of time and emotion. Thus, decisions, particularly appeal
decisions, have the significant potential to reduce and fatally harm public
confidence in the development plan process.
68. The assessment of the scale of the 5-year HLS is essentially a snapshot in time.
Thus, in a situation where the development plan is only recently adopted, it is
too early to say that the LP strategy is exacerbating the issue of a lack of an
adequate HLS. The application of the tilted balance reduces the weight to
relevant policies. However, here the relative youth of the development plan
and maintaining public confidence in the planning process, are such that Very
Significant weight is attached to the conflict with the development plan and the
harm that flows.
69. Having regard to all the above and recognizing there is a national imperative to
boost the supply of housing particularly AH, in this case the adverse impacts of
allowing this development (conflict with the development plan, landscape and
visual impact and loss of agricultural land) would, when taken together,
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the economic, social and
environmental benefits of the proposal, when assessed against the Framework
read as a whole. For these reasons and having regard to all other matters
raised, the appeal is dismissed.
George Baird
Inspector
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT
Martin Carter of Counsel, instructed by Kathryn Fitzgerald, Planning Manager,
Gladman Developments Limited
He called:
Ben Pycroft BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI.
Director, Emery Planning.
Clive Self MA (Urb Des) Dip LA CMLI.
Managing Director, CSA Environmental.
Kathryn Fitzgerald BA (Hons) MPlan MRTPI.
Planning Manager, Gladman Developments Limited.
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY
Emmaline Lambert of Counsel, instructed by Vivien Williams South Oxfordshire
District Council.
She called:
Tom Rice BA MSc MRTPI.
Principal Policy Officer, South Oxfordshire District Council.
Peter Radmall MA BPhil CMLI.
Independent Landscape Practitioner
Tracy Smith BA Hons, BTP, MRTPI.
Principal Appeals Officer, South Oxfordshire District Council.
FOR CHALGROVE PARISH COUNCIL & CHALGROVE AIRFIELD ACTION
GROUP
Councillor Jan Russell.
Chalgrove Parish Council.
Mr Paul Boone
Chair, Chalgrove Airfield Action Group (Residents’ Association).
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY
Doc 1 - List of suggested conditions.
Doc 2 - Certified copy of a signed S106 Agreement.
Doc 3 - Joint note by the appellant and the lpa on the need for an
Appropriate Assessment.
Doc 4 - Representation by Ms H Mottau.
Doc 5 - Corrected Statement of Common Ground on Housing Land Supply.