Maggie Filipova-Rivers



Anderson Orr Architects Ltd



Stow House Thames Road Goring, RG8 9AL



Demolition of a number of small ancillary structures and existing outbuilding and the erection of two three-bedroom semi-detached dwellings, one four-bedroom dwelling and one five-bedroom detached dwelling with associated garages, parking provision, amended access and additional landscaping.


(As amplified by section drawing received 26 April 2022 and ecological information submitted on the 9 May 2022 and tree information received 13 May 2022 and amended drainage plan received 1 July 2022).



Paul Bowers






This report sets out to the officer’s recommendation that planning permission should be granted having regard to the material planning considerations relevant to the development and development plan policies.



The application site is part of the existing curtilage of Stow House which is a large, detached house set within substantial grounds thought to date from the late 1880’s to early 1890’s.


There are a range of ancillary buildings including a garage adjacent to the northern boundary which is accessed via the northern access drive and two storage buildings adjacent to the southern boundary. There is also a swimming pool located to the east of the house. Stow House occupies a corner plot with two road frontages - to the south is Glebe Ride, and to the west is Thames Road. The plot has three accesses: two on to Thames Road serving the main driveway, and a rear entrance via a driveway onto Cleeve Road, shared with a neighbouring property to the east.


A plan identifying the location of the site can be found at Appendix 1.



The site is partly within the Goring on Thames Conservation Area with the house and garden being located within the conservation area. However, the application site for the proposed four houses is outside the conservation area. The village as a whole is located within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.



The application seeks full planning permission to sub divide the land to the rear of Stow House, on the eastern side of the site, to create four new plots.


Plots 1 and 2 show two semi-detached, three-bed dwellings; Plot 3 contains a detached, five-bed and Plot 4 a detached four-bed dwelling.


The proposed dwellings at Plots 1 and 2 are both two-storey with internal floor areas of 154.4sqm and 153.6sqm respectively. The proposed dwellings on Plots 3 and 4 are both three-storey with additional accommodation in their roof-spaces with total internal floor areas of 380sqm and 382sqm respectively.



Planning permission has recently been granted under reference P22/S0785/HH for the demolition of the single storey rear wing of Stow House and an existing outbuilding, removal of the swimming pool and the existing northern section of driveway and the erection of a one and a half storey outbuilding, consisting of a garage with ancillary accommodation.



Reduced copies of the plans accompanying the application are attached as Appendix 2 to this report. All the plans and representations can be viewed on the council’s website under the planning application reference number





Goring Parish Council – Object to the application for the following reasons;


-       The application does not respect Policy 3 from the Goring Neighbourhood Plan and is over development for this area.

-       The houses are also too tall and oppressive to the neighbours; contravening neighbourhood plan policy 16.

-       Contravenes the infill policy, GNP Policy 2; due to the size and the proposed development.

-       Does not comply with the Oxfordshire parking policy and Policy 19 from the neighbourhood plan.

-       The development also removes a vital ecological corridor which is against Policy 12 of the NP.


Neighbour responses – 18 x letters of objection to the application as originally submitted covering the following issues;


-       Overdevelopment of the site.

-       Overlook properties to the east.

-       Out of keeping with the character of the area.

-       Concern about the retention of the existing hedge between properties on Cleeve Road and the new development.

-       Increase in noise from new driveway to the north.

-       Detract from the appearance of Stow House.

-       Concerns about the ecological impact of the development.

-       Development should provide affordable housing not larger housing.

-       Housing should front on to Thames Road.

-       Increase traffic and harmful to highway safety.

-       Access would be more acceptable on to Glebe Ride.

-       Impact on the conservation area.

-       Need for smaller dwellings


3 X letters of objection to the amended scheme (additional plan showing the site in section and distances to adjoining properties and additional ecological information)


-       The section drawing misrepresents adjoining properties heights and position.

-       Does not address the issue of traffic chaos.

-       Damage made to the road from other development will cause safety issues.


Countryside Officer  - No objection following the additional ecological information.

Drainage – No objection.


Forestry Officer – No objection following the additional arboricultural information being submitted and subject to conditions regarding tree protection and details of service routes.


Highways Liaison Officer – No objection subject to conditions in relation to connection to pavements, parking being retained, and access being made to OCC standard.


SGN Plant Protection Team – Apply standard Informatives


Waste Management Officer – No objection.


Conservation Officer– No objection.


Energy Assessor – No objection subject to a compliance condition with the details submitted.





P21/S1072/PEJ - Advice provided (23/08/2021)

Proposed demolition of Stow House and related garage and outbuildings and development of 16 dwellings together with access, parking and general amenity areas.






The site lies in a sensitive area but the scale of development means that an EIA is not required.





Development Plan Policies


South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 (SOLP) Policies:

DES1  -  Delivering High Quality Development

DES10  -  Carbon Reduction

DES2  -  Enhancing Local Character

DES3  -  Design and Access Statements

DES5  -  Outdoor Amenity Space

DES6  -  Residential Amenity

ENV1  -  Landscape and Countryside

ENV3  -  Biodiversity

ENV6  -  Historic Environment

ENV8  -  Conservation Areas

EP4  -  Flood Risk

H1  -  Delivering New Homes

H11 – Housing mix

H16  -  Backland and Infill Development and Redevelopment

H4  -  Housing in the Larger Villages

INF4  -  Water Resources

STRAT1  -  The Overall Strategy

TRANS5  -  Consideration of Development Proposals



Neighbourhood Plan


Goring Neighbourhood Plan (GNP) policies;

Policy.01 – Number of houses to be allocated

Policy.02 – Infill

Policy.03 – Housing mix

Policy.11 - Conserving and enhancing Goring's Landscape

Policy.12 - Conserve and enhance biodiversity

Policy.15 - Water, sewerage and drainage capacity

Policy.16 - Building design principles

Policy.17 - The historic environment

Policy.19 - Adequate parking within new developments



Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents


South Oxfordshire Design Guide 2016 (SODG 2016)


National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance



Other Relevant Legislation


Human Rights Act 1998

The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been taken into account in the processing of the application and the preparation of this report.


Equality Act 2010

In determining this planning application the Council has regard to its equalities obligations including its obligations under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.





Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.


Section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that the local planning authority shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations.


In the case of this application, the most relevant parts of the Development Plan are the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 (SOLP) and Goring Neighbourhood Plan (GNP)



The main issues that need to be considered in relation to this proposal are;


  • The principle of the development in terms of housing policy.
  • Housing mix.
  • Impact on the special landscape of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
  • Impact on setting of the Goring on Thames Conservation Area.
  • Neighbour impact.
  • Impact on trees.
  • Impact on ecology.
  • Access, parking and Highway Safety.
  • Amenity space.
  • Drainage.
  • Carbon reduction.
  • Community Infrastructure Levy.



The principle of the development in terms of housing policy.


Policy STRAT1 of the SOLP sets out the overall strategy for development in the district. The policy includes specific reference to supporting smaller and other villages by allowing for limited amounts of housing and employment to help secure the provision and retention of services.


In addition, Policy STRAT1 seeks to protect and enhance the countryside and particularly those areas within the two AONBs and Oxford Green Belt by ensuring that outside of the towns and villages any change relates to very specific needs such as those of the agricultural industry or enhancement of the environment.


Policy H1 of the SOLP relates to delivering new homes and states development within the existing built-up areas of Larger Villages as defined in the settlement hierarchy

(shown in Appendix 7) will be acceptable; provided an important open space of public, environmental, historical or ecological value is not lost, nor an important public view harmed




Goring Neighbourhood Plan Policy 02 specifically relates to infill development and states that proposals for dwellings on sites within the built-up area of Goring will

be permitted provided that:

• an important open space of public, environmental or ecological value is not lost, nor an important public view harmed. In particular, the views that must be protected are the following:

o between Goring and Gatehampton;

o between Goring and South Stoke;

o east of Goring above Fairfield Road;

o north east of Goring between Icknield and Elvendon Roads;

o within the river setting;

• if the proposal constitutes backland development, it would not create problems of privacy and access and would not extend the built limits of the village;

• it does not conflict with other policies in the Goring Plan or Local development plan; and

• the scale of development is appropriate to the neighbouring area and does not have an adverse impact on its character.



The site is clearly within the built confines of Goring as a defined ‘Larger’ village within the SOLP. The site is relatively enclosed and is not an open space which affords for unlimited views across, in to and out of the site.


In your officer’s view, on the basis that the development will not result in the loss of an open space of public value or the loss of an important public view the proposed development will accord with Policy H1 of the SOLP. In respect of the impact of the development in terms of environmental, historical or ecological value these are matters that are dealt with in detail in the following sections of this report whereby your officers conclude the development is acceptable ensuring compliance with Policy H1 of the SOLP.



In terms of Policy 02 of the GNP it is your officer’s view that the site meets the definition of being ‘closely surrounded by buildings’ and the proposal amounts to infill development. As with Policy H1 of the SOLP there are other criteria within this policy that need to be considered and this follows in the subsequent paragraphs of this report.


In addition, Policy 02 of the GNP makes reference to back land development which this proposal would constitute. This matter is also dealt with in the following sections of this report and deemed to be acceptable.



I therefore conclude the principle of development in the context of the strategic housing policies contained within the local plan and the neighbourhood plan is acceptable.




Housing mix.


Policy H11 of the SOLP relates to housing mix; requiring a mix of dwelling types and sizes to meet the needs of current and future households on all new residential developments.


Policy 03 of the GNP also relates specifically to housing mix and requires a mix of dwelling types and sizes to meet the needs of current and future households will on all new residential developments. It goes on to say that the Plan will support a significant proportion of 1, 2 or 3-bedroom units including low cost/affordable accommodation and properties suitable for older people



The application proposes the erection of two 3-bedroom, semi-detached dwellings, one 4 bedroom dwelling and one 5 bedroom dwelling.


In your officer’s view this provides a mix of dwelling types that accords with the principles of both of these policies. whilst, the development does not provide for  1 or 2 bed units,  it is important to emphasise the Policy 03 of the GNP states that the neighbourhood plan will support a significant proportion of one two or three bed units but does not state that that it will resist development that does not provide them.



Taken overall your officers are satisfied that the provision of four dwellings with a mix of three to five bedrooms is in line with development plan policies.



Impact on the special landscape of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.


The site is located within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).


Paragraph 176 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that ;

“Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. The conservation and enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage are also important considerations in these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads. The scale and extent of development within these designated areas should be limited.”

This is followed through to local planning Policy ENV1 of the SOLP and Policy GNP10 of the GNP.


Paragraph 176 of the NPPF is quite clear in that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of an AONB. This is the highest status of protection. The test for development is therefore appropriately high. It is not sufficient for a development to not cause material harm or even limited harm. The test is that development must either conserve or enhance.



The site is contained within the built confines of the village.


It is not prominent in wider views from outside of the settlement and will be seen in the context of the surrounding varied built form.


The siting and overall design reflect wider building traditions within the Chilterns, and I am therefore of the view that these new dwellings will conserve the established special character of the AONB in accordance with Polices ENV1 of the SOLP and GNP11 of the development plan.



Impact on setting of the Goring on Thames Conservation Area.


The heritage asset to consider in the case of this development is the Goring on Thames Conservation Area. The impact to consider is how the proposed development affects the setting of the conservation area given that the area of the site comprising the new houses is outside of the conservation area.


Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990requires that :


In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, of any [functions under or by virtue of] any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2), special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.


Section 72 (1) must also be considered alongside relevant policies contained in the NPPF.


The NPPF requires that in determining applications LPA’s should take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of the heritage assets and putting them to viable use consistent with conservation, the positive contribution that conservation deals with the impact of a proposed development on the “significance” of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.


Paragraph 199  of the NPPF requires that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.


This is followed through into the development plan by Policy ENV8 of the SOLP which relates to conservation areas and Policy 17 of the GNP.



More generally Policy DES1 of the SOLP seeks to ensure that all new development is of a high-quality design subject to a series of criteria and Policy DES2 of the SOLP states that all new development must be designed to reflect the positive features that make up the character of the local area and should both physically and visually enhance and complement the surroundings.


This is also reflected in Policy 16 of the GNP which seeks to ensure development respects and maintains the character of the village and the surrounding rural AONB and that the Plan will support proposals which:

• comply with SODC’s Design Guide and the Chilterns Buildings Design Guide;

• respond positively to scale, mass, density and design of the immediate area and the village context;

• conserve and enhance the characteristics of the Conservation Areas and their settings that make a significant contribution to the area;




The site forms part of the garden of Stow House, a non-designated heritage asset within the Goring Conservation Area. The site for the houses lies outside of the designated conservation area, with the CA boundary following the historic and original curtilage for Stow House. The access to the new houses would be obtained from the existing north western access to Stow House, with the access being widened to meet the necessary upgrades to serve multiple houses.



A heritage appraisal and impact assessment has been submitted and it is agreed that the plot as it exists makes a limited contribution to the significance of the conservation area. The proposed houses would be of a design and material palette that broadly responds to the character of buildings within the conservation area.


The boundary wall to Glebe Road is of importance and the applicant has confirmed that this is to be retained. Overall, it is considered that the proposed development would not harm the significance of the adjacent conservation area.



Stow House as a non-designated heritage asset would remain legible as a substantial house within a substantial plot, albeit reduced to its original historic curtilage. The provision of a new green boundary between the new houses and Stow House will aid in limiting the visual impact of new development. This is likely to be apparent at first but would improve with the growth of this boundary over time. Overall, it is considered that the significance of Stow House and the contribution it makes to the conservation area would not be harmed by the new dwellings.



In my view, and that of the Council’s Conservation Officer the development accords with the design and heritage policies of the development plan.



Neighbour impact.



Policy DES6 of the SOLP relates to residential amenity and requires that development proposals should demonstrate that they will not result in significant adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring uses, when considering both individual and cumulative impacts in relation to loss of privacy, day light and sunlight, dominance or visual intrusion, noise or vibration, smell dust, heat, odour or other emissions, pollution and external lighting.



The most affected properties by the development are those to the east on Cleeve Road which back on to the site and Stow House itself to the west.


The proposed four dwellings all back on to a row of mature conifer trees / hedging along the eastern boundary. These trees are currently the subject of a high hedge complaint (yet to be determined) from adjoining properties as they consider the hedging to be overbearing. The new dwellings would be on the western side of the trees / hedge and be much closer to the trees/hedge than the existing two properties on the eastern side. It is therefore foreseeable that residents of the new dwellings will also find the tree/hedge overbearing, casting shade over the gardens in the first half of the day and then the dwellings themselves shading the garden in the afternoon.


It is necessary to consider the impact of the proposed development with or without the hedge in situ.  


The Council’s Tree Officer suggests that a more practical solution would be to remove the hedge and plant a more suitable replacement or even a stilted pleached hedge.


The retention of the hedge will obscure views of and also from the new dwellings to those properties to the east. Without the hedge the new dwellings will be visible and it is therefore necessary to consider how these dwellings will affect the existing properties on Cleeve Road in terms of overlooking any overshadowing and whether or not they are so close that they are considered to be oppressive.



If the existing hedge were to be removed an uninterrupted line of sight between the rear of the proposed dwellings and the existing dwellings on Cleeve Road would be available. A sufficient distance between these buildings is required to ensure that the impact of the development is not unneighbourly.


The South Oxfordshire Design Guide (SODG) at Section 7 sets out the minimum back to back distance between rear elevations in terms of the distance between habitable rooms. The SODG advises that there should be at least a 25 metre minimum distance.


The applicant has provided a detailed plan that sets out the distances between all four of dwellings and the rear of the properties on Cleeve Rd. Whilst I accept the plan does not show the up-to-date footprint of the property known as West Croft I have measured the permitted plans for that development and the part of the building that contains first floor windows will be in excess of 25 metres from the first floor windows in the new buildings.


In the case of the other properties on Cleeve Road the distance between the rear of the new houses and  the rear of the existing houses is in excess of 25 metres and the council's minimum standard. This distance is sufficient in my view to mitigate the impact of proposed first floor windows looking towards these properties to the extent that the level of overlooking is not materially harmful.



The distance between the front elevation of these new properties and the rear elevation of the existing Stow House also exceeds the 25 metre distance suggested in the design guide. I am also satisfied that in relation to the impact on Stow House, the level of overlooking is not materially harmful.



The distance between the proposed houses and those to the east and Stow House to the West is in  excess of 30 metres. In my view the significant distance is sufficient to mitigate the height and mass of the proposed buildings and  the impact they will cause in terms of being oppressive and any overshadowing or loss of light.  I am satisfied the proposal does not amount to an unneighbourly impact.



I have also considered the impact of the new dwellings on each other. There are first floor and second floor windows on Plots 3 and 4 which face each other with views into the building and into the rear gardens of these plots to the extent that I would deem them unneighbourly.


I have therefore proposed a condition that requires first and second floor windows in the south elevation of Plot 3 and the north elevation of Plot 4 to be obscure glazed, fixed shut apart from a fan light and retained as such.



Denville Lodge to the north west of the site shares a boundary with the new access drive. Whilst I understand the concerns of the occupants about the noise from vehicles it is my considered view that the level of harm caused would not be material and would not justify a refusal of panning permission.





Southdene which is located to the north of Plot 1 has a distance of some 35 metres from the rearmost part of the dwelling to the side wall of Plot 1. This is in excess of the minimum advised back to side distance set out in Section 7 of the SODG of 12 metres. The distance in this case is sufficient to mitigate the height and mass of the building to an acceptable extent. There are no first-floor windows in the side of Plot 1 looking toward Southdene and should they be added in the future they would need to be the subject of a separate planning application.



Whilst I acknowledge that the introduction of new dwellings on an area of garden land that has historically been very open will have an impact on all the adjoining properties, I am satisfied that whether the hedge is retained or not, this impact does not create material planning harm and the development complies with Policy DES6 of the SOLP in my view.



Impact on trees.


Policy ENV1 of the SOLP aims to protect South Oxfordshire’s landscape, countryside and rural areas against harmful development. Development will only be permitted where it protects and, where possible enhances, features that contribute to the nature and quality of South Oxfordshire’s landscapes, in particular trees (including individual trees, groups of trees and woodlands), hedgerows and field boundaries;


Policy 12 of the GNP states that any new development should conserve, restore and enhance landscape features which includes mature trees.



The trees along the western boundary frontage and those along the southern boundary are protected by either the conservation area or a tree preservation order. The row of conifers along the eastern boundary are not protected.



To create a wider vehicular access the proposal would require the loss of a mature Sycamore T18 and a small Yew T19. T18 has significant landscape value, making a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area. The tree survey records the tree as a category B tree. The Tree Officer has inspected the tree and found a significant included fork (under the ivy) at around 1m above ground level. This has the potential to lead to significant failure unless the size of the tree is reduced. However, such works would result in the loss of the trees natural appearance, reducing its value in the landscape. Your Tree Officer therefore considers that T18 should be categorised as C and has insufficient arboricultural value to be considered as a constraint to development. They also consider that the site offers sufficient opportunity for new tree planting, providing a net gain in tree numbers, sufficient to mitigate its loss.



A small number of other trees will also need to be felled to accommodate the proposal, however they are all of insufficient arboricultural quality to be considered as a constraint to development.



The submitted landscaping information indicates new trees would be planted along the proposed access and throughout the site. With some minor changes the proposed planting is acceptable, and the Tree Officer has no objections to the development subject to conditions in respect of for tree protection and details of all the service routes to ensure that they are not to be undertaken within the root protection areas of the trees.



In agreement with the Tree Officer, I am of the view that the development accords with the SOLP landscape policies.


Impact on ecology.


Policy ENV3 of the SOLP relates to biodiversity. The policy concludes by stating that planning permission will only be granted if impacts on biodiversity can be avoided, mitigated or, as a last resort, compensated fully.


This emphasis is reflected in Policy GNP12 of the GNP.



The Council’s Ecologist has considered the impacts of the development.


The metal sheds and garage to be removed have been assessed as being unsuitable to support roosting bats (Cotswold Wildlife Surveys, Feb 2021).


Further information including biodiversity metric calculations and landscape details has been submitted. As a result, the Ecologist is now satisfied that the proposed development can comply with the requirements of Policy ENV3 of the SOLP



Access, parking and Highway Safety.


With respect to highway safety matters the advice from Central Government set out in paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is as follows:


Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.


Policy TRANS5 of the SOLP requires that proposals for all types of development will, where appropriate amongst other things provide for a safe and convenient access for all users to the highway network and provide for the parking of vehicles in accordance Oxfordshire County Council parking standards, unless specific evidence is provided to justify otherwise.


This is reflected in Policy GNP18 of the GNP.



The development will result in the improvement of the existing access in the form of widening so as to allow for two vehicles to pass along its length.


The carriageway fronting the site ‘Thames Road’ measures between 5.6m and 5.5m with parking alongside one side of the carriageway, it must be noted that these are not formalised parking bays. However, this parking effectively restricts the available width so only a single vehicle can pass along this section of the carriageway.



Visibility splays have been measured using a 2.4m setback. Whilst visibility to the left-hand side on egress measured in excess of 43m, visibility to the right-hand side on egress measured to 27.4m to the centre of the carriageway. In this location and observations made on site vehicular speed and traffic volume is considered relatively low.



The parking and manoeuvring areas within the site are considered acceptable and the development is unlikely to result in displaced vehicles onto the adopted Highway. The increase in the number of units will result in a relatively modest increase into vehicular numbers, this however is unlikely to adversely impact the Highway.



Concerns in relation to construction traffic impact has been raised by local residents; however, this cannot be a reason for refusal. The OCC Highways Officers has considered this aspect of the development and has not requested a construction traffic management plan. This is a site which is not located on a main road and is of a size that can accommodate a number of vehicles during construction. Your officers share the view of the Highway Officer that it is not reasonable or necessary to apply a construction traffic management plan condition.      



In conjunction with the conditions requested by the Highway Officer that require the existing access on to Thames Road to be  improved to OCC standards, to provide parking and manoeuvring areas and to secure a pedestrian link from the development to the existing highway infrastructure and the extension of the footway, I am satisfied that the development complies with Policy TRANS5 of the SOLP and GNP18.



Amenity space.


Policy DES5 of the SOLP relates to outdoor amenity space and requires that a private outdoor garden or amenity areas should be provided for all new dwellings. The amount of land should be provided for amenity space will be determined by the size of the dwelling.


The South Oxfordshire Design Guide sets out the minimum areas based on the number of bedrooms. For 3 bedroom properties and above, at least 100 square metres should be provided.


An inability to provide the minimum amenity space and or parking provision can be an indicator of an over development of the site.



Each plot provides for in excess of 100 square metres of garden area. The size of the proposed gardens  when considered in the context of surrounding properties are not so small that they are out of keeping with the established character of the area and provide for adequate space for the occupants in line with Policy DES5 of the SOLP in my view.





Policy EP4 of the SOLP relates to matters of flooding and states that the risk of flooding will be minimised through;

i)              directing new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding;

ii)             ensuring that all new development addresses the effective management of all sources of flood risk;

iii)            ensuring that development does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere; and

iv)           ensuring wider environmental benefits of development in relation to flood risk.


Policy INF4 of the SOLP relates to water resources and requires that all new development proposals must demonstrate that there is or will be adequate water supply, surface water, foul drainage and sewerage treatment capacity to serve the whole development.



The applicant has provided drainage details and an amended plan. The council’s Drainage Engineer has no objection to surface water and foul water details. The impact of the development will be acceptable and accord with Policies EP4 and INF4 of the SOLP.


Carbon reduction.


Policy DES10 of the SOLP requires that all new build residential development must achieve at least a 40% reduction in carbon emissions compared with a code 2013 Building Regulations compliant base case. This reduction is to be secured through renewable energy and other low carbon technologies and/ or energy efficiency measures. It goes on to state that an energy statement must be submitted to demonstrate compliance with the policy and how the development will comply with this.




The application includes an energy statement. It demonstrates that the proposed building would amount to a 40% reduction in line with the requirements of the policy.


A condition is proposed that seeks a verification report to be submitted to the council before the building is occupied.





The development is CIL liable to the amount of £172, 217.45





The development creates 4 dwellings in a sustainable location in one of the ‘larger villages’ in the district. The development will not result in a harmful impact to the setting of the adjoining conservation area, the wider landscape of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It will not result in a harmful impact to highway safety or create a materially harmful impact to the occupants of nearby properties. In conjunction with the attached conditions that include tree protection measures, retention of parking spaces and details of drainage and electrical charging points plan policies the proposal accords with the Development Plan Policies.





That planning permission is granted subject to the following conditions;



Standard conditions

1 : Commencement 3 yrs - Full Planning Permission

2 : Approved plans *


Pre-commencement conditions

3 : Surface Water Drainage

4 : Tree protection (implementation as approved)


Prior to occupation conditions

5 : Works to the Highway

6 : Existing vehicular access

7 : Parking & Manoeuvring Areas Retained

8 : Energy Statement Verification

9 : Electric Vehicles Charging Point (implementation)


Compliance conditions

10 : Materials as on plan

11 : Obscure glazing

12 : Drainage as approved

13: Utility route details



Author:           Mr. P Bowers


Contact No    01235 422600