|
6.0
|
PLANNING
CONSIDERATIONS
|
|
6.1
|
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)
|
|
6.2
|
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.
|
|
6.3
|
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 in SOLP) will be acceptable; provided an important open space of
public, environmental, historical or ecological value is not lost,
nor an important public view harmed
|
|
6.4
|
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.
|
|
6.5
|
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.
|
|
6.6
|
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.
|
|
6.7
|
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.
|
|
6.8
|
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
|
|
6.9
|
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.
|
|
6.10
|
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.
|
|
6.11
|
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.
|
|
6.12
|
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.
|
|
6.13
|
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.
|
|
6.14
|
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;
|
|
6.15
|
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.
|
|
6.16
|
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.
|
|
6.17
|
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.
|
|
6.18
|
In my view, and that of the Council’s
Conservation Officer the development accords with the design and
heritage policies of the development plan.
|
|
6.19
|
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.
|
|
6.20
|
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.
|
|
6.21
|
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.
|
|
6.22
|
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 current scheme was designed, and
application submitted when the previous version of the South
Oxfordshire Design Guide 2016 (SODG 2016) was adopted supplementary
planning guidance. Section 7 of that document sets out the minimum
back to back distance between rear elevations between habitable
rooms. The SODG 2016 advises that there should be at least a 25
metre minimum distance. However during the course of the
application, the SODG 2016 has been superseded with the newly
adopted Joint South and Vale Design Guide (JSVDG). The new design
guide sets a lower back to back distance of 23 metres.
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 the previously adopted 25 metres distance and also the
newly adopted 23 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 23 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.
|
|
6.23
|
The distance between the front elevation of
these new properties and the rear elevation of the existing Stow
House also exceeds the 23 metre distance suggested in the new
design guide. I am also satisfied that in relation to the impact on
Stow House, the level of overlooking is not materially harmful.
|
|
6.24
|
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.
|
|
6.25
|
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.
|
|
6.26
|
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.
|
|
6.27
|
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
JSVDG 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.
|
|
6.28
|
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.
|
|
6.29
|
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.
|
|
6.30
|
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.
|
|
6.31
|
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.
|
|
6.32
|
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.
|
|
6.33
|
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.
|
|
6.34
|
In agreement with the Tree Officer, I am of
the view that the development accords with the SOLP landscape
policies.
|
|
6.35
|
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.
|
|
6.36
|
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
|
|
6.37
|
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.
|
|
6.38
|
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.
|
|
6.39
|
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.
|
|
6.40
|
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.
|
|
6.41
|
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.
|
|
6.42
|
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.
|
|
6.43
|
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 JSVDG 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.
|
|
6.44
|
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.
|
|
6.45
|
Drainage.
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.
|
|
6.46
|
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.
|
|
6.47
|
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.
|
|
6.48
|
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.
|
|
6.49
|
CIL.
The development is CIL liable to the amount of
£172, 217.45
|