|
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 the East
Hagbourne Neighbourhood Plan (EHNP).
|
|
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.
- Impact on
setting of the East Hagbourne Conservation Area.
- Neighbour
impact.
- Impact on
trees.
- Impact on
ecology.
- Impact on
archaeology.
- 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
Smaller Villages as defined in the settlement hierarchy (shown in
Appendix 7 in SOLP) will be acceptable.
Policy H8 of SOLP relates to housing in
‘Smaller Villages’, such as East Hagbourne, where they
accord with Policy H16.
Policy H16 relates to infill development and
states that within ‘Smaller’ and ‘Other’
villages, development will be limited to infill development and
redevelopment of previously developed land or buildings.
Infill is defined in Policy H16 as the filling
of a small gap in an otherwise continuous built-up frontage or on
other sites within settlements where the site is closely surrounded
by buildings. The scale of infill should be appropriate to its
location.
Policy H1 of the EHNP states that development
proposals including infill within the built-up area should accord
with policies within the EHNP and the development plan for the
district.
|
|
6.4
|
The first step
in the assessment is to consider whether the site is within the
settlement.
The extracts
below show the application site area in the context of its
surroundings and a block plan showing the position of the new
dwelling and garage;
|
|
6.5
|
In your
officers view the position of the site, in line with the southern
boundary of the dwelling to the east at Lower Cross Farm and
between that property and the property to the west at South Grange,
I am of the view that the site is located within the
settlement.
|
|
6.6
|
The second step
is to consider whether or not the development meets the definition
of infill.
As can be seen
by the block plan the proposed dwelling will have an adjacent
building to the east, a dwelling to the north and a dwelling to the
north west some 20 metres away. In my view the fact that
there is built form on three sides is sufficient to be considered
‘closely surrounded by buildings’ and this principle
has been confirmed in a number of previous appeal
decisions.
I conclude that
it meets the definition of infill development and consequently
accords with Policy H16 of the SOLP.
|
|
6.7
|
I am satisfied
that the principle of erecting a dwelling in this position accord
with policy and is acceptable.
|
|
6.8
|
Impact on setting of the East Hagbourne
Conservation Area.
The
heritage asset to consider in the case of this development is the
East Hagbourne Conservation Area. The impact to consider is how the
proposed development affects the character and appearance of the
conservation area.
Section 72 (1) of the Planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires 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.
Paragraph
202 of the NPPF states that where a development proposal will lead
to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated
heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public
benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its
optimum viable use
This advice is followed through
into the development plan by Policy ENV8 of the SOLP which relates
to conservation areas and Policy VC5 of the EHNP.
|
|
6.9
|
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.
Policy VC3 of
the EHNP states that new development or alterations to
existing buildings should have regard to their local design context
and building design and quality of materials should be sympathetic
to and be in keeping with existing buildings in each character area
of the village.
|
|
6.10
|
This
application is for a new dwelling in the East Hagbourne
Conservation Area. The southern part of the site (approximately
below the hedge) forms part of the setting of Hacca’s Brook,
a natural corridor, wild in character, which softly transitions to
paddock land within the application site.
Views across
the site can be seen from the adjacent public footpath which is a
recreational route through the village and historically (since the
C19) a connection between the brook and agricultural land to the
south, and the centre of the village to the north.
|
|
6.11
|
The site is one
of a small number of open spaces within the conservation area and
identified in the neighbourhood plan and conservation area
appraisal as an area of locally distinctive landscape character, an
example of the small parcels of land farmed by individuals
following enclosure in 1840-3. Views across the site illustrate the
historic relationship of the water beds, orchards and parcels of
agricultural land which contributed to the development of the
village.
|
|
6.12
|
Change of use
to recreational land would un-wild this open space with
paraphernalia, obscuring the historic relationship of the
agricultural land and brook to the village and harming the
character and appearance of the conservation area.
|
|
6.13
|
The amended
proposals reduce the site area so that the entirety of the site now
lies outside of the locally distinctive area of
‘Hacca’s Brook and its setting’ as identified in
figure 7 of the East Hagbourne Neighbourhood Plan.
The original
site area for the development, including what would have been a
significant garden area extending south that could potentially have
been filled with outbuildings and domestic paraphernalia, is shown
below and can be compared to the current area shown in paragraph
6.4.
The amended
site area is an ‘important open space’ as identified by
the East Hagbourne Character Assessment and Conservation Area
Appraisal but is outside of the immediate setting of Hacca’s
brook. Your officers therefore consider the harm to the
conservation area is reduced from that previously proposed but
remaining less than substantial.
|
|
6.14
|
Amendments have
also been made to the rear elevation of the dwelling improving its
visual appearance of the building from views to the
rear.
|
|
6.15
|
To minimise the
impact and to control built development south of the existing built
development extending into the open space, a condition is proposed
which seeks to remove permitted development rights for outbuildings
to be erected in the rear garden.
|
|
6.16
|
Your officers
are satisfied that the less than substantial harm identified by the
Conservation officer is low. In conjunction with the removal of
permitted development rights and a condition that requires approval
of materials, the benefit of creating a new dwelling in a
sustainable location within the village outweighs this harm.
Consequently, I am satisfied that the character and appearance of
the East Hagbourne Conservation Area will be conserved and the
proposal accords with the relevant policies within the development
plan.
|
|
6.17
|
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.
|
|
6.18
|
The new
dwelling will sit relatively in line with the dwelling to the east
at Lower Cross Farm. The juxtaposition between those two
buildings in conjunction with the distance ensures that it will not
give rise to an unacceptable overbearing or oppressive impact or
result in the loss of any direct sunlight to that
property.
There are two
east facing windows at first floor level in the new dwelling. The
southern/rear most window serves a bedroom and is secondary window
to the main window on the rear elevation whilst the forward
northernmost window serves an ensuite bathroom.
The ensuite
bathroom window provides views of the more communal area forward of
the dwelling at Lower Cross Farm and as such I did not
consider that it provides for any material or harmful
overlooking.
The secondary
bedroom window at the rear has the potential to look towards the
rear garden of Lower Cross Farm in a more direct way then
the windows on the rear elevation of the new dwelling. Therefore, I
think it appropriate on the basis that this is not the primary
window to this room that this window is obscured glazed and fixed
shut below 1.7 metres to prevent overlooking.
|
|
6.19
|
The property
known as South Grange is located to the west with the
dwelling of that property sited to the northwest of the new
dwelling.
The proposed
garage building will have the greatest impact due to its closer
proximity to the boundary the dwelling house.
However, the
majority of the built form of the garage sits parallel to the side
elevation of South Grange. It does not include windows at
first floor level in the rear roof slope of the building thereby
ensuring it does not overlook. In addition, the distance between
the bungalow and the garage is such that I am satisfied that it is
not overbearing or oppressive.
|
|
6.20
|
The proposed
new dwelling is set further in the plot to the southeast of
South Grange. This distance away from the boundary is
sufficient, in my view, to ensure that the overall bulk and height
of the building does not create such an oppressive or overbearing
impact to South Grange that it would cause a level of
material harm that would justify the council in refusing planning
permission.
|
|
6.21
|
There are
windows on the western elevation of the proposed dwelling at first
floor level which look towards the rear garden of South
Grange. The forward most northern window is an ensuite bathroom
window and the southernmost window is a secondary bedroom
window.
On the basis
that the bedroom window is a secondary window with a south facing
first floor window on the rear of the dwelling also serving the
room, I am satisfied that it is entirely necessary and reasonable
to ensure that this window is obscured glazed and fixed shut below
1.7 metres to ensure no direct overlooking with the rear garden of
that property. Equally, I also deem it necessary to ensure that
such obscured glazing is also applied to the ensuite bathroom
window. Thereby ensuring that the development is not
unneighbourly.
|
|
6.22
|
A new dwelling
has recently been erected to the north of the application site
where the side of that property would face the front of the
proposed dwelling. The distance between the two buildings is in the
region of 20 metres. Whilst the council does not have a minimum
distance for a front to side relationship it does have one for rear
to side at 12 metres. The proposed distance far exceeds this to
such an extent that I am satisfied that there will be no material
overlooking of that property or oppressive or overbearing
impact.
|
|
6.23
|
Overall, and
after a detailed analysis your officers are of the view the
development is not unneighbourly and accords with Policy DES6 of
the SOLP.
|
|
6.24
|
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.
|
|
6.25
|
The trees
within this site and the adjacent sites are protected as they are
located within the East Hagbourne conservation area.
The applicant
has submitted an Arboricultural Method Statement August 2022. No
tree protection plan appears to have been submitted with this
report. A tree constraints plan is included showing the constraints
of existing trees.
|
|
6.26
|
The submitted
plan shows that the proposed dwelling and garage are located
outside of the root protection areas of the adjacent trees and
therefore are unlikely to impact on them, subject to suitable tree
protection measures being implemented during construction
works.
Details of
drainage and utility routes will be required to ensure that they
avoid trees. In addition, appropriate landscaping to assimilate the
development into its surroundings is considered necessary and
therefore two conditions are proposed in relation to tree
protection and landscaping details to be submitted to and approved
in writing by the council.
|
|
6.27
|
In conjunction
with these conditions the proposal will then accord with Policy
ENV1 of the SOLP.
|
|
6.28
|
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.
|
|
6.29
|
At present, the
site is currently undeveloped and has many habitats across the site
which would be suitable to support some protected
species.
The Preliminary
Ecological Assessment (PEA) advises the creation of a construction
zone separating the area of development from the rest of the site
to protect the undeveloped areas of grassland. The PEA suggests the
primary habitats are amenity grassland and hardstanding, these are
of lower ecological value. The Council’s Countryside Officer
has advised that prior to the establishment of the construction
zone the long areas of grass are cut using a strimmer and then
maintained at a short length throughout the duration of the
development. This is to reduce the ecological value of the grass
and prevent reptile and amphibians from using the grass
area.
All other
habitats discussed within the PEA are either outside of the
construction zone or not being removed through development.
Therefore, any potential impact is negligible. Furthermore, the
planting of a native species hedgerow to mark the boundary of the
garden area of the dwelling from the wider site will help mitigate
long term impacts to these habitats.
There are no
priority habitats within the application site area.
|
|
6.30
|
The PEA makes
recommendations that bat and bird boxes are installed.
Consequently, a condition is included to ensure that the series of
mitigation measures and enhancement set out in the PEA are
undertaken. In addition, conditions which relate to the strimming
of the grass in the construction zone and that these measures are
undertaken prior to the dwelling being occupied are
included.
|
|
6.31
|
Your officers
are satisfied that in conjunction with these conditions the overall
development will accord with Policy ENV3 of the SOLP.
|
|
6.32
|
Impact on archaeology.
Policy ENV9 of
the SOLP relates specifically to archaeology and scheduled
monuments. It states that development must protect the site and setting of
Scheduled Monuments or nationally important designated or
undesignated archaeological remains and that applicants will be
expected to undertake an assessment of appropriate detail to
determine whether the development site is known to, or is likely
to, contain archaeological remains. Proposals must show the
development proposals have had regard to any such
remains.
|
|
6.33
|
The submitted
desk-based assessment concludes that the application site has a
potential to contain archaeological remains of medieval and/or
post-medieval date relating to early settlement that could be
impacted by development.
|
|
6.34
|
The County
Council Archaeologist has recommended that, the applicant should be
responsible for ensuring the implementation of an archaeological
monitoring and recording action (watching brief) to be maintained
during the period of construction. A condition to that effect forms
part of this recommendation and ensures compliance with Policy ENV9
of SOLP.
|
|
6.35
|
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.
|
|
6.36
|
The proposal
seeks the construction of a detached dwelling. Given the proposal
is likely to increase the vehicular movements accessing and
egressing the site it has been recommended by the Highway Authority
that the existing access is widened so as to allow for two vehicles
to pass each other and prevent vehicles having to manoeuvre at the
access point onto the classified road.
|
|
6.37
|
A planning
condition requiring improvement to be made to the junction and a
condition which seeks to ensure the areas shown for parking are
provided before the house is occupied are proposed as part of this
recommendation. In conjunction with these conditions the proposal
will accord with Policy TRANS5 of the SOLP.
|
|
6.38
|
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 standard 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.
|
|
6.39
|
Although the
garden size has been reduced to address the concerns of the
conservation officer, the area shown on the current plans provides
an area in excess of the council’s minimum
standards.
It is similar
in overall size to the dwelling immediately to the east. I am
therefore satisfied that was is shown on the plans does not
represent an overdevelopment of this site and accords with Policy
DES5.
|
|
6.40
|
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.
|
|
6.41
|
The
council’s Drainage Engineer has considered the development in
the context of foul and surface water drainage provision. They have
no objection but have requested conditions to require detailed
schemes for both aspects to be considered and approved prior to the
commencement of development thereby ensuring compliance with
Policies EP4 and INF4 of the SOLP.
|
|
6.42
|
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.
|
|
6.43
|
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.
|
|
6.44
|
CIL.
The development
is CIL liable to the amount of £83, 301.82
|