APPLICATION NO

	APPLICATION NO.	P20/S4467/FUL and P20/S4469/LB
	APPLICATION TYPE	FULL APPLICATION and LISTED BUILDING
	REGISTERED	26.11.2020
	PARISH	DORCHESTER
	WARD MEMBER(S)	Robin Bennett
	APPLICANT	Keith Ives
	SITE	Bishop Court Farm 91 High Street Dorchester-On-Thames, OX10 7HP
	PROPOSAL	Conversion of farm buildings to residential use and creation of new vehicular access to site from Abingdon Road
	AMENDMENT	Amended by package of drawings and reports received on 27 October 2021 and 11 February 2022 and as amplified by traffic report received 15 June 2022.
	OFFICER	Will Darlison

1.0	INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSAL
1.1	The application is referred to planning committee because the Officer’s recommendation for approval conflicts with the views of Dorchester on Thames Parish Council, who object to the proposed development.
1.2	Bishops Court Farm is located on the northeast side of Dorchester on Thames. The site is part of the farmyard area associated with Bishop Court, a Grade II listed farmhouse dating from the C16 and sited on the remains of Bishops Palace. Bishop Court Farm is the largest farm in the village and is mostly of grade 2 agricultural land (source Dorchester on Thames Neighbourhood Plan pages 34 and 35). A plan identifying the site is attached at Appendix 1 to this report.
1.3	The application site is subject to the following constraints: · Oxford Green Belt. · Area of archaeological interest: The Roman settlement at Dorchester (Bishop’s Court is also thought to be the location of the Medieval Bishop's Palace and Tithe Barn.) · Dorchester Conservation Area · Grade II listed farmhouse, Bishop's Court · Grade II listed granary – part of farmyard. The granary stands approximately 70m to the north-west of the farmhouse, beyond the group of barns. It is not shown on the Tithe map of 1847 but is present by the first edition of the Ordnance Survey, dating from 1877. The building is largely unchanged. · Dorchester-on-Thames Footpath 13 runs through the site · Planning permission is extant for the conversion of the range of barns to a single dwelling under application reference P21/S4405/FUL.
1.4	The application seeks full planning permission and listed building consent for the change of use and conversion of redundant farm buildings in the central range from agricultural to residential use. The scheme proposes one 2-bedroom unit and two 5-bedroom units. The dwellings would face into a central courtyard arrangement of mostly single storey accommodation although all three units have some first-floor accommodation in their roof space. Amenity garden areas for each dwelling is proposed on the outer facing aspects of the buildings. An area of parking and a garage is provided for each dwelling. The proposal involves the demolition of 3 unlisted buildings.
1.5	The applications have been amended to provide a new vehicular access across the open field to the north giving access onto Abingdon Road. The new access is required because the garden of Unit A removes the existing access route. Additional amendments have been submitted to respond to Conservation and Countryside Officer comments.
1.6	Reduced copies of the plans accompanying the application are attached at Appendix 2 to this report. All the plans and representations can be viewed on the Council’s website www.southoxon.gov.uk under the planning application reference number.

2.0

SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS & REPRESENTATIONS

2.1

The comments below represent the latest comments on the scheme. Full details of the representations can be viewed on the Council’s website www.southoxon.gov.uk under the planning reference number.

Dorchester Parish Council – Objection.

· The proposed development would sever what is currently the main vehicle route through the farm.

· The proposed access from Abingdon Road would result in localised adverse landscape impact and leave an awkward strip of land between the access road and the field boundary to the west.

· A Traffic Impact Assessment should be carried out to look at the effect on the road and amenity of the village of the proposed new access.

· It would be beneficial to the village if a masterplan for Bishop Court Farm was prepared and agreed with SODC. There are currently a considerable number of individual developments and there are concerns about their cumulative impact.

Objection maintained following submission of Traffic Impact Assessment

· The report does not directly address the impact or otherwise of a new access as opposed to continuing the use of the existing High Street access.

· The justification for the new access from Abingdon Road is based on assumptions about a substantial range of additional activities at the farm, most of which have not got planning permission.

· Continued concerns over the lack of an agreed masterplan which makes it very difficult to assess the need for, and location of any new access.

Conservation Officer - Holding objection to the original proposals on the following grounds:

· Reduction required in the number of rooflights and amount of glazing on the outer faces of the proposals.

· Removal of walling within the courtyard required.

· Reinstatement of northern side of courtyard within building or other structure to enclose the space required.

· Reconsider the garden areas so they project to a lesser degree into the open parts of the site.

Objection withdrawn subject to case officer being satisfied that scheme complies with Para. 196 of the NPPF and provides sufficient public benefits over the less than substantial harm that remains.

Countryside Officer – Holding objection to original scheme.

· Exact positions of the bat tubes and bat tiles is required.

Objection withdrawn upon submission of additional information subject to conditions.

Drainage – No objection subject to conditions.

Highways Liaison Officer (Oxfordshire County Council) – Holding objection to original scheme due to the proposal obstructing roadway to other existing buildings on site.

No objection to the proposed amended scheme subject to conditions.

Countryside Access – Comments provided

Waste Management Officer – Comments provided

County Archaeological Services – No objection subject to conditions.

Neighbour representations – Objections x (21)

· The proposed development will have an adverse impact on the character of Dorchester on Thames and erode its historic setting.

· It is within the Dorchester Conservation Area, Oxford Green Belt and curtilage of a listed building.

· Historic cart horse stables are to be demolished. These are an important and rare part of the history of farming.

· Roman skeletons and artifacts unearthed under the site of Unit C

· The development would do nothing to enhance its environment.

· The proposal would encroach onto the farm road to an extent where it can no longer be used for vehicular access.

· The existing farm road is significant to the original farmyard and the proposal should take this into account.

· The design of the proposed housing is completely out of keeping in a rural location.

· If the farm is to continue where are the buildings needed to keep the animals?

· What is the need for housing at this farm?

· Concerned about volume and nature of traffic during the construction phase and day to day access. Request that a separate entrance to the farm for all vehicles accessing the construction site, for instance from Abingdon Road.

· The amended plans have an impact on all the development on Bishop Court Farm with respect to the severing of the access from High Street.

· The new access would likely give rise to further development on the farm.

· The proposal would have a harmful effect on the openness of the Green Belt.

· The farm is on land of historic and archaeological merit and needs to be preserved. The new road and building over a historic meadow will cause destruction of an important part of Dorchester.

· There is no mention of the traffic increase or projected traffic numbers from Bishops Court Farm onto and from Abingdon Road and High Street.

· No untrained person could possibly make comments on the amount of information provided by the applicant.

Support x (1)

· The proposal enhances the existing building while retaining a working farm.

· The latest plans include a new vehicular access road from Abingdon Road, I welcome this as it should help alleviate some of the problems resulting from the volume and type of traffic that is already accessing the site from the High Street.

· The new access should be appropriately landscaped so it would be in keeping with the existing buildings and their setting.

3.0

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

3.1

P21/S4405/FUL – Approved (07/02/2022)

Conversion of farm buildings for residential use.

P21/S4407/LB - Approved (07/02/2022)

Conversion of farm buildings for residential use.

P20/S3666/FUL - Approved (23/07/2021)

Relocation of existing agricultural middle barn to southern end (As clarified by Written Scheme of Investigation submitted on 7 May 2021).

P20/S2379/N4B - Approved (13/08/2020)

Change of use of agricultural building to single dwellinghouse, located at Bishops Court Farm, Dorchester-on-Thames. Access via track western side of High Street.

P18/S2476/FUL – Approved (30/10/2018)

Conversion of farm buildings for residential use.

P18/S2477/LB – Approved (30/10/2018)

Conversion of farm buildings for residential use.

4.0	ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
4.1	N/A

5.0	POLICY & GUIDANCE
5.1	National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance
5.2	South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 (SOLP) Policies: DES1 - Delivering High Quality Development DES10 - Carbon Reduction DES2 - Enhancing Local Character DES5 - Outdoor Amenity Space DES6 - Residential Amenity DES7 - Efficient Use of Resources DES8 - Promoting Sustainable Design ENV1 - Landscape and Countryside ENV2 - Biodiversity - Designated sites, Priority Habitats and Species ENV3 - Biodiversity ENV4 - Watercourses ENV6 - Historic Environment ENV7 - Listed Buildings ENV8 - Conservation Areas ENV9 - Archaeology and Scheduled Monuments EP3 - Waste collection and Recycling H1 - Delivering New Homes H20 - Extensions to Dwellings INF4 - Water Resources STRAT1 - The Overall Strategy STRAT6 - Green Belt TRANS5 - Consideration of Development Proposals
5.3	Dorchester on Thames Neighbourhood Plan Policies: DoT 1 - Heritage Area considerations DoT 3 - Important views DoT 6 - Retain green spaces (footpaths) DoT 8 - New housing DoT11 - Car parking for residential development
5.4	Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents
5.5	South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse Joint Design Guide 2022
5.6	Other Relevant Legislation
5.7	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.
5.8	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.

6.0

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

6.1

The following considerations relate to the listed building application and the planning application.

Impact on the special architectural interest, historic fabric and setting of the listed buildings.

The following considerations relate solely to the planning application.

· Current policy.

· Impact on the openness of the Oxford Green Belt.

· Impact on neighbours.

· Design, appearance, and impact on the character of the Dorchester on Thames Conservation Area.

· Impact on ecology.

· Impact on archaeological interest.

· Drainage.

· Impact on parking and access.

· Waste management.

· Impact on public rights of way.

· Carbon reduction.

· Other issues.

6.2

Current policy. 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.

6.3

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.

6.4

Development which is not in accordance with an up-to-date development plan should be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

6.5

The spatial strategy in Policy STRAT1 of the SOLP establishes a settlement hierarchy where the amount and location of new housing is related to the availability of facilities and services in order to achieve a sustainable pattern of development. Policy H1 of SOLP also deals with the delivery of new homes, allowing new housing on allocated sites (including Neighbourhood Plan (NP) allocations) as well as specific circumstances where residential development not allocated in the development plan will be permitted.

6.6

Policy H1 3. vii) allows for residential development where ‘it would bring redundant or disused buildings into residential use and would enhance its immediate surroundings’. This part of the policy is not the subject of any definition or test to demonstrate that a building is redundant or disused.

6.7

There are no specific policies in the neighbourhood plan that relate to the conversion of existing buildings outside the main body of the village. The historic policies that are relevant are DoT 1 and DoT 3 (views and vistas)

6.8

In this case, as in the previous submissions for the conversion of the buildings to a single dwelling, the proposals involve the demolition of utilitarian farm buildings and the retention and conversion of buildings that are worthy of retention. As such, I consider that the principle of development is acceptable subject to complying with the relevant development plan policies.

6.9

Impact on the openness of the Oxford Green Belt. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. This is set out in Section 13 of the advice from Central Government in the National Planning Policy Framework and supported in Policy STRAT6 of the SOLP.

6.10

The five purposes of the green belt are;

- to check the unrestricted urban sprawl of large built up areas;

- to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;

- to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;

- to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and

- to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

6.11

In addition, there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other circumstances.

6.12

Paragraph 150 of the NPPF advises that certain forms of development should not be regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt. They are as follows;

• mineral extraction;

• engineering operations;

• local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location;

• the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction;

• material changes in the use of land (such as changes of use for outdoor sport or recreation, or for cemeteries and burial grounds); and

• development, including buildings, brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order or Neighbourhood Development Order.

6.13

In this case the proposals involve the demolition of some utilitarian farm buildings and the retention and conversion of buildings; this development is not inappropriate in my view and falls within development defined as acceptable in Para 150 of the NPPF highlighted in bold above. As such, I consider that the principle of development in terms of the Green Belt is acceptable and would not be harmful to openness.

6.14

The construction of the new vehicular access from Abingdon Road would in my view be an engineering operation, which also falls within development defined as acceptable in Para 150 of the NPPF highlighted in bold above. It is therefore considered to be acceptable in the terms of its impact on the Oxford Green Belt.

6.15

Impact on neighbours. Policy DES6 of the SOLP requires that development should demonstrate that there would not be significant adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring uses with respect to loss of light, dominance or visual intrusion, noise, emissions, pollution or external lighting.

6.16

The central range of barns to be converted are located immediately to the north of 93 High Street, which is a modest two-storey dwelling sited between the farm buildings and the boundary of the rear garden of 91 High Street. The built form of Unit C along the shared boundary would remain albeit in a converted form. It would be an enclosed building for garaging/storage and living accommodation, which in my opinion would not result in any materially harmful impact on the amenities of 93 High Street particularly given the potential for agricultural activity that could currently take place in the central barns.

6.17

91 High Street lies to the south and east of the central barns with its garden situated to the south of Unit C. The proposed development would not involve an increase in the size and scale of buildings that are closest to the southern boundary of the site. The proposal does not involve any unneighbourly overlooking and the residential use of the central barns would be considered less likely to cause impact than the existing agricultural use.

6.18

Located along the northern boundary of proposed Unit A is a café operating from a converted farm building. This is a modest premises with limited outdoor seating. The operating hours of this café are 08:00-17:00 Monday to Wednesday, 08:00-23:00 Thursday to Saturday and 08:00-22:00 on Sundays. This is not considered to be an incompatible combination of use considering the aforementioned limited approved outdoor seating associated with the café. In addition, the garden layout of Unit A is such that the area of primary usage would be in the southern section away from the shared boundary with the café.

6.19

Finally, it is considered that the three units being proposed would not exert any unneighbourly impact upon each other. They each have a clearly delineated garden area, which due to relative position of the properties would not be overlooked or overshadowed. I am therefore satisfied that the development is compliant with development plans policy DES6.

6.20

Design, appearance, and impact on the character of the Dorchester on Thames Conservation Area. Policy DES1 of the SOLP states that all new development must be of a high-quality design with policy DES2 ensuring that it must respond to and enhance local character.

6.21

The application site is also located within the Dorchester on Thames Conservation Area, policy ENV8 of the SOLP requires that proposals for new development should be sensitively designed and should not cause harm to the historic environment. Policy DoT1 of the Dorchester on Thames Neighbourhood Plan seeks similar aims.

6.22

The open fields around Bishops Court Farm and views across the site have been identified as important open spaces and views in the conservation area character appraisal and the DoT NP. These are key characteristics that should be preserved or enhanced in any new proposals.

6.23

I consider that the proposed material palette would contribute to the converted buildings continuing to be understood as part of the earlier agricultural farmyard function at the site. There are examples where the existing timber cladding and tiled roofs would be retained on buildings whilst black stained timber cladding is being added to others. Where there are expanses of corrugated roof sheeting this is to be replaced with standing seamed zinc. The addition of a contemporary metal roof to sections of the conversion in my view is proportionate in the amount proposed and would be a complimentary addition to the palette rather than harming the established character of the site.

6.24

The Conservation Officer has also assessed the proposals and the submitted Heritage Impact Assessment and they agree that the importance of the farm buildings lies in the collective contribution to the rural and agricultural character of the Dorchester Conservation Area. They highlighted a number of areas where the development, as originally submitted, could be improved to mitigate harm to the conservation area. This included the reduction in the number of rooflights and glazing on the outer faces of the units, the removal of walling within the courtyard, reinstatement of the northern side of the courtyard with building or other structure to enclose the space and to reconsider the garden areas that would extend domestic curtilage out into the open countryside.

6.25

The Conservation Officer has confirmed that the amended plans better preserve the agricultural character of the buildings and they continue to reinforce the rural and agricultural character of this part of the Conservation Area. The changes are relatively minor but effective and the Conservation Officer was satisfied that the buildings would broadly reference the character of traditional agricultural buildings that existed on the site. The private garden spaces for the dwellings have been reduced extending less into the areas of open surrounding countryside and parkland associated with the listed building. The reduction in the garden area has not completely overcome the less than substantial harm as there would still be some local erosion of the character of this part of the conservation area beyond the approved for one dwelling.

6.26

The concerns of the conservation officer are noted, however the barns remaining in the central range, are of a modern utilitarian appearance that are not of a high quality. In addition, the external gardens would not extend beyond the existing concrete apron to the east of Units B and C and the roadway to the west of Unit A. Therefore, I consider that they preserve the openness of the wider site by being situated exclusively on previously developed land. There would also be a high level of visual permeability to the gardens with the use post and rail fencing. This would allow for valuable legibility of the buildings and their agricultural vernacular. Consequently, I consider the less than substantial harm that remains is counterbalanced with the improvement to the visual amenity of the site and the legibility of the rural agricultural character.

6.27

I am also of the opinion that the proposals would help to secure the optimal viable use of the buildings, in part as continuing to stand vacant will only contribute to the worsening of their overall condition.

6.28

The proposed access from Abingdon Road has also been considered by the Conservation Officer. The 1846 tithe map extract in the heritage statement indicates that historically, the principal access to the farm was from the north roughly aligning with the route of the proposed access. Concerns about an overly engineered approach which would be detrimental to the character of the area have been overcome in the amended plans. The amended details show a more informal farm track character to the surfacing and incorporates new planting. The conservation officer now has no heritage objection to this aspect of the proposal.

6.29

Impact on the special architectural interest, historic fabric and setting of the listed buildings. Policy ENV7 of the SOLP requires that development that would affect the setting of a listed building must be sympathetic in terms of its siting, size, scale, height, alignment, materials and finishes and conserve, enhance or better reveal those elements which contribute to its setting.

6.30

The Conservation Officer has commented that the proposal would see the retention of the surviving listed walling of the medieval tithe barn encased within one of the modern barns. This approach is welcomed as it recognises the historic importance of these remnants particularly as there is an extant permission from 1970 that could result in the wholesale demolition of this section of wall. They have considered the principle of the demolition having already been agreed as part of the previously approved schemes and as such concluded that historic fabric would be preserved over and above what could be expected for the purposes of the listed building consent application.

6.31

In terms of the impact on the setting of 91 High Street and the adjacent listed granary. I consider that the proposal will adequately preserve the contribution that this site makes to the significance of these listed buildings by maintaining the agricultural character of the group of buildings and removing large utilitarian structures, as discussed earlier. Conditions requiring the approval of the external materials are to be included to ensure the high-quality appearance to the residential conversion in the interest of protecting the identified heritage assets.

6.32

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.

6.33

The Countryside Officer has no objection to the proposal now that the position of the proposed bat tubes and the locations of the bat tiles have been confirmed. The bat surveys indicate that Unit A supports a day roost and night roost with bats considered absent from the other farm buildings. It is considered that the proposed development has the scope to adequately mitigate against the impacts of the development and that a bat licence would likely be granted by Natural England.

6.34

In respect of the new access from Abingdon Road, the Countryside Office has confirmed that the proposed access road is in an area of modified grassland to the north of the farm building complex and that this is not priority habitat nor a notable constraint to development. The loss of an existing hedgerow, which forms the boundary of the application site was of concern as it is a priority habitat. However, this loss can be addressed via a condition requiring the planting of a new hedge in this location, supplementing the condition requiring the implementation of the landscaping scheme.

6.35

It was noted that surveys undertaken have shown that the ponds closest to the site of the new access do not support Great Crested Newts and as such they are not considered to be a constraint to development.

6.36

Badger setts have been identified on the site and are to be retained. The Countryside Officer has confirmed that the proposals include sensitive working methods and embedded avoidance/mitigation practices. The access road has been sited so that it would be greater than 20 metres away from the closest sett entrance.

6.37

The badger and bat protection measures and mitigation are to be controlled by compliance conditions. With these measures secured the development would comply with development plan policies.

6.38

Impact on archaeological interest. Policy ENV9 of the SOLP requires that where development could disturb or adversely affect archaeological remains applicants will be expected to undertake appropriate desk-based assessment or field evaluation.

6.39

The site is important in terms of archaeology and the OCC Archaeologist has confirmed that the submitted Written Scheme of Investigation is acceptable. A condition is included to ensure that the watching brief is carried out. This is in my opinion sufficient to ensure that the proposals comply with Policy ENV9 of the SOLP.

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

6.41

The details of foul and surface water drainage have been submitted with the application. The Drainage Engineer has reviewed the details and confirmed them be acceptable. Therefore, conditions requiring compliance with those details are recommended.

6.42

Impact on parking and access. Policy TRANS5 of the SOLP seeks to ensure that development does not harm highway safety and provides for sufficient parking and turning areas and TRANS2 of the SOLP promotes the use of sustainable forms of transport such as walking and cycling.

6.43

The application has been amended to provide a new access route into the site from the north via Abingdon Road. Ultimately this would provide access to the remaining buildings in the northern part of the farm site with the proposed residential units utilising the existing access from High Street to the east. The Highway Liaison Officer has confirmed that the visibility splays demonstrated for the new access meets guidance and are considered acceptable in this location. Furthermore, the access would have sufficient width to allow for two vehicles to pass in addition to providing a passing space. The proposal is unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on the highway network. Parking and visions splays can be dealt with by appropriate conditions.

6.44

The Parish Council requested a Traffic Impact Survey to justify the new vehicular access and to demonstrate its impact. A report has been submitted but no additional comments were received from the Highway Authority beyond those set out in para. 6.43. It should be noted that the Traffic Impact Survey was not requested by the Highway Liaison Officer.

6.45

The Parish Council maintain their objection on the grounds that it is unclear whether the new access would decrease traffic or relieve pressure on the High Street. They also commented that the report did not address later evening traffic with respect to the extended hours of the café. These matters are noted but do not represent reasons to resist the proposed development particularly as the Highway Authority has no objection to the proposal.

6.46

The Parish Council are concerned that the new access would be used in connection with future developments at the site where no planning applications have been submitted to date. The site has been the subject of pre-application discussions for comprehensive development where it was stated that a masterplan for the site should be prepared and agreed with the District Council. The Parish Council consider that the absence of a masterplan plan makes it difficult to assess the cumulative impact of wider development. The Parish Council has concerns about the need for and the location of the new access considering the potential future aspirations at the site.

6.47

All planning applications must be considered on their own merits based on the description of proposed development. Whilst future development across the wider farm site is of importance, these elements do not form a part of this application and cannot influence the decisions on current applications. To reiterate, there are no objections from the Highway Authority to the new access route or the conversion of the barns. In addition, the requirement of a masterplan to form part of an application under Policy DES4 of the SOLP is for proposals on allocated sites, and major development. This application is neither and as such I do not view there being grounds to resist planning permission based on potential future development. Any future applications at the site will be assessed in full on their own merits.

6.48

Waste management. Each of the proposed dwellings would be provided with 1 x 240lt wheeled bin for recycling, 1 x 180lt wheeled bin for refuse, 1 x 23lt food bin for storage outside the property and 1 x 7lt food bin for storage inside the property. The proposed layout has been designed so that the bins can be stored within the property boundary and avoid the need for the bins to pass over level changes or through the property.

6.49

The Waste Management team has requested tracking plans for a full-sized waste vehicle entering, turning and exiting the site via the existing access from the High Street. However, given the existing onsite conditions where two properties: 91 High Street and 93 High Street are already adequately served in terms of bin collection with an extant permission for a further dwelling at the central barns, such information is not reasonably required or necessary in my view.

6.50

Impact on public rights of way. Policy CF1 of the SOLP sets out how essential community facilities and services shall be safeguarded. This includes the protection Public Rights of Way.

6.51

The proposed garden areas for Units B and C would occupy the area to the west of the buildings, which is currently a concrete area of the farmyard. There is a public footpath (DORFP13) that crosses this area with an unrestricted width. An application to divert the footpath has been lodged with the District Council and it is still under consideration. Therefore, in my view, subject to the diversion application being approved the proposed development would comply with Policy CF1. It should be noted that consultees on the footpath diversion application have indicated that they reserve making comments on that matter until planning permission has been granted. Please note that it is a requirement that both planning permission and a footpath diversion be obtained so it is not viewed as inappropriate to recommended planning permission in this instance.

6.52

Comments from the Countryside Access Officer at Oxfordshire County Council have commented that during the construction of the new access road that both footpaths present at the site must remain open and available for continued safe use by the public. They highlighted that if this process to not be possible then they would need to be closed using a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order.

6.53

Carbon reduction. Policy DES8 of the SOLP requires that all new development be designed to improve resilience to the effects of climate change, which include addressing increasing temperatures and wind speeds, heavy rainfall and snowfall events and the need for water conservation and storage. In addition, Policy DES7 of the SOLP requires that development make provision for the effective use and protection of natural resources.

6.54

The proposal involves the conversion of the central range of barns at the site. This form of development is in accordance with criterion (viii) of Policy DES7 of the SOLP, which supports the re-using of vacant buildings and redeveloping previously developed land. I am therefore satisfied that the proposals comply with SOLP policy.

6.55

Other issues. In this case CIL is liable for the development because it involves the creation of three new dwellings.

7.0

CONCLUSION

7.1

Officers recommend that planning permission is granted because the conversion of existing buildings is acceptable principle and not inappropriate in the Oxford Green Belt. The design and appearance of the converted buildings would be in keeping with the area and be of a sufficient quality that they would make a positive contribution to the site. The development would not be harmful to the setting of the adjacent listed building or the amenities of neighbouring dwellings. An acceptable level of off-street parking provision is proposed and adequate access to the site is be provided. The proposed vehicular access would not pose harm to the safety of users of the highway network, the character and appearance of the conservation area or the landscape of the site. In conjunction with the attached conditions the proposal accords with development plan policies.

7.2

Officers recommend that listed building consent is granted because the proposal involves the demolition of some utilitarian farm buildings and the retention and conversion of buildings that are worthy of retention. The removal of the structures to be demolished would better reflect the plan form of the earlier farmyard in contrast to the current monolithic blocks and maintains the agricultural character of the group. The design and materials reflect local vernacular and building materials and are sympathetic to the character, appearance and setting of listed buildings. In conjunction with the attached conditions the proposal accords with development plan policies.

8.0	RECOMMENDATION
8.1	To grant Planning Permission subject to the following conditions:
8.2	1 : Commencement 3 years - Full Planning Permission 2 : Approved plans * 3 : Schedule of all materials required 4 : Joinery details required 5 : Withdrawal of P.D. (Part 1 Class A, B, C and D) 6 : Withdrawal of P.D. (Part 1 Class E) - no buildings etc 7 : Withdrawal of P.D. (Part 2 Class A) - no walls, fences etc 8 : Landscaping implementation 9 : New hedge required 10 : Wildlife Protection (mitigation as approved) - Badgers 11 : Wildlife Protection (mitigation as approved) - Bats 12 : Surface Water Drainage Implementation 13 : Foul Water Drainage Implementation 14 : Archaeology (Implementation of WSI) 15 : New vehicular access * 16 : Vision splay protection * 17 : Parking & Manoeuvring 18 : No Garage conversion into accommodation
8.3	To grant Listed Building Consent subject to the following conditions:
8.4	1 : Commencement 3 years - Listed Building Consent 2 : Approved plans (listed building) * 3 : Schedule of all new external materials 4 : Joinery Details
8.5	Author: Will Darlison Contact No: 01235 422600 Email: planning@southoxon.gov.uk