· Web viewProject: The construction of five, two-bed, starter homes and associated infrastructure

Chartered Town Planning

Local Plan Representations

Planning Applications

Site Appraisals

Appeals

Town & Country Planning Act 1990

Planning Statement

“The construction of five, two-bed, starter homes and associated

infrastructure”

March 2021

WICKLESHAM BUSINESS PARK FARINGDON OXFORDSHIRE SN7 7BU

Tel: 01865 600555 Mobile: 07970 241671 [email protected] markdoodesplanning.co.uk

mailto:[email protected]

Project: The construction of five, two-bed, starter homes and associated

infrastructure.

Issue and Revision Record: Version 6 (15/04/2021)

Local Authority: South Oxfordshire District Council (SODC)

Highways Authority Oxfordshire County Council (OCC)

Planning Portal Application Ref: PP-09528929

Drafted by: MD Checked by: GA

Contents

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Application Submission

3.0 Site & Surroundings

4.0 Planning History

5.0 Proposed Development

6.0 Planning Policy Context

7.0 Planning Assessment

8.0 Conclusions & Planning Balance


Tel: 01865 600555 Fax: 01865 600584 Mobile: 07970 241671 [email protected] markdoodesplanning.co.uk

Page 1 of 30


1. Introduction

1.1 This Planning Statement has been prepared to accompany a full planning application for a

residential development of five, two-bed, starter homes and associated infrastructure at Land at

Haseley Road, Little Milton, Oxfordshire, OX44 7QF. The application has been submitted via the

Planning Portal by Mark Doodes Planning (MDP) herein referred to as the Applicant or Agent

interchangeably on behalf of Mr and Mrs Woolmer as landowners.

1.2 The purpose of this Statement is to clarify and expand upon the above description of

development and to consider the degree to which the proposals accord with national and local

planning policies. The statement also reflects upon the degree to which the proposals can be

described as sustainable development and whether its potential benefits outweigh any potential

impacts which may result from the proposals.

1.3 In drawing these conclusions, reference is made to the findings of various technical assessments

which also form part of the suite of application documents.

1.4 The description of development is:

“Construction of five, two-bed, starter homes and associated infrastructure”.

1.5 The proposals contained herein have been informed by engagement with the key stakeholders

within the local parish. Due to time restrictions, no discussions took place with officers at South

Oxfordshire District Council (SODC) nor Oxfordshire County Council (OCC).

1.6 The proposals will bring benefits to the local area and wider District, including, but not limited to:

Boosting the supply of deliverable housing to meet identified local and District need.

Addition of approximately 4 full-time equivalent (FTE) temporary construction jobs

on-site annually, and a further 2 FTE temporary jobs supported within the supply

chain and related businesses annually during the build out.



Page 2 of 30


The modest additional growth in local population would assist with the long term

viability of existing service and facilities and may assist in reaching a critical mass for

new facilities to be provided in the area.

Opportunity to enhance the site with ecology net gains.

Betterment in terms of surface water storage.

New public open space which would allow for a better appreciation and experience

of Blenheim Cottage’s historic setting. This would be assisted by new heritage

information boards outlining the historic significance of this asset and the Little

Milton Conservation Area as a whole.

2. Application Submission

2.1 As noted above, this Statement is submitted with a number of documents and reports which

make-up the planning submission. These documents are:

Design and Access Statement.

Heritage Impact Assessment.

Planning Statement.

Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report.

Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy.

2.2 It is important, like with the national planning policy, to read the application submission as a

whole.

2.3 The site was not screened for EIA purposes as its nature and scale clearly does not meet the

applicable thresholds and criteria for such development as set out in Schedules 1 and 2 to The

Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017.



Page 3 of 30


3. Site and Surroundings

3.1 The application site is approximately 0.6 hectares in size and is positioned on the southern side of

Haseley Road, towards the south east of the settlement of Little Milton. It comprises a large arable

field which extends south west from Haseley Road in an irregular shape. There is existing access to

Haseley Road. Whilst the site itself is predominately undeveloped, it is positioned within close

proximity of residential development. Indeed, immediately opposite to the site is a Grade II listed

dwellinghouse. Accordingly, the site is influenced by built urban form at this edge of village

location.

3.2 The site is not subject to any specific landscape designations. It is not within the Green Belt or

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. However, Little Milton Conservation Area (CA) extends partly

along Haseley Road. The site bounds this CA and is within its setting.

3.3 The site has no allocation status in the adopted Development Plan (South Oxfordshire Local Plan

(2011-2035)). This Plan does not define settlement boundaries.

4. Planning History

4.1 July 2013 – P13/S1941/FUL: Erection of a new six-bed dwelling. Refused and dismissed at appeal

(APP/Q3115/A/14/2215007).

4.2 July 1970 - P70/M0511: One dwelling with garage and access. Refused.

5. Proposed Development

5.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the construction of five, two-bed, dwellings.

5.2 The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement (DAS), which demonstrates a

study of the local character has been undertaken and how this has informed the application. One

of the main purposes of this document is to demonstrate how the site could accommodate the

quantum of housing proposed along with open space, SUDs attenuation, sewage pumping station,

visitor parking and ecology enhancement areas.



Page 4 of 30


5.3 Careful consideration has gone into the design of the proposed dwellings to ensure that they are

appealing to people at each end of the property spectrum, first time buyers and downsizers. Each

of the proposed homes is detached, offering good levels of privacy. The provision of a level

ground floor and a ground floor bed also allows for flexible accommodation, as set out the in

Lifetime Homes Standard, providing easy access for wheelchairs as well as items such as

children’s prams and buggies.

6. Planning Policy Context

6.1 In accordance with the provisions of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act

2004, this application should be considered against the provisions of the adopted Development

Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

6.2 The Adopted Development Plan comprises the South Oxfordshire Local Plan (2011-2035) (LP), the

made Little Milton Neighbourhood Development Plan (2018-2033) (Little Milton NP) and relevant

Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs).

6.3 Other material planning policy considerations include the National Planning Policy Framework

(revised February 2019) (henceforth referred to as ‘the Framework’) and Planning Practice

Guidance (PPG).

South Oxfordshire Local Plan

6.4 The South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 was adopted at a meeting of Full Council on 10 December

2020. The following policies are relevant:

Housing Strategy

6.5 Policy STRAT1: The Overall Strategy – This policy states that proposals will be assessed using

national policy and guidance and the whole of the development plan. Developments should be

consistent with the overall strategy of the Council. Such a strategy includes supporting and

enhancing economic and social dependencies between towns and villages, supporting smaller and

other villages by allowing limited amounts of housing to help secure the provision and retention

of services and protecting the AONB and Green Belt.



Page 5 of 30


6.6 Policy STRAT2: South Oxfordshire Housing and Employment Requirements – This states that,

during the plan period, provision will be made to meet South Oxfordshire Minimum Housing

Requirement of 18,600 homes together with 4,950 homes addressing Oxford’s unmet housing

need. A total of 23,550 homes is therefore requires, which results in annual homes per annum

requirements of up to 1,110 across the plan period. These housing requirements will be delivered

in accordance with the spatial strategy set out in STRAT1.

6.7 Policy STRAT5: Residential Densities – Seeks to promote appropriate densities, taking into factors

such as local circumstances and site constraints.

6.8 Policy H1: Delivering New Homes – This policy provides a list of exceptions for development on

sites not allocated for development within the LP. One such exception is if development would

address specific circumstances defined in a Neighbourhood Development Plan.

6.9 Policy H8: Housing in Smaller Villages – The Council will support development within smaller

villages in accordance with Policy H16 of the LP.

6.10 Policy H11: Housing Mix – seeks to promote a mix of housing types and sizes to meet the needs

of current and future householders.

6.11 Policy EM10: Development in Rural Areas – Amongst other things, this policy seeks to promote

sustainable economic growth in rural areas through the retention and development of local

services and community facilities in villages.

Infrastructure and Highway Safety

6.12 Policy INF1: Infrastructure Provision – Seeks to ensure new developments are served and

supported by appropriate on-site and off-site infrastructure and services.

6.13 Policy TRANS2: Promoting Sustainable Transport and Accessibility – Amongst other things, this

policy seeks to encourage walking and cycling as means of accessing nearby facilities.



Page 6 of 30


6.14 Policy TRANS4: Transport Assessments, Transport Statement and Travel Plans – Amongst other

things, this policy seeks to promote developments in accessible locations and ensure that they do

not adversely impact upon the highway network in terms of capacity.

6.15 Policy TRANS5: Consideration of Development Proposals – Amongst other things, this policy

seeks to ensure that proposals provide safe and convenient access for all users to the highway

network and ensure that proposals are acceptable in terms of highway safety.

6.16 Policy INF4: Water Resources – Seeks to promote water efficiency and ensure that developments

demonstrate an adequate water supply and surface water, foul drainage and sewerage treatment

capacity.

Character and Appearance and Biodiversity

6.17 Policy ENV1: Landscape and Countryside – This policy seeks to protect South Oxfordshire’s

landscape, countryside and rural areas from harmful development. Development which supports

economic growth in rural areas will also be supported provided it conserves and enhances such

areas.

6.18 Policy DES1: Delivering High Quality Development – Seeks to promote high quality development

through various methods including, enhancing biodiversity, the efficient use of land, providing a

range of house types and providing access to local services and facilities.

6.19 Policy DES2: Enhancing Local Character – Requires all new development to be designed to reflect

the positive features that make up the character of the local area and to complement its

surroundings.

6.20 Policy DES3: Design and Access Statements – Sets out requirements for Design and Access

Statements, which should be proportional to the scale and complexity of the proposal.

6.21 Policy ENV23: Biodiversity – Seeks to ensure that developments conserve, restore and enhance

biodiversity in the District. All development should provide a net gain in biodiversity where

possible. As a minimum there should be no net loss in this regard.



Page 7 of 30


Historic Environment

6.22 Policy ENV6: Historic Environments – Seeks to ensure that developments do not cause harm to

the historic environment and conserve or enhance the significance of assets and their settings.

6.23 Policy ENV7: Listed Buildings – Proposals for development which may affect the setting of a listed

building will be expected to conserve, enhance or better reveal elements contributing to the

asset’s significance and setting.

6.24 Policy ENV8: Conservation Areas – Proposals affecting the setting of a Conservation Area must

conserve or enhance its special interest, character, setting and appearance.

6.25 Policy ENV9: Archaeology and Scheduled Monuments – Seeks to ensure developments protect

nationally important designated or undesignated archaeological remains.

Waste and Recycling and Resources

6.26 Policy EP3: Waste Collection and Recycling – Amongst other things, seeks to ensure proposals for

residential use have adequate facilities for sorting, storing and collecting waste and recycling.

6.27 Policy DES7: Efficient Use of Resources – Seeks to ensure developments make provision for the

effective use and protection of natural resources where applicable including the efficient use of

land, minimising waste, maximising passive solar heating and re-using vacant buildings.

6.28 Policy DES8: Promoting Sustainable Design – Amongst other things, this policy seeks to ensure

that all new developments seek to minimise carbon and energy impacts of their design and

construction and are built to last.

6.29 Policy DES10: Carbon Reduction – Seeks to ensure that new housing achieve at least a 40%

reduction in carbon emissions compared with a code 2013 Building Regulations compliant base

case.



Page 8 of 30


Flood Risk

6.30 Policy EP4: Flood Risk – Seeks to minimise the impact of flooding by methods such as directing

development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding.

Living Conditions

6.31 Policy DES5: Outdoor Amenity Space – Seeks to ensure suitable external amenity space is

provided for new dwellings.

6.32 Policy DES6: Residential Amenity – Seeks to ensure proposals do not harm residential amenity in

terms of loss of privacy, daylight or sunlight, outlook, noise and vibration, smell, dust and odour

and external lighting.

Community Facilities

6.33 Policy CF2: Provision of Community Facilities and Services – Supports proposals for new

community facilities within or adjacent to the built-up area of an existing settlement.

6.34 Policy CF3: New Open Space, Sport and Recreation Facilities – Proposals for recreation facilities

will be encouraged.

6.35 Policy CF5: Open Space, Sport and Recreation in New Residential Development – Seeks to

ensure that new residential development provides or contributes towards inclusive and accessible

open space in line with the Open Spaces Study and Leisure Study.

Little Milton Neighbourhood Development Plan (2018 – 2033)

6.36 The Little Milton NP was made in November 2018 and sets development policies for the Parish for

the period 2018-2033. Relevant Policies are as follows:

6.37 Policy LM1 – Spatial Strategy and Development Pattern – Amongst other things, this policy

states that housing development will be supported where it is consistent with the development

plan policies for smaller villages within the District. It supports housing immediately adjacent to



Page 9 of 30


the built-up area that is well-connected to the built form of the village and would not result in

linear form along a road that would be out of keeping with the compact development form of the

village.

6.38 Policy LM2: Mitigation of Flood Risk – Seeks to minimise flood risk by methods such as directing

new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding.

6.39 Policy LM3: High Grade Agricultural Land – Seeks to preserve agricultural land shown as

‘Excellent’ and ‘Very Good’ on Map 5 of the LP, unless development is suitable for a countryside

location.

6.40 Policy LM4: Conservation of Heritage Assets – Seeks to conserve and enhance heritage assets

within the village.

6.41 Policy LM5: Design and Character – Development proposals should reflect the character of Little

Milton in terms of factors such as form and scale, visual interest and boundary treatments.

6.42 Policy LM6: Biodiversity and Wildlife Corridors – Amongst other things, requires developments

to maintain and enhance existing on-site biodiversity assets, deliver a net gain in line with the

development plan and provide wildlife needs on-site where possible.

6.43 Policy LM9: Protection of Views – seeks to reserve or enhance the local character of the

landscape and ensure developments do not have a significant adverse impact on identified

important views.

6.44 Policy LM11: Residential Parking – Seeks to ensure an appropriate level of on-site parking.

6.45 Policy LM13: Dwelling Mix – Seeks to promote dwelling types that meet the needs of current and

future households and address the district wide shortage of smaller house.



Page 10 of 30


National Planning Policy Framework

6.46 The Framework sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be

applied.

Approach to Sustainable Development

6.47 Paragraph 7 of the Framework states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to

the achievement of sustainable development.

6.48 Paragraph 8 states that achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has

three overarching objectives, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually

supportive ways (so that opportunities can be taken to secure net gains across each of the

different objectives):

a) an economic objective – to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by

ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time

to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and coordinating the

provision of infrastructure;

b) a social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a

sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future

generations; and by fostering a well-designed and safe built environment, with accessible services

and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social

and cultural well-being; and

c) an environmental objective – to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and

historic environment; including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity,

using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to

climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.

6.49 Paragraph 9 states that planning decisions should play an active role in guiding development

towards sustainable solutions, but in doing so should take local circumstances into account, to

reflect the character, needs and opportunities of each area.



Page 11 of 30


6.50 Paragraph 10 states that, so that sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, at the

heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This is then

detailed at Paragraph 11.

6.51 Paragraph 38 makes it clear that decision-makers at every level should seek to approve

applications for sustainable development where possible.

Housing and Design

6.52 The Framework shows a clear Government intention to significantly boost the supply of housing.

Paragraph 59 states that is important that sufficient amount and variety of land can come

forward where it is needed and that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are

addressed.

6.53 Paragraph 68 states that small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to

meeting the housing requirement of an area.

6.54 Paragraph 78 is clear that to promote sustainable development within rural areas, development

should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural villages, enabling them to

grow and thrive and support local services.

6.55 Paragraph 127 seeks to ensure that developments optimise the potential of sites and function

well.

6.56 Paragraph 130 states that where the design of a development accords with clear expectations in

plan policies, design should not be used by the decision-maker as a valid reason to object to

development.

Historic Environment

6.57 Paragraph 189 of the Framework requires an applicant to describe the significance of any

heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail

should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand

the potential impact of the proposal on their significance.



Page 12 of 30


6.58 Paragraph 193 of the Framework states 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).

6.59 Paragraph 197 of the Framework states that the effect of an application on the significance of a

non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In

weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced

judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of

the heritage asset.

Highway Safety

6.60 Paragraph 108 seeks to ensure that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all

users.

6.61 Paragraph 109 states that 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.

Biodiversity

6.62 Paragraph 170 states that planning decisions should protect sites of biodiversity and minimise

impacts on and provide net gains for biodiversity.

Living Conditions

6.63 Paragraph 127 seeks to secure a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

Housing Land Supply and the Oxfordshire Growth Deal

6.64 The Oxfordshire Growth Deal (OGD) was agreed by all the Oxfordshire Authorities: Cherwell

District Council, Oxford City Council, Oxfordshire County Council, South Oxfordshire District

Council, Vale of White Horse District Council and West Oxfordshire District Council, and

Oxfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership in 2017.



Page 13 of 30


6.65 The OGD sets out the investment programme for necessary infrastructure and housing delivery in

the wider Oxfordshire area. Under the terms of the deal, the Government has agreed to provide

Oxfordshire’s six local authorities with £60 million of funding for affordable housing and £150

million for infrastructure improvements to unlock new development sites. The OGD aims to

support the ambition of building 100,000 new homes across Oxfordshire between 2011 and 2031

and will provide funding for a series of new infrastructure across the County.

6.66 The OGD leads to the production of a Joint Spatial Strategy Plan (JSSP): part of this process was a

significant concession by central government to allow certain “flexibilities” to apply or disapply

the regulations differently to Oxfordshire.

6.67 The key flexibility in relation to the policy circumstances of this application is the potential of

replacing the usual requirement to demonstrate a five year supply of housing land, with a lower

three year requirement for decision taking. Consultation on this matter was held in 2018. The

Secretary of State issued a Ministerial Statement on 12 September 2018 which introduced the

three year requirement in Oxfordshire as a temporary measure.

6.68 At the time of writing this Statement, the Council can demonstrate an appropriate three year

housing land supply. That said, the Government has recently written to the Oxfordshire Growth

Board to confirm that it will be revoking the County’s special land supply privileges by the end of

March 2021. Consequently, by the time that this application is determined by the Council, it will

need to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land. This position is at best

marginal, with South Oxfordshire’s land supply slipping from 9.15 years to 5.35 years between

June 2020 and March 2021.

6.69 However, even if the Council is able to demonstrate a five years supply of housing land, this

should be seen as a minimum, not a maximum, supply. As such, planning applications for

sustainable development should not be refused merely because a local planning authority can

demonstrate the requisite level supply as this would go against the Framework’s objective to

significantly boost levels of housing. Indeed, there has been a significant number of appeal

decisions in recent years where Inspectors have resolved to allow planning permission, despite

the Council in question demonstrating the requisite level of housing land supply.



Page 14 of 30


6.70 One of the most recent examples of the above mentioned circumstance is at Oxford Brookes

University, Wheatley Campus, College Close, Wheatley, Oxford, OX33 1HX. Here, the Council

refused development for up to 500 homes under application Ref. P17/S4254/O. The Secretary of

State proceeded to allow this scheme on 23 April 2020, following the recommendation to

approve by his Inspector made after a public inquiry (appeal Ref. APP/Q3115/W/19/3230827).

This was despite the parties agreeing that the Council could demonstrate an appropriate supply

of deliverable housing land.

6.71 Furthermore, other examples in SODC are summarised in the table below;

Appeal Ref: APP/Q3115/W/17/3186858

Land to the East of Benson

Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford,

Wallingford

OX10 8ED

Appeal allowed in spite of

Written Ministerial

Statement

Appeal Ref: APP/Q3115/W/16/3161733

Thames Farm, Reading Road,

Shiplake, Henley-on-Thames

RG9 3PH

Appeal allowed in spite of

Written Ministerial

Statement

APP/Q3115/W/18/3202425 Highlands Farm, Highlands

Lane, Rotherfield Greys,

Henley-on-Thames RG9 4PR

Outline PP for up to 95

dwellings greenfield site in

village

6.72 While it is accepted that every proposal must be considered on its individual merits, the appeals

listed above clearly demonstrate that the fulfilment of a requisite minimum housing land supply

should not be used as a reason to refuse planning permission in sustainable locations. It is also

important to note that Wokingham, Cheshire West and Chester, Chelmsford and Central

Bedfordshire appeals were also allowed in the context of some harm associated with

contravention of spatial housing policies.

6.73 The need to significantly boost the supply of housing and meet identified need is identified as a

significant benefit in the appeals listed above. This is particularly applicable in the case of

Oxfordshire. While Councils are only required to demonstrate a 3 year supply of housing land, the



Page 15 of 30


Oxford City Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan 2036 confirms that there is a great deal of

demand for homes in the county that is not currently being planned for.

6.74 Sites such as this, which are within commuting distance of Oxford, are very well spatially located

to assist in this.

7. Planning Assessment

7.1 The key considerations for the application proposals are considered to be:

Whether or not the site is a suitable location for housing, with particular regard to

local and national planning policy for the delivery of housing and access to services

and facilities.

The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with

particular regard to the setting of the Little Milton Conservation Area and the setting

of Blenheim Cottage.

Suitable Site

Specific Local Circumstances – Housing Size and Layout

7.2 Policy H1 of the LP forms part of the Council’s strategy for the delivery of new homes. It states that,

for residential development on sites not allocated in the development plan, schemes will be

permitted if they meet one of a number of exceptions. One such exception is where development

would address specific circumstances defined in a Neighbourhood Development Plan.

7.3 Paragraph 10.6 of the Little Milton NP outlines that the current housing stock in the village, when

compared to the District, county and nationally, is skewed towards four-bed properties. This,

together with the decline in younger adults and their families, points to a need for smaller dwellings

(two and three-bed units). To address this, paragraph 10.7 of the Little Milton NP encourages the

building of dwellings of this size.



Page 16 of 30


7.4 This proposal would provide five much needed two-bed properties, helping to alleviate the

identified shortage in the supply of this sized house within the village. As such, it would comply with

Policy LM13 of the Little Milton NP insofar as it seeks to meet the needs of current and future

households and address the District wide shortage of smaller houses. Moreover, it would accord

with Policy H11 of the LP which seeks to promote a mix of housing types and sizes to meet the

needs of different groups in the community and the aspirations of the Framework which has similar

objectives. The scheme therefore fulfils a specific circumstance of the Little Milton NP by meeting

the identified need for smaller homes.

7.5 In addition, the spatial strategy outlined at Policy LM1 of the Little Milton NP supports development

adjacent to the built-up area that is well-connected to the current built form of the village and

would not result in a linear form of development along a geographical feature. As discussed in

sections below, these criteria are met. Accordingly, the proposal also complies with the specific

circumstances and requirements of Little Milton’s spatial strategy for housing.

7.6 Taking all of the above into account, it is therefore considered that the proposal would address two

specific circumstances defined within the Little Milton NP, in accordance with Policy H1 of the LP.

Access to Services and Facilities

7.7 Appendix 7 of the LP defines Little Milton as a ‘smaller village’. Policy STRAT2 of the LP outlines the

significant housing need within the District and states that this will be met through the strategy set

out in Policy STRAT1 of the LP. Policy STRAT1 seeks to support smaller villages by allowing limited

amounts of housing and employment to help secure the provisions and retention of services.

7.8 The development plan shows that Little Milton has a good range of services and facilities. These

include a church, a primary school, a pre-school, a pub, a community shop, a village hall (with new

playground), a recreation ground with a multi-use games area and a children's play area. Such

facilities would be easily accessible by foot from the proposed development via direct and clear

walking routes along footpaths and named streets with active frontages. High speed broadband is

also available in the village.



Page 17 of 30


7.9 The proposal would therefore be well related to the settlement, in an accessible location close to a

range of existing village services. It would be physically and functionally connected to the village

and would not represent an ‘isolated’ form of development, with particular regard to case law

Braintree DC v SSCLG (2018) EWCA Civ 610; (2018)). In addition, the proposal would be within

reasonable travelling distance of a wider range of facilities within Oxford and Abingdon.

7.10 Consequently, not only would new residents have access to services by means of travel other than

private vehicles, but they would also increase local expenditure. Furthermore, it should be noted

that the primary school is currently low in terms of pupil numbers. The children of new residents at

the proposed development would bolster the pupil yield and in turn assist with keeping this vital

village service operational. The scheme would therefore help support the retention and growth of

village services, in accordance with the strategy outlined through Policies STRAT1 and STRAT2 of

the LP. It would also accord with the Framework’s aims of promoting sustainable development in

rural areas by requiring housing to be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural

communities.

Overall Conclusion – Suitable Site

7.11 Taking everything together, the proposal would address two particular local circumstances

identified within a Neighbourhood Development Plan by providing much needed smaller houses in

a layout promoted by the Little Milton NP. It would therefore comply with the village’s identified

strategy for new housing.

7.12 Further, the proposal would not represent an isolated form of development in any sense of the

word. Future residents would have access to a good range of services within the village and the

scheme would not place an undue reliance on the use of private vehicles. New residents would also

support the viability of existing services and help encourage the provision of new facilities. This is

particularly important in the context of the on-going pandemic and would help support the vitality

of the village as a whole.



Page 18 of 30


7.13 It is therefore considered that the proposal represents a suitable site for housing and would accord

with the strategy identified through Policies STRAT1, STRAT2, H1 and H11 of the LP and Policy LM13

of the Little Milton NP.

7.14 It is noted that Policy H8 of the LP states that the Council will support housing in smaller villages in

accordance with Policy H16 of the LP. Policy H16 supports limited infilling in certain circumstances.

However, such policies simply provide weight in favour of limited infilling in smaller villages, they do

not restrict other forms of development which accord with the overarching strategy of the Council.

As such, it is not considered that the proposal would conflict with these particular policies.

Character and Appearance - Historic Environment

7.15 The application site bounds the Little Milton Conservation Area (CA). In addition, it is within the

setting of a Grade II listed building Blenheim Cottage (also known as Linnet Cottage) positioned

opposite to the site across Haseley Road. The decision maker has a statutory duty to pay special

attention to the desirability of preserving the setting of this nearby listed building. One must also

consider the effect of the proposal on the significance of the CA, which derives not only from its

physical presence, but also its setting.

The Significance, Character and Appearance of the CA

7.16 The CA was formally designated in 1984 and its significance is derived from its rich selection of

listed and other historic buildings, including a C15 Manor house and the C19 Church of St James

designed by John Hayward. Central to its significance is the appreciation of important buildings

from linear views within the historic core of the CA. This is made up of the triangle of roads formed

at High Street, Church Hill, Gold Street and Haseley Road. Most buildings within the CA are modest

in size and feature attractive traditional design elements and materials. The settlement has grown

organically and has a compact character. It is a classic example of a nucleated village.

The Significance and Setting of Blenheim Cottage

7.17 The gable end of the Grade II listed Blenheim Cottage faces the site to the north east. This asset’s

significance is derived from historic architectural detailing and features dating as far back as the



Page 19 of 30


early C18. Whilst this building is positioned at the edge of the village, it is primarily experienced and

appreciated from Blenheim Road, as its historic principal elevation fronts this carriageway. The

asset’s setting is therefore influenced by urban form that is set along this carriageway and is visible

from the junction of Blenheim Road with Haseley Road.

Assessment of Proposal on Character and Appearance

7.18 The site forms a parcel of arable land on the southern side of Haseley Road. Save for an animal

shelter at the north western corner, it is free from built form. It has at no point been within the

same curtilage or ownership as Blenheim Cottage. As identified within the associated Heritage

Impact Assessment (HIA), the site is separated from this listed building by Haseley Road, which

lessons its contribution to this asset’s setting compared to other more important sections of open

land. Furthermore, the HIA shows that the site is distinctly separated from the CA by the course of a

river to the north, by Haseley Road and by established hedgerows. It therefore makes no positive

contribution to the approach of the CA from the east.

7.19 Overall, the site itself is of no significant historic interest and its edge of settlement location,

influenced by built form to the north east and north west, makes a neutral contribution to the

setting of both the CA and Blenheim Cottage. This is confirmed by the supporting HIA.

Open Space, Landscaping and Heritage Enhancement

7.20 The proposal seeks permission for five, one and a half storey and two storey, detached dwellings.

These would be set in a perpendicular row to Haseley Road, behind a sizeable area of open land to

be used by residents of the village. Indeed, only a relatively small proportion of the large site would

be developed. Overall, a considerable amount of open space would be retained adjacent to Haseley

Road and throughout the development which would soften the impact of the proposed dwellings.

More importantly, this would provide a suitable, soft, transition from the rural area beyond the site

into the more densely developed settlement and preserve the semi-rural setting of Blenheim

Cottage. In addition, it is proposed to use native planting within open space, together with a re-

introduction of apple trees. This would ensure that new landscaping is appropriate and of a high

quality, whilst respecting the site’s former appearance as an orchard.



Page 20 of 30


7.21 It should also be noted that the open space to the front of the site would be for community use and

would include new seating areas. This space would therefore allow residents of the village and

visitors to the area to pause and reflect on their surroundings. In turn, this would allow for a greater

appreciation and experience of the historic setting of Blenheim Cottage and the wider historic

environment. This would be assisted by new heritage information boards outlining the historic

significance of Blenheim Cottage and the CA as a whole. This is in line with the objectives of the

Framework which specifically supports opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the

historic environment to the character of a place (paragraph 185).

Layout

7.22 The Little Milton NP seeks to discourage linear patterns of development along roads. This would

clearly be discordant with the compact character of the village which displays pockets of

development branching off main roads. The proposed perpendicular layout has been designed to

mirror the pocket of development found opposite to the site along Blenheim Road. It is considered

that such a layout would therefore integrate with the compressed village character and form a

logical ‘book end’ to this part of it. This would also restrict incongruous linear growth further along

Haseley Road.

Design

7.23 Considerable care has been given to the design and form of the proposed dwellings themselves, as

illustrated within the associated Design and Access Statement. The proposal is defined by a ‘soft’

interaction between the houses themselves as a result of varying roof heights and differing lines to

their elevations. As such, nothing has been designed in a straight line. This is far more characteristic

and desirable for this village where bold, stark, elevations would be unduly prominent.

7.24 The house types have been designed to appear one and a half storey in height to ensure that they

remain subservient in scale to Blenheim Cottage. They would also be constructed using a

sympathetic materials palette, reflecting a marriage between the traditional stone cottages seen in

Little Milton and more contemporary materials like cladding. This would create a soft identity for



Page 21 of 30


the development, which would have its own distinctive style and sense of place without ‘standing

out’ in the context of nearby development.

7.25 Similar to other dwellings within the village, proposed houses would sit comfortably with each

other and none would be conspicuous in this setting. Taking everything together, they would

harmonise with the character and rhythm of nearby development and would integrate successfully

with this semi-rural, edge of village, location. Additionally, proposed houses would incorporate

ground floor bathrooms, promoting level accessibility throughout the ground floor, and have been

designed with flexibility in mind for first time buyers or those looking to downsize.

Important Views

7.26 Part of the site would fall within the protected view of Little Milton Parish Church from Ditchend

(identified within the Little Milton NP as view LMV3). However, as shown at Appendix C to the NP,

this view would primarily pass over open space towards the front of the proposal. Furthermore, the

proposed housing has been specifically designed to be lower in terms of height and appear ‘lighter’

in terms of bulk and mass. Accordingly, the proposal would not be unduly apparent or intrusive in

views towards Little Milton Parish Church and would not harmfully impact upon the identified

protected view. This is confirmed at paragraph 8.7 to the HIA.

Conclusion – Character and Appearance

7.27 Overall, the site is positioned away from the historic core of the village and does not fall into the

foreground or background of significant views either into or out of the area. When visible from the

adjacent public footpath the scheme would appear as a small, proportionate and well-integrated

addition to the village.

7.28 Taking all of the above into account, the proposal would preserve the setting of Blenheim Cottage

and would not cause harm to the significance, character or appearance of the CA (including its

setting). It would therefore accord with relevant local and national planning policy in this regard.

That said, it would cause some limited harm to the undeveloped nature of the site itself simply by



Page 22 of 30


virtue of introducing built form. However, such harm would only be slightly adverse given that the

development would be seen as an appropriate addition to the settlement rather than an intrusive

ribbon of built form. The weight to be given to conflict with certain elements of the Council’s

landscape polices in this regard is therefore considered to carry only limited weight.

Other Material Considerations

Archaeology

7.29 Given its positioning in relation to the historic environment, there is potential for the site to

accommodate archaeological remains. However, it is not considered that the scheme falls into the

3% of planning applications specified in Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph 041) where a pre-

determination archaeological evaluation is justified. Should concerns arise about harm to assets of

archaeological interest, it is considered that any potential harm could be mitigated by attaching a

condition to any grant of planning permission for a programme of archaeological monitoring (a

“watching brief”) to be maintained during the groundworks. This would ensure that any matters of

archaeological interest were recorded.

Agricultural Land

7.30 The site is identified by the development plan to be Grade 2 agricultural land. Policy LM3 of the

Little Milton NP states that development on such land will not be supported unless it is suitable for

a countryside location. The above assessment demonstrates that this criterion would be met. In

addition, the land is not currently farmed and is comparatively small in size compared to

neighbouring parcels of agricultural land. Its loss would not cause any notable economic harm to

agricultural activity.

Flooding and Surface Water

7.31 Although elements of the site are within Flood Zones 2 and 3, all new development would be

located in Flood Zone 1 (the lowest risk) and is therefore classified to be unlikely to be the subject

of flooding. An initial surface water drainage strategy (including SUDS features) would gather, store,

use and slowly release waters that would otherwise have soaked slowly into the soil on the site.



Page 23 of 30


The aim of any SUDS design is to attenuate precipitation arising from a 1 in 100 year storm event

plus 30% (additional) rainfall expected to arise from climate change. All surface water arising from

the proposals is to be discharged, ultimately, by way of soil infiltration or into a suitable water

course (Gainsbridge Brook subject to relevant consents).

7.32 As a result of the identified SUDS measures, the proposal is likely to offer some betterment over the

circumstances of the existing site which lacks any means of storing excess surface water. Overall,

the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (FRA) concludes that proposed

properties would not be at risk of flooding. Neither would they increase this risk elsewhere.

Furthermore, as seen in correspondence from Thames Water (Appendix J to FRA), records held

indicate that there have been no incidents of flooding at the site as a result of surcharging sewers

and no concerns have been raised in terms of foul drainage capacity.

Living Conditions

7.33 The proposed units would be an appropriate distance from surrounding properties so as not to

cause harm to the living conditions of existing residents in terms of outlook, access to daylight and

privacy. In addition, each dwelling would provide high quality accommodation for future residents.

Biodiversity

7.34 The site comprises poor semi-improved grassland with scattered broadleaved trees, boundary

hedgerows with dense scrub and tall ruderal vegetation, a waterbody in the western corner of the

site and a stream running along the north western boundary.

7.35 A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report accompanies this submission to assist in identifying any

ecological constraints to the development of the site. The site is not subject to any statutory or

non-statutory nature conservation designations. Wells Farm, a working farm which is a wildlife trust

reserve managed to benefit wildlife, is located to the north-east of the site, on the other side of

Haseley Road. The site is unlikely to support protected or notable species or have any significant

ecological value.



Page 24 of 30


7.36 Amongst other things, the proposal has been carefully designed so that it would not result in the

loss of any trees along the stream or the removal of hedgerows or trees considered likely to be

used by roosting bats. Additionally, it would not place development within 10m of the stream or

cause artificial light disturbance to the stream corridor. Accordingly, the ecological assessment

confirms that the scheme is unlikely to harm any protected species.

7.37 A number of ecological enhancements are also offered as part of the proposals. The aim of this

undertaking is to ensure there is a net biodiversity enhancement to the site. These enhancements

include:

New native tree / shrub planting to improve green infrastructure.

Wildflower mix of seeds in public open space areas.

Use of SUDS pond as dual function biodiversity features.

Improvement of permeability of the site for wildlife.

Potential for the removal of non-native species.

Provision of bird and bat boxes.

Provision of habitat piles.

7.38 Overall, the ecology appraisal concludes that the proposed development would not impact upon

any statutory or non-statutory designated sites or valuable or protected habitats/species. Measures

would also be incorporated to ensure that any impact is suitably mitigated. Furthermore, the

proposal would provide a net gain in biodiversity in accordance with the requirements of the

Framework.

Highway Safety, Parking and Refuse Collection

7.39 The proposed dwellings would be accessed via a marginally relocated access which would have

appropriate, standard meeting, visibility splays. The scheme would therefore provide safe and

suitable access for future users, in line with the objectives of the Framework.

7.40 In addition, as shown on submitted plans, a suitable level of off-street parking would be provided

on site. This includes visitor parking bays and areas for cycle parking. Further, a bin collection area

would be located towards the site entrance. This would be screened by soft landscaping to ensure



Page 25 of 30


that it blends into its surroundings in line with aspirations of the Council’s development plan. As

such, refuse could be appropriately presented for collection.

Economic Benefits

7.41 The Framework places significant emphasis on the need to build a strong competitive economy,

with paragraph 80 attributing significant weight to the need to support economic growth and

productivity and attempts to ensure that decision takers regard the economics of house building

activity positive in weighing decisions. This paragraph will become more and more important and

the stark reality of a recession bites over the course of 2020.

7.42 Indeed, the former coalition Government stated shortly after the Framework was launched that “its

number one priority is to get the economy moving again” (Ministerial statement 6th Sept 2012).

This strategic ambition remains the case once more nine years later, in a post-EU Exit and COVID

economic environment. As a barometer to the wider economic outlook, interest rates remain at a

historic low of 0.1%, and we are facing the greatest contraction of the economy since records

began with around a 20% drop in GDP.

7.43 Housing, whilst no panacea, is universally regarded as being a driver to growth and prosperity at

the micro and macro level as well as serving a social role and allowing better movement of labour.

Previous Planning White Papers and modifications to the Framework were aimed at further

bolstering housing land supply and introducing better competition in the housing market by

assisting smaller builders. This ambition manifests itself in Paragraph 68 of the Framework which

encourages Council’s to construct 10% of all new housing on smaller sites. Despite headlines being

dominated by COVID, a national housing crisis persists, and it is hoped that measures such as those

in Paragraph 68 of the Framework are given suitable weight by decision makers. Further policy

measures are also still considered necessary to ensure housing consents on smaller sites are more

forthcoming.

7.44 The July 2020 White Paper carries the above sentiments forward and states that “Millions of jobs

depend on the construction sector and in every economic recovery, it has played a crucial role.” In

addition, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors have recently highlighted that for every £1



Page 26 of 30


spend on construction a further £2.84 is generated across the wider economy (Build Back Better

May 2020, University of Birmingham Paper).

7.45 Overall, this assessment advocates that there would be clear short, medium and long term

economic benefits associated with this development both at local and regional levels. This is

through factors such as the creation of a wide variety of jobs associated with the construction of

dwellings and increased local expenditure to support local services and those beyond the village.

National planning policy places significant weight on such economic benefits and specifically

recognises the importance of the development of small and medium sites. The weight to be

attributed to these material planning benefits is not insignificant.

Social Benefits

7.46 The effect of an unsuitable housing supply in terms of size and type has a strong, negative, social

impact. It means that many lack the ability to save in later life and delay making savings for

retirement until after a typical 25 year mortgage has been cleared. It means that children are often

pushed further away from established family groups or childhood networks in the search for more

affordable housing. It means that, in later life, these children are not as able to care for elderly

relatives. Renting a home also means that one’s tenancy is subject to the whim of the landlord who

may sell the asset or rental increases which are unregulated in the private market.

7.47 As stated, this proposal addresses specific circumstances within Little Milton – the lack of supply of

smaller house types. This would help to alleviate the identified social implications of a lack of

suitable housing in this village. This planning benefit should attract significant weight in favour of

this scheme.

Previous Appeal - APP/Q3115/A/14/2215007

7.48 It is noted that this appeal was dismissed at the application site. However, this was for a

considerable, six-bed, single dwelling. The Inspector commented that its substantial footprint

would be at odds with nearby properties. As discussed above, this would not be the case for

proposed units which would be small and set in a layout that complies with the specific

requirements of the Little Milton spatial strategy. Furthermore, this scheme is for five, two-bed



Page 27 of 30


units, for which there is a recognised local need. As such, this previous appeal scheme is not directly

comparable to this current proposal, which is considered to be acceptable when assessed on its

own individual merits.

8. Planning Balance and Conclusion

Planning Balance

8.1 The Government is seeking to significantly boost the supply of housing. The proposal would provide

five, two-bed, dwellings which would address a shortage of such properties in the local area and

indeed the District. These would be in an accessible location, on a small site (for which the

Framework specifically supports development) that could be delivered now. The proposed units

would also provide economic benefits through construction and occupation, supporting the

retention and growth of local services and facilities. The social and economic benefits identified in

this assessment cumulatively attract significant weight.

8.2 This assessment also shows that the application site is a suitable site for residential development.

This is as the proposal would accord with the strategy of the Council to support limited housing

developments in smaller villages. Additionally, it would address two specific circumstances shown

within a Neighbourhood Development Plan by providing much needed smaller homes in a layout

that complies with the village’s spatial strategy for housing. Overall, the proposal would be a small,

proportionate, addition to the village that would integrate successfully with the historic

environment. Indeed, it would enhance the appreciation of this environment as a result of the

provision of a new area of public open space. The scheme would also provide environmental

benefits through biodiversity net gains.

8.3 There would be some modest harm to the character of the site as a result of the presence of urban

form. However, given the small scale of such harm, conflict with relevant policies of the

development plan in this regard should carry only limited weight.

8.4 Taking all of the above into account, the small scale of the conflict with the Council’s development

plan is such that one may consider the scheme in accordance with this plan when read as a whole.

Such a finding would be in line with recent case law (Cornwall Council v Corbett [2020] EWCA Civ



Page 28 of 30


508). As such, the proposal should be approved without delay as it is in accordance with the

development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding.

8.5 However, even if one were to find that there is conflict with the development plan as a whole as a

result of the minor harm to the site’s undeveloped character, such harm should only be afforded

limited weight in the planning balance. This would not outweigh the significant weight attributed to

identified cumulative social, economic and environmental benefits. Under such circumstances,

material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the

development plan. Consequently, planning permission should still be granted.

Conclusion

8.6 In either of the above scenarios, it is concluded that the proposal would represent sustainable

development for which the Framework advocates a presumption in favour. It is therefore

respectfully requested that permission be granted.

Mark Doodes MRTPI

Planning Consultant



Page 29 of 30
