1.	APPLICATION SITE AND LOCALITY 

1.1	The site is located to the east of Main Street, Wendlebury which is a village to the south-west of Bicester. Wendlebury contains a wide range of dwelling types and sizes, with their design and site layout reflecting the age of construction. 

1.2	The site is an area of open grass land set behind Bridge House and The Villas which front onto Main Street. The site is accessed by a gravel access between Bridge House and the Lion Public House which is a Grade II listed property. This current access serves Bridge House and 1 The Villas.  It also provides informal parking for 2 The Villas. 

1.3	The site rises slightly from the main road and accommodates 2 trees which are protected by tree preservation orders, an Ash tree on the northern boundary and a walnut tree on the southern boundary.  A stable building and manége exists to the east of the site.  The Red Lion public house exists to the north of the site and Farriers Mead to the south.  This consists of a number of more modern detached properties located in a cul-de-sac arrangement.  

1.4	A brook exists along Main Street and part of the access to the site is located in Flood Zone 2 and 3. The site is also located within a medium area of archaeological potential and within an area of potentially contaminated land. 

2.	DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
2.1.	The current application seeks permission to erect two new dwellings on the site.  These would utilise the existing access from Main Street.  Plot 1 would be located to the north of the site and would be a two storey detached property and garage.  Plot 2 would be to the south of the site and would be a single storey dwelling with detached garage.  Both properties would be constructed of buff/cream brick under a concrete tile roof.  
2.2.	A new access to serve the existing stable and manége would be provided to the north of the site. 

3.	RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

3.1.	95/00819/OUT – Outline for erection of 3 dwellings – REFUSED as it was outside the built limits and the proposed access was substandard in visibility and geometric terms. 
3.2.	15/00252/F – Erection of 2 no. detached houses with garages - WITHDRAWN
4.	PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSIONS

4.1.	No pre-application discussions have taken place with regard to this proposal.

5.	RESPONSE TO PUBLICITY

5.1.	This application has been publicised by way of a site notice displayed near the site, by advertisement in the local newspaper, and by letters sent to all properties immediately adjoining the application site that the Council has been able to identify from its records.
5.2.	The comments raised by third parties are summarised as follows:
•	Wendlebury is not sustainable for further growth
•	The site is outside of the building line.
•	The land is agricultural and should remain so.
•	Detrimental impact on character and appearance of the area. 
•	Set a precedent for further development 
•	Overlooking to neighbouring properties.
•	Property must remain single storey and Plot 1 should change to single storey.
•	Increase in traffic and no lighting or pavement on main road
•	Access is unsuitable for further traffic.
•	Impact on TPO’d trees
•	Flood Risk
•	Impact on sewage system.
•	The applicant’s claims regarding the security of the horses is not a compelling reason for further housing.
•	Lack of publicity
5.3.	The comments received can be viewed in full on the Council’s website, via the online Planning Register.

6.	RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION

6.1.	Below is a summary of the consultation responses received at the time of writing this report. Responses are available to view in full on the Council’s website, via the online Planning Register.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
6.2.	WENDLEBURY PARISH COUNCIL: Object on the grounds that Wendlebury is a Category C Settlement where only infill or conversions (policy C264) within the built up limits would be acceptable.  The site falls outside the village boundaries, outside the accepted building line and would be a development in open countryside on agricultural land which has not been allocated for development purposes; unlike the adjacent Farriers Mead development which was a former brown field site.
6.3.	There are also concerns about the flood risk and the contradictory responses Thames Water has given for the Lion development and this application, bearing in mind that the two developments are less than 20 metres apart.  This raises concerns that each site has been looked at on an individual basis, rather than the implications for the system as a whole. The Parish Council requests that Cherwell planners seek clarification from Thames Water on this matter.
STATUTORY CONSULTEES

6.4.	OCC HIGHWAY – No objection subject to conditions securing details of the access and the hard standing areas. 
6.5.	ENVIRONMENT AGENCY – No objections as the dwellings lie within Flood Zone 1.  However the Council needs to satisfy themselves that the proposal has passed the flood risk sequential test and ensure the development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, including safe access and escape routes where required.
6.6.	NATURAL ENGLAND – No objections. 
6.7.	THAMES WATER – No objection.
NON-STATUTORY CONSULTEES
6.8.	CDC CONTAMINATED LAND – No objection but recommend that the full standard contaminated land conditions are placed on any permission granted for this application due to its proximity to a potentially contaminated site (according to Council’s records).
6.9.	CDC LANDSCAPE – Comments that the protected trees should be retained in accordance with the relevant British Standard.  Also request further tree planting to mitigate impact on existing residents. 
6.10.	CDC ARBORICULTURALIST – Comment that a full tree survey is required.
6.11.	OCC ARCHEAOLOGY – No objections.
7.	RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

7.1.	Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

7.2.	The Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 - Part 1 was formally adopted by Cherwell District Council on 20th July 2015 and provides the strategic planning policy framework for the District to 2031.  The Local Plan 2011-2031 – Part 1 replaced a number of the ‘saved’ policies of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan 1996 though many of its policies are retained and remain part of the development plan. The relevant planning policies of Cherwell District’s statutory Development Plan are set out below:

CHERWELL LOCAL PLAN 2011 - 2031 PART 1 (CLP 2031 Part 1)

•	BSC1: District wide housing distribution 
•	ESD1: Mitigating and adapting to climate change
•	ESD6: Sustainable flood risk management
•	ESD10: Biodiversity
•	ESD13: Local landscape protection and enhancement
•	ESD15: The character of the built and historic environment
•	Villages 1: Village categorisation 

CHERWELL LOCAL PLAN 1996 SAVED POLICIES (CLP 1996) 

•	H18: New dwellings in the countryside
•	C28: Layout, design and external appearance of new development 
•	C30: Design of new residential development 
•	ENV12: Contaminated land

7.3.	Other Material Planning Considerations

•	National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
•	Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

8.	APPRAISAL

8.1.	The key issues for consideration in this case are:

•	Principle of development
•	Design, and impact on the character of the area
•	Residential amenity
•	Highways
•	Flood Risk
•	Other matters

Principle

8.2	The Development Plan consists of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 2011-2031 and the Saved Policies of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996.    The Council can demonstrate a 5 year land supply for housing and therefore the policies in the development plan guiding the provision of new housing can be considered up to date and given full weight in determining planning applications. 
8.3	Policy ESD1 of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 states measures will be taken to mitigate the impact of development on climate change and deliver the goals of sustainable development.   This includes distributing housing growth to the most sustainable locations as defined in the Local Plan, and delivering development which reduces the need to travel.   Policy Villages 1 of the Cherwell Local Plan provides a framework for housing growth in the rural areas and seeks to deliver new development to the most sustainable locations.  It includes Wendlebury as a Category C village, which is amongst the least sustainable of rural settlements, where only limited infilling and conversion may be appropriate within the built up limits.   
8.4	The Local Plan does not define the built limits of the village and this is assessed on a case by case basis.  It is considered that for an area to be within the built limits it should contain a significant amount of built form and have a clear physical and visual connection with the surrounding built development.   In this case the application site is an area of green field to the rear of properties on Main Street, and has a detached relationship with the surrounding built development. It has a closer visual relationship with the surrounding countryside than the neighbouring built development.   It is located in a backland position and upon entering the site there is an impression of leaving the built part of the village and entering the surrounding fields.   Overall it is therefore considered that the proposed site is situated outside of the built up limits.   In these cases Saved Policy H18 of the Local Plan is relevant and states that planning permission will only be granted for construction of new dwellings outside of the built limits in a limited number of circumstances none of which are relevant in this case. 
8.5	The development is therefore considered to conflict with Policy ESD1 and Policy Villages 1 of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 and Saved Policy H18 of the 1996 Local Plan all of which seek to provide a strategic policy approach which directs new dwellings to the most sustainable locations. 
8.6	Even if it were to be concluded that the site did lie within the built limits of Wendlebury, Policy Villages 1 only allows for limited infill and conversion in category C villages.  Paragraph C.264 of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 (2015) defines infill development and states: ‘Infilling refers to the development of a small gap in an otherwise continuous built-up frontage.’
8.7	Therefore the proposal would not be supported by this Policy in any case as it would neither represent a conversion or infill development.
8.8	Overall the proposed development is considered to be located outside of the built limits of the village and conflicts with the strategic policies guiding the provision of new dwellings in the district. 
Design, and impact on the character of the area
8.2.	Policy ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan states that new development will be expected to complement and enhance the character of its context through sensitive layout and high quality design. This includes a requirement for new development to respect the traditional pattern of routes, spaces and plots and the form, scale and massing of buildings.  It also states development should contribute positively to an area’s character and identity by creating or reinforcing local distinctiveness.
8.3.	Saved Policies C28 and C30 seek to ensure the layout, scale, design and density of development is of a high standard.
8.4.	The NPPF states that the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment and good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Paragraph 61 goes on to explain that securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations and decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment.  It goes onto state that developments should function well and add to the overall character of the area and establish a strong sense of place using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live.
8.5.	The proposed development is also within the setting of the Red Lion public house which is a grade II building located to the north of the site. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) requires that special regard should be had to the desirability of preserving the setting and significance of a listed building.  Furthermore Policy ESD15 states that development should conserve, sustain and enhance designate heritage assets including their setting. 
8.6.	The existing settlement of Wendlebury is characterised by a mix of dwellings situated along the historic streets of Main Street and Church Lane. There are a series of more modern cul-de-sac located off Main Street which has developed over the years.  The traditional buildings which contribute to the local distinctiveness of the area are predominately located adjacent to historic roads and are constructed of lime stone.
8.7.	The proposed development would represent a back land form of development which would not be characteristic of the village and would not respect the traditional pattern of development.  Generally where dwellings are located in such positions they form part of a larger cul-de-sac so address these streets.  The proposed dwelling would have no street frontage. 
8.8.	The existing undeveloped nature of the site also contributes to the rural setting of the village as views of the open field and trees are available between the adjacent buildings and along the access which positively contributes to the rural setting of the village.  Policy ED13 of the Local Plan Part 1 states that development which harms the setting of settlements should be resisted.  The proposed development would result in a greater depth of development in this area and the views between the buildings on Main Street and driveway would be replaced by the dwellings which would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the village.  This would be exacerbated by the slightly elevated nature of the site
8.9.	The detailed design of the proposed dwellings also does little to reinforce the positively elements of local distinctiveness which contribute to the village.  The site is located in a sensitive position adjacent to the Red Lion pub which is a Grade II listed building and therefore any development must preserve or enhance its setting. Given the depth of the building on Plot 1 and the height, bulk and massing of this building, it would be relatively prominent.  This deep plan depth would also not be representative of more traditional buildings. Furthermore whilst it is noted that buff bricks are used in the locality they are not part of the traditional local vernacular architecture and the use of limestone with slate or plain tile roof would be more appropriate for this edge-of-village site. Other details such as the external chimney breast would also not be in keeping with traditional buildings.  The open setting of the public house does contribute to the rural setting of the building and the proposal would lead to some limited harm to this.  In terms of the NPPF this would be ‘less than substantial harm’ and therefore needs to be weighed against the benefits of the development.
8.10.	There are also two protected trees on the site.  These are a walnut tree to the southern boundary and the ash tree to the northern boundary. These positively contribute to the character and appearance of the area and Policy ESD10 states that the protection of trees will be encouraged.   The proposed development has not been accompanied by any tree report outlining the impact of the development on these trees despite this being a concern raised in the earlier application.  The Council’s tree officer has also requested a tree report.   Given the proposed development includes the provision of a new access and hard standing within the canopy of the ash tree on the northern boundary and the construction of a garage and dwelling close to the indicated canopy of the Walnut Tree on the southern boundary, it is not considered that the Council has the full information to assess the likely impact of the development on these trees. Clearly these works could have significant impacts on the root protection areas of the trees and could also lead to concerns over requests to remove the trees in the future.  This is particularly in relation to Plot 2 which has a principal window facing the walnut tree which is likely to result in considerable levels of shading to this property.  It is also located very close to this property.
8.11.	In conclusion the proposed development is not considered to represent a high quality development which would be responsive to its context.  The back land position of the plots would not relate well to the traditional pattern of development in the area and would also detrimentally impact on the countywide setting of the village.  The proposed design of the dwellings would also fail to positively reinforce local distinctiveness and would cause limited harm to the setting of the adjacent listed building.  Whilst this would be less than substantial it would not be outweighed by the modest social or economic benefits of the scheme.  Insufficient information has also been provided with regards to the impact on the protected trees. 
Residential amenity
8.12.	Both the NPPF and Policy ESD15 of the Local Plan seek to ensure development proposals provide a good standard of amenity for both existing and proposed occupants of land and buildings relating to privacy, outlook, natural light and indoor and outdoor space.  
8.13.	The proposed development will alter the views from the neighbouring properties however it is a long established planning principle that there is not right to a private view. The Council has informal guidance in relation to separation distances between properties in order to provide a good level of amenity in terms of privacy and outlook. These distances would be exceeded in the current case to all the neighbouring properties and it is not considered there would be any significant loss of light, outlook or privacy as a result of the application if appropriate boundary treatments were secured by condition. 
Highways
8.9	The proposed development would utilise the existing access.  This access serves 3 dwellings. It is noted that the visibility to the north of the access is limited due to the position of the Red Lion public house. However the highway authority has been consulted and has raised no objection to the application subject to conditions.  
8.10	It is noted that vehicle speeds in the vicinity of the junction are likely to be lower due to the tight relationship of the pub with the carriageway and the narrowing of the carriageway. Furthermore the driveway is relatively wide and users would be likely to situate themselves to the south of the access to leave the site where visibility would be slightly improved On the basis of the information available and in the absence of an objection from the highway authority it is not considered that the substandard nature of the access would justify refusal of the application.  
8.11	The proposed dwellings each have suitable levels of parking and parking would be maintained for the existing dwellings. 

Flood Risk
8.14.	The site of the proposed dwellings is located within Flood Zone 1 which is the lowest probability of flooding.  However the access to the site is located within Flood Risk Zone 2 and 3 associated with the brook which runs along Main Street.  Policy ESD6 of the Local Plan states the Council will manage and reduce the risk of flooding. It states that applications will be assessed in accordance with the sequential approach and exception tests as outlined in the NPPF and PPG.
8.15.	Policy ESD6 and paragraph 103 of the NPPF advise that all applications in Flood Zone 2 and 3 (including changes of use) should be accompanied by a site specific flood risk assessment. Paragraph 103 goes onto state that when determining applications, development should only be considered appropriate if it can be demonstrated that:

-	Within the site the most vulnerable development is located in the areas of lowest flood risk: and 
-	Development is appropriately flood resilient, including safe access and escape routes where required, and that any residual risk can be safely managed. 

8.16.	In the current case the application of the sequential test is considered to be of little relevance as the operational development which is proposed by this application is located in Flood Zone 1 and so is not likely to be impacted by flooding.   The main issue in this case therefore is whether there is safe access and escape routes.  
8.17.	The submitted flood risk assessment outlines that given the location of the proposed dwellings they are above the level of the flood events. Whilst it is accepted that the escape route would flood and would not be suitable for vulnerable users it is concluded that the escape route would be suitable for the wider general public given the likely flood depths and the low velocity of the water.  Access is also unlikely to be problematic for emergency services in order to assist existing and proposed vulnerable residents of the locality. Whilst it is noted that this arrangement is not ideal, the application site is located in an established residential area where other properties are at a greater risk of flooding and some elderly or child residents would be likely to require assistance in evacuation.  It is not considered given all the above factors that the proposed development would lead to a significant impact on flood risk or burden which would justify the application being refused on this basis. 
8.18.	Concerns regarding the increase in surface water run-off form the site could be controlled through the submission of an appropriate surface water drainage scheme which could be controlled by a planning condition.
8.19.	Thames Water has also raised no objection to the application.  The parish council had raised concerns regarding the perceived inconsistencies between Thames Water comments on the current application and the comments on the adjacent property, The Lion public house.  Thames Water have confirmed that as the site lies down stream of The Lion public house the development would not impact on the history of flooding into the sewers which has occurred at the Lion.   
Other matters
8.20.	The applicant has stated that they wish to construct dwellings on the site to aid the security of the horses which are kept on land adjacent to the site.   This personal desire is not considered to outweigh the conflict with policy which acts in the wider public interest.  
8.21.	The site is currently mown grassland.  It is noted in the earlier application that the Council’s ecologist raised no objection to the application subject to conditions.  Therefore the ecological impacts of the development are considered to be acceptable.
9.	CONCLUSION
9.1.	The proposed development would conflict with the development plan policies which seek to guide new housing growth to the most sustainable locations and limit growth in less sustainable areas.  It would also be out of keeping with the surrounding pattern of development, harmfully impact on the rural setting of the village, fail to reinforce local distinctiveness and lead to some limited harm to the setting of the adjacent listed building.   Whilst the proposal would be acceptable in regard to highway safety, flood risk and residential amenity matters these are neutral factors.  The proposal would lead to the modest economic and social benefits associated with the construction and provision of 2 dwellings however these would not outweigh the identified conflict with policy and harm that would result.  
10.	RECOMMENDATION
10.1.	That permission is refused, for the following reason(s): 

1.	The proposed dwellings constitutes sporadic development beyond the built up limits of Wendlebury and therefore conflicts with Policy ESD1 and Policy Villages 1 of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 (2015) and saved Policy H18 the Cherwell Local Plan 1996, and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework which seek to direct housing growth in the most sustainable manner.

2.	The proposed development, by virtue of its back land position and design and scale of the dwellings, would be poorly related to the traditional pattern of plots and would detrimentally impact on the character and appearance of the locality and rural setting of the village.  It would also fail to reinforce local distinctiveness and would result in less than substantial harm to the setting of the Grade II listed The Lion public house. The modest public benefits arising from the development are not considered to outweigh this identified harm.   The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies ESD13 and ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 (2015) and Saved Polies C28 and C30 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996, and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework which seek to secure high quality design.

3.	Insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate the proposals would not result in damage to the protected trees on site or the long term retention of these trees, with resulting harm to the character and appearance of the area. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies ESD10, ESD13 and ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 (2015) and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Planning Notes/ Informatives:

For the avoidance of doubt, the plans and documents considered by the Local Planning Authority in reaching its decision on this application are: Application Form, Flood Risk Assessment (ref 15-1749.07.01), Access and Design Statement, drawing number 390-02, 390-17, 390-18, 390-19, 390-20, 390-21, 390-09, 390-11. 390-12, 390-13, 390-14, 390-15, 390-16 and 390-01.

CASE OFFICER: James Kirkham		DATE: 5th October 2016	
CHECKED BY:  Alex Keen	DATE: 7th October 2016