1.	APPLICATION SITE AND LOCALITY 

1.1.	8 Rectory Close is located at the far north point of the village of Wendlebury, in the turning head of a cul-de-sac. Dwellings in this street are all two-storey and arranged in a simple, linear layout pattern, and are constructed mostly from reconstituted stone under tiled roofs. The site is located within Flood Zones 2 and 3 and within 20m of a main river, and is also located on potentially contaminated land. 
2.	DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
2.1.	The applicant seeks planning consent for the erection of a new dwelling to the southwest of 8 Rectory Close.  The new dwelling would be two-storey with 3 bedrooms with an eaves height of 5m. It is noted that there are discrepancies on the plans, with the front and north side elevation showing a ridge height of 9m and the rear and south side elevation showing a ridge height of 8.6m. The dwelling would feature an integral garage and open porch area to the front, with a balcony to the first floor rear elevation serving the master bedroom. 
3.	RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

The following planning history is considered relevant to the current proposal: 
Application Ref.	Proposal	Decision	
	
97/01900/F	4 roof dormers to create 2 extra bedrooms one with en-suite and new bathroom.	Application Permitted	
	
13/00691/F	Proposed two storey side and single storey front extension	Application Permitted	
	
17/00742/F	Demolition of existing garage, erection of new detached dwelling with integral garage, erection of replacement double garage for existing dwelling	Application Refused	
	
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 and by letters sent to all properties immediately adjoining the application site that the Council has been able to identify from its records. The final date for comments was 28.06.2018, although comments received after this date and before finalising this report have also been taken into account. 
5.2.	The comments raised by third parties are summarised as follows 
•	Significant adverse impact on existing views and daylight
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 AND NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUMS
6.2.	WENDLEBURY PARISH COUNCIL: No objections 
STATUTORY CONSULTEES
6.3.	 OCC HIGHWAYS: No objections 
6.4.	ENVIRONMENT AGENCY: No objections – subject to a planning condition that development is only carried out in accordance with the submitted FRA and other mitigation measures. 
6.5.	THAMES WATER: No objections – in regard to waste or water. 
NON-STATUTORY CONSULTEES
6.6.	CDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROECTION: No objections – subject to the applicant providing ducting to allow for the future installation of EV charging infrastructure.  
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)
•	Villages 1: Village Categorisation
•	PSD 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development
•	SLE4: Improved transport and connections
•	BSC 1: District wide housing distribution
•	BSC 2: Effective and efficient use of land	
•	ESD 1: Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change
•	ESD 3: Sustainable Construction
•	ESD 6: Sustainable Flood Risk Management
•	ESD 7: Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)
•	ESD 10: Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity and the Natural Environment
•	ESD 15: The Character of the built and historic environment

Cherwell Local Plan 1996 (Saved Policies) (CLP 1996)
•	C28: Layout, design and external appearance of new development 
•	C30: Design control  

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
•	Highway safety 
•	Flood risk 

Principle of development 

8.2.	Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that a presumption of sustainable development should be seen as a golden thread running through decision taking. There are three dimensions to sustainable development, as defined in the NPPF, which require the planning system to perform economic, social and environmental roles. These roles should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system.

8.3.	Paragraph 12 of the NPPF notes that the development plan is the starting point of decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. Cherwell District Council has an up-to-date Local Plan which was adopted on 20th July 2015.

8.4.	Cherwell District Council can demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as advised by the NPPF, will therefore need to be applied in this context.

8.5.	Policy ESD1 of the Cherwell Local Plan (2011-2031 Part 1) states that measures will be taken to mitigate the impact of development within the District on climate change. This will include: distributing growth to the most sustainable locations as defined by Policy Villages 1, and delivering development that seeks to reduce the need to travel and which encourages sustainable travel options including walking, cycling and public transport to reduce dependence on private cars.

8.6.	The principle of residential development in Wendlebury is assessed against Policy Villages 1 in the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1. Wendlebury is recognised as a Category C village in the Cherwell Local Plan (2011-2031 Part 1). Category C villages are considered the least sustainable settlements in the District’s rural areas to accommodate growth and therefore residential development will be restricted to the conversion of non-residential buildings and infilling.

8.7.	As paragraph C.264 of the Cherwell Local Plan (2011-2031 Part 1) states that infilling refers to the development of a small gap in an otherwise continuous built-up frontage. I consider that the development proposed would constitute infilling, between 7 and 8 Rectory Close. However, this paragraph goes on to state, “Not all infill gaps will be suitable for development. Many spaces in villages’ streets are important and cannot be filled without detriment to their character. Such gaps may afford views out to the landscape or help to impart a spacious rural atmosphere to the village. This is particularly important in a loose knit village pattern where spaces may be as important as the buildings.”

8.8.	Therefore, while the development may be acceptable in general sustainability terms, this is clearly dependant on it not causing adverse harm by way of its visual impact, and with further regard to its impact on residential amenity, highway safety, and flooding, assessed in detail below. 

8.9.	Rectory Close is located on the northern edge of the village of Wendlebury, and the proposed location of a new dwelling is between Nos. 8 and 9, in the turning head of the cul-de-sac. The relationships of neighbouring dwellings differ along the Close. Dwellings on the western side of the road sit wide in their plots and in close proximity to their adjacent neighbours. Regarding the application site, however, the dwellings at this end of the Close enjoy a spacious relationship, which provides the gradual transition from the countryside in to this end of the village, and it is considered important to retain this spacious character.

8.10.	The proposed dwelling is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site. The dwelling would appear cramped and not in keeping with the existing character of the area. Attention is particularly drawn to this because of the existing spacious relationship of dwellings within the turning area and, whilst the size and scale of the dwelling would be more akin to the dwellings western side of Rectory Close, the dwelling would be set behind this building line, hidden from view in the majority of viewpoints along the road. Furthermore the dwelling would feel further detached from the dwellings along the western side of Rectory Close as it would be separated from them by the lane towards the Thames Water site. 

8.11.	Whilst it is acknowledged that the dwellings in the turning area of the cul-de-sac have a different spacious relationship and are less uniform, they are generally larger dwellings in more substantial plots and the proposed dwelling would be smaller and in a narrower plot and would therefore appear out of place and not respectful of the surrounding context. Furthermore a new dwelling in this location would fail to respect the existing spacious and loose-knit character of this part of the village which currently provides a gentle transition from the countryside to the north. 

8.12.	Therefore, the proposal would fail to comply with Policies ESD15 and Villages 1 of the CLP 2031 Part 1, saved Policies C28 and C30 of the CLP 1996 and relevant paragraphs of the Framework and is therefore unacceptable in principle. 

Residential amenity 

8.13.	Policy ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011 – 2031 Part 1 states that new development proposals should consider amenity of both existing and future development, including matters of privacy, outlook, natural lighting, ventilation and indoor and outdoor space.

8.14.	Whilst the division of the gardens for the new dwelling and the existing 8 Rectory Close is somewhat peculiar, with a long narrow strip being retained for the existing property, it is not considered that this is a reason for refusal as this space does provide sufficient private amenity space for the occupiers of the new property and the existing. 

8.15.	The only properties that could be materially impacted by way of the proposal would be 8 and 9 Rectory Close. Given the relationship of 8 Rectory Close and the new dwelling, it is not considered that there would be any material impact through a loss of light, outlook, overshadowing or over-domination. 

8.16.	The new dwelling would be set behind the existing building line along the western side of Rectory Close and of most significance here is the relationship with No. 9. There is an existing lane between the site and No. 9 and as such the minimum distance between the sides of the properties would be 5.5m. When assessing whether a proposal is harmful to a neighbour by way of loss of light and outlook, the starting point is the 45 degree line taken horizontally from the mid-point of the nearest habitable room window in the adjacent neighbouring dwelling, as set out in the Cherwell Home Extensions and Other Alterations Design Guide (2007). In this case, only an angle taken from the first floor bedroom window to the neighbours dwelling would intersect with the new dwelling proposed, with the ground floor element of the neighbours dwelling extending out further than the first floor. Therefore, given the marginal conflict with the 45 degree line and the siting to the north of the neighbour, it is considered not reasonable to refuse the application on this basis. Furthermore, the spatial relationship of the two dwellings means that no sunlight would be lost.  

Highway safety 

8.17.	Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should take account of whether safe and suitable access to a site can be achieved for all people. However development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. It goes onto state that development which is not suitable for the roads that serve the development and which have a severe traffic impact will not be supported. Further, Policy ESD 15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2031 Part 1 states that: “New development proposals should be designed to deliver high quality safe, attractive, durable and healthy places to live and work in. Development of all scales should be designed to improve the quality and appearance of an area and the way it functions.”

8.18.	The new dwelling also demonstrates an acceptable level of private parking for future occupiers. The Highways Liaison Officer has also raised no objections to the proposal. It is considered that the proposal would not result in any severe harm to highway safety.

Flood Risk 

8.19.	Policy ESD 6 of the CLP 2031 requires site specific flood risk assessments to accompany development proposals located within Flood Zones 2 and 3, whilst it is also a requirement of the Environment Agency for applicants to submit a Flood Risk Assessment for minor development within Flood Zones 2 and 3 to ensure that Flood Risk has been taken into consideration when designing the scheme. 

8.20.	The application site is located with Flood Zones 2 and 3, as identified by the Environment Agency’s flood mapping, and is therefore considered at high risk of flooding. Furthermore the footprint of the dwelling itself would be on land identified as Flood Zone 2. The PPG states that where there are no reasonably available sites in Flood Zone 1, local planning authorities in their decision making should take into account the flood risk vulnerability of land uses and consider reasonably available sites in Flood Zone 2 (areas with a medium probability of river or sea flooding). 

8.21.	In this case, the Local Planning Authority must apply the Sequential Test, and the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that there are no reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. 

8.22.	Whilst the submitted FRA demonstrates that flood resilient measures can be implemented during the construction of the property, it fails to demonstrate that there are no reasonably available sites available with a lower probability of flooding. In any case, the Council currently demonstrates a 5 year housing land supply and a large proportion of the district is in an area of lower probability flooding, and thus it is not considered that development on this site would pass the Sequential Test. The proposal would thus fail to comply with Policy ESD6 of the CLP 2031 Part 1 and relevant paragraphs of the Framework. 

9.	PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
9.1.	The NPPF states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Paragraph 8 requires that the three dimensions to sustainable development (economic, social and environmental) are not undertaken in isolation, but are sought jointly and simultaneously.
9.2.	By virtue of its siting and scale, the proposed new dwelling would appear as cramped development that would represent a significant and demonstrable harm to the existing loose-knit character of the area. An acceptable Flood Risk Assessment has not been provided to demonstrate that there are no reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. 
9.3.	Whilst the proposal would deliver a modest social benefit in the form of social housing, this is not considered to outweigh the significant harm identified. The proposal is therefore contrary to the Policies set out in section 7 of this report for the reasons as set out below.
10.	RECOMMENDATION
That permission is refused, for the following reason(s): 

1.	The proposed dwelling, by virtue of its siting and scale, would constitute a cramped form of development that would fail to sympathetically integrate into the built environment, not relating well to the surrounding pattern of development and would detract from the traditional loose-knit character of the area. The proposal would therefore fail to represent acceptable infill development within the built up limits of Wendlebury. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to the provisions and aims of Policy ESD15 and Villages 1 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011 – 2031 Part 1, Saved Policies C28 and C30 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework. 

2.	The proposed development lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3 as identified by the Environment Agency and in the absence of a suitable Flood Risk Assessment has not been demonstrated that there are no reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy ESD6 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Case Officer: 	George Smith	DATE: 17.07.18	
Checked By: 	Nathanael Stock	DATE: 17.07.18