1.	APPLICATION SITE AND LOCALITY 

1.1.	The application site relates Building 335 which is a Nose Docking Shed, dating from 1959. The building is situated with the Upper Heyford flying field, approximately 325 metres to the south of the former main runway. The property is now situated within an area referred to as Heyford Park. The building is situated within the RAF Upper Heyford Conservation Area. The building is Locally Listed.
1.2.	Building 335 is situated in an area surrounded by buildings typical of a former air force base. There is a mixture of large structures, some of which are Locally Listed and Listed, large expenses of tarmac broken up by grassed areas. The development pattern is sporadic in nature. The existing building has a footprint of approximately 755 square metres. The nose docking shed is identified as being of international significance and is thought to have an architecturally innovative design. There are 3 other example of nose docking sheds on the site that have been listed.
1.3.	There are no other constraints on the building or the area generally that need to be taken into consideration in the Planning Assessment of the proposals other than thos previously detailed in section 1.1.
2.	DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
2.1.	The proposals impact upon building 335, a nose docking shed situated within the RAF Heyford Conservation Area.
2.2.	The proposals are to insert a roller shutter door to the principal elevation of the building. This is required due to the existing operational difficulties of opening the doors. The original proposals received negative comments from both Historic England and CDC Conservation.
2.3.	The proposed revised plans submitted propose that the existing stepped sliding doors will be fixed in place. A central roller shutter door would be located on the southern elevation. The existing doors would be pulled back and an infill panel would be installed. The opening created would measure approximately 6 metres in width and would measure approximately 4.4 metres in height. The proposed doors are  of a roller shutter  type in style.
2.4.	The revisions have allowed the removal of objections from both Historic England and the CDC Conservation team.

3.	RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

3.1.	There is no planning history directly relevant to the proposal.  
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. The final date for comments was 21.02.2018, 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;
•	Are the Nose Docking sheds listed? Even if they are not, alternative ways of making these historically interesting buildings usable should be found. The comparison with the shutter doors on HASs is irrelevant.
•	Equally important is the continuing failure to have master plan adopted to ensure that there is a “comprehensive integrated approach” and a heritage impact assessment as required by Local Plan Policy V5. This process of “drip, drip, drip” has, as Pegasus have said, diluted the history of the site. Without an overall plan this process is most likely to continue.
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.	Upper Heyford Parish Council: No comments or objections received regarding this application.
OTHER CONSULTEES
6.3.	Mid Cherwell Neighbourhood Forum: No comments or objections received regarding this application. 
6.4.	Historic England: The amendments made to the original application have addressed previously raised issues. No objections on heritage grounds to Planning Permission being granted.
6.5.	CDC Conservation: The submitted designs are an improvement on the previous design in that they do not cause harm to the physical fabric of the building. It is, however, lacking in detail with regards to what the infill panel would be constructed of and how it would be attached to the roller shutter doors. The key issue would be to determine whether it would be a reversible addition.
6.6.	Oxford Trust for Contemporary History: No comments or objections received regarding this application.
6.7.	Heyford Park Residents and Community Development Association: No comments or objections received regarding this application.
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)

•	ESD15 - The Character of the Built and Historic Environment
•	Policy Villages 5: Former RAF Upper Heyford

CHERWELL LOCAL PLAN 1996 SAVED POLICIES (CLP 1996)

•	C28 – Layout, design and external appearance of new development

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 Conservation Area and the area generally.

8.2.	Paragraph 56 of the NPPF makes clear that: the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. This is reflected in Policy ESD15 of the CLP 2031 Part 1, which states that new development proposals should: be designed to improve the quality and appearance of an area and the way it functions...contribute positively to an area’s character and identity by creating or reinforcing local distinctiveness…(and) respect the traditional pattern of routes, spaces, blocks, plots, enclosures and the form, scale and massing of buildings.
8.3.	Saved Policy C28 of the CLP 1996 reinforce this, with Policy C28 states: That the standards of layout, design and external appearance, including the choice of external-finish materials are sympathetic to the character of the urban or rural context of that development. In sensitive areas such as Conservation Areas will be required to be of a high standard and the use of traditional local building materials will normally be required.
8.4.	The proposals are not considered to have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area or the surrounding Conservation Area. The proposed works are situated on the south eastern elevation. The existing hanger is one of 5 within the larger site, some of the others being Listed buildings. Although building 335 is not Listed, care has been taken to ensure the proposals do not detrimentally impact upon the existing building and are now considered to preserve the visual amenity of the Conservation Area to which it relates.
8.5.	By reason of its design and appearance, the proposals are not considered to detract from the visual amenity of the area. The proposals ensure that the positive feature of the stepped doors are retained in situ. The proposed openings would be finished in an appropriate material to match those of the main building to which it relates. The roller shutter door would be situated in an area where the existing doors have been pulled back and would be inserted into the gap with an infill panel. This replicates the approach for the HAS and results in the existing doors not being detrimentally affected.
8.6.	The proposed site is situated is situated approximately 100 metres to the west of the Listed Control Tower and approximately 300 metres to the north of the 3 other nose docking sheds (Buildings 325,327,328), and as such does not detract from the setting of these buildings.
8.7.	The proposals are therefore considered not to adversely impact on the visual amenity of the area and are thus considered to accord with policies outlined in with Government guidance contained with the NPPF and saved Policy C28 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 and Policy ESD15 of the CLP 2011-2031 Part 1.
8.8.	The proposals are considered to comply with Section 12 of the NPPF in relation to “conserving and enhancing the historic environment”. The proposals has ensured to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage assets conservation and the main aspects of the proposals.
8.9.	The proposals are also considered to comply with sections 132 and 133 of the  NPPF. The proposals ensure that the works will not lead to significant  harm or loss of the heritage assets.  Sections 134,137 and 138 are also not considered to be departed significantly from. 
8.10.	The proposal thus accords with Government guidance contained with the NPPF and saved Policy C30 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 that seeks standards of amenity and privacy acceptable to the Local Planning Authority.
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.

10.	PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
9.2.	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.

11.	RECOMMENDATION
That permission is granted, subject to the following conditions;

1.	The development to which this permission relates shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason - To comply with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2.	Except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission, the development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the application forms and the following plans and documents: “D.0342_57”, “D.0342_56 Sheet No.07 REV:A”, “D.0342_56 Sheet No.09 REV:A” and “D.0342_56 Sheet No08 REV:A”

Reason – For the avoidance of doubt, to ensure that the development is carried out only as approved by the Local Planning Authority and comply with Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.	Before the development hereby permitted commences, details of the proposed infill panel material and means of attachment to the roller door shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason – To ensure the proposals do not have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the Conservation Area to which it relates.

Case Officer: 	Gavin Forrest 	DATE: 11/06/2018	
Checked By: 		DATE: