1.	APPLICATION SITE AND LOCALITY 

1.1.	The site is located on the far western edge of Sibford Gower, to the north of Main Street, which is the primary road running through the village. To the west past the site are public footpath 348/8/10 (southwest) and public bridleway 348/7/10 (northwest). The site is currently in use as a garage/outbuilding for Lane Head, which is a Grade II Listed Building to the east, separated by its garden curtilage. The site is also located within the designated Sibford Gower and Burdrop Conservation Area, and 5 other Grade II Listed Buildings are within close proximity, all to the east. To the south and west is more modern housing development. 
1.2.	The Swift, Brown Hairstreak and Pipistrelle Bat are protected and notable species recorded in the locality. 
2.	DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
2.1.	The applicant seeks planning consent for the demolition of the existing garage to form a single dwelling, and conversion and extension of the existing outbuilding (poolhouse) to form a garage with ancillary accommodation above for the use of Lane Head. The new dwelling would be 2 storeys and dual pitched with its side gabled elevation fronting on to Main Street, and the rear of the dwelling adjoining the new garage for Lane Head. The dwelling would reach a ridge height of 7m, whereas the extended garage would be set down slightly in height, but still at 2 storey level with a games room/guest bedroom above, and the eaves of this element fronting Main Street. The building would be built in local stone, under clay tile and natural slate roofing, with rendered detailing. 
2.2.	The applicant proposes garden space for the new dwelling in land to the north of the parking area, between the front gable of the property and the new retaining boundary wall to the west.
2.3.	Amendments were received during the course of the application following concerns raised by the Highway Liaison Officer. The amended plans show the 2 tandem parking spaces proposed to serve the new dwelling to be set further back in to the site, and the proposed garage doors are also to be indented further back in to the garage building, which would allow for the proposed parking in front of the garages to be set off the highway. 
3.	RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

3.1.	The following planning history is considered relevant to the current proposal: 
Application Ref.	Proposal	Decision	
	
CHN.523/87	Conversion of existing flat-roofed garage to a pitch-roofed single storey bedroom flat (Granny Annexe)	Refused and Dismissed at Appeal	
07/01639/LB	Replace ridge and top layer of thatch as existing. Part retrospective.	Application Permitted	
11/01400/F	Installation of air source heat pump	Application Permitted	
	
3.2.	CHN.523/87 - The Inspector considered that the main issue was whether the proposed development would seriously harm the character and appearance of this part of Sibford Gower. 
3.3.	It was considered that the resulting building would spoil the local scene by way of a substantial increase in terms of height and bulk of the existing garage building, to an extent that it would present an excessively intrusive appearance and a cramped form of development seriously detrimental to an attractive part of Sibford Gower.  
3.4.	The Inspector determined that the Councils refusal reasons regarding the possible future use of the flat separate from the main dwelling and inadequate parking provisions were not sufficient reasons for refusal on their own. 
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 04.05.2017, 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: 
•	Overdevelopment of site, loss of wall, impact on landscape, impact on Conservation Area and Lane Head. 
•	Overlooking in to rear garden and conservatory, impact on hedge and if removed would further reduce privacy  
•	Lack of amenity space for future occupiers, cramped accommodation 
•	New building impact on quiet, narrow lane, reducing ease of access for emergency vehicles, overspill cars parking on road, cars wouldn’t use garages
•	Inaccurate plans showing more space available behind rear elevation
•	Subsidence of Rye Hill Lodge
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.	SIBFORD GOWER PARISH COUNCIL: No objections – but the Parish asks that the Council takes seriously the concerns raised by neighbours. Noted are highway matters and impact on privacy 
STATUTORY CONSULTEES
6.3.	OCC HIGHWAYS: Objects
The highway serving this site is narrow, tortuously aligned, lacks separate footway provision and a proper turning facility. Any proposal of this nature which will result in increased movements will inevitably result in further hazard and inconvenience. The proposed layout shows vehicle parking encroaching onto the verge area beside the carriageway effectively narrowing the width available.
Recommend refuse;
1 - The highway serving the site is severely restricted in terms of its width, alignment and lack of either separate footway or turning provision, movements generated as a product of this proposal will result in a detriment to the safety and convenience of other highway users.
2 - The proposed layout of the development will effectively narrow the highway in the immediate vicinity encroaching as it does onto the verge adjacent to the carriageway this will cause increased hazard and be of further detriment to the safety and convenience of other highway users.
NON-STATUTORY CONSULTEES
6.4.	CDC CONSERVATION: Objects 
The proposed development lies within the Sibford Gower and Burdrop Character Area of the Sibford Ferris, Sibford Gower and Burdrop Conservation Area.  The specific area in which the development lies is a narrow, single track road leading to a footpath / private road at the western end of the village. 
The land lies within the ownership of Lane Head, a grade II listed building, which was historically a terrace of 2 or 3 cottages at different dates, but now forms a single dwelling. The listed building is located at some distance to the east of the proposed development, at the end of a linear piece of land. 
The land is currently occupied by a single storey, flat roofed garage and there are no objections to its demolition. The outbuilding, which is to be converted, appears to be of early 20th century date – it is first shown on the historic OS map of 1913-1923, although the form of it has changed over time. The building is considered to be curtilage listed. 
 
Historic OS map 1875-1887
 
Historic OS map 1913-1923
The proposed development is at the western extent of the settlement within the historic core, but is in close proximity to a number of more modern developments including High Field, Whitts End, Lodge and Bridleways. Two of these properties are located outside of the conservation area boundary (High Field and Whitts End) and it should be noted that they are set back from the roadside. The proposal to emulate this form of development (as outlined in the Design and Access Statement) is entirely inappropriate. The proposed development would essentially be two separate units (the outbuilding associated with Lane End and a separate dwelling), but would be read as one. This large property would be located immediately adjacent to the roadside along an extremely narrow lane. 
There would also be an impact on the setting of the listed building with the substantial alteration of the existing low key outbuilding to a large property of domestic appearance. This would be detrimental to the visual setting of the listed building as well as the relationship between the two buildings which would be fundamentally altered. 
The scale, massing and inappropriate form and design of the proposed development are considered to cause harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of the listed building.  There is not perceived to be a public benefit to outweigh this harm and therefore it is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework. 
The proposed development is not considered to ‘Contribute positively to an area’s character and identity by creating or reinforcing local distinctiveness and respecting local topography and landscape features’ or Respect the traditional pattern of routes, spaces, blocks, plots, enclosures and the form, scale and massing of buildings’ and is therefore contrary to the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031.
6.5.	CDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROECTION: 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)

•	PSD1 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development
•	BSC1 - District Wide Housing Distribution
•	ESD1 – Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change
•	ESD3 - Sustainable Construction
•	ESD7 - Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDs)
•	ESD10 - Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity and the Natural  Environment
•	ESD13 – Local Landscape Protection and Enhancement
•	ESD15 - The Character of the Built and Historic Environment
•	Policy Villages 1 – Village Characterisation 

CHERWELL LOCAL PLAN 1996 SAVED POLICIES (CLP 1996) 

•	C23 – Retention of features contributing to the character and appearance of a conservation area 
•	C28 - Layout, design and external appearance of new development 
•	C30 - Design of new residential development

7.3.	Other material considerations

•	CDC Home Extensions and Alterations Design Guide (2007)

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 and designated heritage assets 
•	Residential amenity
•	Highway safety

Principle of development 
8.2.	Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 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 for 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 Villages 1 of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 groups villages into three separate categories (A, B and C). Sibford Gower is recognised as a Category A village. Category A villages are considered the most sustainable settlements in the District’s rural areas and have physical characteristics and a range of services within them to enable them to accommodate some limited extra housing growth. Within Category A villages, residential development will be restricted to the conversion of non-residential buildings, infilling and minor development comprising small groups of dwellings on sites within the built up area of the settlement.

8.6.	The new dwelling is considered to be infilling within the built up limits of the settlement of Sibford Gower, given that it would be located between Rye Hill Lodge and the existing outbuilding to Lane Head. It is therefore considered that the principle of the dwelling on this site could be acceptable. However, Paragraph C.264 of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 which supports Policy Villages 1 states that: “Infilling refers to the development of a small gap in an otherwise continuous built up frontage. 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 the spaces may be as important as the buildings”. 

8.7.	Thus, the principle of the proposed dwelling in this case is also clearly dependent on it not causing adverse harm to the character and appearance of the area, residential amenities, highways safety or ecology. These issues are discussed below.

8.8.	As regards the conversion and extension of the outbuilding to form a garage and ancillary accommodation to Lane Head, as this would effectively function as an outbuilding to the existing dwelling it could also be acceptable in principle subject to other considerations as discussed below.

Design, and impact on the character of the area and designated heritage assets

8.9.	Policy ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 states that: “New development will be expected to complement and enhance the character of its context through sensitive siting, layout and high quality design. All new development will be required to meet high design standards.” 
8.10.	ESD15 goes on to say that new development proposals should: “Conserve, sustain and enhance designated ‘heritage assets’ (as defined in the NPPF) including buildings, features, archaeology, conservation areas and their settings, and ensure new development is sensitively sited and integrated in accordance with advice in the NPPF and NPPG.
8.11.	Saved Policy C23 of the 1996 Local Plan states that there will be a presumption in favour of retaining walls and other features which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of a conservation area and Policies C28 and C30 seek to exercise control over all new developments to ensure that the standards of layout, design and external appearance are sympathetic to the character of the context as well as compatible with existing buildings. 

8.12.	Government guidance contained within the NPPF attaches great importance to the design of the built environment and states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.  Further, LPA’s should take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation. 

8.13.	Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) states that in carrying out its functions as the Local Planning Authority in respect of development in a conservation area: special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. Likewise Section 66 of the same Act states that: In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority…shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Therefore significant weight must be given to these matters in the assessment of this planning application.

8.14.	Paragraph 132 of the NPPF 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. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm loss should require clear and convincing justification. Policy ESD15 of the CLP 2031 Part 1 echoes this guidance.

8.15.	Currently, the garage/outbuilding has a low profile and appears subservient to the dwellings opposite and in particular Lane Head to the east. The existing buildings are also dwarfed by Rye Hill Lodge to the northwest and by the large leylandii hedge to the north, which separates the site and the curtilage of Rye Hill Lodge. As such, they do not appear unduly prominent or oppressive in the streetscene.

8.16.	It is considered that the changes proposed would significantly alter the character of the site and the area. While it is noted that the existing stone wall and garage/outbuilding provide a sense of enclosure along this land, it is considered that the new buildings proposed would substantially increase the scale, and would be visually prominent and dominating particularly considering the close relationship with the narrow lane. Where currently users of the lane begin to experience the gradual transition from the built form on Main Street to the open and rural character of the lane and surrounding fields, the introduction of this dwelling/garage is considered to create an urbanising effect on the site and its context, and cause harm to the designated Conservation Area. While it is noted that the dwelling and garage proposed are separate units, they would effectively be read as one building in the streetscene with a substantial combined massing and convoluted form. Therefore the siting and scale of the proposed structure would compete in prominence with the Grade II Listed Lane Head, detracting from its setting and significance, and would harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area by introducing a cramped form of development that is not traditional in form or appearance. 

8.17.	The design of the proposal, with regard to the various projecting elements, and somewhat overcomplicated fenestration style, roof form, and range of materials is considered to compound the harm to the character and appearance of the area and in particular the setting of the Grade II Listed Lane Head. Lane Head is a simple, linear dwelling with a deep, narrow garden. It is considered that the design and scale of the proposed dwelling/outbuilding would cause harm to its setting and significance, and would fail to preserve or enhance the heritage asset. 

8.18.	In addition, the amendments to indent the garage doors further within the garage unit are considered to cause additional harm to the visual amenity of the site in the context of the surrounding area. This is not a traditional arrangement and would appear contrived, emphasising the inappropriateness and cramped nature of the development in this location.

8.19.	In summary, the proposed dwelling/garage, by reason of its siting, scale, design and detailing would cause significant and demonstrable harm to the Sibford Gower and Burdrop Conservation Area and the setting of Lane Head, a Grade II Listed Building and would fail to preserve or enhance the heritage assets. As a result, the proposals fail to comply with Policy ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011 – 2031 Part 1, Saved Policies C28 and C30 of the adopted Cherwell Local Plan 1996 and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.  

Neighbour amenity

8.20.	Both the NPPF and Policy ESD15 of the Local Plan Part 1 seek to ensure development proposals provide a good standard of amenity for both existing and proposed occupants of land and buildings.

8.21.	Neighbours that may be materially impacted by the proposed dwelling/garage are Rye Hill Lodge, Whitts End, High Field and Lane Head. 

8.22.	Rye Hill Lodge is a detached dwelling set to the northwest and angled away from the rear elevation of the proposed building, with its garden largely to the north, but with a glazed conservatory projecting off the south-eastern side elevation. The ‘front’ west facing elevation of the proposed dwelling would be set off the south-eastern elevation of the conservatory by approximately 10m, however the window to the Master Bedroom facing this elevation is obscurely glazed, and would therefore negate any privacy impact towards the conservatory. That said, this is poor arrangement for the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling and is further evidence that the proposal is inappropriate in this location. 

8.23.	However, it is considered that the new dwelling would create an overshadowing an over-dominant effect given the proximity to the boundary. Also causing harm to this neighbour are the three windows proposed to the north. While it is indicated on the plans that these windows would be below the existing hedge line, it is not clear that the intention is to retain this hedge given the introduction of a new retaining wall to the boundary in largely the same location as the existing hedge. Whilst these windows could be obscure glazed, this would result in the master bedroom having no real outlook. The proposal would therefore cause significant harm to the amenity of this neighbour, and would result in a poor living environment for future occupiers. 

8.24.	Whitts End and High Field experience a similar relationship with the site, both detached properties being set back in their plots located to the south across the lane. These neighbours are not in close enough proximity to the dwelling for there to be any harm by way of loss of light, outlook or over-domination, with the marginally closer dwelling, High Field, set over 15m from the south elevation of the proposed building. Further, given the proposed relationship of the dwellings separated by the lane, it is not considered that an objection could be sustained on privacy grounds given that the road separation is a typical relationship with buildings facing across the public realm, and the neighbours have large private amenity space to the rear. 

8.25.	Lane Head, the host dwelling associated with this site, would not be overlooked by any windows in the new dwelling proposed. The garage proposed has first floor windows which look over the rear garden of Lane Head, but clearly this element would be retained under the same ownership and could be conditioned as such; this would not equate to a loss of privacy. 

8.26.	It is considered that the private amenity space for future occupiers would be severely limited. The garden space proposed would be small and constrained, and overlooked from a height by the conservatory of Rye Hill Lodge, and would also be clearly visible from the public domain on Main Street. I therefore do not consider that an acceptable level of amenity space has been provided for future occupiers. 

8.27.	The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2031 Part 1 and Government guidance contained within the NPPF.

Highway safety 

8.28.	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.”

8.29.	The site is accessed to the northern side of Main Street, however it is noted that this road becomes very narrow after Lane Head to the west, and from there gradually transitions in to an agricultural track. The Local Highway Authority have objected to this proposal, in regard to the highway being severely restricted and tortuously aligned, with the proposed development effectively narrowing this lane, resulting in further detriment to the safety and convenience of other highway users. It is therefore considered that this proposal would significantly and unacceptably increase the potential highway safety dangers to other road users. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2031 Part 1 and Government guidance contained within the NPPF. 

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 size, form, appearance and massing, the proposed new dwelling and altered outbuilding would appear as cramped and contrived development that would represent a significant and demonstrable visual intrusion into the existing rural character of the area, causing harm to the setting of the Grade II Listed Lane Head and the designated Sibford Gower and Burdrop Conservation Area. The proposal would also cause harm to residential amenity and highway safety and would not achieve an acceptable living environment for future occupiers.
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 reasons:

1.	By reason of its complicated form and contrived layout, increased scale and massing in comparison to the existing buildings, and unsympathetic detailing and appearance, the proposal is considered to represent poor design that fails to integrate well with the attractive rural character, qualities and appearance of the area, causing harm to the setting and significance of the designated Sibford Gower and Burdop Conservation Area and nearby Grade II Listed Buildings, in particular Lane Head, contrary to Policy ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan (2011-2031), Policies C28 and C30 of the Cherwell Local Plan (1996) and government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework. 

2.	By reason of the siting and two-storey height and scale of the dwelling and the position of first floor windows, the proposal is considered to result in unacceptable harm to the amenities of the occupiers of Rye Hill Lodge by reason of its overall domination and overbearing impact and the likely loss of privacy enjoyed by the occupiers of this property. Furthermore, the restricted outdoor amenity space and obscure glazing of the master bedroom are considered to result in a poor living environment for future occupiers of the proposed dwelling. Therefore the proposal is contrary to the provisions and aims of Policy C30 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996, Policy ESD 15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 (Part 1) and Government guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.	By reason of the restricted width and alignment of the highway and lack of either separate footway or turning provision, additional traffic movements generated as a product of this proposal will unacceptably increase the risk to the safety of other highway users in the immediate vicinity of the site. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan (2011 – 2031) Part 1 and Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.   

Case Officer: 	George Smith	DATE: 23rd June 2017	
Checked By: 	Alex Keen	DATE: 23rd June 2017