1.	APPLICATION SITE AND LOCALITY 

1.1.	The application site is located on the northern edge of Sibford Ferris bounding on to agricultural land that separates Sibford Ferris and Sibford Gower, known as the ‘Sib Valley’, within the designated Sibford Ferris Conservation Area.  
1.2.	The site is associated with 7 Walford Road to the south, which is a modern detached property part of an estate of similar type stone dwellings. The land falls away to the north, with extensive views across the Sib Valley to Burdrop and Sibford Gower to the north.

2.	DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
2.1.	The applicant proposes to construct a building for the keeping of goats and donkeys, on a parcel of land north of 7 Walford Road.  The building proposed would be 18m in depth, and 9m in width, with an eaves height of approx. 4m and a ridge height of approx. 5.2m. The building would be made of box profile cladding, and is stated to hold a donkey shelter, a goat shelter, a hay/feed store and a general maintenance store. 
3.	RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

3.1.	01/00838/F: Alterations and extensions to existing building and conversion from use for educational purposes with 3 No. self contained flats to 9 No. self contained dwellings. Demolition of structurally unsound rear extension, swimming pool building. APPROVED 18th December 2001.
3.2.	Condition 23 of this consent stated that: 
“The extent of the developable land and the curtilages/garden areas of the dwellings is that as defined on the plan accompanying this decision notice.  The remainder of the land in the application area shall remain in agricultural use. 

Reason - In the interests of safeguarding the appearance and character of attractive landscape to the north of the development site and to ensure compliance within Policy C15 of the Cherwell Local Plan.”

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:
•	Visual impact on Conservation Area, in particular the Sib Valley and views from surrounding roads and footpaths. 
•	Noise, smell and lighting pollution to residential properties
•	Potential future use i.e. commercial 
•	Unacceptable access/knock-on impact on Walford Road
•	Legal restrictions on buildings/vehicles etc. 
•	Precedent set by one building 
•	Impact on river Sib and local ecology from pollution.
•	Impact on existing trees to the property boundary through construction works. 
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.	SIBFORD FERRIS PARISH COUNCIL: Objects – for the following reasons: 
1.	The proposed barn would have a significant detrimental impact on the valley within the conservation area (AG2 [retained] Farm buildings and associated structures requiring planning permission should normally be so sited that they do not intrude into the landscape or into residential areas; ESD13 Proposals will not be permitted if they would: cause undue harm to important natural landscape features and topography; harm the historic value of the landscape; C33 [retained] The Council will seek to retain any undeveloped gap of land which is important in….preserving a view or feature of recognised amenity or historical value).

2.	The proposed barn would be visible from many points in Sibford Ferris, Sibford Gower and Burdrop, in contradiction to the assertion made by the applicant on this point.

3.	Historically, all planning applications in the conservation area in the valley between the two settlements have been refused and the parish council would not wish for a precedent to be set for future applications.

4.	Access to all the agricultural paddocks in the valley is from Mannings Hill.  The access to the paddocks adjoining the properties on Walford Road is restricted to mowing machinery, as shown in the residents’ deeds, a restriction which forms part of the original planning consent for the development.

5.	The proposed lighting to the barn would cause light pollution in the conserved valley (ESD15 New development proposals should limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation).

6.	There are many springs rising in the valley and the parish council is concerned that effluent from the development may affect water courses in the vicinity (ESD8 Development proposals which would adversely affect the water quality of surface or underground water bodies, including rivers…..as a result of directly attributable factors, will not be permitted).

STATUTORY CONSULTEES
6.3.	OCC HIGHWAYS: No objections – At the time of my visit I noted that there is a number of parking spaces/garages which serve the unit’s access off Walford Road. I would not expect there to be any issues in this regard although the space to turn is somewhat limited at the extremity of the access road.
The adoption plans show that Walford Road is not part of the public system. As such ought the vehicular access to the site be included within the red line area?
I noted access to the fields further down the road towards Burdrop. Both of the access points here are excluded from the application documents. It would appear therefore that the vehicular access to the site is via Walford Road and I have to consider any effect on the public domain here. I note that the plans submitted show the red line area including the barn with an area immediately adjacent outlined in blue which includes number 7.
The conclusion H.A. has reached is that there is unlikely to be any significant effect within the public highway as a result of this proposal and that it would be unreasonable to offer any other advice than no objections. 
Formal response to the applications is, no objections subject to the use being as is specified only personal to the applicant, and that the building remains ancillary to 7 Walford Road. 
NON-STATUTORY CONSULTEES
6.4.	CDC LANDSCAPING: Objects – for the following reasons: 

1.	The barn, with a  footprint of 18 x 9 m and a ridge height of approx. 5 m, along with the rather modern cladding and its colour (as indicated by the example shown in the applicant’s  photograph) is so prominent and will cause harm to the locally distinct landscape character of the valley; an area originally locally designated as AOHLV –refer to current Local Plan Policy ESD 13: Local Landscape Protection and Enhancement : which although withdraws  the AOHLV,  now gives consideration of the importance of all distinctive landscapes within the district, thus: Policy ESD 13 therefore seeks to conserve and enhance the distinctive and highly valued local character of the entire district.  

2.	Also this development will present a major visual impact and harm for residential receptors on Walford Road.
3.	The major onsite constraints to the development are the existing large trees on the southern application site boundary and the gradient. A large tree is potentially at risk because of excavations and re-profiling to achieve the finished floor level (with extensive damage to roots).
4.	How is the structure to be erected when there appears to be no means of site access for constructors’ vehicles? A rather intrusive and harmful haulage road would be required over adjacent fields, resulting in removal of hedgerow and trees.
6.5.	CDC ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: No objections – verbal comments received stating the need for a condition for waste disposal. Also regarding lighting, the Officer stated that whilst there is no significant concern regarding lighting, given existing vegetation, further details of these would need to be sought by way of condition in order to protect the amenities of neighbours. 

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)
•	ESD13 – Local Landscape Protection and Enhancement 
•	ESD15 - The Character of the Built and Historic Environment

CHERWELL LOCAL PLAN 1996 SAVED POLICIES (CLP 1996) 
•	AG2 – Construction of farm buildings 
•	C23 – Retention of features contributing to the character and appearance of a conservation  area 
•	C28 – Design Control 
•	C33 – Protection of important gaps of undeveloped land

7.3.	Other Material Planning Considerations
•	National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
•	Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
•	Sibford Ferris, Sibford Gower and Burdrop Conservation Area Appraisal

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
•	Other matters

Principle of development 

8.2.	The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and the NPPF defines this as having 3 dimensions: economic, social and environmental. The NPPF advocates the support of sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings. 

8.3.	Both local and national policy seeks to restrict new development in the countryside to ensure a sustainable pattern of development and to protect the character and quality of the countryside. This includes paragraph 17 of the NPPF which states that the different roles and character of different areas should be accounted for, whilst recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it. Policy ESD1 of the Cherwell Local Plan (2011-2031 Part 1) states that growth should be distributed to the most sustainable locations.
8.4.	The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is an essential need for this building. The building appears to be for use as ‘hobby farming’, for the keeping of goats and donkeys on agricultural land, but closely associated with the residential dwelling, and for personal enjoyment. There is no suggestion that the building is required for commercial farming purposes or that it would support a rural business or enterprise. Neither has it been demonstrated that the building is necessary for the continued management and use of the land for agriculture.
8.5.	Saved Policy AG2 of the Cherwell Local Plan (1996) states that farm buildings requiring planning permission should normally be sited that they do not intrude in to the landscape or into residential areas, and materials of construction should be chosen so that the development fits sympathetically into its rural setting. Whilst the general principle of a new agricultural building on agricultural land is acceptable in sustainability terms, the weight to be given to the need for and economic benefits arising from the building are diminished in this case. Therefore the proposal being acceptable in principle heavily depends on other material planning considerations, discussed below. 
Design, and impact on the character of the area 
8.6.	The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment within the Framework. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. 
8.7.	Policy ESD13 of the Cherwell Local Plan (2011-2031 Part 1) states that development will be expected to respect and enhance local landscape character, securing appropriate mitigation where damage to local landscape character cannot be avoided.  It goes onto state that proposals will not be permitted if they would result in undue visual intrusion into the open countryside or would harm the setting of settlements. Policy ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan (2011-2031 Part 1) further reinforces this view, in that new development will be expected to complement and enhance the character of its context through sensitive siting, layout and high quality design. It goes on to emphasise the importance of conserving, sustaining and enhancing the character, appearance and historic significance of designated heritage assets including Conservation Areas. This is in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the NPPF.
8.8.	Saved Policy C28 of the Cherwell Local Plan (1996) further states that control will be exercised over all new development to ensure that standards of layout, design and external appearance are sympathetic to the character of the rural or urban context of that development. 
8.9.	Saved Policy C23 of the Cherwell Local Plan (1996) states that there will be a presumption in favour of retaining features which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of a conservation area, including the importance of undeveloped space within the settlement structure. 
8.10.	Saved Policy C33 of the Cherwell Local Plan (1996) states that the Council will seek to retain any undeveloped gap of land which is important in preserving the character of a loose-knit settlement structure. Not all undeveloped land within the structure of settlements can be built on without damage to their appearance and rural character. Where the existing pattern of development is loose-knit, there will often be a compelling case for it to remain for aesthetic, environmental or historic reasons. 
8.11.	The Sib Valley, where the building would be located, is picturesque and creates a distinctive visual break between the three settlements of Sibford Ferris, Sibford Gower and Burdrop. As the Conservation Area Appraisal of the aforementioned villages’ states, “the lack of development in the valley emphasises the separateness of the three settlements…”
8.12.	The building would be located in a prominent position on the slope of the valley, and would be clearly visible in the surrounding countryside. It is considered to be of a substantial scale, particularly given the size of the agricultural parcel associated with 7 Walford Road. I also have concerns regarding the choice and colour of materials for the building, which, if proposed to be grey or white steel sheeting, is likely to appear as a modern and somewhat utilitarian structure causing significant visual intrusion into the designated Conservation Area. 
8.13.	Furthermore, concerns have been raised about land levels and the potential for foundation work to cause harm to mature trees. No Arboricultural Impact Assessment has been submitted with this application, to demonstrate how the development could be carried out without causing harm to trees. The existing trees make a positive contribution to the general amenity and rural character of the area, and due to its proposed siting I consider the building could pose a risk to the future health and retention of the adjacent trees. This adds to the harm that would be caused to the Conservation Area.
8.14.	It is considered that development of this nature, which appears to be for personal enjoyment (hobby farming) rather than a commercially driven agricultural need, should be resisted within the Sib Valley, and is likely to set a precedent for other similar buildings in this highly picturesque area, given the land is presently subdivided into a number of smaller parcels of land. There is no explanation as to why the current arrangements for managing the land are no longer suitable, such that a building as proposed is needed. The proposal would thus unjustifiably harm the Sib Valley, its local landscape character and contribution to the setting of adjacent villages, and its significance as an important feature of the designated Conservation Area. 
8.15.	It is therefore considered that the proposal would fail to accord with Policies ESD13 and ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan (2011-2031 Part 1), Saved Policies AG2, C23, C28 and C33 of the Cherwell Local Plan (1996) and relevant paragraphs of the NPPF. 
Residential amenity 
8.16.	Policies ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan (2011-2031) Part 1, and saved Policies C28 and C30 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 state new development proposals should consider the amenity of both existing and future development, including matters of privacy, outlook, natural lighting, ventilation, indoor and outdoor space. Further, saved Policy ENV1 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 seeks to safeguard and protect the amenity of neighbouring properties against unacceptable levels of noise, smell, smoke, vibration, fumes or other type of environmental pollution.
8.17.	Given the small-scale nature of the proposal, its intended use for agriculture which is the lawful use of the land at present, and location in relation to residential properties, I do not consider that there would be any significant impact on neighbours by way of loss of light, outlook or privacy. 
8.18.	Having discussed this application with the Councils Environmental Protection Officer, there is not considered to be any significant concerns about the impact on noise, smell or light pollution on neighbours, but if permission were to be granted then further details should be submitted of waste management and details of external lighting.
Highway Safety
8.19.	Having consulted the Highways Officer, it is not considered that the proposal would have any significant implications on the highways network. The building would not be sited as to have any implications for the safety of road users. Conditions could be applied to ensure the use remained associated with 7 Walford Road, thus avoiding a potentially harmful intensification in use and activity at the site.
Other Matters
8.20.	Regarding the concerns raised about impact on ecology and drainage, given the small-scale nature of the proposed building and its intended use for agriculture, had the development been found acceptable in other respects it is considered that these matters could have been addressed by conditions requiring further details. These matters are not considered to constitute reasons to refuse planning permission.
8.21.	Issues regarding legal rights and covenant restrictions are private matters and are not material to determining this planning application.
9.	CONCLUSION
9.1.	To conclude, I consider that the proposed building would be unacceptable in principle, given its adverse visual impact on the site and the wider landscape, in particular causing significant and demonstrable harm to the picturesque Sib Valley and the character, appearance and significance of the designated Sibford Ferris Conservation Area. It has not been demonstrated that there is an essential need for the building in this location or that there are other benefits which outweigh the harm caused. Therefore, the proposal is recommended for refusal, in line with the policies as set out in section 7 of this report. 

10.	RECOMMENDATION
10.1	The permission is refused, for the following reason(s):

1.	The proposed building, by reason of its form, scale, utilitarian appearance and prominent siting on the slope of the Sib Valley in open countryside, would cause significant visual intrusion and unacceptable harm to the undeveloped character, attractive qualities and appearance of the landscape of the Sib Valley and the designated Sibford Ferris Conservation Area. It has not been demonstrated that there is an essential need for the building in this location and the proposal therefore fails to accord with Policies ESD13 and ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan (2011-2031 Part 1), Saved Policies AG2, C23, C28 and C33 of the Cherwell Local Plan (1996) and relevant paragraphs of the NPPF. 

2.	The proposed building, by reason of its siting in close proximity to mature trees, has potential to prejudice the health and long term retention of trees which make a positive contribution to the character and amenity of the designated Sibford Ferris Conservation Area. No Arboricultural Impact Assessment has been submitted to demonstrate that this potential harm can be avoided or adequately mitigated. Therefore the proposal fails to accord with Policies ESD13 and ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan (2011-2031 Part 1) and relevant paragraphs of the NPPF.

CASE OFFICER: George Smith		DATE: 10 January 2017	
CHECKED BY:  Alex Keen	DATE: 20 January 2017