Skip to main content

Just how big is an infill site? Appeal decision: Chinnor, Oxfordshire

An appeal decision initially caught my eye due to its surprising interpretation of 'infill development' -  but also raises some concerning issues around how Neighbourhood Plan policies are applied during the decision-making process.

The appeal relates to an application for the construction of up to 140 dwellings, new public open space, associated landscaping and site infrastructure on a 3.9ha site at Chinnor, Oxfordshire. The application was made by Persimmon Homes and initially refused by South Oxfordshire District Council. The appeal was allowed, meaning the Planning Inspector went against the district council's decision grant planning permission for the scheme. Details of the appeal can be found using the following reference APP/Q3115/W/17/3187058.

Neighbourhood Plan & Development Plan

Chinnor is a large village in Oxfordshire. The Chinnor Neighbourhood Plan (CNP) was 'made' in October 2017. When the appeal commenced, the Neighbourhood Plan was less than one year old.

In addition to the CNP, South Oxfordshire's Development Plan includes an aged Core Strategy and saved policies from a Local Plan adopted in 2006. There is therefore no up to date Local Plan in place. 

The district council is preparing a new Local Plan. The emerging Local Plan identifies proportionate growth of 15% in the plan period for Chinnor. Existing planning permissions in Chinnor already account for double this rate of growth. This suggests that additional residential development is not required in Chinnor, and is perhaps why the CNP does not make site allocations for development.

Housing land supply

The housing land supply situation in South Oxfordshire is somewhat complex, due to changes to national policy, emerging Local Plan and unmet need in nearby Oxford. 

However, during the appeal, the district council was able to demonstrate a sufficient supply of housing land when measured against the latest assessments of housing need (in excess of 3 years). Therefore the 'tilted balance', where the NPPF's presumption in favour of sustainable development 'trumps' the development plan, did not apply in this case. Nonetheless, the Inspector identifies the provision of housing to be a major benefit of the scheme.

Landscape impacts

A key reason for the district council refusing the scheme relates to landscape impacts. Firstly, because the site provides separation between housing developments, mitigating their impacts, and secondly, the built up area would be consolidated, eroding the rural, green, open character, which can be seen from the Chilterns AONB.

The site is not subject to any statutory or landscape policy related designations. The Inspector notes that the CNP does not identify the site as a significant open space that contributes to the openness and attractiveness of the village, and that the site is within the built up envelope of Chinnor but offering no public access and performing no recreational function. The Inspector concluded that the visual impact of the scheme would be minimal.

Infill development

Policies for infill development are relatively common in Neighbourhood Plans and Local Plans, to enable development to take place within the built area of a settlement. The Planning Portal defines infill development as: 
The development of a relatively small gap between existing buildings.
The CNP recognises the need for growth and identifies, but does not allocate, a number of sites which currently have planning permission.  The CNP raises concerns about the level of growth the village is anticipated to receive, namely in respect of the impact growth may have on infrastructure and services. The CNP particularly highlights constraints around water supply and waste water treatment.

The CNP provides the following policy to enable infill development:

Policy CH H1 - Infill Residential Development

Infill development within the existing built-up form of Chinnor Village will be supported subject to the following:
  • The proposed development does not cause an unacceptable impact on the residential amenities of adjacent residential properties.
  • The proposed development provides appropriate access, parking and turning arrangements.
  • The proposed development does not severely impact on the free and safe flow of traffic on the local highway network.

The policy does not define precise thresholds for the scale of development it seems fairly clear, including to the Inspector, that policy CH H1 is describing pretty small-scale development, akin to the Planning Portal definition.

In addition to CNP policy CH H1, the Inspector makes reference to a policy contained in the Core Strategy which also makes provision for infill development but does not set a limit on the scale of such development in large villages. The Inspector goes on to discuss the characteristics of the site, for example that it is surrounded by built development and approved development (being built out) along all four of the site's boundaries.

This leads the Inspector to conclude that the scheme should be perceived as 'infill development' in the context of the policy framework.

Concerns

The Inspector references other case law in reaching his decision, and therefore I don't consider the Inspector has necessarily acted inconsistently with other decisions. However, I feel the case highlights some issues with the decision-making process.

It is clear that it was not the intention of the CNP to deliver further major developments in the village, where permission had already been granted for twice the amount of development identified by the emerging plan. One might reasonably expect that any further major developments would be seen as being in conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan. Due to a recent High Court decision, determining what constitutes conflict with a Neighbourhood Plan is more complicated than it sounds (see Chichester District Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Beechcroft Ltd - no doubt a topic for a future post!). 

The Inspector appears to place great weight on the fact that the proposal will deliver new housing despite there being an adequate supply of housing land, whilst applying little weight to NPPF paragraph 14 which offers greater protection to areas with a Neighbourhood Plan in place.

Section 38 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) states that where there is conflict between the policies in the Development Plan, the conflict should be resolved in favour of the policy in the last document to become part of the Development Plan - in this case the CNP. The Inspector discussed the merits of the site as infill development in the context of the CNP policy and an aged Core Strategy policy, despite the issue of infill development being directly addressed by the CNP. Irrespective of what thresholds the policies do or do not set, calling a 140-dwelling scheme 'infill' just doesn't feel right to me!

Regardless of legal precedents, any lay-person writing a Neighbourhood Plan would likely view such decisions as undermining the plan-led system. Such decisions risk making the neighbourhood planning process greatly more complex, as parish councils and neighbourhood fora will work harder to ensure their plans are resilient. 

Comments

  1. Another Appeal was heard at the same time, that one was not allowed. There is no rhyme or reason why the Inpector should have come to two different decisions when both proposals went against the CNP.
    He did not uphold the CNP as he should have done and went against his own guidelines on what is infill. The two adjoining developments were previously allowed because they had an open field in between them to mitigate their damage.
    Catch 22, the open field is now considered ok for infill!

    ReplyDelete

Post a comment

Popular posts from this blog

Housing Delivery Test 2019 Results Published

The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has now published the latest results of its Housing Delivery Test (HDT), based on the number of new homes built in the period 2016 to 2019.

The HDT 2019 measurement for each council area is provided in the searchable table below.
How the Housing Delivery Test is calculated The HDT calculates the number of new homes built, as a percentage of the number of homes needed over the past three years. MHCLG re-calculates an HDT figure annually for every council area in England. The new 2019 measurement replaces the previous 2018 measurement.
Consequences of the Housing Delivery Test The purpose of the HDT is to hold local authorities to account over the supply of new housing.

Where the HDT shows the delivery of new homes has fallen below 95% of the district or borough's housing requirement over the previous three years, the council should prepare an Action Plan to assess the causes of under-delivery and identify actions to…

Why the Middlewich Neighbourhood Plan failed

News that the Middlewich Neighbourhood Plan was rejected at referendum has spread rapidly across social media and has even been picked up by local and national press - see BBC article.

The story has garnered a lot of attention as it is highly unusual for a Neighbourhood Plan to be rejected. The Middlewich Neighbourhood Plan is only the third Neighbourhood Plan not to be supported by residents.

At the referendum held on 14 March 2019, the Neighbourhood Plan was rejected, albeit by a very slim margin of just 22 votes.
'No' Campaign Prior to the referendum, Labour town councillors led a campaign which encouraged local people to vote against the Neighbourhood Plan. 
Based on the literature shared by the campaign group, opposition to the Middlewich Neighbourhood Plan appears to be pointed at three key issues: Impacts on the town and its infrastructure of the overall scale of growth Middlewich is expected deliverDisagreement with the individual sites identified by the Neighbourhood …

Neighbourhood Plan Review: Plans made in July 2019

Neighbourhood Plans provide a bespoke planning framework for the local area. No two plans are alike, although many have similar characteristics and address common themes. This post provides a short summary of those Neighbourhood Plans which successfully passed referendum in July 2019, highlighting the elements which make each plan locally specific and unique.

The purpose of this post is to celebrate the achievement of those communities in successfully preparing their Neighbourhood Plans, and to share the interesting ideas and policies for the benefit of others who are currently writing their plans. Links to the Neighbourhood Plans are provided throughout the post.
Navigate this post using the map July was a busy month, with a whopping 24 Neighbourhood Plans successfully passing referendum. To  make it easier to navigate this post, the location of the areas covered by each new Neighbourhood Plan are shown on the interactive map. Click on a marker to reveal a link to the plan's su…

How the Housing Delivery Test can affect Neighbourhood Plans

The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has today published the results of the Housing Delivery Test (HDT).

**NEW - try my Housing Delivery Test Checker tool to see results for your area**

The HDT was first mooted by the Housing White Paper, back in February 2017. The HDT calculates the number of new homes built, as a percentage of the number of homes needed over the past three years. MHCLG has published a HDT figure for every council area in England, and indicates it will re-calculate the HDT annually.

The purpose of the HDT is to hold local authorities to account over the supply of new housing.

Where the HDT shows the delivery of new homes has fallen below 95% of the district or borough's housing requirement over the previous three years, the council should prepare an Action Plan to assess the causes of under-delivery and identify actions to increase delivery in future years.

Where the HDT shows a district's housing delivery is less than 85%, the c…

Review of Planning Appeal: The tricky task of planning for housing development - Wingerworth Neighbourhood Plan

I previously posted about why it is important to include policies and site allocations for housing, in order to "presumption-proof" your Neighbourhood Plan. A recent planning appeal (APP/R1038/W/17/3192255), which resulted in the granting of planning permission for 180 homes at Wingerworth, Derbyshire, illustrates the importance of making provision for housing development in a Neighbourhood Plan.

North East Derbyshire Council ranks settlements in a hierarchy. Wingerworth is located firmly in the middle of the hierarchy as a "Settlement with good levels of sustainability", so presumably has some merits as a location for housing development.

The Wingerworth Neighbourhood Plan (WNP) successfully passed the referendum stage in June 2018. The WNP includes a number of policies which relate to the provision of housing development, for example:

Policy W1 defines a settlement development limit around the built area of Wingerworth village, offering in principle support to de…

Conflict with a Neighbourhood Plan & how to provide certainty on the location of development

Recently I wrote about two appeal decisions where planning permission was granted for housing development, despite the sites not being identified for development within the respective Neighbourhood Plans for the area. See Just how big is an infill site? Appeal decision: Chinnor, Oxfordshire and Review of Planning Appeal: The tricky task of planning for housing development (Wingerworth Neighbourhood Plan).

These examples, and other similar cases, raise a wider question about what constitutes 'conflict' with a Neighbourhood Plan.
A recent High Court ruling, issued in September 2018, has 'tested' this issue. The claim was lodged by Chichester District Council (CDC) against the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and Beechcroft Ltd. The High Court decision is available to view on the BAILII website.
In this post, I have summarised the appeal decision and High Court decision, and conclude by offering some advice to ensure your Neighbourhood Plan p…

Appeal granted in countryside despite Five Year Land Supply - Shinfield Neighbourhood Plan

Through a recent appeal decision, a Planning Inspector has granted outline planning permission for up to 55 dwellings and 'Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace' (SANG) at land at Parklands, east of Basingstoke Road, Spencers Wood, Wokingham.

The decision was issued on 28th February 2019, under appeal reference APP/X0360/W/18/3204133.

The appeal site is located between two villages, Three Mile Cross and Spencers Wood. The scheme proposes two areas of development adjoining each of the villages, separated by an area of open space - a 'SANG'.
Shinfield Neighbourhood Plan The Shinfield Neighbourhood Plan (SNP) was made in February 2017. Policy 1 of the SNP addresses the location of development:

In Shinfield Parish, development within the Development Limits..., will be supported; development adjacent to the Development Limits will only be supported where the benefits of the development outweigh its adverse impacts. 

'Development limits' are a very common planning …

The Neighbourhood Plan 'League Table'

My last blog post, 1,000th Neighbourhood Plan marks continued growth of neighbourhood planning, illustrates the growth of Neighbourhood Plans over recent years.

Exploring the data further, this blog post breaks down the total number of approved plans by Local Planning Authority area. Presenting the data in this way highlights the marked differences in the take up of neighbourhood planning in different areas. About the dataThe table (below) has been populated using data from my Planfinder app, and is based on the same dataset used in my 1,000th Neighbourhood Plan... blog post. The data includes plans which successfully passed referendum before the end of February 2020, therefore any plans which passed referendum over the past couple of weeks are not included - although you can find details of these on the Planfinder app.

The sum total of the number of approved plans shown in the table exceeds 1,000, as a small number of plans cross local planning authority boundaries and are therefore…

Need for homes trumps valued landscapes. Review of appeal decision: Farnham Neighbourhood Plan

An appeal decision at land west of Folly Hill, Folly Hill, Farnham (appeal reference: APP/R3650/W/17/3171409) illustrates the delicate and complex issue of determining whether a Neighbourhood Plan is or is not 'out-of-date' and the effect this has on applying the 'tilted balance'.

The appeal decision was issued in December 2018, granting planning permission for 96 dwellings, including 38 affordable, with areas of open space, Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANGS); children’s play area; SuDS attenuation; highway works and a new access. 
The appeal site is located within the Borough of Waverley, Surrey, and the Farnham Neighbourhood Area. Development Plan The Farnham Neighbourhood Plan (FNP) was made in July 2017, and was therefore less than a year and a half old at the time the decision was issued.
During the course of the appeal, the Waverley Local Plan Part 1 (WLPP1) was adopted. This is, in effect, 'half' of a Local Plan setting out strategic polici…