Christ Church College vs. Binsey

The Planning Inspectorate

4/09 Kite Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BSI 6PN
tel. 0117 372 6372, e-mail: enquiries@planning-inspectorate.gsi.gov.uk

Appeal Decision

Hearing held on 23 November 2004

Site visit made on 23 November 2004

by D L Burrows DipTP MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the First Secretary of State

Appeal A Ref: APP/G3110/A/04/1143498
Manor Farm Cottage, Manor Farm, Binsey OX2 ONG

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Christ Church Oxford against the decision of Oxford City Council.
• The application Ref 02/01673/FUL, dated 20 August 2002, was refused by notice dated 11 September 2003.
• The development proposed is the erection of natural rubble stone wall, 2m high to create curtilage for Manor Farm cottage and the erection of a shared double car port adjacent to curtilage.

Summary of Decision: The appeal is dismissed.

Appeal B Ref: APP/G3110/A/04/1143499
Roadside Barn, Manor Farm, Binsey OX2 ONG

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Christ Church Oxford against the decision of Oxford City Council.
• The application Ref 02/01671/FUL, dated 20 August 2002, was refused by notice dated 8 September 2003.
• The development proposed is the conversion of stone barn to dwelling and the enclosure of area to rear as garden.

Summary of Decision: The appeal is dismissed.

Appeal C Ref: APP/G3110/A/04/1143500
Manor Farm, Binsey OX2 ONG

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Christ Church Oxford against the decision of Oxford City Council.
• The application Ref 02/01669/FUL, dated 20 August 2002, was refused by notice dated 8 September 2003.
• The development proposed
  i) for the roadside bam is the change of use by conversion to residential use, construction of stone walls to rear to create garden curtilage and erection of car port outside but adjacent to curtilage. The double car port is also for use by Manor Farm Cottage
  ii) for Manor Farm Cottage is the creation of curtilage and rear garden
  111) for Manor Farm House is the reduction of rear garden area
  iv) is the erection of a pair of new houses and gardens together with new 2 bay car port and adjacent pair of parking bays
  v) is the erection of a single new house with garden
  vi) is the alteration to curtilage of Perch Cottage to provide access to threshing barn and single new house at rear and
  vii) for the threshing barn is the conversion to residential use along with renovation and conversion of the adjacent hovel as ancillary accommodation and double garage.

Summary of Decision: The appeal is dismissed.

Procedural Matters

1. The appellant and the Council confirmed at the hearing, that despite the descriptions of development on the application forms, the schemes considered by the Council are those described above. I note here that the proposals in appeal A and B also form part of the development proposed in appeal C.

2. For the avoidance of doubt the plans which are relevant to appeal A are drawings numbered:- 1, 2, 3D, 10A and 24; to appeal B are:- 1, 2, 3D, 4, 5, 6A, 7A and 8A; and to appeal C are:- 1, 2, 3D, 4, 5, 6A, 7A, 8A, 9B, 10A, 11A, 12, 13A, 14A, 15A, 17, 18A, 19, 20A, 21, 22B, 23A, 24, 25A, 26A, 27A and 28B.

Main Issues

3. From all I have read, seen and heard I consider the main issues to be:-

i) (Appeals B and C) whether the creation of new dwellings would unacceptably increase the resident population at risk of flooding and the burden on emergency services during times of flood.

ii) (Appeals A, B and C) whether the proposal would be appropriate development in the green belt and if not are there any very special circumstances sufficient to overcome the presumption against inappropriate development.

iii) (Appeals A, B and C) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the locality with particular regard to the conservation area, the listed buildings and the area of high landscape value.

Planning Policy

4. The development plan for Oxford includes the Oxfordshire Structure Plan (SP) adopted in 1998 and the Oxford Local Plan (LP) adopted in September 1997. Of the SP policies brought to my attention I consider the most relevant to be EN12 which seeks to preclude development in the floodplain if it would result in an unacceptable risk of flooding and G4 which deals with green belt matters.

5. In the LP policy ENI sets out the purposes of the green belt and EN2 creates the presumption against inappropriate development. Policy EN4 seeks to protect the areas of high landscape value from development which would have an adverse effect on its character and appearance. Policies EN27 to EN33 are concerned with conservation areas and require development to preserve and enhance the special and distinctive character and appearance of such areas. Policies EN34 to EN36 contain similar provisions for the setting and character of listed buildings. The appeal site is also covered by policy H03 which, subject to compliance with other policies, is permissive of proposals for housing involving less than 20 dwellings within existing residential areas. In the floodplain policy CS26 seeks to avoid serious risk of flooding by preventing the raising of ground levels and the construction of obstacles which would obstruct the free flow of water. [page 2]

6. There is both an emerging structure plan (Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2016 Deposit Draft) (ESP) and local plan (Second Draft Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016) (ELP). Whilst the policies in these documents are material considerations they cannot as yet carry the full weight of section 38(6) of the 2004 Act. In the ESP policy EN8 says that in the undeveloped areas at high risk from flooding or in the functional floodplain development will not be permitted. Proposals for redevelopment of existing buildings should aim to improve conditions locally and not worsen flood risk elsewhere.

7. In the ELP policy CP.2(g) requires proposals to preserve or enhance the special character and setting of listed buildings and conservation areas, CP.4 requires sustainable locations for development and CP. 5 precludes development of greenfield land. Policy EN.1 sets out the purposes of the green belt and EN.2 establishes the presumption against inappropriate development. Policy TM.4 is similar to LP policy in that its objective is to protect Landscapes of Key Significance.

8. In the undeveloped floodplain policy NE.8 says that planning permission will only be granted where the use is appropriate in the floodplain or a particular location is essential. Policy NE.10 goes on to require a flood risk assessment for proposed development in the undeveloped floodplain. Policies HE.3, HE.4 and HE.11 deal with listed buildings.

9. National policy guidance is contained in the planning policy guidance notes (PPG) and the planning policy statements (PPS). I consider PPG2 Green Belts and PPG25 Development and Flood Risk are particularly relevant to these appeals. PPG25 was issued in 2001 and postdates development plan policies. It represents up to date national policy, consequently I consider its provisions carry more weight than those in the SP and LP.