Residents who oppose what they see as inappropriate development are feeling frustrated at failed attempts to see planning applications refused. It used to be the principle that, ‘This isn’t good enough to approve. ” Now the rule of thumb has changed to, ‘This isn’t bad enough to refuse.’ That’ change in perspective has come along since the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was adopted, which states a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Right now the Vale of White Horse has no adopted Local Plan, and therefore Vale cannot demonstrate a 5 year land supply for house building. Once the Local Plan is adopted, we will have both of those things. Until we have both those things, refusing a planning application is difficult, but not impossible. Until we have both those things, our local policies hold less weight, and the NPPF is the main policy.

In his Decision Report for 54-56 Hurst Rise Road of November 2015, the Inspector considered the applicant’s appeals against refusal. He said:

Background and Main Issues

3. The Council accept that they cannot demonstrate sites sufficient for five years worth of housing against their housing requirements as they are advised to do in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Paragraph 49 of the Framework advises that housing applications, as this is, should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. The presumption in favour of sustainable development is set out at paragraph 14 of the Framework and includes advice that where relevant policies are out of date planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme. Given the need to boost significantly the supply of housing and that the site is located within the built up area of Botley, an area where new housing will be permitted subject to its impact on character and facilities important to the local community (policy H10 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2011, July 2006 (LP)), there is strong support for the principle of developing the site for housing.

4. However, the presumption in favour of sustainable development seeks to achieve economic, social and environmental gains and positive improvements to the built and natural environment. I must therefore consider the detailed aspects of the proposals against these aims to determine whether the benefits of the development proposals would be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by any adverse impacts that may arise from granting permission such that the proposals would not amount to sustainable development. (my emphsis)

So, wherever it can be convincingly demonstrated that the harm from the proposed development significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits, the application can be refused. 

There’s the strategy. That’s the trick.

I just submitted my comments for the planning application at 56 Hurst Rise Rd. Here’s what I said:

I write as the local Vale of White horse council member for this area.

I’ve studied the plans and docs available. I note that the Tree Officer would like to see a current tree survey and some cross section drawings.

It’s actually quite difficult to picture the scale of what’s proposed, because there are no drawings showing the context of the proposed houses in the street scene, nor any drawing to show us how the proposed houses fit into the context of the site and with its neighbours. That seems a serious enough shortcoming.

Applicant claims the inspector approves of this plan for detached 4BR houses; how can that be? Could the officer please clarify this for residents and for me?

I also notice that tree reports (and other data?) come from old studies submitted with applications that were refused. I think there’s a reasonable chance that since the applications were refused on larger grounds, the fact there is no objection on these specific grounds named in the design statement are irrelevant and do not assume there would have been no objection had the applications been considered further. By that I mean, if the proposals are determined to be much too big and harmful to the character of the area, enough to warrant refusal, would detail of tree surveys be closely studied? Maybe so, but I don’t know. Surely a new application on a site different to the refused applications deserves properly current accompanying reports.

This is part of the lower density area of Cumnor Hill as defined in Vale’s Design Guide. In checking the Design Guide for lower density areas, there’s a useful checklist on page 142. Is there evidence that these issues have been considered in this proposal? I would have expected pre-application meetings to cover all these issues.

It does appear this development would be out of keeping with the local area. It’s a large semi-detached structure, built right up to the property boundaries, without garages or room to turn cars to be able to exit in a forward facing direction.

Does the parking scheme comply with section 4,3 of the design guide? It appears the four parking spaces, intended for 8 bedrooms plus visitors and delivery vehicles, hasn’t been well thought out. We expect that the front gardens are not parking dominated (see principle DG82).

Please can the officer address issues of density and how this proposal fits into that aspect of the character of the area.

Please can the officer clarify the private amenity space for each house. With 4 bedrooms, each house should have 100 sq m of private outdoor space.

On 23 Mar 16, Planning Committee granted permission for the proposed flatted development, by 6 votes to 3.  Vale officers’ view was that these flats are to be sold on the open market, so it’s a case of caveat emptor. Vale says they are providing people with a choice. I spoke to object to it, saying this:

1. Officer cites as precedence for under-provision of parking the flats down the street, built with zero onsite parking about 8 years ago. That decision led to residents parking their vehicles in streets way over the other side of the A34 flyover. And THAT led to implementing a CPZ at not insignificant cost to residents there. Delivery vehicles to the flats must park half on the pavement and half in the busy road, obstructing both.  This decision was a mistake, harming residents and the wider community, so don’t let that work in your minds as a successful precedent.
2. The officer’s report fails to adequately consider the accumulated harm from the various shortcomings:
   1. Officer points out harm to the character of the area, due to three stories in the midst of two storey structures, and unmatched styles.
   2. Officer points out that highways thought a dropped kerb in front of Oxford Sofa Studio next door was unsafe due to the busy road. Surely the same applies here?
   3. Officer points out significant noise on the site.
   4. Officer points out harm to the amenity of future residents and neighbours.
   5. Officer points out the density of 110dph is high, but doesn’t give a steer about how high or what would be appropriate for this area. Saved Policy H15 sets 50dph as an effective density within Botley centre. That policy also makes clear that high quality living environments are the most important thing.
   6. Officer points out nearby locations of other dwellings where the noise is worse. Noise and congestion on A34 continues to increase. I don’t think previously built dwellings where noise levels exceed what’s healthy should in any way be used to justify building more of them.
   7. Officer points out that amenity provision is well below Design Guide requirements. I’ve asked him to provide details to committee. In some cases, provided amenity space is only 10% of the minimum required. A 2BR flat should have a minimum of 50sqm, and this one has only 5.
   8. Section 6.37 of the officers report explicitly assumes people living here don’t want amenity space. That’s just not true. That’s like saying people who can only afford to live here don’t deserve nice, quiet, private outdoor space. No! That’s not what we stand for.

The NPPF and our local policies explicitly support high quality design in our developments. This isn’t one.

I think the cumulative harm is significant and demonstrable and outweighs the benefit of the proposals.