APPLICATION NO

	APPLICATION NO.	P23/V1800/HH
	SITE	25 Parklands Besselsleigh Abingdon, OX13 5PN
	PARISH	BESSELSLEIGH
	PROPOSAL	Single storey side and rear extension to an existing dwelling (as amended by application form and site survey received 20 October 2023).
	WARD MEMBER(S)	Mark Coleman
	APPLICANT	Mr Peter Gray
	OFFICER	Nathaniel Bamsey

RECOMMENDATION

That planning permission is granted subject to the following conditions:

Standard

1. Commencement of development within three years

2. Approved plans list

Prior to commencement

3. Tree protection details

4. Great crested newts protection

Compliance

5. Materials in accordance with submitted details

Informative

6. Amenity land informative

7. Great crested newts informative

1.0	INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSAL
1.1	This application is referred to planning committee at the request of the local member, Councillor Mark Coleman.
1.2	The application site is 25 Parklands, a detached house on the northern edge of a housing development of the former Parklands School in the parish of Besselsleigh. The site is to approximately half a mile to the south west and south east of the villages of Besselsleigh and Appleton, respectively. Vehicular access is gained via a private, gated road which is itself accessed via the A420 to the east.
1.3	There are several site constraints. The site is wholly within the Oxford Green Belt, Collier’s Copse immediately to the north is ancient woodland and the former manor house to the south is a non-designated heritage asset.
1.4	The red line area of the application includes land within the applicant’s ownership between the dwelling and its western neighbour. A previous application sought permission to erect a garage on this land. Officers consider that the lawful use of this land is as incidental amenity space rather than domestic garden/curtilage. The previous application was withdrawn and now no development nor change of use of this land is proposed or assumed.
1.5	The red line area also includes the private road between the dwelling and the public highway as is required for the application to be valid. The requisite notice was served on the owner of this road and the inclusion of this land within the red line area does not confer ownership of this land.
1.6	This application proposes a side and rear single storey extension. The existing garage will be demolished to make way for the extension. The extension will be built with shallow mono-pitched roofs and materials to match those on the existing house. The application was amended by a revised application form which deleted reference to the materials of a new garage as this is not proposed as part of this application. A re-consultation was held on this revised application form.
1.7	A site location plan is provided below, and the plans are attached at Appendix One.

2.0

SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS & REPRESENTATIONS

2.1

Full versions of the representations can be found on the planning application

pages on the council’s website www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk

Besselsleigh Parish Meeting

No response at time of writing

Ecology Officer (South and Vale)

‘No objections from an ecological perspective providing the extension is isolated only to the area of existing development. The development should not encroach further upon the woodland edge.’

Forestry Officer (South and Vale)

First consultation

Holding objection

‘No arboricultural information has been submitted as part of this application and therefore it has not been possible to assess the probable impacts of the development proposals on nearby trees, due to this I am raising a Holding Objection’

Second consultation

No objection, subject to condition

‘The submission of the predevelopment plan (Existing Site Survey, ref: EXSS01 A) confirms that due to the pre-existing site structures present in 2018 (close to the area proposed for the side storey extension development), root development within that area is likely to be limited. Therefore the direct impacts of the proposed new development is expected to have a minimal impact on the rooting environment of trees located within the Ancient Woodland located to the Northwest of the site. However to protect the rooting environment of these trees (including new roots established since the estate was developed) from the indirect impacts of site development, the following Tree Protection Condition is recommended.’

Highways Liaison Officer (Oxfordshire County Council)

No objection

‘The development proposal represents the loss of two car parking spaces at the site with extension replacing the existing garage and reducing the length of hard standing available for parking. This arrangement leaves the property with only one formal car parking space which falls short of the standards set by the County’s guidance document Parking Standards for New Developments which would require a dwelling of this size to have two car parking spaces.

It is quite likely that the proposed arrangement would lead to on-street parking on Parklands and would normally draw an objection from the County. However, it is noted that this a private road which is gated at its eastern end and the County’s records show that Parklands is not highway land. Under these circumstances the County has no objection.’

Contaminated Land

No observations

Oxfordshire Public Rights of Way

No response at time of writing

Drainage - (South&Vale)

No objection

Neighbours

First consultation

Objection (8 households)

· The red line area still includes the amenity land

· Application form includes reference to a freestanding garage

· There is SuDS infrastructure which could be affected by the development

· Harm to ancient woodland and protected species

· Lack of parking

· Overspill parking could affect access by emergency vehicles and service vehicles

· Harm to highway safety through increased manoeuvres

· Conflict with the approved landscaping and biodiversity enhancement plan

· Not clear what the rooms will be used for

· Overdevelopment

· Increases density, contrary to the original estate layout

Second consultation

Objection (6 households)

· Lack of parking

· Design is out of keeping

· No mention is made of the impact on protected species

· Harm to highway safety

· The former development of the site should not be used as justification

· No arboricultural impact assessment has been submitted as requested by the forestry officer

3.0

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

3.1

P22/V1573/HH - Withdrawn (01/08/2023)

Single storey side and rear extension to an existing dwelling, erection of timber fencing and extension of the existing driveway in permeable gravel (As amended by plans and information received 05/12/22)

P20/V1595/NM - Approved (23/07/2020)

Non-material amendment to application P18/V0359/FUL-changes to the cycle and refuse stores.

Refurbishment and Conversion of the existing Manor House into 8 apartments. Demolition of all other existing outbuildings and extension to Manor House. Erection of 36 new dwellings comprising 9 apartments within extension to Manor House and 27 houses within the grounds of the site. Retention of the existing site access, plus new associated parking and landscaping.

P20/V0920/NM - Approved (15/05/2020)

Non material amendment to application ref. P18/V0359/FUL - plot boundary changes to the approved dwellings (Amended plan received 13 May 2020)

P19/V0774/DIS - Approved (16/03/2020)

Discharge of conditions 3 (parking and drainage) 6 (contamination) 7 (surface water drainage) 8 (foul water drainage) 10 (levels) 11 (Piling methodology)12 (bat licence) & 16 External lighting) 17 (Landscape implementation and management plan) of application P18/V0359/FUL (Additional Information on contamination received 10 April 2019, additional information received 8 May 2019 relating to drainage and piling method, additional information on bat licence received 15 May 2019, additional information on drainage received 20 August 2019 and amended Information on landscaping and lighting received 11 and 26 September 2019). (Additional contamination information (plan and email) received 9 December 2019(. (Additional contamination information received 18 February 2020).

P19/V2503/DIS - Approved (18/12/2019)

Refurbishment and conversion of the existing Manor House into eight apartments. Demolition of all other existing outbuildings and extension to Manor House. Erection of 36 new dwellings comprising nine apartments within extension to Manor House and 27 houses within the grounds of the site. Retention of the existing site access, plus new associated parking and landscaping. P18/V0359/FUL Conditions(s) 14 - Road Safety on A420. Condition15 - BEP.(Amended highway plans and Biodiversity Enhancement Plan received 2 December 2019).

P19/V0934/DIS - Approved (21/11/2019)

Discharge of conditions 4- landscaping, 9- plot boundaries, 18- noise mitigation, 19- site boundaries and 20- travel information packs to application ref P18/V0359/FUL. (Additional Information received 8 May 2019 relating to travel information packs and as amended by noise information received 9 July 2019 and information on landscaping and lighting received 11 and 26 September 2019). (Amended Travel Information pack received 19 November 2019)

P19/V0689/NM - Approved (30/04/2019)

Non-material amendment to application P18/V0359/FUL-for changes to the elevations.

P18/V0359/FUL - Approved (08/03/2019)

4.0	ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
4.1	The proposed development is not Schedule 1 or 2 development as defined by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, so an Environmental Impact Assessment is not required.

5.0	MAIN ISSUES
5.1	The main material planning considerations are the following: Principle of development/Green Belt Access and parking Design, character and heritage Trees Ecology Residential amenity Flood risk/drainage Contamination
5.2	Principle of development/Green Belt The erection of extensions to an existing dwelling is acceptable in principle and in accordance with the spatial strategy of the development plan, particularly as permitted development rights for extensions apply in full.
5.3	The Green Belt location means the application also falls to be considered against policy CP13 of the Local Plan Part 1 (LPP1). Policy CP13 states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt will be considered inappropriate development unless it meets one of the exceptions listed in the policy. Inappropriate development will not be approved except in very special circumstances, and very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
5.4	One of the exceptions to inappropriate development given by policy CP13 is the extension or alteration of a building provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The proposed extension is not disproportionate to the original building and therefore the development is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the application accords with policy CP13.
5.5	Access and parking Policies CP33, CP35, CP37 and DP16 of LPP1 and Local Plan Part 2 (LPP2) require development to provide safe and convenient access, sufficient car and cycle parking in line with Oxfordshire County Council standards and adequate provision for loading, unloading, circulation, servicing and vehicle turning. Development must also minimise the impact on the highway network and promote more sustainable modes of transport where appropriate.
5.6	The proposed development removes the existing garage, slightly reduces the length of the driveway and creates an additional bedroom on the ground floor. The resultant dwelling will have six bedrooms (assuming the original layout on the first and second floors is retained).
5.7	The county council’s highway liaison officer states that the development will result in the loss of two car parking spaces, one from the garage and one through a reduction in the length of the driveway. Despite this loss of parking and the fact they consider this would result in on street parking, as this would not affect the public highway, the highway authority has no objection.
5.8	The lack of impact on the public highway does not mean that the impacts from the loss of parking and the potential impact to highway safety are immaterial.
5.9	The original permission included a condition requiring the submission of a car parking layout and the retention of this layout. This was submitted and approved under reference P19/V0774/DIS. The approved parking layout is shown below.
5.10	The approved layout shows two spaces in tandem with a small overhang into the turning area. The reduction in length of the driveway would increase the overhang into this turning head by approximately 0.75m. This increased overhang is shown on the annotated plan below. Officers do not consider that this increased overhang would significantly impede the use of the turning head such that it would make this unusable for its stated purpose given it would retain an unobstructed width of approximately 5.7m. Therefore, officers consider that the dwelling would have two car parking spaces on its driveway following the development, rather than one as stated by the highway liaison officer.
5.11	Even when it is considered that the property would have two car parking spaces this is still fewer than the county council’s adopted standards of up to three spaces for a 5+ bedroom house in a rural location. Therefore, the impact of this shortfall must be assessed.
5.12	The shortfall in spaces has the potential to result in the occupiers of no 25 and visitors to the property parking within the turning head as whilst there are visitor spaces available to the south west, cars are usually parked as close to the house as possible for convenience and security. This has the potential to impede the turning of vehicles, particularly larger vehicles such as bin lorries and fire engines.
5.13	The original application was supported by a transport statement which included a swept path turning plan for refuse vehicles. This is shown below. It must be noted that the road layout in this plan does not match the layout as built as a wider verge exists than is shown. The reduction in width of the road means the refuse vehicle is likely required to drive further into the turning head but officers consider this would still be a significant distance from the end of the turning head. Therefore, officers consider that it is unlikely that overspill parking here would signficiantly impede the turning of large vehicels within the site such that there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
5.14	Whilst turning of large vehicles within the site is unlikely to be significantly impeded, the use of the turning head for overspill parking is likely to result in vehicles being required to reverse up the access road when leaving. The lightly trafficked and low speed nature of the estate and the relatively short distance of reversing which would be required is considered to prevent an unacceptable impact on highway saftey from this potential maneouvre.
5.15	Whilst officers do not consider that overspill parking is likely to cause unacceptable impacts on highway safety the impacts must be weighed against the fact that the dwelling has full permitted development rights and no conditions require the retention of the garage for car parking (consistent with confidential informal advice provided by the council regarding this site and another on the same estate). This means that the garage could be converted, and extensions added without express planning permission. Therefore, the number of bedrooms is capable of being increased both through extensions and internal alterations and the parking reduced as proposed without applying for planning permission.
5.16	When the development which could be carried out under permitted development is considered, officers are of the opinion that it would not be reasonable nor justified to refuse permission due to a lack of parking as there will be no unacceptable impacts and in any case these impacts would be outweighed by the fallback position which would cause the same impacts. Moreover, there is no objection from the highway authority. Therefore, on balance, the shortfall in car parking is acceptable in this instance.
5.17	Design, character and heritage Policy CP37 of LPP1 requires development to be of high quality, visually attractive design that responds positively to the site and its surroundings with appropriate scale, height, details and materials.
5.18	Policies CP39 and DP36 of LPP1 and LPP2 state that proposals that affect heritage assets (designated and non-designated) must demonstrate that they preserve or enhance the significance of the asset. In weighing applications that directly, or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be made having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.
5.19	The extension is subservient to the existing dwelling which ensures this remains the dominant element of the property. The overall design of the extension is not considered to harm the appearance of the dwelling, nor the character of the area given its modest size and matching materials.
5.20	An objection has raised concerns that the new windows do not match those on the existing dwelling as they are sash rather than casement. However, despite this difference and the fact they are smaller than those on the existing front elevation their overall appearance is similar with glazing bars and the meeting rail splitting the window into four as with the existing casement windows with horizontal glazing bars. The new windows will also have a lintel above and sill below, consistent with the other windows on the front elevation.
5.21	As with the impacts on highway safety the impacts of the development in terms of design and character must also be considered in light of the fact that the dwelling has full permitted development rights so extensions could be added to the rear with a depth of up to 4m and to the side with a width of up to half of the width of the original house. This extension requires permission as it wraps around the house and hence exceeds the width permissible under permitted development. However, its impacts are considered to be lower than extensions which could be added using permitted development rights.
5.22	The modest size of the extension and the distance to the manor house is considered to prevent any harm to its significance as a non-designated heritage asset.
5.23	As the design of the extension is not considered to be visually harmful nor harmful to the significance of nearby non-designated heritage assets it is held that the application accords with policies CP37, CP39 and DP36.
5.24	Trees The impact of development on the landscape is assessed against policy CP44. This policy requires key features of the landscape to be protected or enhanced including (but not limited to) trees, hedgerows, landscape settings of settlements, important views and sensitive skylines. Development is also required to incorporate appropriate landscape proposals that reflect the character of the area.
5.25	Immediately to the north of the application site is an area of ancient woodland, an irreplaceable habitat. The council’s forestry officer initially objected to the development as they requested a tree survey and impact assessment to enable a judgement as to the likely impacts on this woodland.
5.26	In response to this objection, the applicant’s agent provided the original site plan of the school prior to its redevelopment. This shows that the site was formerly occupied by garages and hence it is unlikely that there will be significant root coverage in this area. In light of this, the forestry officer is satisfied that subject to a condition requiring the submission of tree protection measures the ancient woodland and the important trees within it will be unharmed. This condition is recommended and subject to this condition it is held that the application accords with policy CP44.
5.27	Ecology Policy CP46 of LPP1 states that development that conserves, restores and enhances biodiversity will be permitted whilst net loss of biodiversity will be avoided. The highest level of protection is given to sites and species of international nature conservation importance (Special Areas of Conservation and European Protected Species). Development that harms habitats and species will not be permitted unless the need for the development outweighs the harm, it can be demonstrated that the development could not reasonably be located elsewhere or measures to prevent, mitigate or compensate for the harm are agreed.
5.28	The council’s ecology officer was consulted on this application, and they raise no objection from an ecological point of view provided the development does not encroach towards the woodland. The extension does not extend further to side than the existing garage and hence there is no encroachment.
5.29	Several comments have raised concerns about potential harm to protected species as the approved biodiversity enhancement plan indicatively shows bat tubes to be installed on this property and the proximity of the site to a known habitat of great crested newts (GCNs). The council’s ecology officer has raised no objection in respect of protected species. Any bat tubes would be on the first floor or within the roof and hence not affected by the extension. The proposed development will be located within an area of managed garden, this habitat is of lower value to GCNs and it is unlikely that this would cause long term harm to individual GCNs or their habitat. However, to ensure that GCNs are unharmed during construction and to be consistent with the approach taken elsewhere on the site (P22/V3012/HH) compliance conditions are recommended requiring the construction to be carried out in a way which reduces potential impacts on GCNs.
5.30	Subject to the recommended condition and in the absence of an objection from the council’s ecology officer it is held that protected species and habitats will be unharmed and the application accords with policy CP46.
5.31	Residential amenity The impact of development on neighbouring properties is controlled by policy DP23 of LPP2. This policy requires development proposals to demonstrate that they will not result in significant adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring uses arising through loss of privacy, daylight or sunlight, from dominance or visual intrusion, noise or vibration, dust, heat, odour, gases or other emissions, pollution, contamination or the use of / or storage of hazardous substances and external lighting.
5.32	The modest scale of the proposed extension and its single storey nature will prevent any harm to neighbouring properties from overshadowing, overdominance, overlooking nor visual intrusion. Therefore, the application accords with policy DP23.
5.33	Flood risk/drainage Policy CP42 of LPP1 seeks to minimise the risk and impact of flooding by directing new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding, ensuring that all new development addresses the effective management of all sources of flood risk and does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. The policy also requires a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) for all developments of 1 hectare and greater in Flood Zone 1 and, for all proposals for new development, including minor development and change of use in Flood Zone 2 and 3 and, in Critical Drainage Areas in accordance with footnote 50 of the NPPF.
5.34	The site is within Flood Zone 1 and hence is unlikely to be at risk from flooding. However, it must be ensured that there will be no increase in flood risk elsewhere. The approved surface water drainage scheme for the site includes a soakaway on the amenity land to the west of the dwelling. As no development of this land is proposed there will be no impact on this and therefore no increase in flood risk. Therefore, the council’s drainage engineer has no objection and the development accords with policy CP42.
5.35	Contamination Policy DP24 requires development to be appropriate for its location and to be designed such that occupiers of the new development will not be harmed from previous or neighbouring uses including from land contamination. Policy DP27 states that proposals for development on land known or suspected of being contaminated should be supported by a preliminary risk assessment. Proposals involving a particularly vulnerable type of development of land not known or suspected of being contaminated will be required to submit a contaminated land questionnaire. Proposals which fail to demonstrate that the intended use would be compatible with the condition of the land, or which fail to exploit appropriate opportunities for decontamination, will be refused.
5.36	The site is identified as potentially being at risk from contaminated land due to nearby former land uses. The council’s contaminated land officer was consulted on this application and they have no concerns. Therefore, it is held that the development will not be at risk from contamination, in accordance with policies DP24 and DP27.
5.37	Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Less than 100 metres squared of new floorspace is proposed so the development is not CIL liable.
5.38	Pre-commencement conditions The Town and Country Planning (Pre-commencement Conditions) Regulations 2018 made under the provision of section 100ZA of the Act as inserted by the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 requires agreement of applicants/agents to pre-commencement conditions. Pre-commencement conditions are recommended. Agreement to these conditions was received via email on 14 November.

6.0

CONCLUSION

6.1

The proposed development is acceptable in principle and does not represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt. For the reasons outlined in this report officers consider that, subject to the recommended conditions, the development will not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, nor will it be harmful to visual and neighbour amenity, heritage assets, trees, ecology nor be at risk from/to flooding and land contamination. Therefore, officers consider that the application accords with the policies of the development plan and the NPPF and it is recommended that the application is approved.

The following planning policies have been taken into account:

Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1 (LPP1):

CP13 - The Oxford Green Belt

CP33 - Promoting Sustainable Transport and Accessibility

CP35 - Promoting Public Transport, Cycling and Walking

CP37 - Design and Local Distinctiveness

CP39 - The Historic Environment

CP40 - Sustainable Design and Construction

CP42 - Flood Risk

CP43 - Natural Resources

CP44 - Landscape

CP46 - Conservation and Improvement of Biodiversity

Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 2 (LPP2):

DP16 - Access

DP23 - Impact of Development on Amenity

DP24 - Effect of Neighbouring or Previous Uses on New Developments

DP27 - Land Affected by Contamination

DP28 - Waste Collection and Recycling

DP31 - Protection of Public Rights of Way, National Trails and Open Access Areas

DP36 - Heritage Assets

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

Joint Design Guide SPD (2022)

Equalities Act 2010

The proposal has been assessed against section 149 of the Equalities Act. It is considered that no identified group will suffer discrimination as a result of this proposal.

Human Rights Act, 1998

The application has been assessed against Schedule 1, Part 1, Article 8, and against Schedule 1, Part 2, Article 1 of the Human Rights Act, 1998. The harm to individuals has been balanced against the public interest and the officer recommendation is considered to be proportionate.

Author: Nathaniel Bamsey

Contact No: 01235 422600

Email: planning@whitehorsedc.gov.uk