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
Hearing held on 23 November 2004
Site visit made on 23 November 2004
an Inspector appointed by the First Secretary of State
Flooding
10. The Government's strategy for sustainable development makes it necessary to consider what forms of development would be inappropriate in areas at risk of flood. PPG25 establishes the need to adopt a risk based approach through a sequential test to ensure that development plans and planning decisions do not result in unnecessary development in areas of high risk. The PPG says explicitly that in high risk zones it must be demonstrated that there are no reasonable options available for the development in a lower risk category.
11. PPG25 includes a table of flood zones, The appeal site lies in the March 1947 floodplain of the Thames. It is therefore within a high risk zone, that is, where the annual probability of flooding is 1% or greater. The appellant considers that the site falls to be considered within zone 3a) but I do not agree. That zone relates to developed areas. I acknowledged that the appeal site itself has been developed, but to my mind it lies within what can best be described as a sparsely developed area. It is within the small hamlet of Binsey and surrounded by open countryside. The nearest developed areas are to the south adjacent to Botley Road more than 1.5km away or to the east of the Thames over 1 km away.
12. I therefore consider the appeal site to fall within zone 3b) where it says that general purpose housing should not normally be permitted, unless a particular location is essential and an alternative lower risk location is not available. It goes on to say that residential uses should be limited to job related accommodation. So far as I am aware the houses proposed are for general purpose occupation. [page 3]
13. Both the Council and the appellant agree that ground floor levels would be high enough to ensure the insides of the new houses would not be inundated in the event of a 1:100 (+20% allowing for climate change) flood. It is also agreed that in the vicinity compensatory flood storage could be provided outside the floodplain. I note here that some residents fear that because of the high water table this alternative flood storage would not be available, but I have seen no substantive evidence which indicates that the re-contouring of the land would encounter problems with the water table.
14. The outstanding objection from the Council relates to a dry and safe access during times of flood. The current practice of the Environment Agency is to require a safe access in the event of a 100 year annual return flood. Providing such an access is to my mind a sensible precaution to reduce risks for people during flood events. The only road into Binsey is the lane to the south (over 1,5km in length) which starts to flood in a 1 in 5 year storm event. It was agreed at the hearing that on the lane flood levels can be generally be up to about 300mm in a 1:30 year return, 580mm in a 1:100 year return and 820mm in a 1:100+20% for climate change allowance event.
15. I heard that in recent floods the village has been effectively cut off in a 1 in 30 year event, not only because of the depth of water, but also because of abandoned vehicles on what is a narrow country lane. So far as I am aware there is no overland alternative vehicular access to the village. Even though I accept that emergency service vehicles may be able to access the village during some flood events, I do not consider this to be a good reason for additional people to be put at risk and increase the burden on the emergency services. Moreover the representations indicate that the maximum depth of water that it is in theory practical to negotiate, is 700mm for a fire appliance. The lane would only be passable for other emergency vehicles in shallower water, that is, if they were available. I heard that in times of a flood emergency, Binsey is not a priority area. I do not consider mitigation measures such as providing markers to delineate a submerged road to be a satisfactory solution as this would not highlight any obstructions which may be below the water line.
16. It has been suggested that it would be feasible to construct a raised walkway to allow safe pedestrian access during times of flood, but such a proposal does not form part of the developments before me. And the representations indicate that such a structure could have adverse effects on flood flows, routes and floodplain storage, besides implications for highway safety, the appearance of the area and the habitat of badgers. In any event I note here that such a facility could only be provided as far as Wyke/Bulstake bridge beyond which flooding could be up to 400mm.
17. Because the area is liable to flood there is a flood warning system in operation. However it seems to me that it would be contrary to the precautionary principle to say that new development could be justified by this system which is in place as a last resort for existing development. To do so would increase the burden on the emergency services and put more people at risk. The anecdotal evidence indicates that even with the limited number of properties in Binsey, during the 2000 floods there were 2 medical emergencies. Therefore whilst there is adjacent property which is equally at risk from flooding I do not believe this is a good reason for permitting either appeal proposal.
18. I appreciate that the potential risk to additional people would not be great given the small scale of the scheme, particularly in appeal B. However this is an argument which could be repeated and cumulatively the impact of such developments would be more significant and [page 4] difficult to resist in similar situations. In my view it is not appropriate in the consideration of these appeals to take into account flood alleviation schemes which may or may not occur at some unspecified time in the future. I note that the appellant considers there to be an inconsistency in the Environment Agency's stance, in the application of a draft guideline which specifies allowable standing water flood depth of up to 300mm to allow safe pedestrian access, but I do not have full details of the proposal for Patrick Road in Caversham. Nor do I have full particulars of other planning appeals which have been put before me. In any event I am required to reach my decision primarily on the planning merits of the case before me which I have done.
19. Overall on this issue I conclude that the creation of new dwellings would unacceptably increase the resident population at risk from flooding and the burden on emergency services during times of flood. As such it would be contrary to the objectives in development plan emerging local and structure plan and national policies in this respect.
The green belt
20. Appeal C - In the LP the appeal site is within the green belt. Policy EN2 creates a general presumption against development which is not for agriculture, forestry or other similar uses. The appeal proposal for residential use unrelated to any of the specified uses is therefore inappropriate development.
21. PPG2 goes on to say that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It also makes it clear that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the green belt and it is for an appellant to show why permission should be granted. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
22. LP policy H03 also applies to the appeal site. However whilst it is generally permissive of proposals for housing involving less than 20 dwellings, this is subject to the proviso that there is compliance with other policies in the plan. There is in this case clear conflict with policy EN2 and I note that H03 is not being brought forward into the ELP.
23. Since adoption of the LP in 1997 there have been changes in national policy and increased emphasis on sustainable development. These are reflected in ELP policies which seek to make the most efficient use of previously developed land and concentrate development in sustainable locations within the urban areas close to facilities and services. I consider the appeal site scores low in terms of sustainable development, even though part of the scheme would involve the re-use of existing buildings. Whilst the site has been used for agriculture in the past, PPG3 makes it clear that agricultural land/buildings do not come within the definition of previously developed land.
24. In addition Binsey is a small group of houses and a public house in the open countryside. It has no other facilities. There is no bus service, school etc. The density of development is significantly below the minimum of 30 units per ha recommended in the PPG. I acknowledge that it is possible to walk and/or cycle into Oxford, but this is some distance away and the routes are far from ideal. Binsey Lane has no footpaths or street lighting and I saw that the path across the Thames is in places muddy and uneven under foot with a narrow bridge to negotiate. I have also taken into account that-there is a boatyard and sailing club on the Thames, a golf driving range at the southern end of Binsey Lane and a church to the north of the village, but these are scattered facilities in the countryside and [page 5] similar uses can be found in many locations which are close to the urban areas. They do not to my mind define a sustainable location.
25. The appellant says and I have no reason to doubt that as it stands Manor Farm is not viable as an agricultural enterprise. I understand this is due primarily to a combination of the size of the unit and the condition of the buildings. Further its proximity to houses means that intensive animal enterprises could cause problems for neighbours. However whether viable or not, what is evident is that the buildings are still capable of some form of agricultural use whether for storage or animal shelter and have been used for such purposes from time to time. Unfortunately the situation at Manor Farm is not an usual one. There area many similar units which have become uneconomic and/or disused to be found in the rural areas.
26. I heard also that the roadside barn is used on an informal basis for storage and social events. However I appreciate that finding alternative uses for the existing buildings is not considered a realistic option as industrial/commercial uses could bring attendant problems of increased traffic and noise and disturbance to the adjacent houses. Even so it seems to me that some types of commercial/workshop use can be low key and generate very little traffic or noise. I acknowledge of course that such an enterprise may not be viable.
27. The development would involve the demolition of a large agricultural shed and the slurry store. However whilst these structures may be large they are common features in the rural areas. Moreover in this particular location they are not particularly obtrusive as they sit low in the landscape. The large shed/barn which is to be retained is by far the most prominent of the buildings in the wider landscape. By demolishing the 2 structures there would be an inevitable increase in openness. But there would be replacement buildings. And even though the volume of new building would not be as great, it would appear more scattered, the areas around the houses would be enclosed and the limits of development defined by a wall/fence. The effect on openness would not therefore to my mind be as significant as first thought. In addition the proposal would involve the replacement of appropriate buildings in the green belt with inappropriate development.
28. I am satisfied that the development would ensure the long term retention of the roadside barn and the threshers barn; also the hovel which I note here is in a somewhat dilapidated condition and tumbling down in parts. However there is no substantive evidence which suggests that the appeal scheme and new building at the appeal site is the only option of retaining these buildings.
29. The purposes of the green belt set out in LP policy ENI are to protect the special character of Oxford, prevent ribbon development/urban sprawl and the coalescence of settlements. It is difficult to argue that the appeal development on its own would compromise these purposes. However it would consolidate inappropriate development by creating 5 new dwellings.
30. Overall when considering the above factors, I am not satisfied that these particular set of circumstances are on their own sufficient to justify the strong presumption against inappropriate development in the green belt,
31. Appeal B - In terms of LP policy there is no provision for the reuse of buildings in the green belt. However there are such provisions in PPG2 and also ELP policy NE.2 which says that the change of use of a building may be permitted if it would have no materially greater impact than the present use on the openness and purposes of the green belt. The [page 6] proposals to change the external elevations of the roadside barn are sympathetic to the existing appearance of the barn. They would ensure the retention of a listed building which is important in the street scene in Binsey,
32. The proposals would also involve the creation of a rear garden in what is at present a farm yard. Enclosing land would inevitably have an impact on openness. However given the enclosed nature of the yard in this area, it is bounded by buildings and/or walls on 4 sides, I do not consider visually this additional enclosure would have a materially greater impact than a farming use. What it would do though is encroach onto what has in the past been used as part of the farmyard. From the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that, if permission were to be given for this development in isolation that, the garden element of the proposal would not inhibit some future use of the site. Given these circumstances, I consider that the development would be inappropriate development in terms of LP policy and that there are insufficient circumstances to overcome the presumption against inappropriate development.
33. Appeal A - Despite the provision of a private amenity area for the occupants of Manor Farm Cottage, which they at present lack, my views on the creation of a domestic garden are similar to those in appeal B set out above. In respect of the car port, the development would be ancillary residential development outside of a residential curtilage. As such I consider it would be inappropriate development which would impair the openness of the green belt.
The character and appearance of the area
34. Binsey Conservation Area was designated in 1981, in the Council's words as a response to the survival and timeless beauty of the village and its green. At its core are a string of houses along Binsey Lane, Manor Farm with its assortment of traditional and more modern agricultural buildings and The Perch public house. To the north it includes open areas beyond the farmyard, to the east the boundary follows the bank of the Thames as far as Medley Sailing Club, whereas the southern boundary encompasses more open fields and the dwelling known as Great Leys. I see no reason to differ from the Council's description of the area which says ...Its character is one of small scale buildings around a village green, with houses, farms, barns and a thatched riverside public house...
35. There are 5 listed buildings within the conservation area. The Thatch Cottage and the Perch Inn are outside the site area for appeal C. They lie to its west and east respectively. Included within the site area are Manor Farm Cottage and the attached roadside barn together with Perch Cottage. Listed building consent has already been granted for the erection of the wall and car port in appeal A (02/01672/LBC) and the works included in appeal B for the alterations to the roadside barn and the boundary walls (02/01670/LBC). I note here that in 1994 conservation area consent for the demolition of the threshing barn was dismissed on appeal T/APP/G3110/E/93/810519.
6. Appeal C - The appeal proposal would in effect change the character of the appeal site from a mixture of farming/residential use to residential. In a conservation area whose character is dependant on the mixture of houses, farms and barns I consider this would result in material harm to the character of the conservation area. Moreover whilst the detailed proposals both for the conversion of the 2 barns and the 3 new dwellings would complement and be sympathetic to the appearance of other buildings within the [page 7] conservation area, I do not consider the same can be said for the proposed siting of the new buildings.
37. The proposal would introduce development in depth which is in sharp contrast to the simple ribbon of development to the west of the appeal site. I appreciate that the farm yard also has buildings in depth, but the most dominating of these are modem agricultural structures which extend into the countryside with no firm boundaries. There is therefore a fluidity between the agricultural built form and the surrounding countryside which would be lost with the erection of the 3 new houses and their domestic gardens. I accept that the situation is different for the more traditional threshing barn and the hovel where with the enclosing walls they form a loose cluster with Perch Cottage and Perch Inn, but this is reflective of the traditional pattern of development, the same cannot be said for the new build element of the proposal. They would consolidate and extend domestic buildings to an unacceptable extent.
38. For these reasons it seems to me that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area. In reaching this conclusion I have been mindful that the proposals involve the demolition of a large utilitarian looking structure and a slurry tank, but these developments because of their location and scale are not particularly prominent in the street scene or from the riverbank. And whilst I accept that their demolition could result in the enhancement in the appearance of the conservation area, the details of the scheme before me and the harm it would cause do not in my view merit allowing the appeal. It may be that at some stage in the future the condition of the barns is such that their demolition would be imperative to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area, but in my view that stage has not yet been reached.
39. I turn now to the character and setting of the listed buildings on the appeal site, Thatch Cottage and Perch Inn are to my mind sufficiently distant from the appeal site to be unaffected by the changes proposed. Similarly within the site Perch Cottage would retain its relationship with the threshing barn and the public house. Finally I also consider the changes to the appearance of the roadside barn would be acceptable as the building would retain much of its traditional appearance. It would also retain its position in the street scene between Manor Farm House and Manor Farm Cottage. In terms of the setting of the listed building I do not believe the addition of small rear gardens enclosed by stone walls would fundamentally harm either the barn or the cottage.
40. I note here that there is no substantive evidence to suggest that refusal of permission would prejudice the long term future of the listed buildings.. However what is evident is that the proposal would ensure their long term future. Overall I consider the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the listed buildings within both the conservation area and the appeal site. The development would therefore be in accord with the provisions of section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
41. There is a degree of fluidity between the built form of the village and the surrounding countryside which would be changed by the proposals. However there would be no basic encroachment of building into the open countryside. The boundaries of development would be sharply defined, in scale and appearance the new houses would be sympathetic to existing buildings and the high value of the landscape surrounding the village would be retained. I do not find there would be any material harm to the area of high landscape value. [page 8]
42. Appeals A and B - From my comments above it is evident that neither do I consider there would be any material harm to the developments in appeal A and B in terms of effects on listed buildings or the surrounding landscape. I also reach similar conclusions in respect of effects on the conservation area. Combined, both proposals would result in the conversion of an existing building which is important to the street scene and the walled enclosure of land to form back gardens. The scale of the development is small and it would not fundamentally change either the character or appearance of the conservation area. I therefore find the objections to these development to be unjustified.
43. Overall on this issue I conclude that the material harm to the character and appearance of the area is limited to development proposed in appeal C and the impact on Binsey Conservation Area. The development proposed would not therefore be satisfactory in terms of development plan policy nor in terms of section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
Other material considerations
44. Some residents are concerned about additional traffic on Binsey Lane, particularly because of its width, lack of footpaths and the like. I agree that during the construction period it may be that traffic is a problem, but this would be only of a temporary nature. In the longer term given the type of development proposed, that is 5 dwellings, compared to the existing usage of the lane catering not only for domestic use, but also for tourists and vehicles associated with farming, the public house and the businesses fronting the Thames, I do not believe additional traffic by either its nature or volume would materially harm road safety.
45. Due to the history of the area it is quite likely that development may have an effect on the archaeology of the area, but I am satisfied that a suitable condition could address any adverse impact on both the archaeology of the appeal site and the flood storage compensation area. There is also some evidence to suggest that bats and owls may be affected by the development, but from the information available to me I consider that this matter can also be satisfactorily addressed by a suitable condition.
Conclusions
46. In respect of the first issue I believe that the creation of new dwellings in appeal B and C would unnecessarily and unacceptably increase the population at risk of flooding and the burden on emergency services during times of flood. With regard to the second issue I find that there are elements in each appeal which would make the developments inappropriate in the green belt. When looking at the third issue I consider that only the development proposed in appeal C would result in material harm to the character and appearance of conservation area. Finally when weighing all the evidence and looking at all the circumstances of the 3 appeals I conclude that the particular circumstances of the cases are not so special as to overcome the presumption of inappropriate development in the green belt.
47. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised including the long negotiations with the Council and their lack of objection to the proposals on green belt and conservation area ground, I conclude that the appeals should be dismissed. [page 9]
Formal Decisions
Appeal A Ref. APP/G3110/A/04/1143498
48. I dismiss the appeal.
Appeal B Ref. APP/G3110/A/04/1143499
49. I dismiss the appeal.
Appeal C Ref. APP/G3110/A/04/1143500
50. I dismiss the appeal.
D L BurrowsINSPECTOR [page 10]
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Mr R Linnell BSc(Hons) MPhil FPD Savills, 8 Oxford Street, Woodstock
MRTPI
Mr P Lindon FPD Savills
Mr S Capel Davies Peter Brett Associates, Caversham Bridge House,
Waterman Place, Reading
Mr S Wilson Peter Brett Associates
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Mr I Hiscock Oxford City Council
Mr D McKnight The Environment Agency, Isis House, Howbery Park,
Wallingford
Mr M Robinson The Environment Agency
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Mrs A Cobb Great Leys, Binsey, Oxford
Mr S Cobb Great Leys, Binsey, Oxford
Cllr M Collins mpcollins@yahoo.com
Cllr Mrs S Pressel 7 Rawlinson Road, Oxford
Mr D Sturdy 35 Woodford Drive, Cherlby
Mr P Lund Old School House, Binsey
Mr N Elwes Weir Cottage, Binsey
Mr C West 37 Argyle Street, Oxford
W J Gibson Woodbine Cottage, Binsey
DOCUMENTS
Document 1 List of persons present at the hearing
Document 2 Notification of hearing and list of people notified
Document 3 Written responses to Council's notification
Document 4 Bound appendices OCC 1-15 with Council's statement
Document 5 Appendices EA1-4 with Environment Agency's statement
Document 6 Appendices 1-10 with appellant's statement
Document 7 Letter from Mr D Sturdy handed in at hearing
Document 8 SP policy G4
Document 9 Suggested conditions
PLANS
Plan A Appeal A application plans 1, 2, 3D, 10A and 24
Plan B Appeal B - application plans 1, 2, 3D, 4, 5, 6A, 7A, 8A
Plan C Appeal C - 27 x application plans 1, 2, 3D, 4, 5, 6A, 7A, 8A, 9B, 10A, 11 A, 12, 13A, 14A, 15A, 17,18A, 19,20A, 21, 22B, 23A, 24,25A,26A, 27A,28B