“A strong network of settlements Policy CSS1 The overall strategy Proposals for development in South Oxfordshire should be consistent with the overall strategy of: (i) focusing major new development at the growth point of Didcot so the town can play an enhanced role in providing homes, jobs and services with improved transport connectivity; (ii) supporting the roles of Henley, Thame and Wallingford by regenerating their town centres through measures that include environmental improvements and mixed-use developments and by providing new houses, employment, services and infrastructure; (iii) supporting and enhancing the larger villages of Berinsfield, Benson, Chalgrove, Chinnor, Cholsey, Crowmarsh Gifford, Goring, Nettlebed, Sonning Common, Watlington, Wheatley and Woodcote as local service centres; (iv) supporting other villages in the rest of the district by allowing for limited amounts of housing and employment and by the provision and retention of services; and (v) outside the towns and villages, and other major developed sites, any change will need to relate to very specific needs such as those of the agricultural industry or enhancement of the environment.”
“7.9 Our overall strategy for a strong network of settlements throughout the district, as explained in Section 4, has shaped our housing distribution strategy. We aim to focus a large proportion of new development at the growth point of Didcot. The number of houses allocated to Didcot is ring-fenced to this settlement as this level of housing growth is closely linked to planned economic growth within Science Vale UK, our bid for transport infrastructure in the Didcot area, our plans for the expansion of Didcot town centre and Didcot’s designation as a New Growth Point. 7.10. Outside Didcot, the rest of the district will be a single area for housing land supply. About 60% (1,730) of the balance of the total of new housing allocations to be provided through this strategy in that area is directed to the market towns of Henley, Thame and Wallingford. A high proportion of South Oxfordshire residents (about 60%) currently live in rural areas, so the urban focus of the strategy, directing new allocations primarily towards Didcot and the other three towns will significantly rebalance the present urban/rural mix in South Oxfordshire, especially taken in context with the substantial number of existing commitments at Didcot (3,780). However, about 40% of the balance of new allocations to be made outside Didcot (1,154 homes), or about 28% of new allocations including those at Didcot (1,154/4,060) is directed towards the 12 larger villages because it is an important aim of this strategy to provide growth to support the maintenance of services and facilities at this identified network of key rural centres. 7.11. The starting point for the strategy was to distribute the homes allocated to Henley, Thame and Wallingford generally in proportion to their relative sizes (40% / 35% / 25%). However, a cap of 400 has been imposed at Henley because of the lack of identifiable certain capacity for physical growth due to constraints posed by the Thames flood plain and the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This results in the diversion of a total of just under 350 or so homes proportionately to Thame and Wallingford. The distribution of the growth allocated to the larger villages will be decided through the Site Allocations DPD on the basis of the principles set out in paragraph 7.20. 7.12. The overall number of houses to allocate to Didcot and the rest of the district is shown in Table 7.1 and on Map 7.1. 7.13. The base date of our housing supply period is 2006. Some of the housing needed has been built already and a number of other deliverable sites have been identified through planning permissions, allocations in the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 and sites within the built-up area of existing settlements shown in our Strategic Housing Land Table 7.1 and Map 7.1 show how much land we have already identified and the amount we need to identify in this plan.” 17. That Table 7.1 states: Housing targets and number of dwellings to allocate 2006 to 2027 target Completions 2006-12, existing allocations and identified deliverable sites Number of dwellings allocated in this strategy Didcot 6300 3983 2330 Rest of the District 5187 2460 2884 Total 11487 6443 5214 18. It is followed by Policy CSH1, which reads: “Policy CSH1 Amount and distribution of housing Planning permission will be granted to meet housing requirements in Table 7.1 in accordance with Tables 7.2 to 7.3.” 19. Paragraphs 7.14-15 and Table 7.2 deal with provision in Didcot, and requires no examination here. Paragraph 7.16 onwards deals with “Rest of the District.”
“In order to contribute to the present and future economic, environmental and social sustainability of the villages, housing will be allowed where the scale and nature of development is: an allocation, or an infill site without limit.” “Infill site” is defined as the filling of a small gap in an otherwise built-up frontage or on others sites within sites where the site is closely surrounded by buildings [13.10]. The Policy continues: “All development should respect national designations such as Green Belt and should conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Suitably designed and located development at an appropriate scale that facilitates the economic and social well-being of such areas, especially in the Larger Villages in the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty will be supported. This includes the provision of adequate housing to meet identified local needs. Local character and distinctiveness will be protected and the requirements of relevant development plan policies will be met. Redevelopment proposals in all categories of settlement may be acceptable but will be considered on a case by case basis through the development management process in line with other policies in the Development Plan.” “All development should respect national designations such as Green Belt and should conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Suitably designed and located development at an appropriate scale that facilitates the economic and social well-being of such areas, especially in the Larger Villages in the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty will be supported. This includes the provision of adequate housing to meet identified local needs. Local character and distinctiveness will be protected and the requirements of relevant development plan policies will be met. Redevelopment proposals in all categories of settlement may be acceptable but will be considered on a case by case basis through the development management process in line with other policies in the Development Plan.” 21. The Plan also refers [13.10] in the supporting text to paragraph 7.20 and how the Site Allocations DPD will identify sites in the larger villages. [13.11] states that the Development Management Policies DPD was to include detailed criteria for housing in villages. 22. Pausing there, it will be apparent that the Development Plan anticipated that there could properly be allocations in the larger villages such as Chinnor. 23. Chapter 18 deals with “implementation of the strategy.”
“Policy CSC1 Delivery and Contingency Sites are anticipated to be developed in the timescales set out in Table 18.1. If sites or other policies are not delivered in accordance with Tables 18.1 and the housing trajectories, the contingency measures set out in Table 18.2 will apply. If the Authority’s Monitoring Report shows that allocated development sites and/or neighbourhood plans are not coming forward in a timely manner, we will consider: (i) seeking alternative sources of funding if lack of infrastructure is delaying development (ii) bringing forward sites anticipated to come on stream later in the plan process (iii) identifying alternative deliverable site(s) through a plan or other mechanism in general accordance with the distribution strategy of this plan as set out in Tables 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3.” (i) seeking alternative sources of funding if lack of infrastructure is delaying development (ii) bringing forward sites anticipated to come on stream later in the plan process (iii) identifying alternative deliverable site(s) through a plan or other mechanism in general accordance with the distribution strategy of this plan as set out in Tables 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3.” 25. Table 18.1 deals with the “Anticipated Delivery of Housing Development.”
“Protection and enhancement of the environment Policy G2 The district's countryside, settlements and environmental resources will be protected from adverse developments [and opportunities sought to enhance the environment wherever they arise]. 2.12 This reflects the Council's aim to balance the protection and enhancement of the district's resources, whilst meeting development needs [in accordance with Policy G1 and the Structure Plan requirement.] Development in the countryside and on the edge of settlements Policy G4 The need to protect the countryside for its own sake is an important consideration when assessing proposals for development. [Unless permitted by other policies in the plan, new built development in the countryside, in the open gaps between settlements and on the edge of settlements where the built-up area would be extended, will not normally be permitted, except for agriculture and forestry. ] 2.14 [This policy seeks to prevent development in the countryside, ribbon development on roads extending away from settlements and unplanned expansion of settlements beyond their existing built-up area. This policy also reflects the Government's overall aim in PPS7 which is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all. When considering proposals for development the Council will give high priority to retaining the open and rural character of the area, and the countryside generally. In the period to 2011 the strategic development requirements in South Oxfordshire can be met in an acceptable way by the policies and proposals in this plan. The Council considers that in accordance with PPG3 there is therefore no need to contemplate urban expansions or development in the countryside, other than in the agreed case of Didcot.]”
“The landscape setting of settlements Policy C4 Development which would damage the attractive landscape setting of the settlements of the district will not be permitted. The effect of any proposal on important local landscape features which contribute to the visual and historic character and appearance of a settlement will be considered. 3.16 The relationship between settlements and their surrounding countryside is a significant element in the character of the area. The links and contrasts between towns and villages and their rural surroundings were often important historically, and the attractive juxtaposition of the two elements is the quintessence of English rural landscapes. The countryside around towns and villages is also highly valued, both visually and for informal recreation. The Council will seek to ensure that the landscape setting of settlements is protected from damaging development. In assessing proposals for development which would affect the landscape setting of a settlement, reference will be made to the South Oxfordshire Landscape Assessment” 29. Section 4 deals with “Encouraging sustainable and high quality development”
“Good design and local distinctiveness Policy D1 The principles of good design and the protection and reinforcement of local distinctiveness should be taken into account in all new development through: (i) the provision of a clear structure of spaces; (ii) respecting existing settlement patterns; (iii) providing for a choice of routes and transport modes to, from and within the development; (iv) providing a devel opment that users find easy to understand through the use of landmarks, vistas and focal points; (v) providing landscape structure as a framework for new development; (vi) respecting the character of the existing landscape; (vii) respecting distinctive settlement types and their character; (viii) providing good quality site and building design and appropriate materials; and (ix) providing well-designed external areas.”
“Using a proportionate evidence base 158. Each local planning authority should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area. Local planning authorities should ensure that their assessment of and strategies for housing, employment and other uses are integrated, and that they take full account of relevant market and economic signals. Housing 159. Local planning authorities should have a clear understanding of housing needs in their area. They should: ● prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment to assess their full housing needs, working with neighbouring authorities where housing market areas cross administrative boundaries. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment should identify the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that the local population is likely to need over the plan period which: – meets household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change; – addresses the need for all types of housing, including affordable housing and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not limited to, families with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to build their own homes); and –caters for housing demand and the scale of housing supply necessary to meet this demand; ● prepare a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment to establish realistic assumptions about the availability, suitability and the likely economic viability of land to meet the identified need for housing over the plan period.”
“ The effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the locality, with particular regard to the setting of Chinnor and the open countryside; the balance between harm and benefit, with particular regard to whether the location of the proposed development would amount to sustainable development, in the context of national and local policy with regard to the location of housing.”
“I conclude that the appeal development would result in the loss of a green field and thereby encroach into the open countryside. However, such harm would be reduced as the appeal site makes a limited contribution to the rural landscaped setting of Chinnor. When taking account of the proposed development to its south at land off Crowell Road, the harm identified would be greater, but still limited. Taking all this into account, the appeal proposal would generally fail to accord with the overall aims of South Oxfordshire Local Plan (2011) Strike through version on adoption of South Oxfordshire Core Strategy December 2012 (LP) saved Policies G2, G4 and C4. These, together, aim to protect the District’s countryside from adverse development, recognise the need to protect the countryside for its own sake as an important consideration when assessing proposals for development and the landscape setting of settlements. In seeking to balance development against the protection of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, I find these policies generally accord with paragraph 17 bullet point 5 of the Framework.”
“29. CS Policy CSS1 sets out the CS’s overall spatial strategy and includes in (iv) supporting and enhancing larger villages as local service centres. CS Policy CSH1 provides that planning permission will be granted to meet housing requirements of 5,214 dwellings by 2027, divided between allocations in and around Didcot which would be roughly 2,330 and 2,884 in the rest of the District (RoD).8 CS Table 7.3 sets out that the larger villages, which include Chinnor, will contribute 1,154 dwellings in the RoD. 30. CS Policy CRS1 sets out that housing in the larger villages will be permitted through site allocations and on infill sites. There is no dispute between the two main parties that the appeal development does not fall within the definition of infill and that it would not be on an allocated site. Further, it is not in dispute that the appeal proposal would be contrary to that CS policy. However, the weight that I attach to that policy conflict is reduced by a number of factors outlined below. 31. Firstly, there is no dispute between the two main parties that the CS allows for at least 160 dwellings at Chinnor, that no extant permissions exist to provide for that number of dwellings and that the appeal proposal would deliver less than that number. The Council’s planning witness accepted in cross examination that the appeal development, of itself, would not result in harm to investment or growth at Didcot. In these circumstances, the appeal proposal would accord with the CS overall spatial strategy as set out in CS Policy CSS1 and CSH1. 32. Secondly, CS paragraphs 7.11 and 7.20 explain that the distribution of growth allocated to the larger villages will be decided through the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (SADPD). However, the Council confirmed that the SADPD has been abandoned. Instead, an early review of the CS is underway and the emerging South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 Refined Options (2015) (emerging LP) seeks views based on an allocation of at least 160 dwellings to Chinnor and shortlists a number of sites, which includes the appeal site. However, this is not an adopted development plan (DP). 33. A Chinnor Neighbourhood Plan (NP) is proposed. However, this is at a very early stage of preparation. Whilst the designated area has been approved, no draft NP policies are before me. A ‘made’ NP is anticipated towards the end of summer 2017. At this stage it does not provide any further direction on where housing in Chinnor should be located. In these circumstances there is a policy vacuum with regard to where the suggested housing in larger villages should go. 34. Thirdly, the Council does not advance a prematurity objection. Taking on board the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance regarding prematurity9, I agree that the emerging plan is not at an advanced stage and the proposed development would not be so substantial that it would undermine the plan making process. In these circumstances I have no reason to take an alternative view to the Council on this point. Moreover, the appeal proposal would accord with that emerging plan. 35. However, I agree that some harm could arise due to the fact that the appeal site is not allocated in a DP and it would comprise a large part of the CS requirement for Chinnor without full involvement of the community. However, it is accepted by both main parties that development at Chinnor to meet the CS requirements will have to involve some development on green field sites. Further, the appeal proposal would accord with the overall spatial strategy of the CS and in particular Policies CSS1 and CSH1. Some consultation has taken place on the prospect of development on the appeal site through the emerging LP. Whilst this is not an adopted DP, I accord some weight to the fact that some consultation has taken place with local people regarding the appropriateness of allocating the appeal site through the emerging LP. 36. Fourthly, as the proposed mechanism to allocate sites at Chinnor has not occurred, the appeal development would comply with CS Policy CSC1, which sets out the contingency if sites are not delivered as anticipated in the CS.10 The appeal proposal would be in general accordance with the distribution in the CS as set out in tables 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 and would fall within (ii) and (iii) of that policy, in as much as it would bring forward sites anticipated to come on stream later in the plan process or through other mechanisms, such as an appeal. 37. Finally, the SADPD has been abandoned and therefore it would be impossible for a development proposal to comply with it. These matters, together, reduce the weight that I would attach to any DP conflict with CS Policy CSR1 and the Council’s concern that the appeal proposal would not be considered through the plan-led system which would be contrary to the first core planning principle set out in paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). However, there is still a conflict with the DP, albeit one to which I accord reduced weight. I therefore need to consider whether there are other material considerations that would outweigh that limited conflict. 38. In any event, even if the above considerations did not apply and reduce the weight attached to a conflict with CS Policy CSR1, I have found that there is a policy vacuum, with regard to the allocation of sites in the larger villages in the RoD. Whilst this matter was raised by neither appellant or Council at the inquiry, that does not preclude me from coming to this view on the facts before me.”
“54. The appeal proposal would comply with CS Policies CSS1 and CSH1 by supporting Chinnor as a local service centre and no substantive evidence is before me that the appeal development would result in harm to development at Didcot of itself 55. In relation to housing supply, the two main parties agree that Chinnor is a sustainable location, that at least 160 dwellings should be developed there, that no extant permissions exist for that number in Chinnor and that the mix of dwellings proposed is acceptable. As there is no policy that restricts development to the overall housing requirement, this would be a benefit of the appeal proposal whether the Council could demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites or not. In addition it would provide affordable housing, for which a local need is evidenced. That the appeal proposal would boost the supply of housing in accordance with paragraph 47 of the Framework is not disputed. It would provide housing and affordable housing to meet the needs of present and future generations through the provision of a range of housing types and sizes and would meet the social dimension of sustainable development. To the development proposal’s contribution to housing, in the circumstances of this appeal, I attach significant weight. 56. With regards to its other economic benefits, it would provide some jobs in the construction industry as well as an increase in the local population, which would in turn bring added spending to the local economy and help to support local services and facilities. 57. In terms of its other social benefits, it would result in a contribution to services and facilities that could be of wider public benefit such as the No 40 bus service improvements as set out in the executed planning obligation. The provision of on-site open space would contribute towards healthy communities and as it could be centrally located it could be accessible to existing local residents. The future residents would have access to existing local services and facilities, even though the primary schools and main village shops would be some distance away. 58. On the basis of the reduced weight that I accord the DP conflict, that the appeal proposal would accord with the overall spatial strategy of the CS, that it would not result in material harm to the emerging LP, and some consultation has taken place on the prospect of the allocation of the appeal site through the emerging LP, overall it would not materially offend the plan-led system as set out in the first bullet point of the Core Planning Principles as set out in paragraph 17 of the Framework. 59. In terms of its environmental benefits, it would help to restore some of the key characteristics of the ORD landscape character area by reinforcing the field boundary planting. The proposed layout and built development, based on the illustrative layout could achieve a high quality built environment with appropriate open space and relationships between dwellings. Both these matters could be controlled through appropriately worded planning conditions. It would also result in an improvement to ecology through the provision of a wildlife corridor. The appeal proposal, as it would be located close to some services and facilities in Chinnor, would encourage the use of sustainable forms of transport, although I acknowledge that some facilities, such as secondary schools, larger shops and employment centres are further away. The Harm 60. I have found that the appeal development would result in the loss of a green field and would encroach into the countryside, a conclusion unaffected when taking into account the development proposed to its south at land off Crowell Road. However, on the basis of the limited contribution of the appeal site to the rural landscaped setting of Chinnor, that some green space would separate the two proposed developments and that both would include large areas of open space, this harm would be limited. It would also be partly mitigated by appropriate design, the incorporation of open space and planting, which are other material considerations that I put into the planning balance. I have found conflict with CS Policy CSR1, but have concluded that due to the reference in CS Policy CSR1 to an abandoned SADPD, the impossibility of a development proposal according with that abandoned document, the lack of harm to the emerging LP and limited harm to the DP-led approach, I accord that conflict reduced weight in reaching my decision. In any event I have found that there is a policy vacuum with regard to the allocation of sites in the larger villages. Planning Balance 61. I have found that, even though the appeal proposal would involve development on a greenfield site, some limited harm to the character and appearance of the locality would result, a matter unaffected by the consideration of development proposed at land off Crowell Road. Further, whilst I have found that there would be a DP conflict with CS Policy CSR1, matters that reduce the weight that I accord that DP conflict have been identified. Even if this were not the case, I have found that there is a policy vacuum with regard to where the houses to meet the strategic objectives of the CS should go in the larger villages. 62. I have found that the appeal proposal would have a beneficial effect on the supply of housing to which I accord significant weight and no substantive evidence is before me to demonstrate that it would, in itself, adversely affect development in Didcot. To the other social, economic and environmental benefits identified, I also accord some weight. 63. All other matters raised during the appeal have been considered but they do not lead me to any conclusion other than that overall, whilst recognising the priority given to the plan-led approach, the benefits of the appeal proposal would outweigh the harm and the proposed development would be sustainable. In accordance with CS Policy CS1, which promotes sustainable development, the appeal should be allowed. 64. Even though whether the Council can or cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites is a matter in dispute between the two main parties, in the circumstances of this appeal, I have no reason to consider further whether the relevant policies for the supply of housing should be considered up to date or not, whether they should derive from the now abolished South East Plan rather than the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2014) , matters relating to the appropriateness of a disaggregated approach to housing land supply or the way in which a five year supply of deliverable sites is calculated. Suffice to say that were it the case that the Council could not demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites, it would increase the benefits of the appeal proposal in terms of its contribution to the supply of housing in the District. However, this matter would not alter the outcome of this appeal.”
“The effect of the appeal proposal on the open countryside and the setting of Chinnor; the effect of the appeal proposal on the setting of the Oakley Conservation Area (OCA); the balance between harm and benefit with particular regard to whether the proposed development would amount to sustainable development in the context of national and local planning policy with regard to the location of housing.”
“25. Overall, therefore, the appeal development would adversely affect the character and appearance of the locality, in particular the setting of Chinnor and the open countryside, albeit that harm would be limited by the factors identified; a finding unaffected by the consideration of a proposed development on land adjoining Greenwood Avenue referred to. Due to this, it would generally fail to accord with South Oxfordshire Local Plan (2011) (LP) saved Policies G2, G4 and C4, and D1, which together point out that the need to protect the countryside for its own sake along with the landscaped setting of settlements and the need to reinforce local distinctiveness are important considerations when assessing proposals for development. On the basis of the information before me, I find that these policies, in seeking to balance the protection of the countryside and the need for development, generally accord with paragraph 17 bullet point 5 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which sets out the need to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The appeal development would also generally accord with South Oxfordshire Design Guide (2008), which promotes sustainable development and good design.”
“Having concluded at paragraph 30 that the proposed development would, on balance, preserve the setting of the OCA (i.e. the second issue), she turned to the issue on the location of housing at paragraphs 32-42: 32. CS Policy CSS1 sets out the CS’s overall spatial strategy and includes in (iv) supporting and enhancing larger villages as local service centres. CS Policy CSH1 provides that planning permission will be granted to meet housing requirements of 5,214 dwellings by 2027, divided between allocations in and around Didcot (2,330) and in the rest of the District (2,884).14 CS Table 7.3 sets out that the larger villages which include Chinnor, will contribute 1,154 dwellings in the rest of the District (RoD). CS paragraphs 7.11 and 7.20 explain that the distribution of growth allocated to the larger villages will be decided through the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (SADPD). This is referred to in CS Table 7.3. 33. However, sites in the larger villages have not been allocated in a SADPD. Instead an early review of the CS is underway, principally due to the publication of a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2014) (SHMA), which indicated that South Oxfordshire needs additional housing beyond that planned for in the CS and Oxford City Council has indicated that it is unable to meet its identified need entirely within the city boundary, which may result in SODC needing to consider accommodating some of that unmet need. 34. The emerging South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 Refined Options (2015) (emerging LP) seeks views based on an allocation of at least 160 dwellings to Chinnor and shortlists a number of sites, which does not include the appeal site. However, that is not an adopted development plan. Whilst a Chinnor Neighbourhood Plan (NP) is proposed, this is at a very early stage of preparation. The designated area has been approved and a made NP is anticipated towards the end of summer 2017. No draft NP policies are before me. 35. In these circumstances, I consider that there is a policy vacuum on the issue of site allocations in the larger villages. Therefore the development plan is silent on the issue of where and how much housing should be allocated at Chinnor. In making this finding I have considered the application of LP saved Policies G2 and G4. However, both predate the CS and its anticipated level of growth and do not help resolve the tension between development on a green field site and accommodating development suggested in the CS at Chinnor. That the Council’s planning witness in giving evidence suggested that LP policies G2 and G4 were not policies for the supply of housing adds weight to this finding. 36. I have considered the judgment of Mr Justice Lindblom” (that in Bloor Homes E Midlands v SSCLG[2014] EWHC 754 ) “brought to my attention but I am satisfied that case related to a different policy context to the appeal proposal, which included a draft SADPD at an advanced stage of preparation, which identified that site as the preferred site to meet a development need in a settlement defined as a Key Rural Centre. All in all, in respect of this appeal, I consider that there is not a body of policy relevant to the proposal being considered and sufficient to enable the development to be judged acceptable or unacceptable. 37. Paragraph 14 of the Framework advises that at its heart is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For decision taking this means that where the development plan is silent, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of so doing would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. It is agreed between the two main parties that specific policies in the Framework do not indicate that development should be restricted. 38. The development plan is silent on the question of the allocation of dwellings in the larger villages in the RoD. The development plan does not indicate that development should be limited to the overall housing requirements of the District. I am aware that there are a number of extant planning applications and appeals which, if all approved, would result in more than 160 dwellings being developed in Chinnor, which the Council suggests would not relate appropriately to the size of Chinnor. However, I have no assurance that this would be the case and there is no policy suggesting that number is a cap. Those proposals are not before me and I am tasked to consider the appeal proposal that is. In any event, this matter is overridden by the silence of the development plan as explained above. 39. I therefore do not need to consider further whether the relevant policies for the supply of housing should be considered up to date or not. This includes considerations as to whether they derive from the now abolished South East Plan rather than the SHMA 2014, whether the Council can or cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites and matters relating to the appropriateness of a disaggregated approach to housing land supply and the way in which a five year supply of deliverable sites is calculated. In accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Framework, I will go on to consider the adverse impacts of the proposal and its benefits, against the policies in the Framework and the other relevant policies of the development plan so far as they are consistent with the Framework. 40. In relation to housing supply, the two main parties agree that Chinnor is a sustainable location, that at least 160 dwellings should be developed there, that no extant permissions exist for that number in Chinnor and that the mix of dwellings proposed is acceptable. That the appeal proposal would help to boost significantly the supply of housing is not disputed and this would be the case whether the Council could or could not demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites. 41. I conclude that the appeal proposal would be suitably located, having regard to national and local planning policy and would generally accord with CS Policies CSS1 and CSH1 by supporting Chinnor as a local service centre and no substantive evidence is before me that the appeal development would result in harm to development at Didcot.16 This point was accepted by the Council’s planning witness. Although it does not accord with CS Policy CSR1, which would allow housing in Chinnor where allocated or as infill, that policy conflict is overridden by the silence of the development plan on the matter of allocations in the larger villages in the RoD. 42. In coming to this conclusion, I have had regard to previous appeal decisions brought to my attention, too numerous to mention individually, which are all material considerations in this appeal. Out of the most recent and relevant ones which relate to SODC, I agree with the Council that Inspectors have taken different approaches to the issue. Having considered those decisions carefully, in as far as they are relevant to this appeal, my conclusions generally are consistent with those Inspectors’ views.”
“44 In the context of decision-taking paragraph 14 identifies three possible shortcomings in the development plan, any one of which would require the authority to grant planning permission unless it is clear in the light of the policies of the NPPF that the benefits of doing so would be "significantly and demonstrably" outweighed by "any adverse impacts", or there are specific policies in the NPPF indicating that "development should be restricted". The three possible shortcomings are the absence of the plan, its silence, and its relevant policies having become out of date. 45 These are three distinct concepts. A development plan will be "absent" if none has been adopted for the relevant area and the relevant period. If there is such a plan, it may be "silent" because it lacks policy relevant to the project under consideration. And if the plan does have relevant policies these may have been overtaken by things that have happened since it was adopted, either on the ground or in some change in national policy, or for some other reason, so that they are now "out-of-date". Absence will be a matter of fact. Silence will be either a matter of fact or a matter of construction, or both. And the question of whether relevant policies are no longer up to date will be either a matter of fact or perhaps a matter of both fact and judgment. 46 All of this, one has to remember, sits within the statutory framework for the making of decisions on applications for planning permission, in which those decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Government policy in the NPPF does not, and could not, modify that statutory framework, but operates within it – as paragraph 12 of the NPPF acknowledges. The Government has taken the opportunity in the NPPF to confirm its commitment to a system of development control decision-making that is "genuinely plan-led" (paragraph 17). But in any event, within the statutory framework, the status of policy in the NPPF, including the policy for decision-making in paragraph 14, is that of a material consideration outside the development plan. It is for the decision-maker to decide what weight should be given to the policy in paragraph 14 if it applies to the case in hand. Because it is government policy it is likely to command significant weight when it has to be taken into account. But the court will not intervene unless the weight given to it can be said to be unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense (see paragraph 19(3) above). 47 This case is clearly not one in which the development plan was "absent". That is simply a matter of fact. The plan was in being. At the time of the inquiry into Bloor's appeal it was made up of three components, the East Midlands Regional Plan of March 2009, the core strategy, and the saved policies of the local plan (see paragraph 31 above). A further component, the Site Allocations DPD, was still emerging. It was going through its statutory process towards adoption. The core strategy identified the need for 9,000 new homes to be provided in the borough between 2006 and 2026. In the Site Allocations DPD allocations would be made to fulfil that need. But the fact that that part of the development plan was yet to be adopted did not mean that the plan was absent in the sense of paragraph 14 of the NPPF. The plan was present, though not yet complete. Absence and incompleteness are not the same thing. 48 I come then to the question of whether in this case the plan could be said to be "silent". However broad this concept may be, I do not think it can possibly be invoked in this case. 49 Whether a plan is silent – as opposed to its being absent or its relevant policies out of date – is an issue that may fall to the court to decide. Where the meaning of planning policy is contentious it is, in the end, for the court to establish which interpretation is right. As Lord Reed said in paragraph 17 of his judgment in Tesco v Dundee City Council, a local planning authority must proceed on "a proper understanding of the development plan". This is a necessary corollary of the authority's duty in section 70(2) of the 1990 Act to have regard to the plan and its duty in section 38(6) of the 2004 Act to determine applications in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As Lord Reed said (ibid.), the authority "cannot have regard to the provisions of the plan if it fails to understand them". If the authority fails to see that the plan is silent, or thinks it is silent when it is not, it will have gone wrong in law. It will have misconstrued the plan. 50 The answer to the question "Is the plan silent?" will sometimes be obvious, because the plan simply fails to provide any relevant policy at all. But often it may not be quite so clear-cut. The term "silent" in this context does not convey some universal and immutable meaning. The NPPF does not itself explain what the Government had in mind when it used that word. But silence in this context must surely mean an absence of relevant policy. I do not think a plan can be regarded as "silent" if it contains a body of policy relevant to the proposal being considered and sufficient to enable the development to be judged acceptable or unacceptable in principle. 51 A plan may or may not be "silent" if it does not allocate the particular site in question for a particular use, whether on its own or as part of a larger area, or if it does not contain policy designed to guide or limit or prevent development of one kind or another on that site or in that location. In Tesco v Dundee City Council Lord Reed observed (at paragraph 18) that the development plan is "a carefully crafted and considered statement of policy", whose purpose is to show how the local planning authority will approach its decisions on proposals for development unless there is a good reason not to do so. This is an essential principle of the plan-led system. 52 The provisions of the plan current at the time of the decision may represent one stage of plan-making, and they may later be amplified or refined in another. They may be strategic rather than specific to the site. But they may still provide an ample basis for decision-making on proposals submitted and determined before any addition to the plan has been made. The plan may not have as much to say of relevance to the proposed development as the developer or the local planning authority, or indeed the objectors, might wish. But whether it can properly be said to be silent is a matter for objective interpretation, not the subjective view of any of the parties involved. As Lord Reed said in paragraph 18 of his judgment in Tesco v Dundee City Council, "policy statements should be interpreted objectively in accordance with the language used, read … in its proper context". 53 Of course, as Lord Reed also remarked (at paragraph 19), "development plans are full of broad statements of policy, many of which may be mutually irreconcilable, so that in a particular case one must give way to another", and "many of the provisions of development plans are framed in language whose application to a given set of facts requires the exercise of judgment". It may be that a plan does not have a specific policy for a particular type of proposal that might be put forward on a particular site. The relevant provisions of the plan may be framed in general terms. Often this will be so. But in my view a plan containing general policies for development control that will enable the authority to say whether or not the project before it ought to be approved or rejected – subject of course to other material considerations indicating a different outcome – could hardly be said to be silent. 54 In this case the development plan was not silent on the minimum number of new homes that were going to have to be provided through the allocation of land in Groby, thus enabling it to take its share of the total burden of new housing the borough will have to provide. That minimum number was specified in Policy 8 of the core strategy. It was 110. Bloor's proposal was for 91. But it was being promoted on an unallocated site, or, as Bloor would contend, on a site yet to formally be allocated in the Site Allocations DPD. 55 The plan was not silent on the approach the Council would take to proposals for the development of housing in the Green Wedge between Groby and Ratby. The core strategy does not leave such proposals in a policy limbo. It has a policy that makes it as clear as one could wish what an applicant for planning permission for such development can expect, unless he is able to show some good reason for a different decision. That policy is Policy 9. Its meaning is plain. It tells one what kind of development will be "encouraged" in the Green Wedge, which is a use that will "provide appropriate recreational facilities within easy reach of local residents …". It also indicates which land uses will be "acceptable" in the Green Wedge, and, by necessary inference, which will not. The "acceptable" uses are generally those that would preserve the openness of the land within the Green Wedge. They do not include housing. 56 To any developer seeking planning permission for housing development on a site in the Green Wedge the import of those two policies of the core strategy will be unmistakeable. The fact that housing is not an acceptable type of development in the Green Wedge does not mean that such development can never be permitted. There may be considerations that warrant a decision to approve it even though it is contrary to Policy 9. At this stage such a proposal might be seen as gaining some support from Policy 8 because it would help the Council to meet the identified need for at least 110 new homes to be provided in Groby in the course of the plan period, though only limited support because the site would not have the benefit of an allocation in the Site Allocations DPD. 57 In that situation, subject to the proposal's compliance with the other relevant policies of the plan, the Council would have to judge whether or not a decision to grant planning permission for the scheme would be in accordance with the development plan. In determining the application it would have to have regard to all other material considerations, including the relevant parts of the NPPF and, if there was a shortfall in the available supply of land for housing, the provisions of the NPPF that govern the making of decisions when that is so. If the proposal was found to be in conflict with the development plan it might still be permitted if those other material considerations were strong enough to outweigh the statutory presumption in favour of the plan – "considerations of such weight as to indicate that the development plan should not be accorded the priority which the statute has given it" (see the speech of Lord Clyde in City of Edinburgh Council v Secretary of State for Scotland[1997] 1 WLR 1447 , at p.1459D-H). The important point, however, is that the Council's decision in that hypothetical case would not have to be made in a development plan policy vacuum. There is no vacuum. 58 On that analysis it is impossible to conclude that the circumstances of this case were such as to trigger the policy in paragraph 14 of the NPPF for decision-taking in cases where the development plan is absent or silent. The fact that allocations of land to meet the need for housing development in Groby had not yet been put in place in the Site Allocations DPD did not render the plan absent or silent.”
“19 The approach the court will take when interpreting planning policy is well settled. As Lord Reed said in Tesco v Dundee City Council[2012] UKSC 13 (in paragraph 17 of his judgment, with which the other members of the Supreme Court agreed), a planning authority determining an application for planning permission "must proceed upon a proper understanding of the development plan", and "cannot have regard to the provisions of the plan if it fails to understand them". Lord Reed went on to say (in paragraph 18) that "in principle, in this area of public administration as in others … policy statements should be interpreted objectively in accordance with the language used, read as always in its proper context". He emphasized, however (in paragraph 19), that statements of policy "should not be construed as if they were statutory or contractual provisions". He also said (in the same paragraph) that "many of the provisions of development plans are framed in language whose application to a given set of facts requires the exercise of judgment", and that "[such] matters fall within the jurisdiction of planning authorities, and their exercise of their judgment can only be challenged on the ground that it is irrational or perverse …" (see also the judgment of Lord Hope, at paragraph 35). It has been accepted in this court, and is not in dispute in these appeals, that the same principles apply also to the interpretation of national policy and guidance, including policies in the NPPF (see, for example, the judgment of Richards L.J. in R. (on the application of Timmins) v Gedling Borough Council[2015] EWCA Civ 10 , at paragraph 24; and the judgment of Sir David Keene in Hunston, at paragraph 4).”
“71…….. neither paragraph 49 of the NPPF nor paragraph 14 prescribes the weight to be given to policies in a plan which are out of date. Neither of those paragraphs of the NPPF says that a development plan whose policies for the supply of housing are out of date should be given no weight, or minimal weight, or, indeed, any specific amount of weight.”
“42 The NPPF is a policy document. It ought not to be treated as if it had the force of statute. It does not, and could not, displace the statutory "presumption in favour of the development plan", as Lord Hope described it in City of Edinburgh Council v Secretary of State for Scotland[1997] 1 WLR 1447 at 1450B-G). Under section 70(2) of the 1990 Act and section 38(6) of the 2004 Act, government policy in the NPPF is a material consideration external to the development plan. Policies in the NPPF, including those relating to the "presumption in favour of sustainable development", do not modify the statutory framework for the making of decisions on applications for planning permission. They operate within that framework – as the NPPF itself acknowledges, for example, in paragraph 12 ………. It is for the decision-maker to decide what weight should be given to NPPF policies in so far as they are relevant to the proposal. Because this is government policy, it is likely always to merit significant weight. But the court will not intervene unless the weight given to it by the decision-maker can be said to be unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense. 43 When determining an application for planning permission for housing development the decision-maker will have to consider, in the usual way, whether or not the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of the development plan. If it does, the question will be whether other material considerations, including relevant policies in the NPPF, indicate that planning permission should not be granted. If the proposal does not accord with the relevant provisions of the plan, it will be necessary to consider whether other material considerations, including relevant policies in the NPPF, nevertheless indicate that planning permission should be granted.”