Archive:
The Harms of This Scheme ‘Significantly and Demonstrably’ Outweigh any Benefits
The local plans and policies which govern where housing development can occur carry full weight in planning terms - unless the local authority are unable to demonstrate they will deliver enough homes within a set time period (5 years).
Where a local authority is unable to demonstrate enough homes will be built, a specific piece of national planning policy comes into effect and local policies which determine where homes should be built, carry less weight in planning terms.
Cherwell DC cannot, currently, demonstrate they have a five-year housing land supply (it currently stands at 3.1 years). As such, the ‘tilted balance’ under National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 11 comes into effect. This paragraph says that planning permission should be granted unless:
(Paragraph 11(d)(i)) Policies within the NPPF that protect areas or assets of particular importance (in this instance Heritage) provide strong reasons to refuse it; or
(Paragraph 11(d)(ii)) Any adverse impacts caused by approving the scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits. The proposal would need to demonstrate it is in a sustainable location, and/or be an efficient use of land, and/or create a well-designed place, and/or provide affordable homes.
The following points represent a high-level assessment of the planning application. If you want to know more about this application, click on the link at the bottom of this page to see a detailed assessment on this point.
While Cherwell DC cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply (currently 3.1 years), the tilted balance under NPPF 11(d)(ii) does not override all other considerations. Heritage harm under 11(d)(i) sits outside this balance. Furthermore, the test is whether these harms ‘significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’.
The benefits are minimal:
5 market dwellings (0.001% of the housing shortfall, with no affordable housing) and temporary construction activity.
The harms are substantial:
Breach of Policy Villages 1 (backland development in Category C village); development in unsustainable location; breach of Policy H18 (countryside development); harm to open countryside and paddock character; direct and indirect harm to conservation area; harm to heritage asset settings; failure to deliver well-designed place; inability to demonstrate safe and suitable access; non-compliant refuse strategy; severe harm to existing residential amenity; failure to achieve 10% BNG; and lack of community engagement.