Pickles refuses permission for 94-home development in open Oxfordshire countryside

Development company Gladman Developments submitted a planning application to Vale of the White Horse District Council in June 2013, seeking permission to construct 94 homes on a 5.4 hectare field outside the development boundary of the market town of Faringdon. The Council refused permission and the developer's subsequent appeal was recovered for determination by the communities secretary due to its potential effects on the emerging Faringdon Neighbourhood Plan (FNP).

Following a public inquiry in July 2014, planning inspector Anthony Lyman recommended that the appeal be allowed and permission granted for the scheme, having concluded that the proposal would represent sustainable development overall. A decision letter (60-page / 679 KB PDF) on behalf of the communities secretary, dated 19 February, said Pickles disagreed with the inspector's conclusion.

The appeal site lay in open countryside across a prominent hillside within the North Vale Corallian Ridge (NVCR), which the communities secretary agreed was "a valued landscape" and as such ought to be protected according to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  Pickles gave "significant weight" to the harm the proposal would cause to "the character and appearance of the NVCR" and "considerable weight" to the conflict with a saved policy of the Vale of the White Horse Local Plan 2011, which sought to prevent such development.

The communities secretary also gave "moderate weight" to the harm the development would cause to the amenity value of the field, which he was satisfied was "a valued open community space".

Unlike the inspector, Pickles gave "little weight" to policies in the emerging FNP that identified the site as 'local green space' and would restrict development outside the current town boundary. The communities secretary noted that, since the inspector had held his inquiry, an independent examiner had published a report recommending that these policies were deleted from the FNP and it was unclear what the final form of the plan would be.

"The FNP has not been put to referendum and there is at present uncertainty about the next steps, the extent of unresolved objections to the examiner's conclusions and the degree of consistency between relevant policies and the NPPF pending the outcome of the neighbourhood planning process," the letter said.

Pickles agreed with the inspector that the lack of a demonstrable five year supply of housing land in the district added "significant weight" in favour of allowing the appeal and that the provision of 40% affordable housing under the proposed scheme would be "a significant benefit".

However, the communities secretary dismissed the appeal and refused planning permission for the development. The letter said that "in view of the harm in terms of the environmental arm of sustainability, in this case significant harm to landscape and amenity, [Pickles] does not agree with the inspector's view that the proposal would represent sustainable development overall."

The developer, or any other interested party, has the right to challenge the communities secretary's decision in the High Court within six weeks of the date of the decision.