Conditions / Refusal Reasons
The proposal would be contrary to the provisions of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan which allows for strict infill development within the built up areas of smaller villages for residential development where: the design, height, scale and materials of the proposed development are in keeping with its surroundings; the character of the area is not adversely affected; and there are no overriding amenity, environmental or highway objections (policies H4 and H5). Backland development which would create problems of privacy and access will not normally be permitted (H18). The District Council will also seek to ensure that all development is of a high standard of design and is of a nature, scale, density and layout in keeping with the site and its surroundings (G8). In this case the site is not an infill site and the scale of development is out of keeping with the site and its immediate surroundings. The proposal represents a cramped and overintensive form of backland development which would harm the visual amenities and character of the immediate locality. Furthermore, in respect of appeals against refusals of planning permission for a bungalow on this site (P95/W0504 and P96/W0059) the Inspector appointed to determine the appeals dismissed them and commented as follows:
"Comparison with the proposal dismissed on appeal as recently as 1994 indicates that the proposed bungalow is of much the same size but has been re-orientated by 90 degrees. In my opinion, this revision in no way overcomes the criticisms of the previous proposal that the development would give rise to a cramped appearance that would harm the visual amenities and character of the immediate locality. In my view, either of the proposals before me still represent an over-development of the site which would harm the character and appearance of the area and would, therefore, be contrary to the objectives of the planning policies for this area. The impact on the immediately adjacent dwellings to the south and east would be considerable and much to the detriment of those residents. With or without the garage, the differences between the schemes before me and that dismissed on appeal are insufficient to justify me reaching a different conclusion to the previous Inspector."
In this case the siting of the proposed bungalow is similar to one of the schemes dismissed on appeal. Whilst the proposed building has been reduced in size and design measures taken to reduce the bulk of the building, the constraints of the small size of the site and close proximity with surrounding buildings still exist. There is therefore no justification to override the previous decisions.
(Show Map - opens in new window)
