One self-build dwelling at Land West Of The Nursery, 6 Oxford Road, Eynsham

The site and surroundings

The site was near homes, recreation ground and St Leonard’s Church, within the conservation area and a scheduled monument.

“This application relates to an existing parcel of land located to the south of Oxford Road in the rural service centre of Eynsham. To the east is '6, The Nursery' (a dwelling). Beyond this is Eynsham recreation ground and sports pavilion. To the immediate west is land associated with '24, High Street' and further to the west is St Leonard's Church.”

“The proposed development is for the erection of 1 self-build, two-bedroom dwelling and garage. The site lies in the Eynsham Conservation Area and is a Scheduled Ancient Monument ('Eynsham Abbey (site of)' List Entry Number: 1006332). There are also a number of listed buildings within close proximity of the site. The site lies in the Eynsham Neighbourhood Plan area.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

A nearby dwelling and garage application was approved, while another nearby dwelling and annexe proposal was refused in 1989.

“W89/0492 - Detached dwelling and granny annexe. Refused. 22nd June 1989.”

“This application related to land further to the west but in close proximity to the site. The application was refused because it was considered to erode the special environmental character of the Eynsham Conservation Area and not conserve the historic street pattern. The site was not considered to constitute infilling or rounding off within the existing building area.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways, drainage, ecology, rights of way and environmental health consultees raised no objection subject to requirements, while heritage consultees objected.

“OCC Highways No objection, subject to conditions.”

“Env Health Contamination I have looked at the above referenced planning application in relation to potentially contaminated land. From the information submitted with the application it appears that the site is a former horticulture nursery, our records indicate that the site has remained undeveloped over time. Given the proposed residential development please consider adding the following condition to any grant of permission as a precaution: 1.”

Officer report

What people said

Residents raised concerns about policy, precedent, highways, design, privacy, overlooking and heritage, while the applicant argued the proposal was suitable.

“Comments have been received from local residents regarding the application. Full details can be found on the online case file. In summary, the following concerns have been raised:”

“Principle/policy • Precedent • Impact on highway safety • Design and layout • Loss of privacy and overlooking • Impact on heritage assets…”

Officer report

The main heritage concerns

Officers found harm to listed buildings, the conservation area and scheduled monument, with insufficient archaeological information and no clear justification.

“The Council's Conservation Officer considers that there is more to setting and harm to heritage assets than just views. For example, it can be about the way an area is experienced including noise, lighting, its historic landscape character, its historic illustrative and evidential significance etc.”

“For these reasons, in this case, Officers consider that the public benefits of the proposed development do not outweigh the high level of less than substantial harm that would be caused to the significance of St Leonards Church and associated structures. Officers also do not consider that the public benefits outweigh the moderate level of less than substantial harm to The Shrubbery.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers considered the heritage harm and other impacts significantly outweighed the limited housing, economic and community benefits, and recommended refusal.

“The proposed development would also have some economic benefits during construction through the creation of jobs, and once operational, some social and economic benefits in terms of increasing the vitality of the community through increased spending on local services and facilities.”

“The adverse impacts of the proposed development are considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF (2024) taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land and securing well-designed places. Therefore, the application is recommended for refusal.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The senior planner presented the application, the Heritage Officer explained the objections, and the applicant spoke in support.

What members discussed

Members focused on Historic England’s objection, missing archaeological assessment, heritage protection, earlier development and possible future incremental changes.

“The Chair invited the Sub-Committee to discuss the application which raised the following points: • Members accepted the strong objection from Historic England and raised concerns that no archaeological assessments had been done. • Members recognised that the site had been built on from the mid-16 th century. The site had been developed since.”

“Even though the proposed development was small concerns were raised for the future of the site and other incremental changes that could happen.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to refuse the application in line with the officer recommendation was proposed, seconded and supported by eight members.

“Councillor Liam Walker proposed the Sub-Committee refuse the application in line with the officer recommendations. This was seconded by Councillor Michele Mead and put to the vote.”

“Voting Record – 8 for, 1 against, 2 abstentions.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The Sub-Committee refused the application in line with the officer recommendation because the heritage and other harms outweighed the benefits.

“Refuse the application in line with officer recommendations.”

Minutes