- Decision
- allowed, 9 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Jonathan Edwards
- Authority
- West Oxfordshire (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6007705
- Application reference
- 25/01974/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Erection of 2 dwellings following demolition of vehicle repair garage buildings
- Homes
- 2
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area, listed building setting, national landscape, PDL
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 4.38 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4, S4(2)(a)(i), HO7
- Development plan policies
- West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2018 OS2, OS4, E1, West Oxfordshire Design Guide 2016
- Main issues
- character and appearance and conservation area; heritage settings; living conditions; loss of employment site
Summary
Two stone houses replacing a working village garage in the Churchill Conservation Area, in the Cotswolds National Landscape. The loss of the employment site conflicted with local plan policy E1, and the plan as a whole. But the scheme enhanced the CA and a non-designated heritage asset. With substantial weight to housing (4.38 years' supply), L2 and solar panels, S4 justified allowing the appeal contrary to the plan.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "I have considered the main parties comments on the Framework in my assessment" (DL ¶3).
- CA and heritage: positive / no harm. "the proposal would have a positive effect on the character and appearance of the CA" (DL ¶9); the scheme "would avoid harm to the setting and the significance of any heritage asset" (DL ¶20).
- Employment: CONFLICT with LP E1. "the proposal would lead to the unacceptable loss of an existing employment site" (DL ¶34).
- HC6. "part 2 of this policy is clear in stating that key community facilities do not include car garages. I am taken to no part of the Framework that resists the loss of employment premises" (DL ¶48).
- Benefits. HO7 substantial (DL ¶44); L2 substantial (DL ¶45); CC2(2) solar substantial (DL ¶46); overall "very substantial weight" (DL ¶47).
Planning balance
S4 with S4(2)(a) safeguarding considered: "The harm that would be caused through the loss of employment and removing the villagers' access to a local car services garage is significant but it is not of substantial weight. The benefits of the proposal when taken together are of very considerable weight and they are not substantially outweighed by the adverse effects of the proposal" (DL ¶49). "This support provides sufficient justification to allow the appeal and to grant planning permission contrary to the development plan" (DL ¶50).
What made the difference
The Framework offers no protection to employment premises as such, and HC6 excludes car garages. So the local E1 conflict stood alone against a heritage enhancement and several substantial-weight benefits. Compare PINS-6010035 (five-year supply met, so HO7 not substantial).
Transferable points
- HC6(2) excludes car garages from key community facilities, and the Framework does not itself resist the loss of employment premises (DL ¶48).
- Loss of a safeguarded employment site can be "significant but ... not of substantial weight", short of the S4(2)(a) threshold (DL ¶49).
- Enhancement of a CA attracts HE6(2) support and can be weighed as a benefit (DL ¶43).
- Superseded Fields in Trust play-area buffers are not determinative (DL ¶22).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE6(2) | benefit | significant | positive effect on the Churchill CA; with enhancement of The Forge NDHA, "significant weight" (DL 9, 11, 43) |
| HE6 | neutral | settings of Grade II* Church of All Saints and Grade II Well End, The Chequers, Langston Memorial Fountain preserved (DL 12-17, 20) | |
| HE7 | benefit | modest enhancement to setting and significance of The Forge (NDHA) (DL 18-20) | |
| N4 | pass | within built-up village in Cotswolds NL; no harm; s245 LURA duty met (DL 35) | |
| LP E1 (local) | conflict | significant | loss of occupied employment site without viability evidence or marketing; valued local garage (DL 29-34, 49) |
| HC6(2) | not-engaged | key community facilities expressly exclude car garages; no Framework policy resists loss of employment premises (DL 48) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | 2 homes, 4.38 years' supply (DL 44) |
| L2(1)(d) | benefit | substantial | letter cites "part 1(d) of policy L2" for sensitive redevelopment of commercial premises in a settlement (DL 45) |
| CC2(2) | benefit | substantial | solar panels (DL 46) |
| S4(2)(a)(i) | pass | loss of safeguarded employment site "significant but it is not of substantial weight", so not a substantial adverse impact on safeguarding (DL 49) | |
| S4 | pass | benefits "of very considerable weight" not substantially outweighed; justifies decision contrary to the plan (DL 49-50) |
Key facts
- Churchill is a defined village; site within the settlement "as it contains buildings and it is adjacent to other properties" (DL 42)
- Garage occupied, lease to 2028; no marketing or viability evidence (DL 30-31)
- Council supply about 4.38 years (DL 44)
- Fields in Trust 5 m play-area buffer superseded by 2024 FiT guidance (DL 22)
- Parties' comments on the 2026 Framework considered (DL 3)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.