Appeal 6001097

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted to develop the site for 1 to 7 no. residential dwellings at [site address] , [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01118/PIP.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has two stages: the first stage (permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second (technical details consent) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these two stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted1. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent [name] (TDC) application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

A proposed site plan has been submitted showing possible layout, this has been clearly marked as indicative. I have therefore considered this as such.

Notwithstanding the description of development, in accordance with the regulations for permission in principle applications when granting permission in principle for housing development, the minimum and maximum net dwellings must be specified. As such my formal decision above reflects this requirement.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development. 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone]; Revision date: 15 06 2018

The appeal site adjoins existing built development and land currently under construction for housing in [site address] . It is rectangular in shape and consists of grassland with low vegetation forming a defined boundary with the wider countryside beyond. It is accessed from [address] and is set back from the road.

The strategy for new housing is set out in the policies of the Tendring District Local Plan2 (LP). Policy SP3 sets out the spatial strategy for [name] whereby existing settlements will be the principle focus for additional growth, with development being accommodated within or adjoining settlements according to their scale, sustainability and existing role. To manage growth and promote sustainable development at a local level, Policy SPL1 establishes a settlement hierarchy within Tendring and Policy SPL2 establishes settlement development boundaries.

The site is outside of the defined settlement development boundary of [site address] , which is classed as a [name] in Policy SPL1. In a rural service centre the development plan anticipates that smaller scale and proportionate growth can be accommodated within the plan period. Policy SPL2 indicates that outside of these boundaries, proposals will be considered in relation to the pattern and scale of growth according to settlement’s position in the settlement hierarchy and any other relevant policies. As such proposals can be supported not only if they are meeting the illustrative example of the exemption in Policy SPL2, but also if they comply with other development plan policies including SP3.

In this case, the proposal would be a small scale development, which aligns with the settlement hierarchy and would support sustainable growth of an existing settlement. Given the context of this particular setting, including the clearly defined and well-established boundaries of the site itself, the presence of existing residential development on [address], and the adjacent housing site under construction3 to the rear of [name] on [address], the proposal would not be out of character and would not result in a harmful hard urban edge.

The Council acknowledges the availability of a range of services and facilities within [site address] as a rural service centre and it has good transport links. Therefore, it is in a sustainable location with access to number of essential services and facilities. These include a primary school, a shop, a post office, a pharmacy, churches and pubs, which are within a reasonable and safe walking distance along a surfaced footpath. There is also a bus stop on [address], near the site, providing a regular bus service to the nearby urban settlements of Frinton-on-Sea and [site address] . As such future occupiers of the proposal would be able to access services and facilities by means other than private car.

I conclude that the location of the appeal site would not conflict with Policies SP3, SPL1 and SPL2, which seek to protect the character and appearance of the countryside, to avoid isolated new homes, to reduce the need to travel by private 2 [name] Section 1 Plan/Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Section 1 (adopted January 2021), and Section 2 (adopted 25th January 2022) 3 LPA ref: 16/00427/OUT car, and to locate rural housing where it will maintain rural communities and support village services.

The proposed land use is for residential purposes. Notwithstanding a public footpath, the appeal site adjoins established residential properties with generous private gardens on one side and a construction site for 10 detached dwellings with separate garages and private gardens, which has a similar concept to the appeal site. My observations of the site revealed that there is no visual separation, or physical border, between the appeal site and the one under construction. Therefore, these two sites would appear as one, logical built form, enclosed within established site boundaries formed by existing buildings of [name], mature hedgerows and trees.

Residential use has already been established on the adjacent site through previous planning approval, and visually in combination with the appeal site, these two sites read as one cohesive area and part of the settlement. Therefore, the proposed scheme would present a logical continuation of an established use and would promote sustainable patterns of growth, and scales of growth as set out in policies SPL2 and SPL1 of the LP.

[name] note the Council’s concern regarding the potential effect on the rural and countryside character; given its close proximity with the village and the established residential areas that adjoin it, together with its clear and well-defined boundaries, the site is more appropriately regarded as part of [site address] rather than open countryside. Consequently, the development would be contained within existing boundaries, and therefore there would be a limited impact on the rural and countryside character. As such I do not share the Council’s concern that this proposal would lead to sprawl into the open countryside. In any event, the Council would assess the details of appropriate transition and landscaping at the TDC stage.

The proposal comprises of up to seven dwellings. I am mindful of the indicative nature of the submitted site plan in that it illustrates a potential layout for up to 7 dwellings with a new access road with a turning head, forming a cul-de-sac of seven detached dwellings, each with a detached garage and a private garden. Although the layout is not a matter for this first stage of a permission in principle. Whilst the proposed maximum density is marginally above the recommendations in the [name], the detailed design considerations such as distance from boundary and existing trees, landscaping, and appropriate transition to the countryside are matters to be addressed at the TDC stage. The proposal maximum density would not be out of character with the adjacent site, which it would connect into.

I conclude that at this stage, the proposal would accord with Policies SP7, SPL3 and LP3 of the LP. These policies seek, amongst other things, that development would be compatible with the local character.

Other concerns raised regarding highway safety due to increased traffic generation, the mitigations required, and requirements for constructing of a new street; mitigating and adapting to a changing climate, wastewater treatment, and surface water disposal are all matters which would be assessed at the TDC stage and are not within the scope of this stage 1 of a permission in principle.

I note the Council’s concern regarding the multiple planning applications under the same ownership and the need to view them collectively as one larger scheme in order to effectuate the affordable housing policy. However, I can only assess the scheme of up to 7 which is before me and that is what I have done.

The appeal site is within the Zone of Influence (ZoI) for the [name] ([name] 2) SPA, RAMSAR and [name]. The Essex coastline is one of importance for birds and their habitats. It is home to internationally important numbers of breeding and non-breeding birds and their coastal habitats. As such, these protected areas are vulnerable to disturbances from recreation, resulting from an increasing local population.

The Conservation and Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) require the decision maker to undertake an Appropriate Assessment where the likely significant effects from the proposal, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. [name] note the Council’s AA, the responsibility falls to me as the competent authority in the context of this appeal.

The modest scale of the proposal, on its own, would have a negligible effect on designated sites. However, increased recreational visitor pressure arising from future occupiers of the development, in combination with other developments in the area would be likely to result in significant effects within the ZoI.

I have been provided with a copy of the [name] disturbance Avoidance and [name] (RAMS) Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (adopted May 2020). This states that Natural England has endorsed the [name] as a strategic approach to deliver the necessary mitigation to avoid the in-combination effects from residential developments. The SPD includes a tariff-based approach for financial contributions to the defined mitigation strategy.

Based on the evidence before me I am satisfied that with mitigation included within the [name], the project would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of these protected sites.

The appellant has submitted a [name] (UU) for the necessary financial contribution, which has been discussed with the Council during the appeal process. Given the proximity of the appeal site to the protected sites, the contribution is directly related to the appeal scheme. As it relates to a standard charge based on the scale of residential development proposed, it is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. As such the financial contribution is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning term. On the basis of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the UU will provide a sufficient mechanism to enable the delivery of mitigation on any adverse effects of the development on the [name] ([name] 2) SPA and RAMSAR and [name].

Therefore, with this mechanism to secure the financial contribution, I can be certain that the proposal would accord with Policy SP2 of the LP, which requires contributions to be secured from development in accordance with the [name] and comply with the above referenced Regulations.

The Council has confirmed that housing land supply position has changed during the lifetime of the appeal and that it cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. The appeal site would be a small scale development that would make a modest contribution towards local housing supply in an acceptable location and assist with the overall housing growth as set out in LP Section 2. As such it serves to add to my reason that this appeal should be allowed.

The PPG makes it clear that it is not possible for conditions to be attached to a grant of permission in principle. Therefore, I have not imposed any conditions.

For the reasons given above, the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development. I find that it would comply with the development plan and therefore the appeal should be allowed.