Appeal 6001178

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal scheme relates to an outline proposal with access to be considered at this stage; all other matters are reserved for future consideration. Whilst a layout plan has been submitted indicating how five dwellings could be accommodated on the site, I have taken this into account for indicative purposes only.

As part of the appeal, the appellant submitted a reptile survey which confirmed that no reptiles were present on the appeal site. The Council has reviewed this and is satisfied with the findings. As such, it has withdrawn the third reason for refusal cited on the decision notice, which related to the impact of the development on protected species.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the coastal protection belt.

Along [site address] Road, near the appeal site, residential properties form a strong linear pattern of development, with most featuring long rear gardens. Some of these have been subdivided, but substantial built form does not typically extend beyond the rear of the residential gardens belonging to properties that front the north side of [site address] Road. The land to the rear is characterised by relatively open parcels of land, bounded predominantly by a mixture of low level hedging and timber fencing. The rear gardens of properties along this part of the road form a transition to the less built up and more rural and agricultural landscape beyond. Where built form is present, it is typically dispersed and sporadic, with the prevailing characteristic of structures being low level and light-weight, all of which contributes positively to the rural character and setting of [site address] .

The appeal site is one such parcel of land. It fronts [site address] , a narrow private road off [site address] Road. Although the site is partly occupied by structures, including piggery arcs, a timber frame of a former barn and two caravans, these are limited in scale and bulk and dispersed throughout the site. Such structures are not untypical of a rural, agricultural landscape. The appeal site contributes to the rural character and setting of the area, due to its open nature and sporadic, low-level built form, devoid of any substantial structures.

Immediately to the west is a vacant parcel of land, beyond that is another parcel of land where I observed a modest 1.5 storey dwelling under construction, followed by countryside. To the east, with the exception of a single dwelling, are small parcels of land and paddocks. To the north, I observed further dispersed buildings comprising a mix of agricultural, commercial and residential, screened by mature vegetation.

The proposal would introduce five dwellings on the site. Although layout and design are reserved matters, given the quantum of development, five dwellings would inevitably extend significantly beyond the established rear gardens of the properties fronting the north side of [site address] Road, noticeably protruding into the rural landscape when compared to the existing dispersed built form.

Although the proposed dwellings may have a smaller combined footprint than the buildings to be demolished, they would be inherently more domestic in appearance. The presence of five residential dwellings, regardless of whether single or two storey, would significantly urbanise and intensify the site. This would be reinforced not only by the dwellings themselves but by the introduction of residential curtilages, car parking and associated domestic paraphernalia. Consequently, the proposal would harmfully extend the built up area of [site address] , eroding the existing rural character of the land to one of domestic appearance.

The appellant contends that the demolition of existing structures and the erection of the dwellings would visually enhance the area. However, as I have already set out, five dwellings would harmfully urbanise the site in contrast to the existing situation. Furthermore, the clearing of the existing disused structures could be achieved at any time and is not necessarily reliant on the proposed development.

I note from the existing site plan that additional structures could be erected on the land, including further piggery arcs, greenhouses and a barn. However, these would be agricultural in appearance, reflecting the existing character of the land. They are therefore not comparable to the proposed development which would fundamentally alter that character.

I have been made aware of two recently approved schemes for backland development at the rear of Nos 140 and 172 [site address] Road1, where the rear gardens of those properties have been subdivided to accommodate new dwellings. However, this is not the case in this appeal. The appeal site is also set further back than those schemes, beyond the established rear boundary of gardens of the properties fronting the north side of [site address] Road and also involves a higher quantum of development. These examples are therefore not directly comparable, and I give them limited weight in support of the appeal. In any event, I have determined the appeal on its own merits. 1 Refs: APP/P1560/W/22/3311836 & 24/01910/FUL

The appellant asserts the land represents [name] (PDL). Under the definition of PDL within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), it excludes land that is or was last occupied by agricultural buildings. Therefore, given the nature of the existing buildings on site, I am not persuaded it is PDL in terms of the Framework, and there is no substantive evidence before me to sufficiently demonstrate otherwise. I therefore attribute this limited weight.

On this issue, for the reasons above, the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area, diminishing the rural character and setting of [site address] . It would therefore fail to accord with Policy PPL3 of the Tendring Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Section 2 (LP2) which seeks to protect the rural landscape.

Policy SP3 of the Tendring Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Section 1 (LP1) has also been cited on the decision notice. This policy sets out the spatial strategy for [name] and allows for development adjoining settlements. However, it further stipulates that future growth will be planned to ensure, amongst other matters, that existing settlements maintain their distinctive character and conserve their setting.

I find the location would adjoin the settlement and is an accessible location, with means to use alternative modes of transport beyond the car to reach nearby services and facilities. However, unlike the appeal at 172 [site address] Road, I have found that the proposal would fail to conserve the setting of the settlement or maintain the character of the area for the reasons already set out. Consequently, given my findings on character and appearance, the proposed development would not be a suitable location for housing having regard to the spatial strategy and would conflict with the aims of Policy SP3 of LP1 which I have set out above.

All of the appeal site falls within the defined Coastal Protection Belt (CPB). Policy PPL2 of (LP2) seeks to protect the open character of the undeveloped coastline and states that planning permission for development will be refused which does not have a compelling functional or operational requirement to be located there.

Although the appeal site is on the edge of the CPB and close to the settlement of [site address] , it nonetheless falls within the designation and therefore the argument that it is on the periphery carries limited weight. For reasons already set out in the previous main issue, the appeal site is more open and rural in character. In this regard it differs from the land to the south of the appeal site, which sits outside the CPB, and is associated with the linear residential development along [site address] Road. I also note that the examples at 140 and 172 [site address] Road fall outside the CPB.

Whilst LP2 provides no definition of functional or operational requirement, it is reasonable to relate this to the nature of the CPB, that is the proximity to the coast. No functional or operational requirement for five dwellings to be located close to the coast or otherwise in the CPB has been advanced. The proposal is therefore in conflict with Policy PPL2.

I note that no objections have been received from the Parish Council. However, a lack of objections does not equate to a lack of harm. I have determined the appeal on its planning merits and the absence of objections does not alter my findings with regards to the harm identified.

The appeal site lies within the Zone of Influence of the Colne Estuary Special Protection Area, RAMSAR and SSSI, a protected European site that is scoped in to the [name] and [name] (RAMS)

Given that the proposal is for additional housing, there is a reasonable likelihood that the sites would be accessed for recreational purposes by future occupiers of the development. Therefore, in combination with other developments, likely significant effects cannot be ruled out.

Where a proposal is likely to have a significant effect on a European site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 requires that the competent authority carries out an Appropriate Assessment (AA) before any grant of planning permission. However, regulation 63(1) indicates that the requirement for an AA is only necessary where the competent authority is minded to give consent for the proposal. [name] am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, it has not been necessary for me to consider this matter further.

The proposal would result in the provision of five dwellings, in an accessible location and would represent an efficient use of land, helping to boost the supply of homes, something that the Framework seeks. Social and economic benefits would ensue related to their construction and from future occupiers spending in the local economy. However, given the quantum of development, the extent of benefits would be limited and as such, I collectively afford the benefits moderate weight.

I acknowledge the Council accept that there would no harm in terms of highway safety, ecology, trees and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. However, an absence of harm on these matters weighs neither for nor against the proposal.

I have found the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the coastal protection belt in conflict with the development plan and the Framework which seeks development that is sympathetic to local character and maintains a strong sense of place. I attach significant weight to these harms.

Even if the Council could not provide a 5 year housing land supply from February 2026, and recognising that the appeal in Braintree2 afforded the provision of 78 homes considerable weight because of this, that scheme was for a far higher quantum of development, therefore I find it is not directly comparable. I also have limited information before me as to what the actual five year housing land supply position will be from February 2026, therefore based on the evidence before me in this case, I afford this matter limited weight in support of the appeal. 2 Ref: APP/Z1510/W/24/3357015

Consequently, even if Paragraph 11d of the Framework were to be engaged, the adverse impacts arising from the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.