Appeal 6001216

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for a phased development comprising a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 5 self-build dwellings at [site address] , Maldon [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/00222/PIP.

The address in the banner heading above has been taken from the Council’s decision notice and is more accurate than that on the application form. I am content that it has been accepted by the appellant by its inclusion on their appeal form.

The proposal is for a permission in principle. The Planning Practice Guidance (the 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) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle; and the second stage (technical details consent) (TDC) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of the two stages.

The scope of considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and amount of development permitted1. I have determined this appeal accordingly. In this instance, permission in principle is being sought for the provision of between 1 and 5 dwellings. The appellant’s [name] Report2 includes a potential sketch layout of the proposed development showing the provision of 3 dwellings. The sketch layout was included for illustrative purposes, and I have only considered it as such in my appeal deliberations.

The appellant has submitted two [name] (UU). The first is in draft form, is intended to be signed at TDC stage and seeks to secure the self-build and/or custom-build (SBCB) housing status of the proposal (the draft UU). The 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-012-20180615. 2 [name] + [name], dated October 2025. second is signed and seeks to secure a financial contribution towards the [name] disturbance Avoidance and [name] (the RAMS) (the UU). [name] are considered later in my decision.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for the proposed development, regarding land use and amount, and specifically in terms of the effect of the proposal on ecology and protected trees and on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site comprises a plot of land that forms part of a former railway line and contains trees with undergrowth between. A public footpath runs along the boundary of the wider wooded area. The former railway line continues on the opposite side of [address] forming a linear corridor of trees that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. The site functions as a welcome verdant break in an otherwise largely open aspect built-up area this side of [address], which includes substantial commercial and residential development.

The proposed development is for the construction of between 1 and 5 dwellings. Whilst the exact number of dwellings would be established at TDC stage, I have based my decision on the greatest number of dwellings the proposal could bring forward, which would likely have the greatest impact.

The appeal site is privately owned and is severed from Maldon Wick Nature Reserve, which starts on the opposite side of [address] and is managed by Essex Wildlife Trust (EWT). The 2016 correspondence from EWT contained within the appellant’s Appeal Statement of Case, affirms that management of the land in which the appeal site is located was relinquished due to the inability to foster wildlife, the physical separation of the site from the Nature Reserve, it being heavily overgrown and it not affording suitable habitat.

There is contradictory evidence before me from the Council, statutory consultees and other interested parties whether the appeal site falls within Maldon Wick Local Wildlife Site (Ma35) (the LWS). However, the [name] accompanying the Maldon Local Development Plan (2017) (the LDP) clearly shows the appeal site sitting outside of the LWS boundary, which is located on the opposite side of [address]. Given that the LDP has been through examination and subsequently adopted by the Council, it represents the most substantive evidence before me in this regard. The consultation response from the Council’s ecologist also acknowledges that the appeal site is no longer within the LWS.

The appeal site includes similar deciduous woodland to that on the Nature Reserve on the opposite side of [address], which is within the LWS. The LWS is acknowledged to include important priority habitat that supports an array of butterfly species for example, some of which are protected. Despite the physical separation, there is potential for the appeal site to have a similar role in supporting ecological interests and I note the presence of a rookery on site, which has been highlighted by residents.

Whilst the proposal would inevitably require a degree of vegetation clearance to facilitate access and allow for the construction of the dwellings, I am content that, due to the site being outside of the LWS, any potential effects on ecology could be dealt with at TDC stage. Detailed ecological assessments and surveys would provide the relevant information to steer the specific layout and design of the proposed development and secure any necessary mitigation measures.

The appeal site forms part of a blanket Tree Preservation Order (Woodland 1). However, I observed on my site visit that the larger trees are distributed across the plot and are interspersed with smaller trees and lower-lying scrub vegetation. I am therefore content that with careful design, led by the natural constraints of the site, and the potential for the use of low impact construction technologies, as the appellant has demonstrated have been used elsewhere, the proposed development could be accommodated on the appeal site in an appropriate manner to protect and maintain trees of ecological and amenity value as necessary.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm ecology or protected trees regarding the land use and amount of development proposed. It would therefore accord with LDP Policy D1, which, amongst other things, requires development proposals to make a positive contribution in terms of the natural environment, particularly in relation to designated and non-designated sites of biodiversity value.

As previously discussed, the proposed development has the potential to bring forward a scheme that would provide dwellings nestled into the existing wooded surrounds. In doing so, the proposal would protect the general verdant character of the site when viewed from the surrounding area. Furthermore, the appeal site forms only part of the wider wooded plot on this side of [address] and is set back from the public footpath and the existing residential development off [address] and [address]. The undeveloped wooded buffer would reduce the prominence of any built development when viewed from the footpath.

With careful design and integration within the existing tree belt, the proposed development has the potential to assimilate itself with the verdant aesthetics of the appeal site, thereby maintaining the welcomed softening of the surrounding built form.

Thus, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area regarding the land use and amount of development proposed. It therefore accords with [name] D1 and H4, which, amongst other things, require all development to consider the location and setting of the site and the existing character of the surrounding area.

The appellant asserts that the Council is only able to demonstrate an approximate 2.7-year supply of deliverable housing sites, which equates to a significant shortfall when compared to the Framework’s requirement to demonstrate a minimum 5-year supply. This position is not disputed by the Council. In this context, the provision of even a single additional dwelling, as would be the minimum in this instance, would make a valuable contribution to the Council’s general housing supply.

There is dispute between the main parties whether there is an unmet need for SBCB housing in the District, which the Council has an important statutory duty to meet under the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended). The appellant evidenced during the planning application process that, in the context of a demand for 38 plots by October 2023, the Council only granted permission for 4 legitimate SBCB houses, which equates to a significant shortfall of serious concern. This position was not explicitly challenged by the Council with any substantive evidence prior to determination of the planning application.

During the appeal process, the Council drew my attention to the recently published Maldon Local Housing Needs Assessment Update (September 2025), which concludes that the Council has now granted sufficient SBCB housing permissions to meet demand. However, the [name] and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA) confirms that only permissions that are explicitly for SBCB housing can be counted towards meeting the Council’s statutory duty. Specifying it in the description of development is unlikely to be sufficient to ensure that dwellings are constructed as SBCB and a planning condition requiring occupation of the dwelling by the person who built it would be unlikely to pass the test of enforceability in the Framework. Only a Section 106 legal agreement is likely to be the most appropriate method.

There is no substantive evidence before me to confirm what mechanisms were used to secure the SBCB housing status of those permissions used to justify the met demand and it is therefore unclear whether they are genuine. I am therefore not convinced that the demand for SBCB housing has been met, and that the Council has discharged their statutory duty accordingly.

I am conscious that, due to it being a permission in principle proposal, there is no signed UU before me to secure the SBCB status of the proposed dwelling(s). However, the appellant has provided a draft UU and has shown willingness to secure the status of the dwellings as such during the TDC stage, rendering the provision of SBCB housing as a benefit of particular importance in this case.

The proposed development would make efficient use of an underused plot of land on the edge of Maldon that benefits from being accessible to the public transport network and nearby shops, services and facilities. Making active use of the site also has the potential to alleviate vandalism, littering and anti-social behaviour, evidence of which was observed during my site visit.

There are also economic benefits to the proposal including employment during the construction phase and contributions that would be made to the local economy by future residents. However, I am mindful that such benefits would be limited if the proposal only delivered a single dwelling.

I am not convinced that every alternative mechanism to secure biodiversity improvements and an ecological management plan has been explored outside of the realms of this proposal. However, the proposed development does provide an opportunity to secure such measures on both the appeal site and on adjacent land in the appellant’s ownership, which may not otherwise be achieved given its private ownership.

The permission in principle stage is high level and does not require me to be satisfied about all aspects of the development permitted, because no planning permission is granted until TDC stage. Interested parties have raised concerns regarding access, highway safety, the effect on the living conditions of nearby residents, land contamination and light, noise and air pollution. There is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that any of these matters are so fundamental that they would undermine the principle of development of the appeal site. Such matters would be dealt with as necessary at TDC stage.

The proposal lies within the zones of influence of habitats sites under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations). The Blackwater Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar and the [name] and Ramsar (the habitats sites) primarily provide overwintering and breeding habitat for endangered or vulnerable populations of seabirds. They also support wider coastal ecosystems and functions that sustain these and other populations, including various notable plant and invertebrate species. Residential development is likely to lead to increased recreational pressure on the habitats sites and therefore an Appropriate Assessment (AA) is required in this instance under the Habitats Regulations.

The appellant has submitted a UU3, signed by the owner of the site, which secures a financial contribution towards the RAMS, in-line with the associated RAMS Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD) (May 2020). The RAMS measures would be effective beyond all reasonable scientific doubt in mitigating or avoiding adverse effects on the habitats sites. As competent authority for the purposes of regulation 63 of the Habitats Regulations and having consulted Natural England as the appropriate nature conservation body, I am satisfied that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the habitats sites, having regard to their conservation objectives.

The planning obligations within the UU would be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. As such, they comply with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended).

The Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. The proposal is in accordance with the development plan and should be approved unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. In these circumstances, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged. Following an AA, the proposal would not adversely affect the habitats sites. Hence, the evidence does not show that there are any protected areas or assets of particular importance where the Framework provides a strong reason for refusing the development under paragraph 11 d) i).

Therefore, the balance in paragraph 11 d) ii) of the Framework applies. This states that planning permission should be granted unless adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key 3 Dated 7 April 2025. policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making efficient use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

I have found there to be an absence of harm regarding the suitability of the site for the proposed development, regarding land use and amount, specifically in terms of the effect of the proposal on ecology and protected trees and on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

As discussed above, I have taken account of the fact that the proposed development would contribute positively to general housing supply where there is a significant shortfall of deliverable sites and deliver SBCB housing where I am not convinced the Council has met their statutory duty, which is of serious concern. The proposal would also be sustainably located close to existing shops, services and facilities and with access to the public transport network. Furthermore, there would be some economic benefits associated with the proposed development. Overall, I attribute significant weight to these benefits.

Taking account of the circumstances of this case, I conclude that the absence of harm arising from the proposed development, does not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, the proposal benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development as articulated in paragraph 11 d) of the Framework.

I have not imposed conditions given that the PPG confirms that it is not appropriate to do so for permissions in principle.

The proposal accords with the development plan and there are no material considerations, including in the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.