Appeal 6001714

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of 1no. detached single storey dwelling, together with associated on-plot parking, residential curtilage and landscaping, and altered vehicular access at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/0559/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule and the [name] dated 26 August 2025.

During the appeal the appellant submitted a new drawing proposing an additional bedroom window. It would be the only one in the west facing elevation of the proposed dwelling and would amount to a substantial change to the appeal scheme requiring consultation with interested parties who may have observations to make. There is no opportunity for that consultation through the appeal process. To avoid procedural unfairness to interested parties and in having regard to established caselaw1, I have proceeded to determine the appeal based on the original drawings that were before the Council when it decided the planning application.

The appeal site lies within the zones of influence of the Benfleet and Southend Marshes Special Protection Area (SPA), the [name] and the Essex Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC). They are habitats sites subject to statutory protection for their nature conservation interests under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, as amended (“the Regulations”).

Under those regulations it is my statutory duty as the Competent Authority (CA) to consider the effects of the proposal on the nature conservation interests of those sites. As the CA, I must be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the proposed development would not have an adverse effect on those habitats sites. This is reflected in my main issues below. 1 Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin)

The main issues in this appeal are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the existing pattern of development. • Whether future occupants would be provided with adequate living conditions with particular regard to their outlook from the bedroom window and levels of light reaching that room. • Whether the proposed development would affect the nature conservation interests of the SPAs and SAC as protected habitats sites.

[address] is a residential street fronted by rows of houses of predominantly traditional forms and proportions. [address] is a principal highway route through the settlement with a predominantly urban character, fronted by residential and commercial buildings. The appeal site is a corner plot at the junction of those roads and is highly visible in a range of close and longer distance views.

In street level views from [address], the proposed dwelling would be seen mainly in the context of the row of residential buildings (Numbers 7 - 19) on the north side of the road. They are of mixed architectural styles and sizes, and they are set on a stepped building line and separated by gaps of varying widths. As such, they do not create a strong building line or a distinctive pattern of development.

Although the front wall of the proposed dwelling would project slightly forwards of Number 7, it would still follow the stepped building line established by Numbers 7 -

As a result, it would respect the established pattern of development within the [address] street scene. Combined with its traditional appearance and modest scale, the proposed dwelling would integrate comfortably with the existing row of buildings along [address].

In the area of the appeal site, the buildings fronting [address] consist of a mixture of residential and commercial buildings of markedly different sizes and appearances. Some are set on consistent building lines such as the houses to the north of the appeal site, but most are set back from the road by different distances, often behind frontage parking. Those to the south of the appeal site are generally set close to the road, whereas those to the north are set further away. Therefore, the buildings along this part of [address] do not form a strong building line and the pattern of development is mixed.

The proposed dwelling would be set much closer to [address] than the row of houses immediately to its north. However, because the pattern and sizes of the buildings along this section of [address] are so mixed, assessing the position of the proposed dwelling only in relation to those houses to the north would not reflect the broader townscape context in which it would be experienced.

As the proposed dwelling would be orientated to front on to [address], it would read as a continuation of the row of dwellings fronting that road. Furthermore, it would be set back from [address] by similar distances to the group of larger buildings that are clustered near to its junctions with [address] and [address]. Those buildings include the parade of retail units on the east side of the road and the long row of 3 storey terraced townhouses on the west side that front the Close. In longer distance views looking north, the proposed dwelling would also be seen with the bungalow that occupies a comparable position on elevated ground close to [address] at the corner of the junction with [address].

When seen in the wider context of those buildings and all others, I find that the proposed dwelling would integrate comfortably into the mixed pattern of buildings in the [address] street scene. Consequently, even though it would be set forwards of the houses to its north, the proposed dwelling would not be at odds with the established pattern of development in the area.

For those reasons the appeal proposal would be consistent with the guidance in the Castle Point Borough Council Residential Design Guidance, 2013 (“the RDG”) insofar as section RDG3, seeks for development to reflect the general characteristics of the street and not to disrupt patterns of development which create an exceptionally strong building line.

Taking all the above into account, the proposed development would accord with Policy EC2 of the Castle Point Borough Council Local Plan, Adopted 1998, which requires development to be of a high quality, appropriate to its setting and not harmful to the character of its surroundings. For the same reasons, the proposed development would be consistent with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”) insofar as it requires decisions to ensure that development is sympathetic to local character and the surrounding built environment and maintains a strong sense of place.

The bedroom window is relatively wide, and it would provide occupants with relatively wide angled views from out of the bedroom. Although a parked car would be visible from the bedroom, the upper parts of cars tend to have a high proportion of glass and a good degree of visual permeability. Moreover, occupants of the bedroom would be able to obtain views out of the window and over a conventionally sized parked car, particularly the front/bonnet area which is often the lowest height part. Those views would give future occupants an appreciably strong sense of the outdoor environment, including over the spacious gardens towards the north and east. Therefore, it is my judgement that a parked car would not have an overbearing or oppressive presence in views out of the bedroom window.

Given the distance of separation between a parked car and the bedroom window, together with the angle of the sun and its path across the sky, I am satisfied that parked cars would have a negligible effect on the amount of light and direct sunlight reaching the bedroom through its wide window.

For those reasons, I conclude on this main issue that future occupants of the proposed development would be provided with adequate living conditions, with particular regard to the outlook from the bedroom and levels of light reaching that room. Therefore, it would accord with the guidance in RDG5, insofar as it seeks to ensure that dwellings have reasonable outlooks and adequate natural light within rooms. For the same reasons, the proposal would be consistent with Framework paragraph 135, insofar as it requires decisions to ensure that development provides a high standard of amenity for its users.

The evidence before me, including the [name] and [name], Supplementary Planning Document (“the RAMS”), indicates that the SPAs and SAC referred to above comprise mainly of estuarine habitat supporting large populations of internationally important overwintering bird species.

The RAMS indicates that occupiers of new housing development within the zones of influence of the SPAs and SAC would visit the coastline for recreational purposes and activities, causing increased disturbance to bird species and declining populations. Those negative effects are contrary to the nature conservation objectives of maintaining or restoring the natural habitats and species of the SPAs and SAC at favourable status.

It follows that occupants of the proposed dwelling would be expected to visit the nearby coastline for recreational purposes. In combination with the occupants of other housing developments, they are likely to have a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the SPAs and SAC, through contributing to increased disturbance of those bird species.

Strategic mitigation measures necessary to avoid adverse impacts on the natural habitats and species of those sites are set out in the RAMS, and include access management interventions, education and monitoring. Delivery of those measures would be funded through proportionate financial contributions from qualifying developments such as the appeal scheme.

The Council’s legal team is satisfied that the appellant’s signed [name] (UU), which obligates payment of the requisite financial contribution towards the delivery of the mitigation measures in the RAMS is legally sound. Natural England is satisfied that it would be effective in enabling the appeal development to avoid adverse effects on the SPAs and SAC. Having read the UU, I have no reasons to disagree.

Consequently, in discharging my duty as CA under the Regulations, I am satisfied that I have scientific certainty that the proposed development would have no adverse effects on the nature conservation interests of the SPAs and SAC, consistent with Framework paragraphs 187 and 193. As the planning permission and UU run with the land, it is unnecessary to link them through a planning

Parking provision would be satisfactory for the expected occupancy level of the proposed dwelling. Interested parties refer to safety concerns over illegal parking on double yellow lines near to the appeal site and the road junctions. Given the level of parking provision proposed for the dwelling, there is nothing of substance to indicate that it would be exacerbated by the appeal development. In any case, there are actions that can be taken outside of the planning process by the relevant authorities to address parking in restricted areas. Based on my observations at my site visit, I share the assessments of the Council and local highways authority that from a highways and transportation perspective the effects of the proposal would be acceptable.

The appellant’s technical assessment identifies that the development would result in a loss of biodiversity on the appeal site. It is expected that the mandatory biodiversity net gain would be achieved off-site and secured through the deemed condition under paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended (“the Act”). As the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)2 advises that any permission granted will be subject to the deemed biodiversity net gain condition under separate statutory provisions in the Act, it should not be included in the list of conditions imposed in the written notice when granting planning permission.

I have considered the Council’s suggested planning conditions against the tests for imposing conditions set out in the Framework and the PPG. Where necessary, I have amended the wording of the suggested conditions to ensure compliance with the tests. In the interests of certainty of the planning permission granted, it is necessary to specify the approved plans.

I share the Council’s concerns over the proposed hedgerow. Therefore, it is necessary to impose a condition securing an alternative landscaping scheme in the interests of ensuring a satisfactory appearance of the development. I have required an implementation programme for the landscaping to increase the probability of successful establishment of planting. This would give the parties flexibility over the timing of planting, such as deferring it to the first planting season after occupation when planting conditions would be expected to be optimal.

The size and shape of the plot relative to the footprint of the dwelling provides clear justification for restricting permitted development rights by imposing a planning condition. This would enable the Council to control the effects of enlargements to the dwelling’s footprint and the erection of outbuildings on the quantity and quality of external amenity space, and thus the living conditions of future occupants.

In the interests of encouraging cycling as a sustainable transport mode and the servicing of the development, planning conditions are necessary to ensure the cycle and bin storage facilities shown on the drawings are provided.

In the interests of highway safety, conditions are necessary to require the provision of the satisfactory vehicular access and car parking facilities shown on the approved drawings, and, for reasons of visibility for drivers and road users, to control the height of the proposed boundary fence near the highway and alongside parking space 1.

Given the scale of the development and the likely duration of construction works, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that a condition is necessary to control the storage of building materials and the loading/unloading of vehicles.

The location of the appeal site appears conducive to encouraging travel by sustainable transport modes. There are services, facilities, bus stops and a railway 2 Paragraph: 024 [name]: 74-[phone] station nearby. Accordingly, securing a travel plan is unnecessary on the evidence before me.

Despite the ecologist’s contention that it is a separate matter to the mandatory BNG objective in legislation, I am not convinced on the evidence before me that the suggested condition to secure a biodiversity enhancement layout would not duplicate the provisions of the BNG objective. Whether the biodiversity gain is to be delivered onsite or off is a matter to be resolved through the deemed biodiversity net gain condition. I am not aware of any development plan policy that requires biodiversity enhancement. Therefore, I have not imposed the suggested

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal proposal is consistent with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, to indicate otherwise. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and planning permission granted, subject to the attached conditions and the UU.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 0437B-0020-P1; 0437B-0022-P2; 0437B-0023-P1; 0437B-1000-P3; 0437B-1001-P3; 0437B-1200-P1; 0437B-1201-P2; and 0437B-1202-P.

Notwithstanding the approved drawings, the development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a landscaping scheme, together with a programme for its implementation, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such a scheme shall include planting plans, written specifications, including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment, schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities. All landscaping works forming part of the approved scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and implementation programme. Any tree or shrub contained within the approved landscaping scheme that within 5 years of the development being occupied is uprooted, dies, becomes seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced by a tree or shrub of a similar size and species, or such other species as may be agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the parking spaces and the vehicular access to the highway, including drainage, have been constructed in accordance with the approved drawings and thereafter kept available for the parking of vehicles.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the bin and cycle storage facilities shown on the approved drawings have been provided, and thereafter retained and used for no other purposes.

Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved drawings the fence between parking space number 1 and the adjacent parking space to the east, shall not exceed 0.6 metres in height for the first 2 metres within the site as measured from the back edge of the footway.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development consisting of enlargements to the dwellinghouse nor the erection of outbuildings (other than those expressly approved by this permission) shall be undertaken by virtue of [name] and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order. End of schedule