Appeal 6001732

The appeal is dismissed.

The weight I have given to matters in the planning balance reflects the provisions of the current National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and is justified by my reasoning. The appellant refers to Polices HO6, HO7 and L2 of the consultation draft Framework, published December 2025, in respect of weight to be afforded to the proposal’s contribution to housing need and re-use of an under-utilised building. However, the consultation draft policies could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight.

The main issues in this appeal are: • Whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location, having regard to the local development strategy; • The effect of the proposed development on living conditions, with particular regard to privacy; • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • The effect of the proposed development on protected species; • The effect of the proposed development on European sites; and • Whether other considerations outweigh any harm identified such as to justify the development.

[address] comprises a mix of dwellings, barns, and associated farmland. The appeal site includes buildings formerly in use for agricultural and equestrian purposes, including the redundant main barn, two single-storey side extension barns, and a stable block, surrounded by hardstanding.

There are three residential properties near to the site, [address] and two other farm cottages. The site is outside any settlement boundary and is therefore within the countryside for planning purposes.

Policy S8 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan 2017 (LDP) supports sustainable developments within defined settlement boundaries and protects the countryside for its landscape, natural resources and ecological value as well as its intrinsic character and beauty. Outside of the defined settlement boundaries, Policy S8 indicates that planning permission will only be granted where the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside is not adversely impacted upon, and provided it is of a type appropriate to the rural area. This includes the re-use of a redundant or disused building that would lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting. In addition, LDP Policy S1 promotes effective use of land.

The proposal would make effective use of land through the re-use of a redundant building. I have considered whether the proposal would protect the character of the countryside and enhance the immediate setting in a later section.

Policy S1 also seeks to minimise the need to travel, prioritise sustainable modes of transport, and improve access for all. LDP Policy T2 aims to create and maintain an accessible environment, requiring development proposals provide safe and direct walking and cycling routes to nearby services, facilities and public transport where appropriate. Similarly, LDP Policy D1 seeks to maximise connectivity within the development and to surrounding areas including the provision of high quality and safe pedestrian, cycle, and horse-riding routes, and Policy D2 aims to reduce the need to travel, particularly by private vehicle by encouraging sustainable transport methods. LDP Policy T1 seeks to deliver a more sustainable transport network for the district and does not directly relate to the locational strategy for new development.

Around half a mile from the site at [site address] is a small commercial estate with a veterinary clinic, hair salon, and café, and therefore offers only a limited range of services. Althorne is a small village with a public house, parish hall, recreation ground and tea rooms situated 1.3 miles from the site, which the appellant suggests could be reached within a six-minute cycle ride or four-minute car journey. The site is approximately three miles, and thus a short car trip, from the main settlement of Burnham-on-Crouch which offers a range of services and facilities such as education, retail and health infrastructure.

The nearest public transport services are a bus stop one mile from the site at [site address] (B1010) and Althorne rail station which is 2.2 miles from the site and offers commuter services to London and other destinations.

The site and wider [address] complex are served by a long private access road which adjoins [site address] at a forked junction. This section of [site address] is subject to the national speed limit and has no streetlighting, pedestrian footways or cycleways. The absence of such infrastructure would be a significant constraint to walking and cycling. Therefore, to access the services and facilities at the settlements and locations identified above, future occupants would normally be dependent on the use of a private car.

The proposed development would be fitted with an electric vehicle charger and therefore would be accessible to ultra-low and zero emission vehicles. However, such vehicles are unlikely to be available to all in the community and therefore would be incompatible with LDP Policy S1 and would not satisfy the aim of LDP Policy D2 to reduce the need to travel by private vehicle.

Near the site, a scheme for five dwellings was recently granted prior approval1. The prior approval regime requires proposals satisfy conditions set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 and does not normally require the development plan be taken into account. Therefore, the prior approval scheme does not justify development in this location.

As set out above, due to the distance from any settlement and the absence of suitable infrastructure, the proposed development would not provide safe and direct walking and cycling routes to nearby services, facilities and public transport, would not maximise connectivity to surrounding areas, nor reduce the need to travel by private vehicle or encourage use of sustainable transport. Whilst the proposal would involve the re-use of an existing building in a countryside location, this does not negate the development strategy’s accessibility requirements. The proposal would therefore conflict with [name] S1, S8, T2, D1 and D2.

Therefore, having regard to the local development strategy, the proposed development would not be in a suitable location.

Existing dwelling, [address], sits at a right angle to the main barn with a small separation distance of less than 10m at its closest point. The proposed dwelling would therefore be very close to [address].

The site is within a traditional farmstead with buildings arranged in a courtyard with an intrinsically close setting and relationship. However, the proposed dwelling would be an open market dwelling, and consent has been granted to remove the agricultural restriction condition from [address]. Therefore, I have no reason to consider occupants of either the proposed dwelling or [address] would be engaged in agricultural activities of the farmstead, nor that they would have a lesser expectation of privacy.

The rear elevation of the proposed dwelling would have four windows at first-floor level, serving bedrooms and a seating area, which would face the rear garden of [address]. The existing courtyard arrangement likely permits some overlooking between dwellings and garden areas. However, due to the number of first-floor openings, the small separation distance, and orientation of the buildings, the proposed dwelling would create significant opportunity for overlooking of the full extent of this neighbouring rear garden. The extent of glazing would appear 1 LPA ref: 24/00432/PACUAR dominant and overbearing for users of the garden and would significantly erode the privacy of the occupants of [address].

The east-facing two-storey elevation of [address] is set back from the single storey volumes and comprises two windows, of which one is obscure glazed. The remaining first floor window is narrow and forms a secondary bedroom window, with the principal outlook being from a larger, west-facing window.

The window would be at the periphery of the field of view from the proposed rear-facing first-floor windows. The existing window’s narrow width would limit the breadth of any view into the room and, due to the viewing angle, the depth of the internal wall would further constrain views. Therefore, views from the proposed dwelling to the bedroom window at [address] would normally be indirect.

However, the separation distance between the proposed first floor windows and existing bedroom window at [address] would be around 10m. This would fall significantly short of the 25m standard set out in Maldon District Design Guide

The standard assumes dwellings are arranged back-to-back and therefore may not be directly applicable to the appeal proposal. Nonetheless, the short separation distance would not be sufficient to adequately curb views into the room.

Consequently, the close proximity of the proposed dwelling’s first floor windows would create additional opportunity for overlooking of the bedroom window, resulting in a moderate but noticeable loss of privacy for the occupants of [address].

The identified opportunities for overlooking could not reasonably be prevented, for example through a planning condition for obscure glazing, since three of the proposed rear first-floor windows would provide the sole source of light and outlook for bedrooms.

For these reasons, the proposal would result in both actual and perceived overlooking of the neighbouring dwelling. Therefore, having regard to privacy, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupants of [address].

The proposal would therefore conflict with LDP Policy D1 which seeks to protect the living conditions of residents and ensure developments are well integrated with their surroundings.

As a redundant agricultural building set amongst other agricultural and equestrian buildings and dwellings, the site and its immediate surroundings have the character and appearance of a farmstead.

The main barn is constructed of a mixture of brick and black timber weatherboarding, with slate and corrugated sheet roofing, surrounded by a significant apron of hardstanding. The building varies in height with the tallest volume facing the access road and lower volumes to the side and rear. The building therefore has the traditional appearance of an agricultural barn.

As indicated by the Essex Landscape Character Assessment, the site is within the Crouch and [name] character area, and the [name] indicates the site is within a [name]. The surrounding landscape has a gently undulating landform with widely dispersed small copses and an absence of settlement within the marshlands, apart from a small number of isolated farmsteads.

The proposal would significantly increase the number of openings in the north elevation from two large barn doors to 16 openings. In addition, the proposal would introduce new openings at first floor, and change the casements, sizes and overall arrangement of fenestration at the south elevation. The fenestration would reveal the residential use of the building and convey a domestic appearance.

However, the submitted plans indicate that the proposed doors and windows would be timber to match the style of existing fenestration. The proposal seeks to complement the building’s character and avoids windows and glazing of a modern appearance. Furthermore, details of the specifications and materials of windows and doors could be secured through a planning condition.

Moreover, the building’s footprint would remain predominantly unchanged, and the existing frame and the height of the ridge would be retained. External materials would reflect the appearance of the existing building, with sections of original brickwork retained and with extensive cladding in black stained timber. Therefore, despite the increase in openings, the overall form and appearance of the building would retain the character of the agricultural building.

The proposed dwelling would be surrounded by a residential garden enclosed by boundary treatments, and its occupation as a dwelling would introduce domestic paraphernalia. Relative to the functional appearance of the existing apron of concrete hardstanding which surrounds the existing building, the proposed residential curtilage would give the site a softer, more domestic appearance.

The existing farmstead includes other existing residential uses, notably the closely sited [address]. The proposed dwelling would be read within the context of other dwellings and therefore the introduction of domestic features would not appear out of context with the existing character of the farmstead.

In summary, the proposal would involve the conversion of an existing agricultural building with modest alterations to its existing built volume. The use of the building as a dwelling would be evident from the proposed fenestration and residential curtilage. However, the building’s height, scale and form would be broadly retained and proposed materials would complement the existing building, and thus the original appearance of the building would generally be preserved. The development would be perceived within the context of existing dwellings, and due to its modest scale and containment within the existing farmstead, the proposal would have a neutral effect upon the wider landscape setting.

Whilst there would be visual change to the site and building, the development would not appear incongruous with or at odds with its rural setting. Therefore, the proposal would protect the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The redevelopment of the building would provide landscaping and biodiversity enhancement. Therefore, I consider the proposal would meet the requirements of LDP Policy S8. For these reasons, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would comply with [name] S1 and D1 which together emphasise the importance of high quality design in all developments, seek to maintain the rural character of the district without compromising the identity of its individual settlements, and requires proposals respect and enhance the character and local context and make a positive contribution, including in terms of architectural style, use of materials, and detailed design features. In addition, the proposal would comply with LDP Policy S8 which requires the re-use of a redundant or disused building lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting.

[name] bat species are [name] which, along with their roosts, are afforded protection by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as amended (the Habitats Regulations) and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended.

As set out in the Ecology & [name] 2024 ([name]), the historic barn was assessed as being a confirmed roost of moderate bat roost suitability, and the stable block was identified as being of low bat roost suitability. The Ecology Report recommended a follow-up bat activity survey to confirm the nature and scale of impacts and to verify the use by roosting bats.

The application was determined prior to the appropriate ecological survey period and therefore insufficient bat survey information was available for submission with the planning application. However, the appeal proposal is accompanied by a bat roost emergence survey letter, dated 27th August 2025.

Two bat surveys of the main barn building and one survey of the stables were undertaken more than three weeks apart in May and June 2025. The surveys recorded bat activity around and emerging from the main barn. Therefore, in the event planning permission were granted, a Natural England CL21 low impact development bat licence would be required before any work can commence.

The licence would require the proposed development be supervised by a licenced ecologist to oversee the removal/replacement of any existing roof and wall coverings, and immediate bat roost compensation in the form of the provision of three tree/building or pole mounted bat boxes provided as part of CL21 licence commitments with the boxes required to remain in situ for a minimum of five years.

In addition, bat roost compensation would be required through enclosed or surface mounted bat boxes on the external walls of the new dwelling, with such on-site enhancement secured through a [name] and Monitoring Plan.

Therefore, I am satisfied the proposal contains the necessary bat survey information. Whilst a [name] would be required, the proposal contains adequate details of draft mitigation measures to support the provision of the licence. Therefore, the proposal demonstrates it would comply with the statutory duties of s40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Subject to the identified mitigation measures, the proposed development would not harm protected bat species, including their roosts and foraging habitat.

The proposal would therefore comply with [name] S1 and N2, which together seek to conserve and enhance the natural environment by providing protection to and increasing local biodiversity, and requires proposals make provision to mitigate any negative biodiversity impacts it may create for ay protected species, or their habitat, found on site.

The site falls within the recreational zone of influence for one or more European sites scoped into the [name] disturbance Avoidance and [name] (RAMS), and afforded protection by the Habitat Regulations.

The Ecology Report identifies the nearest European sites are the Outer Thames Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA), the Crouch and [name] and SPA, and the Essex Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

The conservation objectives for the [name] and Crouch and [name] are to ensure the integrity of the site is maintained or restored and that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the [name]. The conservation objectives for the [name] are to ensure the integrity of the site is maintained or restored and ensure the site contributes to achieving the favourable conservation status of its qualifying features.

The qualifying features of the [name] are its populations of red-throated diver, breeding little terns and common terns. The qualifying features of the Crouch and [name] are its populations of dark-bellied brent geese and its waterbird assemblage. The qualifying features of the [name] are subtidal sandbanks, estuaries, intertidal mudflats and sandflats, Atlantic salt meadows, Mediterranean saltmarsh scrub, with cord-grass swards, glasswort and other annuals colonising mud and sand.

The RAMS identifies that housing and consequent population growth in Essex is likely to increase the number of visitors to sensitive coastal areas, creating the potential for impacts from increased recreational disturbance of birds and their habitats, unless adequately managed.

Through providing additional residential accommodation, the proposal would provide a small increase in local population with associated recreational pressure on the [name]. The proposal would therefore have likely significant effects on [name] sites’ qualifying features, alone and in combination with similar development.

The RAMS sets out a strategic approach to mitigation by several councils across the wider area. It details mitigation measures that would be funded by financial contributions at a specified tariff per dwelling. Since the mitigation includes a range of habitat-based measures such as education, communication, and monitoring, I am satisfied that the measures would adequately overcome any adverse effects of the proposal on relevant designated habitats.

The appellant has provided a unilateral undertaking (UU) to secure a financial contribution in accordance with the RAMS. This approach can be problematic as there is no obligation on the Council to spend the money as envisaged and in a particular timescale. However, the evidence before me indicates that as a responsible public body it will transfer the funds to the organisation responsible for administrating the mitigation strategy.

Where this mitigation is secured, it can be concluded that development will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of European sites from recreational disturbance when considered in combination with other development and it is not necessary to consult Natural England.

The Habitats Regulations require that permission only be granted after having ascertained that it will not affect the integrity of European sites. Subject to the secured mitigation, the proposal would not have significant effects on the integrity of European sites at the [name]. The proposal would therefore satisfy the requirements of the Habitats Regulations.

The proposal would comply with [name] S1 and D1, which seek to conserve and enhance the natural environment including designated sites of biodiversity value, and [name] N1 and N2 which require adverse impacts on habitats be mitigated without loss in value.

The development would contribute one dwelling to the local housing stock.

The proposal would involve conversion of an existing building and therefore would make efficient use of land and would enable the redundant barn be retained. The proposal would provide private amenity space and would introduce greenery to the site culminating in a [name] of +111.84%. The proposed development would therefore provide a range of environmental benefits.

In addition, there would be economic benefits through generation of construction jobs and materials suppliers, and future occupation of the dwelling would increase footfall for local businesses.

The Council can demonstrate a 2.8-year supply of housing land. Therefore, in the Council’s area there is a considerable shortfall in housing supply.

In this circumstance, Framework paragraph 11(d) is engaged, whereby planning permission should be granted unless (i) policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a strong reason for refusing the development, and (ii) any 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 policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

Subject to the secured mitigation, the proposal would not harm the integrity of European sites. Therefore, the proposal would not conflict with the Framework’s policies that protect areas or assets of particular importance, and Framework paragraph 11(d)(i) does not provide a strong reason to refuse the development.

Furthermore, I have found that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area, and subject to the identified mitigation measures, would not harm protected bat species including their roosts and foraging habitat. These are neutral factors in the planning balance.

The proposed development would not provide safe and direct walking and cycling routes to nearby services, facilities and public transport, and would not reduce the need to travel by private vehicle. Paragraph 110 of the Framework recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions vary between urban and rural areas. However, even taking this difference into account, the proposed dwelling would not be located to prioritise sustainable transport modes and would not achieve safe and suitable access for all users, as required by Framework paragraph 115. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with the Framework’s key policies for directing development to sustainable locations. Consequently, I afford significant weight to the conflict with [name] S1, S8, T2, D1 and D2.

The key policy at Framework paragraph 135 requires development provide a high standard of amenity for existing users. Therefore, the conflict with LDP Policy D1 from the harm to living conditions carries significant weight against the proposal.

The proposal would make a small contribution to the government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes, as set out at paragraph 61 of the Framework. However, there is demand for larger homes in this rural part of the district and an identified shortfall in housing land supply in the Council’s area which, due to delays in Local Plan preparation, is unlikely to be rectified in the short term. Therefore, despite the small scale of the proposal, in this circumstance I afford moderate positive weight to the provision of one dwelling.

The proposed barn conversion would make efficient use of land. The Framework’s key policy at paragraph 129 supports development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account the identified need for housing and availability of land. In addition, whilst not isolated, the key policy at paragraph 84 of the Framework supports the re-use of redundant or disused buildings where the immediate setting would be enhanced. In addition, Framework paragraph 187 requires proposals provide net gains for biodiversity and the proposal would significantly exceed the national mandatory biodiversity net gain requirement. Such environmental benefits are closely aligned with the Framework. However, reflecting the proposal’s small scale, these carry moderate positive weight.

Taking account of the scale of the development, the economic benefits identified above would attract only modest weight in the scheme’s favour.

The appellant refers to appeal decision 3366613 where shortcomings in accessibility were outweighed by the provision of housing. However, the scheme would be immediately adjacent to a main settlement, accessible via a public right of way and on-demand bus service, thereby offering an element of travel choice, and no harms were identified in respect of any other planning matters. The circumstances of the scheme therefore materially differ from the appeal proposal.

Consequently, the adverse impacts that would arise from the proposed location and the identified harms to the living conditions of the occupants of [address] would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework, taken as a whole and having particular regard to its key policies. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply to the proposal.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given the appeal should be dismissed.