Appeal 6001760

The appeal is dismissed.

The application was submitted in outline with all matters reserved for subsequent approval. [name] have assessed the appeal proposal on that basis and have considered the submitted plans as indicative.

The main issues are: • whether the site is a suitable location for housing having regard to the development plan as a whole; and • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is a plot of land to the side of ‘Oakdene’ which is situated outside of the settlement boundary of [site address] . Policy SPL1 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Section 2 (TDLPS2) sets out the settlement hierarchy and designates [site address] as a [name]. The supporting text to the policy states that locations outside of a settlement development boundary are considered to be countryside.

TDLPS2 Policy SPL2 states that outside of Settlement Development Boundaries, planning applications will be considered in relation to the pattern and scales of growth promoted through the [name] in Policy SPL1 and any other relevant policies. Policy SP3 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Section 1 (TDLPS1) states that development adjoining settlements will be accommodated according to their scale, sustainability and existing role.

It has not been suggested that the proposal would result in an isolated home as per paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Nevertheless, there are few services in [site address] although the appeal site is within walking distance of a bus stop on [address]. The appellant states that the site is 1km from the train station and school in Weeley. However, the directions one would follow to get to these destinations would follow a more circuitous route and are unlikely to be within walking distance given the length of the routes, although they would be within cycling distance of the appeal site.

Notwithstanding this, the pavement along [address] ends before the junction with [site address] , so people walking to and from the appeal site would have to walk in the road. The speed limit on [address] increases from 30mph to 60mph beyond the point where the pavement ends. The road also narrows beyond this point, so those walking or cycling on the road could encounter vehicles travelling in either direction. Overall, this makes this stretch of [address] unattractive as a walking or cycling route and increases the likelihood of future occupiers of the proposed dwellings using private cars to travel to services in nearby settlements.

The proposal is for two self-build dwellings. However, notwithstanding the self-build application forms I have no mechanism, such as a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), before me to secure the new dwellings as a self-build properties. Notwithstanding this, TDLPS2 Policy LP7 states that there may be opportunities for self-build development on land outside of, but within a reasonable proximity to, settlement development boundaries.

Policy LP7 sets out three scenarios where such self-build development would be acceptable. The site would not be within the specified distances of a ‘strategic urban settlements’, ‘smaller urban settlements’ or ‘rural service centres’. Furthermore, the appeal site is currently used as a garden area for Oakdene, so the proposal would not result in the redevelopment of vacant or redundant previously developed land. Consequently, none of the scenarios in Policy LP7 would apply.

The site would therefore not be a sustainable location for new housing with regards to services and public transport links. As such, I am not persuaded that the proposed dwellings would meet the sustainable development needs of the area.

New dwellings have recently been, or are being, constructed at Oakdene and Tudors. However, both of these are replacement dwellings so are not directly comparable to the appeal proposal before me for new dwellings. No details of any planning permissions for dwellings in [address] have been provided, however [address] is not separated from the built-up area of [site address] unlike [site address] . I am therefore not persuaded that the context of the properties in [address] is directly comparable to the appeal site.

On the basis of the above, the proposed site would not represent a suitable location for housing, having regard to the development plan as a whole. The proposal would therefore conflict with TDLPS1 Policy SP3 and TDLPS2 Policy LP7. The proposal would also conflict with TDLPS1 Policy SP7, insofar as it requires development to create well-connected places that prioritise the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport services above use of the private car.

The appeal site comprises a garden area with dwellings on three sides and is part of a cluster of dwellings on [site address] and to the rear of Oakdene and the appeal site. The properties are large, detached dwellings in generous plots. The cluster are separated from the settlement of [site address] by an agricultural field, with further fields to the east, south and west. Overall, the cluster of dwellings has a pleasant and open appearance, and the existing garden area contributes positively to the rural and spacious character of the area.

The proposal would see two dwellings built in the garden area. Even if the new dwellings are bungalows, they would fill in the gap between Oakdene and Tudors. This would erode the spaciousness of the cluster and have an urbanising effect on the group of dwelling, to the detriment of the existing rural and spacious character of the area.

The proposal would therefore cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and, as such, would conflict with TDLPS1 Policy SP7 and TDLPS2 Policies SPL3, LP4 and PPL3. These policies seek, amongst other things, for development to respond positively to local character, appearance and context and to relate well to its site and surroundings.

The appeal site is within a Zone of Influence of the [name] ([name] 2) Special Protection Area and Ramsar site and the Essex Estuaries Special Area of Conservation. As the proposal would see the construction of two new dwellings, it is likely that there would be a [name]. Furthermore, I have no mechanism before me, such as a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the appropriate financial contribution for the [name] disturbance Avoidance and [name]. However, as I am dismissing the appeal on other grounds, I do not need to consider this matter further.

The Council states that their current five-year housing land supply is a 3.22-year supply of housing sites. This is well below the minimum level required and with reference to paragraph 11 d) of the Framework, consideration of the presumption in favour of sustainable development is needed.

The appeal site would not represent a suitable location for housing and the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would, therefore, conflict with TDLPS1 Policies SP3 and SP7 and TDLPS2 Policies SPL3, LP4, LP7 and PPL3 in these regards.

The provision of two additional unit would make a modest but meaningful contribution to the existing supply. Economic advantages would also arise from the construction and occupation of a new houses, although these would be limited by the scale of the scheme.

The Council also acknowledges that there is currently an unmet need for self-build/custom build dwellings in the district. The proposal would provide two self-build dwellings, although there is no mechanism before me to secure the dwelling as self-build. For these reasons, these benefits would be limited.

I have considered the policies in the development plan referenced by the parties. The proposal would conflict with TDLPS1 Policies SP3 and SP7 and TDLPS2 Policies SPL3, LP4, LP7 and PPL3. I am satisfied that these conflicts mean that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole. These policies are generally consistent with the Framework and so these conflicts carry substantial weight.

The proposal would not conflict with the Framework’s policies that protect areas or assets of particular importance and therefore paragraph 11d)i) of the Framework does not apply in this case.

However, 11d)ii) should be applied. This requires planning permission to be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land including through the use of previously-developed land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The proposed development would be supported by parts of the Framework, including policies to increase housing supply. The proposal would contribute towards the provision of self-build housing and would also support economic growth.

However, there would also be conflict with parts of the Framework, including policies to direct development to sustainable locations, achieve well-designed places and to make effective use of land.

In my view, the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, the proposal would not constitute sustainable development with regard to paragraph 11 d ii) of the Framework.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that would cause me to determine this appeal otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed