Appeal 6002148

The appeal is dismissed.

The application is in outline with matters of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved for future consideration. I have therefore dealt with the appeal on this basis, treating the submitted proposed plans as indicative.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies, including the effect on openness; • The effect of the proposal on the character of the area; • Whether it has been demonstrated that safe vehicular access can be achieved; • Whether it has been demonstrated that the appeal site is suitable for residential development; • Whether the appeal site is in a sustainable location having regard to the spatial strategy; and, • Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The appeal site is in the Green Belt. Policy MG02 of the Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (the Local Plan) aligns with the Framework and specifies that development proposals within the Green Belt will be considered and assessed in accordance with the provisions of national planning policy. The Framework sets out certain exceptions where development in the Green Belt is not inappropriate development. I have considered each exception put forward by the appellant.

The exception at part e) of paragraph 154 of the Framework allows for the limited infilling in villages. The Framework does not define the term ‘limited infilling’.

The appeal site comprises a single-storey house, its garden and a large area of land to the rear. Built development exists on only one side of the site, formed by the neighbouring houses along [address]. The remaining boundaries of the site are not enclosed by any built development. The other sides of the site adjoin the railway embankment and two further undeveloped parcels of land, one of which extends towards the M25 motorway corridor. On the other side of the motorway corridor, there is housing. As a result, the appeal site is bordered by predominantly undeveloped land on most of its perimeter.

If developed, there would be a considerable gap between the houses and the housing on the other side of the motorway corridor. The absence of built development along either side boundary means that the proposal cannot be reasonably described as infilling. Given this, it is not necessary for me to consider whether the proposal is limited or whether the appeal site is within a village. Accordingly, the proposal would not meet part e) of paragraph 154 of the Framework.

Although the Inspector in the case at 4 [name] Lane1 (the case at No.4), found that the development would constitute limited infilling in a village; this decision was assessed under an earlier version of the Framework, and the Inspector clearly stated in their decision that their reasons were unique to the site. Whilst the two sites share similar features in terms of being located near the railway embankment and the motorway corridor, there is a fundamental difference. The appeal site includes the end property along the lane and effectively marks the point where the housing ends and the undeveloped land begins. By contrast, part of the site in the case at No.4 was located between two houses. The context is therefore not directly the same. Limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land

Part g) of paragraph 154 of the Framework allows for limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Openness is identified in the Framework as one of the Green Belt’s essential characteristics. It has both spatial and visual aspects. 1 Appeal Ref: APP/H1515/W/16/3154871

Although the appeal site is contained by the railway embankment, gardens and other parcels of land, this does not prevent it from having an open character, which is largely derived through its lack of built development. In visual terms, most of the proposal would only be visible in private views from the nearby gardens and surrounding land. The level of harm to the visual openness of the Green Belt would be localised and limited, but harm would occur.

Whilst the submitted plans are indicative, the proposal would result in a dispersed pattern of built form across the appeal site, inevitably introducing built form into areas that are currently free of development. Scale, appearance and landscaping are reserved for future consideration; however, when considering the number of houses proposed, combined with the new road, likely parking provision and associated domestic activity, this would result in a substantial loss of openness in spatial terms. Even if I were to accept the appeal site is PDL, the proposal would cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt and would therefore not meet part g) of paragraph 154 of the Framework.

In the case at No.4, the Inspector concluded that the development would cause little or no harm to Green Belt openness. Openness assessments are generally site‐specific and rely on planning judgement, which is a matter for the decision-maker. The Inspector found the site had very limited openness, which differs from the level of openness I have identified at the appeal site.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework states that the development of homes in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where all the following apply: a. the development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan; b. there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed; c. the development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework; and d. where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘[name] requirements set out in paragraphs 156-157.

With reference to part b of paragraph 155, the Framework details that a demonstrable unmet need, means the lack of a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, including the relevant buffer where applicable, or where the [name] was below 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years2. Even if the Council has a high need for three-bedroom houses, this is not how the Framework identifies unmet need. Given that the Council can demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, part b. would not be met.

It is not necessary for me to assess whether the proposal meets parts c. and d. as paragraph 155 requires all criteria to be satisfied, and failure on any single part is determinative. Accordingly, the proposal would not meet paragraph 155 of the Framework.

For the above reasons, the proposal does not fall within the exceptions listed in the Framework and would therefore comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would also result in substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. 2 Footnote 56 of paragraph 155 b. of the Framework The proposal would conflict with Policy MG02 of the Local Plan, the purpose of which has been set out above.

The appeal site is located in a semi-rural area with undeveloped and open fields. The pattern of development along [address] is typically characterised by two clusters of housing which follow a strong linear form relative to the road, which gives this part of the area its distinctive character. Each cluster forms its own row as they are physically and visually separated from each other by the intervening motorway corridor.

Whilst all matters are reserved, the shape, depth and overall extent of the appeal site inevitably dictate how the number of houses proposed could be accommodated. The increase in the number of houses on the site would intensify the use of the site and result in a substantial increase in domestic paraphernalia. This intensification in the use of the site would compromise its semi-rural character.

Even if the proposal would not be visible from public viewpoints, this does not mean it would be neutral in terms of character. Character is informed not only by what is publicly seen, but also by the pattern of development that underpins an area. The proposals would require development to extend beyond the established line of housing on [address], resulting in the formation of a small cul‐de‐sac. Such a development would be inherently contrived, bearing no relationship to the simple linear form that defines the existing pattern of development along the lane. It would introduce a backland cluster that breaks the established rhythm and undermines the clear, linear form that currently characterises this part of [address].

Although a similar backland development has been approved at No.4, it does not serve as a precedent for further backland schemes. It appears to be the only one of its kind, and the overarching character of the lane remains to be one of predominantly single-row, linear development. Furthermore, the distance between this development and the appeal site means the two would not be viewed together. Each proposal must be judged on its individual merits, and the presence of this development would not alter my findings.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would cause harm to the character of the area. The degree of harm would be moderate on account of the screening from the road. Accordingly, the proposal conflicts with Policy BE14 of the Local Plan, which amongst other things, requires proposals to respond positively and sympathetically to their context. Whilst paragraph 129 of the Framework states that planning decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character must be taken into account which the proposal fails to do.

The red line boundary must include all land necessary to carry out the proposed development, including the land required to form access to the public highway. This requirement applies equally to outline applications. Even where all matters are reserved, the application must still identify the area where access to the site will be taken. The red line boundary cannot be amended later at the Reserved Matters stage, as the outline permission applies only to the land within the approved red line boundary. The suitability and feasibility of the access must therefore be established at outline stage.

It appears that the appellant does not own the land between the appeal site and the public highway. [name] confirms that notice has been served on the relevant landowner, it is purely a procedural requirement. The absence of an objection from that landowner does not imply agreement or consent for their land to be used to facilitate access. As the necessary land for forming the access is not included within the red line boundary, and there is no evidence that the appellant has any legal right to use that land, it has not been shown that the access could be delivered in planning terms, irrespective of the [name] view.

Trees located within the visibility splay could obstruct sightlines and thereby compromise highway safety. Any works necessary to the trees to achieve the visibility splay must be assessed at the outline stage. Reserved Matters cannot remedy or revisit a fundamental constraint that affects the deliverability of the scheme.

For these reasons, I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that safe vehicular access can be achieved. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with the aims of Policies BE14 and NE03, which amongst other things, require proposals to deliver safe places, and so far as possible and practicable retain existing trees.

The railway line and the M25 motorway are likely to be significant sources of noise, as well as contributors to poor air quality. During my site visit, albeit a snapshot in time, noise from the motorway was clearly audible. The Council also advises that the site has previously been used in a manner that could give rise to contamination risks.

It is recognised that there are other houses along [address] which are also close to the motorway corridor and the railway line, but this does not negate the need for a robust understanding of the existing noise, air quality and contamination issues. Although the Environmental Health Officer was satisfied these matters could be addressed by planning condition, given the site context, these matters cannot be left to planning conditions because they determine whether the site is suitable for residential development in principle. Without baseline data, it is not possible to know what mitigation is required, whether it is technically achievable and whether it is compatible with the design parameters.

The Inspector in the case at No.4 dismissed the appeal due to a lack of detail regarding the position and extent of the necessary acoustic barrier. In their decision, reference is also made to a noise impact assessment which indicates some baseline evidence was before the Inspector, unlike the appeal scheme.

For these reasons, I therefore conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the appeal site is suitable for residential development. Accordingly, the proposal would therefore conflict with Policies BE14, NE08 and NE10. These policies, amongst other things, require where land which is suspected to be contaminated, any risks can be adequately addressed to make the development safe and require development not to create unacceptable risk to high levels of exposure to poor air quality, and to safeguard the living conditions of future occupants.

Policy MG03 of the Local Plan sets out the settlement hierarchy for the Borough. I have not been advised as to which hierarchy the appeal site falls within, but it is outside of a settlement boundary.

The appeal site forms part of an existing row of houses and is therefore not isolated. Although services and facilities close to the appeal site are limited, a range of shops and services, as well as a bus stop are available along [address], which I estimate to be approximately a 20‐minute walk away. Most of the walk along [address] to reach [address] appeared to be along a footpath, which at points is very narrow. It is appreciated that this may not be suitable for all people, but it does provide pedestrian access. As acknowledged at paragraph 110 of the Framework, opportunities to maximise sustainable transport vary between urban and rural areas. There is no substantive evidence to indicate that the bus service would not offer a realistic alternative to private car use. Accordingly, future occupants would be able to access nearby services either by foot or by bus and would not be highly dependent on private car.

For these reasons, I conclude that the appeal site is in a sustainable location having regard to the spatial strategy. Accordingly, the proposal complies with Policies MG03 and BE09 of the Local Plan. These policies, amongst other things, require sustainable modes of transport to be prioritised.

The reason for refusal refers to conflict with Policy BE14 of the Local Plan, however it is not determinative in the context of the spatial strategy.

Mindful of the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, the proposal could deliver six homes, contributing to the supply of housing in the Borough. There would be economic and social benefits associated with the proposal, through spending and support for local services by future occupants. The extent of these benefits would be tempered by the quantum of development proposed. I therefore give these benefits moderate weight.

The appellant asserts that there is a shortage of three-bedroom homes. As the size of the houses and bedrooms is not fixed and could change, this limits the weight I give to this benefit. There is no compelling evidence before me to demonstrate that less harmful measures have been considered to address the condition of the appeal site. I therefore give this consideration limited weight.

Given the differences in context, proximity to existing development, and overall openness, I give limited weight to the approved development at No.4.

Lack of objections from the Council’s consultees is a neutral matter, and neither weighs in favour nor against the appeal scheme.

Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the terms set out by the Framework and would result in the loss of openness of the Green Belt. As required by the Framework, substantial weight is given to this harm. Against this harm, I give moderate weight to the provision of housing and economic and social benefits. I give limited weight to addressing the three-bedroom house shortage and the condition of the appeal site. The housing development at No.4 is also of limited weight.

I have found no adverse harm in terms of the appeal site’s location in regard to the spatial strategy. However, this is a neutral consideration that weighs neither for nor against the development.

In taking all factors into consideration relating to this appeal, the weight afforded to other considerations in support of the appeal would not, either individually or collectively, clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, the character of the area and the failure to demonstrate that safe vehicular access can be achieved and that the appeal site is suitable for residential development. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

The proposal would conflict with Policies MG02, BE14, NE03, NE08 and NE10 of the Local Plan and the objectives of the Framework.

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