Appeal 6002657

The appeal is dismissed.

As part of the appeal, the appellant has provided a SuDS1 Report [name] including a SuDS Strategy Layout Plan ref OD/01/010 [name] (‘the [name]) and a [name] dated 5 September 2025 (‘the [name]). These documents were not before the Council and interested parties when the application was determined.

In support of their view that I should consider these documents, the appellant refers to ‘long-established appeal practice’. However, the applicable version of the Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England sets out that in general, appeals are determined on the same basis as the original application. It continues that ‘therefore the appellant’s submissions including the statement of case should not normally include new evidence or additional technical data not previously seen by the local planning authority and interested parties at the application stage, such as biodiversity report, highways statement or landscape and visual impact assessments.’

Whether or not the [name] and [name] are material to issues relevant to the appeal, they comprise additional technical data not previously seen by the local planning authority and interested parties at the application stage. Acceptance of the information would therefore be clearly contrary to the expectations of the Procedural Guide. Moreover, the technical nature of the information provided means that it would have been likely to have needed to be considered by a specialist advisor or statutory consultee for the Council to deal with it properly. Indeed, the Council highlights a requirement for consultation, specifically with [name], the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Council’s Ecology Officer. These parties have not commented on the appeal and I cannot be sure that they would be aware of the new information. Interested parties may also have wished to 1 [name] comment on the additional information, but again, I cannot be sure that they would be aware of it.

Although the information may not in itself result in a substantial change or fundamental difference to the application development, I consider in these circumstances that accepting the additional information could result in procedural unfairness. Notwithstanding the appellant’s comments that the appeal has been the first opportunity to submit the information, I consider that it would therefore be inappropriate to accept the [name] and [name] as part of the appeal. Consequently, these documents do not form part of the evidence that I have had regard to in determining the appeal.

The main issues are: i) whether or not the site would provide a suitable location for housing having regard to relevant development plan policies and its location in countryside; ii) whether or not living conditions for future occupiers of Plots 7, 8 and 9 would be acceptable with particular regard to light; iii) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; iv) the effect of the proposal on protected species and priority habitat; v) whether or not the proposal would make adequate provision for waste storage and collection; vi) whether or not the proposal would make adequate provision for drainage; and vii) the effect of the proposal on European designated and Ramsar sites.

The appeal site is located within countryside outside of the development boundary around [name]. In such locations, Policy LPP 1 of the Braintree District Local Plan 2013-2033 (‘the Local Plan’) sets out that development will, amongst other things, be confined to uses appropriate to the countryside.

The appellant does not argue that the proposal would comprise a use appropriate to the countryside. The development here would accordingly conflict with Policy LPP 1 of the Local Plan and I conclude with respect to its location in countryside that the site would not provide a suitable location for housing.

There are a number of trees around the appeal site boundaries, including significant trees which the appellant’s Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report [name] (‘the AIA’) identifies as T63, T66 and T67. In considering the relationship of the development with trees, the AIA states that there is sufficient distance between proposed buildings and trees and that buildings are all outside of the shading impact. However, this is contradicted by the Tree Protection Plan which shows the shading arc of T66 extending over much of the width of the rear elevation of the dwelling on Plot 8. Although the tree was not in leaf at the time of my visit, it is a mature Oak, classified by the AIA as a category A tree, which I saw was of significant height and crown spread. Given its form and position broadly to the south west of the dwelling together with the indicated shading arc which would extend over rear windows serving Bedroom 1 and the kitchen/dining space, it would be likely to result in notable overshadowing to these rooms when in leaf. In my view, the consequent restriction on natural light to these rooms would cause clear detriment to the quality of the internal environments provided.

Moreover, the Tree Protection Plan indicates that nearly all of Plot 8’s rear garden would sit within the shading arcs of T66 and tree T67 which is also a mature Oak, classified as a category A tree. At times, there would consequently be likely to be considerable overshadowing, with only a very small part of the garden shown to be unaffected. As a result, levels of natural light to the garden would in my view feel particularly limited, detracting from the usability and attractiveness of the space.

Overall, I therefore consider that levels of natural light would fall far short of what could reasonably be expected by future occupiers of Plot 8 with detriment to their living conditions.

The Tree Protection Plan indicates that tree T67 would also cause some shading to Plot 7, and that Trees T63, T64, T66 and T67 would cause some shading to Plot 9. However, this shading would only affect the gardens and while there would be a reasonable area of the gardens affected, there would also be areas that would sit outside of the indicated shading arcs offering some usable space with good levels of natural light. As a result, I consider that detriment to the living conditions of occupiers of Plots 7 and 9 would be very limited.

The appellant asserts that a concern about shading from trees is speculative. Nevertheless, given my findings above and in the absence of any assessment considering daylight and sunlight within the development to demonstrate otherwise, I am not satisfied that there would be adequate levels of natural light to the dwelling and garden of Plot 8 to offer acceptable living conditions for occupiers. I further consider that restricted light to the gardens of Plots 7 and 9 would cause some, albeit slight, detriment to living conditions for occupiers of these dwellings.

The question of whether or not levels of natural light would be acceptable is a matter relevant to whether or not planning permission should be granted. A Daylight and Sunlight study could further inform this assessment, but because it could show unacceptable levels of light which would be a factor weighing against the grant of permission, it would not be appropriate to defer provision to a planning condition as the appellant has suggested.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for occupiers of Plot 8 and that there would be some harm to living conditions for occupiers of Plots 7 and 9. As a consequence, there would be conflict with [name] 7, LPP 35 and LPP 52 of the Local Plan insofar as they include requirements broadly for development to protect the amenity of future residents and to provide an appropriate standard of accommodation.

For the most part, [name] has a linear form encompassing ribbons of dwellings along the A131 and [address]. The dwellings are typically set back from the streets on relatively similar building lines with areas of parking and soft landscaping to their frontages and comparatively deep gardens to their rear. They are of generally traditional materials and appearance, but there is some variety in the architectural detailing across groups and individual buildings as well as a mix of terrace, semi-detached and detached forms and bungalow, 1.5 storey chalet bungalow and two-storey dwellings which provides some diversity to the street scenes.

The main part of the appeal site includes a range of single-storey buildings set close to the boundary with Thistley Green Road which are served by a gravel driveway, but otherwise predominantly comprises open grassland with an immature orchard to one corner. The boundaries are marked by fencing, in some cases with hedgerows and trees alongside. Although partly developed, its predominantly open character, nearby mature trees and the adjoining fields to the south and west mean that I find it is currently appreciated as forming part of the countryside around [name].

The proposal would transform the main part of the site to a housing development. Although it is reasonably well contained by vegetation, the presence of dwellings would still be appreciable including from Thistley Green Road. Furthermore, Thistley Green Road is currently a narrow, unmade track. Its surfacing as part of the proposal to facilitate access between [address] and the main part of the site would give it a much more formal character. Taken together, this would cause marked urbanisation of the site and the encroachment of development into the rural area with a significant and permanent change to the nature of this part of the countryside.

The dwellings would be arranged around a cul-de-sac sitting to the rear of dwellings on [address]. This would contrast with the generally linear pattern of development in [name] where there are single dwellings with fields behind. However, its position to the rear of [address] and accessed by Thistley Green Road means that the development would not intrude into or directly disrupt any existing layout. The comparatively small scale of the site also means that its effect on settlement pattern overall would be relatively limited.

That said, the cul-de-sac layout would be more typical of suburban development as opposed to the rural fringe. The arrangement of buildings positioned either side of the access road with the rear of Plots 1-6 backing on to dwellings on [address] and taking access from Thistley Green Road would further result in an inward-looking enclave that would appear somewhat separate from [name] rather than presenting a logical and well-integrated extension to the existing built form. This would increase the impression of development encroaching into the countryside and serves to distinguish the proposal from recent development in [name] at [address] which I saw broadly continues adjacent building lines.

Moreover, much of the frontages of Plots 5 and 6 would comprise parking and driveways. Together with the turning head and parking to the side of Plot 7, I consider the extent of hardsurfacing around the end of the cul-de-sac would be dominant and would strengthen the suburban character of the development at odds with the countryside fringe position of the site.

The proposal also includes removal of a number of trees from the site, including a large number that make up the orchard. However, the trees to be removed are generally of low arboricultural quality and those within the orchard are of very limited height and scale such that they are not readily apparent from outside of the site and make a negligible visual contribution to the character and appearance of the wider area. The proposal includes new tree and hedge planting with native species and trees of reasonable scale which would in my view be sufficient to balance the visual impact of tree removals. Details of landscaping are also commonly provided by planning condition and I see no firm reason in this case that further details of planting including the interaction with hard landscaping and drainage features could not reasonably be sought by a planning condition to ensure a suitable relationship.

Nevertheless, mature trees around the boundaries of the site make a notable contribution to the rural character and appearance of the area. [name] am satisfied that building works could be carried out to avoid causing undue damage or detriment to the trees, I have found above that the relationship of Plots 7-9 with trees would detract from the living conditions of occupiers of these dwellings. This could result in future pressure for removal of the trees or works to them which would diminish the contribution that they make to the character and appearance of the area and the rural quality of this part of the countryside.

The dwellings may be taller than many on the closest side of [address] but the variety in the height and scale of development in [name] means that I consider this would not in itself cause the development to stand out as unduly incongruous. I acknowledge that all of the dwellings would be chalet bungalows, including pitched roofs with gable ends. Even so, there would be some differences in the positions, height, architectural detailing and materials of individual buildings providing for a degree of irregularity and diversity along the street scene sufficient to avoid an undue impression of uniformity or monotonous appearance. Furthermore, while there is variety in development in [name], I saw that there are also some groups of similar buildings. Against this context, I find that the design of the buildings would not in itself be inappropriate or cause the development to stand out as dominant or discordant.

Taking the above factors together however, I find that the development as a whole would not respond appropriately to its context. It would fail to integrate sympathetically with the existing edge of [name] and provide an appropriate transition to the surrounding countryside and I conclude that there would be harm to the character and appearance of the area. The comparatively small scale of the site and containment by vegetation means that visual impacts would be localised, but the proposal would nevertheless be contrary to [name] 7, LPP 1, LPP 35, LPP 52 and LPP 67 of the Local Plan. Collectively and amongst other things, these policies broadly seek development that responds positively to local character, context and vegetation; that integrates successfully with the local landscape and features; that protects the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside; and the retention of trees which make a significant positive contribution to the character and appearance of their surroundings.

As part of the application, the appellant provided a [name] including a Protected Species Assessment dated May 2023 (‘the PEA’) and subsequently an [name] note dated August 2025 (‘the UEW’).

The proposal includes the removal of existing buildings along the boundary of the site with Thistley Green Road. While the PEA had assessed these buildings as having negligible suitability for roosting bats, the UEW provided an amended assessment of low suitability in view of the aging and weathering of the buildings. On that basis, the UEW recommended an internal roost inspection survey and a dusk emergence survey in accordance with best practice guidelines.

Government Circular 06/20052 sets out that it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by proposed development is established before planning permission is granted. This would include bats which are included on the list of species of principal importance under section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (as amended) (‘the NERC’). However, the surveys recommended by the UEW are not before me to consider as part of the appeal. Accordingly, I cannot be satisfied that there is not a reasonable likelihood that bats could be present and affected by the proposal. Nor can I be sure that any necessary mitigation or compensation measures to address effects of the proposals on bats which may be present could be properly secured and would be effective.

In addition, I have noted above that the trees making up the orchard on the site are of low arboricultural value and make a limited visual contribution to the area which could be compensated for by new planting. In biodiversity terms however, the appellant’s UEW confirms that this is traditional orchard which is considered UK priority habitat. The UEW further includes a recommendation that the traditional orchard is retained.

Policy LPP 64 of the Local Plan sets out that where priority habitats are likely to be adversely impacted, the developer must demonstrate that adverse impacts will be avoided, and impacts that cannot be avoided are mitigated on site. Where residual impacts remain, off-site compensation will be required so that there is no net loss in quantity and quality of priority habitat in Braintree District.

In this case, the submitted plans show that the trees making up the traditional orchard would be removed and there would be residential plots in their place. I am therefore unclear how the defining elements of the traditional orchard would be retained as the appellant suggests and find instead that there would be a loss of priority habitat listed at section 41 of the NERC. There is no firm detail explaining how the appellant has sought to avoid impacts on the priority habitat before me. Furthermore, there is no substantive ecological evidence before me to clearly demonstrate that new planting including trees, native hedgerows and shrub layers would offer effective mitigation in ecological terms for the loss of priority habitat specifically, nor that there would not be an overall net loss in the quantity and quality of priority habitat in the District.

Whether or not the arboricultural and visual impact of the loss of orchard trees would be limited and new planting could enhance landscape character, the proposal has therefore failed to demonstrate accordance with Policy LPP 64 of the Local Plan, and I am not satisfied that the loss of priority habitat has been appropriately justified or compensated for.

For these reasons, I find that there is insufficient robust evidence to conclude that the proposal would not result in unacceptable adverse effects on protected species and priority habitat. The proposal would therefore be contrary to [name] 64 and LPP 66 of the Local Plan insofar as they broadly seek the protection of 2 Biodiversity and geological conservation – statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system biodiversity and mitigation or compensation for any adverse impacts including on priority habitats.

No specific provision for the storage of domestic waste is indicated on the submitted plans. However, having regard to the indicated plot sizes and layout, storage to serve the individual dwellings would appear achievable and I agree with the Council that such provision could be secured by a planning condition.

Be that as it may, while the appellant has provided tracking details indicating that refuse vehicles could enter and exit the site in forward gear, the Council refers to a revised waste strategy proposing that its waste service operatives will not access private land to collect waste, and will only access public highway. The appellant has not argued that there are grounds to suggest this would not be the position were the development to come forward. Currently, [address] is adopted highway, but the Council notes that none of the proposed dwellings would be within 30m of the public highway, with 30m being the drag distance between dwellings and waste collection points set out in Building Regulations. A public bin collection point would therefore need to be provided in a location which is both within appropriate carry distance from the dwellings and capable of being collected by waste operatives.

The appellant refers to storage within the curtilage of dwellings, but has provided no clear argument or firm detail to suggest that a suitable public collection point meeting these requirements would be achievable, or could be appropriately accommodated. Nor has the appellant argued with any compelling evidence that the access to the site from [address] along Thistley Green Road or the access within the main part of the site would be adoptable, far less that it would be adopted by the Highway Authority such that the need for a separate collection point would be likely to change in future.

From the information before me, I therefore consider it far from clear that occupiers of the site would not find transferring waste between their homes and a point that it could be collected from impractical or unfeasible. Such a situation would be detrimental to living conditions and could lead to bins being left out for prolonged periods which would be unsightly and could cause obstruction. I am not therefore satisfied that there would be suitable arrangements for waste collection by the local authority, nor given the marked level of uncertainty around whether and how suitable arrangements could be achieved that this would be an appropriate matter to defer to a planning condition.

Furthermore, the Council notes that private waste collection arrangements may be a feasible alternative. However, this would need to be properly secured, including to ensure collections would continue in perpetuity. There is no legal agreement or other mechanism before me that would offer sufficient certainty of this. I am not therefore satisfied that private waste collection could reasonably and appropriately be relied upon to offer an alternative to local authority collection.

Notwithstanding that suitable provision for waste storage within individual dwelling plots may be possible, I conclude for these reasons that it has not been demonstrated that there would be adequate provision for waste storage and collection overall. As a consequence, the proposal would conflict with Policy LPP 52 of the Local Plan insofar as it includes a requirement for designs to incorporate details of waste storage and collection arrangements within the site to ensure that impacts on amenity and character are considered and recycling is optimised.

The appellant’s [name] that was submitted as part of the application noted that a surface water outfall to ground would not be viable, but that surface water outfalls to a watercourse or public sewer would be possible. Following the SuDS hierarchy, it identifies a proposed strategy utilising a permeable pavement, hydrobrake and discharge to a ditch on the southern site boundary. The Council notes that there is a lack of detail in respect of drainage of the access road from [address]. However, while Essex County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority raised a holding objection, this referred only to details of the foul water pipe network and discharge location of foul water. No concerns were raised in respect of surface water specifically and in the absence of any compelling evidence to suggest otherwise, it seems to me that further details of surface water drainage could reasonably be secured by planning conditions in this case.

The appellant had not provided firm details or a strategy for foul water as part of the application. However, [name] raised an objection to the development owing to the intended connection to the public foul drainage network. It advised that the site is within the catchment of the [name] (‘WRC’) which currently lacks capacity to accommodate the additional flows that would be generated by the development, and that this would result in associated environmental risk noting increased discharge rates would lead to a deterioration in water quality and an unacceptable risk of breaching environmental legislation. It further indicated that at present, no funding has been allocated to the [name] as part of the Asset Management Plan covering 2025-2030, although it may seek to promote investment through future business plans.

As the appellant notes however, the Framework advises that it should be assumed that pollution control regimes will operate effectively. I agree with the Council that the use of ‘should’ and ‘assume’ would leave scope for the exercise of planning judgement where credible evidence indicates that reliance on the regulatory regime may not be appropriate. In this case however, while [name] refer to a lack of currently allocated funding to upgrade capacity, there is no compelling evidence before me demonstrating that there would be no prospect of additional capacity being delivered, nor that [name] would fail to meet its statutory obligations. It is not therefore apparent that the proposal would contribute to any deterioration of the water quality of the [name] which the [name] discharges into.

The appellant additionally indicates that while the preference would be a connection to the public network, a package sewerage treatment plant could also be installed. It seems to me that this would offer a potential alternative solution to reliance on the public network in a situation where there remained inadequate capacity to appropriately accommodate flows from the development.

Against this background, I find in the specific circumstances of this case that a planning condition requiring a foul water strategy before development took place could ensure there was either adequate capacity within the public network or alternative provision to serve the development without resulting in detriment to watercourses or the environment.

Subject to conditions, I therefore conclude that there would be adequate provision for drainage and I find no conflict with [name] 74, LPP 75 or LPP 76 of the Local Plan insofar as they include requirements broadly seeking appropriate management of surface water and to ensure that development does not increase flood risk or adversely affect watercourses.

In circumstances where a proposal is likely to have a significant effect on European sites designated under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (‘the Habitats Regulations’), there is a duty on the competent authority to consider implications for the conservation objectives of the site within the framework of an Appropriate Assessment. This duty would now fall to me. In accordance with the Framework, Ramsar sites should be given the same protection as [name].

The Essex Coast Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy Supplementary Planning Document 2020 (‘the [name]) outlines that the [name] is home to internationally important numbers of breeding and non-breeding birds and their coastal habitats. A large proportion of the coastline is covered by European and national wildlife designations, with these sites identified as being vulnerable to recreational disturbance.

The RAMS SPD outlines a Zone of Influence within which new residents are likely to travel to the Essex coast sites for recreation. The appeal site is located within this overall Zone of Influence given its proximity to the Blackwater Estuary Special Protection Area and Ramsar site and the Essex Estuaries Special Area of Conservation in particular.

Because the appeal proposes new residential accommodation within this Zone of Influence, it could contribute additional visitors to the [name] sites leading to increased recreational pressure. This pressure, particularly when taken in combination with other plans and projects, could lead to an adverse effect on the integrity of the sites.

The RAMS outlines a strategic approach to delivering mitigation through a package of measures including provision of information and education; fencing, waymarking and screening; managing access; enforcement; habitat creation and monitoring. These measures are funded by a tariff on new residential development. The Council has confirmed that the appellant has now made a direct payment in accordance with the required tariff. Natural England has endorsed the strategic solution to mitigation in the [name], and confirmed in respect of the appeal that direct payment is a method to secure financial contributions for mitigation.

From the information before me, I am satisfied that the proposal would secure adequate mitigation for recreational effects of the development. Accordingly, I find within the framework of an AA that the proposal, with mitigation, would not adversely affect the integrity of the relevant European designated and Ramsar sites included within the RAMS.

On that basis, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the integrity of European designated and Ramsar sites. It would accord with the Habitats Regulations, as well as with [name] 2 and LPP 64 of the Local Plan insofar as they seek to ensure that there would not be adverse effects on the integrity of sites designated for their international importance to nature conservation and require contributions towards mitigation measures in accordance with the RAMS.

The Council notes that the width of parking spaces for Plots 1, 2 and 6 do not fully conform to guidelines in the Essex County Council Parking Standards but that the shortfall could be addressed by planning condition and that harm arising is considered to be modest and attracts only limited weight. It would not therefore justify withholding permission. I have no firm reason to take a different view.

I have considered additional concerns raised by interested parties including in respect of the effects of the development on occupiers of neighbouring dwellings, on highway safety and capacity, and strain on local services and infrastructure. However, none of the other matters raised alter my findings on the main issues or

I have found that the proposal would make adequate provision for drainage and would not harm the integrity of European designated and Ramsar sites. However, the site would not provide a suitable location for housing having regard to its location in countryside. There would be harm to living conditions for some occupiers of the development and harm to the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that there would be adequate provision for waste storage and collection overall, nor that there would not be adverse effects on protected species and priority habitat. In these respects, the proposal would be contrary to [name] 7, LPP 1, LPP 35, LPP 52, LPP 64, LPP 66 and LPP 67 of the Local Plan.

While there would be compliance in other areas, I consider given the conflict that I have identified with a number of policies of the Local Plan and the range and importance of the matters raised that the proposal would conflict with the development plan when it is read as a whole.

At the time the Council determined the application, it was able to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites (‘5YHS’). However, the appellant notes that the Section 1 Local Plan reached five years old in February 2026 meaning that the assessment of 5YHS would need to be carried out against the housing requirement according to the Government’s standard methodology. Given that this is a much higher figure than the requirement within the Local Plan, the Council would no longer be able to demonstrate a 5YHS. The Council has provided no compelling evidence to dispute this or argue that it can still demonstrate a 5YHS.

In the absence of a 5YHS, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is relevant. Given my conclusion that there would not be harm to the integrity of European designated and Ramsar sites, policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance do not provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Planning permission should therefore be granted unless 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.

The absence of a 5YHS also means that the Local Plan’s approach of focusing development to within development boundaries is failing to meet current housing requirements. The Framework highlights the importance of a plan led system, but this context moderates the weight that I afford to the conflict with Policy LPP 1 of the Local Plan arising purely from the location of the site within countryside.

However, the appellant has not argued that the policies noted above would otherwise be inconsistent with the Framework and I have no firm reason to take a different view or reduce the weight that I afford to conflict with them.

Harm to the character and appearance of the area would be localised but would be contrary to requirements within the Framework for well-designed development that is sympathetic to local character and that establishes or maintains a strong sense of place; and for recognition of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

In respect of living conditions for future occupiers, I have only identified adverse effects on Plots 7, 8 and 9, and effects on Plots 7 and 9 would be slight. In the context of the development as a whole, I consider the overall magnitude of harm would be limited. Nevertheless, effects on Plot 8 would be notable and the harm would be contrary to the requirement within the Framework for a high standard of amenity.

The failure to demonstrate that there would not be unacceptable adverse effects on protected species and priority habitat would also be contrary to the Framework insofar as it seeks the protection of sites of biodiversity value and to minimise impacts on biodiversity. I afford significant weight to this factor.

Taken cumulatively, and with the failure to demonstrate adequate provision for waste storage and collection, I consider that the adverse effects of the proposal in these respects would be considerable.

On the other hand, the proposal would contribute nine dwellings to the supply of housing on a site which is in part previously developed. Noting the shortfall in a recalculated 5YHS and in light of the Framework which seeks to significantly boost the supply of homes and to make effective use of land, the provision of housing is an important benefit which would attract significant weight. However, the contribution that nine dwellings would make to the supply of housing and consequently the magnitude of the benefit would be limited

Although the site is located outside of the settlement boundary, occupiers of the development would have access to bus services providing connections to local services and facilities. There would also be economic and social benefits associated with the construction process and longer-term on occupation of the development including employment opportunities in construction, and expenditure by residents which could help to support local services and facilities. I afford moderate weight to these benefits, although they would again be limited given the small scale of the development.

I also afford moderate weight to the proposed environmental sustainability measures which include renewable energy technologies, electric vehicle charging and a ‘MyEnergi’ solution to maximise use of renewable energy, optimise energy storage and reduce reliance on grid-supplied electricity. This would reflect objectives in the Framework to support a transition to a low carbon future and measures in [name] 7, LPP 52 and LPP 72 of the Local Plan encouraging energy conservation and efficiency, and would deliver improvements above what would otherwise be required by policy including significant reductions in carbon emissions and household energy expenditure.

The appellant refers to biodiversity net gain as a benefit of the proposal. [name] indicates that further steps would be necessary to meet the statutory requirement for 10% biodiversity net gain. However, the Council is satisfied that this could be resolved through a [name] condition on any consent. Nevertheless, while I afford moderate weight to the potential for biodiversity net gain as a benefit of the proposal, I consider from the information before me that the extent of the benefit would be likely to be comparatively limited in actual terms and there is no compelling evidence to the contrary.

I have carefully considered the benefits of the proposal, and had particular regard to Framework policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land and securing well-designed places. Taken cumulatively however, the adverse impacts of the proposal would in my judgement significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The proposal would not therefore benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development within the Framework. Neither do I find that there are material considerations which, applying section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, would be sufficient to justify a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would conflict with the development plan when it is read as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that a decision contrary to the development plan should be reached. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.