Appeal 6003035

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by Thurrock Borough Council against the appellant. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The application is in outline, with all matters reserved. Details of the appearance, layout and scale of the development, landscaping and access would be for later consideration, although it is shown that access would be from [site address] . The application drawings include a layout for four detached dwellings, including plans, elevations and landscaping, which I have treated as being indicative, as confirmed in Planning, Design and Access Statement1 (PDAS). Although the PDAS is titled “[name] 55’s Development”, the application is for self-build and custom housing (SBCH), with no other mention of an age restriction. That is the basis on which the Council considered the proposal, and I have done the same.

A previous application for four dwellings was also the subject of an appeal, which was dismissed2 (the August 2025 appeal). A copy of that decision has been provided, and I have had regard to it where relevant, along with other appeal decisions and evidence cited by the appellant to rebut the Inspector’s conclusions. They include an appeal at The Downs, Elms Lane3, also in Thurrock, which was determined in February 2026. The decision is relevant to the issues before me, particularly as it references the August 2025 appeal. Since the decision had not been made when this appeal was submitted, it could not have been cited earlier. The Council has been given the opportunity to respond. I have taken the [address] decision into account, along with the appellant’s analysis of it, and am satisfied that no unfairness would arise as a result of my having done so. 1 BDA Planning, Design & [name] 2 Appeal Ref: APP/M1595/W/25/3360211 3 Appeal Ref: APP/M1595/W/25/3372887

[name] were submitted with the appeal, both dated prior to the application being determined. The first, dated 31 October 2025, provides for payment of a financial contribution for mitigation of recreational disturbance on European designated sites along the [name]. The second, dated 23 November 2025, sets out a mechanism to secure the provision of SBCH. Revised versions of both UUs were submitted while the appeal was in progress, although the dates were unchanged. The Council has commented on both versions of each UU, including whether they would be effective as submitted, and the appellant has had the opportunity to respond. I consider the UUs further below.

The Planning Statement refers to a Special Landscape Area designation, but no such designation is referenced in the Council’s Officer Report, and it does not appear to be applicable to the appeal site or the village of Fobbing.

In the August 2025 appeal, the Inspector mentions that the Highways Authority had requested further information, but that the Council was satisfied that suitable details could be provided at reserved matters stage. Highway safety was not identified as a main issue.

In contrast, having considered further information provided with this revised application, the Highways Authority recommended refusal. The reasons for refusal reflect that advice, so the effect on highway safety is now a contested issue. Against that background, 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 relevant development plan policies, • the effect on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt, • the effect on highway safety, 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.

In the [name] and Policies for Management of Development (as amended) adopted in 2015 (CSPMD), Policy CSSP4 states that the Council’s policy is to maintain the purpose, function and open character of the Green Belt in accordance with PPG24. Policy PMD6 states that planning permission will only be granted for new development in the Green Belt provided it meets the requirements and objectives of the Framework. Since PPG2 has been superseded by the Framework, the reference to national planning policy in Policy CSSP4 should also be interpreted in that context.

The Framework states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of several exceptions apply, as defined in paragraphs 154 and 155. Those of 4 Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 most relevance to this proposal are paragraph 154e which allows in principle for limited infilling in villages and paragraph 155 which relates to development on Grey Belt land.

There is no dispute that Fobbing can be regarded as a village for purposes of paragraph 154e. However, in the August 2025 appeal, it was concluded that development of four dwellings on the appeal site would not comprise limited infilling. The appeal includes additional evidence to rebut that conclusion.

Fobbing is a linear settlement, with a continuous frontage of suburban housing along [address]. There is more sporadic development on the lanes which radiate off [address], to the west, including [site address] . Currently, that includes a scrap yard and motorhome hire/restoration business just behind the houses along [address], and a dwelling known as Starlight just behind that. These are within an area which ONS data presented by the appellant identifies as already being built up.

Although the appeal site is only just beyond Starlight, it is of an entirely different character to these existing commercial and residential uses, being a parcel of open pasture, with no existing buildings. There is a similar parcel of open land on the opposite site of [site address] and a patchwork of small, hedged fields continues behind the built-up frontage to [address] and out into the wider countryside. There are a few dwellings beyond the appeal site, including the three recently built at Elmlee. However, the appeal site and the other open land separates that small cluster of properties from the more cohesive development along and just behind [address]. The dwellings beyond the appeal site are within a more clearly rural context characterised by small fields and hedgerows.

The introduction of a row of dwellings between Starlight and the Elmlee site would establish a new and more clearly built-up frontage along a section of the [site address] which does not currently have that character. It would not be limited infilling within the established built-up area of the village but would rather extend that built-up envelope into its more rural surroundings.

In the [address] appeal decision5, although the proposed dwellings would have occupied an undeveloped gap on one side of [address], there was existing development opposite, described as being relatively continuous. In contrast, there is no built-up frontage opposite the appeal site. In the [address] appeal6, there was a substantial cluster of residential and commercial uses beyond the site, which had been judged to be within the village envelope.

As was articulated in the [address] decision, whether a proposal amounts to limited infilling is a matter of planning judgement based on the facts in each case. I have had regard to the other appeal decisions brought to my attention, but the specific circumstances differ. In my judgement, for the reasons given above, the proposal would not amount to limited infilling within the village for purposes of paragraph 154e. 5 Appeal Ref: APP/A0665/W/20/3247387 6 Appeal Ref: APP/T0355/W/22/3304595

Both parties consider that the appeal site comprises Grey Belt land as defined in the Framework. The Inspector in the August 2025 appeal also considered it on that basis and I have no reason to reach a different view. Nevertheless, for development on Grey Belt land to be classed as not inappropriate, the criteria set out in paragraph 155a-d of the Framework are applicable, and all those criteria must be satisfied. The dispute focusses on whether the development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework, as required in paragraph 155c. The August 2025 appeal decision concluded that it would not, but additional evidence has been submitted by the appellant to rebut that conclusion.

There are some local services in Fobbing, which remain much as described in the August 2025 decision. They include a farm shop and a bus service along [address]. There is also a wider range of services and facilities in Corringham and Stanford-le-Hope. There is a pavement and street lighting along [address], and the bus stops and some of the local services, particularly those in Fobbing itself, are within a feasible walking or cycling distance. However, the bus service is infrequent, at four services per day on weekdays only. More frequent services at [address] are considerably further away.

Furthermore, since the appeal site is not directly accessed from [address], the bus stops and other services can only be reached via [site address] . That is a privately maintained rural lane, much of which lacks an intact bound surface. There are some very uneven sections with several potholes. There is no street lighting and no separate footpath. Some sections of the lane are narrow and, when I visited the site, I saw that the widest area is also used for parking and manoeuvring of commercial vehicles around the scrap yard.

Taking these conditions into account, in addition to the infrequent nature of the bus service and the distance to the wider range of services in Corringham and Stanford-le-Hope, there are several barriers to walking, cycling and travelling by bus. That would particularly affect future occupiers with poor mobility, and I note that representations from an interested party report that the lane already presents accessibility problems. Walking and cycling along the unmade and uneven surface would be a particularly unattractive option for those needing to access services in hours of darkness or in poor weather. That being the case, I concur with the conclusion in the August 2025 appeal decision that future occupiers would be likely to be reliant on private vehicles.

In the appeal decisions presented by the appellant, there are several examples of other rural sites which have been concluded to be suitably or sustainably located. They include sites with a comparable or worse level of connectivity to the appeal site, according to the Government’s Connectivity Tool (CT). The CT is a recent innovation released in June 2025 and as far as can be determined, that evidence was not before the Inspector when the August 2025 appeal was considered.

A recent Government consultation proposes that reference to the CT should be incorporated into the Framework, to be used to inform the assessment of sites for development, alongside other relevant evidence. Those consultation proposals carry limited weight at this point, being subject to further change. Nevertheless, the underlying purpose of the CT, as described by Government representatives at its launch, is to provide a consistent national measure of what constitutes a sustainable location in transport terms.

For any location, the CT provides an overall score based on connectivity to a range of destinations by different modes of transport. According to the evidence before me, the appeal site gains an overall score of 37 (below average). That is comparable to other rural sites which have been concluded to be sustainably located, notably those at [name] and 30 Conduit Lane7. A site referred to as land to the east of [address] is also described as having a similar score. It is a higher score than for some other sites which have been found to be sustainably located, such as [address] and Harewarren Farm8 and significantly higher than the appeal site at [address]. However, the Renhold Road9 case is less relevant, since the Inspector concluded that the site was not suitably located, but that was outweighed by other factors in the planning balance.

Inspectors make their decisions based on the evidence before them. There is no reference to the CT in the [address] decision and no clear indication whether CT output was presented in that case, or any of the other decisions cited. Where the decisions were made prior to launch of the tool, it is clear that it was not.

It is not unexpected that rural locations have below average scores, as that reflects the reality that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions are more limited in rural areas. The examples provided also reveal that sites with a wide range of scores have been deemed sustainable based on the evidence available, albeit there can be little certainty whether the same decision would have been reached with the benefit of CT evidence. In any case, while the CT provides a useful, objective means of comparing the connectivity of different locations, it does not purport to introduce any specific threshold above which a particular location is automatically deemed to be sustainable.

Furthermore, as far as can be determined from the shaded maps presented, the CT score at the junction with [address] is much the same as at the appeal site. In reality, [address] has a wider, tarmacked surface, with pavements, providing a much more attractive environment for walking or cycling in all weathers. There is street lighting to support safer travel at night. Those very different characteristics do not appear to be captured in the CT results and are relevant to the likely reliance by future occupiers on travel by car.

In the [address] case, although occupiers of the proposed dwelling would also have had to pass existing commercial uses, the Inspector’s decision confirms that no highway safety issues had been raised. There are also other cases cited in which the absence of any highways objection was among the reasons given for concluding that a site was sustainably located. That differs from the appeal proposal, where highway safety concerns have been raised which could have a bearing on future occupiers’ transport choices.

Having taken into account the qualitative factors leading to likely reliance on the private car, alongside the CT score and all the other evidence before me, I conclude that the appeal site is not sustainably located for purposes of paragraph 155c of the Framework. That being the case, the proposal does not meet all the 7 Appeal Refs: APP/B1930/W/24/3349774 & APP/X1545/W/25/3372731 8 Appeal Refs: APP/R3650/W/24/3352222, APP/K0235/W/25/3360479 & APP/N1730/W/25/3359381 9 Appeal Ref: APP/K0235/W/25/3360479 requirements in paragraph 155. Neither paragraph 154e nor any of the other exceptions in paragraph 154 are applicable. I therefore conclude that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, as defined in the Framework. It follows that it would conflict with Policies CSSP4 and PMD6 due to its non-compliance with the Framework.

Having concluded that the proposal would be inappropriate development, the effect on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt should be considered.

Currently the site is devoid of built development. It has a palpably open character, with views across the site being available from [address], through the access gates and over the boundary hedges. Even allowing for the fact that the details of appearance, scale and layout are indicative, the erection of four dwellings would inevitably cause a significant loss of openness. In spatial terms, there would be a more continuous ribbon of development along [site address] , radiating out from the largely linear village. Visually, the dwellings, hard landscaping, parked cars and other domestic features, would significantly erode the open aspect along this side of [site address] , however they are laid out.

According to evidence from the Council and Highways Authority, [site address] is a public right of way (no. 226) as well as a private access road. Therefore, the loss of openness would be experienced by members of the public using the rights of way network, as well as by those relying on [site address] to access their homes.

Any housing provided within or around rural settlements could be said to undermine the Green Belt purpose of assisting in urban regeneration to some extent. The rural characteristics of the land beyond Starlight would be eroded, which would conflict with the Green Belt purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. However, there would be no conflict with the other three Green Belt purposes. The proposal would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the Borough, but there would be some conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt at a more localised level.

The three dwellings approved at Elmlee were judged by the Council not to have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the pre-existing development on that site. The development was also concluded not to conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. Against that background, the Council concluded that the three dwellings were not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, based on the provisions of paragraph 154g of the Framework for redevelopment of previously developed land.

Unlike paragraph 155, paragraph 154g does not require consideration of whether the proposed development would be sustainably located. There were also pre-existing uses on the site which may have been considered relevant to the suitability of the location for a residential redevelopment. Therefore, the approved scheme at Elmlee differs in a number of respects from the current proposal and it does not outweigh the conclusions I have reached on the Green Belt matters.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt, in both spatial and visual terms. It would also conflict, to a more limited extent, with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.

The Highways Authority’s objection related amongst other things to additional use of [site address] , with particular reference to the construction and layout of the junction with [address] and its capability to accommodate increased usage. The Council’s Officer Report also alludes to the condition of [site address] and the lack of safe walking/cycling routes. I have considered the highway safety issues with those concerns in mind.

As previously described, [site address] is a privately maintained lane which provides access to several existing commercial and residential properties. In the road network hierarchy underpinning Policy PMD9 of the CSDMP, it is defined as a Level 3 route, whereas [address] is a Level 2 route (rural road). At the junction between the two routes, there is no kerb delineating the edge of the pavement along [address]. The turning radii appear tight and relatively undefined due to the soft grass verges and peripheral vegetation. Along [site address] , the condition of the road surface, lack of pavements or street lighting and the presence of commercial uses with large vehicles are all features which could influence safe use of the route by vehicles and pedestrians.

The Highways Authority describes [site address] as a private access drive, not built to contemporary highway design standards and the layout of the junction and the condition of the lane appear consistent with that description. Nevertheless, at the time of my site visit there was a light but steady flow of vehicles in and out of [site address] , including large commercial vehicles. While that is only a snapshot in time, there are commercial uses which could be expected to generate traffic, including larger vehicles, on a regular basis. Two-way movements are possible at the junction, but it was evident that vehicles were slowing quite considerably in order to navigate the junction. Some loose surface material was spilling out onto [address], which could present a hazard to road users.

Policy PMD9 requires amongst other things that development makes a positive contribution to road safety or road safety is not prejudiced. It also limits the increased use of existing accesses to rural roads, other than for small-scale uses permissible in the Green Belt which do not adversely affect road safety or limit capacity. The policy furthermore requires that the provision of accesses to rural roads is consistent with a Layout and [name]. While no SPD with that title is before me, the Highways Authority’s advice is that [site address] does not meet current design standards. No substantive evidence has been presented to the contrary, with the appellant’s evidence focussing largely on visibility along [address], which the Highways Authority does not dispute is acceptable, rather than the layout of the junction or the condition of [site address] itself.

The Highways Authority describes the [address] junction as already being at the very edge of acceptable for circa four existing dwellings and two business uses, before upgrading to a fully kerbed radius is required. In fact, there are more than four existing dwellings, indicating that the non-compliance with current design standards is already more acute than they described.

Notwithstanding the likelihood that occupiers of dwellings along [site address] would largely travel by car, it is a public right of way, so some pedestrian presence can be expected, including for recreational use. While there may have been no recorded personal injury accidents to date, the risk of conflict between vehicles and pedestrians would increase with additional usage. The traffic generated by four dwellings may be limited, but it would be over and above an existing baseline which the Highways Authority has described as being beyond recommended limits. As such, a further incremental increase, with no associated improvements to the lane or the junction, would conflict with the requirements in Policy PMD9.

Since the appeal site does not include any part of [site address] , there is no evidence that the lane or the junction with [address] are within the appellant’s control. That being the case, there is no opportunity to secure improvements to the lane or [address] junction as part of the scheme, or through planning conditions. In contrast, according to the Highways Authority’s response, the much larger Waterworks scheme included an upgraded access to meet the requirements of Policy PMD9.

As well as a bungalow, the [name] for the approved scheme at Elmlee states that the site previously contained equestrian buildings, at least some of which were still in use for leisure purposes. Therefore, there were pre-existing uses which would have generated some level of traffic to and from the site and that may have been a factor in the different approach taken to that application. The appeal decisions at Hatches House10 and [address] also involved narrow, rural lanes. However, in the case of [address], the decision letter confirms that the access to [address] would be constructed to modern standards, as well as having satisfactory visibility. [address] was found not to be an unattractive route for future occupiers to walk or cycle. Therefore, both those cases differed in material respects from the specific circumstances at [site address] .

For the reasons given above, based on the evidence before me, I am not persuaded that the proposed development could be implemented without having an unacceptable impact on highway safety. That would conflict with the relevant requirements in Policy PMD9 of the CSPMD and also with Policy PMD2, which requires amongst other things that development proposals must allow easy and safe access for all members of the community. It would also conflict with relevant requirements in the Framework, including the requirement in paragraph 115 that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users, and the provision in paragraph 116 for development to be refused if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

The second reason for refusal also refers to a [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2017, which does not appear relevant to this proposal for new dwellings. Nevertheless, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and Framework, for the reasons given.

There is a substantial shortfall in housing land supply in Thurrock, according to the [name], with the supply standing at only just over one year. As such, there is a demonstrable unmet need for housing and the proposed development would make a modest contribution towards addressing that need.

The appellant also presents evidence of a significant shortfall in the supply of SCBH, against demand identified from the Council’s self-build register. That 10 Appeal Ref: APP/Z3825/W/25/3371919 evidence has not been disputed, and the [name] acknowledges that the development plan does not currently include any sites for SCBH.

One of the UUs submitted with the appeal aims to secure the delivery of SCBH on the site. The plan attached to the UU is ambiguous, as the boundary is not clearly defined in red, as stated in the text. Although a revised version has been submitted, the date of the deed is the same, with only the relevant page having been updated. Therefore, I cannot be fully confident that a properly executed deed has been completed, including a clear and accurate plan. The Council has also proposed a number of textual amendments to ensure that the UU is effective. Nevertheless, on the face of it, a mechanism is proposed by which four SCBH plots could be secured, contributing to the unmet need.

Paragraph 63 of the Framework makes clear that provision should be made for housing for different groups, including people wishing to commission or build their own homes and paragraph 73 is more specifically supportive of opportunities being sought for small sites to come forward for SCBH. The extracts quoted from the Holyport appeals11 indicate that the provision of SCBH was given very significant favourable weight in those cases, contributing to a conclusion that there were very special circumstances outweighing the harm to the Green Belt. However, they were in a different local authority, and the circumstances cannot easily be compared, although it is clear that the number of plots across both the Holyport appeals would have been greater.

The weight to be attributed to any particular consideration in the planning balance is a matter of judgement for the decision-maker, based on the specific circumstances of the case. In this case, even in the context of the substantial shortfall in housing land supply generally, and SCBH plots specifically, and even if the UU was clearly effective in securing SCBH, in my judgement the benefits from four additional SCBH plots on this site would carry no more than moderate weight.

Although the Framework is supportive of efficient use of land, particularly in urban areas and on previously developed sites, it also makes clear that the essential characteristics of Green Belts include openness. In that context, the more intensive use of the land for housing should be given very little positive weight.

At this point, very little weight can be given to the intended architectural approach, sustainability measures or sourcing of local materials, as described in the PDAS, since those would be subject to change, with primary design input from future SCBH occupiers, at the reserved matters stage. The layout for parking and servicing of the development would also be a reserved matter.

The Council did not allege any harm in relation to living conditions for future occupiers or occupiers of neighbouring properties, or drainage, subject to consideration of a detailed design at a later date. Construction-related noise and disruption would be time-limited and could be regulated through conditions, and no site-specific ecology concerns were raised. However, these are all neutral considerations, weighing neither for nor against the proposal.

A potential ransom strip was mentioned in the [name]. If that is the case it could prejudice implementation of the development, but that would be a matter to be resolved between the affected landowners, outside the scope of this appeal. 11 Appeal Refs: APP/T0355/W/22/3309281 & APP/T0355/W/23/3314990

In addition to the appeal decisions supplied by the appellant, the PDAS includes examples of recent planning permissions around the site, but with little supporting information to confirm whether the circumstances in relation to development in the Green Belt or highway safety were similar. I have had regard to all the other decisions mentioned, to the extent that they are detailed in the evidence before me, while focussing on those most clearly relevant to the appeal proposal in the reasoning above.

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt as defined in the Framework. There would be significant harm to openness, in both spatial and visual terms and the development would conflict to a more limited extent with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. Based on the evidence before me, it has not been demonstrated that safe and suitable access to the highway can be provided, in conflict with relevant provisions of the development plan and the Framework, and that is also a matter to which I have given significant weight.

The Framework states that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt including harm to its openness. Very special circumstances will not exist unless that harm, and any other harm resulting from the development, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The benefits of the proposal derive primarily from its contribution to the supply of housing generally and SCBH housing in particular. For the reasons given above, I have given those benefits no more than moderate weight. Even if the benefits to housing supply are considered in combination with all other positive factors, the other considerations fall well short of clearly outweighing the harm to the Green Belt, including the harm to openness, and the other harm. I therefore conclude that the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

That being the case, there is a strong reason for refusing the development following the application of policies in the Framework to protect the Green Belt. Paragraph 11di of the Framework is applicable and the development does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The appeal site lies within a defined Zone of Influence for [name], designated in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (Habitats Regulations). Within that Zone, increased recreational disturbance arising from cumulative growth in housing has been identified as having a likely significant effect on the qualifying features of those sites. The Essex Coast Recreational disturbance Avoidance and [name] (RAMS) provides a mechanism for the avoidance and mitigation of recreational disturbance, funded through developer contributions (the RAMS contribution).

The October 2025 UU provides for payment of the RAMS contribution, but the figure stated is out of date. That is not a matter which can be corrected by hand, as a new completed deed would be required. The Council has also identified other flaws in the UU, both in the version as originally submitted, and as revised, which could affect whether payment of the RAMS contribution is adequately secured. [name] been otherwise minded to allow the appeal, these would have been factors informing the appropriate assessment required under the Habitats Regulations. However, since I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, there is no need for me to consider the matter any further.

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