Appeal 6003988

The appeal is dismissed.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst broad changes to the structure of the Framework are proposed as part of this consultation, these proposals could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024.

There appears to be a typographical error on the appeal form and in the banner heading above I have used the site address as referred to on the Council’s decision notice.

The main issues are the effect of the appeal proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area; and, • the integrity of the European designated sites.

The appeal site comprises part of a strip of vegetated land, and also incorporates a parking area accessed from [site address] . It is located to the north of dwellings lining [site address] , running adjacent to a Public Right of Way (PRoW). The surrounding area is characterised by brick built densely developed two storey dwellings, in short terraces or link detached, fronting streets and cul-de-sacs.

The appeal site contains mature oak trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order. They are visible from the PRoW and surroundings, including the gaps between houses and from the street, and they significantly contribute to the visual amenity of the area. The vegetated appeal site and adjacent land to its north-west contributes to the open, verdant character of the area surrounding the PRoW which serves to provide a breathing space and sense of openness in the otherwise densely developed residential estate.

I have been referred to a previous appeal decision on this site (reference APP/V1505/W/21/3274768) where the Inspector found that the proposed dwelling “would be somewhat divorced from the street scene and neighbouring dwellings, and it would stand out discordantly against the characteristic layout of development nearby where buildings are typically positioned in groups fronting the streets”. The Inspector also found that the dwelling would result in an “awkward intrusion of built form into the undeveloped buffer between [site address] and [address]”.

The proposed house would be located fairly centrally within the appeal site, with the southern elevation running alongside the rear boundary of 57 [site address] . It would not have any relationship with a street frontage and would appear as a stand-alone dwelling in an otherwise open, vegetated area adjacent to the PRoW. Consequently, the proposal would be at odds with the surrounding pattern of development in that it would be incongruously located relative to the houses lining [site address] and [address].

The evidence before me indicates that there have been no substantive changes in development plan policy since the previous appeal was dismissed. Although the location of the dwelling would be set back further to the south-east than the previous appeal scheme, the dwelling’s orientation and footprint would be similar. I have no reason to reach a different conclusion than the previous Inspector with respect to the effect of the proposed dwelling on the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to the appeal scheme’s integration with the surrounding pattern of development.

I acknowledge the proposed house would be reasonably subservient in terms of its height and mass relative to other 2 storey dwellings in the surrounding area. Nevertheless, the dwelling would be an intrusive form of development in terms of its effect on the openness of the immediate surroundings and would be at odds with the established pattern of development.

I acknowledge the appellant’s point that the site is not located within a conservation area or subject to any other heritage designation. Nevertheless, Policy BAS BE12 of the Basildon District Local Plan Saved [name] 2007 (Local Plan) states that planning permission for new residential development will be refused if it causes material harm to the character of the surrounding area, including the street scene. The aim of this policy insofar as it relates to the effect of proposals upon character and appearance, is not dependent upon development sites being located within any specific heritage designation.

The proposed materials including the use of brick, wood cladding and a sedum roof would also be appropriate. Nevertheless, this would not overcome the harm I have identified above.

For the reasons identified above, the proposal would be contrary to Local Plan Policy BAS BE12 insofar as it states that planning permission for new residential development will be refused if it causes material harm to the character of the surrounding area, including the street scene. The proposal would also conflict with paragraph 135 of the Framework insofar as it seeks development proposals to be sympathetic to local character including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting.

The appeal site falls within the Zone of Influence of European designated sites scoped into the [name] disturbance [name] (RAMS), namely the Blackwater Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site. The site is designated due to the internationally important numbers of breeding and non-breeding birds and their coastal habitats.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations) require the decision maker to undertake an Appropriate Assessment (AA) where there are likely significant effects from the proposal, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. This responsibility falls to me as the competent authority in the context of this appeal.

It would be a reasonable assumption that occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be likely to visit local European protected coastal areas for recreation, as evidenced by the visitor research carried out in support of the Essex Coast RAMS Supplementary Planning Document 2020. Any increase in visitor numbers to these sites would result in recreational pressure requiring mitigation. I therefore consider that the effect of the proposed dwelling, both on its own and in combination with other development projects, is such that it is likely to have significant effects on the integrity of the sites.

The Essex Coast RAMS sets out a strategic approach to mitigation by several councils across the wider area. It details mitigation measures that would be funded by financial contributions at a specified tariff per dwelling, which increases with indexation each financial year. Since these include a range of habitat-based measures such as education, communication, and monitoring, and have been endorsed by Natural England, I am satisfied that the measures would adequately overcome any adverse effects of the appeal scheme on the SPA and Ramsar sites. The Council indicates that the proposal would attract a RAMS tariff of £169.45.

I note the willingness of the appellant to provide the appropriate contribution. Although the Council state that an online payment could be provided, there is no evidence before me that the RAMS contribution has already been paid. Neither is there a completed planning obligation before me that would secure a mitigation payment.

In the absence of appropriate mitigation, the scheme would have likely significant effects on the integrity of the SPA and Ramsar sites. The appellant has not demonstrated there are no alternative solutions to providing unmitigated housing at the site. Imperative reasons of overriding public interest do not exist and there are no other considerations that clearly outweigh the harm to the designated sites. Given a competent authority may agree to a plan or project, only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of Habitats sites, Regulation 63(5) of the Regulations precludes the development from proceeding.

In conclusion on this main issue therefore, the appeal scheme would have likely significant effects upon the [name] and Ramsar as designated habitats sites. It would therefore conflict with the Habitats Regulations and the Framework.

The Council is satisfied with matters including the layout and standard of accommodation proposed, effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, highway safety, trees and biodiversity. I do not have substantive evidence to contradict the conclusions of the Council in these matters, so I see no reason to disagree. Nevertheless, the absence of harm means these are neutral considerations in my determination of the appeal.

The proposal would deliver a single new dwelling and it would be an efficient use of land in a sustainable location. It would support the Government’s aim of significantly boosting the supply of homes. However, the addition of a single home would provide a limited contribution in this context, and I attach limited weight to this benefit. There would also be temporary and ongoing economic benefits from the development through construction and future residents’ use of local shops and services. However, given the small scale of development, those benefits would be limited.

The proposal would achieve over 10% [name], which I consider a moderate benefit to the scheme.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, the Council’s delegated report quoting a supply of 1.88 years. In such circumstances paragraph 11 of the Framework says that permission should be granted unless policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusal.

The protection of designated habitats sites is one such national policy. Given the potential for harm to be caused to the integrity of the European designated sites, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is not applicable in this instance and is not therefore a material consideration in favour of the proposal.

The appeal scheme would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and the lack of mitigation in respect of the identified European designated sites would cause likely significant effects upon those sites. The proposal conflicts with the development plan read as a whole. Material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.