Appeal 6003999

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect on the character and appearance of the area; • the location of the development outside a defined settlement boundary; • the accessibility to services and facilities for future occupants; and • whether the proposed housing mix would be appropriate.

The appeal site is situated on the edge of [site address] , and within the countryside. The Landscape Character Assessments1 before me identify the site as being set within the [name] and the Tillingham and [name] character areas. The evidence sets out the key characteristics of these character areas comprise rectilinear field patterns, thick long hedgerow boundaries providing a sense of enclosure with a gently undulating landform and occasional small woodlands.

The appeal site comprises an open green field bound by established hedgerow. It is set within a countryside gap adjacent to the [site address] settlement boundary which visually appears on the opposite side of [site address] where dwellings are set in a regular pattern of development. The appeal site therefore appears distinct from the dwellings on the opposite side of [site address] within [site address] . The area beyond the settlement boundary is verdant and 1 Essex & Southend-on-Sea Essex Landscape Assessment (2003) & Braintree, Brentwood, Chelmsford, Maldon and Uttlesford Landscape Character Assessment (2006). only contains limited and sporadic low-density development. Whilst not subject to a formal designation, the site positively contributes to the area as part of the rural and verdant countryside edge.

The development would introduce three dwellings to the appeal site, resulting in the harmful urbanisation of the verdant open field. The shared access point and positioning of Plot 2 in a backland location would make the development read as a small suburban cluster. This would create a prominent domestic presence past the visual confides of the established settlement boundary of [site address] eroding the positive open rural character and countryside edge appearance of the site.

Whilst the boundary vegetation would provide some screening, clear views of the development would remain available through the access, along with glimpses through the foliage. The harm identified would still be perceptible within the area where it would be seen as out of keeping. The boundary vegetation would therefore not mitigate or otherwise justify the harm that I have identified.

Overall, the development would result in considerable harm to the character and appearance of the area, that would not integrate well into the surrounding landscape or respond to the low density pattern of development within the countryside area outside of the settlement boundary.

The evidence shows that the site allocation S2(j) for 180 dwellings is situated behind the appeal site, which I observed on my visit. However, this development retains an open space fronting onto [site address] which does not undermine the rural appearance of the appeal site and the positive role it plays in the countryside edge. If anything, the existence of this allocation highlights the importance of the appeal site in ensuring the character and appearance of the area is not undermined in this location.

A number of dwellings have been brought to my attention outside the settlement boundary which have been granted planning permission by the Council along [site address] . I have been provided with very limited information of the specific circumstances in which these were granted planning permission so cannot be certain they are directly comparable to the appeal proposal. In any case, these examples are set on the opposite side of [site address] or a considerable distance from the [site address] boundary so are not directly comparable to the

The development would therefore conflict with Policies D1, H4, S1 and S8 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017) (LDP). These policies, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure that development is of a high quality design that respects and enhances the character and local context and not adversely impact the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

LDP Policy H2 sets out that developments will be expected to provide a suitable mix and range of housing in terms of size, type and tenure to reflect local housing need and demand in both the market and affordable sector. The most recent evidence is contained within the Council’s Technical Advice Note on [name] (2025) (TAN), which sets out guidance for the implementation of Policy H2 and provides a suggested housing mix based on the Local Housing Needs Update (2025) (LHNA)2.

There are no exemptions within Policy H2 which precludes small sites from providing a suitable mix to reflect local housing need and demand. However, the parties agree that due to the nature of smaller sites achieving a precise mix is not always possible and a more flexible approach should be applied in these circumstances. This is a position also set out in the TAN, and one that I see no reason to disagree with. Nevertheless, the proposed development would only provide three 4-bed dwellings which would not be reflective of the mix set out in the LHNA, even accounting for the flexibility for smaller sites as it would only provide larger dwellings.

The appellant contends that the surrounding character of the area comprises larger dwellings which justifies the approach taken. However, there is no flexibility provided in Policy H2 to deviate from a mix on the basis of the character and appearance of the area. The appellant also considers that there would be opportunities on more urban sites to provide a greater number of smaller units. However, I have no evidence before me of sites which could balance the overprovision of larger units at this site and again, there is no flexibility within the wording of Policy H2 to deviate from the evidence based housing mix on this basis.

The development by only providing three larger dwellings would not provide a suitable mix and range of housing in terms of size, type and tenure to reflect local housing need and demand and would therefore conflict with Policy H2 of the LDP.

Policy S1 of the LDP seeks to provide a sustainable level of housing growth that meets local needs and that a wide choice of high-quality homes is delivered in the most sustainable locations. Policy S2 sets out that strategic growth will be focused at the main settlements, whilst planning for a minimum of 310 dwellings per year over the plan period.

Policy S8 identifies [site address] as a main settlement. It also explains that it will support sustainable development within the defined boundaries. Outside of settlement boundaries permission will only be granted where the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside is not adversely impacted upon and one of a number of criteria is met.

The appeal site is set within the countryside outside of a defined settlement boundary. It would be harmful to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside for the reasons previously given and would not meet any of the criteria of LDP Policy S8.

In these circumstances, the location of the development would conflict with Policies S1, S2 and S8 of the LDP which provides the evidence based and plan-led approach to development. 2 Table 2 – 1-bed 10%, 2-bed 35%, 3-bed 35% and 4-bed 20%.

The proposed development would be located within walking distance of bus stops situated along [address]. The evidence shows that the services provide regular routes between [site address] , Maldon and Chelmsford, providing realistic alternatives to the private car to meet daily needs. However, to access the bus stops, future occupiers would be required to walk along [site address] , an unlit road which does not feature a pedestrian footpath. In addition, a very short portion of the walk up from the site access to the junction with [name] is subject to the national speed limit, before changing to a 30mph speed limit.

The Highways Report3 submitted alongside the planning application contained a speed survey which identified that the 85th percentile speeds of vehicles approaching the appeal site from the western direction was 13.6mph and from the east was 36.7mph, considerably below the speed limit designations. In addition, the highways evidence4 submitted with the appeal demonstrates that along the northern edge of [site address] are regular strips of grassed or paved land which can be walked along or serve as a step-in which would allow for pedestrians to step off the carriageway. I also observed that [site address] was relatively flat and linear, providing good pedestrian visibility.

Whilst access to these bus stops may be more limited outside of daylight hours, on balance the evidence shows that it would not be particularly challenging or unattractive for future occupiers to walk along [site address] to the nearby bus stops situated along [address]. It therefore follows that future occupiers would have an alternative to the private motor car to help meet their daily needs.

The proposal would therefore comply with Policies T1, T2, H4 and S1 of the LDP in this regard. These policies, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure development secures provisions for sustainable transport, minimises the need to travel and where travel is necessary, prioritises sustainable modes of transport, and provides safe and direct walking and cycling routes to nearby services, facilities and public transport where appropriate.

The appeal site is situated adjacent to the [name] listed building [address]. The statutory duty set out in s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), requires that I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting. The evidence shows that the architectural interest of the building and the semi-rural setting in which the asset is experienced as a rural cottage forms part of its significance, albeit [address] no longer appears as an isolated rural dwelling given the nearby development. Due to the proposed dwelling within Plot 1 adjacent to [address] being of one and a half storeys in height, the development would not be overly imposing in the surrounding views of [address]. In addition, the evidence shows that the appeal site has no direct historical connection to the asset. Therefore, the setting of [address] and the contribution the setting makes to its significance would be preserved by the proposal. In this regard, I note the Council also raised no objection. 3 By Redwood Partnership dated March 2025 4 By Redwood Partnership dated January 2026

Regulation 63(1) of the Habitats Regulations indicates the requirement for an Appropriate Assessment is only necessary where the competent authority is minded to give consent for the proposal. Whilst the appellant has paid mitigation towards the Recreational disturbance Avoidance and [name], since I am dismissing the appeal on other grounds it is not necessary to address this in any further detail.

Whilst the recommendation of the Council’s officers was overturned by the members of the Council’s planning committee, members are not bound to follow the advice of their Officers, and the decision of the Council was to refuse the application. Therefore, this does not alter my conclusion on the main issues in this case.

The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, with both parties providing a figure of 2.7 years. I see no reason to come to a different conclusion. The provisions of paragraph 11(d) of the Framework are therefore engaged. Footnote 8 confirms in these circumstances, the policies which are most important for determining the application are deemed to be out-of-date. Paragraph 232 of the Framework confirms due weight should be given to policies, according to their consistency with the Framework.

The Council is not meeting its local housing needs through the policies of its development plan. It is therefore not meeting the social objective of the Framework to ensure a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations. Therefore, even with paragraph 61 of the Framework seeking to ensure an appropriate mix of housing is provided, given the considerable deficit in the overall supply of housing the conflict with [name] H2, S1, S2 and S8 in relation to the location of the development and housing mix carries very limited weight against the proposal.

The importance of achieving well-designed development is a key aspect of sustainable development as set out in paragraph 8 of the Framework. Paragraph 139 is clear that development which is not well designed should be refused and paragraph 135 seeks to ensure development adds to the overall quality of the area and is sympathetic to local character. Paragraph 187b) recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. [name] D1, H4, S1 and S8 in relation to matters of character and appearance are therefore consistent with the Framework. Therefore, on this basis and the harm identified the conflict with these policies carries significant weight against the development.

The appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and with the aforementioned parts of the Framework.

The Government’s objective is to significantly boost the supply of housing, including through small and medium schemes. The proposal would contribute towards this objective by providing three dwellings at the appeal site which would contribute towards the Council’s housing land supply. It would also lead to a small and time limited economic benefit during the construction phase, as well as some limited social and economic benefits resulting from future occupiers. The proposal would achieve a biodiversity net gain. However, taking into account the scale of the development, this results in important but small benefits attracting moderate positive weight in favour of the proposal.

Overall, the adverse effects of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole. The presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply.

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, I conclude that for the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.