Appeal 6004058

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for replacement self build dwelling and detached garage at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02417/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The main issues are: i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; ii) the effect of the proposed development upon protected species, with particular regard to [name]; and iii) whether the proposal would comprise self-build / custom build housing.

The appeal site contains a 20th century detached two-storey residential dwelling. The property has been extended in the past with a substantial two-storey side addition, resulting in a wide frontage. The dwelling currently in situ is of no particular architectural merit, and although set back from the roadside, owing to its open frontage, is readily perceptible within the streetscene.

Policy LPP37 of the Braintree Local Plan 2013-2033 (LP) supports proposals to replace an existing dwelling within the countryside where the existing dwelling has no architectural or historical value, which makes a positive contribution to the locality. This applies here. The Council objects only under criterion b) of the policy which seeks to ensure replacement dwellings are no more harmful in landscape or setting terms than the original.

The appeal site lies proximate to a cluster of residential properties. Along [site address] , and within the village, there are a variety of dwelling types and styles, including dwellings with gables and former features within the roof space. [site address] is a narrow lane, and vegetation is present to the frontage of many dwellings, giving it a verdant appearance.

The proposed dwelling would be set slightly further back into the site than the existing, on a similar alignment to the neighbouring property referred to as Millfield. It would retain a driveway and a landscaped garden in the intervening space would help soften the appeal site frontage. Consequently, the siting of the dwelling would not appear unduly conspicuous within the street scene, particularly when compared to the existing.

Policy LPP37 advises that increases in size should not be “significantly larger”. The appellant’s permitted‐development comparison demonstrates this is not the case, and the Council agrees. I reach the same conclusion.

The deep sloping front roof would reflect vernacular properties nearby. The glazed gable entrance to the frontage would tend to emphasise the vertical aspect of the elevation. Nevertheless, it would be modest and not visually intrusive. Furthermore, the two rear gable projections, including the balustrade, would not appear overly prominent given the dwelling’s position and surrounding development.

While additional glazing may create increased light spill, particularly in the evening, the dwelling’s set back position and landscaping to its frontage would reduce its impact in this regard from the public highway. To the rear of the appeal site lies a landscaped garden and it is understood that the barn beyond the appeal site boundary has approval for conversion to a residential dwelling. Although situated within the countryside, the appeal site is proximate to existing built form. Having regard its site-specific context, I am not persuaded that the proposal would have a materially harmful impact on the sites semi-rural setting, or the landscape, in artificial light spillage terms to justify dismissal of the proposal on such grounds.

Notwithstanding the above, there is no indication of external lighting. I therefore consider it reasonable and necessary to require the submission, and approval of, an external lighting scheme by the local planning authority (LPA). This would be in accordance with the provisions of Policy LPP77 of the LP which seeks to control external lighting in the interests of residential and visual amenity, as well as to ensure developments would not result in adverse impacts to local highway users and to avoid harm to biodiversity and natural ecosystems.

Neighbouring properties are constructed in an array of materials, including brick, render and weatherboarding. Tiles and grey larch weatherboard cladding are proposed for the external finish of the proposed dwelling. I observed black and cream painted cladding within the locality, and I do not consider the proposed palette of materials to be unacceptably at odds with the locality. Nevertheless, in the interests of preserving the character and appearance of the area, I shall impose a condition requiring the submission of the external finish to be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.

The detached garage is set back behind the front elevation of the dwelling, which provides some visual relief, such that it would appear as a subordinate, and ancillary structure.

The proposed dwelling’s scale is proportionate to the plot and would not appear dominant or incongruous. The replacement dwelling represents a more contextually sensitive design than the existing modern building and would not result in greater landscape or countryside harm.

For the reasons stated, I conclude that the proposed dwelling would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and would accord with Policies SP7, LPP37, LPP52 and LPP67 of the LP. Collectively, and amongst other things, these seek to secure high quality design that responds to local distinctiveness. Nor do I find conflict with Policy SAL7 of the Sailings Neighbourhood Plan insofar as it seeks development to be designed to a high quality which responds to heritage and distinctive character by way of height, scale, spacing, layout, orientation, design and materials of buildings to reflect the local context and locally used materials and incorporates garden space between and around buildings (or groups of buildings) to avoid an over dense or crammed character.

Although the Council refers to Policy LPP1 in their reason for refusal due to the site falling outside development boundaries, Policy LPP37 directly provides for replacement dwellings, so no conflict arises.

[name] (GCN) are protected, and their potential presence is a material consideration where there is a reasonable likelihood a protected species being present and affected.

The Council considered that insufficient ecological information had been submitted. However, before the application was determined, the appellant provided an [name] and Assessment1, although the Council’s Ecology Officer was not consulted due to time restraints.

The appellant’s assessment identifies the site as predominantly maintained lawn with no features likely to attract reptiles or amphibians. Surrounding gardens also offer no suitable habitat. A nearby garden pond containing fish scored 0.40 on the [name], indicating poor suitability. Two roadside ponds to the southwest were dry, with one scoring 0.31. A further pond to the north was inaccessible and separated from the site by development and fields. With the appeal site consisting of lawn and hardstanding, the assessment concludes there is no suitable terrestrial habitat for GCN. The Essex Field Club also holds no GCN records in the tetrad for the past seventeen years.

The Council does not suggest in its appeal submissions that significant biodiversity harm would arise. Based on the submitted evidence, I conclude there is no reasonable likelihood of GCN or other protected species being affected by the development proposed.

I am therefore satisfied that the proposal would not adversely impact protected species, including GCN, and that it would accord with Policy LP66 of the LP and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) insofar as it seeks to protect and enhance biodiversity. 1 [name] and Assessment for [site address] [name], Prepared by: [name].[name], dated November 2025

The proposal is presented as a self-build scheme. Although this is stated in the description of development, intentions and ownership can change, and without a formal mechanism the self-build status cannot be guaranteed.

To address this, the appellant has submitted a [name] (UU) securing the dwelling as a self‐build/custom‐build unit in accordance with the Self‐Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended).

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that a home is considered self‐build or custom‐build where the initial owner has primary input into its final design and layout. The appellant confirms that they have played a primary role in shaping the design, and I have no reason to doubt this.

I am satisfied that the UU would secure the proposal as a self‐build dwelling. I therefore attach significant positive weight to its contribution to self‐build and custom‐build housing supply.

The Council has suggested several conditions. I have included those which meet the six tests set out in the Framework and the PPG, reworded, where necessary, for clarity. In addition to the statutory commencement condition, a condition is necessary to ensure that the development complies with the submitted plans in the interests of clarity.

To safeguard ecology, I will impose a condition requiring compliance with the measures set out in the submitted [name] and Assessment, along with a condition securing biodiversity enhancement measures to reflect development plan policies and the Framework’s aim of conserving and enhancing biodiversity.

Although demolition and construction impacts would be temporary, the proximity of neighbouring properties justifies a condition restricting construction working hours. I have not included the suggested reference to prohibiting on‐site burning, as this is controlled under separate legislation.

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the development would comply with the development plan as a whole. The appeal is therefore allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan 200 01, Block Plan 205, Proposed Site Plan 202, [name] and Elevations 204.

Notwithstanding the details set out on the approved drawings, no development above slab level shall commence, until a schedule of the external finishes for the development hereby approved has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and maintained as such in perpetuity.

All mitigation measures and/or works shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in the [name] and Assessment, November 2025. This may include the appointment of an appropriately competent person (e.g. an ecological clerk of works) to provide on-site ecological expertise during construction. The appointed person shall undertake all activities, and works shall be carried out, in accordance with the approved details.

No above ground development, excluding any works of demolition, shall commence until a [name] for biodiversity enhancements shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The content of the [name] shall include the following: a) detailed designs or product descriptions for bespoke biodiversity enhancements; and b) locations for bespoke biodiversity enhancements on appropriate drawings. The enhancement measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation and all features shall be retained in that manner thereafter.

No demolition or construction work, or ancillary activities such as deliveries, related to the development hereby permitted shall take place outside of the following hours: 08:00 to 18:00 Mondays to Fridays inclusive, 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays. No demolition or construction work, or ancillary activities such as deliveries, related to the development hereby permitted shall take place at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays.

Prior to installation, details of any proposed external lighting to the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All lighting shall be installed, retained and operated in accordance with the approved details. ***End of Schedule***