Appeal 6004311

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would be appropriately located having regard to the character and appearance of the area, the accessibility of services and facilities, the development plan, and any material considerations.

Policy LPP1 of the Braintree Local Plan 2013-2033 (LP) defines development boundaries across the district where development is generally considered sustainable subject to details. The policy states that development outside such boundaries will be confined to uses appropriate to the countryside whilst also protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils to protect the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

[name] SP7, LPP35, LPP52 and LPP67 deal with matters of design. Amongst other things, they require the density and massing of residential development to relate to the character of the site and its surroundings, including the character of the landscape, with a high standard of layout and design where scale, height and overall elevational design should reflect or enhance the local area. LP Policy LPP42 seeks the facilitation of sustainable modes of transport to promote accessibility and integration into the wider community and existing networks.

The appeal site is located outside any development boundary and to the north of [address], a hamlet north-east of Finchingfield. It comprises a small brick barn with a metal sheet roof, and two larger barns, one timber clad and the other metal framed with corrugated sheeting. Hardstanding is laid between the barn entrances with an access track leading beyond the site to [address]. The buildings appear to be used for informal storage purposes at present but retain a farmyard character and appearance due to their design and layout.

The area surrounding the site is predominantly rolling open countryside with expansive views across fields. There are a handful of properties to the south along [address], while immediately to the east is the property known as [address], which is two storeys with a [name] listed dovecote further to the east. Along the site boundary are two modern or refurbished timber clad buildings with clay tiled roofs that appear to be part of [address]. Despite the proximity of [address] and other properties, the area has a strong rural character and appearance which the existing site fits comfortably into.

The proposed development would not extend into the surrounding fields and would be clustered around a pond and green space to provide a courtyard layout. The two larger barns which have limited architectural merit would be demolished, while the more attractive brick barn would be retained and re-roofed. Quality materials are proposed for each of the four dwellings that would be sympathetic to the rural surroundings in terms of timber cladding, bricks, render, and clay tile or slate roofs. There would be no adverse effect on the setting of the listed dovecote.

However, the dwellings would be large two storey properties in terms of footprint, depth, volume and height. There would be a cluttered mix of architectural styles and detailing including large areas of glazing on Plots 2 and 4, an elongated porch at Plot 1, and a long blank elevation to the site of Plot 3 with the retained brick barn. The middle of the site would be dominated by an access road around the pond and green space with several car parking spaces serving the properties.

Consequently, the proposed development would have an overly urban and incongruous character and appearance that would not be sympathetic to the countryside location. While pre-application advice advocated a farmstead grouping to reflect small rural clusters of housing elsewhere, this proposal would not be in keeping with such an approach due to its layout and design. Boundary planting and landscaping would help to soften the visual effect, but the development would still be discordant in the wider landscape due to its scale and form. Therefore, the proposed development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and would not accord with [name] LPP1, SP7, LPP35, LPP52 and LPP67. It would also not adhere to paragraphs 131, 135 and 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which seek good design that is sympathetic to local character and maintains a strong sense of place.

Finchingfield has a range of services and facilities in line with its LP status as a [name] settlement, including a primary school, post office, food and drink premises, and bus services to larger settlements. However, it is over 1.5km from the site along a 60mph road with no street lighting or pavements. Based on these conditions, it is unlikely that residents of the proposed development would walk into the village or even cycle notwithstanding the provision of bike storage within the properties. Consequently, there is likely to be a reliance on the private car to access services and facilities. Therefore, the development would not provide acceptable access to services and facilities, contrary to LP Policy LPP42. [name] paragraph 110 notes that transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, it still promotes patterns of growth that are sustainable.

The site benefits from prior approval for the change of use of the existing buildings to three dwellinghouses (ref 23/02351/COUPA). The decision notice is dated 4 January 2024 and states that the use of the buildings as dwellinghouses must be completed within three years from the decision date. While there is less than 9 months to go until the three years expires, there is a real prospect that the prior approval could be implemented should this appeal be dismissed. Therefore, the existence of an extant prior approval as a fallback position carries material weight in this decision. Despite the comments of some interested parties, I have insufficient information to find that the change of use under the prior approval scheme is unlawful.

Nevertheless, there are some key differences between the fallback position and the proposed development. The converted buildings, while of little architectural merit apart from the brick barn, would retain a rural and farmstead character and appearance as only minor openings and repair work would take place as part of the change of use. The proposed dwellings would occupy a smaller footprint than the converted buildings with a more regular layout. However, they would be incongruous in terms of their contrived design, greater scale and urban form, and so would cause more harm to character and appearance than the fallback position.

The same accessibility issues would arise in the fallback position as occupants of the converted buildings would be similarly reliant on private cars. However, the proposed development would involve four 4-bed dwellings whereas the prior approval scheme involves one 1-bed dwelling, one 3-bed dwelling, and one 5-bed dwelling, which indicates a greater number of occupants and therefore more trips by private car. Although the difference is marginal, the proposed development would still result in more harm in terms of accessibility than the fallback position.

It is possible that the proposed development would be more sustainably constructed and energy efficient than the fallback position, but I have little information on this matter and so this benefit carries limited weight. The proposed development would secure landscaping enhancements, but it seems likely that any converted building would have more landscaping than currently exists, and so I give this benefit limited weight. The development would provide four additional dwellings (one more than the fallback position), with linked social and economic benefits, which I give modest weight.

The development would secure a biodiversity net gain (BNG) of 20.1% habitat units and the introduction of hedgerows which would not be possible under the prior approval scheme. The increase is above the statutory minimum of 10% BNG and so this benefit carries moderate weight in favour of the proposal. There are no statutory objections to the development in terms of archaeology, drainage, ecology or highways. Nevertheless, this is a neutral matter in the planning balance.

The proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area and not provide acceptable access to services and facilities, would be worse than the fallback position, and would be contrary to [name] SP7, LPP1, LPP35, LPP42, LPP52 and LPP67. This carries significant weight against the proposal and would outweigh the benefits. Therefore, the proposed development would not be in accordance with the development plan and there are no material considerations to indicate a decision other than a refusal of planning permission.

Interested parties have raised concerns about various other matters, but given my findings on the main issue, it has not been necessary to consider them in detail.

The proposed development would not be appropriately located having regard to the character and appearance of the area, the accessibility of services and facilities, the development plan, and any material considerations. For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.