Appeal 6004417

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition and replacement of two existing houses and the erection of two new build houses and a single garage at 1 [name], [site address] , [site address] , Essex [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01583/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The main issues are: • Whether the appeal site represents an appropriate location for the proposal, having regard to the accessibility to services and facilities; • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and, • Whether it has been demonstrated that the proposal would deliver the mandatory biodiversity net gain (BNG).

The appeal site relates to a pair of semi-detached houses. As the site is outside of a defined settlement boundary, it is within the countryside for planning policy purposes. Policy LPP37 of the Local Plan Section 2 2022 (the LP Section 2) concerns replacement dwellings in the countryside and relates to proposals to replace an existing habitable, permanent dwelling of conventional construction in the countryside, with a single dwelling.

The application is supported by a condition survey report1. It sets out that externally the houses are in a dilapidated condition, with evidence of infestations in 1 JNW250024 – Issue Date: 26 MAY 2025 the structural frames and that the windows and doors need to be replaced. Internally, the ceilings throughout were showing signs of end-of-life cracking and failure, the plaster on the walls was beyond its life expectancy, the party walls were likely lacking structural support, and neither house had a kitchen. There was also no bathroom in one of the houses, with no space for one. The condition survey findings also grade most of the elements as ‘poor – exhibiting major defects and/or not operating as intended’ or ‘bad – life expired and/or serious risk of imminent failure’.

The condition survey concludes that, in light of its findings and the extent of works required, demolition and rebuilding would be more appropriate than refurbishment. Based on the evidence before me, I do not consider that the houses are habitable for the purposes of Policy LPP37 of the LP Section 2, and this policy is therefore not applicable. Even if the houses have been assessed as habitable for council tax purposes, that assessment arises from a different legislative framework. Furthermore, there is nothing before me to indicate when the assessment was made or the condition of the houses at that time.

Turning to accessibility to services and facilities, future occupiers would have to travel to other villages and settlements to meet their day-to-day needs. Walking and cycling would involve using unlit country lanes shared with cars travelling at speed. The Council also advise that the public transport options are limited, and there is nothing before me to dispute this. Consequently, it is most likely that future occupants would be reliant on a private car for the majority of their journeys.

It is acknowledged that, if the appellant chose to refurbish the houses, residential use could continue on the site irrespective of the proposal. However, given the extent of dilapidation of the houses, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that such refurbishment is likely to occur if the appeal were dismissed. I am therefore unable to conclude that there is a realistic prospect of this taking place and therefore cannot afford it weight as a fallback position.

For these reasons, I therefore conclude that the appeal site would not represent an appropriate location for the proposal, having regard to the accessibility to services and facilities. Accordingly, it would conflict with Policy LPP1 of the LP Section 2 which sets out that development outside development boundaries will be confined to uses appropriate for the countryside. It would also conflict with Policies LPP42 and LPP52 of the LP Section 2, which amongst other things, set out that sustainable modes of transport should be facilitated through new developments to promote accessibility and be well-connected to walking and cycling networks. However, limited weight is given to this conflict because the appeal site benefits from an established residential use.

The reason for refusal also refers to conflict with Policy LPP35 of the LP Section 2. However, this policy is primarily focused on housing mix, density and the standard of accommodation. It is therefore not determinative in the context of this main issue.

The wider street scene is characterised by pairs of semi-detached houses and bungalows, featuring a mix of rendered and brick finishes. The properties are typically set back from the road, with long front gardens and spacing at the sides that creates clear gaps between each pair. This layout contributes to the area’s sense of openness and spaciousness, while the surrounding countryside further reinforces its rural character.

The proposed houses would feature rendered external elevations, with brick chimneys and brick detailing at ground floor level. This approach reflects the local building vernacular, incorporating materials commonly found within the surrounding street scene. While timber detailing is not the predominant material in the area, a neighbouring property incorporates similar features. In any event, timber detailing is not uncommon within rural contexts. The appearance of the proposed houses would therefore integrate well within the street scene.

Each house would be well set back from the road, with space provided at both the front and rear. There would also be a limited separation between the houses, along with further space to the sides. This layout would create clear visual gaps between the buildings and their boundaries, helping to maintain a sense of openness and spaciousness despite the overall footprint. Although the proposed houses would be wider and deeper than the existing ones, the spacing around them would prevent their scale from appearing overbearing or dominating the plot. The proposed houses would be visible in views along [site address] . However, their overall design, scale and siting would ensure that their visual prominence remains acceptable and does not detract from the surrounding countryside setting.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with Policies LPP35 and LPP52 of the LP Section 2 and Policy SP7 of LP Section

These policies, amongst other things, require development to reflect the area’s local distinctiveness and to relate to the character of the site and its immediate surroundings.

BNG is a mandatory requirement of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021).

The proposal is accompanied by a scaled plan which shows the onsite habitat as existing. The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and [name] Assessment3 also includes a habitat survey plan and habitat type and description, which clearly identify the specific habitat types present. The Statutory Biodiversity Metric results also show that watercourse units have been considered. I have no substantive evidence before me to dispute the appellant’s assertions that a competent person carried out the [name]. I am therefore satisfied that the application is accompanied by the required minimum information. Issues relating to the quality and extent of the minimum information that has been supplied are matters to be resolved through the discharge of the Biodiversity Gain Plan (BGP)

Even if there are other appeal decisions within Braintree District where Inspectors have found proposals failed the minimum information requirements due to insufficient information, such as the case referred to in the Council's submission4, 2 Braintree District Local Plan 2013 – 2033 Section 1 [name] Section 1 Plan Adopted February 2021 (the LP Section 1) 3 Issue 2 – 07/02/2024 4 Appeal Ref: APP/Z1510/W/25/3374653 the appeal scheme is distinguishable, as sufficient minimum information has been submitted to meet those requirements.

Paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) states that every planning permission granted for development in England shall be deemed to have been granted subject to the BGP condition. [name] were to grant planning permission, it is not necessary for me to consider the acceptability of any proposed method of complying with that condition. I merely need to be satisfied that the proposal is capable of complying with the general

It would generally be inappropriate for decision makers, when determining a planning application for a development subject to BNG, to refuse the application on the grounds that the biodiversity gain objective will not be met5. It is recognised that [name] Guide [address] have no public access and therefore BNGs cannot be legally secured. However, even if I were to accept the Council’s findings that it cannot be ascertained that the proposal would achieve an onsite 10% BNG, I see no reason why through the application of the mitigation hierarchy, this could not be resolved via the imposition of the BGP condition.

For these reasons, I conclude that it has been demonstrated that the proposal satisfies the requirements of Schedule 7A of the Act.

The appeal site would not represent an appropriate location for the proposal, having regard to the accessibility to services and facilities. Although there is limited conflict, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole. This weighs against the proposal. Consequently, it should be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The current houses on the site are not habitable. The proposal would deliver two, three-bedroom homes. Although the Council can demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, small-scale developments such as this can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirements of an area and contribute to the Government’s aim of significantly boosting the supply of homes. The benefit of the delivery of housing is given moderate weight on account of the relatively small number of units proposed.

There would also be some limited economic and social benefits associated with the proposal, through the construction phase, as well as spending and support for businesses post-development.

The appeal site is currently in a poor condition. The proposal would provide a clear and positive enhancement to its visual appearance and overall condition, which weighs moderately in favour of the proposal.

Although there is some conflict with the development plan, when taking all of the above into account, the benefits in support of the appeal would outweigh this conflict. Therefore, material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. 5 Paragraph: 019 [name]: 74-[phone]

The Council has supplied a list of suggested conditions. I have considered these in light of the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG). Where appropriate, I have adjusted the wording of the conditions to improve relevance, precision and enforceability.

I have imposed the statutory implementation condition [1], along with a condition listing the approved plans to provide certainty [2].

In the absence of full details of the existing and proposed ground levels and proposed slab levels, a condition requiring these details is necessary in the interests of precision to establish the finished levels and ensure the houses sit appropriately in the street scene [3]. It is necessary for this condition to be pre-commencement as it relates specifically to the construction phase and would be ineffective if it were required to be addressed at a later stage. The appellant has given written agreement to this pre-commencement condition.

Whilst materials have been indicated as part of the application, further detail is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area [4]. In this same regard, boundary treatment details are necessary [5]. In order to minimise disturbance to local residents, it is necessary to restrict construction hours [6].

The Council has provided no justification for the imposition of a condition removing various permitted development rights. As set out in the PPG and the Framework, planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so. The limitations and conditions of permitted development restrict the area of ground covered, the size and position of development allowed and provide some restrictions to protect neighbour amenity. Given the size and location of the plots, conditions removing permitted development rights would be unjustified and would therefore not be necessary or reasonable.

Due to the provisions of Schedule 7A of the Act and as none of the statutory exemptions apply in this case, the development may not be begun unless a BGP has been submitted to and approved by the Council.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos Location Plan 105 - [name] and Elevations 102 - Plot 1 [address] Elevations 103 - Plot 2 [address] Elevations 101 - [name] 106 - Site Layout

No development shall commence until full details of the finished levels, above ordnance datum, of the ground floors of the proposed buildings, in relation to existing ground levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved levels.

No development above ground level shall take place until an illustrated schedule of the types and colour of the materials to be used in the external finishes has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the installation of any gates / fences / walls or other means of enclosure, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include position, design, height and materials of the enclosures. The enclosures as approved shall be provided prior to the occupation of the development and shall be permanently retained as such.

No site clearance, demolition or construction work shall take place on the site, including starting of machinery and delivery of materials, outside the following hours: Mondays to Fridays - 08:00-18:00, Saturdays - 08:00-13:00 and not at anytime on Sundays or on Bank or Public holidays. END OF SCHEDULE