Appeal 6004613

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission for an outline application with all matters reserved with the exception of access for up to 9 detached residential dwellings is refused.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Thurrock Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

Outline planning permission is sought, with all matters reserved except access. The application includes a proposed block plan showing the access to and within the site and the potential layout of houses. I have determined the appeal based on the proposed access in the proposed block plan but with the housing layout for illustrative purposes only.

The appeal is against the non-determination of the planning application. The Council’s officer report and appeal statement indicate that it would have refused planning permission for reasons relating to the proposal being inappropriate development in the Green Belt with no very special circumstances outweighing the harm to the Green Belt, and character and appearance.

Therefore, the main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The appeal site lies within the Green Belt identified in the Council’s Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development document (as amended) 2015 (CSPMD). Policy CSSP4 of the CSPMD seeks to maintain the purpose, function and open character of the Green Belt.

Policy PMD6 of the CSPMD sets out more specific requirements for development in the Green Belt. It states that planning permission will only be granted for new development where it meets the requirements of the Framework and several policy criteria. There is no suggestion that the proposal falls within the development types and locations set out in the criteria.

The Framework lists the types of development that are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, subject to certain conditions. These include the development of homes utilising grey belt land where it would meet several criteria (paragraph 155).

There is no dispute that the site meets the definition of grey belt outlined in the Framework and that there is a demonstrable unmet need for housing in the Council’s area. However, the parties disagree on whether the development would be in a sustainable location, as set out in paragraph 155(c) of the Framework.

The Framework requires proposals to identify and pursue opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use, whilst recognising that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. It seeks to ensure that developments prioritise sustainable transport modes taking account of the type of development and its location.

There is a village store and bus stop around 900m away, providing limited bus services (comprising three buses a day) from Mondays to Saturdays to Brentwood. The nearest primary school is about 1.5km from the site. These facilities can only be accessed via [site address] and the A128. [site address] is a surfaced country lane but there is no footway, and it appears to have only minimal street lighting. There is a separate footway running alongside this part of the A128, a busy, fast flowing road with street lighting subject to a 50mph speed limit.

In this case, walking, cycling and use of buses would be an option for some trips by some people. However, the limited services, frequency of buses and the distance and nature of the route to access them would limit their attractiveness, particularly for older people, those with reduced mobility or with children and at times of darkness. As such, I consider that the future occupiers of the proposed dwellings would be likely to be reliant on private vehicles to access services.

The appellant refers to the illustrative masterplan and application for up to 2,100 dwellings in the Green Belt at West Horndon1, a short distance from the appeal site, and the Council’s recent resolution to grant permission for that proposal. In that case, the proposed development is close to a railway station and would include the provision of facilities including local centres, a primary school, a healthcare facility and a bus route with sustainable and active modes of transport embedded within the design of the scheme. Therefore, unlike the appeal proposal, the Council found that it would provide a sustainable location for development and would not be inappropriate under paragraph 155 of the Framework.

There is reference to other proposals for houses in the Green Belt where the Council’s officer reports made no reference to sustainable location. Nevertheless, these were considered under the exceptions in the Framework relevant at the time and predate the introduction in December 2024 of grey belt and the associated criteria in paragraph 155 of the document.

Consequently, the proposed development would not be in a sustainable location so would not fall within the exception in paragraph 155 of the Framework.

There is no case made that the proposal would not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt for any other reasons. As such, I find the appeal proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

As set out in the Framework, the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Openness is the counterpart of urban sprawl and often connotates the absence of development. It is an open textured term and can have both spatial and visual dimensions.

The appeal site primarily comprises a grassed paddock and overgrown bare ground accessed via a hardsurfaced track, although a small part of it contains a stable block, two small derelict buildings and a freestanding chimney. As the site is currently predominantly open and free of structures, the introduction of nine permanent dwellings would inevitably lead to a loss of spatial openness.

Matters including scale, appearance and landscaping are not under consideration at this stage. However, even if the row of conifer trees along [address] were to be retained, the development would be visible from the lane through gaps in the trees and from [site address] through the proposed vehicular access. It would also be evident from neighbouring properties. Thus, the built development would also impact on visual openness.

The effect on openness is not only related to the scale of the proposal but also its purpose and the intensity of its use. The introduction of nine dwellings on the site would result in the creation of gardens with their associated domestic paraphernalia. Whilst part of the site contains an existing access, this would be extended and driveways would be formed, with hardsurfaced areas used for the manoeuvring, turning and parking of vehicles associated with nine dwellings. Such features and activities would also reduce spatial and visual openness compared to the existing use of the site. 1 Planning application ref: 24/01051/OUT

The appeal site consists of a sizeable, largely open piece of land with some centrally located modest sized structures within a semi-rural area. The open land continues beyond part of the northern boundary with two chalet style buildings close to the site entrance. The surrounding lanes largely comprise detached dwellings on sizeable plots in a mixed pattern which gives the locality an irregular, spacious character.

The proposed residential scheme would be arranged around a single access from [site address] . Illustrative plans indicate the houses closely arranged to the north and south of the access road, though their layout could change. Whilst the proposal would equate to only around 18 dwellings per hectare, the illustrative proposed block plan indicates that the houses would be sited on relatively small plots, at odds with the substantial sized plots and open character of the area.

In addition, even if the buildings had a staggered layout, the introduction of a row of houses on either side of a cul-de-sac each with two parking spaces would introduce a comparatively linear, suburban scheme. This would be discordant with the existing irregular, spacious development pattern and harm the semi-rural character of the locality. The incongruous nature of the proposed scheme would be evident from the adjoining lanes and neighbouring dwellings.

Consequently, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to Policies CSTP22 and CSTP23 of the CSPMD which seek to protect the character of Thurrock and require proposals to positively respond to the local context, amongst other things.

The Framework seeks to significantly boost the housing supply and highlights the important contribution small and medium sized sites can make. The Council’s Five-year Housing Land [name] as of 1 April 2024 indicates that it has a 1.02 year supply, significantly less than the five years required by the Framework. The proposal would contribute nine homes to the supply of housing, making some difference to addressing the substantial housing shortfall in Thurrock. Therefore, I attribute significant weight to this benefit in this instance.

It is indicated that over 12% net gain in habitat units could be achieved which carries weight in favour of the proposed development. However, given its relatively small scale, this benefit would be limited.

There is reference to proposals for one and two dwellings approved by the Council nearby2. In the case of land to the rear of Conifers, the proposals were found not to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt considering the sizes of existing structures on the site. In relation to land adjacent to Southover, the appearance of the site, reduced footprint volume and ridge height compared to the existing development and the lack of a five-year housing land supply together comprised very special circumstances to justify approval of that proposal. In contrast, the scheme currently before me would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt 2 Planning application refs: 23/01491/FUL, 23/01013/FUL and 22/00456/FUL and, whilst the Council still does not have a five-year housing land supply, as set out below, its benefits do not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm.

The Council does not suggest that the proposal would cause harm or development plan conflict in relation to several other matters, including protected species and parking. Further, despite the objection from the Council’s highways officer relating to the intensification of the access onto the A128, the Council does not indicate that it would have refused planning permission on this basis. Nonetheless, even if I were to agree with the Council on these points, the absence of harm would be a neutral matter which would not carry weight in favour of the scheme.

The proposal would be likely to have a significant effect, either alone or in combination, on the [name] and Marshes Special Protection Area. This is due to its location within the zone of influence set out in the [name]. However, notwithstanding the appellant’s willingness to pay a contribution towards the mitigation strategy, given my conclusion below there is no need to consider the implications of the proposal on the protected site because the scheme is unacceptable for other reasons.

The Framework indicates that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. There would also be adverse impacts on its openness and harm to the character and appearance of the area. Substantial weight should be given to the harm caused to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations.

I give significant weight to the provision of additional dwellings and limited weight to the provision of biodiversity net gain. However, the other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and other harm. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist. As such, it would be contrary to Policies CSSP4 and PMD6 of the CSPMD and the Framework.

Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged as the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. In such circumstances, this states that development should be approved unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development. In this appeal, the application of the Framework’s Green Belt policies provides a strong reason to refuse the development. The proposal would also conflict with Policies CSSP4, PMD6, CSTP22 and CSTP23 of the CSPMD.

Consequently, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework and the very special circumstances test therein, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed, and planning permission should be refused. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR