Appeal 6004783

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant submitted amended elevations, streetscene and ground and roof plans for the proposed dwellings. These include the omission of one side dormer and the addition of a rooflight for each new house, changes to the facing and dormer materials, reduced sized windows below the main roof apexes and the incorporation of horizontal window glazing bars. Referring to court judgements1, the appellant considers that the proposed amendments would not result in substantial change and would not prejudice any party or undermine the fairness of the decision-making process, and the Council agrees. However, the changes are significant, and my consideration of the amended plans could cause procedural unfairness or prejudice to interested parties. Further, they are incomplete as no amended proposed upper floor plans have been submitted. Thus, I have determined the appeal based on the plans considered by the Council.

The appellant submitted a signed [name] (UU) dated 25 March 2026 which provides a contribution towards the [name] and [name] (RAMS). I have not sought comments from the Council on the signed UU but have had regard to it in my decision.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. 1 Including Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [JPL 1982, P37] and Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin)

The appeal site comprises part of the front and side gardens of existing houses at 6 and [address] opposite The Meadoway in a suburban residential area. There is a mix of building designs in the locality, but [address] largely comprises chalet style dwellings, many with dormers, and some two storey properties. Whilst it is not in an area of special architectural interest, the buildings in the street predominantly have pitched roofs facing the road, which gives a consistency to the roofscape, with first floor front facing dormers generally appearing subservient to the dwellings.

The proposal is for two houses with accommodation over three levels. They would include gable frontages with side facing pitched roofs and dormers. Due to the orientation of the roofs and dormers, the form of the dwellings would be at odds with the road facing pitched roofs and dormers which characterise the area.

Further, whilst the overall height of the buildings would be similar to others nearby, the inclusion of side dormers would give the houses a bulky and top-heavy appearance in some views from the street. The dormers would not read as subordinate elements but would instead give the visual impression of the houses being three storeys high, particularly when seen by those travelling northbound on The Meadoway. As such, the scale and design of the houses would appear out of keeping with the prevailing character of chalet style and two storey homes.

There is reference to the Council’s approval of two dwellings with a similar form and side dormers at [address] in 20222. Nevertheless, this is some distance from the site in an area with a more mixed character and thus is not comparable to the scheme currently before me.

Therefore, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to saved Policy BAS BE12 of the Basildon District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007 where it requires residential development to avoid harming the character of the surrounding area, including the street scene.

The Council did not find harm or development plan conflict in relation to several other matters, including living conditions, access, impacts on landscape and protected species, vehicular and cycle parking, internal space standards and neighbouring living conditions. 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 proposed scheme.

The proposal would be likely to have a significant effect, either alone or in combination, on one or more European habitats sites due to its location within the Zone of Influence set out in the RAMS. However, notwithstanding the UU to contribute towards mitigation measures in the RAMS, given my conclusion below there is no need to consider the implications of the proposal on the protected sites because the scheme is unacceptable for other reasons.

The appellant considers that there was limited engagement by the Council during the determination of the application, but this is a matter between those parties, and it does not in this instance have any bearing on my determination of this appeal. 2 Planning application ref: 22/00988/VAR

The Council accepts that it cannot currently demonstrate a five year housing land supply required by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Council’s position is that it has a 1.96 year supply. As there is a shortfall in housing provision, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged.

Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework confirms that in such circumstances, permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies including directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land and securing well-designed places.

The Framework seeks to boost housing supply and highlights the important contribution small and medium sized sites can make. The proposal would make a modest contribution of two dwellings to the supply of housing on a small site, making more efficient use of underutilised land. It would create two family sized houses for which property market evidence suggests there is increasing demand in Billericay. The location of the units in an urban area would help to reduce pressure on the Green Belt. It would contribute towards Basildon’s housing supply, making a modest difference to addressing the shortfall, and therefore I attribute moderate weight to this benefit.

The biodiversity net gain carries weight in favour of the proposed development. However, given its relatively small scale, this benefit would be limited.

In contrast, the proposed scheme would harm the character and appearance of the area. This would conflict with the Framework where it requires developments to be sympathetic to local character and seeks good design. Indeed, the Framework states that development that is not well designed should be refused and I must pay particular regard to this when applying paragraph 11(d)(ii). This matter carries significant weight against the appeal scheme. Consequently, the adverse impact I have identified would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.