Appeal 6005089

The appeal is dismissed.

The address of the appeal site given on the planning application form is ‘Land at [site address] , Billericay, Essex [postcode] ’. However, the appeal form and decision notice cite the address as ‘ [site address] ’ which I have used in the banner above as this is a more accurate description of the address.

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; 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 under saved Policy BAS GB1 of the Basildon District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007, in an area of designated plotlands on the Council’s saved [name]. Paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework list the types of development that are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, subject to certain conditions. These include the redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL) which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt (paragraph 154(g)). They also include the development of homes utilising grey belt land where it would meet several criteria (paragraph 155).

The relatively flat site consists of an L-shaped stable block at one end arranged around an area of hardstanding and a horse-riding area, with an asphalt-surfaced access onto the adjacent road. There is no dispute that it comprises PDL. The proposal is for three detached houses and associated parking areas, accessed via the existing track.

The appellant considers that as the development would be on PDL, footnote 55 of the Framework means that it would not be inappropriate in the Green Belt. However, this footnote relates to the weight to be given to any harm to the Green Belt for certain developments which are not inappropriate and there is no suggestion that it overrides the list of exceptions in paragraphs 154 and 155.

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.

Approximately 1,[address] metres of the site is currently covered by buildings and hardstanding, with the current volume of built form amounting to around 259 cubic metres. Although the proposed scheme would significantly reduce the amount of hardstanding, it would result in a substantial increase of around 742 cubic metres of built form across the site. Further, the proposed dwellings would be significantly higher than the existing stable building and spread across the site. For these reasons, the proposal would substantially harm spatial openness.

The site lies adjacent to [site address] , with a hedge and some small trees separating it from the road. Although the retained roadside planting would provide some screening, the proposed houses would be visible above the hedge. The development would also be evident in views through the site access, particularly by those travelling northbound along the road. Consequently, the proposed development would also result in a significant loss of visual openness.

The effect on openness is not only related to the size of the proposal but also its purpose and the intensity of its use. The introduction of three dwellings on the site would result in the creation of gardens and domestic paraphernalia. Further, whilst there would be less hardstanding, this would be more intensively used for the manoeuvring, turning and parking of vehicles associated with three houses. Such features and activities would also substantially affect spatial and visual openness.

Therefore, the proposal would substantially harm the openness of the Green Belt and would not fall within the exception in paragraph 154(g) of the Framework.

As the site is PDL, it falls within the definition of grey belt. The Council considers that given its location between the town of Basildon and [address], the scheme would lead to the unrestricted sprawl of a large built-up area. It also suggests that the proposed development would have a minor impact on visual separation between towns. On this basis, the Council argues that the proposal would fail to comply with criterion (a) of paragraph 155 of the Framework.

However, the appeal site comprises PDL and is small in scale in relation to the size of the Green Belt in Basildon. As such, I do not consider that developing the site as proposed would fundamentally undermine the purposes, taken together, of the remaining Green Belt land across the area of the plan. Consequently, the proposed scheme would meet criterion (a) of paragraph 155 of the Framework.

There is a lack of a five year supply of deliverable housing sites in the Council’s area. Therefore, there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed under paragraph 155 criterion (b) of the Framework.

The site is not major development and thus the [name] set out in the Framework do not apply in this case. Nevertheless, consideration must be given to whether the development would be in a sustainable location under criterion (c) of paragraph 155 of the Framework.

There is a primary school and bus stop at [address], around 0.8 miles away. Access to them is via [site address] which for the most part is an unlit, busy country road subject to a 40mph speed limit, with no separate footways or cycle paths. There is no indication of any other facilities nearby and there is only an irregular bus service. As such, future occupiers of the proposed dwellings would be unlikely to access services by sustainable transport modes and would be reliant on private motor vehicles. Consequently, the proposed development would not be in a sustainable location so would not fall within the exception in paragraph 155 of the Framework.

The Framework seeks to significantly boost the housing supply and highlights the important contribution small and medium sized sites can make, whilst supporting development which makes efficient use of land. The Council can only demonstrate a 1.96 year supply of housing land when the requirement in the Framework is for five years.

The proposal would make a modest contribution of three dwellings to the supply of housing on a small site, making more efficient use of PDL. 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.

In addition, there would be some biodiversity enhancements including by removing areas of hardstanding to create vegetated gardens and provision of other landscaping. However, given its relatively small scale, this benefit would be limited.

The Council did not find harm or development plan conflict in relation to several other matters, including character and appearance, living conditions, noise, impacts on protected species, parking and highway safety. Further, there were no objections from local residents. Nevertheless, 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 proposed development is likely to have a significant effect, either alone or in combination, on the Blackwater Estuary Special Protection Area and Ramsar site due to its location within the Zone of Influence set out in the [name] 2020. However, notwithstanding the financial contribution towards mitigation measures paid to the Council, 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 Framework indicates that inappropriate development in the Green Belt should not be approved except in very special circumstances. There would also be substantial harm to openness. Substantial weight should be given to the harm caused to the Green Belt, and 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 moderate weight to the provision of three dwellings and limited weight to biodiversity enhancements. Nonetheless, the other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and other harm. Therefore, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist. As such, it would be contrary to 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 proposed. In this appeal, the application of the Framework’s Green Belt policies provides a strong reason to refuse the proposal.

Consequently, for the reasons given, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal should be dismissed.