Appeal 6005237

The appeal is allowed and the reserved matters are approved, namely access, appearance, layout and scale details submitted in pursuance of condition No 1 attached to planning permission Ref 25/01105/REM dated 27 August 2025, subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 300_00; 301_00; 302_00; and 303_00.

Outline planning permission for single storey residential development was granted in August 2025. The permission did not refer to the quantum of residential development. Although the officer report for the current appeal proposal suggests that access, layout and scale were agreed in August 2025, condition 1 of the outline consent specifically requires the submission of the layout, design and external appearance of any dwelling proposed.

The appellant made an application to the Council for the approval of reserved matters, namely access, appearance, layout and scale, for 9 residential dwellings. It is the refusal of that application which is the subject of this appeal. Because the appeal relates to an application for the approval of reserved matters, the description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the outline permission.

The appeal site is within the designated Green Belt. Outline planning permission was granted on the basis that the appeal site meets the definition of grey belt land as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

I understand that the Council has published its Regulation 18 Consultation for the Local Plan which includes a potential development site to the east of [site address] . Paragraph 49 of the Framework sets out that weight may be given to relevant policies in emerging plans, but that this will be according to the stage of preparation of the plan. Given that the plan is still within consultation stage, I find that the cited allocations are of limited relevance to the appeal before me. For the same reasons, I find that the draft revisions to the Framework also attract limited weight.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and, • whether the appeal site represents a suitable location for 9 dwellings, having regard to sustainable modes of transport.

The appeal site comprises an undeveloped parcel of land to the south of [site address] , a single width, unadopted carriageway. Residential development in the immediately surrounding area is relatively sparse comprising primarily single storey properties, set within reasonably spacious plots. This, coupled with an area of dense woodland to the south of the appeal site and wider areas of landscaping, gives a broadly semi-rural village character to the immediate area.

The wider surrounding area is more diverse in its character, including commercial uses further west along [site address] , as it meets the junction with [address]. Further south, in [site address] , residential development is denser, of a more typical estate layout with properties fronting formally laid out roadways, including within cul-de-sac arrangements.

The layout of the proposed dwellings demonstrates an inward facing cul-de-sac arrangement with a broadly central access road. When compared to other residential development along [site address] , the proposal would be notably denser, extending residential built form deeper into the appeal site, beyond the roadside boundary.

Notwithstanding the character of the wider surrounding area, [site address] forms the immediately surrounding character of the appeal site. I therefore find it reasonable to expect that this should be the primary influence in which the appeal proposal should respond to, particularly in relation to existing residential development.

The proposed density and layout of the 9 dwellings would be at odds with the spacious and ad hoc form of residential development along [site address] . Even if I were to accept that the impact to character and setting purely relates to aesthetics as opposed to planning designations, the commercial uses in the area are not directly comparable to the proposed formalised, uniform layout of the appeal proposal. I therefore do not find that their presence justifies the deviation from the established character of the area which would result from the appeal development.

Based on the above, I find that there would be harm to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to Policy BAS BE12 of the Basildon District Local Plan Saved Policies (2007), which amongst other matters, states that planning permission for new residential development will be refused if it causes material harm to the character of the surrounding area, including the street scene.

Through the grant of outline planning permission, the Council accepted that the appeal site meets the definition of grey belt land. In doing so, the Council has already accepted that the development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework, which collectively relate in part to offering a genuine choice of transport modes.

Paragraph 117 of the Framework is clear that applications for development should give priority first to pedestrians and cycle movement, and second, so far as possible, to facilitate access to high quality public transport. There is however an acceptance within paragraph 110 of the Framework that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and that this should be taken into account in decision making.

My attention has been drawn to the presence of a nearby bus stop close to the junction of [address] and [site address] . The evidence before me includes timetables of the routes which this bus stop serves, offering access to Basildon and [name].

The bus stop is within a reasonable walking distance to the appeal site. Despite [site address] not being served by dedicated footpaths or street lamps, it is nevertheless a relatively lightly trafficked road noting that it cumulates in a dead end. Future occupiers of the proposed dwellings would therefore not be entirely discouraged from either walking or cycling to the bus stop and in turn accessing sustainable modes of transport. On this basis, I do not find that future occupiers would be entirely reliant on the use of private vehicles.

The principle of residential development at the appeal site has been accepted through the outline planning permission. Whilst the quantum of development proposed through the appeal proposal is perhaps greater than the Council originally envisaged, the outline permission did not set a maximum quantum which could come forwards at reserved matters stage.

Even in the context of the amount of development now proposed, I find that the appeal site represents a suitable location for 9 dwellings, having regard to sustainable modes of transport. I have therefore identified no specific conflict with paragraph 117 of the Framework arising from the reserved matters submission.

It is presented that outline planning permission has been recently granted for 850 dwellings on land to the west of [address]. Notwithstanding that I have limited details of this approval, a scheme for 850 units is not directly comparable to a reserved matters application for 9 units.

Several representations have been received suggesting that the appeal site comprises land not wholly owned by the appellant, representing encroachment into the adjacent [name]. This was brought to the attention of the Council during the application determination, with the appellant subsequently confirming that they believed the land to be within their ownership. I understand that this is now subject to civil action. Any land ownership disputes are a civil matter outside of the planning process. It is therefore not necessary or appropriate for me to consider this further through the appeal.

Concerns have also been raised relating to the suitability of the highways access from [site address] , which I understand is unadopted highway. Traffic associated with 9 additional dwellings is unlikely to be significant and there is little substantive evidence before me to suggest that this could not be accommodated within the existing road infrastructure.

There is an intention for the dwellings to be served by on-site treatment works and sustainable drainage arrangements such that there would be little additional pressure to existing foul and surface water drainage networks. There is little before me to suggest that these measures would not be appropriate to serve the dwellings.

Representations have cited the ecological value of the appeal site, including reports of badger activity in the area. I have been provided with a copy of a [name] dated August 2025. This document includes an assessment of protected species, including badgers, outlining that there were no setts present on site or visible within the surrounding area. The outline approval includes a condition relating to ecological mitigation and enhancement measures.

Any noise and disturbance associated with the construction of the dwellings would be for a finite period of time and would not in itself justify resistance of the appeal proposal, particularly noting that planning permission already exists in the form of the outline approval.

I have been provided with copies of neighbour notification letters for the application and as such I am satisfied that the Council carried out its duties in relation to appropriate notification of the application.

The appeal site falls within the zone of influence of the Benfleet and Southend Marshes Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar, which is a European Site as defined by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations).

This is one of several designated sites along the Essex coastline which are designated in recognition of their importance for populations and assemblages of breeding, non-breeding and wintering waterbirds and the habitats that they provide. The sites’ conservation objectives include ensuring that the level of bird disturbance is not increased despite an increase in population and the number of visitors to the coastal sites for recreation.

I have been provided with a copy of the Appropriate Assessment (AA) which was undertaken at outline stage. The outcome of this confirmed that, with the exception of recreational disturbance, the application would not have an adverse impact on the integrity of [name].

The proposal would result in 9 additional dwellings and given the susceptibility and vulnerability of the qualifying features of the European Site to such uses, particularly when considered in combination with other local development, the proposal would have a likely significant effect on these Sites due to increased disturbance through recreational activity. This is the principal pathway of impact on the European Site. Noting that the quantum of development is now known, I must undertake an AA in accordance with my duty under the Habitats Regulations and consider whether measures could be put in place to avoid or mitigate these impacts.

The Essex Coast Recreational Disturbance Avoidance and [name] (RAMS) Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2020) sets out a strategic approach to mitigation by several Councils across the wider area. It details mitigation measures that would be funded by financial contributions at a specified tariff per dwelling. Since these include a range of habitat-based measures such as education, communication and monitoring, and have been endorsed by Natural England, I am satisfied that the measures would adequately overcome any adverse effects of the proposal on the [name].

The Council has confirmed that, at outline stage, the appellant made a payment in line with the relevant tariff to cover the mitigation for 9 dwellings, to fund the [name]. As the payment is specifically intended for the purpose of mitigating the harm to the European Site that I have identified and has been specifically calculated within the [name] with this intent, the payment is necessary, directly related and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. This therefore accords with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations.

Natural England has been consulted as part of this AA and is content that the measures secured by the RAMS tariff, which aligns with the Council’s adopted strategy, would mitigate the adverse effects associated with the proposed development and thereby relieve pressure on the [name]. As the competent authority, I am satisfied that the financial contribution would secure and ensure the delivery of mitigation sufficient to overcome the likely significant effect that would otherwise result from the development, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the European Site. It follows that the proposal would comply with the Habitats Regulations and the [name] which seek to protect habitats and species.

The appellant is of the view that the appeal site should be considered as brownfield land to which, according to paragraph 125(c) of the Framework, substantial weight should be given to the value of use for homes. The definition of previously developed land within the Framework refers to land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure. Based on the evidence before me, I cannot be satisfied that the appeal site meets the definition of previously developed, or brownfield land.

[name] note the extant outline permission which exists on the site, this is the first component of delivering residential development on the appeal site. Without an associated reserved matters approval, there is no reasonable prospect of development coming forwards. Thus, even in acknowledgement of relevant case law1, I do not find that the outline permission in itself represents a fall back position which would lead me to conclude that paragraph 125(c) of the Framework is of direct relevance to the appeal proposal.

As above, I have found that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and on this basis, it would not accord with the development plan. On the other hand, the proposed dwellings would be within a sustainable location, representing an efficient use of the land which is supported by the Framework, including through paragraph 125(d) which specifically states that the development of under-utilised land should be promoted, especially where it would help meet identified needs for housing. The proposal would also bring about associated social and economic benefits including employment through construction.

The Government’s objective as set out in the Framework is to support sustainable housing growth. The Council confirm they can only demonstrate a 1.96years supply of deliverable housing sites. It therefore follows that paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged. In this case it means granting permission unless any 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 those to secure well-designed places.

The level of actual harm to the character and appearance of the area would be limited, primarily relating to the denser and more formalised layout of the residential plots when compared to existing residential development in the surrounding area. I consequently attach limited negative weight to the degree of conflict I have identified with the development plan.

Nine net additional dwellings would not greatly improve the total housing supply for the Borough, but when set against the housing supply position identified above, any additional provision would be valuable. [name] note that the benefits of housing delivery have in some respects been secured through the grant of the outline permission, at that stage the exact quantum of development was not known.

A proposal for [address] at the upper limits of what could reasonably be expected to be delivered on site and therefore the benefits would be at the greater end of the scale as to what could be achieved through the outline permission. The associated housing delivery, and the other associated benefits outlined above, are considerations that weigh in favour of the scheme and to which I have attached considerable positive weight.

Taking all matters into account, the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole. Consequently, the proposal benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as defined in paragraph 11(d) of the Framework. 1 Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2017] [name] 1314

The Framework sets out that conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. As explained above, planning permission for the development was granted at outline stage. An application for the approval of reserved matters is, by definition, an application for the approval of details pursuant to the permission. Any conditions which are necessary to control matters that fall outside the scope of the reserved matters should be imposed at the outline stage. Therefore, I can only impose conditions which directly relate to the matters for which approval is sought.

The appellant has stated that they would be willing to accept a condition requiring development to be completed within three years. However, I do not find that this condition is necessary to make the development acceptable and therefore it would not meet the tests within the Framework. Moreover, Section 92 of the Act already outlines the timeframes for the delivery of outline planning permission.

I have imposed a condition relating to the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan. However, other material considerations, including the presumption in favour of sustainable development as defined in the Framework, dictate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.