Appeal 6005707

The appeal is dismissed, and planning permission is refused.

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

The planning application was made in outline form, with access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved for future consideration. I therefore have dealt with the appeal on this basis and treated the submitted plans as being illustrative only.

The appeal results from the failure of the Council to determine the planning application within the relevant time period, and as such, there is no formal decision notice. The Council has confirmed in its appeal documentation that, had it been able to do so, it would have refused planning permission.

The main issues are therefore the: • effect on the character and appearance of the area; • location of the development outside a defined settlement boundary; and • accessibility to services and facilities for future occupants.

The area has a semi-rural countryside character and appearance, with areas of green space and established trees and hedgerows bounding the roads giving the area a verdant feel. The pattern of development is of a low-density with predominantly large, detached properties set in spacious plots. The area visually appears distinct from, and of a more rural character and appearance than the nearby settlement of [name].

The appeal site comprises a sizeable grassed plot set between the dwelling Chantry and its adjacent neighbour [name]. It fronts onto [address] with an existing access and is bound by trees on its boundaries. The appeal site appears as a positive green open space in the low-density and verdant character and appearance of the area.

The development would introduce an unavoidable level of built form and urbanisation of the appeal site at a quantum which would be distinctly out of keeping with the low density pattern of development within the wider countryside area. Such a dense quantum for the size of the plot would appear as overdevelopment and diminish the positive open appearance of the site in the wider pattern of development.

To accommodate such a development, the plans, whilst indicative, shows a terraced buildings set across much of the width of the plot which would appear narrow and cramped and be distinctly out of character with the grain of development within the area. [name] note it has been designed to appear as a main house with associated outbuildings, these still would appear out of keeping owing to the attached regimented layout compared to the wider area. In these circumstances, and my above assessment, I am not convinced that the harm identified could be overcome through detailed design at the reserved matters stage.

In relation to the loss of trees, the evidence shows that only a category [name] tree situated within the plot would be required for removal as the existing access point would be used. Importantly, the boundary trees on the plot frontage would be retained. Therefore, no harm would occur to the character and appearance of the area in relation to the effect on trees. Nevertheless, this would not justify the loss of the verdant open appeal site.

I note that the Inspector of the previous appeal1 did not find harm to the character and appearance of the area. However, in this case the proposal was for a single dwelling so is not directly comparable to the denser scheme before me in relation to its effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant has highlighted various paragraphs from the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which supports making effective use of land and densification and has highlighted that the most recent publication of the Framework removed a previous paragraph relating to density and character2. The appellant therefore contends that the current Framework prevents ‘character from being used as an arbitrary barrier to the efficient use of land’3.

However, the current Framework is still clear that making effective use of land and densification should not be at the expense of matters relating to character and appearance. In particular, whilst paragraph 124 of the Framework seeks to make effective use of land, it states that this is to be achieved while also safeguarding 1 PINS ref APP/X1545/W/24/3342289 2 Paragraph 130 of the previous version of the National Planning Policy Framework. 3 Paragraph 1.6, 3.2.5 and 4.3 [name] and improving the environment. Paragraph 129d) highlights the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting when considering achieving appropriate densities of development and paragraph 135 seeks to ensure development is sympathetic to local character and the built environment and landscape setting whilst not preventing appropriate innovation or change.

Given the harm I have identified, whilst the proposal would introduce a denser scheme of four dwellings at the site, it would not be an appropriate change in the sites context and would not comply with these paragraphs of the Framework. The increase in density compared to the previously dismissed scheme, would not justify the harm identified.

The development would therefore cause significant harm to the countryside character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policies S8 and D1 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan (2017) (LDP). These policies, amongst other matters, seek to ensure that development respects and enhances the character and local context and that planning permission for development will only be granted where the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside is not adversely impacted upon.

Policy S1 of the LDP aims to ensure that growth is delivered at a sustainable level that meets local needs and provides a wide choice of high-quality homes in the most sustainable locations.

Policy S2 confirms that strategic growth will be focused within the main settlements, and that a proportion of new development will be directed to the rural villages to support rural housing needs, local services and facilities and the rural economy. In this context, LDP Policy S2 prescribes 300 windfall dwellings as part of the housing supply throughout the plan period.

Policy S8 defines [name] as a larger village in the settlement hierarchy and states that the Council will support sustainable developments within the defined settlement boundaries. Outside of the settlement boundaries, planning permission will only be granted where the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside is not adversely impacted upon and one of several specified criteria is met.

The appeal site is set within the countryside, outside of the defined boundary of [name]. It does not meet any of the criteria set out in LDP Policy S8 and would, as outlined above, cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. As a result, the location of development would conflict with Policies S1, S2 and S8 of the DLP which sets out the evidence based spatial strategy and plan-led approach to development within the district.

The appeal site is situated within fairly close proximity to the settlement of [name] and a bus stop set along [address]. To access these facilities and services, future occupiers would be required to travel along [address], which I note the evidence of the appellant demonstrates forms part of the National Cycle Network.

However, I observed on my visit that [address] had the form of a rural countryside road, being unlit with very narrow banks to the side and was enclosed by vegetation. Therefore, to access the facilities and services, future occupiers would be required to travel along the carriageway of [address], sharing it with vehicles.

Even with a speed limit of 30mph and its National Cycle Network designation, given the rural characteristics of [address], it would be a considerably undesirable prospect for most future occupiers to meet their regular daily needs by any means other than a private vehicle, particularly in the early mornings and evenings or winter months when the hours of daylight are fewer. Even with regard to paragraph 110 of the Framework, there would be limited opportunities to maximise any form of sustainable transport solutions owing to the characteristics of [address].

The appellant has highlighted that recently, a local bus operator has invested in the number 90 service, so it operates as often as every 30 mins which is a material change from the previous appeal4. However, the evidence does not show, and I did not observe, any bus stop situated along [address] near the appeal site which would mean future occupiers could avoid travelling along [address] to use this bus. The frequency of this bus route therefore does not overcome the lack of accessibility to it from the site.

The appellant has also highlighted that the nearby cycle network routes are undergoing planning and improvement works. However, the evidence does not show as to how or when the route along [address] towards the bus stop or [name] would be subject to improvements which could mean future occupiers could rely on this route to meet daily needs. Therefore, the evidence before me does not convince me that a genuine choice of transport modes would be available in the future due to these upgrades.

A number of examples have been brought to my attention which the appellant considers are similar to the circumstances before me5. I acknowledge that in the case of planning permission ref 25/00403/FUL the Council’s officer report sets out that, in the context of its five-year housing land supply deficit, on balance, this site provided a choice of transport with particular regard to the National Cycle Network along the same section of [address]. However, I have identified harm in this regard based on my observations on site and the existence of this decision does not mitigate or otherwise justify this harm. It therefore does not convince me that the accessibility to services and facilities for the development before me is acceptable. I discuss the weighting of this harm in the context of the housing land supply deficit later in my planning balance section.

In the case of the other examples, these sites are situated away from the site-specific context of the appeal proposal so share limited similarities.

Therefore, with regard to the accessibility of future occupiers to services and facilities to meet daily needs, the proposal would conflict with Policy S1 of the LDP. This policy, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure development minimises the need to travel and where travel is necessary, prioritise sustainable modes of transport. 4 Page 4 [name] 5 LPA refs 25/00403/FUL, 25/00430/OUT, 25/00730/FUL and PINS ref 3333081 [address], [name].

Regulation 63(1) of the Habitats Regulations indicates the requirement for an Appropriate Assessment is only necessary where the competent authority is minded to give consent for the proposal. Whilst the appellant has provided a unilateral undertaking securing contributions towards the Recreational disturbance Avoidance and [name], since I am dismissing the appeal on other grounds it is not necessary to address this in any further detail.

I note that there was no objection raised from consultees including Essex County Council Highway Authority and the Council’s Arboricultural consultant. Nevertheless, this does not diminish the harm that I have identified in relation to

The proposed development is not in accordance with the aforementioned policies of the LDP, by virtue of the harm to the character and appearance of the area, location of development and access to facilities and services. However, the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, with both parties referring to the Council’s published position of 4.1 years6. I have also been provided with an appeal decision setting out a position of 2.7 years7.

In either case, the provisions of paragraph 11(d) of the Framework are engaged. Footnote 8 confirms in these circumstances, the policies which are most important for determining the application are deemed to be out-of-date. Paragraph 232 of the Framework confirms due weight should be given to policies, according to their consistency with the Framework.

The Council is not meeting its local housing needs through the policies of its development plan. It is therefore not meeting paragraph 61 of the Framework which sets out the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes and ensuring a sufficient amount of land can come forward. Therefore, Policies S1, S2 and S8 are not consistent with the Framework and the conflict that arises in relation to the location of development outside of a defined settlement boundary and lack of accessibility to services and facilities through means other than a private vehicle carries limited weight against the proposal.

Along with the development being contrary to paragraphs 124, 129 and 135 as previously discussed, the importance of achieving well-designed development is a key aspect of sustainable development, as set out in section 12 of the Framework, where it is clear at paragraph 139 that development which is not well designed should be refused. In addition, paragraph 187b) seeks to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Policies S8 and D1 of the LDP in relation to matters of character and appearance are therefore consistent with the Framework. Therefore, on this basis and the harm identified the conflict with these policies carries significant weight against the development.

The appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and with the abovementioned parts of the Framework. 6 [name] Supply 2025 - Position at 1 April 2025 7 PINS ref APP/X1545/W/23/3333081 dated 04/02/2025

The Government’s objective is to significantly boost the supply of housing, including through small and medium schemes. The proposal would make use of previously developed land to provide a gain of four self-build dwellings, contributing towards the Council’s housing land supply and type of plot available within the district. It would also lead to a small and time limited economic benefit during the construction phase, as well as some limited social and economic benefits resulting from future occupiers. The proposal would also provide biodiversity enhancements on site and would feature low carbon and renewable energy measures. However, given the small scale of the proposal, and even taking the appeal derived housing supply position of 2.7 years, these benefits would, at most attract moderate positive weight in favour of the proposal.

Whilst the proposal is likely capable of being able to deliver a policy compliant housing mix and suitable standard of accommodation for future occupiers, this lack of harm is not a benefit in itself. I therefore attach this neutral weight in my considerations.

The appellant has referred to paragraph 125c) of the Framework. However, this relates to the utilisation of suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes, so is not directly relevant to this proposal as the site is not located within a settlement.

Overall, the adverse effects of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole. The presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed and planning permission be refused.