Appeal 6006009

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has submitted a [name] Appraisal1 (PEA) with this appeal which seeks to address the Council’s second reason for refusal relating to protected species. As the Council has had the opportunity to comment on this document, which does not seek to alter the scheme, I am satisfied that accepting it would not cause unlawful procedural unfairness to anyone involved in the appeal. I have therefore considered this document as part of this appeal.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), including the effect upon the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposed development on protected species, with particular regard to bats; and • if the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the development.

The appeal site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping 1 Dated 20th January 2026 land permanently open and the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. However, certain forms of development are not inappropriate, and several exceptions are listed in the Framework. Policy DM6 of the Chelmsford Local Plan (2020) (the LP) takes a broadly consistent approach to the Framework and similarly lists exceptions to inappropriate development.

One such exception listed under paragraph 154(d) of the Framework is the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces, which is similarly reflected under exception C of Policy DM6. The Framework does not define “materially larger”, and I have not been directed to any such definition in the LP. However, the assessment clearly requires a comparison to be made between the size of the existing and proposed building.

The existing dwelling is a two-bedroom hipped-roof bungalow of a simple form and style which is set back from the highway and has a relatively low prominence in the street scene. The replacement dwelling would be two-storeys with some chalet-style features, projecting gables and dormer windows. The Council estimates the new dwelling would be approximately 2.6m wider, 3.1m deeper, 2.35m taller and 172% larger in floor area than the existing dwelling. Due to the combined effect of its increased height, massing and floorspace, the new dwelling would be materially larger than the existing bungalow. The development would therefore fail to meet the requirements of paragraph 154(d) of the Framework or exception C of Policy DM6. This matter is not disputed by the appellant who accepts that the replacement dwelling would be materially larger than the existing and thus constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Turning to openness, the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) provides advice on the factors that can be taken into account when considering the potential impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt, with openness being capable of having both spatial and visual aspects. In this case, the scale, bulk, height and volume of the proposed building would noticeably exceed that of the existing dwelling. When compared to the existing dwelling, these increases would be apparent when viewed through the vehicular entrance and from certain vantage points along the highway. Even though the footprint may not be significantly greater, the replacement dwelling would occupy a greater proportion air space that is currently devoid of built form and reduce views around the property, particularly along the side elevations. Accordingly, when the spatial and visual effects are taken together, there would be substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

The appellant also refers to the site as previously developed land, which is not disputed by the Council. Paragraph 154(g) of the Framework provides an exception for the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. However, given my conclusions above in relation to openness, the scheme would not meet this exception either.

For the above reasons, the development would therefore be inappropriate development within the Green Belt, failing to meet any of the listed exceptions. It would also result in substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. This is contrary to Policies DM6 and S11 of the LP, insofar as they are consistent with the Framework, which together and amongst other things, seek to protect the Green Belt and its openness from inappropriate development.

In accordance with paragraph 153 of the Framework, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. These are considered below.

The Council considers the site and surrounding area to contain a number of features that have the potential to provide habitat favourable to protected species including bats. On this basis, it considers the demolition of the existing dwelling could have an adverse effect on bats.

The appeal is supported by a PEA which concludes that the existing dwelling has moderate habitat value but that there was no evidence of roosting bats within the dwelling at the time of the survey. Nevertheless, the PEA clearly recommends that two bat emergence/re-entry surveys are required during the active bat season to confirm the presence or likely absence of bats roosting in or on the building.

The appellant confirms that these surveys have not been undertaken. However, in the absence of the recommended surveys, the presence of protected species on the site cannot be entirely ruled out. Consequently, it is not possible to define the extent to which protected species may be affected by the proposal.

The appellant has suggested that this matter could be dealt with by a pre-commencement condition. However, it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent to which they may be affected by development, is established before planning permission is granted. A condition for ecological survey works should not be imposed other than in exceptional circumstances, and I have not been presented with, nor have I identified, any exceptional circumstances which would justify conditioning such survey works in this instance.

The Framework sets out that if significant harm to biodiversity cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused. Based on the evidence before me, I cannot be satisfied that significant harm to biodiversity, specifically bats which are a protected species, would not occur.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the development would not have an adverse effect on protected species, with particular regard to bats. This is contrary to Policy DM16 of the LP and the Framework insofar as they seek to avoid negative impacts on biodiversity and conserve protected species and their habitats.

A lawful development certificate2 (LDC) has been granted on the site for various ground floor and roof extensions and alterations to the dwelling, in addition to the construction of three outbuildings. The Council is not persuaded that the appellant would implement the LDC scheme due to the resultant internal arrangements, external appearance of the dwelling and the relationship with the proposed outbuildings. It also 2 Council Ref. 25/00776/CLOPUD contends that as the LDC scheme does not resemble the proposed replacement dwelling, it should be afforded very little weight.

The LDC scheme could be implemented without any further consent from the Council, and the appellant has indicated an intention to do so to maximise the potential of the site in the event this appeal is unsuccessful. [name] appreciate this is a matter of planning judgement, I consider there is a greater than theoretical prospect that the LDC scheme would be implemented in the event the appeal is dismissed. It therefore represents a genuine fall-back position irrespective of the design, given there need not be direct design resemblance between the LDC scheme and the replacement dwelling for it to be considered a genuine fall-back position.

The appellant states the LDC scheme would result in a 247% increase in floor space over the existing dwelling and a 75% increase in floor space when compared to the replacement dwelling, which has not been disputed by the Council. The plans also show the LDC scheme would result in a greater built footprint and spread of development across the site which would introduce development into land that is currently devoid of built form and that is not proposed to be developed as part of the appeal scheme.

However, the appeal scheme proposes a true two-storey dwelling. I have not been provided with any comparisons between the volumes of the existing dwelling, the LDC scheme and the scheme before me. However, the plans indicate that the appeal scheme would result in a dwelling with significantly greater bulk and massing at first floor. This would be particularly apparent when viewing the deep side elevations of the replacement dwelling, which would occupy a greater amount of air space and, consequently, would be more prominent in views when travelling along [site address] .

Visually, the appeal scheme would consolidate most of the development within the central part of the appeal site, close to where the existing dwelling is currently located. However, the increased floor space of the LDC scheme would be spread across a series of lower-profile buildings and extensions to the existing dwelling. This would reduce the massing and prominence of development, particularly given the proposed outbuildings would be set well back within the site. Based on the evidence before me, as the LDC scheme would have a reduced bulk, massing and overall height than the appeal scheme, it would be less harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore, this fall-back position does not weigh significantly in favour of the appeal scheme.

The development would incorporate sustainable building materials, would be energy efficient and has been designed to respond to the character and appearance of the area. However, the evidence does not indicate that the development would be innovative, or that it would go significantly beyond the requirements of the development plan or other governing legislation in this regard. It is suggested that the appeal scheme would improve the appearance of the site; however, neither the existing dwelling nor the LDC scheme would be particularly harmful to the character or appearance of the area. Moreover, as a single replacement dwelling, any economic, social or environmental benefits associated with the development would be relatively limited.

I also note the Council has not identified any harm in relation to other planning matters and that there have been no objections from statutory consultees. However, these matters weigh neither for, nor against, the scheme. The proposal is also described as a self-build project on the application form. However, as no mechanism has been provided to secure this as such, this benefit attracts limited weight.

The development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt in that it would result in a new building within the Green Belt which does not fall under any of the listed exceptions and would result in consequential harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The Framework establishes that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt and the development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations.

I have also found that the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the development would not have an adverse effect on protected species, with particular regard to bats. This is contrary to Policy DM16 of the LP and the Framework, insofar as they seek to avoid negative impacts on biodiversity and conserve protected species and their habitats. Consequently, this harm and identified conflict attracts significant weight.

Against this, I find that even when taken together, the abovementioned benefits of the development attract limited weight in favour of the proposal. Therefore, the other considerations in this case are not sufficient to clearly outweigh the totality of harm I have identified. As such, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

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. Accordingly, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.