Case Reference: 3255805

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 14 December 2020
by M Chalk BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 15 January 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/Z1510/W/20/3255805
Land off Water Lane, Steeple Bumpstead, Essex, Easting: 567415
Northing: 240757
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant permission in principle.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Braintree District
Council.
• The application Ref 19/02316/PIP, dated 20 December 2019, was refused by notice
dated 22 January 2020.
• The development proposed is described as “Permission in Principle for 7-9 dwellings
with access off Water Lane”.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed, and permission in principle is granted for 7-9 dwellings
with access off Water Lane at land off Water Lane, Steeple Bumpstead, Essex,
Easting: 567415 Northing: 240757 in accordance with the terms of the
application ref: 19/02316/PIP, dated 20 December 2019.
Procedural Matters
2. The appeal proposal seeks Permission in Principle. This consent route has two
stages, with the first establishing whether a site is suitable in principle for the
development proposed and the second assessing the detailed development
proposals. The proposal is at the first stage, so this appeal therefore considers
the principle of development, limited to location, land use and amount of
development.
3. Applications for Permission in Principle relating to residential development can
seek consent for a minimum and maximum number of dwellings. In this
instance permission has been sought for 7 to 9 dwellings. The appeal has been
determined on this basis.
4. The Council has submitted its emerging Local Plan for examination. The
emerging plan is some distance from adoption, and consequently its policies
attract limited weight in the determination of this appeal.
Main Issue
5. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Reasons
6. The development proposed would continue the linear projection of housing
along this stretch of Water Lane. It would be an intrusive addition to the
general rural character of the area, which is typified by the open fields
projecting from this side of the road.
7. The development proposed would continue the existing linear pattern of
development in the area, and the detailed development proposals would be
assessed at the second stage. However, the introduction of a minimum of
seven houses in this location, together with the attendant domestic
paraphernalia, would be harmful to that open and rural character.
8. The appeal proposal would therefore conflict with the requirements of Policies
RLP2, RLP80 and RLP90 of the Braintree Local Plan 2005 (the LP) and Policies
CS5, CS8 and CS9 of the Braintree Core Strategy 2011 (the CS). Together
these policies require, amongst other things, that development will be confined
to the areas within defined settlement boundaries to protect and enhance the
landscape character.
Other Matters
9. The Council has referred to Policy RLP100 of the LP in their decision. However,
this policy relates to listed buildings and their settings, and it is not clear how
this relates to the appeal proposal as no listed buildings have been identified in
the vicinity of the site.
10. The site lies outside of the village envelope and there is no pavement or
footpath extending to the site. However, the accessibility of the site regarding
services and facilities did not form part of the Council’s reason for refusal. As
the appeal site is immediately adjacent to existing housing with a pavement
running into the village in the near vicinity I see no reason to disagree with this
conclusion.
11. I have also considered concerns raised by interested parties regarding the loss
of agricultural land, but no information has been providing regarding what
grade the land is, and the appeal site is only a small area of a larger field so
any harm from the loss of land would be limited.
12. Concerns were also raised by interested parties regarding the potential for
highway safety issues, additional pollution and disturbance arising from the
development proposed. However, the Council did not identify any specific
concerns regarding these issues and in any case they could be addressed at the
second stage.
13. With regard to concerns that allowing this appeal would set a precedent for
future development, any proposal must be assessed on its own merits.
Planning Balance
14. There would be harm to the character and appearance of the area as a result of
the appeal proposal. As the development would occupy a small area within a
large open field and would be next to existing housing arranged in a similar
linear fashion along the road, the extent of harm arising would be limited.
There would be additional limited harm from the loss of agricultural land.
15. Overall, the development would conflict with Policies RLP2, RLP80 and RLP90 of
the LP and Policies CS5, CS8 and CS9 of the CS. Taken together these policies
address development in the countryside and require that development protect
and enhance landscape character. As this appeal seeks first stage consent for
Permission in Principle, the most important policies are CS5, CS8, RLP2 and
RLP90.
16. The Council’s delegated report states that the Council was able to demonstrate
a five year supply of housing land. However, at the time of the later committee
report submitted by the appellant the Council was not able to demonstrate a
five year supply. This is the most recent evidence of the Council’s position
submitted, and the Council has not contested its accuracy.
17. Where the Council is not able to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable
housing land, paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the
Framework) states that planning permission should be granted unless any
adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the
benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a
whole. However, this does not change the statutory status of the development
plan as the starting point for decision making.
18. Policy CS8 of the CS and RLP90 of the LP collectively seek a high standard of
layout and design in all developments and state that development must have
regard to the character of the landscape and its sensitivity to change. The aims
of these policies are consistent with those of the Framework, so the conflict
with them attracts full weight.
19. Policies RLP2 of the LP and CS5 of the CS broadly seek to limit development in
the countryside only to uses considered appropriate. As this is not consistent
with the Framework, the weight attributed to the conflict with these policies is
limited.
20. Policies RLP80 of the LP and CS9 of the CS collectively require that
development successfully integrate into the local landscape and that it achieves
the highest possible standards of design and layout. These policies are also
consistent with the Framework, and consequently the conflict with them also
attracts full weight.
21. The appeal proposal would deliver between seven and nine additional
dwellings, and this attracts significant weight given the Council’s shortfall in
housing land supply, and the Government’s objective of significantly boosting
the supply of homes. In addition, there would be economic and social benefits
from the ongoing occupation of the houses, as well as temporary economic
benefits from the construction of the development proposed.
22. The limited harm that would arise to the character and appearance of the area
and from the loss of a small area of agricultural land would not significantly and
demonstrably outweigh the benefits that would result from the appeal
proposal, when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a
whole.
Conclusion
23. For the reasons set out above, the appeal succeeds.
M Chalk
INSPECTOR