Case Reference: 3265895

Appeal Decision
Inquiry held between 20 – 23 April 2021
Site visit made on 26 April 2021
by Jonathan Price BA(Hons) DMS DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 27th July 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/Z1510/W/20/3265895
Land south of Gilda Terrace and north of Flitch Way, Rayne Road,
Braintree, Essex CM77 6RE
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Braintree District
Council.
• The application Ref 18/01065/OUT, dated 12 June 2018, was refused by notice dated
4 September 2020.
• The proposal seeks outline planning permission for residential development (C3) for up
to 120 dwellings, with all matters reserved except access, and the demolition of
nos. 27 and 29 Gilda Terrace.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for residential
development (C3) for up to 120 dwellings, with all matters reserved except
access, and the demolition of nos. 27 and 29 Gilda Terrace at land south of
Gilda Terrace and north of Flitch Way, Rayne Road, Braintree, Essex CM77 6RE,
in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 18/01065/OUT,
dated 12 June 2018, subject to the conditions set out in the Schedule attached
to this decision.
Preliminary Matters
2. On 22 February 2021, the Council adopted the Braintree District Local Plan
2013-2033 Section 11 (S1LP). This replaces policies CS1, CS3, CS4, CS9 and
CS11 of Braintree District Core Strategy 2011 (CS). The S1LP provides
strategic policies shared with two partner North Essex Authorities (NEA)2. The
currently adopted development plan now includes the S1LP, along with the
extant CS policies and those of the saved Braintree District Local Plan Review
2005 (RLP).
3. The Braintree Section 2 Local Plan3 (S2LP) is currently under Examination.
Pending completion of this, I consider that, as agreed by the parties in the
planning Statement of Common Ground (SoCG), these emerging policies be
afforded no more than limited weight in this decision.
1 Braintree District Local Plan 2013-2033 Section 1 – North Essex Authorities’ Shared Strategic Section 1 Plan
adopted February 2021.
2 Colchester Borough Council and Tendring District Council.
3 Section 2 – Publication Draft Local Plan June 2017
4. A Development Parameters plan forms part of the proposal. This would fix the
parts of the site intended for housing of up to two-and-a-half storeys, that up
to two-storeys and areas of communal open space. A concept masterplan is
provided showing how these parameters might later be worked up in more
detail, but at this stage this is intended to be illustrative only.
5. The Council’s refusal of planning permission was for two reasons. The second
was over the lack of a section 106 agreement (s106) securing 30% affordable
housing within the scheme, as well as other measures necessary to mitigate its
impacts and meet development plan policy requirements. A s106 was
subsequently agreed between the appellant and Braintree District and Essex
County Councils during the Inquiry and I have since been provided a signed
and dated copy of this. The completed s106 addresses the outstanding matters
upon which the Council’s second reason for refusal was based, which
consequently has now fallen away.
6. At the Inquiry, as set out in a specific SoCG4, the main parties had agreed over
the Council’s five-year housing land supply (5YHLS) position. This is now
predicated upon the adopted S1LP and a resulting requirement for 5,521
dwellings to be provided in the period 2020-2025. On this basis, the main
parties concurred that Braintree currently had a 3.74-year HLS, resulting in a
shortfall of 1,388 homes.
7. On 19 May 2021, after the Inquiry and prior to this decision, the Council
advised of the imminent publication of a report5 setting out Braintree District’s
5YHLS position for the period 2021-2026. This shows a HLS of 5.34 years as of
31 March 2021; a material change in circumstances from those set out in the
SoCG. This necessitated further consultation of interested Inquiry parties, as to
the implications of this to their previous positions. Views from both main
parties were requested as to whether those policies most important for
determining the appeal remained otherwise out-of-date. My decision takes into
consideration the responses to these consultations.
8. On 20 July 2021, an update to the National Planning Policy Framework (the
Framework) was published6. My decision reflects this, having provided the main
parties an opportunity to comment over any implications this might have for
their respective cases. The revisions, whilst significant, seek mainly to achieve
high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places. Given the outline
nature of this appeal scheme, much of what the updated Framework seeks
might be securable through approval of reserved matters and has limited
bearing on this case.
Main Issue
9. On the basis of the Council’s remaining reason for refusal, the main
consideration in this appeal is:
• the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and
surrounding landscape, including as viewed from public vantage points such
as Flitch Way, and in respect of the perceived physical separation of
development in Braintree and Rayne.
4 Statement of Common Ground: Five Year Housing Land Supply 11 March 2021
5 Housing Land Supply Braintree District – March 31 2021, published May 2021
6 Updated on 20 July 2021
Reasons
Landscape character
10. The appeal site is of some five hectares and comprises part of a larger parcel of
agricultural land. This lies to the rear of Gilda Terrace; a section of ribbon
housing development running alongside the Rayne Road. To one side of the site
is the Sun Lido Square Gardens/Springfields housing estate (Sun Lido). This
development lies just beyond Pod’s Brook; a river which runs to this side of
Braintree. Sun Lido comprises the outward extent of the urban edge on this
side of town, with the ribbon of housing in Gilda Terrace projecting beyond this.
From this housing, the appeal site is at the start of a substantial gap of mainly
undeveloped countryside between Braintree and the next settlement of Rayne.
11. The housing proposed would extend no further towards Rayne than Gilda
Terrace. To the rear, it would extend almost up to Flitch Way; the former
railway line now serving as a cycling/walking route between Braintree and
Bishop’s Stortford. The stretch of Flitch Way between Braintree and Rayne is a
popular and well-used recreational route for residents of this area.
12. The appeal site comprises a relatively small portion of the much more
extensive Brook Green proposal. This more substantial scheme had included
land both to the north and south of the Flitch Way and had sought to provide
up to 1,500 new homes. The Secretary of State dismissed an appeal7 over this
larger proposal in June 2019, following an Inquiry held in September 2018,
giving considerable weight to the landscape impacts.
13. This appeal is over a substantially smaller development than the Brook Green
proposal. In regard to landscape character, the area benefits from no statutory
protection. Neither is there any particular landscape designation provided in the
current development plan. Therefore, the appeal site does not form part of a
valued landscape in the context of Framework paragraph 174 a), in respect of
requiring protection and enhancement in a manner commensurate with either
its statutory status or an identified quality in the development plan.
Nevertheless, the site is within countryside strongly valued by local residents,
whereby its intrinsic character and beauty should be recognised, as required by
Framework paragraph 174 b).
14. The appeal site falls within the much wider South Suffolk and North Essex
Clayland National Character Area8. This largely comprises a plateau of gently
undulating farmland, traversed by watercourses and containing patches of
ancient woodland and long-established vegetated field boundaries. At a finer
grain, the appeal site sits within the shallow valley side of Pod’s Brook which,
at a County level, falls at the extremities of the Blackwater/Brain/Lower
Chelmer Valleys Landscape Character Area (LCA) C69. At a District-level, the
appeal site falls within LCA A1210; describing the Pod’s Brook River Valley itself.
This denotes a narrow, linear area that extends north-westwards from the
western fringe of Braintree to Great Bardfield, following the line of Pod’s Brook.
The higher land to either side falls within LCA B13: Rayne Farmland Plateau.
7 Appeal reference APP/Z1510/W/18/3197293
8 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-character-area-profiles-data-for-local-decision-
making/national-character-area-profiles
9 Essex Landscape Character Assessment as prepared by Chris Blandford Associates in 2003
10 Braintree, Brentwood, Chelmsford, Maldon and Uttlesford Landscape Character Assessments – Chris Blandford
Associates September 2006
15. The Pod’s Brook River Valley LCA had provided a baseline for the appellant’s
Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal11 (LVIA). The Council had produced a
shadow LVIA12 of this proposal. In response to this, the appellant had then
produced a LVIA addenda, addressing both the County LCA C6 and five
additional viewpoints suggested. The total of 16 agreed viewpoints provided
the basis for my site visit itinerary.
16. The County and District LCAs treat this river valley landscape consistently.
I refer to the latter, which is to a finer grain and referenced in the Council’s
reason for refusal. LCA A12 comprises a narrow, shallow valley cutting through
the surrounding farmland plateau. The valley sides are generally farmed, with
irregularly shaped fields, deciduous woodland occupying the valley floor and a
vegetation lined Pod’s Brook. The LCA notes that, as the river reaches the edge
of Braintree, woodland cover is reduced and the valley becomes more open,
with larger arable fields sloping down to meet it.
17. The sensitive landscape character elements to the Pod’s Brook River Valley are
described to include a complex pattern of small pastoral fields and deciduous
woodland plantations along the valley floor and deciduous trees which mark the
course of the river. The LCA refers to both an overall sense of tranquillity and
the valley slope skyline views as being susceptible to harm from development.
Whilst the Pod’s Brook River Valley is generally characterised by a limited
amount of habitation, open views of valley sides and relative tranquility, this is
not so evident here. In this location, the housing at Gilda Terrace and Sun Lido
already extend the urban edge of Braintree up to the LCA.
18. This urban edge development has a strong influence on the landscape
character of the immediate surroundings, which is at variance with that
described generally for this LCA. The appeal site has existing housing along two
sides and it is not proposed to extend development any further along these
edges. Although outside the boundary defined for LCA A12, this existing
housing occupies part of the river valley and strongly influences the landscape
character of the immediate surroundings. Unlike the lesser developed areas
further to the north, in this part of the LCA there are adjacent areas of housing
on both sides of the shallow valley, which form part of the urban edge of
Braintree. Whilst the proposal would extend this urban edge further up the
outward valley side, this would integrate visually with this existing built up
area. In this context, there would be only a limited degree of harm to the
landscape character sensitivities described generally for the wider LCA A12.
Visual impact
19. With regard to the visual impact of the proposals, my findings are based on the
appellant’s LVIA and the photographs with wireline depictions of the indicative
development from various viewpoints. These were then seen at first hand at
my site visit.
20. The appeal site is not crossed by, nor directly abuts, any public right of way.
However, in the Brook Green appeal, the Secretary of State agreed with the
Inspector that the loss of views and open outlook from the Flitch Way resulted
in a major adverse impact.
11 Land to the South of Gilda Terrace, Braintree Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal March 2020 Arc Ref: A288-
RE01 prepared by Arc Landscape Design and Planning Limited.
12 TLP Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment - 23 March 2021
21. On entering Flitch Way from the built-up edge of Braintree, and after crossing
Pod’s Brook, there is open countryside to both sides of the path. Views to the
wider expanse of farmland to the south are visually more accessible than to the
north. To the north there is initially a triangular field between Flitch Way and
the Sun Lido estate, and the vegetation along its boundaries helps screen views
of this existing housing.
22. After the triangular field, the next one along accommodates the proposed
development. From the adjacent sections of Flitch Way there are intermittent
views of the rear of properties in Gilda Terrace and Sun Lido, between the
intervening vegetation and at a distance across the appeal site. These views
would be clearer in mid-winter but are more obscured in the summer with the
greater foliage. The proposal brings the current extent of housing significantly
closer towards Flitch Way. Despite this, views of the new development would
remain fleeting, seen intermittently between the trees and vegetation. Such
screening that exists might be strengthened by further planting within the
public open space on the south side of the scheme, to be agreed at the detailed
landscaping stage.
23. Further along from Braintree, Flitch Way runs within an embankment. This
effectively removes views of the appeal site from its main thoroughfare.
However, informal paths run up and along this embankment and, from the top,
the scheme would be prominent from certain views, seen across the existing
fields and towards Gilda Terrace and Sun Lido. These visual impacts would in
time be softened by the boundary landscaping proposed.
24. Further along Flitch Way, a footpath branches off and runs alongside the Oak
Meadow Nature Reserve on the edge of Rayne. From the viewpoint along this
footpath, the indicative wireline profiles indicate that the tops of the proposed
houses would be visible. This would be at a distance and on the crest of the
intervening arable field that rises away in the direction of Braintree. However,
with the softening effects of tree planting along this nearest development edge,
including that proposed off-site, the proposal would have a limited visual
impact from this point.
25. From the footpath vantage points within countryside further to the south, the
housing proposed would be almost entirely screened by the vegetation along
Flitch Way, such as to have negligible visual impact. From the other side of
Flitch Way and beyond Rayne Road, there are views from the footpath that
runs from All Saints Church toward Braintree. From these points the proposed
development would have a limited visual impact, being distant and largely
concealed by Gilda Terrace. From closer to the site, along Rayne Road, the
scheme would in the main be clearly visible only from opposite the proposed
site entrance.
26. From points within the built-up outskirts of Braintree, such as on Rayne Road
at the junction with Nayling Road, from the footpaths in the new Brookfield
Road housing estate and, further away still, from Springwood Drive, there
would be distant views of the proposal. The new housing would be visible
occupying the upper parts of the grassed field on the opposite side of the Pod’s
Brook valley. However, such distant views would be framed by the foreground
development, such that any degree of adverse visual impact would be small.
27. For immediately adjacent occupiers of Gilda Terrace and Sun Lido, in many
cases the development would alter private views from rear windows and back
gardens. However, changes to the outlook from neighbouring properties is an
inevitable outcome of accommodating development growth. In respect of these
private views, reserved matter approval would provide a means to attend to
detailed matters of scale, separation and landscaping so as to address the
living conditions for existing and future households.
28. Overall, my conclusion is that the appeal site is relatively well contained
visually. The impacts would be localised, and mainly from between the trees
along the Flitch Way and at points from informal paths that run along its
vegetated margins and embankment. The near boundary of the proposal is set
back from the edge of Flitch Way, with the housing then sited behind where the
main public open space and the drainage attenuation area are to be provided.
Such a layout, secured through the development parameters plan, along with
opportunities provided for landscaping, would further reduce the visual impact
of the proposed housing. My overall conclusion is that the resulting visual harm
would be limited, with the impacts being restricted to intermittent points close
to the site boundary from where the housing would be seen.
Perceived physical separation of development in Braintree and Rayne
29. The Council’s decision refers to this site forming part of an undeveloped area of
land which has long been recognised as playing an important role in
maintaining separation between the settlements of Braintree and Rayne. The
site was identified as having a low capacity to accommodate new development
in the Council’s 2015 Settlement Fringes Evaluation13, to which I have had
regard. In this study the appeal site falls within Parcel 17b, as one of a number
that play important roles in preserving the separation between Braintree and
smaller settlements in its environs. This evaluation has been reflected in the
emerging S2LP, which identifies an area of land between Braintree and Rayne
(which includes the application site) as a Green Buffer. Within these Green
Buffer zones, emerging Policy LPP 72 would place a restriction upon further
development such as that proposed. However, the S2LP is at Examination,
such that the conflict with Policy LPP 72 can only be afforded limited weight.
30. Although the proposal would lead to development encroaching within the
mainly undeveloped land that separates the two settlements, it would extend
no further towards Rayne than Gilda Terrace. It would integrate with the
existing built-up edge of Braintree by having development to two sides. Beyond
this proposal, there would still remain a substantial amount of intervening
countryside. The proposal would, in relative terms, cause limited further harm
in reducing the degree of actual or perceived separation between Braintree and
Rayne.
Conclusion over landscape character, visual impact and effect on settlement
separation
31. The proposal would not extend further beyond the housing along its built-up
sides, which would also provide screening. The scheme would lead to the urban
edge of Braintree expanding in this location. Although extending further up the
shallow valley side, the proposal would cause limited harm to the landscape
character of this area, with visual impacts being localised and not far-reaching.
An undeveloped gap between Braintree and Rayne would largely be preserved.
13 Braintree District Settlement Fringes Evaluation of Landscape Analysis Study of Braintree and environs for
Braintree District Council June 2015
32. Any adverse impacts would be most keenly experienced from housing along the
site boundary and the adjacent section of Flitch Way. However, the actual
views of the housing from the pathway along Flitch Way would be fleeting and
capable of being further screened out by boundary planting as this matures.
Furthermore, the proposal is already to be set apart from Flitch Way, with the
main area of open space located to provide further separation. The housing
proposed would not detract significantly from the experience Flitch Way
currently provides as a relatively tranquil, tree-lined conduit beyond the built-
up area into the countryside.
33. To conclude on the first main issue, the proposal would have limited adverse
effects on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding landscape,
including as viewed from public vantage points such as Flitch Way, and in
respect of the perceived physical separation of development in Braintree and
Rayne. Nevertheless, the proposal effects change to the landscape in this
location and therefore gives rise to some conflict with S1LP Policy SP 3 and
policies CS 5, CS 8, RLP 2, RLP 80 and emerging S2LP Policy LPP 72. This is
insofar as, collectively, these restrict development outside settlement
boundaries in order to protect and enhance the landscape character of the
countryside. I deal with the degree of conflict with these policies, and the
weight attached, in the final planning balance.
S106 Agreement
34. The completed s106 provides for various measures. These are the securing of
the required 30% affordable housing, the public open space, the Flitch Way
improvements and a potential future link to it from the development, financial
contributions towards education, primary health care, allotments and outdoor
sports, the necessary site access junction improvements, funding towards
offsite highway works and the necessary European nature conservation site
mitigation payments.
35. I have considered the terms of the s106 against the tests set out in paragraph
57 of the Framework and Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure
Levy Regulations 2010. These tests require that the s106 is necessary to make
the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the
development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to it. On the
basis of the evidence provided, I am content that the s106 satisfies these tests.
Other Matters
36. Beyond the Council’s reason for refusal, consideration has been given to the
further matters of concern raised by interested parties at both the application
and appeal stages.
37. The new housing will result in increased pedestrian and vehicular movements
to and from the site. There is reasonable accessibility to jobs, schools and
other services within Braintree, such that private car dependence would not be
unduly high. Increased vehicular movements would be safely accommodated
by the agreed access measures onto Rayne Road.
38. The local highway authority (LHA) has approved the proposed means of access
and raises no objections to the scheme, subject to financial contributions
towards Springwood Drive roundabout improvements, enhanced connectivity
by foot/cycle to Flitch Way and the provision of residential travel packs. The
proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and the
residual cumulative impacts on the surrounding network would not be severe.
The housing is in a location where appropriate opportunities to promote
sustainable transport modes can be taken up. Subject to the contributions
secured by the s106 and to the conditions sought by the LHA, the scheme is
acceptable in respect of highway safety and capacity and in terms of
sustainable transport choices.
39. The additional population would place extra pressure on local health and
education provision. However, this would be mitigated by the payments to
these services secured through the s106, such that neither factor would weigh
materially against the proposal. A further financial contribution towards
allotments and outdoor sports would mitigate for increased demand on these
facilities.
40. The s106 provides for the contributions necessary to mitigate for off-site
recreational impacts on European nature conservation sites. Regarding on-site
biodiversity, the development would result in little harm, and construction
would be conditional upon adherence to a Construction Environmental
Management Plan. To ensure the completed development delivers net benefits
in this regard, an agreed Biodiversity Compensation and Enhancement Strategy
for protected and priority species could be conditioned. In all, this scheme
would be acceptable in respect of its impact upon the natural environment.
41. There are no grounds to find the scheme incapable of providing adequate
means of foul and surface water drainage or to result in off-site flooding, and
these matters can be satisfactorily addressed through planning conditions.
42. There would be some disruption to, and adverse impacts upon, the living
conditions of neighbouring occupiers during the construction period. However,
this is to a degree inevitable with any development, would endure for a
temporary period and be capable of being ameliorated by conditions limiting
operational hours and requiring adherence to an approved Construction Method
Statement.
Habitat Regulation Assessment
43. In respect of this proposal’s effects upon adjacent coastal sites protected under
the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended),
I have considered the Council’s Habitat Regulation Assessment (HRA) Record
dated 11 August 2020.
44. I agree that the up to 120 dwellings proposed fall within the 22km Zone of
Influence (ZoI) established in the Essex Coast Recreational disturbance
Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS) Supplementary Planning
Document14. This is in terms of increased recreational disturbance to coastal
European designated sites, in particular the Blackwater Estuary (Mid-Essex
Coast Phase 4) Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site. Within this ZoI,
residents of new housing are considered likely to regularly visit relevant
designated sites for recreation.
45. The s106 secures managed open space which, combining with adjoining public
rights of way, provides a walking route of at least 2.7km. This includes a link to
14 Essex Coast Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy Supplementary Planning Document
(SPD) May 2020
and improvements towards Flitch Way. In addition to this, the s106 provides
for the financial contribution towards the funding of strategic off-site
recreational measures set by the RAMS in order to mitigate indirect impacts
upon the adjacent European sites.
46. These avoidance and mitigation measures allow me to conclude that this
proposal will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of European sites
included within the Essex Coast RAMS Strategy, either alone or in combination
with other plans and projects.
Overall planning balance
47. The Council has confirmed that it can now demonstrate a 5YHLS, due to better
than expected delivery rates, positive future forecasts from developers and the
inclusion of additional sites in the supply. I have no reason to take an
alternative view and furthermore the appellant has not disputed this matter.
The deeming effect of footnote 8 in paragraph 11 of the Framework, over the
policies most important for determining the appeal being out-of-date, is no
longer applicable for this reason.
48. Braintree is to be a principal focus for additional growth across the NEA area
during the S1LP plan period, through the spatial strategy of Policy SP 3. This
provides general support for this proposal, since this envisages further
development adjoining the town, relative to its scale, sustainability and existing
role. As part of the recently adopted S1LP, full weight is given to the support
provided by Policy SP 3. However, this is caveated by stating that future
growth will be planned to ensure existing settlements maintain their distinctive
character and role, avoid coalescence and conserve their settings.
49. This proposal would not conflict with S1LP Policy SP 3 in regard to the built-up
parts of Braintree and Rayne actually coalescing. The further matters of
settlement character and setting are addressed by separate policies in the
adopted plan. Of these, RLP 80 requires that new development is not
detrimental to distinctive landscape features and successfully integrates into
these. This is reasonably consistent with the Framework’s objectives in
paragraph 130 c) for development to be sympathetic to local character,
including the surrounding landscape setting. However, the relative degree of
visual containment of the proposed housing within the wider landscape, and its
close relationship to the Braintree urban edge, limits the actual amount of
harm found from the conflict with this policy.
50. There are no grounds for me to find any material harm through conflict with
Policy RLP 90. The high standard of layout and design this policy requires are
matters which might be achieved through reserved matter approval.
51. Policy CS 8 requires development to have regard to the character of the
landscape and its sensitivity to change, over which I have found limited harm.
This further requires schemes to enhance the locally distinctive character of the
landscape in accordance with the LCA. This part is more onerous than
Framework paragraph 174 b), which seeks only that the intrinsic character and
beauty of the countryside is recognised, in locations such as this where the site
is neither part of a valued landscape nor has statutory protection. Due to this
inconsistency with the Framework, reduced weight is attached to the conflict
found with Policy CS 8.
52. In falling outside the development boundary currently defined for Braintree,
where countryside policies apply and provide it no support, this proposal is
clearly in direct conflict with saved Policy RLP 2. The same applies to Policy CS
5, which strictly controls development outside settlement boundaries to uses
appropriate to the countryside.
53. There is clearly some tension between the strict confinement of development to
within settlement boundaries by policies CS 5 and RLP 2, and the more recent
S1LP Policy SP 3, which accepts further housing growth both within and around
Braintree. However, decisions over any changes to these boundaries depend on
the eventual adoption of the S2LP. Policy SP 3 does not provide a free reign to
all proposals adjoining settlement boundaries. The appeal site falls outside the
currently adopted development boundary, where policies prioritise the
protection and enhancement of rural landscape character. Whilst other policies
might weigh in favour, the proposal remains in conflict with the development
plan when taken as a whole.
54. The Council acknowledges that the revised HLS position has relied upon the
contributions made by a number of sites outside of development boundaries,
and that the restrictive nature of policies RLP 2 and CS 5 is not fully in
accordance with the Framework. These development boundaries were evidently
predicated upon much earlier levels of housing need, dating back to the 2001
Essex and Southend-on-Sea Replacement Structure Plan, and conceived many
years prior to the publication of the original 2012 Framework. The conflict with
policies RLP 2 and CS 5, over the site falling outside the settlement boundary,
is therefore given limited weight, with a finding of a corresponding degree of
limited harm.
55. As stated in paragraph 29, the conflict with the restriction upon further
development within proposed Green Buffer zones, through emerging S2LP
Policy LPP 72, can only be afforded limited weight.
56. In conclusion, I have found the proposal to result in a limited degree of harm to
landscape character. However, the conflict with policy as a result of this harm,
coupled with the site falling beyond the adopted development boundaries, has
led me to conclude this proposal conflicts with the development plan when
considered as a whole. As explained, I have given reduced weight to some of
the earlier development plan policies, mainly due to some inconsistency with
the Framework. Overall, there would be limited harm arising from this proposal
from the conflict identified with the development plan as a whole.
57. Turning to the scheme benefits, the more optimistic HLS position reduces these
in regard to meeting a general housing need, when compared to the position at
the time of this Inquiry. However, achieving a 5YHLS does not indicate a ceiling
in provision has been reached. I still give more than moderate weight to the
social and economic benefits that up to 120 further dwellings would provide
towards the Framework’s continuing objective of significantly boosting the
supply of homes.
58. It is common ground that there is a significant need for additional affordable
housing in Braintree District. The benefits of this scheme in providing 30% as
affordable units should, as a minimum, be given significant weight in the
planning balance. Based on the evidence, I give very significant weight to the
social benefits of this affordable housing.
59. A development of this scale would create appreciable economic benefits
through the generation of jobs during the construction period, both directly and
indirectly. Furthermore, new residents would purchase the goods and services
at local businesses, thereby increasing economic activity. In this respect, I
attribute moderate weight to the proposal’s local economic benefits.
60. Taken as a whole the social and economic benefits are weighty, when
compared to the limited harm arising from the effects on the character and
appearance of the site and surrounding landscape. On an even balance, the
social and economic benefits would outweigh the limited harm arising from the
development plan policy conflict in respect of both landscape character and
building in the countryside. This balance is clearly in favour of allowing the
appeal, and this then comprises a material consideration of sufficient weight to
indicate my decision be otherwise than in accordance with the development
plan.
Conditions
61. Suggested conditions were considered at the Inquiry, after which the main
parties agreed a revised list addressing the questions raised. These have been
assessed against the tests in paragraph 56 of the Framework which requires
planning conditions be kept to a minimum and only imposed where necessary,
relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable,
precise and reasonable in all other respects. For those found to meet these
tests, I have in some instances made further amendments, mainly in the
interests of brevity and enforceability.
62. Condition 1 applies the standard requirements for outstanding reserved matter
submissions, the time limits for these and for commencement of the
development. In the interests of certainty, condition 2 specifies the plans
approved, including those relating to access. In the interests of highway safety,
condition 3 requires the visibility splays at the site access onto Rayne Road to
be provided and thereafter maintained as approved.
63. In the interests of biodiversity, condition 4 is necessary to ensure the
development accords with an approved Construction Environment Management
Plan (CEMP). Measures to protect trees and vegetation during construction
could form part of the CEMP or be secured through reserved matter approval.
In the interests of both highway safety and the living conditions of nearby
residential occupiers, condition 5 is necessary to ensure the development
proceeds in accordance with an approved Construction Method Statement.
64. For environmental health reasons, condition 6 is necessary to ensure the
development proceeds on the basis of an approved foul drainage strategy.
Condition 7 is necessary to ensure adequate surface water drainage
arrangements for the development, condition 8 to mitigate any potential site
contamination and condition 9 to address any on-site archaeological interest.
65. Condition 10 requires the landscaping and future management of the off-site
land to the west of the appeal site, to help assimilate the development
acceptably into the landscape. To ensure the development delivers net benefits
in this regard, an agreed Biodiversity Compensation and Enhancement Strategy
for Protected and Priority species is required by condition 11. To safely
illuminate the development without polluting the night sky or harming
protected species, condition 12 requires external lighting be provided in
accordance with an approved scheme.
66. Condition 13 is necessary to ensure that, prior to occupation, each dwelling has
the approved car and cycle parking and waste/recycling bins storage. To foster
the take up of sustainable transport modes, conditions 14 and 15 secure
upgraded bus-stops and the provision of residential travel information packs
respectively. In the interests of the living conditions of residents living near to
the development, condition 16 imposes necessary restrictions over the hours
and days for construction and associated activity.
Conclusion
67. Subject to these conditions, and for the reasons set out in preceding
paragraphs, I conclude that the appeal be allowed.
Jonathan Price
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Emma Dring of Counsel
She called
Mr Chris Tivey BSc Principal Director Chris Tivey Associates
(Hons) BPI MRTPI
Simon Neesam BA Technical Director, The Landscape Partnership
(Hons) Dip LA CMLI
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Matthew Dale-Harris of Counsel
He called
Guy Wakefield MRTPI Partner at Ridge and Partners Limited
Vanessa Ross Chartered Landscape Architect at Arc Landscape
Design and Planning Limited
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Mr Michael Eldred Rayne Parish Council
Mrs Emma Wood No Brook Green Action Group
Ms Sandra Reynolds Trustee and Secretary, Friends of Flitch Way and
Associated Woodland
INQUIRY DOCUMENTS
The following documents were submitted and accepted by the Inquiry:
On behalf of the local planning authority:
Opening statement by Ms Emma Dring
Note on condition relating to blue land by Ms Emma Dring - 22 April 2021
Lead Local Flood Authority (Essex CC) consultation response 3 June 2020
Closing submissions by Ms Emma Dring
On behalf of the appellant:
Opening submissions by Mr Matthew Dale-Harris
Closing submissions by Mr Matthew Dale-Harris
On behalf of both main parties
Jointly signed Statement of Common Ground - 23 March 2021
Draft Unilateral Undertaking with Council’s comments.
Amended off-site landscaping condition
Schedule of Conditions
1. Details of the:
o scale of the buildings, including finished ground floor levels above
ordnance datum;
o appearance of the buildings;
o layout of the buildings, including footways, open space, car and cycle
parking, roads, refuse/recycling bin storage areas and collection
points;
o and landscaping of the site
(hereinafter referred to as "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development
takes place and the development shall be carried out as approved.
An application for the approval of the reserved matters shall be
made to the local planning authority not later than 3 years from the
date of this permission.
The development hereby permitted shall take place not later than 2 years
from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.
2. The submission of reserved matter applications pursuant to this outline
planning permission shall together provide for no more than up to 120
dwellings with all matters reserved except access and the demolition of
nos. 27 and 29 Gilda Terrace and shall be carried out in accordance with
the following approved plans:
a. Site Boundary Plan: 1002 Rev A;
b. Development Parameters plan: 3502;
c. Proposed Site Access plan: 194918-A01-01 Rev E;
d. Swept Path Analysis plan: 194918-A01-AT01 Rev D.
3. The site access as shown on drawing 194918-A01-01 Rev E, along
with its vehicular visibility splays, shall be constructed and completed
prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted. The
visibility splays clear to ground shall be provided before the access is
first used by vehicular traffic and shall be retained free of any
obstruction at all times.
4. A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority
prior to site clearance and the commencement of development hereby
permitted. The CEMP shall include the following:
a. Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities;
b. Identification of biodiversity protection zones;
c. Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working
practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be
provided as a set of method statements);
d. The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to
biodiversity features;
e. The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be
present on site to oversee works;
f. Responsible persons and lines of communication; and
g. Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.
The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the
construction period in accordance with the approved details, unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
5. No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement
(CMS) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning
authority. The CMS shall provide for:
a. The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;
b. The loading and unloading of plant and materials;
c. Safe access to/from the site including the routeing of construction
traffic;
d. The storage of plant and materials used in constructing the
development;
e. The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including
decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where
appropriate;
f. Wheel washing and under-body washing facilities;
g. A scheme to minimise the risk of offsite flooding caused by surface
water run-off and groundwater during construction;
h. Measures to control the emission of dust, dirt and mud during
construction;
i. A scheme to control noise and vibration during the construction
phase, including details of any piling operations;
j. Delivery, demolition and construction working hours.
k. Details of how the approved CMS will be implemented and adhered to,
including contact details for individuals responsible for ensuring
compliance.
The approved CMS shall be adhered to throughout the construction period
for the development.
6. No development shall commence until a foul water strategy has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No
dwellings shall be occupied until the works have been carried out in
accordance with the foul water strategy so approved.
7. No works except demolition shall take place until a detailed surface water
drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and
an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the
development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The scheme should include:
a. Measures to limit discharge rates to 4.3 l/s for the 1 in 1 year
greenfield runoff rate and 5.0 l/s all storm events up to an including
the 1 in 100 year rate plus 40% allowance for climate change, with all
relevant permissions to discharge from the site into any outfall
demonstrated;
b. Provision to ensure sufficient storage to ensure no off-site flooding as
a result of the development during all storm events up to and
including the 1 in 100 year plus 40% climate change event;
c. Demonstration that all storage features can half empty within 24
hours for the 1 in 30 plus 40% climate change critical storm event;
d. Final modelling and calculations for all areas of the drainage system;
e. The appropriate level of treatment for all runoff leaving the site, in line
with the Simple Index Approach in chapter 26 of the CIRIA SuDS
Manual C753, noting that due to the number of dwellings the expected
daily traffic movements will be more than 300 and, therefore, the
main roads will have a medium pollution hazard rating;
f. Detailed engineering drawings of each component of the drainage
scheme, showing the depths and side slopes of all features, detention
basins with a maximum water depth of 1.2m (or to 2m if sufficient
safety measures have been put in, avoiding fencing as much as
possible) and detention basins and swales with side slopes of no
steeper than 1 in 3;
g. A final drainage plan which details exceedance and conveyance
routes, FFL and ground levels, and the location and sizing of any
drainage features;
h. A written report summarising the final scheme, the conveyance of
surface water and connection into the River Brain and highlighting any
minor changes made;
i. a plan detailing the maintenance arrangements including yearly logs,
responsibilities for different elements of the surface water drainage
system, the maintenance activities/frequencies and details of long-
term funding arrangements;
The surface water drainage scheme shall subsequently be implemented as
approved prior to occupation.
8. Prior to the commencement of development, a comprehensive phase 2
(intrusive) survey shall be undertaken to assess the nature and extent of
any contamination on the site and a copy of the survey findings, together
with a remediation scheme (if identified as necessary) to bring the site to a
suitable condition, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local
planning authority. Any remediation scheme required shall then be
implemented and completed as approved be prior to the commencement of
development hereby approved.
Notwithstanding the above, should contamination be found that was not
previously identified or not considered in the remediation scheme agreed in
writing with the local planning authority, that contamination shall be made
safe and reported immediately to the local planning authority. The site shall
be reassessed in accordance with the above and a separate remediation
scheme shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning
authority. Such agreed measures shall be implemented and completed prior
to the first occupation of any parts of the development.
The developer shall give one-month's advanced notice in writing to the local
planning authority of the impending completion of the remediation works.
Within four weeks of completion of the remediation works a validation report
undertaken by competent person or persons and in accordance with the
'Essex Contaminated Land Consortium's Land Affected by Contamination:
Technical Guidance for Applicants and Developers' and the agreed
remediation measures shall be submitted to the local planning authority for
approval. There shall be no residential occupation of the site until the local
planning authority has approved the validation report in writing.
Furthermore, prior to occupation of any property hereby permitted, the
developer shall submit to the local planning authority a signed and dated
certificate to confirm that the remediation works have been completed in
accordance with the documents and plans comprising the remediation
scheme agreed in writing with the local planning authority.
9. No development or preliminary groundworks can commence until a
programme of archaeological trial trenching has been secured and
undertaken in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation, which has
been submitted by the applicant, and approved by the local planning
authority. Following the completion of this initial phase of archaeological
work, a summary report will be prepared and a mitigation strategy detailing
the approach to further archaeological excavation and/or preservation in situ
through re-design of the development, shall be submitted to the local
planning authority.
No development or preliminary groundwork can commence on those areas of
the development site containing archaeological deposits, until the
satisfactory completion of archaeological fieldwork, as detailed in the
mitigation strategy, which has been signed off by the local planning
authority.
Following completion of the archaeological fieldwork, the applicant will
submit to the local planning authority a post-excavation assessment (within
six months of the completion date, unless otherwise agreed in advance with
the local planning authority), which will result in the completion of post-
excavation analysis, preparation of a full site archive and report ready for
deposition at the local museum, and submission of a publication report.
10.The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a landscaping
and future management plan has been submitted for the off-site landscaping
areas identified on drawing number A288 LA 01D, setting out long term
design objectives, management responsibilities, funding arrangements,
maintenance schedules and identifying proposed species and sizes, plant
numbers and densities, soil specification along with details of the protection
and maintenance of plants during establishment. The landscaping and future
management plan shall thereafter be provided and maintained as approved.
11.Concurrently with the first submission of the reserved matters under
Condition 1 of this permission, a Biodiversity Compensation and
Enhancement Strategy for protected and priority species (BCES) shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
BCES shall include:
a. The purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed
enhancement measures;
b. Detailed designs to achieve stated objectives;
c. A timetable for implementation demonstrating that works are aligned
with the proposed phasing of development;
d. Locations of proposed enhancement measures by appropriate maps
and plans;
e. Persons responsible for implementing the enhancement measures;
f. Details of initial aftercare and long-term maintenance (where
relevant).
Prior to occupation, the BCES shall be implemented as approved and the
thereafter retained and maintained.
12. Concurrently with the first submission of the reserved matters under
Condition 1 of this permission, an external lighting design scheme shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
scheme shall identify those features on site that are particularly sensitive
for bats and that are likely to cause disturbance along important routes
used for foraging; and show how and where external lighting will be
installed (through the provision of appropriate lighting contour plans, lsolux
drawings and technical specifications) so that it can be clearly
demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent bats using their
territory whilst also providing an appropriate level of lighting for safety and
amenity of residents.
Prior to occupation, all external lighting shall be installed in accordance
with the specifications and locations set out in the scheme and thereafter
maintained in accordance with the scheme.
13. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the parking spaces,
bin storage areas and, where relevant, collection points for that dwelling
have been provided and are available for use and shall be retained in the
approved form thereafter.
14. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the two bus stops
opposite Gilda Terrace have been relocated and upgraded in accordance with
details that shall have had the prior written approval of the local planning
authority.
15. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the details and
content of a residential travel information pack, to include measures
to promote and raise awareness of local opportunities for sustainable
transport, have been submitted to and been approved in writing by
the local planning authority and thereafter provided to occupiers of
each dwelling.
16.No site clearance, demolition, construction work, starting of machinery or
delivery of materials, including vehicular movements relating to the same,
shall take place outside the following times:
Monday to Friday 0800 – 1800, Saturday 0800 – 1300 and at no time on
Sundays or public/bank holidays.
---