Case Reference: 3307493

Appeal Decision
Hearing held on 7 February 2023
Site visit made on 8 February 2023
by Thomas Bristow BA MSc MRTPI AssocRICS
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 14 March 2023
Appeal Ref: APP/Z1510/W/22/3307493
Land to the east of Braintree Road, Tye Green
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as
amended against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Rainier Developments Ltd. and Mr Nicholas Cousins against the
decision of Braintree District Council.
• The application Ref 21/03053/OUT, dated 6 October 2021, was refused by notice dated
23 March 2022.
• The development proposed is described on the application form as ‘outline planning
application (some matters reserved) for the residential development of up to 35
dwellings (including 40% affordable housing), with vehicular access, areas of
landscaping and public open space’.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for residential
development of up to 35 dwellings, including 40% affordable housing, with
vehicular access, areas of landscaping and public open space at land to the
east of Braintree Road, Tye Green, subject to the conditions in the first
schedule to this decision and the obligations contained within the section 106
agreement dated 15 February 2023 (the ‘S106’).1
Preliminary matters
2. Aside from in respect of access, the proposal is in outline. Appearance,
landscaping, layout and scale are reserved for future consideration (the
‘reserved matters’). I have treated any plans or details of reserved matters as
illustrative. At my request the appellants submitted hearing document 2. That
is an alternative illustrative layout, and was discussed at the hearing.
3. The Council’s decision notice of 23 March 2022 contained four reasons for
refusal. The third concerned the absence of mitigation in respect of the
Blackwater Estuary Ramsar Site and Special Protection Area and the Essex
Estuaries Special Area of Conservation. Those nested designations are mapped
at figure 1.1. of the Essex Coast Recreational Disturbance Avoidance &
Mitigation Strategy 2018-2038 (‘RAMS’). I refer to them here as ‘habitat sites’.
4. The fourth reason related to planning obligations in respect of affordable
housing provision, infrastructure contributions and various other aspects of the
proposal. Both reasons 3 and 4 had, however, fallen away at the time of the
1 Under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.
hearing by consequence of the obligations contained within the S106 (referred
to above, and addressed subsequently).
Policy context
5. Each proposal must be determined in accordance with the development plan
unless material considerations indicate otherwise.2 The development plan here
includes policies of the Shared Strategic Section 1 Local Plan (adopted February
2021, the ‘S1LP’), of the Section 2 Local Plan (adopted July 2022, specific to
Braintree District Council’s administrative area, the ‘S2LP’), and of the Cressing
Neighbourhood Plan (adopted February 2020, the ‘CNP’). I have had regard to
various other material considerations including the National Planning Policy
Framework (‘NPPF’), the Planning Practice Guidance (‘PPG’), the Essex Design
Guide (November 2005) and the Essex County Council Parking Standards:
Design and Good Practice document (September 2009).
6. Prospective changes to the planning system are indicated via the Levelling-up
and Regeneration Bill and in the NPPF Prospectus published on 22 December
2022. I heard divergent views about the extent to which those are relevant,
and note two points in that regard. Firstly those potential changes indicate a
certain direction of travel, which would not be unreasonable to take account of.
Secondly, however, any prospective changes are inherently uncertain and
cannot therefore be accorded any significant weight.
Housing supply and delivery
7. 2021 Housing Delivery Test (‘HDT’) data for the Council’s administrative area
indicates delivery over the past three years amounting to 125% of
requirements. However that is a lagging indicator. By contrast the Council
accepts that it cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply of
deliverable sites relative to needs (‘5YHLS’) going forward, with reference to
NPPF paragraphs 68 and 74.
8. Given the recency of the S2LP, the 5YHLS requirement derives from the
development plan context as opposed to the local housing needs approach
(NPPF paragraph 61). In that context the Council’s position is that they can
demonstrate a forward supply amounting to 4.86 years’ worth. The appellants
consider that to be optimistic.
9. Setting that aside, however, the lack of a 5YHLS, along with the absence of
protective designations here,3 means NPPF paragraph 11. d) ii. is engaged.
Accordingly the most important policies for determining the application should
be deemed out-of-date, and permission withheld only if any adverse impacts of
the scheme would ‘significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’ when
assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.
10. Nevertheless the NPPF does not displace the statutory basis for decision-taking
(policies deemed out-of-date do not disappear). It is a matter of judgement as
to the weight to accord to any harm, and equally in respect of any benefits.
2 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as amended.
3 Whilst I will return to implications in respect of habitats sites.
The Kelvedon Neighbourhood Plan (‘KNP’)
11. There was debate at the hearing as to the status, and potential implications, of
a permission stage application for judicial review related to the KNP. An
approved transcript of the unsuccessful outcome of that application
subsequently emerged.4 In brief, the KNP examiner recommended the deletion
of KNP policy HO4 on the basis that it was ‘inconsistent with the Local Plan
because it was significantly more enabling of development outside settlement
boundaries [than provisions of the development plan].’ The claimant sought
judicial review of the Council’s decision to proceed to put the then emerging
KNP to referendum without that policy.
12. In that transcript policy CS5 of the Braintree Core Strategy (adopted
September 2011) is referenced, as is policy RLP2 of the Braintree Local Plan
Review 2005, which dealt with ‘town development boundaries and village
envelopes’. The S2LP has since been adopted, superseding the Core Strategy,
which also means that there is a variance between the policies cited in the
Council’s decision notice and those now applicable. The S2LP includes policy
‘LPP 1’ ‘development boundaries’.
13. Whilst namechecking certain elements of the development plan, the transcript
is of little relevance here. Firstly the judgement reached there was about
whether to allow judicial review, a different frame of reference to an appeal.
The legislative context in which a neighbourhood plan is examined also differs
from the statutory basis for decision-taking. Thirdly the wording of S2LP policy
LPP 1 differs in wording to that of RLP2. Fourthly, trite but true, the site here is
not within the Parish of Kelvedon.
Main issues
14. Against the context above the main issues are (i) whether the appeal site is an
acceptable location for the development proposed, with particular regard to the
accessibility of services and facilities, and (ii) the effect of the proposal on local
and landscape character.
Reasons
Location
15. The appeal site is about 1.68ha of broadly level agricultural land. It is part of a
wider holding which extends to the north and east. I understand the site is
grade 2 in terms agricultural land classification (‘ALC’), one category of that
which is defined as ‘best and most versatile’ (‘BMV’). The site is roughly
rectangular. A long edge runs beside Braintree Road (B1018) to the west.
There is a slight decline in level from the carriageway to the site, the boundary
between the two demarcated by a low patchy hedge (identified as ‘H3’ in the
appellants’ Arboricultural Impact Assessment, ‘AIA’). The short edges extend to
the plots of a property named ‘Deans’, also ostensibly referred to as Dean’s
Farmhouse to the north, and ‘The Nook’ to the south.
16. Neither the site, adjacent dwellings, nor other properties to the east or north of
the B1018 are within the Tye Green development boundary (as shown on S2LP
inset map 20). With reference to S2LP paragraph 2.15, land outside of
4 EWHC 3541 (Admin), No. CO/759/2022.
development boundaries is considered ‘countryside’. The development
boundary instead tracks along the eastern and southern side of the B1018. It is
roughly teardrop shaped. The consolidated form of Tye Green falls principally
around Jeffrey’s Road, and includes also S2LP allocation ‘CRESS 193’ beyond.
Mill Lane represents the southern curve of the development boundary. To the
north the development boundary elongates and narrows, incorporating a taper
of detached properties which run the full length of the appeal site and beyond.5
17. ‘Cressing Tye Green’ is identified in the S2LP as a ‘Second Tier’ settlement.6 It
is a fair walk, slightly over a kilometre as set out in the appellants’ Transport
Assessment (‘TA’), from the appeal site to Cressing railway station. The station
is itself separated by some distance from the nearest edge of the development
boundary. There are bus stops relatively nearby at Mill Lane.7
18. I accept that the frequency of train and bus services here is less than
elsewhere. It is a relatively lengthy walk to Braintree town centre, some 3km
away. Walking that route would likely be in large part along the B1018;
footpaths in the surroundings are more circuitous. As referenced by local
residents, the B1018 experiences a commensurate volume of traffic with its
function as the main route between Witham and Braintree. In the foregoing
context future residents of the development proposed may find it preferential
to drive to elsewhere instead of using public transport, walking or cycling.
19. However there are various services and facilities at Tye Green which are
reasonably accessible.8 Inherent in my reasoning above, there are public
transport options available nearby. Some future residents may elect to walk or
cycle to more populous areas; they would not be reliant upon private vehicles.
Notwithstanding its categorisation in the S2LP, Tye Green is a substantial
settlement. Allocation CRESS 193 alone is for an indicative capacity of 225
dwellings. Set against that context the implications of a modest scheme for up
to 35 dwellings would be limited. More fundamentally in terms of location, a
significant number of properties are similarly located relative to services and
facilities in the area.
20. In terms of accessibility, the site would therefore be acceptable.9 In that
respect the proposal would not undermine the objectives of S1LP policy SP 3,
nor would it conflict with the approach in NPPF paragraphs 104 and 105. In
summary, S1LP policy SP 3 sets out how existing settlements will be the
principal focus for growth. Development adjoining settlements is not precluded.
NPPF paragraphs 104 and 105 seek to ensure various transport objectives are
factored into managing patterns of growth, including promoting walking,
cycling and public transport.
5 Five properties broadly opposite the plot of Dean’s Farmhouse to the north are within the settlement boundary
(The Laurels, Lightfoots, Pear Tree Cottage, Bannisters and Homeleigh).
6 Defined in supporting text as ‘Second Tier villages are those which may not serve a wider hinterland but provide
the ability for some day to day needs to be met, although they lack the full range of facilities of a Key Service
Villages. Development of a small scale may be considered sustainable within a Second Tier village, subject to the
specific constraints and opportunities of that village’ (my emphasis).
7 The TA indicates they are at a distance of some 250m, and are intended to be upgraded in association with
application Ref 19/01968/OUT (albeit that proposal had not been determined at the time of the hearing).
8 TA, table 4.1.
9 Albeit that each proposal must be treated on its merits, my view in that respect aligns with the officer who
assessed the proposal to which planning permission Ref 21/01940/OUT relates (a scheme including four dwellings
to the east of the B1018 a short distance away now apparently named Templar Fields, hearing document 5).
21. I accept that an implication may be drawn from S1LP policy SP 3 that housing
in the countryside is not supported to the same extent as development within
settlements. I also acknowledge that the S1LP was established at a strategic
level with other authorities, and therefore its policies are inevitably somewhat
broad-brush. However the foregoing implication is somewhat with the benefit
of hindsight in the light of the S2LP. Policy SP 3 states neither that housing
outside of development boundaries is to be avoided, nor that development
boundaries will be set via subsequent development plan documents (as
opposed to a hierarchy of settlements).
22. Nonetheless, by virtue of the site’s location beyond a settlement boundary, the
proposal would inevitably conflict with S2LP policy LPP 1. Policy LPP 1 sets out
how development outside of development boundaries will be ‘confined to uses
appropriate to the countryside whilst also protecting and enhancing valued
landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils to protect the
intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside’.
23. With reference to the statutory basis for decision-taking,10 and given the
emphasis in the NPPF on a genuinely plan-led system, that conflict entails harm
in and of itself. Nevertheless given the scale, location and implications of the
scheme as set out above, any harm in respect of this main issue attracts only
limited weight.
Local and landscape character
24. There has recently been much development, and development proposed, in the
surrounding area. One example is development nearby to the north of the site
for up to 250 dwellings allowed at appeal in late 2020 (the ‘2020 appeal’).11
Another is SLP allocation ‘CRESS 193’ as referenced above. Yet another,
presently ostensibly in the form of a request for a scoping opinion for up to 360
dwellings,12 relates to land north-east of the B1018 around Cressing Park Farm.
It is therefore entirely understandable that local residents accord importance to
maintaining that rural character which remains.
25. Notwithstanding the absence of protective designations here, in character the
site is both ‘natural’ and open. There is no demarcation with the wider holding
to the north-east. Amongst other things, S1LP policy SP 3 is premised on
seeking to avoid the coalescence of settlements and preserving distinctive
character. As in respect of the 2020 appeal, the site falls within the ‘Open
Countryside Buffer Area’ (‘OCBA’) set via CNP policy 3 and figure 5a.
26. CNP policy 3 contains multiple clauses. Criterion A. ii. sets out how proposals
should demonstrate that they will ‘maintain and enhance the physical gap in
development between the urban fringe of Braintree and settlements within
Cressing Parish…’. In a similar vein to my reasoning in paragraph 22 above, the
proposal would inherently fail to do that by introducing significant built
development in what is presently part of an open field within the OCBA.
Arguably, however, any development within the OCBA would fail to maintain a
‘physical gap in development’, as distinct from a gap in a visual or broader
perceptive sense.
10 Noting also the provisions of section 38(5) of the 2004 Act.
11 APP/Z1510/W/20/3253661, now incorporated into S2LP allocations ‘CRESS 203 & CRESS 209’.
12 Ref. 19/00005/SCO.
27. However CNP policy 3 also appears to envisage that development may come
forward within the OCBA. Criterion A. iii. sets out how development should be
of ‘a scale, massing and visual appearance which will not detrimentally impact
upon the rural character and appearance of Cressing Parish, including the
setting of Tye Green and Cressing village’. It is logically challenging to reconcile
those criteria. However at this stage I refer to my reasoning in paragraphs 9 to
10 of this decision. CNP policy 3 is amongst the most important policies for
determining the proposal, and must be deemed out-of-date.
28. It is therefore of central importance to ascribe weight to any harm that would
result from the scheme in order that a planning balance may be undertaken
within the terms of NPPF paragraph 11. d) ii. I now turn to consider the value
of the site as it stands, incorporating matters of sensitivity to change, and then
to the implications of the proposal relative to that baseline.
The value of the site
29. As referenced in the appellants’ Landscape and Visual Appraisal and Gap
Assessment (‘LVIA’) the site falls within Local Character Area B18 (‘LCAB18’),
the Silver End Farmland Plateau. LCAB18 is defined in the Braintree,
Brentwood, Chelmsford, Maldon and Uttlesford Landscape Character
Assessment (September 2006, the ‘LCA’). Amongst other things LCAB18 is
characterised by gently undulating farmland, with medium to large arable
fields. The LCA recommends conserving the landscape setting of settlements
and open views.
30. The OCBA is itself an extensive tract of land, its delineation informed by
evidence supporting the development of the CNP. It extends broadly from the
railway line to the south-west to Lanham Farm Road to the north-east. The
extent of the OCBA nearest Braintree varies, taking account of existing uses
and land apportionment there. The boundary of the OCBA nearest Tye Green,
however, is essentially linear (appearing to cut across field boundaries).
31. The Council commissioned ‘capacity’ studies of 2007 and 2015 to inform the
approach in development plan documents. The appeal site falls within land
parcel ‘B3’ in the former, the OCBA extending across other land parcels also.
Representing pre-eighteenth century enclosed land, parcel B3 is summarised in
the 2007 study as possessing a ‘medium to high’ landscape sensitivity and
visual sensitivity and ‘medium’ landscape value. Both studies reflect that there
is greater sensitivity to land where it provides separation between settlements.
By virtue of its current nature the appeal site reflects certain characteristics of
LCAB18. It also contributes positively to the OCBA, including via preserving a
sense of openness looking north-eastwards across it.
32. However the site is inherently a small part of LCAB18 and the OCBA, in respect
of the former an observation also made by the Inspector who dealt with the
2020 appeal. Many fields in both areas around Tye Green are similarly sized
and arable. Neither in nature, nor location at the periphery of the village, is the
appeal site a particular rarity in my view.
33. During my site visit I walked parts of Cressing footpaths nos. 4 and 39.
Footpath no. 4, which tracks more-or-less parallel with the B1018 for a stretch,
extends into the 2020 appeal site. It can be reached by footpath no. 39 which
heads north-eastwards away from the B1018 by grade II listed Tudor House.
Neither footpath tracks close to the appeal site, however, and the site is not
itself publicly accessible.
34. Given intervening features in the landscape, there is no meaningful visibility of
the site from those footpaths. The site’s sensitivity is further qualified by the
presence of surrounding development, with other elements of land parcel B3
contributing more significantly to the rural surroundings to Tye Green. The
consolidated built form of Braintree also falls principally to the north-west of
the site as opposed to north-east.
35. As viewed from the B1018, the site represents a visual break and affords open
views across it. Those views are, however, qualified by the presence of pylons
and powerlines (identified as significant skyline features within the 2007
study). I note that the power lines broadly demarcate the landscaping buffer
intended around the south of the site to which the 2020 appeal relates.13
36. More significantly, however the site is perceived as a visual break between
properties either side of it. It appears nestled between the plots of Dean’s
Farmhouse and the Nook. It is seen in conjunction with properties along the
opposite side of the B1018. There is a stronger sense of moving beyond the
village around, and to the north of, Dean’s Farmhouse and the Laurels broadly
opposite, where the pattern of development becomes sparser and more
occluded from view by virtue of vegetation and hedgerows hugging the B1018.
37. Intertwined with matters of coalescence, the Council contends that the site
should be accorded some greater value on account of the historic pattern of
development here. I accept that the majority of development over the years
has taken place south of the B1018, such that the scale of the Village is not
readily perceptible from Braintree Road. The Council has provided an historic
plan of 1948 in that respect, which suggests the line of properties opposite the
appeal site originated around the mid-twentieth century.
38. However there are now properties arranged to the east and north of Braintree
Road between the Nook and Tudor House, including Templar Fields. Historically
some of the oldest properties at Tye Green are located to the east and north of
the B1018 also. The historic evolution of the Village therefore places little
additional importance on the appeal site. Consequently, in my view, the value
of the site in landscape terms, and in respect of its sensitivity to change, may
fairly be summarised overall as medium.
39. That is a finding arrived at independently, but broadly aligned with the
appellants’ LVIA, which references the Landscape Institute’s Guidelines for
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment: Third edition (updated November
2021, ‘GLVIA3’). GLVIA3 puts methodological rigour to assessing landscape
quality and effects of development, albeit such assessments are inherently
reliant on a sequence of judgements. Different individuals applying the
approach in GLVIA3 may therefore rationally come to different assessments of
landscape value (and in respect of the effects of a particular scheme).
13 Albeit that reserved matters application ref. 21/03214/REM was yet to be determined at the time of the hearing.
The implications of the proposal
40. With the site at 1.68ha, assuming 35 dwellings would be delivered equates to
about 21 dwellings per hectare (‘dph’). That is significantly greater than the run
of properties opposite along the B1018 here of about 5dph. As shown on
illustrative plans, to achieve a density of about 21dph, the scheme could not be
delivered in a single line reflecting the prevailing pattern opposite. Similarly
development at that density would inherently limit the ability for properties to
be set back from the carriageway. The proposal would inevitably impede
presently open views.
41. However hearing document 2 demonstrates that compliance could be achieved
with garden spaces and parking provision in line with the recommendations in
the Design Guide 2005 and Essex Parking Standards 2009. In that respect, and
otherwise in terms of design, the Council’s objections to the scheme verge on
presupposing that certain illustrative matters are definitive (such as the
arrangement of junctions, the location of parking spaces and landscaping).
Given the flexibility in the scheme in respect of density, there is every prospect
that a development of up to 35 homes could be suitably sensitively designed in
respect of layout.
42. Taking a step back, 21dph is, in relative and absolute terms, moderate. Whilst
statistics are crude proxies for effects, there are examples of pockets of higher
density development throughout the village, including around the Westerlings
and Jeffrey’s Road.14 Moreover, irrespective of housing land supply, pressures
now differ to those in the early to mid-twentieth century, during which much
ribbon development occurred (and was legislated against). The front plots of
properties opposite, although generous, contribute little to rural character by
virtue of a variety of boundary features, hardsurfacing and outbuildings. By
consequence of those properties, and the use of the B1018, neither the site nor
surroundings are particularly tranquil or dark.
43. Moreover paragraph 4.101 to the S2LP sets out ‘as a general guide the Council
would expect densities in the District to be at least 30 dwellings per hectare.’
That is echoed in the Essex Design Guide 2005, albeit apparently derived from
superseded Planning Practice Statement 3. NPPF paragraph 124 nonetheless
seeks to ensure that development makes efficient use of land, as does
paragraph 125 where there is a shortage of land for meeting needs.15
44. In a local and policy context, the density proposed would therefore strike an
appropriate balance, or blend, between densities central to the Village and
lower densities towards the edge of Tye Green, in line with the overarching
objective of ST2LP policy LPP 35. The development would be capable of
reflecting a comfortable transition to the rural fringes of the Village, rather than
representing a discordant level of density (noting my reasoning regarding the
visual perception of the line of properties opposite).
45. That level of density would also allow for a good amount of open space and
landscaping. There is nothing to suggest, even on indicative plans, that the
hedge bounding the appeal site could not be significantly augmented for the
14 Where densities are stated to be around 32dph and 42dph in the appellant’s design statement of case.
15 Noting the NPPF prospectus indicative change in respect of NPPF paragraph 14, which refers to the potential for
adverse impacts to include situations where building densities are significantly out of character.
most part. Only a small proportion of hedge H3 would be lost to achieve
access, which is fairly ascribed a categorisation of C, i.e. trees of low quality,
with reference to British Standard 5837:2012 in the AIA. A sensitive approach
to landscaping and planting would, to some extent, also replicate the transition
as found to the north beyond Dean’s Farmhouse.
46. In conclusion the proposal would inevitably adversely affect the rural character
of the site and introduce built development in the OCBA in conflict with S1LP
policy SP 3 and CNP policy 3. However on account of the value of the site, its
sensitivity to change and the nature of the scheme, subject to a sensitive
approach to reserved matters, the harm that would result may fairly be
described as moderate initially, declining as planting establishes.
Other matters
47. In addition to comments regarding the above issues, I have taken careful
account of all the representations in respect of the proposal. Those
representations include concerns over the loss of BMV agricultural land,16 the
climate emergency and the benefits of the countryside in terms of wellbeing,
traffic generation and safety, the relationship of the scheme to nearby
highways upgrades, pedestrian connectivity, the adequacy of local services and
facilities, air quality, surface water flooding, heritage assets and the living
conditions of those nearby.
48. The proposal would inevitably result in the loss of BMV land. However that is
similarly the case of many S2LP allocations. Moreover 40,243 hectares of land
within Braintree District Council’s administrative area was ALC grade 2 at the
time that the S2LP was prepared. Accordingly, the loss of BMV carries only
limited weight against the proposal.
49. I acknowledge the Council declared a climate emergency in July 2019 and that,
more broadly, the value of the countryside in terms of wellbeing is well
documented. Nevertheless at a fundamental level the planning system seeks to
balance different interests in the use of land and to reconcile environmental,
social and economic dimensions.
50. I have reasoned above that the proposal would be suitably located and that
individuals would not be reliant on private vehicles. New buildings must comply
with relevant provisions of the Building Regulations 2010 as amended,
including in respect of energy efficiency. The proposal also aims to achieve an
18% biodiversity net gain (‘BNG’), which could be secured via condition were
the scheme acceptable as a whole (as could other measures in respect of
ensuring on site biodiversity is suitably safeguarded).17
51. I have also reasoned above that the proposal is sufficiently flexible such that a
sensitive approach to its landscape context could be achieved, and that the site
is typical of much of the rural surroundings to Tye Green (which are
crisscrossed with public rights of way). As such, although the proposal would
result in change, it would not result in undue effects in terms of addressing
climate change or in respect of wellbeing.
16 Noting prospective changes to NPPF footnote 67 in respect of considering the availability of agricultural land
used for food production.
17 Notwithstanding parallel provisions in other regimes notably the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended.
52. I accept that the B1018 carries a significant volume of traffic commensurate
with its function. There are pinch points in the surrounding highway network,
and I acknowledge local representations regarding traffic safety. At the time of
my site visit, early morning on 8 February, I witnessed an accident at the curve
of the B1018 northwards of Dean’s Farmhouse. I also acknowledge that there
has been significant development proposed or in prospect in the surroundings,
some of which is dependent on highways upgrades.
53. However the proposal would, in and of itself, generate a fractional amount of
traffic compared to the prevailing baseline. There is nothing to indicate in that
context that the proposal would unacceptably impact highway conditions or
entail severe impacts. Similarly the scheme is not reliant on highway upgrades
elsewhere (albeit that they may in turn improve the functioning and safety of
the road network as a whole). Subject to an appropriately-worded condition,
access visibility would be acceptable for this context. Whilst crossing the B1018
is not welcoming at present, the proposal would provide for a dropped kerb
crossing and pavement linkage. The resultant pedestrian experience here
would be comparable to the prevailing nature of the area.
54. Funding of schools and medical facilities, and other services including buses
and trains and utilities, are multifaceted. Nevertheless as set out subsequently
the proposal would make provision for various financial contributions towards
infrastructure. Whilst I note the representation from Anglian Water explaining
that there is presently no capacity or headroom at the White Notley Water
Recycling Centre, water and energy providers are obligated to facilitate
connections.18
55. In a similar vein as wellbeing, the implications of particulates and air quality on
health are well documented. However, the proposal needs to be considered in a
wider context, in which it would have a fractional effect. The B1018 here is not
within an Air Quality Management Area, nor is there evidence before me
suggesting that air quality is presently approaching relevant air quality limits.
56. Whilst there is a slight level change between the carriageway and the site
where water may naturally pool, the landscape here is broadly flat or gently
undulating. The site falls within flood zone 1, i.e. a location at lowest
probability of flooding, and is not within a critical drainage area. There is little
context to the localised instances of flooding referenced in representations, in
terms of whether it arose on account of the nature of the area or other factors
(such as during periods of exceptionally high rainfall or blocked drainage).
57. Noting the statutory duty upon me, the nearest designated heritage assets are
three grade II listed buildings located to the north of the B1018, close to
footpath No 39.19 Visually there is no meaningful interaction between the site
and those properties some distance away, each of which is to greater or lesser
degree visually contained within its respective plot. Although the present
nature of the site may, in the broadest sense, reflect an erstwhile connection
with the agricultural context in which those properties originated, that
connection has all but been eroded with development and the passage of time.
18 Under the Water Industries Act 1991 as amended and the Electricity Act 1989 as amended.
19 Frogs Cottage, Tudor House and Cressing Park.
58. There is, in short, nothing to indicate that the site holds any particular
associative significance to those heritage assets. I understand that the
threshing barn at Dean’s Farmhouse is locally listed. The proposal would affect
enclosed land likely apportioned as such before the eighteenth century.
However the site is divorced from the threshing barn and represents a small
part of a wider holding, which elsewhere remains open and agricultural. As
such the proposal would be of such limited consequence so as to preserve the
setting and significance of nearby heritage.
59. There is a duty on me in respect of conserving and enhancing biodiversity.20
Biodiversity implications of the scheme are both direct in terms of the site
itself, and indirect in terms of potential wider effects. The appellants’ Ecological
Impact Assessment (‘EcIA’) indicates either that the site is, or may in certain
parts be suitable habitat for great crested newts, reptiles, nesting birds and
hazel dormice. The site will also provide habitat for other species.
60. However the site in does not fall within an internationally, nationally or locally
protected designated site of importance for biodiversity within the terms of
NPPF footnote 7 to paragraph 11. b) i. Being predominantly arable land, the
majority of the site is of relatively low biodiversity value. The majority of H3
would be retained. Significant augmentation of hedgerows and planting could
also be achieved via reserved matters. Suitable mitigation in respect of
disturbance to ecology could be secured via appropriately-worded conditions
and obligations.
61. Moreover, notwithstanding that such a requirement is not yet mandatory, the
EcIA sets out how the proposal could readily ensure a minimum of a 10%
Biodiversity Net Gain (‘BNG’), with reference to NPPF paragraph 174. d).
Subject to appropriately worded conditions, obligations, and noting that there
are also ecological protections via other regimes, the direct effects of the
proposal in terms of ecology would not be unacceptable (and, in terms of BNG,
they would be beneficial).
62. The effect of a proposal on individuals’ living conditions is inherently reliant on
perception; different individuals respond differently to different things. However
I have reasoned above that the proposal would not represent an undue density
for its context, and that there would be considerable flexibility in terms of
layout and landscaping. A chunk of the hearing was given over to establishing
whether a 15 metre or greater separation would be achievable with
neighbouring properties, with reference to the ‘rear privacy’ section of the
Essex Design Guide 2005. However it does not appear that is strictly
applicable, given that side elevations of the Nook and Deans are angled
towards the site.
63. Nevertheless the foregoing discussion was based on illustrative plans; layout is
reserved. There is no indication, whether by virtue of separation distances,
angles, or the potential arrangement of windows, that undue effects in respect
of neighbouring living conditions would result (whether in terms of privacy,
outlook or light). Any noise and disturbance resulting from the scheme would
be temporary, and could be managed via condition.
20 Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (as amended).
Obligations
64. The S106 commits all those with a legal interest in the land to the fulfilment of
certain obligations in the eventuality that the appeal were to be allowed, albeit
conditionally with reference to my reasoning. NPPF paragraph 55 directs that
consideration should be given as to whether otherwise unacceptable
development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or
planning obligations (in that order of preference). Planning obligations must
only be sought where they meet the tests set out in NPPF paragraph 57, also
contained in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations
2010 as amended (the ‘CIL Regulations’).
65. The S106 agreement makes provision for financial contributions to outdoor
sport, education, library provision, healthcare and ecological mitigation. It also
makes provision in respect of affordable housing, open space and amenity
areas, drives and on site roads, monitoring and legal costs (along with setting
out various details relating to the foregoing). There is a CIL Regulation 122
compliance statement before me, and no dispute between the main parties
over the justification for any elements of the S106.
66. There is an appropriate evidence base for contributions, including via
representations of relevant consultees and associated methodologies,21 and no
countervailing evidence before me to that commonality between the main
parties. Provisions other than financial contributions are also necessary to
achieve compliance with relevant development plan policies, including 40%
affordable housing as required via S2LP policy LPP 31. Accordingly the
obligations contained within the S106 are necessary to make the development
proposed acceptable and accord with the relevant provisions of NPPF paragraph
57 and CIL Regulation 122.
Appropriate Assessment
67. The appeal site falls within the ‘overall zone of influence’ (‘ZoI’) for the habitats
sites referred to above. The ZoI is shown at figure 4.2 of RAMS. In brief the
habitats sites are designated in order to safeguard habitats and the ecology
they support. Both may be disturbed by recreational activities.
68. Whilst not a precise correlation, the potential for adverse effects increases with
the number of dwellings nearby (and therefore the aggregate, or in-
combination, implications of a number of smaller developments may be
significant). Regulation 63 of the Habitats Regulations requires that, before
deciding to give any permission or other authorisation for a project which is
likely to have a significant effect on a European site, a ‘competent authority’
must make an appropriate assessment of its implications. I have undertaken an
appropriate assessment in a reasonable and proportionate manner relative to
circumstances here.
69. In the abstract avoidance or mitigation of effects resulting from increased
residential development would be achieved by the provision of alternative
greenspace associated with individual developments, to redirect those who
21 For example in terms of education contributions being tailored to the additional demand arising from the scheme
towards existing nearby provision (as set out in correspondence on behalf of Essex County Council as the Local
Education Authority) of 2 February 2022.
would have made use of the habitat sites recreationally, and via associated
monitoring and management arrangements. The contributions that individual
schemes are expected to make in that context are established at a strategic
level via the RAMS, such that a proportionate contribution is made in each
instance.
70. The S106 includes a contribution of £137.71 per dwelling to fund strategic ‘off
site’ measures, the example thereof given in paragraph 4.5 of the CIL
Regulation 122 statement being increased numbers of wardens to manage
visitor numbers and behaviour. I have noted above that provision would also
be made for open space on site, which may additionally limit coastal
recreational pressure. I have also set out above how, subject to appropriate
conditions, ecology on site could be suitably safeguarded and BNG achieved.
71. Natural England, the appropriate nature conservation body under Habitats
Regulation 63(3), have informed the approach set out in the RAMS (adherence
to which would appropriately mitigate any adverse effects to the habitats
sites). Summarising the foregoing, subject to suitably worded conditions, to the
provisions of the S106, and given the provisions of other regimes referenced
above, the proposal would suitably safeguard ecology both directly and
indirectly; it would not adversely affect the integrity of habitats sites.
Housing provision
72. With reference to NPPF paragraph 74, the Council’s approach to calculating a
5YHLS requirement is based on the approach in the S1LP, policy SP 4 of which
sets an annual housing requirement of 716 dwellings. That is in pursuit of a
minimum housing requirement of 14,320 over the plan period. Accrued
shortfall since the start of the plan period stands at 1,169 (correct as of 31
March 2022). That added to a five-fold annual requirement, and applying a 5%
buffer in line with NPPF paragraph 74. a) in the light of HDT figures as above,
gives a 5YHLS requirement of 4,986.
73. The Council is of the view that it can demonstrate a supply of 4,848 homes.
That equates to about 4.86 years’ worth, a forecast undershoot of 138
homes.22 The appellants are of the view that the figure instead amounts to
about 4.29 years, principally on the basis of four sites, where it was contended
that there was a lack of sufficient evidence of deliverability, and also in respect
of accounting for lapse rates. The degree of any shortfall and the likelihood of it
persisting may be material. However planning is not an exact science, and the
implications of 0.14 of year relative to 0.71 is relatively minor (in either
eventuality forecast housing land supply is less than a year off).
74. The proposal would entail various benefits. The weight ascribed to material
considerations is a matter of planning judgement. Chief amongst those benefits
is the provision of housing in an area with an acknowledged lack of forward
supply. The proposal would also have economic benefits in supporting
employment during construction and thereafter, including as local residents
would bring trade to nearby services and facilities. There are pressing needs for
affordable housing, the S2LP noting 212 are needed annually in the District to
22 A position consistent with that in other appeals ref. APP/Z1510/W/22/3299178, APP/Z1510/W/22/3305099 and
APP/Z1510/W/22/3306479, notwithstanding that in those instances that figure was either not in dispute or not
explored at the relevant inquiry.
meet needs. The provision of 40% affordable homes in this instance complies
with S2LP policy LPP 31 and also reflects the highest proportion of affordable
housing required therein. The benefits of the proposal directly, and by
consequence of, housing delivery would be significant.
Planning balance
75. Whatever word or phrase is used to ascribe weight is inevitably imperfect.
Nonetheless, drawing together my reasoning above, on the one hand the
proposal would result in limited harm by virtue its location, and moderate harm
would result to local and landscape character (reducing over time). There
would be further harm, albeit limited, associated with the loss of BMV land. In
other respects the proposal would be acceptable, or could be made so subject
to fulfilling relevant conditions and obligations.
76. On the other hand the benefits of the scheme in terms of housing provision,
affordable housing provision, and associated benefits would be significant. The
proposal would also entail a significant BNG which would not otherwise result
(for example if the site were kept in arable use). Applying the balance set out
in paragraph 9 of this decision, irrespective of whether land supply is at 4.86 or
4.29 years, the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly
and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Other material considerations
therefore combine to justify allowing the appeal notwithstanding the conflict
with certain provisions of the development plan.
Conclusion
77. For the reasons given above, having taken account of the development plan as
a whole, I conclude that other material considerations justify allowing the
appeal subject to the conditions below and the obligations contained within the
S106.
Conditions
78. In addition to requiring reserved matters applications and commencement in
line with statute via condition 1, and notwithstanding that the proposal is in
outline, it is nevertheless reasonable to require that reserved matters
applications are accompanied by details of topography and floor levels for
clarity (via condition 2). Similarly, and so as to ensure that the proposal is
implemented as assessed above, I have imposed condition 3 requiring
adherence to the supporting plans. Likewise, and to tie the permission to the
terms of the application and also align with local housing needs without undue
specificity at this juncture, I have imposed condition 4.
79. Following on from my reasoning above, subject to adherence to conditions 5 to
8 the proposal would suitably safeguard, and make provision for, biodiversity in
accordance with NPPF paragraph 174. d) and the general biodiversity objective.
Condition 5 includes matters of lighting, given the potential for excessive
illumination to disturb ecology. In respect of condition 6, notwithstanding that
an earlier version of the biodiversity metric has been used in the formative
stages of the scheme, the EIA nevertheless indicates the potential to achieve
BNG above 10%.23 Furthermore, condition 7 includes adherence to details
23 With reference to the yet to be commenced provisions of section 98 of the Environment Act 2021 and associated
schedule 14. The EcIA indicates a net gain of 18% for habitats and 40% for hedgerows.
seeking to minimise surface water run-off and groundwater pollution that may
arise during construction. I note that the appellants have already engaged with
Natural England in respect of great crested newts relevant to condition 8, albeit
inevitably at a provisional stage thus far.
80. Paragraph 1.3 of the Government’s Guidance related to Part 2A of the
Environmental Protection Act 1990 as amended sets out that the starting point
should be that land is not contaminated land unless there is a reason to
consider otherwise. Based on the history to the site, whilst the potential for
contamination is relatively low, it is not absent.24 Consequently it is both
necessary and reasonable to impose condition 9 related to this matter, thereby
achieving compliance with NPPF paragraph 183. Similarly whilst there a
relatively low probability of the site itself possessing archaeological interest, the
site lies within a landscape reflecting a long continuity of settlement and land
reapportionment.25 Condition 10 is therefore a proportionate approach to
ensuring any features of archaeological interest are taken suitable account of.
81. To ensure compliance with S2LP policy LPP 76 and NPPF paragraph 169, I have
imposed condition 11. That requires compliance with relevant industry
guidance and makes provision for ongoing maintenance and responsibility to
ensure efficacity. The need for yearly logs of maintenance is, however,
unreasonably burdensome. To ensure the proposal integrates appropriately
with the surrounding highway and pedestrian network I have also imposed
condition 12. Conditions requiring the agreement of a third party are not
appropriate,26 and therefore the onus falls on the appellants to propose, and
the Council to agree, an appropriate scheme in respect of associated bus stop
improvements.
82. Notwithstanding the function of the Noise Policy Statement for England, given
the proximity of the site to the B1018, it is nevertheless appropriate to impose
a condition requiring compliance with the desirable levels in British Standard
8233:2014 in respect of noise levels (table 4 and paragraph 7.7.3.2). Condition
13 reflects that those levels are, as referenced above, ‘desirable’.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Building Regulations 2010 as amended,
that would ensure provisions of S1LP policy SP 7 and of NPPF paragraph 174.
e) are met. There is no indication that would not be achievable. To safeguard
the living conditions of those nearby, notwithstanding protections elsewhere in
respect of noise amounting to a statutory nuisance, it is nevertheless necessary
to impose condition 14 limiting construction to certain times. That condition
also prevents any on site burning.
83. Given the nature of the site and its surroundings, the minimisation of visual
effects is contingent on a sensitive approach to reserved matters. As such it is
therefore necessary and reasonable, including with reference to the PPG, to
withdraw certain permitted development rights that would otherwise apply.
That would be achieved via condition 15. That does not include buildings
incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse under class E as suggested,
given that would be overly onerous relative to the limitations which apply in
that respect in any event.
24 Phase 1 Desk Study Report, table 2.
25 Archaeological and Heritage Assessment prepared by edp of September 2021, paragraphs 5.5 to 5.6.
26 PPG reference ID: 21a-016-20140306.
84. Consistent with my reasoning in paragraph 41 of this decision, conditions
suggested by the Council in respect of landscaping and also provision for refuse
or recycling fall squarely to reserved matters. To be clear that is not to suggest
that such information is unimportant, indeed ensuring road construction is to a
suitable standard is incorporated into the S106, only that it is unnecessary to
specify that at this stage.
85. Noting my reasoning in paragraph 55, given the absence of tangible evidence
regarding detrimental air quality here, the condition proposed in that respect
by the Council is unnecessary. A condition regarding on site foul water drainage
is also unnecessary; development must in any event comply with the relevant
provisions of Building Regulations 2010 as amended, there is a statutory duty
to provide a connection to sewerage, and practically it is difficult to sell homes
without functioning toilets.
86. With reference to site geology and hydrology, there is nothing to suggest that
piled or non-standard foundations would be required. By consequence a
condition related to that approach is not necessary. Provision for affordable
housing is made through the S106, and as such it is unnecessary to duplicate
that provision via conditions (as the Council have suggested).
87. In imposing conditions I have had regard to the tests in the NPPF, the PPG, and
relevant statute. Albeit that some conditions have an implication for reserved
matters, none are in my view of such a degree of specificity or overlap that
they would be inappropriate to impose. In that context I have amended the
wording of certain conditions put to me to ensure that all are appropriate,
without altering their fundamental aims.
Tom Bristow
INSPECTOR
SCHEDULE 1, CONDITIONS
1) Details of the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping (the ‘reserved
matters’) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning
authority before any development hereby permitted takes place, and the
development shall be carried out as approved. Application for approval of the
reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than
the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. The development
hereby permitted shall begin not later than the expiration of 2 years from the
approval of the reserved matters (or, in the case of approval on different
dates, the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be
approved).
2) Details of the reserved matters submitted pursuant to condition 1 shall
include details of existing site levels and finished floor levels above ordnance
datum in respect of the ground floors of the buildings hereby permitted
3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans: ‘309_L01 Rev. B’, and ‘21187_001 Rev. P5’.
4) The development hereby permitted shall comprise not more than 35
dwellings. The dwellings hereby permitted shall be of a size and mix aligned
with local needs, as approved by a scheme submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the local planning authority.
5) No development hereby permitted shall take place until a Landscape and
Ecological Management Plan (‘LEMP’) has been submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the local planning authority. The LEMP shall accord with the
approach set out in the associated Ecological Impact Assessment (prepared by
SLR of September 2021) and any relevant subsequent studies of the site, and
shall include:
i. A description and evaluation of features to be managed,
ii. Ecological trends and constraints that may influence management,
including in respect of illumination
iii. Aims and objectives of management,
iv. Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives,
v. Prescriptions for management actions, including a wildlife sensitive
lighting design scheme for biodiversity,
vi. Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable
of being rolled forward over a five-year period),
vii. Details of the body or organisation responsible for implementation of
the LEMP (including in respect of its legal and funding mechanisms),
and
viii. Ongoing monitoring arrangements along with remedial and
contingency measures in the eventuality that the aims and objectives
of the LEMP are not met (to be effected in that eventuality to ensure
that the development hereby permitted delivers the fully functioning
biodiversity objectives of the approved LEMP).
The approved LEMP shall be implemented, adhered to, and maintained in line
with the approved details.
6) No development hereby permitted shall take place until a Biodiversity
Enhancement Plan (‘BEP’) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by,
the local planning authority. The BEP shall align with the recommendations in
the Ecological Impact Assessment (prepared by SLR of September 2021), and
shall include details of:
i. The purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed
enhancement measures;
ii. Detailed designs to achieve stated objectives;
iii. Locations of proposed enhancement measures by appropriate
maps and plans;
iv. Persons responsible for implementing the enhancement measures;
v. Details of initial aftercare and long-term maintenance (where
relevant).
The BEP thus approved shall be implemented in accordance with approved
details of timing, and maintained thereafter.
7) No development hereby permitted including demolition, groundworks or
vegetation clearance, shall take place until a Biodiversity Construction and
Environment Management Plan (‘BCEMP’) has been submitted to, and approved
in writing by, the local planning authority. The BCEMP shall accord with the
approach set out in the associated Ecological Impact Assessment (prepared by
SLR of September 2021), or relevant subsequent studies of the site, and shall
include:
i. A risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities,
ii. The identification of ‘biodiversity protection zones’,
iii. Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working
practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction, which
may be provided as a set of method statements, to biodiversity on
site, including habitats and protected species (followed by
appropriate mitigation as required),
iv. The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to
biodiversity features,
v. The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be
present on site to oversee works,
vi. Responsible persons, lines of communication and written
notifications of operations to the local planning authority,
vii. The role and responsibilities of an ecological clerk of works or
similar competent person, and
viii. Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs,
ix. A scheme to minimise the risk of offsite flooding and pollution
including, including in respect of groundwater
The approved BCEMP shall be adhered to throughout the construction period.
8) No development hereby permitted including demolition, groundworks or
vegetation clearance, shall take place until:
i. a licence has been issued by Natural England pursuant to
Regulation 55 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2017 (as amended) authorizing the specified
activity/development to go ahead; or
ii. a great crested newt district Level Licence has been issued by
Natural England pursuant to Regulation 55 of The Conservation of
Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) authorizing
the specified activity/development to go ahead; or
iii. a statement in writing from Natural England has been made to the
effect that they do not consider that the specified
activity/development will require a licence.
9) No development shall commence until an assessment of the risks posed by
any contamination, carried out in accordance with British Standard BS
10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - Code of Practice and
the Environment Agency’s Land Contamination Risk Management guidance
(‘LCRM’) (or successor standards or guidance), shall have been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The assessment
shall include (i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination,
and (ii) an assessment of potential risks to human health, property (existing
or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland, service
lines and pipes, adjoining land, groundwater and surface waters and
ecological systems.
If any contamination is found, a report specifying the measures to be taken,
including the timescale, to remediate the site to render it suitable for the
approved development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. Any remediation shall be sufficient to ensure that
after remediation, land should not be capable of being determined as
contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990
as amended.
The report shall include an appraisal of remediation options, identification of
the preferred option(s), the proposed remediation objectives and
remediation criteria, and a description and programme of the works to be
undertaken including the verification plan. The site shall be remediated in
accordance with the approved measures and timescale and a verification
report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority.
If, during the course of development, any contamination is found, or
suspected, which has not been previously identified, work shall be
suspended and additional measures for its remediation shall be submitted to,
and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The remediation of
the site shall incorporate the approved additional measures, and a
verification report for all the remediation works shall be submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the local planning authority.
10) Any historic or archaeological features which are revealed when carrying out
the development hereby permitted shall be retained in-situ and reported to
the local planning authority. Works shall be immediately halted in the area or
part of the site affected until provision shall have been made for the
retention or recording, or both, in accordance with details that shall first
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority.
11) No development hereby permitted shall take place until a drainage strategy
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
drainage strategy shall be in general accordance with the principles in the
associated Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (prepared by Jubb
Consulting Engineers Ltd., September 2021), and accord with the approach
set out in Building Research Establishment Digest 365 and CIRIA SuDS
Manual C753 (or successor documents). It shall also include details of
maintenance arrangements and responsibilities, including of any funding.
The development hereby permitted shall accord, and be implemented in line
with, the approved drainage strategy, which shall be in place before any
dwelling hereby permitted is first occupied. Following its implementation the
approved drainage strategy shall thereafter be retained and maintained.
12) No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the following have been
provided: (i) the site access shown on approved plan 21187_001 Rev. P5
including of a clear to ground visibility splay as illustrated thereupon, (ii) a
minimum footway of not less than two metres in width to join with existing
provision in that respect to the south-east of the site by the property
presently named ‘The Nook’ incorporating dropped kerbs as required, (iii)
residential travel information packs in accordance with Essex County Council
Guidance (iv) upgrades to two bus stops as necessary in accordance with a
scheme previously submitted in writing to, and approved in writing by, the
local planning authority.
13) No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until internal and external
areas of dwellings are designed so as to achieve, as far as practicable, the
provisions of British Standard 8233:2014 as set out in table 4 and paragraph
7.7.3.2 thereof (or successor standards). Any divergence from those
thresholds should be minimised and justified. A noise attenuation
performance report in that regard shall be submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the local planning authority prior to occupation (which shall
include associated implications for living conditions in respect of heating and
ventilation). Once implemented as approved, the foregoing measures shall
be retained.
14) No demolition or construction work, or ancillary activities such as deliveries,
related to the development hereby permitted shall take place outside of the
following hours: 08:00 to 18:00 Mondays to Fridays inclusive, 08:00 to
13:00 on Saturdays. No demolition or construction work, or ancillary
activities such as deliveries, related to the development hereby permitted
shall take place at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays. No
burning of any materials on site during construction shall take place.
15) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the 'GPDO') (or
any subsequent modification thereto), no development specified within
Schedule 2, Part 1 classes A, AA or B shall be undertaken in respect of the
development hereby permitted.
SCHEDULE 2, APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANTS:
Killian Garvey, Counsel, instructed by King’s Chambers
Rainier Developments Ltd., via
licensed access.
David Murray-Cox BA(Hons) Mplan Turley
MRTPI
Jeff Richards BA(Hons) MTP MRTPI Turley
Jeremy Smith BSc(Hons), DipLA, CMLI SLR Consulting Ltd.
Sarah Murray BArch(Hons) MA Edge Urban Design
Grant Stevenson MTCP MRTPI Rainier Developments Ltd.
Ella Murfet BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI Turley
FOR THE COUNCIL:
Wayne Beglan, Counsel Cornerstone Barristers
Carol Wallis Braintree District Council
Katherine Carpenter Braintree District Council
Theresa Millbourne Essex County Council
SCHEDULE 3, HEARING DOCUMENTS
1 Attendance list
2 Plan entitled ‘Gardens & Parking’, Drawing no. SK03, Revision: B.
3 Schedule of house plots and proposed parking provision relative to
Essex County Council Parking Standards: Design and Good Practice
(adopted September 2009)
4 Hardcopy of paragraphs 6.28 to 6.34 of the S2LP
5 Officer report associated with permission Ref 21/01940/OUT
6 Statement of common ground dated 6 February 2023, including Scott
Schedule of main parties’ divergent views on deliverability of housing
sites
7 S2LP policies map legend, inset map 20 & CNP figure 5a showing
extent of ‘Open Countryside Buffer Area’