Case Reference: 3263440

Appeal Decision
Hearing Held on 13 July 2021
Site Visit made on 14 July 2021
by Paul Thompson DipTRP MAUD MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 27 August 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/C1570/W/20/3263440
Land to the north of Rosemary Lane, Bran End, Essex, CM6 3RX
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an
application for outline planning permission
• The appeal is made by Land Allocation Ltd against Uttlesford District Council.
• The application Ref UTT/20/1102/OP, is dated 1 May 2020.
• The development proposed is up to 60 (maximum) residential dwellings.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed and planning permission for up to 60 (maximum)
residential dwellings is refused.
Procedural Matters
2. The appeal is against the Council’s failure to determine an application for
outline planning permission. The Council has provided a statement for the
appeal which states that in its opinion the proposal is unacceptable, however,
these are not formal determinations of the Council, as the jurisdiction to
determine the application transferred from the Council upon valid receipt of the
appeal. However, the Council has set out its putative reasons for concluding
the scheme would be unacceptable and would have refused the application had
it been empowered to do so. I have therefore taken these reasons into account
in determining the Main Issues.
3. The planning application was submitted in outline form with all matters
reserved, except for access. I have had regard to the Indicative Site Layout
and Landscape Strategy Plan Aerial Overlays (Drawing Refs CAL010719 10 A
and CAL010719 11) but have treated each element of these drawings as
indicative, apart from the details of the access, when considering the likely
impact of the proposal on the matters set out in the main issues below.
4. In the run up to the Hearing and during the event, the main parties presented
the following information:
• a Transport Planning Statement of Common Ground (TPSoCG), between
the appellants and Essex County Council, as Highway Authority (HA);
• revised arrangements on Drawing Reference DR-D-2010 P02 for the
visibility splays for Crossing Point 2 (B1057 to Pulford Field recreation
ground). This updated an earlier revision received as part of the appeal
(Drawing Reference DR-D-2010 P01);
• a speed survey undertaken on behalf of the appellants on 8/9 July 2021
in connection with Crossing Point 3 (junction of B1057 and Brick Kiln
Lane) and revised arrangements on Drawing Reference DR-D-2009
Revision P04 for visibility splays at this crossing point. This also updated
an earlier revision received as part of the appeal (Drawing Reference
DR-D-2009 P01);
• the HA’s response to the speed survey and drawing; and
• an email from Stebbing Parish Council to the Council in relation to the
hedge adjacent to Crossing Point 2.
5. Further to discussion in the Hearing and with cognisance of the Wheatcroft
principles1, following the close of the Hearing, in the interests of fairness and
natural justice, I invited the parties that had commented on the appeal to
consider this evidence and provide comment to their content, and final
comments from the main parties. Hence, I am satisfied that interested parties
have not been prejudiced by my acceptance of the plans and information, so
my findings relate to these. Similarly, I am also satisfied that the revision to
the visibility splays to the crossing point that would serve the bus stops north
of the site access, shown on Drawing Reference DR-D-2011 P01, would not
change the nature of the proposed development before me. Interested parties
would therefore not be deprived by there being no opportunity of consultation.
6. The National Planning Policy Framework was revised on 20 July 2021 (the
Framework). The main parties have had the opportunity to comment upon the
relevance of any revised content of the Framework and I have had regard to
any responses received in my decision.
7. The main parties have referred to the emerging Stebbing Neighbourhood
Development Plan (Regulation 16 Draft v4a: June 2021) (SNDP). I understand
that this has not yet been submitted for independent examination. Emerging
policies and site allocations within the SNDP are not therefore matters that
have a significant bearing on my consideration of the merits of this appeal,
particularly as there may be unresolved objections to contend with. In
accordance with the requirements of Paragraph 48 of the Framework, the
policies of the SNDP attract only limited weight in my determination of the
appeal.
Main Issues
8. The main issues are:
• whether the proposal is consistent with policies relating to housing in
rural areas, with regard to the protection of the countryside;
• whether the proposed development makes provision for safe and
suitable pedestrian access;
• in light of the proposed pedestrian and other access arrangements,
whether the proposal would be accessible to services and facilities;
• the effect of the proposed development on the protected species and
habitat of the Hatfield Forest Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
1 Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE.
and National nature Reserve (NNR) and the Priority Deciduous Woodland
and Bran End Wood Local Wildlife Site; and
• the effect of the proposed development on the setting of the Grade II
listed buildings known as Apple Tree Cottage, Cranford, Stone Cottage
and The Green Man.
Reasons
Protection of the countryside
9. The appeal site concerns a roughly L-shaped area of land that forms part of a
larger gently undulating agricultural field situated to the western side of the
B1057, north of a small group of houses in Rosemary Lane and adjacent to but
beyond the settlement boundary of Bran End. It is therefore situated within the
countryside, as defined by Policy S7 of the Uttlesford Local Plan2 (ULP). The
north and eastern boundaries are open, so the site is not distinguishable from
the remainder of the field and shares common characteristics with the varied
field pattern that envelopes the village. The backdrop of the western extent of
the site is one of mature broadleaved trees situated within Bran End Wood and
the skyline beyond the trees, as the site constitutes part of the eastern valley
slope of Stebbing Brook.
10. The settlement boundary defined by the ULP does not include the ribbon of
development that extends along the eastern side of the B1057 north of Pulford
Field, but the built form contributes to defining what is more urban and rural in
form. Further north, the grain of development of houses to the western side of
the road is of loosely spaced buildings with a sylvan backdrop and becomes
increasing sparser with a greater propensity for open and undeveloped fields.
There is a larger development of houses to the east, which has been absorbed
between Brick Kiln Lane and the B1057.
11. Taken together these stated features, particularly the openness and
undeveloped nature of the site, give rise to a clear and distinct, pattern of
development. This makes a significantly positive contribution to the rural
landscape setting of the village edge, and therefore the character and
appearance of the area. In particular, the openness of the site provides a
significant vista of the landscape and skyline to the west of Bran End and
emphasises the juxtaposition between built form and the surrounding
undeveloped landscape. Given these characteristics and its visual prominence
within the immediate surrounding landscape, including in views from the
comprehensive network of Public Rights of Way (PROW) nearby, the site would
be highly sensitive to change.
12. Although the submitted layout plan is only illustrative, together with the other
application and appeal documents, it indicates that the proposal would be a
development of significant proportions and prominence to the edge of Bran
End, within the undeveloped and open site. Moreover, the proposal would be
set apart from the existing houses in the locality and appear as a distinct built
incursion of noticeable depth. It could not be said to be infill development and
would appear discordant when viewed against the established grain of linear
development to this edge of the settlement. The subsequent loss of openness
and erosion of the site’s undeveloped qualities would also undermine how the
2 Adopted January 2005.
village currently blends more naturally into the wider rural landscape and
interrupt the views into the countryside from Bran End across the valley.
13. I accept that the indicative landscape strategy for the scheme would be likely
to be integral to the layout of the appeal scheme and reflect planting found in
the landscape. However, clear views of the appeal site and its relationship with
the existing built edges of Bran End are available from the surrounding road
network, particularly the B1057, the PROW in the vicinity and from Pulford
Field. The proposed landscaping would be unlikely to have matured enough in
its initial years of development to achieve the intended screening effect
required to soften the visual effect of the physical presence of the proposed
development in its sensitive valley slope location, particularly during the
operational and residual phases of development. It would also take a significant
amount of time for the tree coverage to reflect the existing sylvan character of
planting to the west.
14. I appreciate that the impact of the proposal on the surrounding rural landscape
would only be likely to be experienced within the immediate locality, including
in views from nearby PROW. Nevertheless, for the reasons outlined above,
I cannot agree with the findings of the appellants’ Landscape Visual Impact
Assessment in respect of the magnitude of this impact, as the proposal would
have a significant and detrimental urbanising effect on the rural setting of Bran
End and, therefore, on the character and appearance of the area.
15. I note that the SNDP includes a potential allocation for land opposite the site,
at Hornsea Lodge, but there is existing development there and two existing
accesses. It is not therefore comparable to the appeal scheme and, in any
event, as I have outlined in the Procedural Matters, the SNDP has not been
through its examination so would be afforded limited weight.
16. In light of the above, the appeal scheme would not accord with the aims of
Policy S7 of the ULP to protect and strictly control new building in the
countryside. The appellants have not referred to any special reasons why the
development needs to take place in the proposed location, nor have they
highlighted any other policies in the ULP that would support the case for a
significant development of houses, such as that proposed, in this location. It
would also not amount to infill development. Hence, the proposed development
would also be contrary to the design aims of Policies GEN2 and S7 of the ULP
and paragraphs 130 and 174 of the Framework.
Pedestrian Access
Crossing Point 3 – junction of B1057 / Brick Kiln Lane
17. Prior to the Hearing, the appellants undertook a speed survey in relation to
Crossing Point 3, south of the Brick Kiln Lane junction. There was some
discussion at the Hearing to its efficacy given that it was not undertaken in a
neutral period, as defined in TAG Unit M1.23, and conflicting evidence was
presented that it rained during the timeframe of the survey. Despite the
content of weather reports, there is no substantive evidence to dispute the
appellants’ position that the survey was not rain effected and it contained
sufficient vehicle movements to constitute a valid survey4.
3 Department for Transport (2020).
4 As defined in Highways England’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges document CA185 (2019).
18. While I accept that the recorded speeds north, 37.5mph, and south, 38.5mph,
are close to the speeds outlined in Manual for Streets5 (MfS), it is only
recommended for use with speeds below 37mph. Furthermore, the vehicle
speeds recorded to the north of the junction, in close proximity of the latest
speed survey, were found to be in excess of the 40mph speed limit. Based on
the extent of traffic over the survey period, the B1057 also appears to be a
well-trafficked road. For these reasons, it is more appropriate to use Design
Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) guidance to calculate the visibility for
the proposed crossing. The HA’s calculation of 74m would therefore be more
appropriate for the southern visibility splay covering northbound vehicles and I
would expect the northern visibility splay for southbound traffic to be greater
than the 61.7m proposed. Nevertheless, I have considered the merits of the
visibility splays shown on the various iterations of the drawing for this crossing,
including that provided with the latest speed survey.
19. Due to the narrow nature of the footpath, the visibility south from the western
side of the B1057 is taken from the back of the proposed tactile paving, 0.8m
from the carriageway edge. It is also shown on all iterations of the drawing for
this crossing to be to the offside of cars traveling north. The proposed visibility
splay would not achieve the DMRB requirement set out above and pedestrians
would be unlikely to see motorbikes approaching in the areas closer to the
nearside of the carriageway. This would be further compounded by the narrow
nature of the footpath, as pedestrians would be likely to be stood further back
to avoid vehicles and looking over the front boundary wall and gardens of the
adjacent properties. Visibility to the south would therefore be further impaired
and vehicles would appear from a blind spot.
20. In terms of visibility north from the western side of the B1057, I note that the
road is not straight as it approaches the junction and there will be vehicles
turning. However, it is questionable whether it would be appropriate to utilise
the latest speed data for southbound vehicles given the distance of the crossing
from the survey point and the significant speeds recorded further north. Even if
I were to accept that vehicles would be travelling south at 38.5mph in
proximity of the junction, the visibility splay northwards would be insufficient
and impaired. Moreover, like the splay southward, it would be taken from the
back of the tactile paving and not terminate close to the nearside edge of the
carriageway. This would exclude the possibility of overtaking vehicles being
observed from the footway.
21. While the telegraph pole in the footway adjacent to the crossing point would,
of itself, be a momentary obstruction to visibility6, together with the vegetation
in the garden of Badgers Leap, there would be a more significant interruption
to visibility of southbound traffic and vice versa. I am also conscious that the
eyeline of some users of the footway, for instance wheelchair users and
children, is likely to be relatively low such that they would find it more difficult
to see and to be seen. Although it would be preferable for vegetation to be kept
clear in such circumstances, this would rely on third party land beyond the
highway.
22. For these reasons, pedestrians would need to stand close to the carriageway
edge to view vehicles in either direction, which illustrates safe and suitable
pedestrian access cannot be achieved at this crossing, as the visibility splays
5 Department for Transport (2007).
6 As defined in Section 3.4 of the Highways England’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges document CD109.
required for the speed of the road cannot be provided for this crossing. Despite
the absence of concern in the Road Safety Audit in relation to obstructions,
pedestrians already crossing the road here, I exercise caution in relation to the
absence of recorded accidents, as not all accidents are reported and while they
may not have occurred in the past they could in the future, particularly with
the likely increased use associated with the proposed development.
Crossing Point 2 – Pulford Field recreation ground
23. There was some discussion at the Hearing as to whether the required visibility
splay could be achieved to the eastern side of the carriageway, without the
removal of the hedge along the roadside north of the crossing point. This is in
the ownership of Stebbing Parish Council. Following the close of the Hearing
the Parish Council confirmed that it would permit the cutting back or removal of
the hedge were I to determine this appeal scheme favourably. In those
circumstances and with cognisance of the guidance outlined in the NPPG7, a
negatively worded planning condition could be utilised that would prohibit
development from taking place until a scheme of such works has been
completed. Such a condition, with respect to land outside of the appellants’
control, would not create unacceptable uncertainty, since there is nothing to
compel the appellants to implement the development in any event.
24. Notwithstanding the above, the extent of visibility south from either side of the
carriageway would be deficient as it would be shorter than required and
terminate further out into the carriageway. A compliant splay from the western
side of the road would rely on third party ownership but a significant extent of
the proposed visibility splay would be unencumbered and the latest speed
survey demonstrates that vehicles would be likely to be travelling below the
speed limit at the furthest extent of that splay. With this in mind, the reduced
visibility that would be experienced south would not be of significant detriment
to the safety of pedestrians using the crossing.
25. Conversely, in much the same way as Crossing Point 3, pedestrians would need
to stand close to the carriageway to be able to see southward from the eastern
side of the carriageway, as visibility immediately south would be likely to be
obscured by a wall and vegetation in the garden to Toad Hall. The recorded
speed of vehicles at this point would therefore mean that crossing the road at
this point would be a daunting proposition for pedestrians. Safe and suitable
pedestrian access would therefore also not be achieved for this crossing, as the
visibility splays required cannot be provided for the proposed crossing.
Pedestrian Footways
26. The HA has suggested that it expects footways to be a minimum width of 1.5m
but ideally 2m wide. The proposed footway from the site would be 2m wide and
would link to the existing footway further south. This narrows over a distance
of 20m to 1.1m and further still to 0.85m due to a telegraph pole sited in the
footway. In accordance with the guidance contained in Inclusive Mobility8, at its
widest point, the footway is sufficient to accommodate a visually impaired
walker with a cane or assistance dog, or general dog walkers. However, as set
out in MfS, it would not be wide enough to enable an adult and child to walk
7 National Planning Practice Guidance, Reference ID: 21a-009-20140306, Revision date: 06/03/2014.
8 Department for Transport (2005).
beside one another and groups of two or more pedestrians would need to walk
in single file.
27. I accept that the proposed bus stops to either side of the B1057 would reduce
pedestrian trips to the stops in Brick Kiln Lane. Occupants of the proposal may
also utilise the PROW from Pulford Field as a short cut. Overall, the extent of
pedestrian trips into Bran End and Stebbing using the existing footway is also
not likely to be significant, but there would be a meaningful increase in its use.
Moreover, the narrow section of the footway is relatively short and pedestrians
may wait to enable others to navigate this section of the footway before
entering it themselves, but they could equally step out into the road to pass
one another, which would be a safety concern. I note that this was identified in
the appellants’ Road Safety Audit. The speed of traffic, width of the footway
and the visibility from Crossing Point 3 would therefore be likely to create an
environment that would not be conducive to people making walking trips from
the appeal site into Bran End and Stebbing.
28. It is clear that the safety issues associated with the existing footway and
crossing points are existing rather than directly resulting from the proposed
development, but it would rely on them to facilitate access to it. The use of the
footway and crossing points would therefore significantly increase the potential
for undertaking unsafe pedestrian movements along and across the B1057. For
the above reasons, I conclude that safe and suitable pedestrian access would
not be provided for the proposed development. Hence the proposal would not
accord with Policy GEN1 of the ULP and paragraphs 110 and 112 of the
Framework.
29. I have not found against the policies of the Essex County Council Development
Management Policies, as the evidence before me does not appear to indicate
that these form part of the Development Plan.
Accessibility
30. The neighbouring village of Stebbing includes a primary school, village hall,
community shop, public house, bowls club, and church. Notwithstanding the
proposed footways and crossings points, the route into Stebbing has limited
street lighting and the footways are generally narrow in width, vary in quality
and terminate abruptly. Pedestrians are thereby required to cross over the road
to continue their journey.
31. In addition to the highway safety effects outlined above, failure to provide safe
and suitable pedestrian linkage from the development into Bran End and
Stebbing would also be likely to the discourage pedestrian movements and
encourage use of the private car in preference. Moreover, the routes available
would not be convenient or realistic ones, particularly for occupants with young
children or mobility issues, especially after dark or during inclement weather.
32. Given the limited extent of facilities and services in Bran End and Stebbing,
occupants of the proposal would be obliged to travel further on a regular basis
to, amongst other locations, Great Dunmow and Braintree to meet their daily
needs in respect of retail, leisure, employment and healthcare.
33. Whilst cycling into Stebbing would be more straightforward, the route to Great
Dunmow would utilise the fast-flowing B1057. There are existing bus stops on
Brick Kiln Lane and the proposal would provide new stops to either side of the
B1057 for services between Chelmsford and Finchingfield. However, at the
Hearing I heard from third parties that these services are not frequent and
changes are required for either Great Dunmow or Braintree. There are separate
school services. The railway station in Stansted is equally some distance away
and it is unclear how it would be reached by public transport.
34. The Unilateral Undertaking (UU) supporting the appeal includes a financial
contribution toward sustainable transport initiatives. While this could amount to
bus services and other initiatives, the UU does not clarify whether this would
have a direct effect on the frequency or route of bus services from Bran End to
nearby settlements. I cannot therefore conclude that existing bus services or
those that could be made available, or the opportunities available to cycle,
would sufficiently discourage future occupants of the development from
travelling regularly by private motorised transport.
35. The Framework suggests that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport
solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, so a greater dependency on
car use is expected in rural locations. I also accept that some of the journeys
may be shorter, including into Stebbing, and occupants may choose to car
share, but the cumulative effect of allowing developments of the scale of the
development proposed in locations such as the appeal site would be likely to
significantly increase the amount of unsustainable journeys made.
36. In light of the above, I conclude that the appeal site would not be accessible to
services and facilities. Hence, the proposal would conflict with the aims in
respect of the accessibility of development as expressed in Policy GEN1 of the
ULP and paragraphs 79, 104 and 105 of the Framework.
Protected Species and Habitat
37. The appeal site is situated within the Zone of Influence for the Hatfield Forest
SSSI and NNR, which the National Trust states to be the finest surviving
example of a small Medieval Royal Hunting Forest, with considerable ecological
significance, especially its veteran trees and old growth woodland on
undisturbed soils. There is evidence to suggest that unsustainable growth in
visitor numbers and associated recreational activity is causing damage to the
features for which it is designated. Consequently, any intensification of these
activities could lead to further damage.
38. A solution for mitigation has been finalised by Natural England (NE) and was
submitted to the Council in June of this year but the intended Strategic Access
Management and Monitoring plan has not yet been adopted. The appellants
have therefore proposed a bespoke solution to minimise the number of
residents from the proposed development traveling to Hatfield Forest for
recreational activities. This would include the provision of recreational facilities
at the appeal site and nearby, including improved facilities and access to
Pulford Field; a Locally Equipped Area for Play and other open space within the
site; and native thorny species planted within the open space to deter future
residents and their pets from accessing the adjacent Local Wildlife Site.
39. In theory the proposed mitigation measures would provide an alternative for
residents to have access to open space within easy reach of their home.
However, contributions to offsite provisions and the onsite open space would
not be provided until at least twenty-four open market houses have been
occupied, by which point all of the affordable houses would be provided.
A significant portion of the houses within the appeal scheme could therefore be
occupied without the proposed recreational opportunities having been provided.
Those residents may therefore travel to Hatfield Forest to access recreational
opportunities there, which could have a harmful effect on the habitat.
40. NE has not been consulted as part of the planning application or appeal. As the
Planning Inspectorate is a Section 28G authority in respect of the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 19819, I am mindful of the responsibility to notify NE should
the intention be to give consent for development that would be likely to
damage the features for which the SSSI has been designated. Given that I
have found harm in relation to the first main issue, unless there is another
material planning consideration which suggests that permission should be
granted, it is not necessary for me to consider this matter in any further detail.
41. The appellants have also proposed mitigation measures and biodiversity
enhancements for the site, which include a Construction Environmental
Management Plan and open space, as a buffer to Bran End Wood. While I have
no doubt that these will eventually protect the woodland, and species and
habitats therein, the open space would not be delivered until a significant
portion of the development has been occupied. The woodland is privately
owned but access through it is provided by Public Right of Way 46-7. Given my
findings above and the proximity of the site to Bran End Wood, there is
potential for the early occupation of the proposal to lead to degradation of the
right of way and the adjacent woodland through increased usage.
42. For these reasons, from the information before me, I am not satisfied that the
extent to which protected species and habitats may be affected by the
proposed development has been satisfactorily addressed. Accordingly,
notwithstanding that NE has not been consulted, the proposed development
would be likely to have a harmful effect on the ecological and biodiversity value
of Bran End Wood and the nearby Hatfield Forest SSSI/NNR. On this basis,
there would be conflict with the nature conservation aims of Policies ENV7 and
GEN7 of the ULP and paragraphs 174 and 180 of the Framework.
Significance and setting
43. To the north of the site, beyond the remainder of the field, is Cranford. This is
a Grade II listed detached two-storey house, oriented north-south with its
principal front façade overlooking its small front garden. It is a timber framed
and plastered building, with a red plain tiled roof incorporating substantial
chimney stacks, and originates from the 17th or 18th Century. The southern of
its two ranges overlooks the field immediately south. Despite later alterations,
the significance of the listed building today is as a good example of a well-
preserved 17th to 18th Century rural house, constructed in vernacular materials.
Cranford also draws significance from its historical and visual setting within its
garden, the sylvan backdrop of woodland to the west, and the open and
undeveloped fields in the surrounding agrarian landscape, including those to
the south and across the B1057 to the east.
44. To the southeast of the site are Stone Cottage, Apple Tree Cottage and The
Green Man, all of which are Grade II listed buildings and arranged close to the
road frontage.
9 As amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
45. Stone Cottage is a two-storey timber framed house of 17th or 18th Century
origin, arranged on an L-shaped plan form. The roof is hipped and clad in red
plain tiles and the facades are plastered with panelled pargetting. There is also
a prominent external chimney to the northeast façade. Despite its front
entrance being infilled and repositioned to the side, and the addition of a flat
roofed range to the rear northeast corner, in so far as it is relevant to this
appeal, its significance today lies in its architectural and historic interest as a
17th or 18th Century cottage, designed and constructed in the rural vernacular.
46. Apple Tree Cottage, which has its origins in the 17th Century or earlier, is
arranged on an L-shaped plan form at the northeast corner of the junction of
Brick Kiln Lane and the B1057. It is a timber framed house, the exterior of
which is plastered, with 20th Century pargeting, and its roof is partly hipped
and gabled and incorporates two brick chimney stacks. Despite later
alterations, as far as it is relevant to this appeal, its significance today lies in its
architectural and historic interest as a good example of a 17th Century or earlier
house. Moreover, it is constructed in vernacular architecture and materials and
occupies a visually and historically prominent position at the road junction.
47. To the opposite corner to the junction is The Green Man, a former public house,
now in use as a house. Like the preceding properties, it is also of two-storeys,
timber framed, plastered, arranged on an L-shape plan form and dates from
the 17th or 18th Century. Its roof is part gabled and half-hipped and clad with
red plain tiles roof. Despite later additions and renovation, in so far as it is
relevant to this appeal, its significance today lies in its architectural and historic
interest as a former public house, designed and constructed in vernacular
materials. Like Apple Tree Cottage it also has prominence within the locality
due to its position but is perhaps of greater prominence as it sits forward of
both the other listed buildings to the north.
48. I am mindful of the definition of ‘setting’ in the Framework as being the
surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced and that this is not fixed
and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. I have also had
regard to the content of Historic England’s Good Practice Advice in Planning
Notes 2 and 310, as far as they are relevant to this appeal.
49. While the immediate surroundings of the curtilage of each listed building
contributes to its setting, the visual and historical association of the listed
buildings with one another also makes a positive contribution. These three
listed buildings are also listed for their group value together, likely in part due
to this relationship.
50. It is evident that the historic settings of the listed buildings have changed as a
consequence of the introduction of built development to the eastern side of the
B1057. However, the open and undeveloped character of the adjacent agrarian
landscape to the western side of the road, partly provided by the site, has
remained largely unaltered and well-preserved since at least the late 18th
Century. The characteristics of the site and the remainder of the field therefore
provide a rural context which forms an integral part of the historic setting of
the listed buildings, including a significant contribution to their appreciation
within the historic core of the settlement and understanding of their role in its
layout and development. In particular, in the mid-19th Century, the Tithe
10 Managing Significance in Decision Taking in the Historic Environment (2015); and The Setting of Heritage Assets
(second Edition, 2017).
Apportionment shows that the eastern half of the field was in the same
ownership as Stone Cottage, which together are likely to have contributed to
the role of the settlement in food production.
Effect of the proposal on the setting and significance of the listed buildings
51. Despite the indicative landscaping within and around the site, the proposal
would introduce considerable built development within close proximity of Stone
Cottage, Apple Tree Cottage and The Green Man. This would include domestic
paraphernalia such as street lighting which, together with greater road traffic,
would lead to changes in the environmental conditions of the surrounding area.
52. The physical presence of the proposal would therefore significantly and
permanently erode the openness and undeveloped qualities of the site within
the agrarian landscape, which is prominent in views from these listed buildings.
This would fundamentally alter and be harmful to their settings and the
understanding and appreciation of their significance in the development of the
historic core of Bran End. While the listed buildings would still be likely to be
visible in views across the site’s frontage, these would be significantly altered,
as the current rural edge of the settlement would largely disappear.
53. The proposal would also bring built development closer to Cranford, but its
clear visual link to the surrounding rural landscape, principally to the east,
would remain due to the extent of undeveloped field south and the indicative
landscaping within the site. The proposal would not therefore have a harmful
effect on the setting of this building or its understanding and significance.
Public benefits
54. The statutory duty in Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) is a matter of considerable importance
and weight. Paragraph 197 of the Framework states that the desirability of
sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them
to viable uses consistent with their conservation should be taken into account
in determining applications. Paragraph 199 of the Framework also advises that
when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated
heritage assets, great weight should be given to their conservation.
55. The proposal would be harmful to the setting of three Grade II listed buildings,
namely Stone Cottage, Apple Tree Cottage and The Green Man, which would
have a harmful effect on their significance as designated heritage assets. In my
view the harm that I have identified would equate to less than substantial harm
to their significance. In such circumstances, paragraph 202 of the Framework
identifies that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of
proposals.
56. In assessing the benefits, I have also had regard to the appeal decision at
Elsenham11 but note that this differs to the appeal scheme before me, as it
relates to a scheme on the edge of a town that does not affect the setting of
any listed buildings.
11 Appeal Ref: APP/C1570/W/19/3242550.
Unilateral Undertaking
57. The UU for the appeal scheme seeks to provide 40 per cent of the proposed
dwellings as affordable housing, which would be commensurate with the
Council’s policy position to address the scale of affordable housing need and
retain mixed and balanced communities. It would also include provisions and
financial contributions for early years and childcare provision, primary and
secondary education, school travel for secondary school-aged pupils residing in
the development, primary healthcare, public open space within the site,
sustainable infrastructure and initiatives, improved access within Stebbing
parish to Pulford Field and the provision of a Multi-Use Games Area and
improvements and maintenance of adult gym equipment therein, and towards
the provision of a community minibus. Whilst these contributions and
provisions would be beneficial, and in the case of affordable housing would help
the Council to improve its delivery, they clearly respond to policy provisions
that exist to mitigate an impact. In this case, that of the erection of up to 60
dwellings. Accordingly, as the obligations therein can only mitigate against the
proposed development, I afford these benefits limited weight.
Other Benefits
58. The supply of housing land in the District has been agreed by the main parties
to stand at 3.11 years. Policy H1 of the ULP covered the housing requirement
for 2000-2011, so it is now time expired. The Council abandoned its previous
attempt to adopt a new local plan in March 2020 and the latest emerging plan
is some way from being adopted. I am therefore acutely aware that the Council
has no adopted strategy for the delivery of housing to meet the needs of the
district and any means of addressing this situation has been significantly
delayed. The appeal scheme would boost the supply of homes in the district
and help to address the acute deficit in supply. The Council’s supply of housing
also appears to have continuously fallen short of what is required by the
Framework. While the current housing land supply difficulties in the area are
likely to be temporary, given the above, I afford this benefit considerable
weight.
59. There would be short-term benefits to the local and wider economy from the
application of the New Homes Bonus and direct and indirect employment
associated with construction and longer-term maintenance works. Future
occupants would be likely to support local shops and services through
expenditure. These would all constitute benefits in social and economic terms
and given the magnitude of the proposed development, they would be afforded
moderate weight.
60. While residents of the proposed scheme would be eligible for work and could
contribute to the local economy, they could equally already be employed in the
district. Council Tax receipts in conjunction with the proposal would also only
be likely to make a modest contribution within the District, which would
amount to economic benefits of limited weight.
61. The site is at low risk of flooding and the appeal scheme includes initial
proposals for surface water drainage. However, given that the potential
environmental risk to other land users would need to be addressed in the final
design at Reserved Matters, I am only able to afford limited weight to the
locational benefit of the site with respect to flood risk and climate change.
62. The proposed houses would ultimately be constructed to the standards
expected by the Building Regulations, particularly in respect of thermal
performance. While this would constitute an environmental benefit, given that
it is a requirement of all residential development it would only amount to a
limited benefit, especially as the detailed design and layout of the houses has
not been finalised.
63. Despite the proposals for biodiversity enhancement of the site, given that there
are likely to be harmful implications to the SSSI/NNR and Bran End Wood from
the development before mitigation is employed on and off-site, there would be
unlikely to be any net biodiversity benefits associated with the proposed
development.
64. The facilities and services in Stebbing can be reached by walking and cycling
and the existing access to Pulford Field would evidently be improved upon by
avoiding grass verges. Nevertheless, for the reasons outlined in the second and
third main issues, any potential benefits attract no more than limited weight.
65. Taking the above together, the public benefits that I have outlined would not
justify allowing development that would be harmful to the setting of Stone
Cottage, Apple Tree Cottage and The Green Man. In accordance with
paragraphs 199 and 202 of the Framework, considered together, I therefore
conclude that the public benefits do not outweigh the great weight to be given
to the less than substantial harm that I have identified.
Conclusions on the fifth main issue
66. In light of the above, I conclude that the proposed development would have a
harmful effect on the setting of Stone Cottage, Apple Tree Cottage and The
Green Man, all of which are Grade II listed buildings. Hence, the appeal
proposal would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act, paragraphs 197 and
199 of the Framework and conflicts with the heritage aims of Policy ENV2 of
the ULP.
Other Matters
67. The appeal site is also near to Bird in Hand, Mead/Oak Cottages, Peartree
Cottage and The Malt House, all of which are designated as Grade II listed
buildings. I have therefore had regard to the statutory duty referred to in the
Act. However, given the proximity and physical relationship of the proposal
with these designated assets, their settings will be preserved and the proposal
will not detract from them.
Planning Balance
68. The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable
housing sites, as required by the Framework, and the development plan is out
of date as it only plans for the District’s housing needs to 2011. In these
circumstances the so-call tilted balance approach to decision making would
normally be engaged. However, in this case given my findings in relation to
heritage, the conventional untilted planning balance applies.
69. The development plan for the area includes the ULP. While this predates the
current Framework, it is clear that existing policies should not be considered
out-of-date simply because they were adopted or made prior to its publication.
Due weight should be given to policies according to their consistency with the
Framework.
70. Policies GEN1, GEN2, GEN7 and ENV7 of the ULP are generally consistent with
the Framework in terms of its aims to promote sustainable transport, achieving
well-designed places, and conserving and enhancing the natural environment. I
therefore afford considerable weight to the conflict of the proposal with these
policies.
71. Despite the absence of a balancing exercise in relation to heritage harms in
Policy ENV2, this policy is generally consistent with the heritage aims of the
Framework, particularly the statutory duties of the Act reflected within it.
Nevertheless, I only afford moderate weight to the conflict of the proposal with
this policy given that it does not include any such balancing exercise.
72. Policy S7 refers to development outside of settlement boundaries. In isolation
of other considerations, this would not be wholly aligned with the more flexible
and balanced approach implicit in the objectives outlined in the Framework.
However, this does not fundamentally undermine the continued relevance of
such an approach, particularly as its aim is to protect or enhance the character
of the countryside from development that does not need to be there. This
differs only slightly from the aim in the Framework to recognise the intrinsic
character and beauty of the countryside. There is therefore still a clear
rationale for development boundaries in order to protect the countryside while
focusing growth within designated settlements. In light of this I have regarded
the underlying objectives of the policy, as being partially consistent with the
current Framework.
73. The ULP is of some age and Policy H1 has time expired, the settlement
boundaries in the District are therefore out of date so, in order to meet current
and future housing needs, development will have to take place beyond existing
settlement boundaries, until such time as it has a new adopted local plan with
redrawn boundaries and allocated sites. I note that this point has been
repeatedly discussed by the Inspectors in the appeals to which I have been
referred by the main parties. Policy S7 is therefore predicated on settlement
boundaries that are out of date and I have referred to the acute shortage in the
supply of housing in the District. With these points in mind, I afford limited
weight to the conflict of the proposal with this policy.
74. I have already identified the benefits of the appeal scheme as part of the
assessment of public benefits in undertaking the necessary balancing exercise
in relation to the heritage assets. In terms of harm, the proposed development
would not comply with development plan policy in respect of the harm to the
countryside, particularly the rural setting of Bran End and the character and
appearance of the area; the provision for safe and suitable pedestrian access;
the accessibility of the site to services and facilities; and the setting of three
Grade II listed buildings.
75. This leads me to an overall conclusion that the appeal scheme would not accord
with the development plan, when considered as a whole, and I find that the
adverse impacts of the proposal are matters of significant weight against the
grant of planning permission that comfortably outweigh the claimed benefits.
Conclusion
76. The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan and
there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework,
which outweigh this finding. Accordingly, for the reasons given, I conclude that
the appeal should be dismissed and planning permission refused for the appeal
scheme.
Paul Thompson
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANTS:
Miss Megan Thomas QC
Mr Joe O’Sullivan Head of Planning, AAH Planning Consultants
Mr Oliver Brown Landscape Architect
Mr Stuart Wilson Highways Consultant
Miss Ellen Lishman Highways Consultant
Mr Andy Rudge Heritage Consultant
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Mr William Allwood Team Leader, Development Management.
Miss Maria Kitts Senior Built Heritage Consultant, Essex County
Council
Mrs Katherine Wilkinson Strategic Development Engineer (Highways),
Essex County Council
INTERESTED PARTIES
Mr Andrew Martin Andrew Martin Planning (on behalf of Stebbing
Parish Council and several local residents)
Cllr John Evans District and Parish Councillor and Chair of Stebbing
Neighbourhood Development Plan Steering Group
Cllr Merifield District and Parish Councillor
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING:
• Email from Stebbing Parish Council to the District Council in relation to the
hedge adjacent to Crossing Point 2.