Case Reference: 3264183

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 4 May 2021
by Martin H Seddon BSc MPhil DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 28 September 2021.
Appeal Ref: APP/Z1510/W/20/3264183
Thistle Field, Land North of Grove Field, A131, High Garrett, Braintree CM7
5NS
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Braintree District
Council.
• The application Ref: 19/00874/OUT, dated 25 April 2019, was refused by notice dated
12 June 2020.
• The development proposed is erection of 33 No. two storey detached and semi-
detached houses and flats and construct garages. Lay out parking spaces and gardens.
Form estate roads and footpaths. Lay out public open space with trim trail equipment,
and estate landscaping, and alter carriageway alignment to A131 and construct
pedestrian refuge within the highway (amended proposal).
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. The application is in outline including details of access and layout with all
other matters reserved. The development plan includes the Braintree District
Local Plan Review (2005) (Local Plan) and the Braintree District Council Core
Strategy (2011). The emerging development plan is the Publication Draft
Local Plan (2017). The plan is in two sections. Local Plan 2013-2033 Section
1 is a strategic plan for North Essex and was adopted by the Council in
February 2021.
3. The Council refers to policy CS 9 and CS11 of the Core Strategy in its reasons
for refusal. However, adoption of Section 1 had the effect of superseding
policies CS 9 and CS 11. Section 2 of the Publication Draft Local Plan is
currently the subject of examination. Although the Draft Local Plan has
reached an advanced stage there is no certainty that the policies within the
document would be adopted. Only limited weight may therefore be accorded
to its relevant policies at present.
4. The appellant and the Council were provided with the opportunity to comment
on the revised National Planning Policy Framework dated 20 July 2021. The
appellant also had the opportunity to comment on the Council’s revised
housing land supply figures, provided in June 2021.
Main Issues
5. The main issues are:
• whether the proposal would be in a strategically acceptable and
sustainable location having regard to relevant development plan
policies;
• the effect on the character and appearance of the countryside, and
• the need for planning obligations regarding the provision of public
open space and affordable housing.
Reasons
6. The appeal site is a grassed field which is located next to the A131 at the
northern approach to the linear settlement of High Garrett. The southern
boundary of the site is adjacent to housing development at Grove Field.
There is ribbon residential development along the A131 and opposite the
appeal site. A previous outline application for forty dwellings at the site was
refused by the Council in 2018. In August 2020 outline permission was
granted on appeal for up to three hundred residential dwellings at land off
Church Street, Bocking. That site extends from Bocking to land at the rear of
the Grove Field estate.
Whether in an acceptable location
7. The site is primarily within the open countryside and outside the settlement
envelope for High Garret as defined by the adopted Local Plan Review and
adopted Core Strategy. The proposed development would conflict with policy
RLP 2 of the Local Plan because it would not be confined to areas within a
town development boundary or a village envelope. The proposal would also
conflict with Core Strategy policy CS 5 which indicates that development
outside town development boundaries and village envelopes will be strictly
controlled to uses appropriate to the countryside in order to protect and
enhance its landscape character, biodiversity, and amenity.
8. High Garrett has a vehicle service station, shop selling home furnishings and a
public house. The village of Bocking is located around 1.75 km to the south-
west of the appeal site. It has a Co-Operative food store, local shops, a
children’s day nursery, public house, hot food takeaways, a church and sports
facilities including a hockey club. The appeal site is also around 2.4 km from
the northern edge of Braintree. Bus stops are located along the A131 near
the site, allowing access to bus service numbers 38, 38A, 89 and 352 which
run approximately hourly between Halstead, Braintree, Witham, Great
Yeldham and Chelmsford. Rail services are available at Braintree station.
9. The appellant has drawn my attention to the Council’s opinion in a pre-
application response which advised that the site was “in a relatively
sustainable location”, and also its comments in relation to the Church Street,
Bocking appeal and a proposed dwelling on land south of High Garrett House.
Although I consider there is a reasonable bus service, the walking distance
from the site to facilities and services in Bocking would be prohibitive,
particularly in poor weather conditions. The A131 would also be a busy road
for cyclists to use. Taking all these factors into account, I consider that
occupants of the proposed housing would be primarily reliant on private
transport and the location of the appeal site is not ideal from the viewpoint of
sustainable travel opportunities, contrary to Local Plan policy RLP 53.
10. I find that the proposed residential development would conflict with local
development plan policies which seek to protect the countryside and to direct
housing development to land within town development boundaries and village
envelopes. It would also have substandard access to local services and
facilities.
Character and appearance
11. The Council considers that the site plays a function in its particular location
through the setting it creates, controlling ribbon development and urban
sprawl and providing a soft undeveloped approach to the town. However, the
land does not have any specific development plan designation in that respect
and is essentially an area of open countryside at the edge of the settlement.
The proposal would not involve ribbon development, but it would result in
additional urbanisation of the countryside at this location.
12. The site is opposite a prominent line of ribbon development at the eastern
side of the A131, this includes a new infill development of eight dwellings. In
contrast, the site is adjacent to housing at Grove Field which has been
developed at a low density and with a significant area of open space next to
its access road from the A131. This development sets the immediate context
for the appeal proposal as well as open agricultural land to the north and
west.
13. The dwellings at Grove Field have garden space and are arranged in a varied
informal layout. The appeal proposal would have more regularity in layout
with dwellings having private gardens and its communal open space would lie
mainly alongside the site boundary. A ‘green lane’ would be retained
alongside the southern side of the site connecting to a new ‘green lane’ and
trim trail to the western side of the site. A hedge and tree line would be re-
instated at the site frontage to replace vegetation removed in creating the
new single access to the A131 and its sightlines. The Council has advised that
the site can accommodate the number of residential units which are
proposed. However, its location and relation to the layout of surrounding
development would conflict with criteria in Local Plan policy RLP 10.
14. Despite the conclusions of the Design and Access Statement, I consider that
the proposed layout would not reflect the character of development at Grove
Field, being more suburban and formal in its design, with dwellings generally
fronting onto the cul-de-sac layout in a regular manner. Tree planting is
indicated to replace the loss of remnant hedgerow trees along the site
frontage to create adequate site lines for the proposed access. Nevertheless,
the proposed dwellings would be visually more prominent in the rural setting
when viewed from the A131, and when compared to the houses at Grove
Field, which are set further back from the highway.
15. I find that the proposed layout would conflict with Local Plan policy RLP 9
which seeks to ensure that new residential buildings create a visually
satisfactory environment, be in character with the site and relate to its
surroundings. It would also conflict with Local Plan policy RLP 90, which
requires the layout of development to be in harmony with the character and
appearance of the surrounding area.
16. The appellant has advised that, should the Inspector consider that the layout
is unacceptable, the appellant will formally withdraw ‘layout’ from the outline
application and for the appeal to be determined solely on the access matter.
However, I must determine this appeal on the basis of the proposal refused
by the Council, as to do otherwise could prejudice the views of the Council
and other parties who would not have been consulted.
Planning obligations
17. The appellant has provided a draft planning obligation by way of a unilateral
undertaking which is intended to provide contributions to the Council covering
outdoor sport, allotments, play space, informal open space, ecological
mitigation, and the provision of affordable housing. Contributions would also
be made to the County Council for highway works. I am satisfied that the
Council’s requirements for planning obligations would be reasonable and
necessary and could be met by the appellant in accordance with Core
Strategy policies CS 2 and CS 10, Local Plan policy RLP 138 and the Council’s
Open Space supplementary planning document.
Other Matters
Housing Land supply
18. At the time when the application was refused the Council considered that it
had a housing land supply of only 3.73 years. In June 2021 the Council
provided copies of its Housing Topic Paper and Housing Land Supply
Statement. The Council concluded that it could demonstrate a revised
housing land supply of 5.34 years.
19. The appellant was given the opportunity to respond to the revised figure and
assessment details. The appellant has commented that the Council’s
evidence has yet to be tested at the development plan examination and
indicated that the land supply had been the subject of change since the first
application was submitted. The appellant advises that achieving a 5 year
housing land supply is not a ceiling to housing delivery and referring to the
wording in the Framework that “Local planning authorities should identify and
update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a
minimum of five years’ worth of housing.”
20. The appellant maintains that the site is sufficiently accessible and sustainable
to be considered suitable for the small-scale housing proposed and offers a
boost in housing supply in accordance with paragraph 60 of the Framework in
a District with an historic lack of a 5 year housing supply. However, I have no
detailed evidence to indicate that the Council’s current assessment of the
housing land supply is incorrect. The ability of the Council to demonstrate a
5 year supply means that its development plan policies important for
determining the proposal would not, on that basis, be considered to be out-of-
date.
The planning balance
21. The proposed site is not allocated for development in any adopted
development plan and is located in the open countryside. I have found that it
is not in a location which has good access to local services and facilities. The
proposed layout would not be in keeping with the adjacent existing estate
development and would not constitute good design as required by the
Framework.
22. Balanced against this harm, the proposal would provide thirty-three new
dwellings including ten affordable homes and financial contributions to help
boost the housing supply and mitigate the effect and impact of development.
A new pedestrian refuge for the A131 would be created to the south of the
proposed site access and a new public footway, as well as linear public open
space. There would be some increased use of local facilities and services in
the wider area and economic benefits from construction of the development.
There would also be potential for net biodiversity gain. However, I conclude
that the benefits from the proposal would not outweigh the harm to the
countryside and conflict with relevant development plan policies.
Conclusion
23. I have taken all other matters raised into account. Even if I were to conclude
there is a shortfall in the five-year housing land supply on the scale indicated
at the time that the application was determined, or that the housing land
supply should be boosted by allowing development at this location, the
adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits. Therefore, for the reasons given above I conclude
that the appeal should be dismissed.
Martin H Seddon
INSPECTOR