Case Reference: 3278620

Appeal Decision
Inquiry held on 23,25,26,30 November and 1 December 2021
Site visit made on 23 November 2021
by Darren Hendley BA(Hons) MA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 21 December 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/Z1510/W/21/3278620
Land to the west of the A131, High Garrett
• 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: 20/01813/OUT, dated 30 October 2020, was refused by notice
dated 23 June 2021.
• The development proposed is described as an outline planning application (some
matters reserved) for the residential development of up to 37 dwellings (including 40%
affordable housing), with vehicular access, areas of landscaping and public open space.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural Matters
2. The application is in outline form with all matters reserved for future
consideration apart from access. I have dealt with the appeal on this basis and
treated any details not to be considered at this stage as being illustrative only.
The main parties have confirmed that the Parameter Plan1 is for my
consideration.
3. The revised National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) has been
published since the Council made its decision. Parties have made reference to
the Framework in their evidence. I have considered it in my decision.
4. During the course of the appeal, the appellant submitted amended plans2 that
show a change in the site boundary to exclude a small area of land that is
under the ownership of 105 High Garrett (No 105). This sought to rectify a
small anomaly on the plans to reflect the land ownership and so has a limited
bearing on the consideration of the proposal itself. The appellant’s evidence
also contained an amended version of the access plan3 in relation to the
proposed footway. This resulted from the Thistle Field appeal decision4, the
site of which lies directly to the south. Accordingly, I have considered these
amended plans in my decision.
1 Ref: 3501B
2 Site Boundary Plan 1001D, Concept Masterplan 3202H and Parameter Plan 3501B
3 Proposed Vehicular Access 19350 SK T 001 Rev P6
4 Appeal ref: APP/Z1510/W/20/3264183
5. The Council’s first reason for refusal includes reference to Policy RLP90 of the
Braintree District Local Plan Review (2005) (BDLPR) and Policy LPP55 of the
Section 2 - Publication Draft Local Plan (2017) (S2LP). The Council no longer
consider there would be a conflict with these policies because they relate to
detailed matters to be addressed at a reserved matters stage. I see no reason
to disagree and so I have not considered these policies further.
6. The Bocking and High Garrett Residents’ Action Group submitted a written
representation prior to the opening of the Inquiry. I accepted this document
and the appellant was afforded the opportunity to comment on it at the
Inquiry.
7. The Inquiry was adjourned on the first day due to matters related to Covid-19.
The Inquiry then resumed on 25 November 2021 on a ‘virtual’ basis.
Interested parties who attended the Inquiry venue had the opportunity to
participate via a virtual link that the Council had set up. Hence, there is no
prejudice.
8. The Council stated that an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (S106 Agreement) would address the
matters in its second reason for refusal relating to the provision of supporting
infrastructure and services. The Inquiry proceeded on this basis and included
the consideration of a final draft S106 Agreement. A completed and executed
version was submitted after the close of the Inquiry.
Main Issues
9. The main issues are (i) whether the proposal would be in a suitable location for
housing with regard to development plan policy and national planning policy;
(ii) the accessibility to local services; (iii) the effect on the character and
appearance of the area; (iv) housing land supply matters; and (v) if harm
arises, whether this would be outweighed by the benefits of the proposal.
Reasons
Suitable Location for Housing
10. The appeal site comprises a field that is located on the west side of the A131.
Its boundaries are formed for the most part by hedgerows and trees. The site
extends around No 105, where there is also fencing on the boundaries. A
Public Right of Way (PRoW) runs adjacent to the north boundary and in part
extends in between this boundary and No 105. The site abuts further fields to
the west and south. To the north is land associated with a domestic property.
On the opposite side of the A131, there is a linear pattern of predominantly
residential development. The bulk of the settlement of High Garrett lies on
that side of the road.
11. The Braintree District Local Plan 2013-2033 North Essex Authorities’ Shared
Strategic Section 1 Plan (2021) (S1LP) concerns the effective delivery of
planned strategic growth, particularly housing and employment, with the
associated infrastructure across the North Essex Authorities, including Braintree
District Council.
12. Policy SP3 of S1LP sets out that existing settlements will be the principal focus
for additional growth. Development will be accommodated within or adjoining
settlements according to their scale, sustainability and existing role both within
each individual district and, where relevant, across the wider strategic area.
This policy goes onto state that it will be for Section 2 of the Local Plan for each
constituent local planning authority to identify a hierarchy of settlements where
new development will be accommodated according to the role of the
settlement, sustainability, its physical capacity and local needs.
13. Policy SP3 does not define settlement boundaries. That function is performed
by the BDLPR Proposals Map, including by way of village envelopes. Whilst the
proposal would effectively lie adjacent to the village envelope for High Garrett,
it would lie outside of it. Policy RLP2 of the BDLP sets out that new
development will be confined to within these boundaries. Outside these areas
countryside policies will apply.
14. Policy CS5 of the Council’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011)
(CS) asserts that development outside village envelopes will be strictly
controlled to uses appropriate to the countryside, in order to protect and
enhance the landscape character and biodiversity, geodiversity and amenity of
the countryside. The supporting text gives examples of what is meant by uses
appropriate to the countryside and which are those which are most typically
found in such areas. This does not reasonably include the proposal as a
housing site of up to 37 dwellings.
15. The main parties disagree over the application of Policy SP3. In essence, the
appellant’s case lies on where this policy refers to development adjoining
settlements, whereas the Council point to where it refers to the role of Section
2 of the Local Plan in establishing a hierarchy of settlements and
accommodating new development. In this regard, the proposed development
boundary for High Garrett under S2LP would also not include the appeal site.
16. The Gilda Terrace appeal decision5 points to a tension between Policy SP3,
where it refers to development adjoining settlements, and Policies RLP2 and
CS5 where they are concerned with development inside boundaries. That
appeal decision concerned a site adjoining Braintree itself, which is the
principal focus for growth in the Council area under S1LP. The tension in that
case was therefore more apparent because of the standing of Braintree in
respect of growth. This does not apply to High Garrett. As a modest sized
settlement, it is not such a location.
17. That being said, where Policy SP3 refers to development adjoining settlements
cannot simply be ignored, notwithstanding that S1LP is centred on strategic
cross boundary matters. The Council clearly refer to this policy in its remaining
reason for refusal. Whilst I acknowledge the role of S2LP in this regard, this
does not in itself exclude the consideration of Policy SP3 for more modest sized
settlements. Policy SP3 is therefore of relevance to my decision. Nor however
is Policy SP3 unqualified and this includes a consideration of sustainability.
Accessibility to local services is an aspect of such a term which I consider later
in my decision, as well as character which also features in Policy SP3.
18. Emerging Policy LPP1 of S2LP sets out the Council’s intended approach as
regards development and development boundaries. It states that development
outside such boundaries will be confined to uses appropriate to the countryside
whilst also protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or
5 Appeal ref: APP/Z1510/W/20/3265895
geological value and soils6. This is not dissimilar to Policies RLP2 and CS5.
Likewise, the proposal would not constitute a use appropriate to the
countryside for the purposes of Policy LPP1.
19. I have also been referred to how S2LP proposes to deal with High Garrett in
relation to its treatment as a third tier village in the proposed hierarchy of
settlements and what this means by way of its ability to accommodate
development. As the site would in any event lie outside of the proposed
development boundary, this adds little further to my deliberations.
20. I conclude that the proposal would not be in a suitable location for housing with
regard to development plan policy in as far as it would not comply with Policies
RLP2 and CS5. As Policy LPP1 maintains a similar stance to these existing
policies, the proposal would also not comply with this emerging policy.
Whether the proposal would comply with Policy SP3 and the Framework in this
regard is dependent on a consideration of the issues which follow.
Accessibility to Local Services
21. High Garrett contains a modest level of local services. These include a public
house, a car repairs garage, a furnishings/gift shop and a hairdressers. Such
services clearly would not cater for the day to day needs of the future occupiers
of the proposal and so they would have to look further afield to access such
services.
22. The settlement of Bocking contains a wider variety of services which include a
primary school, nurseries, a takeaway, a restaurant and a club. These lie
between approximately 1700 metres (m) to 2300 m from the appeal site.
Braintree Hockey Club is also found in Bocking, approximately 1100 m from the
site. Braintree and Halstead town centres lie around 4 and 5 kilometres (km)
from the site, respectively. They both contain a wide variety of shops and
services, including national retailers.
23. Policy RLP53 of the BDLPR, Policy CS7 of the CS and emerging Policy LPP44 of
the S2LP seek essentially to ensure that development is provided in accessible
locations, that it is well served by public transport, reduces the need to travel
and that appropriate provision is made for walking and cycling, amidst other
matters.
24. Paragraphs 105, 110 and 112 of the Framework similarly concern limiting the
need to travel, a choice of transport modes, opportunities to promote
sustainable transport, as well as referring to priority first to pedestrian and
cycle movements and appropriate facilities that encourage public transport use.
Whether or not the proposal can be considered to be significant for the
purposes of paragraph 105, similar regard would apply to promoting
sustainable transport. Where this paragraph refers to that opportunities to
maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural
areas, this also needs to be considered in the context of the proposal which in
this case would involve the transport movements of the occupiers of up to 37
dwellings. Paragraph 112 also concerns enabling charging of plug-in and other
ultra-low emission vehicles.
25. There is nothing in development plan policy or the Framework which in itself
seeks to prohibit the use of the car. However, it is fair to say that planning
6 As per the Main Modifications document, ref MM10.
policy overall seeks to encourage the use of modes of transport other than the
car, including by way of walking, cycling and public transport, even with the
rise of plug in and low emission vehicles. If this was not the case, it would
remove locational considerations from deciding on whether a proposal would
promote sustainable transport, which itself would be contrary to the
Framework.
Walking
26. The route that the future occupiers of the proposal would take to the services
in Bocking would be through the site, then utilising a proposed dropped kerb
crossing across the A131, before then following the footway along the eastern
side of this road. The Church Street junction would then have to be
negotiated, crossing the A131 again, before the footway is then followed into
the services in Bocking. The PRoW which crosses the site can also be utilised
to reach Bocking, but this is more of a recreational route. It is circuitous and
has varying underfoot conditions. Braintree is some distance on foot from the
site, whilst walking is not obviously practical to Halstead.
27. The Institution of Highways & Transportation Guidelines for Providing for
Journeys on Foot (2000) (IHT guidelines) sets out what it considers are
suggested acceptable walking distances by way of desirable, acceptable and
preferred maximum distances. Many of the uses in Bocking fall into the town
centre category under the IHT guidelines because of the nature of the uses in
providing retail related services. Apart from the primary school and the hockey
club, the preferred maximum distances would be exceeded. The services in
Bocking would also exceed the distance indicated in Manual for Streets (2007)
(MfS) for facilities in a walkable neighbourhood.
28. The language used to describe distances in the IHT guidelines and MfS is far
from precise and clearly allows some room for its application. It is not
intended to be definitive. The preferred maximum distance of 2000 m for
walking to school is a case in point under the IHT guidelines as it would
seemingly expect that younger primary school children would be anticipated to
undertake what is a not insignificant distance, twice a day. That MfS cites that
walking offers the greatest potential to replace short car trips, particularly
those under a 2 km distance, is perhaps obvious. Use of this guidance is not to
replace a site assessment.
29. Similarly, the National Travel Survey extracts that I was referred to relate to
reported trends rather than being directly applicable to a particular
development proposal, notwithstanding that it was acknowledged at the Inquiry
that the average distance given to school trips applies to all modes of
transport, not just walking.
30. The experience of walking the route, or the qualitative aspect, is also of
relevance, as well as the lengthy walking distances that the services in Bocking
are from the site. Whilst the A131 may be the subject of not untypical levels of
traffic for such a route and the speed limit is limited to 40 miles per hour, this
does not account for having to cross the road twice, even before Church Street
is reached and then following this road into Bocking. The footway route is
fairly wide, but I am not persuaded that it would foster a great deal of use and
even less so during inclement weather or outside of daylight hours with the
distances involved, despite that it is lit. That the Council conceded a number of
points on the qualitative aspects does not ultimately change my overall view.
31. In my mind, what ultimately is of importance is the convenience of the route
for walking. When the distances to the services are taken with the crossings
that need to be undertaken, it would not encourage walking as a mode of
transport from the site. Such issues would be exacerbated for those with
young children or elderly persons, where undertaking such distances and the
crossings may be more problematic. Nor does the crossing point that is in
operation near to the housing at Grove Field change my view because at least
those occupiers have to walk a lesser distance to the services in Bocking than
would the future occupiers of the proposal.
Cycling
32. Being able to cycle from the site towards Bocking or Braintree, or Halstead,
would require usage of the A131. The A131 does not provide any form of
delineated cycle route close to the site and so cyclists from the proposal would
be forced to share road space with vehicular users. Whilst the distances to
services would not itself deter cycling, it would need a proficiency due to the
presence of other traffic on the road that would most likely lie with confident
cyclists. This is not a particular matter of dispute. Cyclists that do not have
this level of proficiency or children would be unlikely to use this mode of
transport.
33. As a result, it remains simply a possibility of residents being able to cycle in
order to access local services due to the location of the site. It would be
unlikely to encourage broader use and so for most of the future occupiers, it
would not offer a likely realistic alternative.
Public Transport
34. High Garrett benefits from a good level of bus services, relative to its size.
There are bus stops in close proximity to the site along both carriageways of
the A131 and these would be upgraded under the proposal. Bocking and
Braintree in particular are served by regular services which take no more than
a few minutes. The future occupiers of the proposal would be able to readily
utilise bus transport to access local services.
35. The Council are concerned that utilising bus services southbound would
necessitate crossing the A131. Due to the proximity of the southbound bus
stop, this would not be a particular inconvenience. The short distance involved
would not deter from the use of this method of transport.
36. The bus services also enable access to Braintree railway station. Whilst it
would require a change in mode of transport, this is not unusual when utilising
rail and so such services would also be accessible from the site.
Other Accessibility to Services Matters
37. The proposal would include electric vehicle charging points and this would have
a bearing in as far as it would reduce the usage of cars that are wholly reliant
on a traditional engine. A travel plan is intended in order to incentivise the use
of public transport and encourage the use of car sharing, amongst other
measures. The proposal would also include fibre broadband connection and so
this would facilitate home working, and so have the potential to reduce
vehicular movements.
38. The Highway Authority has not objected on these grounds, but this rests on a
matter of planning judgment for the decision-maker in considering the relevant
factors. This requires more than ensuring that as far as possible the proposal
site is accessible by more sustainable modes of transport because the location
of the site itself is of paramount importance in respect of the accessibility to
services.
39. Both main parties have referred to the Thistle Field appeal decision on this
issue. The appellant considers that I have more comprehensive evidence on
the proposal before me, and I concur especially as it has been the subject of
cross examination. The appellant has also referred to other planning decisions
that the Council has made in High Garrett. Similarly though, I find it unlikely
there would have been the same scrutiny of evidence. As such, these decisions
attract limited weight on this issue.
Conclusion on Accessibility to Local Services
40. It is necessary to consider the measures that have been outlined as a whole in
order to come to a view on the accessibility of services. I am mindful that in
order to carry out their day to day needs, the future occupiers would be by and
large limited to public transport in relation to the use of sustainable transport
modes. Walking and cycling for this purpose would be restricted. Whilst this
would be tempered somewhat by the inclusion of electric vehicle charging
points, a travel plan and opportunities to work from home, these measures
would not address the lack of accessibility of services for day to day needs.
The locational shortcomings of the site are decisive on this issue.
41. I conclude that the proposal would be unacceptable as regards the accessibility
to local services. Thus, it would not comply with Policies RLP53, CS7 and
emerging Policy LPP44, and with paragraphs 105, 110 and 112 of the
Framework where they are concerned with the location of development and
sustainable transport modes. In addition, it would not comply with Policy SP3
where it is concerned with how development will be accommodated within or
adjoining settlements in relation to sustainability.
Character and Appearance
42. High Garrett has a distinctively different townscape character on either side of
the A131. On the eastern side, there is clearly more of an urban character
defined by a continual row of dwellings that are positioned towards their site
frontages. They are noticeable in view and effectively enclose this side of the
road.
43. In contrast, the side of the A131 where the site is found has a considerably
more open character. Open land is interspersed with more occasional built
development. Such development is often set-back, even in the case of where
there is the greatest concentration of such development at Grove Field. Whilst
the site and the adjoining field to the south is bounded to the A131 by
hedgerows and trees, this has a considerably less of an enclosing effect than
the built development opposite because such vegetation contributes to an open
undeveloped character. There are also gaps in the hedgerows and trees.
44. Policy RLP80 of the BDLPR sets out the development should not be detrimental
to distinctive landscape features, and that development that would not
successfully integrate into the local landscape will not normally be permitted,
whilst also referring to the use of additional landscaping to maintain and
enhance these features. Policy CS8 of the CS states that development must
have regard to the character of the landscape and its sensitivity to change and
where development is permitted it will need to enhance the locally distinctive
character of the landscape in accordance with the Landscape Character
Assessment, amongst other matters.
45. Policy SP3 refers to the need to maintain the distinctive character, avoid
coalescence and conserve setting, as well as the conservation and
enhancement of the natural environment. Emerging Policy LPP71 of the S2LP
also concerns landscape character and features, for development to be
informed by Landscape Character Assessment and for it to have regard to
additional landscaping, amidst other considerations.
46. Paragraph 174 of the Framework states that planning policies and decisions
should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment. Under b),
this includes by way of recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the
countryside.
Landscape Character
47. For the purposes of the Braintree, Brentwood, Chelmsford, Maldon and
Uttlesford Landscape Character Assessment (2006) (LCA), the site lies within
the LCT F: Wooded Farmland Landscapes and LCA F2: High Garrett/Markshall
Wooded Farmland7. The site and its immediate surroundings demonstrate
some of the key characteristics including a flat to gently undulating landform,
an open to enclosed character and mature field boundaries.
48. The LCA is of some age and the Council has more recently published the
Evaluation of Landscape Analysis Study of Braintree and environs (2015)
(Evaluation Study). The purpose of this document is to analyse the capacity of
the landscape around Braintree to accommodate new development. The
Council has also acknowledged that it provides an evidence base and assists in
the landscape evaluation of applications. It categorises parcels of land in terms
of their capacity to absorb new development. The site forms one such fairly
small parcel with the field to the south. It is deemed to have a medium
landscape capacity and forming a natural extension to High Garrett. A clear
distinction is drawn with the large field to the west by way of the hedgerow on
the shared boundary and as the land slopes away on that adjoining field.
49. The Evaluation Study does not mean that the site does not perform some role
in respect of the rural setting of the village. Regardless of the delineation of
this parcel of land, there is much open land to the west of the site, and this
does allow land which is of a countryside character, including the site, to
pervade up to the A131. These open landscape character aspects of the site
would be diminished by the proposed up to 37 dwellings and the associated
infrastructure, and in having regard to the extent of the area of development
that is shown on the Parameter Plan.
50. However, the existing built form of High Garrett would lessen the sensitivity of
the site to the proposal. Landscape features would be detrimentally affected
only in as far as the reduction in open land within the site that would result.
The most notable features are the mature hedgerows and trees. These would
7 As per the Landscape and Visual Appraisal (2020) that was submitted with the planning application.
be retained. It has also been indicated that tree planting and maintenance and
management would occur. In drawing these factors together, there would be a
limited adverse effect on landscape character.
51. The site is not the subject of a protective landscape designation and it does not
form a valued landscape for the purposes of paragraph 174 a) of the
Framework. The Framework is still though concerned with conserving and
enhancing the natural environment on a broader basis. Considering landscape
character is also a separate matter from Central Government policy to
significantly boost the supply of housing. If there is a conflict between such
objectives, it is to be dealt with in the planning balance.
Visual Impacts
52. I have had regard to the photoviewpoints submitted in the Landscape and
Visual Appraisal that was submitted with the planning application, together
with the viewpoints that have been produced in evidence as photomontages. I
have also considered photographs that the Council has submitted in evidence,
appreciating that they are not produced to an equivalent standard as the
photoviewpoints and montages, as well as what I observed on my site visit.
53. From the A131 there are filtered views through the trees and hedgerows, as is
demonstrated by Photoviewpoint 1. Such views are more fleeting for motorists
with the speed of traffic along the road, but are more apparent for pedestrians.
The site is more open to the south, as is shown by the Council’s photographic
evidence and there is a greater propensity of views into the site here. Whilst
the trees and hedgerows would likely soften views, there would be some
presence of the proposal, in particular where the access would be formed. The
splay and roadway would very likely permit views into the proposal.
54. As is shown on Photoviewpoint 2, there are clear views into the remainder of
the site from the PRoW as there is no demarcation. Users of the PRoW would
clearly experience a change from the current open character of the land to one
of the proposed dwellings and the associated infrastructure, across the
adjoining open area as is shown on the Parameter Plan.
55. In terms of the further viewpoints along this PRoW, there is limited visibility of
the site because of the hedgerow and trees along the west boundary. This
would also apply when the proposal is considered, as is also shown by the
photomontages. Other viewpoints are too distant, or would be screened by the
built form of High Garrett itself, for the proposal to have a discernible effect.
56. In respect of residential receptors, the effect on the occupiers of No 105 would
be likely similar to the users of the PROW. As an occupied dwelling, the change
would be admittingly more marked but contained because of the hedgerows
and trees along the west boundary of the site. Views from the residential
properties on the opposite side of the A131 would be filtered by the roadside
trees and vegetation on this boundary. Other properties are too far away for
the proposal to have an appreciable effect, or else they would be separated
from the proposal by No 105 and the PRoW.
57. In taking the above matters together, it is evident that the visual impacts of
the proposal would be localised. They would occur for pedestrians on the
footway passing the site on the A131; users of the PRoW through the site, but
not beyond; the nearest residential receptors, especially No 105; and, to a
lesser degree, motorists using the A131. Overall, such an adverse effect would
be of a limited nature.
Other Character and Appearance Matters
58. The role that the site plays as part of the undeveloped land maintaining the
separation between High Garrett, with Bocking and Braintree is of a limited
nature. Further down the A131 towards Bocking and Braintree there is already
Grove Field, as well as a sporadic pattern of other dwellings. The site does not
obviously perform a function of open land between the settlements.
Coalescence would thus not occur to any appreciable degree. The Council is
proposing green buffers to prevent such an effect through emerging Policy
LPP72 of the S2LP. These are in locations as identified on the draft Policies
Map and does not involve the site.
59. Any gap function that the site performs, as I have already set out, concerns
how it allows the countryside to extend up to this part of the A131 and its
contribution to the open character along this side of the road. Beyond this,
whether or not the site has a purpose as a gap has a limited bearing.
Conclusion on Character and Appearance
60. The proposal would result in a limited adverse effect on landscape character.
There would be a notable reduction in the undeveloped character of the site,
but in a location that is in proximity to the existing built form in High Garrett.
Such an effect would also result in a reduction of the site’s contribution of open
character on this side of the A131. There would also be a limited adverse
effect on visual impact and that effect would be localised. Coalescence effects
would not palpably occur.
61. As I have found a level of adverse effect, it cannot be said that harm would not
arise from the proposal by way of the effect on the character and appearance
of the area. It would not comply with Policy RLP80, Policy CS8 and emerging
Policy LPP71 where they concern the effects on the local landscape and
landscape character matters. It would also not comply with Policy SP3 on
character and appearance grounds, although it would not be in conflict where
this policy refers to avoiding coalescence. It would also not accord with
paragraph 174 b) of the Framework where it concerns recognising the intrinsic
character and beauty of the countryside.
Housing Land Supply
62. Policy SP4 of S1LP establishes the Council’s total minimum housing
requirement over the plan period (2013 to 2033), which is 14,320. This
equates to 716 dwellings per year. It is agreed that for the purposes of
paragraph 74 of the Framework this is the correct figure against which to
assess 5 year supply and that the base 5 year requirement is 3,580 dwellings.
When the shortfall against the requirement in the plan period and the correct
buffer is applied, it is further agreed that the 5 year requirement rises to 5,352
dwellings.
63. The dispute between the main parties concerns the Council’s ability to
demonstrate an up to date 5 year housing land supply (HLS) due to the
amount of deliverable supply from sites in the Council’s trajectory. In some
cases the deliverability of the site has been questioned by the appellant, in
others it is on the basis of the delivery rates being too optimistic.
64. The Council’s latest Housing Land Supply Statement for the period of 2021 to
2026 was published in May this year (HLS Statement). The Council produced
more up to date evidence on the disputed sites prior to and during the Inquiry
which I have had regard to in my decision, along with the appellant’s evidence.
My attention was also drawn to the Station Road appeal decision8 that was
made prior to the Inquiry opening.
65. For sites to be deliverable under the Framework, they should be available now,
offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic
prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within 5 years. The term
“realistic prospect” does not infer there is certainty or that it is more than
probable that a site will be delivered.
66. Thereafter, there are two limbs to the definition, although these do not
necessarily exclude other types of site. Under a), sites which do not involve
major development and have planning permission, and all sites with detailed
planning permission, should be considered deliverable until permission expires,
unless there is clear evidence that homes will not be delivered within 5 years
(for example because they are no longer viable, there is no longer a demand
for the type of units or sites have long term phasing plans). Sites are therefore
assumed to be deliverable unless there is “clear evidence” to the contrary.
67. Under b), where a site has outline planning permission for major development,
has been allocated in a development plan, has a grant of permission in
principle, or is identified on a brownfield register, it should only be considered
deliverable where there is clear evidence that housing completions will begin on
site within five years. The position with b) is therefore somewhat different
from a). “Clear evidence” of their deliverability is required.
68. The Planning Practice Guidance: Housing Supply and Delivery provides some
examples of what clear evidence means. These include current planning
status, firm progress being made towards the submission of an application and
clear relevant information about site viability, ownership constraints or
infrastructure provision. Clear evidence can reasonably include the proformas
submitted by developers or their agents for sites, but such evidence needs to
be considered in the round. Whether a site meets the definition is a matter of
planning judgment based on the evidence available. The same applies to the
application of lead in times because whilst Council averages can provide a
useful benchmark, clearly site specific information also needs to be considered.
69. During the course of the Inquiry, there was agreement that one of the sites
that was formerly in dispute, Land West of Bardfield Drive, was deliverable
within the 5 year period. The Council’s most up to date position is that it
considers that it can demonstrate 5.27 year of deliverable supply, whilst the
appellant’s most up to date position is that the Council can deliver 4.58 years.
70. I now turn to the disputed sites and my conclusions regarding their delivery.
All of the sites fall into limb b) for the purposes of the Framework, apart from
one site in a), which I indicate below.
Land East of Broad Road, Strategic Growth Location
71. This large site benefits from an outline planning permission for 1000 dwellings.
The Council is in receipt of a phasing plan and strategy for the site by way of
8 Appeal ref: APP/Z1510/W/21/3267825
seeking to discharge the related condition. This shows Phase 1A which I am
informed constitutes 306 dwellings. Associated highway infrastructure works
comprise improvements to the Monks Farm roundabout linking the A120 to
A131 and a new roundabout off the A131 to access the site. There are also
highway works to the Broad Road/A131 roundabout to the north of the site.
72. No occupations are permitted under the associated Section 106 Agreement
until the Monks Farm roundabout and the works to the Broad Road/A131
roundabout have been completed. No more than 100 dwellings can be
occupied before the roundabout providing access is complete.
73. The main parties are some distance apart on the forecast supply on this site,
with the appellant considering there will be no delivery, whilst the Council’s
position as was amended prior to the Inquiry opening is that 270 units would
be delivered.
74. The Council’s position reflects that of the developer’s most up to date
proforma, with delivery starting in 2023/24. Yet reserved matters have not
been submitted and there is the necessary provision of the highway
infrastructure works at the requisite time. Nor am I convinced that where the
Section 106 Agreement refers to the occupation level restrictions and where
the definition of deliverable under the Framework refers to completions, this is
a particularly helpful distinction if a site is to be brought forward to contribute
to housing land supply. There are also a number of planning conditions that
would need attention prior to completions taking place.
75. On the other hand, the appellant’s position that no completions at all are
justified over the forecast period is not persuasive. Whilst it has been
questioned whether the developer themselves will deliver some of the units, or
would be reliant on other housebuilder(s), it would not be unusual for several
different housebuilders to be involved due to the overall size of the site. The
most recent proforma has also scaled back on its more ambitious previous
trajectory. The site is moving forward with the application for the discharge of
the phasing plan and strategy for the site, and agreement is in place for the
infrastructure works by way of the Section 106 Agreement
76. There is clear evidence there will be some housing completions on site within 5
years. If the Council’s delivery timetable was rolled back one year, that would
be a realistic prospect, in considering all of the evidence before me.
Land Adjacent to Blamsters Farm, Mount Hill, Halstead
77. This site has outline permission and pre-application discussions have taken
place over the future development. There is not though a clear indication of
whether this would constitute the reserved matters relating to the outline or
would require a new permission.
78. The Council considers that it has allowed a generous lead in time as regards
the forecast supply. I find this reflects some degree of uncertainty, in
particular as it is a small site and as I am told that it is greenfield and
unconstrained. Ordinarily, delivery on a site with such characteristics would be
likely to be more straightforward. This is telling and the evidence is lacking
over whether firm progress would be made within the forecast period.
79. As such, it does not constitute a realistic prospect as there is not clear evidence
that housing completions will begin on site within 5 years.
Land between Long Green and Braintree Road, Long Green
80. This site benefits from an outline planning permission and is the subject of
reserved matters. There is also an identified housebuilder and it is not in
dispute between the main parties that at least some units will be delivered
within the forecast period. The Council has also pointed to the site being
greenfield and unconstrained.
81. The Council has taken a more conservative approach than the developer’s
proforma. Reserved matters has not though been granted and I also
understand that whilst a planning performance agreement is being finalised, it
is not yet complete.
82. The appellant revised its position during the Inquiry on the deliverability of this
site. The appellant’s trajectory presents a more realistic prospect, given the
outstanding matters there are on the site, including the need for the approval
of the reserved matters.
Land South of Maltings Lane, Gershwin Park, Land North East of Reid Road
83. The site has been granted outline permission, and constitutes the last
residential area that will come forward on a larger site. The permission
concerned both a Use Class C2 care home and Use Class C3 dwellings. The
developer’s proforma, whilst proposing the same uses, sets out a considerably
higher site capacity.
84. It is questionable whether the future proposal would constitute reserved
matters, or require a new permission. This places some uncertainty over
whether the site can be considered deliverable.
85. The developer has carried out a public consultation and it is reported that the
associated material has stated that an application will be submitted by the end
of the year. Whilst the Council has considered that it has taken a conservative
approach compared to the developer, and does not forecast supply until
2024/25, there appears limited evidence to base this upon at present, in
particular in relation to whether a further planning permission would be
required. I favour the appellant’s position that no housing completions will
begin on site within 5 years.
Land off Church Street, North of Grove Field, High Garrett
86. This site has been granted outline planning permission. A housebuilder has
come forward and submitted an application to discharge details required by
condition in relation to a site design guide. This application was refused and
whilst discussions are said to be taking place in relation to the reserved
matters, an application has not yet come forward. It is not in dispute that at
least some units will be delivered within the forecast period.
87. The Council has pointed to that the site is greenfield and that there are no
major constraints. I also understand that archaeological investigation
conditions have been discharged, pre-application discussions have taken place,
a planning performance agreement has been entered into and an initial service
notice has been submitted. However, the refusal of the site design guide
creates some uncertainty as regards the trajectory. Whilst the Council has
used a more conservative timetable compared to the developer’s proforma, it is
still showing completions in 2023/24.
88. With the refusal of the site design guide and the need for a resubmission, and
the reserved matters, there is not clear evidence to support the Council’s
trajectory. I also find though the appellant’s revised position as was presented
at the Inquiry to be on the pessimistic side, because the developer does seem
to be in a fairly advanced stage of preparation and engaged with the Council,
even with the refusal of the site design guide.
89. It is the trajectory that was set out by the appellant in evidence prior to the
Inquiry that I find most convincing, but for the reasons that I have set out
above.
Land West of Panfield Lane (Phase 1)
90. This site benefits from a hybrid planning permission. Under Phase 1, 189
homes have full permission and so is to be considered under limb a).
Infrastructure requirements relate to provision of a link road and a roundabout.
91. The link road itself has permission under Phase 1. Construction of this phase is
not in itself dependent on the road, albeit the number of occupations are
limited to 50 under the associated Section 106 agreement. The developers’
agent has informed the Council that they will start work on the link road in
early 2022. I see no substantive reason why the link road should be an
impediment to the delivery of the Council’s trajectory.
92. As regards the roundabout, the developers have either the option of making
improvements to the roundabout, or making a financial contribution to a larger
scheme that the County Council wish to progress. Occupation of the dwellings
is limited to 50 if improvements are to be made. If the financial contribution
route is chosen, then the 50 limit is dependent only on making the
contribution, rather than the completion of the roundabout.
93. The appellant has raised matters in relation to viability, although the Council
has informed that a lower affordable housing requirement was accepted. With
the explanation given concerning the provision of the link road and the
roundabout, I also do not see why viability should act as a burden that would
delay delivery.
94. The Council has also taken a slightly more cautious approach than the
proforma that was received from the developers’ agent and does not include all
of the 189 units. There is not clear evidence to the contrary that the 175 units
in the Council’s trajectory would not be deliverable.
Towerlands Park
95. The Towerlands Park site adjoins the Panfield Lane site and has gained outline
planning permission. The relevant infrastructure requirements relate in a
similar fashion to the link road and the roundabout. A reserved matters
planning application for a housebuilder has now been submitted for phase1
(167 dwellings) and whilst the Council has stated that it is the intention that it
will be determined in January 2022, this is of yet to be realised.
96. The Council has also referred to where the reserved matters application is
intending to access from a different section of Panfield Lane and so is not
reliant on the link road. It is not however clear how this relates to the
associated Section 106 Agreement concerning the provision of the road. The
appellant has pointed to where the developer’s proforma raises varying the
obligation. This would add further uncertainty. Marketing by way of the
advertisement consent sought and the site launch details on the developer’s
website are not robust evidence of delivery.
97. I acknowledge that pre-application discussions have taken place, a planning
performance agreement has been entered into, a number of conditions have
been discharged and that the Council is taking a more conservative approach
to the trajectory than the developer. However, this site is to be treated
differently from its neighbour at Panfield Lane because it is to be dealt with
under limb b). With the uncertainties that I have set out, clear evidence of the
deliverability as regards the Council’s trajectory has not been adequately
demonstrated. The appellant’s position is more compelling in relation to that a
small number of completions will come forward towards the end of the forecast
period.
Windfall Allowance
98. The dispute over the windfall allowance concerns whether the Council’s
methodology results in double counting with small sites in 2023/24 (the third
year) because of the standard 3 year implementation period that would apply
to developments that have gained permission. The appellant considers that a
windfall allowance as is set out in the Council’s HLS Statement should not be
applied to 2023/24, or else the small sites figure for that year should not be
applied.
99. The Council has adequately explained the distinction. The windfall allowance
reflects sites that have not been identified but instead will arise through the
course of the submission of planning applications. None are prior to the base
date. This sets the windfall allowance apart from the small sites that are found
in the Council’s HLS Statement. Therefore, it is appropriate to apply the
windfall allowance in 2023/24, as well as the small sites figure.
Other Housing Land Supply Matters
100. The sites at Land off East of Broad Road; Land between Long Green and
Braintree Road, Long Green; and Towerlands Park all feature in the Station
Road appeal decision. That Inspector did not include any completions from the
Land East of Broad Road site but did not consider information on the associated
infrastructure, and the forecast of completions differed from what is before me.
I am satisfied this represents a clear reason for me to take a different view.
101. With regard to the Land between Long Green and Braintree Road, Long
Green site, that application is now the subject of reserved matters and which
the appellant has acknowledged. This was not the case at the time of the
Station Road decision and so I am justified in taking a different view. I take
the same view as the appellant concerning Towerlands Park, based on the
evidence before me.
102. With regard to the Thistle Field appeal decision, it is evident that HLS was
not the subject of the same level of interrogation because it was dealt with
simply by an exchange of correspondence. Decisions at Bures Hamlet9 in the
Council area and elsewhere that I have been referred to concern the use of
proformas, what constitutes clear evidence and the application of limbs a) and
b). The approach that I have taken is not inconsistent with those decisions in
9 APP/Z1510/W/18/3207509
respect of where the main parties have pointed me to extracts, notwithstanding
that clearly evidence and site circumstances will differ in each case. With the
Gilda Terrace appeal, HLS was not in dispute.
103. The appellant has also referred to the Council’s HLS position relying on
schemes that were allowed at appeal. The Framework does not though make
a distinction between sites approved at the planning application stage and
those allowed on appeal. This has a limited bearing.
Conclusion on Housing Land Supply
104. In taking account of the above, I find that housing completions will not be
made within 5 years at Land Adjacent to Blamsters Farm, Mount Hill, Halstead;
and Land South of Maltings Lane, Gershwin Park, Land North East of Reid Road.
The sites where I consider that housing completions will be made within 5
years but alterations need to be made to the Council’s trajectory are Land East
of Broad Road, Strategic Growth Location; Land between Long Green and
Braintree Road, Long Green; Land off Church Street, North of Grove Field, High
Garrett; and Towerlands Park. No alteration is to be made to Land West of
Panfield Lane (Phase 1) and the windfall allowance.
105. This results in a reduction of 374 units from the Council’s trajectory. This
means that the Council supply of deliverable sites is 4.9 years.
Other Matters
Housing Provision
106. The proposal would make a contribution of up to 37 units towards the
Council’s minimum housing requirement figure and it would support the
Government’s objective under the Framework of significantly boosting the
supply of homes. It would assist in reducing the shortfall against the deficit in
the Council’s 5 year HLS position, whilst also accepting that the extent of the
shortfall is marginal. The size of the site may ably support the role of small
and medium sized housebuilders in bringing forward new housing. It would
provide for a housing mix with the provision of both general market and
affordable housing. Housing provision attracts significant weight as a benefit.
Affordable Housing
107. While the provision of 40% of the units as affordable housing would be
required to ensure that the proposal would accord with Policy CS2 of the CS, it
would also have the greater benefit of enabling provision for those who would
not be able to obtain general market housing. There is a clear shortfall of
provision against the Council’s affordable housing need, notwithstanding the
recent annual surplus and the intention to deal with the deficit through the
approach to the overall requirement. A lack of recent provision specifically in
High Garrett is unsurprising given the modest size of the settlement and the
proposal would still make a valuable contribution to addressing the deficit
across the Council area as a whole. This also attracts significant weight as a
benefit.
Economic Benefits
108. The proposal would benefit the economy through construction, including
employment. The future occupiers would also support the economy through
their expenditure and no doubt some of the future occupiers would be of
working age which itself would bring economic benefit. The appellant also
considers that the Council is not delivering the level of economic benefit that
relates to the supply of housing, again pointing to the 5 year HLS position.
109. The effects of Covid-19 remain uncertain in order for any particular inference
to be drawn from them in the longer term, whether in relation to housing and
the economy, or indeed working from home and travel trends. Nor am I in
receipt of substantive empirical evidence in this regard.
110. The weight to be attached to a specific proposal as regards supporting
economic growth depends on its particular contribution within the broader
ambit of where paragraph 81 of the Framework states that significant weight
should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity.
With the type and size of the proposal, economic benefits attract moderate
weight in its favour.
Other Benefits that have been put forward
111. The proposal would bring a modest benefit for existing residents due to the
upgrade of the bus stops, footways and crossing the A131, as well as public
open space on site and the intended associated footpath connections. I am
less persuaded that such matters can be seen as a benefit to the future
occupiers of the proposal because they relate either to an attempt to mitigate
against harm or to meet development plan requirements.
112. It is also intended there would be ecological enhancements, including damp
grassland/occasional wet areas, meadow grassland and linear corridors that
constitute biodiversity net gain. Even though the undeveloped open field
nature of the site would be much diminished, these matters would be of
benefit, albeit modest. The same holds true in relation to the provision of
electric vehicle charging points because they would be of some wider benefit by
way of combating climate change.
113. A number of landscape and visual locational benefits have been purported
which relate to the site lying away from protected designations, but this is
neutral matter. I also clearly do not agree that there is a particular benefit
arising from whether or not the proposal would form a natural extension to
High Garrett, due to the broader character and appearance harm that would
arise. In relation to the design quality of the proposal, the Framework has in
any event placed a greater emphasis on well-designed development as an
integral part of national planning policy and so it does not add further to the
benefits, setting aside that it would be largely dependent on reserved matters.
Obligations contained in the S106 Agreement
114. The obligations in the S106 Agreement bind the owner to covenants with the
Council. They concern contributions for allotments, outdoor sport, library and
education, as well as the Recreation Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS)
in relation to relevant protected designations. The obligations also concern
affordable housing provision and on-site open space and amenity areas.
115. Having regard to the evidence before me, it has been demonstrated that
they are all necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms,
directly related to the development, and reasonable in scale and kind. They
accord with the tests that are set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework and
the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (as amended, 2019), where
they apply to each of the obligations. As a result, I have taken them into
account in my decision. They address the matters that are set out in the
Council’s second reason for refusal.
Listed Buildings
116. No 105 is also known as Mill Lodge and is a grade II listed building. It
comprises an 18th century timber framed and plastered house. It has an
unusual history in that it was taken down from a site at Courtauld’s Mill and re-
erected on the present site. Whilst it is a fine building in its own right, its
special interest as a mill house has been somewhat diminished by the
relocation. The significance now lies in its architectural interest.
117. Within this context, the role that the site plays in the significance of its
setting is of a limited nature. In as far as the nearest part of the site lies
within its setting, the Parameter Plan shows that this area would remain open.
In having regard to the statutory duty that is set out in Section 66 (1) of the
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the proposal
would have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its
setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it
possesses.
118. For the purposes of the Framework, the Council consider that no harm would
occur to the significance of the asset, whereas the appellant considers that
under paragraph 202 less than substantial harm would arise. Due to the
limited role of the site in the significance of the setting, I agree with the
Council. I am not therefore required to carry out a heritage asset balancing
exercise with the public benefits.
119. Whilst there are a number of other listed buildings in the vicinity, with the
separation and screening, the proposal would not impact on their significance.
Other Issues
120. The Highway Authority considered at the planning application stage that any
additional trips associated with the proposal would not be detrimental to
highway safety and capacity. The A131 is a busy road but as traffic does tend
to travel in platoons along it, this would likely enable gaps for traffic to enter
and leave the site safely at the proposed access point. In relation to
pedestrian safety, there would be the crossing point and a new footway along
part of the same side of the A131 as the site. I would agree that using the
A131 is unlikely to be an attractive proposition to most cyclists, but this would
more likely deter use rather than result in accidents. In highway safety terms,
the proposal would not be unacceptable.
121. Noise from the A131 and other uses would be unlikely to cause an untoward
effect on the living conditions of the future occupiers. In relation to the use of
an acoustic fence, such a feature would be subject to control by the Council in
the event that permission was granted. This would reasonably include a
consideration of the visual impact.
122. In terms of air quality, the proposed electric vehicle charging points would
assist. With regard to the effect on local services, the S106 Agreement
provides for financial contributions, which include education, amongst other
such services.
123. In relation to Habitat Regulations Assessment, it is not necessary for me to
undertake an Appropriate Assessment as the Competent Authority because the
circumstances that would lead to a grant of permission are not present. The
RAMS contribution is not in itself a benefit because it is required with regard to
the potential impact from the proposal on the related designated sites as the
site itself lies within the zone of influence.
Planning Balance and Conclusion
124. With the conflict that I have identified with the development plan policies,
the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole. Policies RLP2,
CS5 and SP3 are central in such a judgment because they are the policies of
most relevance that form the spatial strategy of the development plan. The
proposal would be in conflict with these policies.
125. It is also apparent that Policies RLP2 and CS5 are based on former housing
need. Whilst the use of development boundaries is not in itself inconsistent
with the Framework, the rationale for such an approach must reflect the
national policy. The current policies are restrictive as they apply a level of
protection for the countryside that goes beyond what the Framework sets out
by way of managing development. This does not alter the conflict with these
policies. However, it does limit the weight to be given to the conflict. Such
considerations do not though apply to Policy SP3 as it is consistent with the
Framework.
126. The proposal would also not comply with Policies RLP53 and CS7 as regards
accessibility to services. It would also not comply with Policy RLP80 and Policy
CS8, although the conflict would be limited given the level of harm that would
arise as regards character and appearance. These policies are consistent with
the Framework.
127. The emerging planning policies under S2LP have been subject to hearings
and are now the subject of a modification consultation. The proposal conflicts
with Policy LPP1 in terms of the location, as well as with Policies LPP44 and
LPP71. S2LP is at an advanced stage and the related consultation documents
do not indicate that what is intended is a wholesale re-examination on the
content and approach of S2LP. It is not though yet the subject of a published
Inspectors Report. The policies within it attract moderate weight in my
decision.
128. The Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites
and so the policies which are most important for determining the application,
namely Policies RLP2, CS5 and SP3, are out-of-date. Even though the shortfall
is marginal, it does mean that paragraph 11 d) ii. of the Framework applies.
This means granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against
the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.
129. In relation to the adverse impacts, these concern that the proposal would
not be in a suitable location for housing, would be unacceptable as regards the
accessibility to local services and would have a limited adverse effect on the
character and appearance of the area. It would not comply with the spatial
strategy of the development plan. I have found conflict with the policies in the
Framework. I find the harm, when taken together, to be very significant. Set
against this would be the addition of up to 37 dwellings to housing provision,
the contribution to addressing the slight shortfall against the 5 year HLS, the
provision of affordable housing and the economic benefits. When these are
considered with the other more modest benefits, overall, they attract
significant weight in my decision.
130. I have taken into account the relevant matters in relation to the economic,
social and environmental objectives of the Framework, as set out above,
notwithstanding these are not criteria against which every decision can or
should be judged.
131. Taking these matters together, the adverse impacts of granting planning
permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when
assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result,
the application of paragraph 11 does not indicate that permission should be
granted. The proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of
sustainable development. In an even balance, clearly the harm would not be
outweighed by the benefits.
132. In coming to my conclusion, I have considered all relevant matters that have
been raised. The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and
there are no material considerations to outweigh this conflict. Accordingly, the
appeal should be dismissed.
Darren Hendley
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Mr Robert Williams Of Counsel, instructed by Braintree
District Council
He called
Mr Alexander Evans, BSc (Hons), MSc Planning Officer at Braintree
MRTPI District Council
Mrs Natalie Banks BA (Hons), MSc, Senior Planner at Braintree
LRTPI District Council
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Mr Jonathan Easton Of Counsel, instructed by Turley
He called
Mr Jonathan Dodd, BA (Hons), MPlan Associate Director, Turley
MRTPI
Mr Matthew Grist BSc (Hons), Pg Dip, Director and Head of Transport
MCILT, MCIHT Planning, Jubb
Mrs Clare Brockhurst BSc (Hons), Director, Leyton Place Limited
Dip LA, FLI
Mr David Murray-Cox, BA (Hons), Director, Turley
MPlan, MRTPI
Paul Wakefield Solicitor, Shakespeare Martineau LLP
(In attendance during the Planning
Obligations session)
INQUIRY DOCUMENTS
1 Braintree District Council, Council’s Response and Update to Appeal
Decision: Land North of Station Road, Earls Colne
(APP/Z1510/W/21/3267825) dated 12 November 2021 in relation to Housing
Land Supply
2 Opening Points on behalf of the Appellant
3 Opening Statement on behalf of Braintree District Council
4 Outline planning permission, Council ref: 18/01318/OUT Land East of Broad
Road, Braintree, Essex, dated 31 March 2021
5 Counterpart Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990 relating to Land East of Broad Road, Braintree, Essex, dated
31 March 2021
6 Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
relating to land between Springwood Drive and Panfield Lane, Braintree,
Essex, dated 2 March 2020
7 Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
relating to land at Towerlands Park, Panfield Road, Braintree CM7 5BJ Essex
dated 9 April 2021
8 Braintree District Council - Affordable Housing Note: Current Supply
Projections (monitoring year 2021/22 only), dated 26 November 2021
9 Canterbury City Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government and another [2019] EWCA Civ 669
10 Bassetlaw District Council v Secretary of State for Housing [2019] EWHC 556
(Admin)
11 Braintree District Council, Council’s Submission in relation to Inquiry
Documents 4 – 7, dated November 2021
12 Appellant Supplemental 5YHLS Position, dated November 2021
13 High Garrett Conditions (dated 18.11)
14 Mordue v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and
others [2015] EWCA Civ 1243
15 Closing Statement on behalf of Braintree District Council
16 Closing Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
DOCUMENTS RECEIVED FOLLOWING THE CLOSE OF THE INQUIRY
17 Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
relating to land west of High Garrett (A131), Braintree, Essex (completed
and executed version)