Case Reference: 3348392

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 11 February 2025
by E Dade BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 28 February 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/A1530/W/24/3348392
Wakes Colne Lodge, Lower Green, Wakes Colne, Essex CO6 2AZ
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Colchester City Council.
• The application Ref is 232074.
• The development proposed is new three bedroom two-storey residential dwelling with garden.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Main Issues
2. The main issues in this appeal are:
• Whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location, having regard
to the local development strategy;
• The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the
area;
• The effect of the proposed development on highway safety;
• The effect of the proposed development on protected species and biodiversity; and
• The effect of the proposed development on local infrastructure, with particular
regard to sport and recreation, and community facilities.
Reasons
Whether in a suitable location
3. The appeal site comprises garden land to the side of Wakes Colne Lodge, a two-
storey, detached house. The site adjoins Lower Green and is within a ribbon of
residential development.
4. Policy SP3 of the North Essex Authorities’ Shared Strategic Section 1 Plan 2021
(SSP) focusses growth principally in or adjoining existing settlements according to
their scale, sustainability and role. Reflecting SP3’s spatial strategy, Policy SG1 of
the Colchester Borough Local Plan 2022 Section 2 (CBLP) requires growth be
located at the most accessible and sustainable locations in accordance with the
spatial hierarchy. However, the site is outside the settlement limit of any settlement
defined by the spatial hierarchy and is deemed to be in the countryside.
5. Policy SG1 focusses development on accessible locations to reduce the need to
travel, supporting development where a real travel choice is provided and
sustainable travel for different purposes is promoted throughout the day.
6. Community facilities such as the primary school, village hall, public house,
convenience store, and rail station would not be within an acceptable walking
distance. Moreover, Lower Green and surrounding routes are not served by
pedestrian footways and lighting and therefore would not provide safe, suitable
access to local services on foot.
7. Whilst the bus stop at Lower Green offers services to local schools, I have not
been provided details of services to other locations. The frequency and duration of
services in this location is not known and it is therefore unclear if the day-to-day
needs of future occupants would be met through bus travel.
8. The site does not benefit from suitable pedestrian access and opportunities for bus
travel would likely be limited. Therefore, it is not demonstrated that the site offers
real travel choice or promotes sustainable travel throughout the day.
9. As set out above, the proposed development would be outside the settlement limit
and would offer poor accessibility. Therefore, the proposed development would not
be in a location prioritised for growth by Policies SP3 and SG1.
10. In addition, Policy SG1 permits development in the countryside where it
safeguards rural character in accordance with LP Policy OV2. However, I have
considered the effects of the proposal on character and appearance below and
have identified conflict with the development plan in this regard. Therefore, the
proposed development would not be in a suitable location.
Character and appearance
11. The appeal site is between the host property and neighbouring dwelling
“Tregrehan House”. Both are substantial, detached dwellings with wide front
elevations. Opposite the site are detached bungalows, with wide frontages and a
shallow plan form. The proposed dwelling would have a narrow front elevation and
deep plan form, which would be out of keeping with surrounding dwellings.
12. This northern side of Lower Green comprises a row of detached and semi-
detached dwellings which are regularly spaced in generous plots of broadly equal
width. Dwellings are arranged in a linear pattern and the area has a spacious,
green and rural character.
13. The appeal site would appear narrow within the context of surrounding plots. The
proposed dwelling would occupy most the width of the site and would be close to
both side boundaries. The proposed dwelling would have a cramped appearance,
that is out of keeping with the layout of surrounding dwellings. In addition, the front
of the plot would be dominated by hardstanding. The proposal would therefore
have a harmful urbanising effect on the site.
14. There are existing trees and shrubs along the side and rear boundaries. The
appellant asserts that trees would not be disturbed or removed. However, the
proposed dwelling would be sited close to the vegetated side boundary and would
therefore be likely to impact upon trees, such as through tree removal, pruning,
and/or root loss.
15. No details of the value of existing trees, or and measures to prevent disturbance
during construction have been provided. Whilst such details could potentially be
secured through a planning condition, I have been provided no such suggested
condition. Moreover, the appellant asserts an Arboricultural Impact Assessment
would not be required. Therefore, the proposal fails to demonstrate the effects of
the proposed development on existing trees, and the impacts of any potential tree
loss on the visual quality of the landscape are uncertain.
16. The design of the proposed dwelling is the same as that approved by the Council
in 2007, which subsequently lapsed1. It is not likely that the surrounding street
scene has changed significantly since the former grant of planning permission.
17. However, since the former grant of planning permission, the development has
been updated and I must determine the proposal against policies in effect at time
of my decision, and I do not have full details of the former decision before me. It is
my understanding the 2007 scheme related to a wider plot, and therefore the
visual impacts of the proposal would differ. I therefore afford only limited weight to
the former grant of planning permission.
18. For the reasons set out above, the proposal would harm the character and
appearance of the area.
19. The proposal would therefore conflict with SSP Policy SP7 and CBLP Policy DM15
which together require proposals respond positively to local character, context,
and surroundings in terms of its layout and architectural approach. In addition, the
proposal would fail to comply with Policy DM15’s requirement that development
integrate positively with Arboricultural assets.
Highway safety
20. At time of my site visit, access to/from the highway was via a timber five-bar field
gate with a close-boarded fence attached. The appellant states the access has
existed for more than four years. However, there is dispute regarding the length of
time the access has existed and whether the access was created lawfully.
21. The appellant asserts the existing access was constructed under rights afforded by
Schedule 2, Part 2, Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) (England) Order 2015. I have no evidence from the Council or local
highway authority (LHA) to positively confirm the access would benefit from
permitted development rights.
22. Visibility from the access is constrained by the curvature of the road. The proposal
has not provided details of visibility splay distances from the access, and the
appellant does not own or control sufficient land to ensure adequate visibility.
23. Therefore, even if I were to accept the access as lawful, in the absence of visibility
splay data the proposal does not demonstrate that the access is of a suitable
standard to serve the proposed development.
24. The appellant has provided photos of a vehicle manoeuvring within the site, and
the submitted plans indicate a turning area would be provided to the front of the
dwelling. However, the plan does not provide the layout and arrangement of the
turning area or any parking spaces within it. Therefore, it is not demonstrated that
1 LPA ref: 071085
vehicles would be able to exit the site in a forward gear. Within the context of
constrained visibility, vehicles reversing into the highway would have a significant
adverse impact on highway safety.
25. At present, the existing access serves as a secondary access to the host
dwelling’s garden. Since it would form the sole vehicular access for the proposed
dwelling, the development would significantly intensify use of the access which, in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, is deemed to be substandard.
26. The proposal does not contain sufficient evidence to address the LHA’s concerns
and fails to demonstrate that there would not be a significant adverse impact on
highway safety.
27. The proposal would therefore conflict with CBLP Policy DM21 which requires
development proposals create safe, secure, convenient and attractive layouts
which minimise conflicts between road users.
Protected species and biodiversity
28. Most of the site area comprises mown grassland, and the side and rear boundary
including established trees and shrubs. Whilst within a linear row of residential
development, the site is in a rural location and the wider landscape is
predominantly agricultural land bounded by trees and hedgerows. The site
therefore contains assets of ecological value and has the potential to support
species and biodiversity.
29. The application pre-dates the introduction of the national mandatory biodiversity
net gain2 and therefore would be exempt from its requirements. Nonetheless,
paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework)
requires proposals minimise impacts on and provide net gains for biodiversity.
Furthermore, section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act
2006 which places a duty on public authorities to have regard to the purpose of
conserving biodiversity in the exercise of their functions.
30. No details of the site’s biodiversity value or potential to support protected species
has been provided, and therefore contains insufficient information to assess the
effects of the proposed development on protected species and biodiversity. Whilst
I note the appellant was informally advised that a biodiversity report would not be
required, in my decision I am not bound by advice issued by the Council.
31. The proposal fails to demonstrate that there would not be an adverse impact on
protected species and biodiversity.
32. The proposed development would therefore conflict with CBLP Policy ENV1 which
seeks to conserve and enhance the area’s natural environment, protect habitats
and species and conserve and enhance biodiversity.
Local infrastructure
33. SSP Policy SP6 requires all development be supported by the provision of the
infrastructure, services and facilities that are identified to serve the needs arising
from the development. In addition, CBLP Policy SG7 indicates permission will be
2 At Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021)
granted only if it can be demonstrated there is sufficient infrastructure capacity to
support the development.
34. The Council identifies a requirement for financial contributions of £6,560.79 toward
sport and recreation facilities managed by Wakes Colne Parish Council, and
£2,872.83 toward community facilities, namely the introduction of blinds throughout
the Wakes Colne and Chappel Village Hall.
35. Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 makes it
unlawful for any planning obligation to be taken into account as a reason to grant a
planning permission if it does not meet the three statutory tests, that it is necessary
to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the
development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the
development. The tests are reflected in paragraph 57 of the Framework.
36. The Provision of Open Space, Sport and Recreational Facilities Supplementary
Planning Document 2006 (POSSRFSPD) considers that all new residential
developments of one or more dwellings will impact on sport and recreation
provision. However, details of the location, type, and cost of projects to be funded
by the contribution have not been provided. Therefore, it is unclear if the sport and
recreation facilities would be necessary, directly related, or fair and reasonably
related in scale to the development.
37. The Provision of Community Facilities Supplementary Planning Document 2013
(PCFSPD) identifies the importance of community facilities to the well-being of
residents and as a mechanism for building community cohesion. The PCFSPD
indicates the community facility contribution is calculated from various
assumptions, including the average build costs of new community centres. The
PCFSPD states build costs are reviewed annually and therefore would be
expected to change from its worked examples.
38. However, the assumptions from which the community facilities contribution was
calculated have not been provided. Furthermore, I have no details of the condition
of the village hall blinds, the extent of work, or cost details to justify the
contributions sought. Therefore, I cannot be certain the contribution would be
necessary to make the development acceptable and would be fairly and
reasonably related in scale to the development.
39. As set out above, there is insufficient information to confirm the requested
contributions would satisfy the statutory tests. Moreover, it is not demonstrated
that there would be inadequate infrastructure capacity to support the proposed
development. Therefore, having particular regard to sport, recreation, and
community facilities, the proposal would not have an adverse effect on local
infrastructure capacity. In this regard, the proposal would comply with CBLP Policy
SG7 and SSP Policy SP6.
Other Matters
40. The appeal site is within the zone of influence of one or more European sites,
including the Colne Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA), the Blackwater Estuary
SPA, Abberton Reservoir Estuary SPA, Essex Estuaries Special Area of
Conservation (SAC), and the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA. The Essex Coast
Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (Essex Coast RAMS)
indicates that residential development in this location is likely to have significant
effects on European Sites through increased recreational disturbance. The Council
confirm the appellant has provided mitigation through a financial contribution
toward the Essex Coast RAMS.
41. Where a proposal is likely to have a significant effect on European sites,
Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017
requires the competent authority to carry out an Appropriate Assessment (AA).
However, AA is only necessary where the competent authority is minded to give
consent for the proposal. Since I am dismissing the appeal for other substantive
grounds which result in conflict with the development plan, it is not necessary to
address the proposed development’s effects on European sites in further detail.
Conclusion
42. As set out above, I have identified no adverse effect in respect of the provision of
sport, recreation, and community facilities.
43. However, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and
there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the
reasons given the appeal should be dismissed.
E Dade
INSPECTOR