Land north of no. 17 Gosfield Road, High Garrett, Essex, CM7 5NZ

Land north of no. 17 Gosfield Road, High Garrett, Essex, CM7 5NZ — Braintree District Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 December 2021 by Andrew Smith BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11th January 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/Z1510/W/21/3276481 Land to North of 17 Gosfield Road, High Garrett, Braintree CM7 5NZ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for planning permission • The appeal is made by Mr Beckford on behalf of Pyrmont Homes against Braintree District Council. • The application Ref 21/00615/FUL, is dated 19 February 2021. • The development proposed is construction of 4 no. new dwellings, new access from Gosfield Road and associated development. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The Braintree District Local Plan 2012-2033 Section 1 (the S1LP) was adopted in February 2021 and constitutes a shared strategic plan for the North Essex Authorities1, setting out a spatial context for the area. A Section 2 Local Plan (the S2LP) for the Braintree District, which is due to identify a hierarchy of settlements for where new development shall be accommodated, is emerging and has reached examination stage.

Land north of no. 17 Gosfield Road, High Garrett, Essex, CM7 5NZ — Braintree District Council — Appeal Decision However, on the basis that it has yet to be found sound, the S2LP is currently at a stage that attracts limited weight. I have seen nothing to clearly indicate otherwise and shall determine the appeal on this basis. 3. The Council has indicated that it would have refused planning permission had it been in a position to do so. Its main concerns relate to conflict with its current and emerging spatial strategies for development, the effect upon the character and appearance of the countryside/streetscene and the site’s accessibility to facilities and services. I shall formulate the appeal’s main issues accordingly. Main Issues 4. The main issues are: • The effect upon the character and appearance of the area; and • Whether the site represents an appropriate location for housing, having particular regard to access to facilities and services. 1 Braintree District Council, Colchester Borough Council, Tendring District Council https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Land north of no. 17 Gosfield Road, High Garrett, Essex, CM7 5NZ — Braintree District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Z1510/W/21/3276481 Reasons Character and appearance 5. The site forms part of a grassed agricultural field that is inherently rural and open in its character and appearance. It is situated outside of any defined settlement boundary and thus in the countryside in local planning policy terms. Whilst the site’s wider surroundings are predominantly green and rural in their makeup, it is situated at the northern end of an established and diverse row of residential development. Opposite to the site, Gosfield Road is also addressed by a row of differing house types to its eastern side. A public footpath (the footpath) runs the site’s northern edge, itself abutted by an established belt of planting (the tree belt). 6. From the footpath, the scheme would typically be experienced against the backdrop of existing residential development. Furthermore, upon approach from the north, potential available views would, at least in part, be intercepted or softened by the tree belt. 7. Nevertheless, as was apparent upon inspection, the site, in its current undeveloped state, promotes the availability of opportunities for the open countryside to be viewed and enjoyed.

Land north of no. 17 Gosfield Road, High Garrett, Essex, CM7 5NZ — Braintree District Council — Appeal Decision This particularly applies when stood at, or in proximity to, the site’s Gosfield Road frontage where expansive views can be obtained. The scheme, through the introduction of built development of not insignificant cumulative scale and footprint coverage, would interrupt these available views and erode the rural qualities of the area. I further note that any new planting would take time to properly establish and could not be relied upon to provide permanent substantive screening to two-storey development. 8. The proposed dwellings would be suitably compatible with the scale, form, layout, appearance and materials of nearby buildings. This is notwithstanding the intended consistent nature of the houses’ individual designs. On this basis, I do not identify conflict with saved Policy RLP90 of the Braintree District Local Plan Review (July 2005) (the Local Plan), which focusses on the layout and design of development. However, this does not prejudice my finding that the proposal would cause considerable harm to the character and appearance of the area via the loss of undeveloped rural land to development. 9.

Land north of no. 17 Gosfield Road, High Garrett, Essex, CM7 5NZ — Braintree District Council — Appeal Decision The proposal conflicts with saved Policies RLP2 and RLP80 of the Local Plan, Policy CS5 of the Braintree District Core Strategy (September 2011) (the Core Strategy), Policy SP7 of the S1LP and emerging Policies LPP1 and LPP71 of the S2LP in so far as these policies set out that countryside development will be strictly controlled, that all new development should respond positively to local character and context, and that development that would not successfully integrate into the local landscape will not be permitted. Accessibility of facilities and services 10. The appeal site is situated in proximity to existing development such that it does not occupy an isolated location in a physical sense. Even so, the facilities and services located at High Garrett, which include a public house, are limited and would be incapable of serving the full day-to-day needs of future occupiers of the proposal. 11. Wider arrays of facilities and services are available at locally located settlements, including Braintree, Bocking and Gosfield. However, the distances https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Land north of no. 17 Gosfield Road, High Garrett, Essex, CM7 5NZ — Braintree District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Z1510/W/21/3276481 involved would mean that walking to these settlements would be unlikely to represent an attractive option for future occupiers of the development. This is particularly when noting the busy nature of the A131 and the partial absence of a footpath when following the road to Gosfield. Furthermore, the routes to neighbouring settlements are not served by specific facilities for cyclists such as defined cycle lanes. 12. There are bus stops on Gosfield Road conveniently located to the front of the site. It is my understanding that these offer services to various local settlements, including the towns of Braintree and Halstead. This is undoubtedly a positive factor in the context of my consideration of this main issue. However, in light of the limited walkability and cyclability of surrounding settlements, future occupiers of the development would be heavily reliant on this bus service provision should they wish or require to access surrounding facilities and services by means other than via private travel modes. Moreover, it is unlikely that all future occupiers of the scheme would be willing and/or conveniently able to rely upon bus services.

Land north of no. 17 Gosfield Road, High Garrett, Essex, CM7 5NZ — Braintree District Council — Appeal Decision It has not been clearly demonstrated otherwise. 13. The National Planning Policy Framework (July 2021) (the Framework) states that sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and that this should be taken into account in decision-making. However, the proposal would inevitably increase travel by private modes of transportation, which sits uncomfortably alongside the Government’s objectives of delivering sustainable development in a planned and coordinated manner. 14. For the above reasons, the proposal would cause harm, albeit limited in extent, by virtue of the site not representing an appropriate location for housing having particular regard to access to surrounding facilities and services. The scheme conflicts with Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy and Policy SP7 of the S1LP in so far as they set out that future development will be provided in accessible locations to reduce the need to travel. Other Matters 15. The site lies within the Zone of Influence of the Essex Coast, much of which is comprised of a Special Area of Conservation and various Special Protection Areas and Ramsar sites.

Land north of no. 17 Gosfield Road, High Garrett, Essex, CM7 5NZ — Braintree District Council — Appeal Decision The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) require that, where a project is likely to have a significant effect on (a) European site(s) (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), the competent authority must, before any grant of planning permission, make an appropriate assessment of the project’s implications in view of the relevant conservation objectives. However, as I have found the proposal to be unacceptable for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to undertake an appropriate assessment. For the avoidance of doubt, if I had done so and a positive outcome had ensued it would not have affected the planning balance or my conclusions on this appeal. 16. Recent successful appeal decisions relating to various other local sites appear in the evidence before me. With respect to a site at Gosfield Lawn Tennis Club2, its positioning differs to the site before me in terms of its proximity to Gosfield and the visual effects that would have applied. Furthermore, the appeal was determined in the context of the presumption in favour of 2 APP/Z1510/W/20/3246355 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Land north of no. 17 Gosfield Road, High Garrett, Essex, CM7 5NZ — Braintree District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Z1510/W/21/3276481 sustainable development due to the Council acknowledging that it could not demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites at that time (May 2020), which it no longer accepts to be the case. These factors assist in differentiating the Tennis Club scheme from the proposal now before me. 17. As regards a July 2020 decision3 at a nearby site to the east of Gosfield Road, the Inspector identified that the proposed development would not be in a suitable location for new housing having regard to access to services and facilities. Indeed, permission was granted following the application of the tilted balance. Furthermore, whilst harm was not identified in a character and appearance sense, different site-specific circumstances would have applied, and a smaller scale of development was under consideration. It is a decision of limited relevance to my considerations. 18. I have noted objections/concerns raised by interested parties with respect to matters including highway and pedestrian safety, loss of agricultural land, drainage and the effect upon wildlife.

Land north of no. 17 Gosfield Road, High Garrett, Essex, CM7 5NZ — Braintree District Council — Appeal Decision However, as I have found the proposal to be unacceptable for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to explore these matters further here. Planning Balance 19. As indicated at paragraph 11 to the Framework, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies when, amongst other situations, the policies most important for determining a scheme are out-of-date. This includes, with respect to proposals for new housing, where the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. 20. The Council’s March 2021 Housing Land Supply report (published May 2021) (the HLSR), which contains a detailed trajectory of sites and is based on the housing requirement set through the S1LP, indicates a housing land supply of 5.34 years. Based on the evidence that is before me, and notwithstanding broad concerns raised by the appellant in a deliverability sense, it has not been clearly demonstrated that a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites does not exist contrary to the position set out in the HLSR. 21. Nevertheless, it remains for me to identify the most important policies for determining this appeal and to consider whether they are out-of-date.

Land north of no. 17 Gosfield Road, High Garrett, Essex, CM7 5NZ — Braintree District Council — Appeal Decision To my mind, the basket of most important policies, which go to the heart of the determining issues in this appeal, comprises saved Policies RLP2, RLP80 and RLP90 of the Local Plan, Policies CS5 and CS7 of the Core Strategy and Policies SP3 and SP7 of the S1LP. 22. Policies RLP2 and CS5 are restrictive policies that set out strict controls with respect to development proposed outside of settlement limits predicated upon historic levels of housing need. Both are inconsistent with the Framework, which does not imply that protection from development be given to the countryside in its totality. Indeed, the conflicts that I have identified with these policies attract limited weight and the site’s location outside of any defined settlement limit is not determinative in this case. Not dissimilar findings were drawn by other Inspectors at Finchingfield4 in November 2020 and at Braintree5 in July 2021. 3 APP/Z1510/W/3243946 4 APP/Z1510/W/20/3251952 5 APP/Z1510/W/20/3265895 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Land north of no. 17 Gosfield Road, High Garrett, Essex, CM7 5NZ — Braintree District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/Z1510/W/21/3276481 23. However, saved Policies RLP80 and RLP90 are broadly consistent with the Framework in so far as it sets out that planning decisions should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and that developments should be sympathetic to local character. Policy CS7 is also broadly consistent with the Framework in so far as it seeks to encourage movements by means other than via private car. These policies, notwithstanding their age of adoption, are not out-of-date and attract considerable weight. 24. Furthermore, Policy SP3 sets out a spatial strategy for North Essex that directs how future growth should be accommodated. It confirms that growth will be planned to ensure that existing settlements maintain their distinctive character and role whilst being the principal focus for additional growth. Meanwhile, Policy SP7 sets out place shaping principles which include that all new development should respond positively to local character and context and that well-connected places should be created that prioritise the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users above private car use.

Land north of no. 17 Gosfield Road, High Garrett, Essex, CM7 5NZ — Braintree District Council — Appeal Decision Policies SP3 and SP7 have been recently adopted, are consistent with the Framework and attract full weight. 25. Thus, notwithstanding my findings with respect to Policies RLP2 and CS5, the basket of most important policies for determining this appeal is not out-of- date. On this basis, the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out at paragraph 11 of the Framework, and referenced at Policy SP1 of the S1LP, does not apply. 26. In terms of the scheme’s benefits, four additional housing units would be provided over a realistically short delivery timeframe, and the Framework reaffirms the Government’s objectives of significantly boosting the supply of homes. Nevertheless, even though it is my understanding that recent housing delivery across the District has not been at a level that has fully met identified housing requirements, four additional units would make a small contribution and attracts fairly limited weight as a scheme benefit. 27. The development would also create jobs during the construction phase and would, most particularly once occupied, provide future support to the local economy and local community facilities.

Land north of no. 17 Gosfield Road, High Garrett, Essex, CM7 5NZ — Braintree District Council — Appeal Decision Nevertheless, these benefits attract limited weight due to the somewhat modest number of new dwellings under consideration. Any biodiversity enhancements ultimately achievable would realistically be limited and attract minimal weight in the planning balance. The intended improvements to an existing bus stop would promote highway safety. However, as works to merely a single existing stop are proposed, any associated benefits would attract limited weight. 28. The proposal’s benefits, considered cumulatively, would not outweigh the harms and associated policy conflicts that I have identified. The scheme conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole, and material considerations do not lead me to a decision otherwise. Conclusion 29. For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

Land north of no. 17 Gosfield Road, High Garrett, Essex, CM7 5NZ — Braintree District Council — Andrew Smith INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5