ARMSTRONG RIGG PLANNING
Site: Land at Burnham Road, Latchingdon, Essex
Client: Catesby Strategic Land
In June 2023 Maldon District Council resolved to refuse Catesby Strategic Land’s outline planning permission for a residential development of up to 160 dwellings including affordable housing, 10% bungalows, 100m2 office hub, 0.21ha land for a children’s day nursery and associated parking (Use Class E) and community park on land on the north eastern edge of the Essex village of Latchingdon.
The application was refused contrary to the recommendation of officers on the grounds that the development would be located outside the settlement boundary, would not represent sustainable development, and that the adverse impacts would not outweigh the benefits. Importantly, all technical issues had been resolved as part of the application with no objections having been raised by statutory consultees and the Council agreed there was no objection in terms of the landscape and visual impact of the scheme, and that any effects would be limited and localised.
An appeal against the refusal was considered at Public Inquiry in February 2024. In addition to conflict with the development plan by reason of the site’s location in the open countryside on the edge of a ‘small village’, the Council raised concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on the ‘identity’ of Latchingdon arguing that the proposal would further weaken the linear character of Latchingdon, by pulling built form to the east and even further from the village core along the Burnham Road. This, it was asserted, would impact on the settlement identity of Latchingdon, weakening its legibility and undermining its’ historic character as an agricultural settlement of the Dengie.
The Inspector did not agree stating that whilst 160 additional homes would be a reasonably significant number of new dwellings in a village the size of Latchingdon this, of itself, did not mean the identity of the village would be compromised or harmed. Instead, he found the site to be an obvious and logical location for housing, and that the overall impact on the character and appearance of the area, including the landscape would be minimal, and in some respects, would be improved, because of the proposed landscaped ‘soft edge’. Indeed, the scheme, through its proposed extensive landscaping, would provide a much softer edge to the settlement than currently exists resulting in a visual improvement in how the settlement edge relates to the surrounding countryside.
Overall, the Inspector found that there would be conflict with development plan in that the proposed development would be located outside the settlement boundary in a ‘smaller village’ and not in one of the ‘most sustainable locations’ identified in the Plan. Notwithstanding, he agreed that no real tangible land use planning harm would flow from the proposal’s location outside the settlement boundary, including no compromise to the identity of Latchingdon, nor harm to the character and appearance of the area, or the landscape. The ability of the Council to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing was noted with the Inspector rightly pointing out that this should not be regarded as a cap on development, rather a minimum requirement of national policy. It should not therefore preclude further development in appropriate circumstances - indeed, if the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes is to be achieved, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed.
Ultimately, the Inspector found that other material considerations, namely the substantial benefits of the scheme, comprising the provision of market and affordable housing, the various economic, environmental and social benefits, and the reasonable accessibility to shops and services, all taken together, clearly outweigh any harms arising. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal and granted outline planning permission in July 2024 (Appeal Ref: APP/X1545/W/23/3331398).
