A small housing development in the Essex countryside is not too cut off to receive planning permission, a judge at the High Court in London has ruled.
The case is a test of a planning rule (NPPF 55) that restricts the building of “new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances”.
The case was brought by Braintree District Council, which had refused a developer permission to build two bungalows in the countryside near the Essex village of Blackmore End.
The council had refused planning permission for the development citing NPPF 55. The proposed development was in the countryside, and the nearby village has few services.
However, on appeal, a government planning inspector disagreed and allowed planning permission. The council appealed to the High Court.
The council, according to the ruling written by Mrs Justice Lang, claimed that the planning inspector misunderstood NPPF 55, and should have defined “isolated” as meaning “homes which were remote from services and facilities”.
However, Lang J disagreed, saying in her judgment that such a definition was “too narrow” and would stop development in villages that did not have services or facilities.
“The policy in favour of locating housing where it will ‘enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities’ is not limited to economic benefits,” she wrote.
“The word ‘vitality’ is broad in scope and includes the social role of sustainable development, described in NPPF 7 as ‘supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations’. The claimant’s restriction of an ‘isolated home’ to one that is isolated from services and facilities would deny policy support to a rural home that could contribute to social sustainability because of its proximity to other homes.
“NPPF 55 cannot be read as a policy against development in settlements without facilities and services since it expressly recognises that development in a small village may enhance and maintain services in a neighbouring village, as people travel to use them.“
Although the proposed development in in the countryside, the road it is on leads to the village, and has some houses on it.
Lang J ruled that the planning inspector’s decision was sound, and planning permission was properly granted.
Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Planning Court (Lang J) 15 November 2017
