Land West of Spratts Farm, Queenborough Road, Southminster

Decision

allowed, 18 August 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Nick Fagan

Authority

Maldon (East of England)

Appeal reference

6005664

Application reference

25/00206/OUTM

Procedure

inquiry

Development

Outline, up to 110 dwellings (30% affordable), demolition of 46 Queenborough Road for access, POS, structural planting, SuDS; access only for approval

Homes

110

Site context

settlement edge, open countryside, listed building setting

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

4.04 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S3(1)(b), S5(1)(j), S5(1), HO7, HO1, N2, HE6, P3

Development plan policies

Maldon District Local Development Plan 2014-2029 (2017) S1, S2, S8, D1, D2, H4

Main issues

landscape and visual impact; noise to neighbour; S5 planning balance

Summary

Outline permission for up to 110 homes (30% affordable) on an arable field on the northern edge of Southminster, outside the settlement boundary. Maldon refused. Allowed after a four-day inquiry, in a decision issued on 18 August 2026, the day after the new Framework was published. The press called it the first appeal decided under S5. The inspector found the site passed S5(1)(j): no five-year supply, evidenced unmet need, physically well-related to Southminster, with infrastructure secured by S106. He gave limited weight to landscape harm and to conflict with the out-of-date spatial strategy, found the noise impact on the neighbour acceptable, and held that the heritage harm was outweighed.

Issues and findings

• Transition: decided the day after publication, parties not consulted. "Just before this decision was issued, on 17 August, the Government issued the new revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). I do not consider that there is any need to revert to the main parties regarding this because the new policies for decision making in it do not substantially alter the national policies in the previous NPPF version, certainly not that would benefit the Council's or any third party's cases. Obviously, any reference to the NPPF refers to the policies within this new version." (DL ¶4). He framed the third main issue around S5 (DL ¶5). The evidence and the agreed positions had been prepared under the December 2024 Framework (for example "less than substantial harm", fn 6).
• How much of the 2024 Framework survived in the reasoning. The letter mixes the two versions:
  • It cites "NPPF paragraph 187 e)" (2024) on noise alongside "New NPPF Policy P3" (DL ¶¶25–26).
  • It maps N2 to "previous paragraph 187 b) of the 2024 NPPF" (DL ¶47) and notes that "valued landscape" is no longer used (DL ¶9).
  • It uses the 2024 para 215 "less than substantial harm" term while applying HE6 (DL ¶49).
  • It adds the 2024 para 11(d) tilted balance as a fallback (DL ¶59).
• S5 engagement: slip. "The proposed development would comply with new NPPF Policy S5 because the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply … this lack of a 5YHLS means that NPPF Policy S5 is engaged" (DL ¶44). S5 applies to all development outside settlements (S3(1)(b)). A five-year supply shortfall is what opens limb (j), not S5 itself.
• S5(1)(h) and (j): PASS. "Sub-paragraph 1 h) of Policy S5 makes clear that residential development physically well-related to a settlement (which this is) of a scale which could be satisfactorily accommodated by necessary infrastructure … would be acceptable. Sub-paragraph 1 j) states that development which would address an evidenced unmet housing need (as in this case) where there is no 5YHLS and that is well-related to an existing settlement with necessary infrastructure is acceptable in principle." (DL ¶45). In the published text, (h) is the "reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station" limb. The paraphrase leaves out the station test. Southminster has a railway station within walking distance (DL ¶6), but the Annex B well-connected definition is not applied. Limb (j) carries the decision.
• S5(2): not engaged. None of the "refused only in specific circumstances" policies applies (DL ¶45). The paraphrase of S5(2) is garbled but the conclusion is clear.
• Out-of-date spatial strategy. The plan provides 310 dwellings a year against an uncontested standard-method figure of 586, "almost double" (DL ¶46). Limited weight goes to conflict with S1, S2 and S8, because "if these policies were to be applied with the vigour of full weight, the Council would clearly be unable to meet its current housing needs, contrary to the NPPF, specifically to Policy HO1" (DL ¶48).
• Landscape: N2, limited harm. Moderate-minor landscape effect at Year 15; moderate visual effect for about 20 houses whose rear windows face the site (DL ¶¶15, 18–19). The Homefield decision was distinguished because this scheme would not extend beyond the existing northern built line: "the northerly extension of the town proposed by this scheme would therefore be sensitive and proportionate, whereas the Homefield scheme clearly wasn't" (DL ¶14). "NPPF Policy N2 … does not 'protect' the countryside for its landscape or intrinsic character and beauty, which Policy S8 specifically endeavours to do; it merely 'considers' the environmental qualities of land … which is not the same as protecting it. This means that even if this level of harm was considered significant and unacceptable, I would attribute only limited weight to the conflict with MLP Policy S8." (DL ¶47). "The Council's argument that such moderate harm is nonetheless significant is illogical and not credible" (DL ¶47).
• Noise to No 48: P3, PASS. The dispute was over whether night-time maximum (LAmax) levels from the access road should be used, and the threshold to apply. There are 32 night movements at 20 mph design speed, and the access has a bend and a give-way. The inspector held that "it is not unreasonable to use average rather than maximum predicted noise levels" (DL ¶33). He accepted the 2020 AVOG guide as relevant to existing dwellings (DL ¶38). A SOAEL is unlikely (DL ¶41). As a backstop, Condition 26 caps noise at "60dB LAFmax … external to any bedroom window" (DL ¶42).
• Heritage: HE6, PASS. The agreed harm to the setting of Grade II Spratt's Farmhouse is at the "lowermost end of the spectrum". It is given "considerable importance and weight", and the Council accepts that the market and affordable housing outweighs it (DL ¶49).

Planning balance

The inspector used an agreed weighting scale: substantial, significant, moderate, limited, neutral (fn 7).

• Benefits:
  • market housing: substantial;
  • affordable housing: substantial. He rejected the Council's case for only significant weight: "it is a national requirement for Local Planning Authorities to have a 5YHLS, which Maldon doesn't have and it has a shortfall of AH units" (DL ¶52);
  • economic benefits: moderate;
  • POS/GI and BNG: limited, as policy or statutory requirements (DL ¶¶53–54);
  • bus links and junction works: limited;
  • other S106 contributions: neutral, as Reg 122 mitigation (DL ¶57).
• Harms:
  • landscape and visual harm: at worst moderate;
  • heritage: very limited;
  • spatial strategy conflict: limited;
  • noise: none (even on the Council's case, moderate) (DL ¶50).
• Conclusion. Through S3 to S5, compliance with S5 plus the reduced weight of S1, S2 and S8 meant "for these reasons alone the proposal would be sustainable development, which should be granted planning permission" (DL ¶58). The S5(1) "substantially outweighed" test is never stated in terms. The conclusion rests on S5 compliance and the harms are not set against that threshold explicitly. The inspector then added the 2024 tilted balance: "the scheme's harms, even if they were to be at the level argued by the Council, would come nowhere near to significantly and demonstrably outweighing the above benefits. Whilst this was the old test in NPPF 2024 paragraph 11, the fact that it is passed only adds to the reasons for allowing this appeal." (DL ¶59).

What made the difference

Three things decided the case:

• An agreed, persistent supply shortfall against a plan requirement about half the standard method. This opened S5(1)(j) and pushed the settlement-boundary policies to limited weight.
• A site that is truly on the settlement edge. It is within a comfortable walk of the town centre, GP, school, buses and station.
• A layout that stays within the existing northern built line. This is what distinguished it from the dismissed 220-home Homefield scheme next door.

The Council's landscape case failed because its own witness's grading was only one step (moderate vs moderate-minor) above the appellant's. The noise objection was neutralised by a quantified LAFmax condition. For a different outcome the Council would have needed one of:

• a demonstrable five-year supply, which would close limb (j);
• a scheme pushing into open farmland beyond the built edge, as at Homefield;
• a national "should be refused" policy failure engaging S5(2).

As an authority on S5 the letter is weakened by several things:

• it was decided without submissions on the new Framework;
• it misdescribes S5(1)(h) and treats the supply shortfall as what engages S5;
• it relies partly on the 2024 tilted balance.

Transferable points

• An inspector may decide a case under the 2026 Framework without consulting the parties, where the new decision-making policies "do not substantially alter" the previous ones to the detriment of the losing party (DL ¶4). Contrast the later practice of re-opening hearings or inviting comments.
• On a settlement-edge housing site with no five-year supply, S5(1)(j) is the main route. "Physically well-related" plus infrastructure secured by S106 and conditions is enough (DL ¶45).
• Where the plan's housing requirement is far below the standard method (310 vs 586 dpa), settlement-boundary and countryside policies get limited weight because full weight would conflict with HO1/Annex D (DL ¶¶46, 48).
• N2 "considers" natural beauty rather than "protecting" countryside. On this reasoning, a local plan policy that protects the countryside for its own sake carries limited weight when it conflicts with a scheme (DL ¶47).
• Substantial weight goes to both market and affordable housing without a 5YHLS, even as supply improves (2.7 → 4.04 yrs), and even where the affordable share is only the policy 30% (DL ¶52).
• S106 mitigation that meets Reg 122 gets limited or neutral weight as a benefit, even where existing residents also gain, e.g. bus links (DL ¶57). BNG at about the statutory 10% gets limited weight (DL ¶54).
• A neighbouring dismissed appeal can be distinguished on whether built form extends past the existing settlement edge (DL ¶¶13–14).
• Night-time access-road noise to one neighbour: average levels can be used where movements are few, and an LAFmax condition (60dB, 1m from window, 23:00–07:00) resolves any doubt (DL ¶¶33, 42).
• Caution when citing:
  • DL ¶44's "lack of a 5YHLS means that … S5 is engaged" is wrong on the text of S3(1)(b). S5 governs all development outside settlements.
  • DL ¶45's description of S5(1)(h) omits the well-connected-station requirement.

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Inquiry closed 28 July 2026; S106 submitted 13 Aug; NPPF published 17 Aug; decision issued 18 Aug without reverting to parties (DL 3-4)
• Supply 4.04 years (LPA) vs 3.6 years (appellant); plan requirement 310 dpa vs standard method 586 dpa (DL 44, 46)
• Arable field 5.22ha on northern edge of Southminster; 3.77ha built; town centre, GP, primary school, bus and railway station within comfortable walking distance (DL 6)
• Homefield, Southminster (220 dwellings, APP/X1545/W/24/3351697) dismissed March 2025 on landscape intrusion; distinguished because this scheme stays within the existing northern built line (DL 13-14)
• Recent allowed appeal 6004910, west of the cemetery, London Road, Maldon (275 dwellings, 6 July 2026) (DL 51)
• 32 night-time vehicle movements on new access beside No 48; Condition 26 caps 60dB LAFmax outside bedroom windows (DL 33, 42)
• £310,000 sustainable transport contribution for bus links; RAMS, education, health, PROW contributions (DL 56)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.