Braintree affordable housing appeal keeps 40% pledge

The Braintree affordable housing appeal concerning a stalled 77-home development has preserved an obligation equivalent to 40% affordable housing, despite arguments that the failure of the original developer made the requirement unviable. A planning Inspector allowed a section 73 appeal on 8th October 2026, but rejected the attempt to reduce the affordable housing contribution to the 20% already delivered.

At Appletree Farm in Cressing, Essex, the developer entered administration in 2023 with part of the estate built and occupied. Administrators and the lender wanted to finish the scheme, recover some value and mitigate losses. They argued that historic expenditure, delays and the development’s current finances justified a lower contribution.

Inspector P Terceiro took a different view of the viability evidence. The decision concludes that the scheme could meet Braintree District Council’s 40% policy requirement through 16 affordable homes already delivered and a payment in lieu of approximately £369,007. The ruling is particularly relevant to applicants seeking to renegotiate obligations on distressed or part-completed sites.

Braintree affordable housing appeal: what was decided

The appeal concerned permission at Appletree Farm, Polecat Road, Cressing, under application reference 25/01616/VAR and appeal reference 6008421. The original permission, reference 18/00920/FUL, authorised 78 dwellings and associated works. Subsequent variations preceded the appeal concerning the 77-home scheme. The Inspector granted a further section 73 permission subject to revised conditions and a planning obligation.

Crucially, the fact that the appeal was allowed does not mean that the appellant won the substantive viability argument. The Inspector agreed that certain conditions should be updated to reflect the development as it stood. But she found that the affordable housing obligation should not be reduced to the 20% already delivered, because a different appraisal method supported the equivalent of 40%.

A signed section 106 obligation submitted after the hearing contained alternative figures and a mechanism, described as a ‘blue pencil clause’, allowing the Inspector to remove the figure not supported by her findings. That enabled the appeal to proceed without accepting the appellant’s lower affordable housing outcome.

Why administration did not settle the viability argument

The original developer entered administration in 2023, after which the site remained partly completed and partly occupied. The appellant’s financial viability assessment incorporated actual costs already incurred, the construction programme, values achieved on completed sales and forecasts for the remaining development. The Inspector considered some of the sales evidence reasonable, because it reflected real transactions.

However, she distinguished those achieved sales values from the calculation of development costs. The appellant’s approach included costs associated with administration, adverse economic changes and an extended programme following the construction stoppage. This was not, in the Inspector’s assessment, equivalent to a policy-compliant appraisal using costs reflective of local market conditions.

Planning Practice Guidance explains that developers’ risk is already accounted for in the assumptions used to establish a reasonable return. The emergence of that risk does not itself justify a fresh viability review that reduces policy contributions. A business failure is plainly important commercially, but it does not, on its own, prove that the planning obligation has become unacceptable.

Benchmark land value was another decisive issue

The appellant’s appraisal used a benchmark land value based on the site before residential redevelopment, when the land had an industrial use with buildings, a training ground and scrub. By the time of the appeal, however, the Inspector had seen a substantially completed residential estate. The previous land use no longer existed.

The Council’s benchmark reflected the site’s current position and was higher than the historic industrial valuation. The Inspector considered that a reasonable owner would not ordinarily release the present site for a value based on the former use. She therefore rejected the appellant’s benchmark as inconsistent with the approach set out in national viability guidance.

The distinction is significant for section 73 applications on partly implemented permissions. The relevance of existing use value plus a premium does not mean that the site’s earlier state can simply be revived in an appraisal when development has materially changed what exists. The correct baseline must be evidenced against the circumstances being assessed.

How 16 affordable homes and £369,007 met the policy outcome

Policy LPP 31 of the Braintree District Local Plan 2022 sought 40% affordable housing on this site. Sixteen affordable dwellings had already been delivered, representing approximately 20% of the scheme. The appellant sought to treat that as the final affordable housing offer.

Both principal parties acknowledged at the hearing that market conditions would make it difficult for a registered provider to take the remaining affordable homes. The Inspector did not ignore that practical constraint. Instead, she accepted the Council’s appraisal indicating that a further financial contribution could be made without preventing the remainder of the development.

The amount identified was approximately £369,007. Together with the 16 affordable dwellings already delivered, it was treated as equivalent to the 40% policy requirement. That finding does not necessarily make a cash contribution interchangeable with on-site provision elsewhere: it reflects the evidence, legal obligation and circumstances of this particular site.

The Inspector also noted that the appellant’s estimated remaining construction costs were roughly £5.56 million, well below its anticipated revenue from selling the outstanding properties. She was therefore not persuaded that retaining the affordable housing obligation removed the incentive to finish the estate.

What the decision means for planning practitioners

The ruling is a reminder that permission under section 73 can be granted while the decision-maker declines the principal relaxation requested by an applicant. It also demonstrates the importance of precise drafting: the legal obligation and conditions must reflect the outcome actually justified by the evidence, not merely the financial proposal advanced at the start of the appeal.

For authorities, it shows the value of testing viability submissions against the current state of an implemented development, the national Planning Practice Guidance methodology and evidence of market-based costs. For developers, it underlines the need to establish what changed since the original permission and why those changes warrant different planning obligations.

The Inspector referred to the revised National Planning Policy Framework published on 17th August 2026, and had regard to comments invited from the parties. The appeal is therefore a contemporary example of a planning balance considered under the revised framework, but its principal reasoning rests on the viability evidence and applicable development plan policy.

Importantly, this decision is a single Inspector’s appeal, not a court judgment or binding precedent. It offers a detailed example of how comparable evidence may be assessed, but it does not displace the applicable policies, guidance or the facts of another development.

Decision and source material

The decision is Appeal Ref 6008421, Appletree Farm, Cressing, decided 8th October 2026. The associated Planning Inspectorate case record provides the official route to the appeal file. The Council also publishes information about the Appletree Farm hearing. The national approach to viability is explained in Planning Practice Guidance: Viability.

For related Planning Geek guidance, see planning applications and section 106 agreements. Individual appeal decisions should always be read alongside the approved plans, signed obligations and current policy before they are applied to other schemes.