Appeal 6002445

The appeal is dismissed, and planning permission is refused.

The Council states that due to an administrative error their decision was not published until 19 December 2025, after the appeal was lodged. Accordingly, the appeal is against the non-determination of a planning application. The Council’s submission sets out that they would have refused the application for reasons relating to character and appearance and the proposal cannot be considered under a Section 73 application.

[name] 2 of the original decision notice refers to a ‘schedule’. However, there is no explicit wording on the decision titled ‘schedule’. A list of plans/document is, however, set out on the first page of the decision. I have therefore referred to these in reference to the approved documents. These are as follows: RMDS/ES/TCCR/1001 Location Plan, RMDS/ES/TCCR/001 F Block Plan, RMDS/ES/TCCR/002 A Combined and [name]

Following the start of the appeal the Council adopted the Uttlesford Local Plan 2021-2041 (LP) on the 26 March 2026. The LP replaces the Uttlesford Local Plan 2005 that was cited in the Council’s putative reasons for refusal and officer’s report. In these circumstances, I am required to determine the appeal against the current development plan for the area at the time of my Decision. The appellant and Council were invited to make comments on the relevant LP policies, and I have taken these comments into account in reaching my decision.

The wider [site address] complex has an extensive planning history, including applications and appeal decisions. I have determined the appeal on its own merits. However, an appeal decision is capable of being a material consideration where the previous decision is sufficiently closely related to the issues that regard should be had to it.

The main issues are: i) the effect of varying condition 2 on the character and appearance of the area; and ii) whether or not Section 73 of the Act (s73) allows the amendment of the condition as sought by the appellant.

The site is within a rural location and is in the countryside for planning purposes. The [site address] complex comprises a mix of leisure, commercial and residential uses. The site is largely visually contained from external views through the presence of mature vegetation to its boundaries. To the southwest of the appeal site, lies a [name] that is positioned close to, but set behind established vegetation along the road frontage. The building was not occupied / in use at the time of my site visit. A number of buildings are clustered around the northern part of the site, with the central part of the complex comprising open grassland.

In an appeal decision1 at [site address] , the Inspector concluded the paddock area at the middle of the complex has “a strong open appearance that positively adds to the rural character of the area”. I concur with the view that the predominantly open character of this part of the site, along with its verdant boundaries contribute positively to character and appearance, and the appreciation of the countryside.

The appellant has applied to vary Condition 2 with the intention that amended drawings are substituted for those originally approved. The proposal seeks to relocate the changing rooms northwards from that approved, to a relatively central location within the complex. The changing rooms were approved on the basis of being ancillary to the wellness hub and thus located proximate to the building used 1 Appeal decision ref: APP/C1570/W/25/3368007 for that function. Although the changing room building is relatively modest in size the presence of the built form would erode the open nature of the central part of the site. Due to the visual containment of the site the building would not be visually prominent within the wider locality, including views from the public highway. Nonetheless, it would diminish the experience of the site’s open and rural character from within it.

My attention has been drawn to the granting of permission for two tennis courts and a swimming pool2 within the central part of the site. However, it is understood that in a previous dismissed appeal3, that the Inspector concluded that, if implemented, other approved development within the open central area, including tennis courts and swimming pool, would remain largely free of vertical development thereby preserving the “relatively open and rural character to the site as a whole and an appearance of being within the countryside”. The changing rooms comprise a wooden clad building with a tiled pitched roof and therefore the impact of the appeal building would be materially different to the schemes referred to.

The appellant submits that the revised location would be desirable for the convenience of users, particularly those using the swimming pool, at the time of my visit neither the swimming pool, or tennis courts, were under construction or operational. In allowing the pool, the Inspector was satisfied that, notwithstanding the distance from the proposed pool from the changing rooms saw no reason why it would not be a practical arrangement. Nevertheless, any social or economic benefit arising from the revised positioning of the building would be limited and would not outweigh the harm to character and appearance.

For these reasons, I therefore conclude that to vary condition 2 to allow for the re-siting of the changing rooms would be materially harmful to site’s character and appearance. This draws the proposal into conflict with Core Policy 52 of the LP which sets out that proposals must clearly demonstrate how context, identity and built form are addressed in the design of the scheme and Core Policy 41 of the LP insofar as it states that proposals will not be permitted if they would be inconsistent with local character. s73

Planning permission was granted for the erection of changing rooms in association with [name] at Land at [site address] and a specific condition was imposed to ensure that the building could only be used in conjunction with the wellness hub. The Council advances that the proposal was approved as a commercial use having regard to the economic benefits of the ‘wellness hub’ which were central in allowing the development.

An application made under s73 of the Act may allow for a grant of permission for the development of land without compliance with conditions subject to which a previous permission was granted. I have had regard to case law and judgements4 as to the scope of an application under s73. Finney5, is authority for the proposition that you cannot use a s73 to vary a condition which is inconsistent with the 2 Appeal decision ref: APP/C1570/W/24/3341909 3 Appeal decision ref: APP/C1570/W/25/3361367 4 Test Valley Borough Council and Fiske [2024] [name] 1541, Armstrong v Secretary of State for Levelling-Up, Housing and Communities [2023] EWHC 176 (Admin) 5 Finney v. The Welsh Ministers [2019] [name] 1868 operative part of the planning permission. i.e. the description of the development for which planning permission had originally been granted.

The operative part of the original permission is explicit in referring to the users of the [name]. Varying the condition to that sought by the appellant would allow the building to be used by the occupants of the residential properties within [site address] , an entirely different use. The effect of the appeal proposal would be to allow a fundamental change in the use of the building that would create a disaccord with the operative part of the original permission.

Accordingly, whilst I acknowledge that the appellant has not sought to amend the description of development, the fact remains that by removing the condition restricting its use to the users of the [name] and imposing a new condition allowing use by residential occupants, the development would no longer be the same as that originally applied for and granted.

I therefore conclude that the appeal does not fall within the scope of s73 of the Act. Instead, it would be necessary for a fresh planning application to be made.

The Council go on to state that the suggested amended condition would not meet the tests for imposing them, as set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework. However, given my findings above there is no need for me to consider this further.

Even if I had found that varying the condition would be acceptable in this regard, it would not have altered the outcome of the appeal given the harm I have found above in relation to character and appearance.

The appellant submits that there is no requirement for renewed [name] or biodiversity reports. [name] have found the proposal to be unacceptable for the reasons stated it Is not necessary for me to consider this further.

My attention has been drawn to an approval to vary conditions associated with the tennis courts . [name] have been supplied with a copy of the Council’s decision notice, I do not have full details of the case. However, unlike the appeal proposal, matters pertaining to a conflict in the description of the development do not appear to be applicable in this circumstance. It is understood that the applicant has submitted an application to vary the condition attached to the swimming pool to include use by the occupants of the residential properties within [site address] . However, I have no further information as to the outcome of that application and this has not formed part of my consideration. In any event, I have determined the appeal on its own merits.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that permission is refused and the appeal should be dismissed.