Appeal 6002753

The appeal is dismissed.

I have removed the word “retrospective” from the description of development in my banner heading as this is not an act of development. However, at the time of my visit the mobile was sited within the appeal site and so I have considered this appeal on the basis of the drawings and information provided, and what I saw.

On 25 March 2026 the Council adopted the Uttlesford Local Plan 2021-2041 (2026) (the nLP). The policies within the Uttlesford Local Plan (2005) are, therefore, no longer extant. The parties have had an opportunity to comment on the new Local Plan in relation to the case during the appeal process and I have had regard to any comments that were made.

In determining this appeal I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. From the evidence, my decision has the potential to affect a person with a protected characteristic for the purposes of the PSED.

Similarly, my decision may affect the family life of occupiers of the dwelling. I have, therefore, had regard to human rights of individuals provided under Article 8(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA98).

The main issues in this appeal are: - • Whether the site is a suitable location for the proposed development, having particular regard to occupiers’ access to services and facilities; and: - • The effect of the proposal on water quality.

The nLP sets out a development strategy with a settlement hierarchy, seeking to focus development in locations with sustainable access to facilities, services and employment opportunities. There is no dispute between the parties that, for planning purposes, the development site (the site) lies within the countryside as established by Core Policy 3 of the nLP. Within such locations the nLP seeks to control new development unless it is specifically supported by other relevant policies in the nLP or national policy.

Development Policy 1 of the nLP sets out criteria that new dwellings in the countryside, other than agricultural dwellings, need to satisfy. The development does not satisfy any of the identified criteria.

Whilst the appellant has suggested that the development is a temporary annex to [address], the evidence before me identifies that it would have separate facilities and would be occupied by persons who are not members of the appellant’s household. Whilst the development does not have dedicated clothes washing facilities, such are not an essential facility for day-to-day living. Whilst the occupier may cook for the appellant, using facilities within [site address] , that does not constitute the formation of a single household. Further, the application form states that it creates a single market home. The appellant identifies that the occupier does not pay her rent. However, this is not definitive in demonstrating that they are part of the same household. I find, therefore, that the development would form a separate home.

Core Policy 26 of the nLP seeks to prioritise the use of sustainable modes of transport to promote accessibility and integration with the wider community and existing network. Core Policy 27 aims to prioritise active travel over the use of the car. These aims relate closely in support of Core Policy 28, which seeks to locate development around a network of safe and accessible walking and cycling routes where dedicated traffic free links make walking and cycling the preferred choice for day-to-day trips and encourage sustainable travel.

The site fronts onto [address], a narrow, unlit rural lane, lacking footways and subject to a 60 MPH speed limit. There are no services or facilities in Starlings Green, the closest grouping of dwellings. Clavering, lying further away has some services, including a primary school and a supermarket.

However, the intervening roads are unlit and lack footways. They carry fast traffic and their nature would deter use by pedestrians and cyclists, particularly during the hours of darkness or inclement weather, or when accompanied by children. The availability of public footpaths is not seen as providing a suitable route as they are unpaved and could be difficult to use during poor weather. The nearest bus stop is accessed by the same roads and lies some distance away. Further, it operates only a very limited service. With, for such a limited scale of development no real scope to improve connexions for walking, cycling or public transport, dependency upon private motor vehicles would be almost total.

The appellant has identified that a school bus stops nearby. However, that does not constitute transport provision for the general public and so I give this matter limited weight.

Whilst the appellant is seeking a temporary permission, environmental harm from the almost total reliance on the private car for the day-to-day travel needs of occupiers would accumulate over that time.

I therefore find that the proposed development would not be a suitable location for a dwelling, having particular regard to occupiers’ access to services and facilities. It would, therefore, be contrary to the aims of [name] 3, 26, 27 and 28 and Development Policy 1 of the nLP which I have set out above.

The appellant asserts that a small septic tank has been installed to serve the development and that this is sited a suitable distance away from any water source. However, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate its suitability.

Core Policy 34 of the nLP seeks, amongst other things, to protect water resources and requires that development proposals should demonstrate they will not cause contamination of groundwater or surface water. Where there is the potential for contamination Policy 34 requires the developer to submit details of effective safeguards which must be implemented prior to development commencing to prevent deterioration in current water standards. The policy goes on to explain that there is an expectation for new development to connect to mains foul drainage and will restrict the use of non-mains drainage for foul water disposal, in line with Environment Agency guidance. Where non-mains drainage is proposed for the disposal of foul water, the policy requires a foul drainage assessment to ensure the most sustainable drainage option will be implemented. No foul drainage assessment has been submitted with this appeal.

Core Policy 42 of the nLP sets out that where development would cause unacceptable risk to the natural environment due to potential from pollution of surface or groundwater sources, planning permission will not be granted unless the need for the development is judged to outweigh the effects caused and the proposed development includes mitigation measures to minimise the adverse effects. It will be seen that I have found that the benefits of the proposal do not outweigh its harms.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) requires that “If there are concerns arising from a planning application about the capacity of wastewater infrastructure, applicants can be asked to provide information about how the proposed development will be drained and wastewater dealt with. Applications for developments relying on anything other than connection to a public sewage treatment plant will need to be supported by sufficient information to understand the potential implications for the water environment. When drawing up wastewater treatment proposals for any development, the first presumption is to provide a system of foul drainage discharging into a public sewer to be treated at a public sewage treatment works (those provided and operated by the water and sewerage companies)”1. 1 Planning Practice Guidance– Water supply, wastewater and water quality: Paragraph: 020 [name]: 34-[phone].

It has not been demonstrated that an appropriate method of addressing the disposal of foul water generated by the development can be provided, nor has it been demonstrated that the drainage could not be connected to a public sewer in accordance with the PPG. The development would, therefore, have potential to contaminate surface and groundwater bodies and this would harm the environment to an unacceptable degree. Given that no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that a suitable drainage solution can be found for the disposal of foul water, the use of a condition to secure details of drainage would be unreasonable.

I therefore find that it has not been demonstrated that the development would not have a harmful effect on water quality and this would be contrary to the aims and requirements of [name] 34 and 42 of the nLP that I have identified above.

The appellant suggests that the proposed mobile home is permitted development. However, no evidence has been submitted to substantiate this. I therefore give this matter no weight as a potential fallback position.

Notwithstanding the adoption of the nLP, the Council identifies that it is currently unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites in line with Government expectations and its identified housing site supply stands at 4.77 years, just short of that required by Government. The Council consider that, following publication of the forthcoming [name] figures later in the year they will be in a position to demonstrate a supply in excess of government expectations. This notwithstanding, the provision of a single additional dwelling, would go a small way towards local housing provision. The benefit is, however, diminished by the temporary nature of the provision.

The appeal site is previously developed land as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Framework supports the development of windfall sites and of under-utilised land. Substantial weight should be given to the value of using suitable brownfield land for housing.

For the duration of the permission, the development would go some way to supporting local shops and businesses. The Framework recognises that rural housing development in smaller settlements can enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. The temporary nature of the development and its scale means that such support would be limited. Nonetheless, these considerations weigh in favour of the proposal.

Whilst the development has been found to comply with some policies of the development plan, this is a neutral factor in my considerations and weighs neither for nor against the proposal.

The proposal would, through its unsustainable location, undermine the Council’s recently adopted [name] and harm the water environment. There would be conflict with [name] 3, 26, 27, 28, 34 and 42 and Development Policy 1 of the nLP and no policies have been cited that support the proposal. It would therefore not accord with the development plan as a whole and this is a matter that counts significantly against allowing the appeal.

However, the Government’s objective is to significantly boost the supply of homes. Other provisions of the Framework give support to the development of brownfield land and observe that small sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement. [name] future housing supply is insufficient. Because of this, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged.

The policies in the Framework seek to both deliver a sufficient supply of homes, protect the environment and achieve a low-carbon economy. However, the creation of a sustainable economy and environmental sustainability are fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. That would not be so here, and the Framework requires that I should have particular regard to its key policies for directing development to sustainable locations. The Framework recognises that sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. However, in this case, reliance upon the private car to meet the day-to-day travel needs of the occupiers would be almost total.

The Framework also seeks to prevent new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of water pollution. Although there is support for new housing in this location the benefits in terms of the overall position in the District would be limited and so, in this case the importance of providing sustainable transport and protecting the environment totally overshadow the provision of an extra windfall unit.

Therefore, the adverse impacts of the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The appellant has identified that she considers the support of the occupier of the development necessary to support her independent living in [address]. However, the future occupier of the development is not a registered carer, and the appellant has carers visiting twice a day. Whilst the appellant identifies a need to look after her animals and prepare meals, there is little evidence before me to demonstrate the need for the occupier of the development to live on site to provide such support, or that alternative provision could not be made.

Refusal of this appeal may result in enforcement action against the development, and it may be that the occupier of the temporary home would need to move and the appellant may lose any support that he provides as a result. Under such circumstances a period of notice would be required and there is limited evidence before me to demonstrate that the occupier could not find alternative accommodation within a reasonable period and the appellant alternative arrangements to provide the support she needs.

I have had due regard to the PSED and found that the development could provide the opportunity to advance its aims by meeting the needs of a person with a protected characteristic. Dismissing the appeal would interfere with the occupier of the temporary dwelling’s rights to a private and family life and home, under Article 1 of the [name] and Article 8 as set out under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, those are qualified rights; interference with them in this instance would accord with the law and be in pursuance of well-established and legitimate aims: the move towards a low-carbon economy and the protection of the environment. Under the circumstances of this development I find, on balance, that dismissal of this appeal is a reasonable, proportionate response.

The development conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.