Appeal 6003057

The appeal is dismissed.

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 nLP in relation to the case during the appeal process and I have had regard to any comments that were made.

The main issues in this appeal are: - • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area; • Whether the site is a suitable location for two dwellings, having particular regard to access to services and facilities by more sustainable modes of transport; and: - • The effect of the proposal on [address], which is a [address].

The appeal site (the site) is part of an open field fronting onto [address]. To the rear, one side and opposite lie open fields and this affords the area a generally rural character. On the fourth boundary lies an evergreen hedge enclosing the gardens of a property known as [address], beyond which lies the discernible built-up area of [site address] . Further out along [address] the land passes through open countryside with only sporadic development.

The appeal site sits clearly outside of the village and in the countryside and there is a clear division between the two as logically defined by the boundary of [address]. Being undeveloped and verdant in appearance the appeal site reads as part of the countryside.

The proposal would introduce two substantial dwellings into the site and proposes hedging to enclose it. The introduction of the dwellings, a hardened access and domestic paraphernalia into the site would urbanise the site. This would harmfully contrast with the rural character of the site and its immediate environs.

Proposed hedging to the frontage, could, once established, provide a degree of screening to the site. However, it is likely that, as the hedge would surround a residential development, it would have a more managed appearance, in keeping with a residential use and in contrast with the more rural appearance of the local field boundaries which are either more open or incorporate hedging maintained to a less formal degree. Such accesses as give onto field in the vicinity are simple and predominantly of informal construction. The proposed access would have a more formal, engineered appearance. These features would increase the impression of the sprawl of residential development into the countryside.

Whilst the proposed dwellings would be low in stature, and a hedge is proposed which could be secured through an appropriately worded planning condition, there is no guarantee that the proposed planting would be successful in concealing the nature of the proposal or that it would not be, of itself, a visual intrusion into the open, rural landscape.

The appellant has brought to my attention a number of Council decisions1. However, I have very limited information on these or their planning context. Whilst the appellant identifies that some are “infill”, the site has open boundaries to fields on three sides and does not constitute an infill plot. The information that has been provided is too limited for me to make any meaningful assessment of how the examples identified relate to the particular planning context of the proposal before me and I have, in any case, determined this appeal on its own, particular merits.

Overall, the proposal would urbanise the character and appearance of the site and this increased urbanisation, would significantly harm the rural character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area.

Whilst, at greater distance the proposal would be subsumed into the landscape, the site is clearly visible to anyone passing on [address] from which the intrusion into the rural landscape of urbanising development would be clearly appreciable.

The proposal would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area. It would therefore be contrary to [name] 41 and 52 of the nLP which together, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development does not cause an unacceptable visual intrusion into the [name] and is not inconsistent with local character, and understands and enhances the surroundings and demonstrate how landscape character, heritage, local history, and culture have been valued and incorporated.

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. Whilst the nLP identifies Langley as a Smaller Village it 1 Council Refs: UTT/24/0359/FUL, UTT/22/2668/FUL, UTT/22/2408/FUL, UTT/21/1293/FUL and UTT/22/0086/FUL will be seen, above, that I have found the site to lie outside of the village itself. For planning purposes, 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.

In addition, 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], which is, at this point, an unlit rural lane, lacking footways and subject to a 60 MPH speed limit. There are limited services or facilities in [site address] . A 30mph speed limit begins further north of the site, as the lane runs through the village.

Whilst, further afield, there are settlements with the services and facilities that future occupiers of the site would be likely to use for their day-to-day needs, 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. Whilst speeds would be lower once the reduction in speed limit is reached, the route still lacks footways or lighting.

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 by future occupiers of the site upon private motor vehicles would be almost total. 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 site lies close to other dwellings and is not, in that sense, isolated, it would not have sustainable access to services and facilities that would provide for the day-to-day needs of future occupiers, necessitating a high reliance on the private car to meet those needs.

The appellant has brought to my attention various development permitted by the Council and at appeal2. However, I have very limited information on the details of these proposals or their planning history. I also note that they pre-date changes to local and national planning policy that place great emphasis on transport sustainability. I have, in any case, determined this appeal on its own merits.

The proposed development would not be a suitable location for two dwellings, having particular regard to access to services and facilities by more sustainable 2 • Council Refs: UTT/21/1293/FUL and UTT/24/0359/FUL; Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/C1570/W/19/3225516 modes of transport. 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 section of [address] which abuts the site is a [address], which is a non-designated heritage asset. Core Policy 41 of the nLP seeks to protect historic landscapes, requiring that development proposals should preserve the character and appearance of valued landscape, and avoid development that would reduce the historic significance of the landscape.

Core Policy 61 of the nLP requires that all development proposals should conserve, and where appropriate enhance, the special character, appearance and distinctiveness of Uttlesford District’s historic environment.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) identifies that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application, and that, in weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

The significance of [address], in as much as it relates to this appeal, relates to its historic function and appearance as a rural lane, giving access to fields. The existing accesses onto [address] serving the nearby open fields are low-key, informal accesses. In contrast the proposal would create an engineered access to current standards serving an overtly urbanising development.

Whilst a condition could be imposed on any planning permission that I am minded to grant, requiring the submission and approval of detailed access construction drawings, materials specifications, drainage protection measures and a construction method statement, this would not address the fundamental harm of creating an engineered access to urbanising development on the frontage of the [address]. This harm would undermine a heritage asset which, by its very nature, is a finite resource.

The proposal would harmfully undermine the important features of the [address] that I have identified above. Therefore, in applying the impacts of the proposed development on the [address], significant weight is given to the preservation of [address].

It is, however, necessary to evaluate the benefits of the proposal against the harm to the heritage asset.

The proposal would provide two additional dwellings to supplement the local housing land supply. 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 two additional dwellings, would go a small way towards local housing provision.

There is considerable demand for bungalows in the locality, and these would provide a home for a range of age and mobility demographics within the population. The Framework supports the provision of a range of homes to cater for individual needs.

Further, the Council acknowledge that there is a shortfall in suitable self-build sites in the District. The Framework supports the provision of self-build plots and further identifies that small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, are essential for Small and [name] housebuilders to deliver new homes, and are often built-out relatively quickly.

However, in order to qualify as self-build or custom housing, a dwelling must be built by an individual, a group of individuals, or persons working with or for them, to be occupied by that individual. Whilst the description of development refers to the proposal as "Self-Build" such description is inadequate to secure such provision. No planning obligation has been submitted to secure the dwellings as self-build, as defined in the Framework and sections 1(A1) and (A2) of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended).

I note that Core Policy 58 on the new Local Plan introduces the need for a “[name]” to secure new dwellings as self-build. [name] has been submitted to accompany this proposal. Under such circumstances the proposal has not been secured by a planning obligation or [name] and so carries limited weight.

Even were I to consider that the proposal could secure two self-built dwellings, the additional units would carry no more than moderate weight in favour of the development as a public benefit when taking the Council’s shortfall in housing land supply and the provision of two self-build plots into account.

The appellant considers that the provision of an eco-home, which would be compliant with [name] of the building regulations, would provide support in favour of the proposal. It would, indeed improve the general standard of housing stock in the District. However, many of the features identified are now commonplace within new development and such benefits would, given the scale of the development, be only a marginal improvement overall. This matter therefore carries only limited additional weight in favour of the proposal as a public benefit.

The proposal would provide public benefits through biodiversity net gain. Irrespective of whether, or not, such benefit would be required in accordance with planning policy, there would be a net increase in biodiversity and this is a public benefit. However, again, by virtue of the scale of the gain, overall this would carry only limited weight as a public benefit.

The proposal would, during the construction phase, provide increased activity in the building sector and, subsequently, a long-term increase in economic activity by supporting local businesses through the resultant increase in the population.

The proposal would provide social benefits through the increase in the local population as this would support social groups in the area. Again, however, given the scale of the development this adds limited weight in support of the proposal as a public benefit.

The proposal is identified by local residents as being of benefit in allowing a local family to all remain in the village. However, this is a personal benefit which could not be secured and does not weigh in favour of granting the proposal planning permission.

The public benefits identified do not, in this instance, outweigh the harm that I have identified. I thus conclude that, on balance, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the [address].

I find that the proposal would have a harmful effect on [address], which is a [address]. The proposal would, therefore, be contrary to Policies 41 and 61 of the nLP, whose aims I have set out above.

I have carried out a balance, above, against the harm that I have found to a non-designated heritage asset. [name] have found that additional harm would accrue, no additional benefits have been identified.

In addition to the harm to a non-designated heritage asset, the proposal would, through its unsustainable location, undermine the Council’s recently adopted [name] and harm intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. There would be conflict with [name] 3, 26, 27, 28, 41, 52 and 61 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 provision of self-build homes 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 natural and historic environment and achieve a low-carbon economy. However, the creation of a sustainable economy and environmental sustainability, the protection of our heritage and the natural beauty of the countryside 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 recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services. The Framework also seeks to conserve and enhance the historic environment, which is an irreplaceable resource. Although there is support for new housing in this location, particularly in the form of housing proposed, 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 rural and historic environment totally surpasses the provision of two extra windfall units.

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 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.