Appeal 6003565

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development, as it appeared on the application form, included the address of the site. I have removed this in the description in my banner headline as the address is not an act of development.

The proposal lies in close proximity to two Listed Buildings (LBs) and has potential to affect their settings. I have, therefore had special regard to section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act).

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.

Since the Council made its decision the Government has, on 16 December 2025, published a consultation document regarding proposed changes to the Framework (the draft Framework), together with proposed reforms and other changes to the planning system. This document was accompanied by a [name].

The consultation and draft Framework do not constitute Government policy or guidance, although they may be treated as material considerations in appeals. The proposed reforms are in draft and therefore may be subject to change before the final document is published and so the draft Framework carries limited weight in my deliberations.

The main issues in this appeal are: - • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area bearing in mind the special attention that should be paid to the desirability of preserving the setting of the nearby [name] listed buildings, [address] and [address]; and :- • Whether the site is a suitable location for a dwelling, having particular regard to access to services and facilities.

The appeal site (the site) is located to the rear of the host dwelling, Winterleigh. Winterleigh lies within a loose knit settlement known as [site address] . The site lies on the southern side of an informal access way known as The Want. Access from the site is onto The Want, and thereby to [address]. It is currently part of an open paddock, laid to grass.

[site address] is a linear settlement, focussed on two greens where, historically, routes join [address]. These greens have been linked with built form, augmented over time by infill development. Around these greens, this has led to clusters of built form. The site lies close to one such cluster. Nonetheless, [site address] retains it character as a rural settlement set within its agrarian hinterland.

The south-western, south-eastern, and northern boundaries of the site are formed by hedges, whilst to the north-east, the boundary is more open, formed of fencing of varying design and informal planting.

The Want runs west from Upper Green Road and, until it reaches [address] is an informal gravel track with a wide verge containing trees. It is a public right of way (PROW). West of [address], whilst remaining a PROW, the track reverts to a wide footpath.

The site is currently an open and undeveloped paddock. It is well-contained within its boundaries and whilst visually different from the open arable fields to the west, retains a distinctly rural character, in contrast with the more urban land to the north and northeast. The site, thus forms part of the open countryside.

There are two Grade II Listed Buildings (LBs)in the immediate area. One, [address] ([name] 1231223), lies across The Want from the site. It dates from the 18th-19th Centuries and is a one-and-a-half storey timber-framed and plastered dwelling. The other, [name] ([name] 1231155) lies across the paddock from the site. It is an early-mid C19 building of red brick.

The historic context of [address] would have been a rural dwelling set on a rural track linking the settlements of [site address] with the nearby hamlet of Lower Green, whilst [name] was a working farmstead set within its agricultural hinterland. The current context in which they are experienced comprises infill development set around [address] and a former green, and open land in agricultural use.

The setting of the listed buildings, as it contributes to their special interest and insofar as relevant to this appeal, is the legibility of the buildings as part of a settlement set within an agrarian landscape. This makes a direct positive contribution to the special interest of the LBs that I have identified above.

The proposal would introduce a substantial new building into the paddock. The new dwelling, with its associated domestic paraphernalia would be an overtly urbanising feature, extending development out away from [address] and harmfully undermining the rurality of the setting of the LBs and the settlement.

The appellant has suggested that the proposal would not harm the setting of [address] as it would not interfere with the PROW and, historically, there was development further to the west along the route. However, whilst the proposal would not encroach on the lane, and thus retain the relevance of [address] in regard to its position on a rural route, the proposal would, within the current context, extend built development into open countryside, with an urbanising effect.

The appellant further suggests that, as there is limited visual connexion between the site and [name], the setting of the farmhouse would suffer limited impact. However, the contribution made by their setting to the significance of heritage assets does not relate solely to visual linkage, but also to the way an asset is experienced and understood. That is the case here, as the paddock contributes positively to agricultural history of the area and the farming businesses within it.

I acknowledge, above, that the introduction of later development, including the outbuilding within the plot of [address] and additional development around the former green has affected the setting of [address]. Whilst the development pattern of [site address] has altered over time through the addition of infill development, that does not justify harm to the settings of the LBs.

The LBs have seen change over time whilst retaining their significance. Change can make a positive or negative contribution to the LB. However, I do not find that the proposal would make a positive contribution for the reasons I have already given.

The appellant identifies that other residential developments have been granted planning permission1. However, the effect of any particular proposal on heritage assets is specific to the particulars of the proposal and affected assets, together with those matters contributing to the heritage balance. I have determined this case on its own particular merits.

The site is bounded by mature hedging and there is potential for future planting, which could be secured by the imposition of a suitably worded planning condition. This would protect the site from views from the wider countryside thus limiting the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the countryside around the site. Nonetheless planting would take some time to establish and there is no certainty that it would be effective. Further, there would remain views into the site from the adjacent PROW and from the windows of adjacent dwellings. In any case, LBs are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest 1 Council Refs: UTT/22/2408/FUL (revised UTT/21/3129/FUL); UTT/22/0086/FUL; UTT/22/2668/FUL; UTT/24/0116/FUL and UTT/24/1359/FUL irrespective of whether or not public views of the building or any of their curtilage structures can be gained.

Given the above, I find that the proposal would, given the harm that I have identified to the setting of the LBs, fail to preserve the special interest of the listed buildings. Paragraph 212 of the Framework advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through development within the LB’s setting and that any such harm should have a clear and convincing justification.

Given the scope of the works and that the proposal does not affect any historic fabric of a LB that contributes to its special interest, affecting, rather, how the listed buildings are experienced, I find the harm to be less than substantial in this instance. Given the effects of the proposal the harm would lie within the lower part of the range of less than substantial harm, but nevertheless is of considerable importance and weight. Where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposal would provide an additional dwelling 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 an additional dwelling, would go a small way towards local housing provision.

Further, the Council acknowledge that there is a shortfall in suitable self-build sites in the District. The Government identify within the Framework 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 dwelling 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 nLP 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 a self-built dwelling, a single additional unit 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 a self-build plot into account.

The appellant considers that additional weight be given to the provision of a home compliant with [name] of the building regulations as a public benefit. The proposal would, indeed improve the general standard of housing stock in the District. However, such a benefit would, given the scale of the development, be only a marginal improvement overall and so this 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 appellant identifies that the proposal would allow a local family to downsize and remain in the area. However, this is a personal benefit, could not be secured, and does not weigh in favour of granting the proposal planning permission.

In this instance the public benefits identified do not outweigh the harm that I have identified to the heritage asset. I thus conclude that, on balance, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area bearing in mind the special attention that should be paid to the desirability of preserving the setting of the nearby [name] listed buildings, [address] and [address].

For the above reasons, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the local area bearing in mind the special attention that should be paid to the desirability of preserving the setting of the nearby [name] listed buildings, [address] and [address]. It would, therefore, fail to preserve the special historic interest of the [name] listed buildings. This would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act, paragraph 213 of the Framework and conflict with [name] 61 and 62 of the nLP in as much as these seek, among other things, to protect, conserve, and where appropriate enhance, the special character, appearance and distinctiveness of Uttlesford District’s historic environment and requires that proposals affecting the setting of a listed building should respect the building’s historic context and its setting, including its historic landscape context, and retain the special interest that justifies its designation.

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. For the reasons set out above, I have found the site to lie 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 gains access via The Want to [address], which is, at this point an unlit rural lane, lacking footways and subject to a 30 MPH speed limit.

Whilst settlements lie further afield that have 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, lack footways and are subject to 60MPH speed limits. The fast traffic, their nature and the distances involved 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 within [site address] within the 30MPH speed limit, the route still lacks footways or lighting. 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.

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 Council2. 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 planning policy that place great emphasis on transport sustainability. I have, in any case, determined this appeal on its own merits.

I therefore find that the proposed development would not be a suitable location for a dwelling, having 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.

I have carried out a balance, above, against the harm that I have found to a designated heritage asset. [name] have found that additional harm, in terms of transport sustainability would accrue, no additional benefits have been identified. 2 Council Refs: UTT/22/2408/FUL, UTT/22/0086/FUL, UTT/22/2668/FUL, UTT/24/0116/FUL and UTT/24/1359/FUL

In addition to the harm to a designated heritage asset, the proposal would, through its unsustainable location, undermine the Council’s recently adopted [name]. There would be conflict with [name] 3, 26, 27, 28, 61 and 62 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. However, as I have found harm to a designated heritage asset, and this provides a strong reason for refusal within the application of Framework policies, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is not engaged.

Whilst the Framework recognises that sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, for this proposal, reliance upon the private car to meet the day-to-day travel needs of the occupiers would be almost total.

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 Country’s heritage outweigh the provision of an extra windfall unit.

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.