Appeal 6003747

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for an award of costs was made by [name], [name] & [name], against Uttlesford District Council. This application is the subject of a separate

Since the Council issued its decision, a new Uttlesford Local Plan has been adopted (March 2026) (ULP). This supersedes the Uttlesford Local Plan (2005). The Council has referred to the emerging local plan in its appeal statement and has latterly provided a copy of the adopted plan. I have given the parties the opportunity to comment on the policy changes in the new local plan and taken account of the responses received. I have therefore considered the proposal against the policies of the up-to-date development plan including the ULP.

The evidence indicates that the development has already occurred. From what I saw on site, the position of the storage containers largely corresponded with the submitted plans, and I saw some parked vehicles and two compounds which appeared to be for the storage of builder’s equipment. I am satisfied that what I saw on site largely accords with the plans and the development as described.

The appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. It is important that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Council and by interested parties at the application stage. As part of the appeal submission, the appellant has provided a Landscape and [name] (December 2025) (LVA) and a Noise Impact Assessment (November 2025) (NIA) seeking to address matters in dispute.

In relation to Reason for Refusal 1, the LVA, further develops the appellant’s existing case and the Council has responded to it. I am therefore satisfied that my acceptance of this document would not prejudice interested parties. In relation to Reason for Refusal 3 the NIA represents significant new evidence. The Council consider that this document requires detailed technical assessment and consultation by a relevant qualified expert. No substantive response has therefore been made by the Council. Given the Council’s position and the fact that there were third-party representations received during the application process in relation to this matter, I am not assured that the document could be fully assessed by the Council and considered by those third parties. Therefore, if I were to take this document into account there is a risk of prejudicing those interested parties. As such, I will not take the NIA into account in reaching my decision.

The main issues are: • Whether or not the development is in an acceptable location having regard to development plan policies and the character and appearance of the area, including the significance of heritage assets; • The effect of the development on highway safety; and • The effect of the development on the living conditions of nearby residential occupants, with particular regard to noise, disturbance, vibration or smells.

The appeal site is a roughly rectangular plot lying to the west of a grouping of buildings clustered along [site address] . It is a mainly surfaced yard, enclosed by an earth bund occupying the corner of a large agricultural field. It is stated that the site forms part of a wider agricultural holding and is accessed via an existing agricultural track which passes through the main agricultural yard linking to [site address] .

The development is described as the use of an established agricultural yard for low-intensity B8 outside storage with associated shipping containers used by small local businesses and tradespeople. It is located outside of a settlement boundary and therefore for the purposes of planning policy is located within the countryside.

ULP Core Policy 3 states that development in the open countryside will not be permitted unless specifically supported by other relevant policies as set out in the development plan or national policy. ULP Core Policy 21 relates to rural diversification and is generally supportive of using agricultural land for other economic uses, including shared units and micro businesses, provided that several criteria are all met. Relevant to this development, are (i) development is operated as part of a viable rural business (including farm holding) and contributes to the viability of the holding, (ii) it is not detrimental to the character and appearance of existing buildings and their setting in the landscape, and (v) it would not cause highway safety issues.

The appellant suggests that the development is necessary for the financial resilience and long-term survival of the farm business, especially following the withdrawal of [name] funding. However, the appellant has provided insufficient relevant detail as to how this B8 use and/or contractor operations are linked to the viability of the existing holding. Little information is before me regarding the existing farm business, and it appears that the operations associated with the container use may operate as a separate commercial function. Judging by some of the appellant’s [name] comments (Summary and Conclusion, March 2025), it may even seek to replace the wider agricultural use. Therefore, I am not certain that the development on the appeal site operates in a way which is functionally ancillary to the agricultural holding and this criterion is not met. For completeness, and for the avoidance of doubt, I have gone on to consider the other relevant criteria of the policy.

In relation to character and appearance, whilst I saw that the appeal site is in a relatively visually isolated position in the corner of a field and enclosed by the earth bund, the upper parts of many of the containers and vehicles were clearly visible from points along [site address] . These views were more than glimpses and were particularly noticeable just to the south of the site access where the road and surrounding field levels are at a similar height. The uniform tops of the containers, in a range of colours, introduced a noticeably horizontal and solid appearance to the development in contrast to the surrounding undulating landscape of fields, hedgerows and trees. From the road, I found the development to have the appearance of a rather jarring, bulky and urbanising form, not reflecting agricultural character, and there is little to suggest that anything similar occupied this site previously. All in all, I found that the development represented a visual intrusion into the arable landscape which was poorly integrated with the existing farmstead and isolated from surrounding built form.

Whilst the LVA assesses the development and its context, it does not appear to consider the appearance of the site in its previous agricultural use to enable a clear assessment of the visual change arising from the current development, including when the bund was formed. Therefore, I am not certain that the document fully assesses the landscape affects. Putting this aside, the LVA still notes minor adverse impacts on landscape character, and at least minor adverse impacts on visual receptors, including to residents and footpath users. It is recommended that additional native planting is undertaken along the bund to provide filtered screening and to enhance integration with the landscape. However, I have few details of this or other planting which could be secured by condition to enable me to be certain that this mitigation would successfully address the current harm in the long term.

There are several listed buildings nearby, along with a scheduled monument. Related to this I have a statutory duty under Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) which requires special regard to be had to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

[name] (Ref.13726120) is a [name] listed building, dating from the 16th or early 17th century. It is described in the listing as a timber framed and plastered house with a tiled roof. Alongside is a former outbuilding 25m east of [name] ([name] listed, Ref.1087889) and a former granary ([name] listed, Ref.1051603). Both are described as dating from the 16th and 17th centuries, are timber framed and retain former agricultural features. Collectively, they are described as having group value and represent a good example of a vernacular farmstead.

A key part of the historic landscape associated with the listed buildings is the [name] site and fishpond, a scheduled monument (Ref.1008140) which lies immediately to the northwest of the listed buildings. [name] have not been provided with the list description, the submitted evidence suggests that this is a stirrup-shaped, moated site on an east facing slope overlooking the [name]. I saw that the moated site was swathed in trees and dense vegetation which gave it a sense of isolation, but that mature vegetation signalled its presence within the surrounding landscape.

For the purpose of this appeal, the significance of this cluster of heritage assets derives mainly from their age, fabric, features and their historical and functional relationships. The glossary of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that the significance of a heritage asset derives not only from the asset’s physical presence but also from its setting. It defines the setting of a heritage asset as the surroundings in which an asset is experienced. These are not fixed and may change over time. The Framework indicates that any harm to the significance of a heritage asset, or from development within its setting, should require clear and convincing justification. In this appeal, the relationship of the buildings to each other and the land around them, including the agricultural landscape, is an intrinsic part of their significance.

The Council found no harm to the significance of the heritage assets and Historic England advised that the development did not unacceptably harm the scheduled monument. However, the latter suggests a small degree of harm. Aware of my statutory duty relating to the listed buildings, from [site address] I saw some intervisibility between several of the listed buildings and some structures on the appeal site. Although the views were relatively distant, in line with my findings on landscape character, the views of parts of the bulky horizontal forms adversely impacted the environment in which the listed buildings and scheduled monument are experienced and appreciated, and therefore, has impacted their significance. Even though the development may be reversible, the permission is not seeking a temporary permission, and the wider agricultural setting of the heritage assets has been eroded by the unexpected and incongruous presence of the development. A small degree of less than substantial harm has occurred. Landscape and heritage matters are a planning judgement and based on the evidence and my assessment of the site, harm has been caused to the surrounding landscape character, including to the setting of designated heritage assets.

Therefore, to conclude on ULP Core Policy 21, I find that the development does not comply with criteria (i) and (ii). Furthermore, below, I find harm arising from highway safety (criterion v). ULP Core Policy 48 supports new employment development on unallocated sites subject to the benefits not being outweighed by harmful impacts. There is little to suggest that the development complies with the stated criteria.

The development is not in an acceptable location having regard to development plan policies and the character and appearance of the area, including the significance of heritage assets. It is contrary to [name] 3, 21 and 48 described above. It also conflicts with [name] 41, 61 and 62, which amongst other things, seek to prevent visual intrusion in the countryside and respect the historic landscape setting of listed buildings. It also conflicts with the Framework which seeks to protect and enhance our natural, built and historic environment.

The site is accessed from a rural lane which is mainly single-track width, with passing spaces, and without pavements. The Council considers that the site access is substandard in terms of width and visibility and that there would be increased pressure on the rural highway which may result in safety issues for other road users, including pedestrians and agricultural vehicles.

Although the Highways Authority (HA) did not object to the development, subject to conditions, it commented that the access was of insufficient width to accommodate two-way vehicle movements, the access required modification, and it did not accept the traffic generation information in the [name] (March 2025). Whilst the HA considered that the development would be unlikely to result in a severe increase or change in character of the traffic on surrounding roads, I remain uncertain about traffic levels and the type of vehicles accessing the site. For example, the appellant’s appeal statement suggests that the transition from an agricultural yard to low intensity storage would result in fewer and less hazardous vehicle movements. The Transport Statement also comments that there would be a removal of a significant number of agricultural trips. However, the traffic generation on the site prior to this development taking place is not clearly stated, it is not fully explained how the development would interact with existing agricultural activity or what level of agricultural vehicles are still using the access. Therefore, I am not satisfied that I fully understand the change in vehicular activity or the types and numbers of vehicles using the access.

Both parties appear to agree that the site access needs to be improved, and the HA has suggested conditions to mitigate harm to the highway network, including to modify the site access to achieve the required visibility splays. However, as a retrospective application, whilst it is suggested that the visibility required can be provided, I do not appear to have suitably worded conditions, given that the use is taking place. Nor do I have any adequate details of the proposed widened access and visibility splays to provide certainty as to the visual effect and other implications of this significant modification. Therefore, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that such matters could be secured by condition or would meet the tests.

Therefore, erring on the side of caution, I must conclude that the substandard access would present an unacceptable degree of hazard to road users to the detriment of highway safety. In the absence of suitable mitigation measures to address the concerns, the development is contrary to ULP Core Policy 27 which seeks, amongst other things, to deliver highway safety measures at and around the development site. It would also conflict with the Framework which seeks to ensure that developments are safe and minimise the scope for conflicts with different users.

A cluster of residential dwellings lies on the northern side of the site access. Although the appeal site is some distance away from these dwellings, vehicles accessing the site would pass reasonably close by. The application was not accompanied by an adequate noise impact assessment and included few details to indicate hours of operation, frequency and type of vehicle movements. Nor was there adequate detail to explain activities on the site or the range of materials to be stored. Therefore, it is not possible to fully understand the extent to which nearby residents may be affected by effects such as noise, disturbance or odour/fumes. The appellant’s details suggest that past storage operations have been a source of noise and disturbance complaints so I must be certain that this situation does not occur in future.

The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has raised no objections subject to conditions relating to noise, hours of operation, management of noise and external illumination. However, whilst a condition could be imposed requiring no power tools, machinery or plant, I am not certain that the hours of operation and management of noise can be controlled by condition as the use is already occurring. These conditions would be required to make the development acceptable, and in this regard, no suitable form of wording has been suggested.

In the absence of more information concerning noise, and assurance that conditions would be able to manage the development to successfully mitigate impacts on neighbouring occupiers, I am not assured that the development is not causing harmful effects on the living conditions of nearby residential occupants, with particular regard to noise, disturbance, vibration or smells. The development conflicts with [name] 42 and 44 which seek to not adversely affect the amenity of existing and future users, and the Framework which seeks to enable and support healthy lives.

The planning officer may have been minded to approve the application and had drawn up a list of suggested planning conditions and shared these with the appellant. Nevertheless, the formal decision is ultimately made by an officer with authority to issue decisions and is part of the Council’s decision-making process.

Having found harm to the significance of heritage assets, the Framework requires that this harm is weighed against the public benefits of the development. Whilst there are economic benefits, including rural diversification, benefits to some local businesses and residents, I have concluded that there is insufficient evidence that these non-agricultural activities need to be in the countryside. It is suggested that the site’s use reduces the need for users to travel to more distant urban centres for storage, but I have little information as to where individuals travel from or how such a rural location would support sustainable transport practices. Nor have I been convinced that the development would support agricultural diversification.

It is suggested that the development makes effective use of land and represents one of the least impactful development options for the site, but even if this was proven, it would not justify allowing a development which conflicts with the development plan policy. Whilst biodiversity enhancements could be made, I have inadequate details of what these may be or their extent. Whilst the appellant suggests that the appeal site was previously developed land, I have not been provided with clear evidence of what the site was like before the development took place so I am not certain that it would meet this definition. Overall, these public benefits attract limited weight.

Given the above, I conclude that the overall limited weight that I attribute to the public benefits would be insufficient to outweigh the level of harm to the designated heritage assets, to which I attach great weight. As such, the proposal would not comply with the Framework. In addition, there is no clear and convincing justification for the harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets.

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Overall, the cumulative benefits of the proposed development, which include the matters I have highlighted above, are clearly worthwhile but nevertheless overall carry limited weight in favour of the scheme. However, these benefits would not be of sufficient magnitude to outweigh the harm and related policy conflicts that I have identified. That harm would be significant and permanent and such that the scheme would not be in accordance with the development plan when considered as a whole.

For the above reasons, and having taken all other matters raised into account, there are no material considerations that indicate that the proposal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.