Appeal 6006106

The appeal is dismissed.

The address above is taken from the appeal form as it more accurately describes the location of the appeal site than the details provided on the application form. It is consistent with the address used by the Council in its decision notice.

On 25 March 2026 the Council adopted the Uttlesford Local Plan 2021-2041 (the Local Plan). This replaced the Uttlesford Local Plan (2005), which is cited in the reasons for refusal on the Council’s decision notice. The main parties have been given the opportunity to provide comments on this matter. I have had regard to the comments received and considered the proposal against the relevant policies in the Local Plan.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would be suitably located having regard to the accessibility of services and facilities; and • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

Core Policy 3 outlines a settlement hierarchy for the District, directing development towards settlements able to support the most sustainable patterns of living based on the level of services, facilities and employment opportunities available. Locations outside of the defined settlements identified in Core Policy 3 are considered to form part of the [name].

Core Policy 26 of the Local Plan identifies that sustainable modes of transport should be prioritised in new developments to promote accessibility and integration with the wider community and existing networks. Core Policy 27 states that development should be located close to key services and facilities, to promote walking and cycling, and where there is an appropriate level of public transport accessibility.

The appeal site is located within the hamlet of Hope End Green. Although it is not isolated from other development, the appeal site is located in the [name] and in a location where there are limited services and facilities.

The nearest settlement is Takeley, which provides some facilities and services including a primary school and convenience stores. I noted on my site visit that to reach the services and facilities of Takeley, individuals would need to proceed along quite a significant length of [site address] which is narrow, has no footways, limited verges for refuge, no streetlighting and includes stretches with limited natural surveillance. Noting the overall distance and this section of [site address] , the journey by foot or bicycle may be regarded as inconvenient and lack appeal for many, particularly in winter months, after dusk or during poor weather.

Moreover, access to many services and facilities that future occupiers would likely require for their day-to-day needs would necessitate onward travel to other locations and higher order settlements. I observed that bus stops with services to destinations including [name] and Stansted, where additional services and facilities including supermarkets and doctors’ surgeries are provided, are located in Takeley. Consequently, access to these bus stops would rely on a route that would lack appeal for many occupiers as described above.

The nearest train station is located in [name]. Access would rely on the route to the bus stops in Takeley which, as described above, would be inconvenient and unattractive to many, or travel by private car.

Paragraph 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) acknowledges that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Nevertheless, in the context of the above, occupiers of the proposed development would be highly reliant on the use of private vehicles to access most services and facilities and to meet their day-to-day needs. The appellant has put to me that such circumstances are typical in the surrounding area and the travel patterns of future occupiers would be similar to those of existing residents in the area. However, even if the scale of the development would be such that it would not result in unacceptable transport highway safety impacts, these matters do not mitigate or outweigh my findings in respect of accessibility set out above.

The appellant has highlighted nearby sites where proposals for development have been deemed to be in a sustainable location and approved. I have not been provided with full details, including the planning balance, of these cases to draw any meaningful comparisons with the appeal scheme. In several cases, the decisions pre-date the adoption of the Local Plan and, as such, would not have been considered against the same policies as the appeal scheme. In any event, each proposal must be considered on the basis of its individual circumstances, and the specific evidence before the decision-maker. I have reasoned above why I have identified harm based on the proposals before me and my observations on site. Ultimately, the existence of those other developments does not lead me to a view that there is no policy conflict or harm in respect of this main issue.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not be suitably located having regard to the accessibility of services and facilities. As such, the proposal is contrary to the relevant provisions of [name] 3, 26, 27 and 28 and Development Policy 1 of the Local Plan. Among other things, these policies seek to restrict the development of new dwellings in the [name] unless specific circumstances apply, direct development to larger settlements and locations close to key services and facilities, and prioritise sustainable modes of transport.

The appeal site is situated between two dwellings which form part of a broadly linear pattern of development along [site address] . Along this road, there are dwellings of varying sizes, with variation also existing in the size of plots and spacing of properties, reflective of the incremental development of the area over time. Elsewhere in Hope End Green, there are also examples of less linear forms of development. Nonetheless, in the immediate surroundings of the appeal site there is a broad uniformity to the pattern of development with dwellings fronting on to, and being sited a generally consistent distance from, [site address] . Established vegetation in the grounds of these properties and countryside beyond contributes to the verdant character of the area.

The site comprises a parcel of land fronting onto [site address] . It is mainly grassland and notwithstanding the structures located close to the frontage of the site, it has a predominantly open and verdant character and appearance. As a result, the site contributes positively to the verdant character and appearance of the area.

The appeal scheme as a whole would introduce a significant amount of new built development, thereby significantly urbanising the appeal site. Plot 1 would be sited forward of the prevailing building line along [site address] . Even though there is some variation in the siting of nearby properties, the proposal would introduce a substantially sized dwelling considerably closer to the road than properties in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site. As a result, it would appear incongruous and unduly prominent. This would particularly be the case given the limited landscaping proposed at the site frontage.

Moreover, by introducing 2 dwellings set behind the dwelling proposed at the site frontage, the proposal would disrupt and be significantly at odds with the prevailing linear pattern of development along this part of [site address] . The appellant has put to me that the layout reflects a discreet and low-key form of development and that the number of dwellings is modest and appropriate to the size of the site. However, even though the proposal includes generous spacing and landscaping and limited hardstanding, it would, by reason of the amount of development and its layout, visually intrude upon and erode the open, verdant character of the area.

I have considered the appellant’s views that the density of development would be comparable with that of the surrounding area, the scale and massing broadly reflective of nearby properties, and the proposed materials and detailing appropriate for the area. However, even were I to be in full agreement with these points, the dwellings proposed to the rear of the site would encroach upon the countryside and have a harmful urbanising effect on the appearance and setting of Hope End Green.

I acknowledge that paragraph 135 of the Framework does not prevent or discourage appropriate innovation or change, such as increased densities. However, it also seeks to ensure that development is sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting. In this case, the development would, for the reasons set out above, have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. For these reasons, the proposal would not represent an appropriate change to local character.

I am not satisfied that suitably worded planning conditions in respect of matters such as materials and landscaping could adequately mitigate the harm given the visibility of the site from [site address] and the surrounding countryside.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development would have a significantly harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. In this regard, it is contrary to the relevant provisions of [name] 41 and 52 of the Local Plan. These policies seek, among other things, development which reflects and enhances local landscape character or its setting and achieves a coherent pattern of development.

The appeal site is located close to, and forms part of the setting of a [name] listed building known as Lavenhams1. Mindful of the statutory duty set out in section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting. The setting of the listed building comprises residential dwellings as well as the remnants of its historic agrarian setting. This setting contributes positively to the significance of the listed building. Nevertheless, due to the intervening landscape and pattern of development along [site address] , I consider that the proposed development would preserve the setting of the listed building and the contribution this makes to its significance.

The appellant has put to me that the proposal complies with certain aspects of relevant design and environmental policies set out in the Local Plan, including in respect of resource efficiency. It would not result in a harmful effect on highway safety. Nevertheless, these are normal expectations of new development and, as such, have a neutral effect on the planning balance.

The appeal proposal would not be suitably located having regard to the accessibility of services and facilities. It would have a significantly harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As such, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole, even were I to agree with the 1 List entry number 1141965 appellant that it would comply with policies relating to windfall development, self- and custom-build housing and the diversification of rural settlements.

However, the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. The evidence before me suggests that supply stands at 4.77 years. In these circumstances, paragraph 11d) of the Framework is engaged.

Based upon what is before me, there are no policies in the Framework relevant to the appeal site which protect areas or assets of particular importance, and which provide a strong reason for refusal. Therefore, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The proposed development would contribute to the supply of housing on a windfall site, including self- and custom-build housing subject to being secured by a suitable mechanism to meet the definition of such housing, in a District where there are supply pressures. It would make efficient use of the appeal site, support for which is found in the Framework. The development would also deliver biodiversity enhancements and a biodiversity net gain, support the local construction economy and future occupiers would support the ongoing vitality of the community consistent with the objectives of the Framework. Nevertheless, given the limited scale of the proposed development, the contribution to housing supply and other benefits would be relatively limited in extent. I afford them moderate weight in the balance.

Balanced against this, the Framework places clear emphasis at paragraphs 96, 110, 115 and 129 on seeking to ensure that development is well located for access to services and facilities, limits the need to travel, offers a genuine choice of transport modes and ensures that sustainable transport modes are prioritised. Paragraph 135 outlines that development should be sympathetic to local character and be visually attractive as a result of good layout. For the reasons set out in relation to the main issues, I find that the proposal would wholly fall short of these expectations of the Framework.

Consequently, in this case, the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would 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.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.