Land north of Lyndale, Twitty Fee, Danbury

Decision

dismissed, 15 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: D Szymanski

Authority

Chelmsford (East of England)

Appeal reference

6006289

Application reference

25/01593/OUT

Procedure

written representations

Development

Outline (all matters reserved) - "reinstatement of previous dwelling" - one self-build dwelling on the site of a house largely demolished c.40 years ago after enforcement

Homes

1

Site context

open countryside, rural lane, PDL

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

3.88 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1), HE7(2), N2(1)(a), DM6

Development plan policies

Chelmsford Local Plan 2020 S7, S11, DM8, DM14, Danbury Neighbourhood Plan 2024 DNP16

Main issues

location and access to services; character and appearance; non-designated heritage asset (protected lane); BNG and self-build

Summary

An outline proposal for one self-build house on the site of a dwelling largely demolished about 40 years ago following enforcement, beside Twitty Fee, a protected lane outside Danbury. Dismissed. The site was accepted as PDL, but the dwelling would be car-dependent, "significantly harmful" to the naturalised plot's rural character, and harmful to the protected lane (an NDHA) because of the visibility splay. There was no metric, so BNG could only be avoided by securing self-build, and no obligation was before the inspector. Together these "substantially outweigh" the limited benefit of one home against a 3.88-year supply.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The inspector gave the parties the opportunity to comment on the 2026 Framework and the 2024 and 2025 HDT results (DL ¶4). BNG and self-build were raised by the inspector, who sought comments on them (DL ¶3).
• Location: FAIL (TR3 in substance, CLP S7). The routes "would not be particularly attractive and convenient, even to those that would be physically able to make the journeys, particularly outside daylight hours, or in inclement weather" (DL ¶9). "it is likely the proposal would result in a significant proportion of car journeys … and so would not be in a sustainable location" (DL ¶10).
• Character: HARM. "It is inherent in the proposal that there would be a significantly greater mass and scale of built development to what currently exists, with a marked formalisation and domestication of the site" (DL ¶14). "That there might be no increase in the historic footprint … does not mean an absence of harm" (DL ¶15).
• PDL: accepted. "There is a raised building slab visible … I am not fully convinced the remains of the building can be said to have blended into the landscape. Upon this basis it would fall within the definition of previously developed land" (DL ¶16).
• NDHA (protected lane): HE7(2) HARM. "the splay would require works to and maintenance of a significant amount of vegetation … it would formalise a significant section adjacent to the highway corridor, eroding its verdant informal nature, which would be inherently harmful to the NDHA's significance" (DL ¶¶22–23).
• BNG / self-build: FAIL. Without a completed metric "it is necessary for the appeal proposal to be secured as a CSB dwelling" (DL ¶27). A personal occupancy condition "would be unlikely to pass the tests in Policy DM6 of the Framework due to reasonableness and the practicalities of enforcement" (DL ¶28). "a planning obligation is necessary … an obligation is not before me" (DL ¶30). This conflicts with N2(1)(a) (DL ¶31).

Planning balance

This was an S5(1) balance. "As it does not appear to comprise an isolated site, Framework Policy HO11 does not appear relevant, but Policy S5 1) d) and h) state in the cases of redevelopment of PDL, or where a 5 year HLS cannot be demonstrated, proposals should be approved, unless the benefits … would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶33). Benefits: one dwelling, which is "a small benefit to supply" despite the 3.88-year supply (DL ¶34). Personal circumstances got "limited weight at best" (DL ¶34). Small economic, landscaping and renewable benefits (DL ¶35). "The policy conflicts and harms are such that these matters substantially outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶37).

What made the difference

The accumulation of harms against a single dwelling. The PDL status only got the site through the S5 gateway. The lane access, the domestication of a plot that had naturalised over 40 years, and the harm to a protected-lane NDHA from the highway visibility splay each counted. The self-build point was fixable: a signed UU plus a metric would have removed the BNG objection. The location and character harms would probably still have outweighed one house, especially as the Council over-supplies self-build plots, which undercuts the self-build benefit.

Transferable points

• Passing the S5(1)(d) PDL gateway does not make the benefits of one dwelling weighty. Car dependence, character harm and NDHA harm can together "substantially outweigh" them, even with a 3.88-year supply (DL ¶¶33–37).
• Remains of a demolished dwelling can still be PDL if an exposed slab shows they have not "blended into the landscape" (DL ¶16).
• The same historic footprint does not mean no harm, because domestication and formalisation of a naturalised plot is itself harmful (DL ¶¶14–15).
• A highway visibility splay can itself cause heritage harm where the lane is a non-designated heritage asset (HE7(2)) (DL ¶¶21–23).
• Self-build BNG exemption: a time-limited personal occupancy condition fails the DM6 tests, so an obligation is needed. A condition requiring an obligation is only for exceptional, complex cases (DL ¶¶28–30).
• A Council over-supply of self-build plots reduces the weight given to a self-build benefit (DL ¶33).
• Drafting slip: DL ¶33 attributes the 5-year-supply limb to S5(1)(h) (it is S5(1)(j)), and the "Decision date" field is blank.

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Council supply 3.88 years; 2024 and 2025 HDT results also published and consulted on
• Council can show an over-supply of custom and self-build plots
• House on the site largely demolished around 40 years ago following an enforcement notice; slab and waste remain
• Nearest bus stop, pub and shop about 850 m away via Twitty Fee / Hopping Jacks Lane / Runsell Lane - unlit, partly single-track, no footways
• Highway Authority required a 2 m clear visibility band along the entire frontage of a protected lane
• Essex RAMS contribution paid; Council withdrew its habitats objection
• Letter's "Decision date" field is blank; date taken from the PINS listing

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.