- Decision
- allowed, 4 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: L Reid
- Authority
- Uttlesford (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6008264
- Application reference
- UTT/25/3066/OP
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Outline for up to five dwellings (extant PIP+TDC for three)
- Homes
- 5
- Site context
- open countryside, rural lane
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(1)(e), HO11, TR3
- Development plan policies
- Uttlesford Local Plan 2021-2041 (adopted March 2026) Core Policies 3, 26, 27, 28, 52, Development Policy 1
- Main issues
- suitable location for housing; character and appearance; fallback
Summary
Outline for up to five dwellings on a countryside field with an extant permission (PIP + TDC) for three. Allowed. The inspector found the site an unsuitable location (car reliant, not S5(1)(e) infill, conflict with S5 and a new March 2026 Local Plan), but the fallback of three large houses with similar harm weighed heavily, plus a small housing and economic benefit given no five-year supply.
Issues and findings
- Transition. Parties commented on the new Framework and the 2024/2025 HDT results (DL ¶4).
- S5(1)(e): FAIL. "these dwellings are yet to be built. I must assess the proposal having regard to the appeal site's existing physical characteristics" (DL ¶9); "The proposal would therefore be next to built development on only one side. It would extend housing beyond the existing group, rather than being within it" (DL ¶10).
- HO11 consistency. Local countryside policy "is consistent with Policy HO11 of the Framework and is therefore given full weight" (DL ¶7).
- Accessibility — TR3 / local CP26-28: FAIL. The 441 bus "operates only twice a day during term-time weekdays" (DL ¶15); "Future occupants would therefore be reliant on the car for a significant proportion of their travel needs" (DL ¶16). Earlier appeal decisions under the old plan given limited weight (DL ¶¶11–12, 17–19).
- Character: PASS. Contained by hedgerows; "would be perceived as a distinct group of housing, rather than as an enlargement of the existing group" (DL ¶25).
- Fallback. "I find that the appeal proposal would give rise to a similar level of harm to that associated with the extant permission and attach significant weight to the extant permission as a fallback scheme" (DL ¶37).
Planning balance
s38(6) plan-led balance rather than an express S5 balance: conflict with the development plan as a whole (DL ¶38), outweighed by fallback ("weighs heavily", DL ¶39) plus limited housing and economic benefit from two extra dwellings in the absence of a five-year supply (DL ¶40).
What made the difference
The extant three-dwelling permission. Without it the appeal would have failed on location: the inspector gave full weight to a newly adopted Local Plan whose spatial and transport policies were consistent with HO11/TR3, and rejected the infill argument. Useful as a warning that S5(1)(e) is judged on existing buildings only, and that a recently adopted plan reduces the weight of older appeal decisions.
Transferable points
- S5(1)(e) "within groups of houses" is judged on existing built form, not consented-but-unbuilt dwellings (DL ¶9); a plot flanked by development on one side only is not infill (DL ¶10).
- A local countryside-housing policy consistent with HO11 attracts full weight (DL ¶7).
- Adoption of a new Local Plan is a material change reducing the weight of earlier appeal decisions on accessibility (DL ¶¶11–12).
- Term-time twice-daily bus is not a realistic alternative to the car (DL ¶15); cycling not suitable for all users and bike-and-bus needs secure storage (DL ¶14).
- A fallback of equal harm can outweigh locational conflict (DL ¶¶35–39).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S5(1)(e) | fail | open field adjoining one curtilage on one side only — extends beyond the group rather than within it; unbuilt consented houses disregarded (DL 9-10) | |
| HO11 | accord | local Development Policy 1 found consistent with HO11 and given full weight (DL 7) | |
| S5 | conflict | "only certain forms of development should be approved outside settlements" (DL 21) | |
| TR3 | fail | car reliance; cycle to Elsenham possible but not for all; 441 bus twice a day term-time; 301 stops unattractive walk (DL 13-16) | |
| DP3 | pass | contained by hedgerows, would read as a distinct small group consistent with dispersed pattern (DL 23-26) | |
| HE6 | neutral | setting of Grade II Harewood Cottage and The Hermitage preserved (DL 29-30) | |
| fallback | benefit | significant | extant PIP/TDC for three large dwellings; appeal adds at most two; similar harm (DL 35-37, 39) |
Key facts
- Extant PIP (appeal March 2025, APP/C1570/W/24/3350263) and TDC (Sept 2025) for three dwellings on the site
- New Uttlesford Local Plan adopted March 2026 with stricter sustainable-transport policies; council still cannot show a five-year supply (figure not stated)
- Snakes Lane single track; 441 bus twice daily term-time only
Sources
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.