# Land west of The Cottage, Snakes Lane, Ugley Green - **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 - **Tags:** fallback, s5-1-e-infill, sustainable-location-fail, small-scheme, new-local-plan, housing-shortfall ## 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 - **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 weight).** 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 - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Appeal-Decision-6008264-The-Cottage-Snakes-Lane-Ugley-Green-CM22-6HW.pdf - https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/2026/ugley-fallback/ --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008264.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.