Orchard View, Gallows Green Road, Great Easton

Decision

dismissed, 3 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: L Reid

Authority

Uttlesford (East of England)

Appeal reference

6008739

Application reference

UTT/25/3095/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Self-build dwelling in the side curtilage of Orchard View at the end of a hamlet

Homes

1

Site context

open countryside, rural lane, listed building setting

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

4.77 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(1)(e), S5(1)(j), S5(4), DP3(3), TR3

Development plan policies

Uttlesford Local Plan 2021-2041 (March 2026) Core Policies 3, 26, 27, 28, 52, Development Policy 1

Main issues

suitable location; character and appearance

Summary

A self-build house on the grassed side curtilage at the end of a small hamlet near Great Easton was dismissed. It was not "limited infilling within groups of houses", because it adjoined built form on one side only and extended the hamlet. With a 4.77-year supply, S5(1)(j) was engaged, but the site was not physically well-related to a settlement. So S5(4) applied. Poor access to services (significant harm) and an urbanising DP3(3) conflict (moderate harm) outweighed a single unsecured self-build home.

Issues and findings

• Transition. The parties commented on the Framework and the 2024 and 2025 HDT (DL ¶3).
• S5(1)(e): FAIL. "the proposed dwelling would adjoin built development on only one side ... the proposal would extend built form beyond the existing edge of the hamlet rather than being within it ... cannot reasonably be described as infill development within a group of houses, even though it would be limited" (DL ¶9). A house across the road "does not adjoin it" (DL ¶8).
• Not isolated. The site was close to Orchard View (DL ¶8).
• Access: FAIL. A farm shop is 1 mile away. "The nearest bus stops are over a 30-minute walk from the site, and it has not been demonstrated that these routes benefit from footways or street lighting" (DL ¶12). Harm to the plan-led strategy is "incrementally small, it would be ongoing and therefore significant" (DL ¶14).
• S5(1)(j): FAIL. "With a supply of 4.77 years, paragraph j. ... is engaged. Whilst the proposal would meet an evidenced unmet need, the appeal site is not physically well-related to an existing settlement as it is located at the end of a hamlet, and it is separated from the more built-up areas by open countryside" (DL ¶28).
• Character, DP3(3): FAIL. The design was acceptable, but "the principal issue lies not with the architectural merits of the dwelling but with the loss of this parcel of land" (DL ¶20). The harm was moderate (DL ¶21). "the proposal should be refused on this basis" (DL ¶38).
• TR3 reading. "the proposal would not generate a significant amount of movement. As such, paragraph 1.a of Policy TR3 ... is not relevant" (DL ¶37). The inspector nevertheless weighed car reliance "heavily" as contrary to plan-led sustainable development.

Planning balance

S5(4) (DL ¶36). The benefits were limited: one dwelling, an unsecured self-build, L2 limited by the character harm, and small economic benefits (DL ¶29-32). Against them, location harm weighed heavily (DL ¶37) and so did the DP3(3) conflict (DL ¶38). The benefits "would not, either individually or collectively, substantially outweigh the adverse effects" (DL ¶39).

What made the difference

The end-of-row position. It failed infill (one neighbour only) and failed "well-related" (a hamlet, not a settlement, and separated by countryside). That forced the case into S5(4). A 4.77-year supply is only marginally short, and a single dwelling carries little weight against that. The Eastfield Stables comparator shows that a continuous footway and nearby bus stop can change the outcome (DL ¶33).

Transferable points

• S5(1)(e) fails for a plot at the end of a hamlet adjoining development on one side only; a house across the road does not count (DL ¶8-9).
• A hamlet is not an "existing settlement" for S5(1)(j), and an end-of-hamlet plot separated by countryside is not physically well-related (DL ¶28).
• One inspector read TR3(1)(a) as not applying to schemes that do not generate significant movement, but still weighed car dependence heavily (DL ¶37).
• DP3(3) can require refusal for the loss of an open transitional plot even where the building design is acceptable (DL ¶20, 38).
• Council approvals made under the superseded local plan carry limited weight (DL ¶26).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Supply 4.77 years under the newly adopted Uttlesford Local Plan (March 2026) (DL 2, 28)
• Nearest bus stops over 30 minutes' walk; farm shop 1 mile; no evidenced footway or lighting (DL 11-12)
• Allowed comparator Eastfield Stables (APP/C1570/W/25/3375597) distinguished by its continuous footway and nearby bus stop (DL 33)

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.