Verge at Chelmsford Road, Great Dunmow (micro energy storage)

Decision

allowed, 16 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: L Reid

Authority

Uttlesford (East of England)

Appeal reference

6010164

Application reference

UTT/26/0113/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Micro battery energy storage installation on an overgrown roadside verge

Site context

inside settlement

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

DM6

Development plan policies

Uttlesford Local Plan 2021-2041 (adopted March 2026) Core Policies 25, 40, 44, Policy 52

Main issues

protected species; noise; crime and disorder

Summary

A micro battery storage unit on a roadside verge in Great Dunmow, refused over ecology, noise and security. The inspector found each concern could be dealt with by condition: an ecological survey before commencement, a further noise assessment, and fencing and security details. Appeal allowed. The decision barely engages the Framework. It is useful mainly as a contrast with the other AMP Clean Energy verge appeals and as an example of an inspector declining to consult on the 2026 NPPF.

Issues and findings

• Transition. "Any policies that are material to this decision have not fundamentally changed in the Framework. As a result, I consider that there is no requirement for me to seek further submissions on the revised Framework" (DL ¶2).
• Protected species: acceptable subject to condition. Relying on Circular 06/2005 ¶99, surveys should normally precede permission. But "there is limited credible evidence to demonstrate that protected species are present … any ecological concerns could be appropriately dealt with by way of a planning condition requiring an ecological survey" (DL ¶6-8).
• Noise: acceptable. Receptors are "in excess of 60 metres" away. The council's concern was "the lack of detailed technical information, rather than … any identified unacceptable impact", so a further assessment was secured by condition (DL ¶11-12).
• Crime and disorder. Mesh fencing concerns were addressed by a condition on fencing and security details (DL ¶14-15).

Planning balance

None was needed. There was no conflict with the development plan once conditions were imposed (DL ¶9, ¶13, ¶15, ¶22). W3 is not mentioned.

What made the difference

The council's reasons were about missing information rather than demonstrated harm, and a small verge unit left headroom (receptors over 60 m away, low habitat value). No character objection was taken, unlike at Didcot and Ashford.

Transferable points

• Deficient technical information on a small energy scheme can be cured by pre-commencement conditions where there is no credible evidence of actual harm (DL ¶8, ¶12).
• An example of an inspector treating the 2026 Framework as making no material change for ecology, noise and crime issues, and so not re-consulting (DL ¶2).

Policy findings

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

Key facts

• Operator AMP Clean Energy; sister appeals at Didcot (allowed) and Ashford (dismissed)
• Inspector did not invite comments on the 2026 Framework because material policies had "not fundamentally changed" (DL ¶2)
• New Uttlesford Local Plan adopted March 2026 after the refusal; parties commented on it (DL ¶3)
• BNG statutory exemption applies (DL ¶10, ¶21)

Related decisions

• PINS-6009340
• PINS-6010987

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.