# 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
- **Tags:** battery-storage, renewable-energy, transitional-no-consultation, conditions-overcome-refusal, ecology-survey-condition

## 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
- **Core Policy 25 (Uttlesford LP 2026): accord.** renewable energy encouraged where impacts on ecology and noise can be addressed; met subject to conditions (DL ¶9, ¶13)
- **N6: neutral.** Framework not cited; Circular 06/2005 ¶99 applied; bat-roost potential only, "limited credible evidence" of protected species, so survey by pre-commencement condition (DL ¶6-8)
- **P3: neutral.** Framework not cited; nearest receptors over 60 m away; further noise assessment by condition (DL ¶11-13)
- **Policy 52 (Uttlesford LP 2026): accord.** crime and disorder addressed by a fencing and security condition (DL ¶14-15)

## 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)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010164
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/f36c742a-5f0e-4046-a20c-d76175dedd46

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010164.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. Source and data: https://github.com/planningdistilled/research.