Land north of Lyndale, Twitty Fee, Danbury

6006289·Chelmsford·15 Sept 2026dismissed·25/01593/OUT

Tier label used

Key Service Settlement

The tier sentence ¶6

“around Key Service Settlements (KSCs) outside the Green Belt”

Summary

An outline proposal for one self-build house on the site of a dwelling largely demolished about 40 years ago following enforcement, beside Twitty Fee, a protected lane outside Danbury. Dismissed. The site was accepted as PDL, but the dwelling would be car-dependent, "significantly harmful" to the naturalised plot's rural character, and harmful to the protected lane (an NDHA) because of the visibility splay. There was no metric, so BNG could only be avoided by securing self-build, and no obligation was before the inspector. Together these "substantially outweigh" the limited benefit of one home against a 3.88-year supply.

The location finding

TR3: harm. nearest Danbury services and bus stop ~850 m via largely unlit, partly single-track lanes without footways; "significant proportion of car journeys"; conflict framed under CLP S7 (DL 7-11)

Why this is cited

Site "a significant distance" from the KSC: hierarchy counted against. The route failed too: nearest services and bus stop about 850 m via largely unlit, partly single-track lanes without footways. In the register this counts as a case where the tier counted against the site (and the route was decisive too).

Sources

Decision on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service · full decision note · letter pins-corpus/6006289.txt

One entry in a register of 203 decisions that matched the search for a settlement-tier label, each read at every matching passage and classified by how the label influenced the decision. The quotation was checked against the source named above. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Text, data and images on this page are released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence: share and adapt them freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers. Source and data: github.com/planningdistilled/research.