Appeal’s Report

Decisions from 1st April 2017 – 26th April 2018

Planning Appeals

Total Appeal Decisions Received 45 Dismissed 38 (85%) Allowed 7 (15%) Total Counsel/Consultant Costs £192,100 (approximately) 2016/2017 Counsel/Consultant Costs £167,800 (approximately)

Public Inquiries

Hayes Country Park, Hayes Chase, Battlesbridge

Planning Reference 16/02045/FUL Proposal Use of land as residential caravan park Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Green Belt; Five Year Housing Land Supply Agreed with CCC on Harm to Green Belt; Five Year Housing Land Supply Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Notes: Partial award of costs granted to CCC.

Old Chase Farm, Hyde Lane, Danbury

Planning Reference 16/00129/OUT Proposal 59 dwellings and shop Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Five Year Housing Land Supply; Up‐to‐Date Development Plan; Rural Character; Sustainable location Agreed with CCC on Harm to rural character; unsustainable location (accessibility); Five Year Housing Supply ok when measured against need. Disagreed with CCC on Some policies out‐of‐date

Land north of Cranham Road, Lt Waltham

Planning Reference 16/01394/OUT Proposal Demolition of existing buildings construction of flour and feed mill Appeal Decision Allowed Key Themes Highways; Rural Character Agreed with CCC on ‐ Disagreed with CCC on Not materially affect safety and free flow of traffic; level of harm to the character of the countryside

Notes: The Inspector was critical that the LPA seemed to ignore the full thrust of a paragraph in the National Planning Policy Framework which supports a prosperous rural economy. The Inspector was also critical of a ‘forensic dissection of a proposal’ approach to applying a policy and said that he could see no such requirement within the policy, or that it was a common sense approach, and that the proposal must be assessed as a whole, rather than divided.

Land East Of Runsell View & Little Fields And North Of Maldon Road Danbury

Planning Reference 16/01810/OUT Proposal 140 dwellings and associated works Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Up‐to‐Date Development Plan; Heritage; Ecology; Landscape Character Agreed with CCC on Policies up‐to‐date; harm to heritage asset, ecology and landscape character Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Land South West Of 52 Maldon Road Danbury

Planning Reference 16/01770/FUL Proposal 72 bed care home Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Care Home Need; Rural Character; Ecology; Heritage Agreed with CCC on Harm to rural character; harm to heritage assets; harm to ecology; no overriding local need Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Chelmer Village Way

Planning Reference 16/02208/FUL Proposal 70 bed care home Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Open Space; Effect on Character of the Area and wildlife habitat Agreed with CCC on Loss of Open Space; Erosion and loss of open visual break in built environment; Need doesn’t override harm Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Hearings

None.

Written Representations

58 Writtle Road,

Planning Reference 17/00132/FUL Proposal Vehicle Access (commercial property) Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Highway Safety Agreed with CCC on Harmful to highway safety Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Land south of Brock Farm, Ingatestone Road, Stock

Planning Reference 16/02115/FUL Proposal Demolition of commercial and construction of 6 dwellings Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Green Belt (previously developed land); Rural Character; Neighbour Amenity; Refuse Collection; Protected Species; Sustainable location Agreed with CCC on Harm to Green Belt; fail to preserve rural character; loss of privacy to neighbour Disagreed with CCC on Refuse provision could have been conditioned

Ladygrove, Ongar Road West, Writtle

Planning Reference 16/02145/FUL Proposal Steel Frame Hobby Workshop Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Green Belt Agreed with CCC on Harm to Green Belt Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Abbeyfield, 9‐11 Southborough Road, Chelmsford

Planning Reference 16/01318/FUL Proposal Extensions to a Care home (9 additional bedrooms and staff accommodation) Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Design; Neighbour Amenity Agreed with CCC on Poor design and harm to character of the area Disagreed with CCC on Harm to neighbour’s amenity

Notes: Officers disagree with the Inspector's finding that the proposal would not harm the neighbours' privacy and would not be overbearing.

Land North of New Barns Cottages, Ingatestone Road, Highwood

Planning Reference 16/01236/FUL Proposal Stables, tack room, feed store, hardstanding and access Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Green Belt Agreed with CCC on Harm to the Green Belt Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Smithfield, Hawkswood Road, Downham

Planning Reference 16/01719/COUPA Proposal Prior Approval for change of use from agricultural building to dwelling Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Whether the building was agricultural Agreed with CCC on Not and agricultural building Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Land at Brock Hill Farm, Brock Hill, Stock

Planning Reference 16/01385/FUL Proposal New dwelling, garage and access Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Green Belt – Infill Agreed with CCC on Not an infill; harm to Green Belt Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Land North of The Grange, Stock Road, Stock

Planning Reference 16/00938/FUL Proposal Demolition of workshop and construction of detached dwelling Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Green Belt – Previously Developed Land Agreed with CCC on harm to Green Belt Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Land North of Bramble Lodge, Chalk Street,

Planning Reference 16/02056/FUL Proposal New Dwelling Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Green Belt – Infill Agreed with CCC on Not in a village; not an infill; harm to Green Belt Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Land North East of 103 Main Road, Great Leighs

Planning Reference 17/00021/FUL Proposal 2 flats and bungalow, parking and crossovers Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Defined Settlement ‐ Character of the area; protected trees Agreed with CCC on Harm to the character of the area; harm to protected trees Disagreed with CCC on ‐

6 Bouchers Mead

Planning Reference 16/02026/FUL Proposal Change of use of dwelling to Children’s Care Home Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Neighbour Amenity Agreed with CCC on Harmful to neighbour amenity Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Gosses Farm, Battlesbridge

Planning Reference 16/01827/FUL Proposal Construction of storage barn Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Green Belt Agreed with CCC on Harm to Green Belt Disagreed with CCC on ‐

South of The Homestead, Southend Road, Rettendon

Planning Reference 17/00550/FUL Proposal Conversion of stable building to holiday let Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Green Belt – Conversion Agreed with CCC on Building not permanent; Harm to Green Belt Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Elmbrook Farm, Buttsbury, Stock

Planning Reference 16/02138/FUL Proposal Change of use of agricultural land to private amenity land Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Green Belt Agreed with CCC on Harmful to openness of the Green Belt Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Land South of Pilgrims Lodge, The Ridge, Little Baddow

Planning Reference 17/00302/FUL Proposal Construction of a dwelling and access Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Rural Character Agreed with CCC on Design harmful to character of the area Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Access Track off Church Lane, Margaretting

Planning Reference 16/01838/FUL Proposal Alterations to access to allow access to caravan park (in Brentwood) Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Green Belt Agreed with CCC on Harm to Green Belt Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Notes: This appeal was linked to one in Brentwood for the use of the site as a tourist caravan park. That appeal was also dismissed.

11 Browns Avenue,

Planning Reference 17/00073/FUL Proposal Variation of condition to allow more days of the week to be used for pony rides Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Neighbour Amenity Agreed with CCC on Harmful to neighbour amenity Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Land at The Eagle Public House, Stock

Planning Reference 16/01252/FUL Proposal Construction of a convenience store Appeal Decision Allowed Key Themes Heritage; Neighbour Amenity Agreed with CCC on ‐ Disagreed with CCC on No substantial harm to heritage or neighbour amenity

Notes: This application was refused by Planning Committee following a recommendation for approval by Officers. The Inspector found that public benefits (consolidation of historic village centre as a place of activity; improvement to visual setting; preservation of Victorian Well) outweigh the small amount of harm to the Listed Building. The development provides sufficient measures to ensure no substantial harm to neighbour’s amenity. 48 Ridley Road, Chelmsford

Planning Reference 17/00343/FUL Proposal Pair of dwellings Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Character; Green Wedge Agreed with CCC on Harm to character and the Green Wedge Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Fenn Roundabout, South Woodham Ferrers

Planning Reference 17/00843/ADV Proposal Illuminated totem sign Appeal Decision Allowed Key Themes Visual Amenity Agreed with CCC on ‐ Disagreed with CCC on No visual harm

Notes: The Inspector concluded that the site reads with the existing built form rather than the rural area. The site itself makes little contribution to the beauty and character of the countryside as the related visual context is of the highway corridor and nearby buildings.

Sweetdrops, Lower Stock Road, Stock

Planning Reference 16/02123/FUL Proposal Replacement Dwelling Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Green Belt Agreed with CCC on Harmful to the Green Belt Disagreed with CCC on ‐

26 Brook Lane Galleywood

Planning Reference 17/00242/FUL Proposal Demolition of house and construction of 2 houses and chalet bungalow to rear with new access Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Defined Settlement – character; Neighbour Amenity Agreed with CCC on Bungalow to rear harmful to character of the area Disagreed with CCC on Impact on neighbour amenity

Site at 130 Runwell Road, Runwell

Planning Reference 17/00537/FUL Proposal New Dwelling Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Green Belt – Infill Agreed with CCC on Not infilling; Harmful to Green Belt Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Land between 22 and 23 Forrest Close, South Woodham Ferrers

Planning Reference 17/00038/FUL Proposal New Dwelling Appeal Decision Allowed Key Themes Defined Settlement ‐ Character of the Area Agreed with CCC on ‐ Disagreed with CCC on No harm to the character of the area

Notes: This was a finely balanced decision and Officers do not disagree with the Inspector’s reasoning.

Land South of Brock Farm, Ingatestone Road, Stock

Planning Reference 16/02066/FUL Proposal Proposed warehouse for short rotation coppice drying and storage Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Green Belt Agreed with CCC on Inappropriate development; harmful to Green Belt Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Site North of Rolphs Cottages, Blasford Hill, Little Waltham

Planning Reference 17/00951/FUL Proposal One dwelling, garage and access Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Rural Area – infill; character of the countryside Agreed with CCC on Not and infill; harm to intrinsic character and beauty and Green Wedge Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Notes: The Inspector noted an inconsistency between Policies DC9 and DC12 and said that it can be deduced that Policy DC12 permits infilling within Green Wedges.

Land North of 2 Whitelead Cottages, Mashbury Road, Chignal

Planning Reference 17/01688/OUT Proposal New dwelling and garage Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Rural Area ‐ Infill Agreed with CCC on Harm from consolidation of existing development in area remote from services Disagreed with CCC on The site is in a built‐up frontage

34 Moss Path, Chelmsford

Planning Reference 17/00406/FUL Proposal Extension of terrace to form a dwelling Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Defined Settlement ‐ Character of the Area Agreed with CCC on Harm to the character of the area Disagreed with CCC on ‐

52 Rectory Lane, Chelmsford

Planning Reference 16/01774/FUL Proposal Pair of semi‐detached 2 storey houses Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Parking; Neighbour Amenity; Character of the Area (Defined Settlement) Agreed with CCC on Harmful impact on parking capacity; harm to neighbour amenity Disagreed with CCC on No harm to character of the area

Notes: Whilst the Inspector agreed that window details and external materials would be un‐ sympathetic these could have been altered by condition without changing the substance of what was proposed.

5 Chelmsford Trade Park, Westway, Chelmsford

Planning Reference 17/01409/ADV Proposal 17 illuminated and non‐illuminated signs and 1 totem sign Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Amenity of the Area Agreed with CCC on Detrimental to visual amenity Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Kennels Harvesters Farm, Blind Lane, West Hanningfield

Planning Reference 17/00381/FUL Proposal One Dwelling and garage/outbuilding and construction of new cattery Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Green Belt; Ecology Agreed with CCC on Harm to Green Belt; adverse effect on ecology Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Storage Barn, Lilley Farm, School Lane, Great Leighs

Planning Reference 17/00062/FUL Proposal Conversion of barn into a dwelling Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Rural Character; Conversion Agreed with CCC on More akin to a rebuild (not re‐use); out of character Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Householder

Norwood, School Lane, Stock

Planning Reference 17/00939/FUL Proposal Householder extensions Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Design; Conservation Area Agreed with CCC on Poor design; Harm to Conservation Area Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Notes: The Inspector was critical that no details were provided concerning the reasons why the Conservation Area was designated and why no character area appraisal was supplied.

Norbon, School Lane, Stock

Planning Reference 17/00938/FUL Proposal Householder extensions Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Design; Conservation Area Agreed with CCC on Poor design; Harm to Conservation Area Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Notes: The Inspector was critical that no details were provided concerning the reasons why the Conservation Area was designated and why no character area appraisal was supplied.

1 The Shrubberies, Writtle

Planning Reference 17/00795/FUL Proposal Retrospective fencing Appeal Decision Allowed Key Themes Character of the Area Agreed with CCC on ‐ Disagreed with CCC on No harm to character of the area

Notes: The Inspector found that there was no harm to the character of the area as a laurel hedge has grown to the front and created an evergreen boundary and visual barrier to the fence. The Inspector added a condition requiring the hedging to be maintained and replaced if damaged or removed. Officers disagree with this approach and placing such a condition on laurel hedging.

13 Cotswold Crescent, Chelmsford

Planning Reference 16/01879/FUL Proposal Dropped Kerb Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Character of area Agreed with CCC on Harmful to character of area Disagreed with CCC on ‐

28 Inchbonnie Road, South Woodham Ferrers

Planning Reference 17/00203/FUL Proposal Dropped Kerb Appeal Decision Dismissed Key Themes Highway Safety Agreed with CCC on Detrimental to highway safety Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Shards, 69 Downham Road, Ramsden Heath

Planning Reference 17/01193/FUL Proposal Householder extensions Appeal Decision Allowed Key Themes Character of the local area Agreed with CCC on ‐ Disagreed with CCC on No harm to character of the area

Notes: Officers disagree with the Inspector's findings, however upon reflection feel that the decision should have placed more emphasis on the poor design of the extensions in themselves, rather than solely the impact on the character of the area.

19 Meadgate Avenue, Chelmsford

Planning Reference 17/01991/FUL Proposal Dropped Kerb Appeal Decision Allowed Key Themes Highway safety Agreed with CCC on ‐ Disagreed with CCC on Not detrimental to Highway Safety

Notes: The Inspector was critical that the description of the development had been changed to include parking spaces to the front of the house without the applicant’s agreement. The Inspector found that a car could park on the frontage without overhanging the pavement, therefore not causing harm to highway safety. The decision to refuse the application could have been more robust to say that, in practice, a car would not make the awkward manoeuvre to park in the largest space and would likely overhang the pavement.

Enforcement Appeals

Total Appeal Decisions Received 2 Dismissed 2 (100%) Allowed 0 (0%)

Land South of Hayes Chase, Burnham Road Battlesbridge

Reference 17/00018/ENF Notice Without planning permission, the building operation of locating a container Appeal Decision Dismissed – Notice Upheld Grounds of Appeal Planning permission should be granted Agreed with CCC on Harm to the Green Belt Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Land South of Hayes Chase, Burnham Road Battlesbridge Wickford

Reference 17/00019/ENF Notice Without planning permission, the material change of use of the land to a recreational use of the maintenance, repair and restoration of boats and the stationing of a caravan and storage of items for the purposes of that use. Appeal Decision Dismissed – Notice Upheld Grounds of Appeal Breach has not occurred; immune from enforcement action through passing of time Agreed with CCC on Breach has occurred; use has not taken place continuously for 10 years or more Disagreed with CCC on ‐

Tree Appeals

Total Appeal Decisions Received 3 Dismissed 2 (66.6%) Allowed 1 (33.3%)

2 Douglas Walk, Chelmsford

Reference 16/05147/TPO Proposal Cut back exposed roots Appeal Decision Dismissed Agreed with CCC on Insufficient evidence to allow more extensive work to root structure in light of the contribution the tree makes to the character of the area. Disagreed with CCC on ‐

64 Fortinbras Way, Chelmsford

Reference 17/05008/TPO Proposal Fell poplar in front garden Appeal Decision Allowed Agreed with CCC on ‐ Disagreed with CCC on Limited harm to character of area

Notes: The Inspector noted that the removal of the tree could potentially benefit the future growth, form and longevity of the retained trees in the group. The Inspector did not consider a replacement tree to be appropriate or necessary.

31 Purcell Cole, Writtle

Reference 16/05271/TPO Proposal Fell Blue Atlas Cedar Appeal Decision Dismissed Agreed with CCC on Considerable harm to the character and appearance of the area; no adequate justification to remove Disagreed with CCC on ‐