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, Chelmsford 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, Rettendon 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, Runwell 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