®Planning appeal decision
Land east of Ashingdon Road and North of Rochford Garden Way, Rochford, SS4 1FA
stated on the appeal form to be an “outline application for the demolition of Nos 148 and 150 Ashingdon Road, removal of highway tree and form access onto Ashingdon Road, form secondary access onto Percy Cottis Road to serve residential development of 662 dwellings and community building with associated infrastructure. Details of Phase 1 of 233 dwellings to consider Access, Layout, Appearance, Scale and Landscaping. Details of Phases 2 and 3 to consider Access and Layout only
- Authority
- Rochford District Council
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Major dwellings
- Inspector
- Wildsmith D
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The extent to which the proposed development would be consistent with the development plan for the area, and the weight to be given to relevant development plan policies
- The effect of the proposed development in traffic and transport terms, on the safety and convenience of users of the nearby highway network
- Whether the submitted planning obligations and suggested conditions would satisfactorily address the impact of the proposed development
What decided it
The Council failed to provide evidence that the residual cumulative highway impacts would be severe, whereas the Appellants' technical evidence, endorsed by the Highway Authority and the Council's own highways witness, showed no unacceptable highway safety or severe residual impact, allowing the significant housing benefits to prevail under the tilted balance.
The adverse impacts of allowing the proposal (moderate weight to increased traffic and to loss of a protected oak tree) would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits (significant weight to plan-led development, very significant weight to 662 new homes and 232 affordable homes, moderate weight to economic and wider community benefits), so the tilted balance favoured allowing the appeal.
Framework references: 11, 15, 56, 60, 110, 111, 124, 170, 219
Plan policies cited: Policy T1, Policy SER8, Policy DM31, Policy H1, Policy H2, Policy H3, Policy CLT1, Policy ENV8, Policy ENV9, Policy H6
Judgments cited: [2012] EWHC 2542 (Admin) Case No CO/605/2012 - Cogent Land LLP and Rochford District Council and Bellway Homes Ltd
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.