®Planning appeal decision
Land East of Highwood Quarry, Park Road, Little Easton, CM6 2JH
Planning appeal 3289775 at Land East of Highwood Quarry, Park Road, Little Easton, CM6 2JH (Uttlesford District Council) was allowed on 21 December 2022 by Inspector Catchpole R, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Heritage.
for between 1,000 and 1,200 dwellings (Use Class C3); up to 21,500 sq m gross of additional development for Use Classes: C2 (residential institutions care/nursing home); E(a-f & g(i)) (retail, indoor recreation, health services and offices); F1(a) (Education); F2(a-c) (local community uses); car parking; energy centre; and for the laying out of the buildings, routes, open spaces and public realm and landscaping within the development; and all associated works and operations including but not limited to: demolition; earthworks; and engineering operations. All development, works and operations to be in accordance with the Development Parameters Schedule and Plans
- Authority
- Uttlesford District Council
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Major dwellings
- Inspector
- Catchpole R
- Postcode
- CM6 2JL
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Heritage
- Landscape
- Highways and sustainable transport
- Other matters
- Housing land supply
What decided it
The absence of a five-year housing land supply triggered the paragraph 11(d) tilted balance, and the significant and great weight given to market and affordable housing delivery outweighed the identified moderate and limited harms.
The benefits of housing delivery (significant weight), affordable housing (great weight), and other moderate-weight benefits outweighed the moderate landscape, heritage and transport harms, such that adverse impacts did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- ENV1ENV2S7GEN1GEN1(c)GEN1(e)GEN6GEN7ENV7ENV10H9LSC1NE1NE2DM1DM10DM11DM14DM15DM17
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 11Paragraph 48Paragraph 56Paragraph 57Paragraph 60Paragraph 105Paragraph 110Paragraph 111Paragraph 112Paragraph 130Paragraph 152Paragraph 174Paragraph 195Paragraph 196Paragraph 200Paragraph 202Paragraph 203
- Judgments
- City & Country Bramshill Limited v SSCLG [2021] EWCA Civ 320; Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd. v SoS for the Environment and Another [1982] 43 P. & C.R. 233
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision
More decisions in Uttlesford District Council
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2022
- Dismissed28 September 20266008762Land North West Of Holly Tree Cottage, Howlett End Thaxted Road, Wimbish, CB10 2XW
- Allowed16 September 20266010164Verge At Chelmsford Road Dunmow, Dunmow, CM6 1LL
- Dismissed24 August 20266005461Chelmer House, Braintree Road, Great Dunmow, CM6 1HT
- Dismissed12 August 20266006816Smockmill House, Whiteways, Great Chesterford, CB10 1NX
- Dismissed27 May 20266002753Kings Cottage, Starlings Green Road, Clavering, Essex, CB11 4PP
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.