Planning appeal decision
The Roses Epping Road, Roydon, HARLOW, CM19 5DD
the demolition of all buildings, replacement of car body repair yard, scrap yard, car dealership, haulage company, electrical repair company and 1no. dwelling and the erection of 10no. dwellings
- Authority
- Epping Forest District Council
- Appeal type
- major · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Major dwellings
- Inspector
- Sylvester G
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, in particular whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area
- Whether the appeal site is grey belt land and whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to any relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework, and its effect on Green Belt openness
- The effect of the proposed development on the safety of highway users
- Whether the proposed development would be in an appropriate location for the appeal scheme with particular regard to access to services and facilities
- Whether satisfactory living conditions would be provided for the future occupants of proposed plots 1, 2, 3 and 10 with particular regard to the size and quality of gardens
- The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of the nearby property referred to as 'Allengale' with particular regard to outlook and privacy
What decided it
The harm to the significance of the conservation area as a designated heritage asset, which is a matter of considerable importance and great weight, and the development's failure to be well-designed, together with the substantial harm to Green Belt openness and inappropriateness, were determinative in refusing the appeal.
The substantial cumulative public benefits of housing delivery, economic benefits, biodiversity enhancement and reduced vehicle emissions did not outweigh the harm to the conservation area (a matter of considerable importance and great weight) and the substantial harm to the Green Belt by inappropriateness and loss of openness; the tilted balance did not apply due to the strong reason for refusal provided by heritage protection.
Framework references: 11, 110, 115, 116, 131, 135, 139, 153, 154, 207
Plan policies cited: Policy SP1, Policy SP2, Policy SP6, Policy DM3, Policy DM4, Policy DM7, Policy DM9, Policy DM10, Policy T1
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.
®