Case Reference: 3296426

Appeal Decision
Inquiry held on 6 -13 September 2022
Site visit made on 9 September 2022
by C Masters MA (Hons) FRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 5 October 2022
Appeal Ref: APP/C1570/W/22/3296426
Land South of (East of Griffin Place) Radwinter Road, Sewards End,
Saffron Walden, CB10 2LB
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of
Uttlesford District Council
• The application ref UTT/21/2509/OP dated 3 August 2021 was refused by
notice dated 18 March 2022.
• The development proposed is outline application for the erection of up to 233
residential dwellings including affordable housing, with public open space,
landscaping, sustainable drainage system (SuDS) and associated works, with
vehicular access point from Radwinter Road. All matters reserved except for
means of access
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the outline
application for the erection of up to 233 residential dwellings including
affordable housing, with public open space, landscaping, sustainable drainage
system (SuDS) and associated works, with vehicular access point from
Radwinter Road. All matters reserved except for means of access at Land South
of (East of Griffin Place) Radwinter Road, Saffron Walden, CB10 2LB in
accordance with the terms of the application, Ref UTT/21/2509/OP, dated 3
August 2021, subject to the conditions contained in the attached schedule.
Applications for costs
2. At the inquiry an application for costs was made by Rosconn Strategic Land
against the Rule 6 Party. A counter costs application was made by the Rule 6
party for responding to the costs claim. These applications are the subject of a
separate decision.
Preliminary Matters
3. Saffron Walden Town Council and Sewards End Parish Council were
represented as a Rule 6 party and took part in the inquiry.
4. The appellant sought to introduce two additional plans to the inquiry. These
plans are 2206-01- TS-01REVB traffic signal design and 20-1142-SK16
proposed western pedestrian/cycle link. Consultation was undertaken in
relation to these plans on 1 August 2022 and the Council did not object to
these plans being submitted. In light of this, I do not consider that any
persons would be prejudiced or disadvantaged by my consideration of these
plans and have considered the appeal on this basis.
5. On 25 July 2022, the Council confirmed by letter that it no longer contested the
appeal.
6. Two Statements of Common Ground were submitted which covered planning
matters (Uttlesford District Council and the Appellant) and Highways matters
(Essex County Council and the Appellant). I have had regard to the
development plan policies referred to within these documents in reaching my
decision below.
7. The appellant submitted an unsigned Section 106 Agreement (s106) to the
inquiry. This was discussed at a round table session, and I allowed a short
amount of time after the inquiry for the document to be signed. The signed
version was received on 23 September 2022. The agreement made includes a
number of obligations and provisions for payments to be made to both the
Council and County Council and I will return to this matter below.
8. On the 15 September 2022, the referendum took place in connection with the
Saffron Walden Neighbourhood Plan and the result was in favour of the
Neighbourhood Plan. The parties were provided the opportunity to comment
on this in writing. I have taken into account those comments received in
reaching my decision below.
9. There is no dispute that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year
supply of housing. It was agreed between the main parties that the Council
currently have 3.52 years of supply.
Main Issues
10. Having regard to the above, the main issues in this appeal are:
• Whether the proposal adequately provides for sustainable transport measures
including pedestrian and cycle movements.
• Whether the proposal makes adequate provision for any additional need for
local services, amenities and infrastructure arising from the development.
Reasons
Whether the proposal adequately provides for sustainable transport measures
including pedestrian and cycle movements
11. The appeal site is located on the edge of Saffron Walden. Saffron Walden is one
of the three main centres within the district and provides for a broad range of
facilities and services reflective of the size of the settlement. In light of this, it
is important that opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport
use from the appeal site to Saffron Walden are identified and pursued in
accordance with paragraphs 104 and of the Framework.
12. Radwinter Road provides a generally flat level walk to the town centre and I
was able to see that the route was well used by pedestrians and cyclists alike
during my site visits. I note that the route was particularly well used by school
children from the existing Linden Homes site to access schools within the town.
Table 3.1 of the transport statement of common ground outlines the range of
facilities and services accessible from the appeal site and the indicative walk
and cycling times along Radwinter Road. It is clear to me that key facilities
such as convenience shopping (Tesco superstore) hospital, schools, gym and
leisure and fitness facilities are located within Saffron Walden and would be
readily accessible from the appeal site on both foot and by cycle. Contrary to
the views expressed by the Rule 6 party, the depth and variety of facilities
within Saffron Walden means it is unlikely that future residents would be
heading towards Sewards End due to the very limited facilities on offer there.
In my view, the appeal site represents a sustainable location in this regard.
13. The appeal site would be served by one single vehicular access from Radwinter
Road. In order to ensure pedestrian connectivity is maximised, the proposal
includes for a new 2m wide footway on the south side of Radwinter Road
connecting to the footway adjoining the Linden Homes site. There would also
be a shared footpath/cyclepath at 3m in width to the western boundary of the
site so as to provide a potential connection to the adjoining housing scheme.
The connection to the adjoining housing development would require the
footpath to be extended across third party land. In terms of the pedestrian
and cycle linkages, the proposal adequately provides for pedestrian and cycle
movements.
14. The access and movement parameters plan, which provides an indication as to
how the site could be designed at the reserved matters stage, illustrates how
this access road would serve the appeal site. In terms of pedestrian and cycle
movements across the site, the Council will have the opportunity to input into
the detailed design of the scheme at reserved matters stage. The access and
movement parameters plan provides a useful indication as to how pedestrian
and cycle opportunities could be maximised across the site, ensuring that easy
access to the public open space is achieved.
15. In terms of public transport offer, the proposal includes for a bus turning area
within the site as well as two new bus stops on Radwinter Road to the east of
the appeal site. These stops would include a shelter and real time passenger
information and would be DDA compliant. A pedestrian crossing would be
provided between the two stops which would include relocating the pedestrian
splitter island on Radwinter Road crossing the Tesco site access. The footway
on the northern side of Radwinter Road would be widened to 2m width between
the new crossing and the bus stop. This new crossing would deliver benefits to
both future occupiers of the appeal site as well as the wider population in this
location. The proposal also includes for a number of other sustainable
transport measures which I address in further detail in relation to the legal
agreement. Opportunities to provide for sustainable transport measures have
therefore been adequately addressed.
16. To conclude, I therefore find that the proposal would provide adequate
sustainable transport measures including pedestrian and cycle movements. It
would therefore accord with policy GEN1 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (ULP)
2005. This policy advises, amongst other things, that the design of
development must take into account the needs of cyclists, pedestrians and
public transport users. This policy is broadly consistent with the overall
objectives of the Framework.
Whether the proposal makes adequate provision for any additional need for local
services, amenities and infrastructure arising from the development
17. The appellant has entered into a completed s106 to secure a number of
planning obligations which have been identified by both Uttlesford District
Council and Essex County Council. The obligations are supported by CIL
compliance statements which explain how each obligation accords with
Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.
18. The completed s106 planning obligation secures the following:
• 40% affordable housing;
• Public open space provision on site including provision for its ongoing
maintenance;
• Contributions towards health care provision, primary and early years education
provision, library provision and bus service provision;
• A number of sustainable transport measures including a contribution towards
the provision of bus services, provision of sustainable travel vouchers, the
implementation of a travel plan (including monitoring fee), contribution
towards a car club, provision of publicly accessible car club parking spaces with
electric vehicle charging points and on plot parking to be provided with electric
vehicle charging points;
• Highways works (Radwinter Road/Tesco access works, pedestrian/cycle link
extension and on site pedestrian/cycleway);
• 5% custom build housing;
• Monitoring fee.
19. Schedule 4, Part 4 of the completed agreement contains a clause to safeguard
land for a potential future relief road through the site which would connect
Radwinter Road to Thaxted Road. I understand that this road does not form
part of any adopted or emerging plan which is publicly available. The Council
were neutral on the matter. Essex County Council advised that the
safeguarding of the road would deliver ‘strategic planning benefits’. Be that as
it may, the correct place for such proposals to be assessed is the development
plan. As such, the safeguarding of land for a relief road is not necessary to
make the development acceptable. The obligation therefore fails the tests set
out and I do not therefore consider it would be lawful to take it into account.
20. The western pedestrian/cycle link is covered at Schedule 4, Part 3. Here, the
wording of the Agreement places the owners under an obligation to use all
(but not commercial imprudent) endeavours to secure this link within 12
months of the start of the development. Given the circumstances and as the
full link would require third party land, I concur with the views expressed by
the Council that this represents a proportionate and pragmatic approach. As
such, the western pedestrian/cycle link would accord with the CIL Regulations.
21. Although a number of local residents have expressed concerns regarding the
capacity of the secondary schools to accommodate additional students, the
consultation response from Essex County Council confirms that no contribution
towards secondary education is necessary to mitigate the impact of the
proposal on local secondary school provision.
22. The Council have produced CIL compliance statements which set out the
detailed justification for each of the obligations listed. Save for the
safeguarding of land for a potential future relief road which I have addressed
above, there is no dispute between the Council and the appellant that the
obligations contained within the agreement are necessary and would otherwise
meet the tests contained at Regulation 122. I have also carefully considered
the individual drafting points made by the Rule 6 party and discussed in detail
at the round table session. However, in light of the need to mitigate the
impact of the development, as well as the Council’s own policies, I conclude the
obligations are necessary have taken the obligations into account.
23. I therefore conclude on the second main issue that the proposal would make
adequate provision for any additional need for local services, amenities and
infrastructure arising from the development. The proposal would therefore
accord with policy GEN6 of the ULP which advises, amongst other things, that
development will not be permitted unless it makes provision for infrastructure
necessary to support the proposed development. This policy is generally
consistent with the Framework.
Other Matters
Heritage
24. The Rule 6 party allege harm to heritage assets as follow:
• the setting of both Pounce Hall and St Mary’s Church
• the Saffron Walden Conservation Area
• the setting of Nos 10-12,14,16, 17,19 and 21 High Street
25. I deal with each of these assets in turn. I have had special regard to the
desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of
special architectural or historic interest that it possesses in accordance with
sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990.
Pounce Hall
26. This is a detached grade II listed dwelling located off the north side of
Radwinter Road. It is situated along with other isolated dwellings on a private
road accessed from Radwinter Road. The significance of the asset is in my
view very much related to its built form and fabric. From what I saw on my
site visit, the extent of the setting which contributes to its significance is
limited to both the enclosed well established garden which in some parts is on
a lower level and wraps around the side and rear of the property as well as the
clear vista to the west which provides extensive uninterrupted views directly
towards Saffron Walden. This is supported by the historical maps which show
the garden area to the front of the building laid out with a central path facing
towards the meadow and the property is clearly positioned to take account of
the meadow. Taking into account these factors, I do not agree that the hedges
on Radwinter Road make any contribution to the heritage significance of the
asset concerned.
27. To inform this analysis, I was able to visit both the interior and exterior of the
property during the site visit. From both the first and second floors of the
windows facing east, there are glimpsed views through the tops of the trees
and existing dense vegetation across to limited parts of the appeal site.
However, these glimpsed views from some of the upper floor windows to
limited parts of the appeal site do not make any contribution to the historical
significance of the dwelling or its setting which I have clearly identified above.
They do not in my view contribute to the setting of the heritage asset which is
clearly focused towards the meadow and Saffron Walden .
28. I was also able to experience the view across towards Pounce Hall from the
appeal site. It is not possible to view the heritage asset due to a number of
factors including the distance, topography and significant dense vegetation in
place.
29. The appeal proposal would not result in any change to the built form or fabric
of the building. It would also not change the relationship between the
residential garden or the contribution the longer range views back towards
Saffron Walden make towards the assets significance. These are the factors
which provide the most significant contribution to the significance of the
heritage asset concerned.
30. I conclude that the proposal would not result in any harm to the setting or
significance of the heritage asset concerned. As such, s.66(1) of the Planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is not engaged, and there
would be no conflict with policy ENV2 of the ULP which relates to development
effecting listed buildings.
St Mary’s Church
31. The Church is a grade I property and is a central, dominant feature within
Saffron Walden town centre. It sits on an elevated position within the town
centre and has a tall spire which is visible from a number of vantage points
across the appeal site and across the wider town and beyond.
32. The significance of the asset is in my view related to its high level of
architectural design and detailing and prominent position within Saffron Walden
town centre. There are no designated views between the appeal site and St
Mary’s Church and it was agreed between the parties that the appeal site is not
visible from the Church. This is due in part to the built-up nature of the town
centre, the central location where the Church is located as well as the distance
between the two. Views of the Church from parts of the appeal site are noted,
however these views are more distant and include significant areas of more
recent development that has taken place such as the Linden Homes scheme.
In any event the presence of these views do not equate to heritage harm.
They do not in my view contribute to the significance of the heritage asset
which I have clearly identified above.
33. The appeal proposal would not result in any change to the built form or fabric
of the building. Taking into account the intervening buildings and separation
distances involved, the development would not cause harm to the significance
of St Mary’s Church or the appreciation of the significance of the heritage
asset. It would also not change the dominant relationship that the Church has
on the centre of Saffron Walden. These are the factors which provide the most
significant contribution to the significance of the heritage asset concerned.
34. In reaching this view, I have had regard to the appeal decision referred to at
Stowmarket1. However, in the case of that appeal, the Inspector was clear
that the significance of the heritage asset was related to the physical isolation
of the Church. This is not the case here.
35. I conclude that the proposal would not result in any harm to the setting or
significance of the heritage asset concerned. As such, s.66(1) of the Planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is not engaged, and there
would be no conflict with policy ENV2 of the ULP which relates to developments
effecting listed buildings.
Saffron Walden Conservation Area
36. My attention has been drawn to the Saffron Walden Conservation Area
Appraisal and Management Proposals document, 2018. This document notes
that the Conservation Area as a whole is dominated by the St Mary’s Church
which is located on a strategically elevated position. It divides the
Conservation Area into 6 different character areas. There is no ‘grading’ as
such to these character areas and nothing to substantiate the claim that the
High Street/Church Street junction presents the most important part of the
Conservation Area. The document notes that one of the key environmental
qualities is the varied historic roofscape as well as high quality open spaces.
From what I saw on my site visit, the significance of the Conservation Area is in
my view mainly derived from the quality and variety of historic buildings, the
use of local vernacular materials, roofspaces and detailing.
37. The Rule 6 party allege harm to a number of different areas of the
Conservation Area and I deal with each of these in turn.
38. The Common (Castle Green) part of the Conservation Area is characterised by
the central open space enclosed with tree planting and residential properties
surrounding it. The appeal site is located some distance from this part of the
Conservation Area and from what I saw on my site visit, I am not convinced
that it would be in anyway visible from this location. The minimal views of the
rooftops of the Linden Homes scheme do not in my view detract from this part
of the Conservation Area. Taking into account the separation distances
involved, the proposal would not result in any harm to the features which
contribute to the significance of this part of the Conservation Area.
39. In relation to the capacity improvement highways works to Radwinter
Road/Thaxted Road/East Street/Chaters Hill, there would be no loss of trees in
this location however a small area of grassed land would be effected by the
highways works. The highways works would only involve changes within the
highway land, which would include a filter lane being added. These works are
limited in nature and would have a very localised effect on the highway in
character and appearance terms. In my view the works would deliver benefits
to the Conservation Area as a whole in terms of assisting the free flow of traffic
in this location and the wider town centre. There is no evidence to support the
assertion that there would be conflict with the bridge structure itself or road
signage. The proposal would not result in any harm to the features which
contribute to the significance of this part of the Conservation Area.
1 APP/W3520/W/18/3214324
40. The Rule 6 party also allege harm to the Conservation Area as a result of the
off site highways works at High Street/Church Street. As works to the
highway, the traffic lights at the High Street/Church Street junction would
result in a very limited change to the Conservation Area. They would introduce
a modern feature at this busy junction as well as including the widening of the
footways on Church Street. There is existing street apparatus in the vicinity
such as highways signage, road markings and traffic lights further along the
High Street at the junction with George Street. Given the town centre location,
as one would expect there are also modern shopfronts, signage and lighting
associated with the commercial nature of the centre. Traffic lights and signage
are to my mind relatively understated features when set in the context of the
Conservation Area and town centre location as a whole. As a widely used
traffic management tool, I am satisfied that the final design of the traffic lights
which would be subject to the Council’s control through an appropriately
worded condition could be such that the proposal would preserve the character
and appearance of the Conservation Area. There is also some merit in the
suggestion that assisting the free flow of traffic in this location would deliver
wider benefits in terms of the appreciation of the Conservation Area as a
whole. Similarly, the opportunity to rationalise the existing highways signage
and painted road markings could also deliver benefits to the appearance of this
part of the Conservation Area.
41. I conclude that the proposal would not result in any harm to the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area. As such, s.66(1) of the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is not engaged, and there would
be no conflict with policy ENV1 of the ULP which relates to developments
effecting Conservation Areas.
The Setting of Nos 10-12,14,16, 17,19 and 21 High Street
42. Turning to consider the individual heritage assets, I have also had due regard
to the effect of the offsite highways works at the High Street/Church Street
junction on numbers 10-12,14,16,17,19 and 21 High Street which are all grade
II properties save for No 21 which is grade II*.
43. I acknowledge that the individual buildings all have their own particular
features of interest and significance. However, in so far as relating to this
appeal, there is a common significance associated with the individual buildings
built form and fabric which is derived from their historic interest as town centre
buildings. The Framework defines setting as the surroundings in which a
heritage asset is experienced. Given the modern character of the busy High
Street, little of the significance of these listed buildings is derived from their
setting.
44. The off site highways works would require a change from the existing five posts
with signage at the junction to eight posts with signage and lighting. The
appellant has highlighted that there maybe scope to reuse two of the existing
posts and I have no reason to disagree. In any event, the installation of a
modest set of traffic lights at this busy road junction is unlikely to obscure key
features of the individual buildings concerned or adversely impact the historic
frontages. Indeed, the Council would retain control over the precise size, siting
and final design of the lights and control box through a suitably worded
condition. I have no reason to doubt the evidence presented that heritage
advisors have been party to the design to date along with Essex County Council
traffic signal team. I am not persuaded that the siting of the traffic lights
would detract from the setting of the listed buildings or provide a feature which
would visually compete with any feature of significance in connection with the
heritage assets concerned.
45. Concerns have also been expressed regarding the impact of the traffic lights on
the cellars at 10-12 and 14, 16 and 19-21 High Street. The proposal is
supported by a topographical survey as well as a ground penetrating radar
survey. A detailed structural survey submitted with the appeal illustrates the
extent of these cellars. I am satisfied that on the basis of this evidence, no
part of the proposed highways works would harm the fabric of the heritage
assets concerned.
46. I conclude that the proposal would not result in any harm to the setting or
significance of the heritage asset concerned. As such, s.66(1) of the Planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is not engaged, and there
would be no conflict with policy ENV2 of the ULP which relates to developments
effecting listed buildings.
Heritage - overall conclusion
47. I conclude that the proposal would not result in any harm to the setting or
significance of the heritage assets concerned. The proposal would also not
result in any harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area
As such, s.66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act
1990 is not engaged. There would be no conflict with policy ENV1 or ENV2 of
the ULP which relates to developments effecting Conservation Areas and listed
buildings respectfully. There would also be no conflict with policy SW3 of the
Saffron Walden Neighbourhood Plan which is a general design policy.
Landscape and Visual Impact
48. The appeal site is located next to the built up edge of Saffron Walden. There
are no national or local landscape designations within the site. The proposal
would result in this built up edge expanding into the existing countryside. It
was readily accepted by all parties that in order to meet housing needs,
development will have to take place beyond existing settlement boundaries and
on greenfield sites. Nevertheless, the construction of residential dwellings and
associated necessary infrastructure will have a permanent and significant effect
on the existing landscape character of the site.
49. The proposal was supported by a landscape and visual impact assessment
(LVIA) as part of the Environmental Statement. This document explains clearly
the methodology used to complete the assessment, including how both
landscape and visual effects were assessed. It goes onto identified a number
of viewpoints from which the impact of the proposal has been assessed. It
concludes that the construction stage of the development would have a
moderate-major effect, reducing to moderate and minor after 15 years. I
concur that this LVIA and the conclusions reached provides a robust
assessment of the landscape impact of the proposal. I also note that the LUC
Landscape Sensitivity Assessment commissioned by the Council in 2021
identifies the appeal site as being located in an area surrounding Saffron
Walden with the least sensitivity in this regard.
50. In terms of the immediate environment, the site benefits from existing trees
and hedgerows around the site which are dense in places and this is
particularly so on the eastern boundary towards Sewards End. The removal of
some of the hedgerow to Radwinter Road would be necessary to ensure the
required visibility splays can be achieved. There would be no removal of the
veteran tree. Replacement hedgerow planting would follow the alignment of
the visibility splays and given this would have a very localised impact, I do not
consider that this would be unduly harmful in landscape impact terms. Across
the remainder of the site, hedgerows and trees would be retained as part of the
proposal, thereby softening the impact of the proposed development. To add
to this, additional landscaping would be secured through an appropriate
landscape strategy at reserved matters stage. There would be the opportunity
to enhance the landscape character of the site through this scheme.
51. Importantly, the green infrastructure plan indicates how 55% of the site area
would be dedicated to landscape and green infrastructure. This is a significant
amount of the overall site area which would include green corridors and public
open space. Taking into account the topography of the site and the gradual
rising slope to the south/southeast, the potential for a new public park on this
higher ground is illustrated through the green infrastructure plan which would
also facilitate the creation of a new public vantage point within the site. This
would afford the opportunity to maximise views back towards Saffron Walden
as part of the detailed design stage.
52. In terms of visual impacts, assertions are made regarding the design of the
final scheme however this is an outline scheme only with all matters reserved
save for the access. Through the reserved matters submission, the Council
would have the opportunity to secure a high-quality layout and design within
the parameters of the strong landscape framework identified through the green
infrastructure plan. These concerns are therefore without substance.
53. Turning to the issue of coalescence, concerns were expressed that the proposal
is of such a scale that it would result in the coalescence of Sewards End with
Saffron Walden. I disagree. Sewards End is a small and compact settlement
with approximately 190 houses. In qualitative terms, on leaving the village
heading towards Saffron Walden, Radwinter Road is characterised by dense
vegetation on both sides. This is more pronounced on foot given the local
topography and denser vegetation along the footpath edge. There is a clear
sense of leaving the village and travelling along Radwinter Road before coming
to the Linden Homes scheme and the built up edge of Saffron Walden. There
can be no doubt that the appeal proposal will bring this builtup edge closer to
Sewards End. However, the remaining fields and dense vegetation either side
of Radwinter Road will mean that the settlements will remain separate, and the
identity and spatial setting of Sewards End will not be adversely effected. In
quantitative terms, the separation distances would be between 251m-476m.
This quantitative separation supports the views I have expressed above that
the proposal would not result in coalescence.
54. To conclude, the proposal would result in some harm to the landscape in terms
of the visual impact of built development and the associated necessary
infrastructure. However, in my view the landscape value of the existing site is
low. The retention of a significant amount of the existing landscaping, the
opportunity to enhance this through the green infrastructure plan, additional
planting and subsequent reserved matters submissions along with the scope to
provide extensive publicly accessible open space would deliver benefits which
would go someway towards mitigating this harm.
55. My attention has been drawn to policy S7 of the ULP in relation to this issue.
Policy S7 designates all land within the district and outside of the settlements,
site boundaries and beyond the green belt as countryside. It states that the
countryside will be protected for its own sake and advises that there will be a
strict control on new development within the countryside. This approach
presents a more restrictive approach than the more flexible and balanced
approach of the Framework, which supports well designed new buildings to
support sustainable growth whilst recognising the importance of the natural
environment. Nevertheless, I agree with the analysis provided by the
Inspector at Bran End2, namely that the approach outlined within policy S7
does not fundamentally undermine the continued relevance of the policy
approach and that the policy is therefore partially consistent with the
Framework. I acknowledge that there is conflict with this policy. I shall return
to the matter of weight to be attached to this policy conflict in my planning
balance section below.
56. I have also had regard to policy GEN2 of the ULP concerning design. As this is
an outline scheme, only limited parts of the policy are applicable to the appeal
proposal. However, I am content that the proposal would accord with part (b)
in that it safeguards important features in its setting, enabling their retention
and helping to reduce the visual impact of new buildings and structures where
appropriate. There is therefore no conflict with this policy.
Highways
57. Paragraph 111 of the Framework advises that development should only be
prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable
impact on highways safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road
network would be severe. In the case of this appeal, the site access will be
provided through a new priority junction with ghost island right turning lane on
Radwinter Road. It is agreed between the appellant, Council and Essex County
Council as highways authority that the access as proposed would provide a
suitably safe access to service the number of dwellings proposed.
58. In terms of the effect on the wider public highway network, improvements
have been identified at three off site junctions – Radwinter Road/Thaxted
Road/East Street/Chaters Hill (existing junction improvements), Thaxted
Road/Peasland Road (signalisation of junction) and High Street/Church Street
(signalisation of junction). It is also accepted that the delivery of these off-site
works has been adequately demonstrated, and that the measures will not only
address the impact of the appeal proposal but will also address existing
capacity issues and therefore deliver broader highways benefits. I note that
concerns have been raised regarding existing parking and delivery activity on
both the High Street and Church Street however this is reflective of an existing
situation and is not related to the appeal proposal.
59. The scope of these highways assessments has been agreed with Essex County
Council as highways authority and is supported by detailed junction capacity
analysis work and traffic surveys. As a result of this technical analysis, I can
see no reason to reach a different view that the proposal will provide a safe
2 APP/C1570/W/3263440
and suitable access and will have an acceptable impact on the wider highway
network.
60. To conclude, the proposal would accord with policy GEN1 of the ULP. This
policy advises, amongst other things, that the access to the main road network
must be capable of carrying the traffic generated by the development safely,
and the traffic generated by the development can be accommodated on the
surrounding transport network. I have already set out above that in my view
this policy is broadly consistent with the overall objectives of the Framework.
In addition, some of the off site highways works are located within the area
defined as the Saffron Walden Neighbourhood Plan area. I have had regard to
this document in reaching my conclusions above. In particular, I note that the
proposal would accord with policy SW15 concerning vehicular transport.
Loss of Agricultural Land
61. I note the proposal would result in the loss of high quality agricultural land and
concerns have been raised regarding the viability of the remaining agricultural
land. The Council acknowledges that most of the agricultural land within the
district is classified as the best and most versatile. The Council also accepts
that it is inevitable that future development will probably have to use such land
as the supply of brownfield land within the district is restricted. I can see no
reason to disagree with this view. The appellant has confirmed that access to
the remaining agricultural land outside of the appeal site would remain. I have
no technical evidence to support the assertion that the viability of this land
would be adversely affected.
62. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the proposal would be in conflict with policy
ENV5 of the ULP which states that development of the best and most versatile
land will only be permitted where opportunities have been assessed for
accommodating development on previously developed sites or within existing
development limits. This policy is broadly consistent with the Framework
however the emphasis on an assessment of alternative sites is plainly not
consistent with the Framework. I will return to the matter of weight to be
attached to this conflict in my planning balance below.
Other Matters – general
63. I acknowledge the concerns expressed in relation to issues concerning ecology
and biodiversity, noise, air quality, flooding, archaeology, buffer zones and
safety. The ES has provided a comprehensive assessment of the impact of the
proposed development and where necessary, additional supporting statements
have also been provided. I note that there are no objections from the Council
in relation to these matters and I have no evidence before me which would
lead me to reach a different conclusion in relation to these matters. Where
appropriate, suitably worded conditions have been included to address any
impact of the appeal proposal in relation to these other matters identified.
64. The Rule 6 party allege there would be conflict with policy S1 of the ULP.
However this policy defines the development limits for the main urban areas
and sets out what development will be permitted within these boundaries. The
appeal site is not within this defined area. I share the views of the Council in
this regard in that it is not a development plan policy which is directly relevant
to the main issues before me.
65. I also acknowledge that the site is located within the Parish of Sewards End.
Be that as it may, this does not lead me to reach a different conclusion on the
main issues I have identified above.
Other appeal decisions
66. I have been referred to several previous appeal decisions by the Rule 6 party
as well as several other appeal decisions provided by the appellant. I have
taken these decisions into account in reaching my conclusions above. In
particular, a number of the cases referred to present a different set of
circumstances. The Coggleshall3 case proposes a different number of units and
was located in an area where a number of public footpaths traversed the site
and the Inspector placed weight on the recreational value of the site. For the
reasons I have set out within my decision, I do not share this view. In the
context of the case at Stowmarket4 the site was located within an area of high
scenic quality, forming an important landscape setting to Stowmarket and was
visually significant. For the reasons I have set out above, I do not share those
views in relation to this appeal. In the case of the Steeple Bumpstead appeal5,
the appeal site appears to be within a sensitive location close to the
Conservation Area and was deemed to have a high landscape value. For the
reasons set out above, I have reached a different view in relation to this
appeal.
67. Turning to consider the Bures Hamlet decision6, there were long views of the
appeal site from the Conservation Area across the site and the Inspector took
the view here that the proposed development would be very visible from the
Conservation Area and the appeal site was also close to the Dedham Vale Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This is not the case with this appeal. In
relation to the Bran End decision7, I have drawn similarities in relation to the
consistency of policies with the Framework in relation to this appeal. However,
in terms of the landscape assessment, the appeal site was located within a
visually prominent location including views from a number of public rights of
way and was deemed to have a high sensitivity to change. This is not the case
here. This appeal can therefore be distinguished from all of the others referred
to.
Benefits
68. Turning to consider the benefits of the proposal, there is a general imperative
to boost the supply of housing land. The delivery of dwellings in an authority
which does not have a 5 year supply of housing sites attracts substantial
weight. In addition, the proposal would provide 40% affordable housing as
well as 5% custom build housing. The delivery of affordable housing would
accord with the objectives of policy H9 of the UDLP. Based on the evidence I
heard in relation to this matter, in a district where there is a clear need for
such provision to be made, these factors also attract substantial weight.
69. The proposal would deliver a number of other benefits. These include
improvements to the off site highway junction improvements which will deliver
benefits beyond the mitigation necessary to make the development acceptable.
3 APP/Z1510/W/16/3160474
4 APP/W3520/W/18/3214324
5 APP/Z1510/W/17/3173352
6 APP/Z1510/W/18/3207509
7 APP/C1570/W/20/3263440
A number of sustainable transport measures including the contribution towards
the provision of bus services and bus stops as well as the provision of publicly
accessible car club parking spaces with electric vehicle charging points are also
benefits which go beyond mitigation. I attach moderate weight to both of
these factors. In terms of biodiversity, the appellant has committed to
achieving a minimum metric of at least 10% biodiversity net gain. This is
consistent with paragraph 179b of the Framework and I attach moderate
weight to this factor in terms of the planning balance.
70. In economic terms, the proposal will also deliver jobs benefits, albeit
temporarily in terms of the construction phase of the development. There
would also be economic benefits in the context of the spending generated by
future occupants and I attach moderate weight to this. The proposal would
also deliver a significant amount of publicly accessible open space. However, I
am also mindful that the proposal would also result in the loss of fields where
there is currently no development resulting in some limited landscape harm.
Taking into account the size, scale and accessibility of the open space to be
created as part of this scheme, in the circumstances of this appeal, I am
attaching moderate weight to this.
Whether the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole
71. The parties agree that there is no five-year land supply in Uttlesford. Accepting
that the agreed housing land supply position is 3.52 years, this shortfall is to
my mind very significant. Paragraph 11 (d) of the Framework and the
associated footnote 8 is engaged and the lack of a 5 year supply of housing
sites means that the policies most important for determining this appeal are
deemed to be out of date.
72. The proposal would result in some harm in terms of landscape and visual
impact. The proposal would also result in the loss of agricultural land. As such,
the proposal would conflict with policies S7 and ENV5 of the ULP.
73. In terms of policy ENV5, this policy is only partly consistent with the
Framework and the requirement to undertake in effect a sequential approach is
not consistent with the Framework. I am therefore attaching only limited
weight to the policy conflict.
74. In relation to policy S7, I have set out above that the general objective of the
policy accords with the Framework. However, I recognise that the detailed
wording which requires the countryside to be protected for its own sake is
inconsistent with the Framework. It is my view that only limited weight should
be attached to this policy conflict.
75. As a result, it is my view that on the basis of the conflict with the policies
outlined above, the proposed development would conflict with the development
plan when taken as a whole.
Planning Balance
76. It is common ground that the tilted balance identified within the Framework
and as set out above has been engaged. In the case of this appeal, this means
granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against
the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.
77. The proposal would conflict with policies S7 and ENV5 of the ULP. In relation to
policy S7, it is my view that limited weight should be attached to this policy
conflict. I also attach limited weight to the policy conflict with policy ENV5.
78. The benefits arising from the proposed development would be substantial. I
have concluded that the benefits of housing delivery, affordable housing and
custom build housing should all individually carry substantial weight. I have
also attributed moderate weight to the wider off site highways benefits that the
scheme would deliver beyond mitigation measures. I have also attributed
moderate weight to the sustainable transport measures which would also
deliver benefits to the wider population and not just future residents of the
scheme. I have attributed moderate weight to the economic benefits in terms
of employment generation, as well as moderate weight to the biodiversity net
gain the proposal would secure. Finally, I have attributed moderate weight to
the delivery of a significant amount of publicly accessible open space provision
at the site.
79. I have identified no adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the Framework
taken as a whole. In the case of this appeal, I conclude that the material
considerations of the appeal are such that they outweigh the conflict with the
development plan.
Conditions
80. The Council and the appellant provided a list of agreed conditions which they
considered would be necessary in the event that planning permission be
granted. These are set out on the attached schedule. I have amended the
wording where necessary for precision. Some of the conditions require matters
to be approved before development is commenced. The appellants have
agreed to the pre commencement conditions.
81. Conditions 1 and 2 present a standard time implementation condition and
submission of reserved matters condition. These are necessary in the interests
of certainty. For the same reason, condition 3 sets out the list of approved
plans. Condition 4 relates the submission of a phasing plan as part of the
reserved matters submission and this is necessary for effectiveness.
82. Condition 5 relates to the implementation of the tree protection measures. This
is necessary in the interest of protecting and enhancing biodiversity. Condition
6 addresses archaeology and is necessary in the interests of protecting the
archaeological potential of the site. Conditions 7 and 8 address surface water
drainage at the site, these conditions are necessary to ensure surface water
drainage is adequately addressed at the site. Condition 9 requires a ground
contamination assessment to be completed, this is in the interests of managing
risks to pollution. Conditions requiring the submission of a construction
environment management plan (condition 10) and construction management
plan (condition 11) are necessary in the interests of protecting the living
conditions of nearby residents. A landscape and ecological management plan
(condition 12) is necessary in the interests of protecting and enhancing
biodiversity.
83. Condition 13 requires details of noise mitigation measures which is in the
interests of the living conditions of the future occupiers. Conditions 14 and 15
cover the installation of any external lighting which are both necessary in the
interests of the character and appearance of the area as well as the interests of
protected species. For the same reason, condition 18 requires the submission
of a biodiversity enhancements strategy and condition 19 requires the
submission of a Farmland Bird Mitigation Strategy.
84. A number of conditions cover highways matters. Condition 21 covers all of the
off-site highways works. The wording includes reference to the possible
requirement for a traffic regulation order. This is a proportionate and justified
approach should it be necessary. The condition is necessary in the interests of
highways safety. Condition 22 requires the access road to be completed to the
satisfaction of the local planning authority and condition 23 covers the visibility
splays. Both of these conditions are necessary in the interests of highways
safety. Condition 24 covers the off site highways works including the bus stop
measures and uncontrolled crossing with drop kerb and pedestrian island. The
written evidence prepared by the Rule 6 party requested that the condition
included a reference to the footpath up to Sewards End to also be subject to
replacement and repair by the appellant. Although this request was not
pursued at the round table session, a condition requiring such works would be
neither reasonable or necessary in this instance. Condition 25 covers the
provision of sustainable transport links as part of the reserved matters
submission. This is necessary in the interests of sustainable travel.
85. Condition 26 covers the issue of renewable energy sources, this is in the
interests of energy efficiency. Condition 27 addresses the safeguarding of the
route of the CLH pipeline, this is necessary to allow for its ongoing maintenance
and access. I have also imposed the condition requiring the submission of a
travel plan (condition 20) which is necessary in the interests of sustainable
travel.
Conclusion
86. Taking all of the above matters into account and for the reasons given above I
conclude the appeal is allowed.
C Masters
INSPECTOR
Conditions
1. The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the
expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the Reserved
Matters to be approved.
2. Application(s) for approval of the Reserved Matters must be made to the
Local Planning Authority not later than the expiration of three years from the
date of this permission.
3. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the following approved plans:
• Site Location Plan – Drawing No. DE_436‐002 Rev A
• Land Use Parameters Plan – Drawing No. DE_436‐020
• Building Heights Parameters Plan – Drawing No. DE_436‐021
• Access and Movement Parameters Plan – Drawing No. DE_436‐022
• Green Infrastructure Parameters Plan ‐ Drawing No. DE_436‐023
• Proposed Means of Access – CTP‐20‐1142 Drawing No. SK01 Rev D
4. Approval of the details of the layout, scale, landscaping, appearance and
means of access (other than the means of access off Radwinter Road) (‘the
Reserved Matters’) for each phase of development must be obtained from
the Local Planning Authority in writing before the development on that phase
commences and the development in that phase must be carried out as
approved. The submission of Reserved Matters for the first phase of the
development shall be accompanied by the submission of a phasing plan that
identifies the subsequent phases of development. The development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details.
5. Prior to commencement of any building, engineering works or other activities
on the site (with the exclusion of site investigation works), the approved tree
protection measures as set out in the BJ Unwin ‘Tree Constraints, Tree
Impacts and Tree Protection Method Statement for new development’ (June
2021) and the associated Tree Retention and Protection Plan (Dwg No.
SWTRP‐JUN21) shall be put in place. The development shall be carried out
in accordance with the approved details. The approved means of protection
shall remain in place until completion of works obviates the need for
protection of trees during the construction process.
6. No development or preliminary groundworks of any kind shall take place
until a programme of archaeological investigation has been secured and
undertaken in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has
been submitted by the Applicant and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. No development or preliminary groundworks can
commence on those areas containing archaeological deposits until the
satisfactory completion of fieldwork, as detailed in the mitigation strategy.
The Applicant will submit to the Local Planning Authority a post‐excavation
assessment (to be submitted within six months of the completion of the
fieldwork unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Local Planning
Authority). This will comprise the completion of post‐excavation analysis;
the preparation of a full site archive and report ready for deposition at the
local museum.
7. No development shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage
scheme for the site, including provisions for maintenance, based on
sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and
hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The surface water
drainage shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
8. No development shall be occupied in any phase until confirmation has been
provided that either: foul water capacity exists off site to serve the
development; or a development and infrastructure phasing plan has been
agreed with the Local Authority in consultation with Anglian Water (or the
relevant water company). Where a development and infrastructure phasing
plan is agreed, no occupation shall take place other than in accordance with
the agreed development and infrastructure phasing plan, or all foul water
network upgrades required to accommodate the additional flows for the
development have been completed.
9. No development shall commence until an assessment of the risks posed by
any contamination shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. This assessment must be undertaken by a
suitably qualified contaminated land practitioner, in accordance with British
Standard BS 10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites – Code
of Practice and the Environment Agency’s Model Procedures for the
Management of Land Contamination (CLR 11) (or equivalent British Standard
or Model Procedure if replaced), and shall assess any contamination on the
site, whether or not it originates on the site. The assessment shall include:
a) A survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;
b) The potential risk to: Human health, Property (existing or proposed)
including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and
pipes, adjoining land, ground waters and surface waters, ecological systems;
and archaeological sites and ancient monuments.
No development shall take place in locations where (following the risk
assessment) land affected by contamination is found, which poses risks
identified as unacceptable in the risk assessment, until a detailed
remediation scheme shall have been submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include an appraisal of
remediation options, identification of the preferred option(s); the proposed
remediation objectives and remediation criteria, and a description and
programme of the works to be undertaken including the verification plan.
The remediation scheme shall be sufficiently detailed and thorough to ensure
that on completion the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part
IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to its intended use.
The approved remediation scheme shall be carried out (and upon completion
a verification by a suitably qualified contaminated land practitioner shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority) before
the development (or relevant phase of development) is occupied.
10. Prior to the commencement of the development a Construction
Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include the
following:
a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities
b) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working
practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided
as a set of method statements)
c) The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity
features
d) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be
present on site to oversee works
e) Responsible persons and lines of communication
f) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW)
or similarly competent person
g) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs
h) The approved CEMP shall be implemented throughout the construction
period in accordance with the approved details
i) Provision of a Soil Management Plan
The development shall only proceed strictly in accordance with the approved
details.
11. Prior to the commencement of the development, a detailed Construction
Management Plan (CMP) incorporating the measures contained within
Appendix F of the Air Quality Assessment by Kairus Ltd Ref: AQ051769
dated 12/7/2021 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority, and the plan shall include the following:
a) The construction programme and phasing
b) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities
c) Hours of operation and delivery
d) Delivery and storage of materials on the site
e) Details of any highway works necessary to enable construction to take
place
f) Contractors access arrangements for vehicles, plant and personnel
including the location of construction traffic routes to, from and within the
site, details of their signage, monitoring and enforcement measures.
g) Parking and loading arrangements
h) Details of hoarding
i) Management of traffic to reduce congestion
j) Control of dust and dirt, including on the public highway
k) Wheel and underbody washing facilities
l) Responsible persons and lines of communication
m) Details of any membership of the Considerate Contractors scheme
n) Details of consultation and complaint management with local businesses
and neighbours
o) Waste management proposals
p) Mechanisms to deal with environmental impacts such as noise and
vibration, air quality and dust, light and odour.
q) Prohibition of the burning of waste on site during construction
r) Details of any proposed piling operations, including justification for the
proposed piling strategy, a vibration impact assessment and proposed
control and mitigation measures.
s) Before and after condition survey to identify defects to highway in the
vicinity of the access to the site and the arrangements to ensure that, where
necessary, repairs are undertaken at the developer expense where damage
to the highway has been caused by the construction of the
development.
t) Mechanisms to identify and protect strategic pipes and services crossing
the site.
The approved CMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the
construction period strictly in accordance with the approved materials.
12. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Landscape and Ecological
Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The content of the LEMP shall include the
following:
a) Description and evaluation of features to be managed
b) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence
management
c) Aims and objectives of management
d) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives,
including provision for funding
e) Prescriptions for management actions
f) Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of
being rolled forward over a five year period)
g) Details of the body or organisation responsible for the implementation of
the plan
h) Ongoing monitoring and remedial measures
The approved plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
details.
13. The details of layout and appearance to be submitted in accordance with the
Reserved Matters shall include full details of the noise mitigation measures
required. The scheme shall follow the recommendations identified in the
Resound Acoustics Report Reference: RA00693 – Rep I and shall ensure that
reasonable internal and external noise environments are achieved in
accordance with the provisions of BS8233:2014 and BS4142:2014.
Dwellings shall not be occupied until such a scheme has been implemented,
in accordance with the approved details for mitigating noise at that dwelling.
The mitigation scheme shall be retained in accordance with those details
thereafter.
14. Prior to the installation of any external lighting, details of said lighting,
including the design of the lighting unit, any supporting structure and the
extent of the area to be illuminated, shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. Only the details thereby approved
shall be implemented.
15. Prior to the installation of any external lighting, a lighting scheme for
biodiversity shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The scheme shall identify those features on the site that
are particularly sensitive for bats and that are likely to cause disturbance
along important routes used for foraging; and show how and where external
lighting will be installed (through the provision of appropriate lighting
contour plans, Isolux drawings and technical specifications) so that it can be
clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent bats
using their territory. All external lighting shall be installed in accordance
with the specification and locations set out in the scheme and maintained
thereafter in accordance with the scheme. No external lighting shall be
installed without prior consent from the local planning authority.
16. Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted, a scheme
setting out the arrangements for electric vehicle charging to include at least
one electric vehicle charging point for each dwelling with on‐plot parking and
a publicly accessible car club parking space with the installation of an electric
vehicle charging point for use in connection with a future town wide car club
shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning
Authority. At least 20% of parking spaces, including the car club parking
space, should be provided with fast charging points (7 – 22kW) and the
remainder should be adaptable for electric vehicle fast charging. Thereafter
the charging points shall be installed in accordance with the approved
scheme and fully wired and connected ready to use before first occupation of
each dwelling. The charging points shall be maintained thereafter.
17. The submission of details of layout for each phase shall include a scheme for
the provision of secure covered cycle storage and arrangements for car
parking to meet the standards set out in ECC Parking Standards: Design and
Good Practice 2009. The approved provision for cycle storage and car
parking shall be made available prior to the first occupation of each dwelling
in that phase.
18. Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, a Biodiversity
Enhancement Strategy for protected and Priority species, in accordance with
the details contained in the Addendum to the
Environmental Statement Volume 1: Chapter 8 Ecology (Harris Lamb,
January 2022) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The content of the Biodiversity Enhancement
Strategy shall include the following:
a) Purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed enhancement
measures;
b) detailed designs to achieve stated objectives;
c) locations of proposed enhancement measures by appropriate maps and
plans;
d) timetable for implementation demonstrating that works and protections
are aligned with the
proposed phasing of development;
e) persons responsible for implementing the enhancement measures;
f) details of initial aftercare and long‐term maintenance (where relevant);
g) details of the appointment of a person (e.g. ecological clerk of works) to
provide ecological
expertise during construction; and
h) details of a Reptile Mitigation Strategy.
The identified enhancement measures shall be implemented in accordance
with the approved details and timetable to achieve as a minimum a metric of
at least 10% biodiversity net gain. All features shall be retained in that
manner thereafter.
19. Prior to the commencement of development, a Farmland Bird Mitigation
Strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority to compensate the loss or displacement of any Farmland Bird
territories identified as lost or displaced. This shall include provision for on‐
site mitigation measures prior to commencement.
The content of the Farmland Bird Mitigation Strategy shall include the
following:
a) Purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed compensation
measure, e.g. Skylark nest
plots;
b) detailed methodology for the compensation measures, e.g. Skylark plots
must follow Agri‐
Environment Scheme option: ‘AB4 Skylark Plots’;
c) locations of the compensation measures by appropriate maps and/or
plans;
d) persons responsible for implementing the compensation measure; and
e) a timetable for the implementation of the mitigation measures.
The Farmland Bird Mitigation Strategy shall be implemented in accordance
with the approved details and all features shall be retained for a minimum
period of 10 years.
20. Prior to first occupation of the proposed development, a residential travel
plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in
consultation with Essex County Council. The approved travel plan shall
include provision for travel packs to be provided to all residents setting out
public transport options, promoting cycling and walking routes, and a travel
plan co‐ordinator and shall then be implemented for a minimum period from
first occupation of the development until 1 year after first occupation of the
final dwelling.
21. Prior to the construction of any dwelling, a scheme shall be submitted to,
and approved by, the local planning authority in consultation with Essex
County Council which includes the following:
a) Capacity improvements for the Radwinter Road/Thaxted Road/East
Street/Chaters Hill junction
as shown in principle on Dwg No. CTP‐20‐1142 SK10 Rev A;
b) Signalisation of the Thaxted Road/Peaslands Road junction as shown in
principle on Dwg No. CTP‐ 20‐1142 SK11 Rev A;
c) Signalisation of the Church Street/High Street junction as shown in
principle on Dwg No. 2206‐01‐TS‐01 Rev B. The scheme shall include
appropriate connections with the existing signals at the High Street/George
Street junction.
The approved works shall include (but not be limited to) all necessary traffic
regulation orders, safety audits, lighting, signing and surfacing and shall be
implemented prior to first occupation of the development.
22. The access road shown on Dwg No. CTP‐20‐1142 SK01 Rev D shall be
completed to the satisfaction of the LPA in consultation with Essex County
Council as Highway Authority prior to the first occupation of the
development.
23. Prior to occupation of the development, the access of 6.75m width, one 2m
wide footway and one 3.5m wide footway cycleway – as shown in principle
on submitted Dwg No. CTP‐20‐1142‐SK01‐D – shall be provided, including
clear to ground visibility splays at the access with dimensions of 2.4 metres
by 160 metres to the west and 2.4 metres by 120 metres, as measured from
and along the nearside edge of the carriageway. The access with associated
vehicular visibility splays shall retained free of any obstruction at all times
thereafter.
24. Prior to occupation of the development, the highway works as shown in
principle on Dwg No. 20‐1142‐ SK01‐D shall be provided and include (but not
be limited to) all necessary traffic regulation orders, safety audits, lighting,
signing and surfacing and shall. The works include:
a) Two bus stops which shall comprise (but not be limited to) the following
facilities: shelters; seating; raised kerbs; bus stop markings; poles and flag
type signs, timetable casings.
b) An uncontrolled crossing with drop kerbs and pedestrian island.
c) Initiating the process to extend the 30mph speed limit east to include the
access and bus stops and if the process is successful implementing the
approved Traffic Regulation Order. Process and implementation to be
implemented at no cost to the highway authority.
d) A 2m footway from the access eastwards to the proposed bus stop and
westwards to join the existing footway on the south of Radwinter Road.
25. The details for the layout as a Reserved Matter, as required by Condition 4,
shall make provision for:
i) a bus turning facility and bus stop within the site as shown in principle in
drawing number DE‐ 463‐022; and
ii) a 3m wide pedestrian and cycle link to the western site boundary in the
position as shown in principle on Dwg No. 20‐1142 SK16. The pedestrian and
cycle use shall be made available for public use.
26. Prior to the construction of any dwelling on each phase of the development,
details for the provision of domestic heating from a renewable source of
energy and the installation of PV solar panels shall be submitted to, and
approved by, the local planning authority. The approved details shall be
installed prior to the occupation of each dwelling.
27. Details of layout required pursuant to the provisions of Condition 2 shall
safeguard the route of the CLH pipeline, including requirements that may be
made for maintenance and access.
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Christopher Young KC & Odette Chalaby Instructed by Paul Frampton,
Framptons
They called:
Paul Frampton BSc (Hons) TP MRICS MRTPI Framptons
James Stacey BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI Tetlow King Planning
Andrew Williams Define
Chris Elliott BSc (Hons) MCIHT Rappor
Ben Stephenson BA (Hons) MA DipHistCon BSA Heritage Limited
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
James Burton of Counsel Instructed by the Solicitor for
Uttlesford District Council
He called:
Tim Dawes MRTPI Planit Consulting
Katherine Wilkinson Essex County Council Highways
(Section 106 discussion only)
SAFFRON WALDEN TOWN COUNCIL &
SEWARDS END PARISH COUNCIL (RULE 6 PARTY):
Phillip Kratz GSC Solicitors LLP
Corrie Newell BA (Arch) Hons RIBA ARB IHBC Corrie Newell Historic Buildings
Consultancy
Adrian Knowles Parish Councillor
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Mr Toy Local resident
Hazel Mack Local resident
Paula Griffiths Local Resident
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY
Opening Statement on behalf of the Appellant
Opening Statement on behalf of the Council
Opening Statement on behalf of the Rule 6 Party
P Griffiths Statement to the inquiry
Mack & Hutchinson Statement to the inquiry
Mr Toy Statement to the inquiry
A Knowles Statement to the inquiry
Drawing CTP-20-1142 SK19 off site highways works
Extract from Traffic Signals Manual
Saffron Walden Neighbourhood Plan referendum Plan 2021-2036
CIL Compliance Statement – ECC Highways
Updated draft conditions v19
Final draft of the Section 106 Agreement and associated plans
Uttlesford District Council CIL compliance statement (track changes and final clean
version)
Email from C Elliott dated 7 September 2022 regarding heritage discussions on
traffic signals
Rule 6 party comments on Section 106 Agreement and conditions
OS extract map of Saffron Walden
Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd and SSCLG, Richborough
Estates Partnership LLP and SSCLG v Cheshire East Borough Council
Closing submissions on behalf of the Appellant
Closing submissions on behalf of the Council including appendix
Closing submissions on behalf of the Rule 6 Party
Costs application on behalf of the Appellant
Costs response on behalf of the Rule 6 Party
Costs application on behalf of the Rule 6 Party


Costs Decision
Inquiry held on 6-13 September 2022
Site visit made on 9 September 2022
by C Masters MA (Hons) FRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 5 October 2022
Application A
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/C1570/W/22/3296426
Land South of (East of Griffin Place) Radwinter Road, Sewards End,
Saffron Walden, Essex CB10 2LB
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Rosconn Strategic Land for a full award of costs against
Saffron Walden Parish Council and Sewards End Parish Council (the Rule 6 party).
• The inquiry was in connection with the refusal of planning permission for an outline
application for the erection of up to 233 residential dwellings including affordable
housing, with public open space, landscaping, sustainable drainage system (SuDS) and
associated works, with vehicular access point from Radwinter Road. All matters
reserved except for means of access.
Application B
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/C1570/W/22/3296426
Land South of (East of Griffin Place) Radwinter Road, Sewards End,
Saffron Walden, Essex CB10 2LB
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Saffron Walden Parish Council and Sewards End Parish
Council for a partial award of costs relating solely to the preparing of the response to
the costs claim against Rosconn Strategic Land.
• The inquiry was in connection with the refusal of planning permission for an outline
application for the erection of up to 233 residential dwellings including affordable
housing, with public open space, landscaping, sustainable drainage system (SuDS) and
associated works, with vehicular access point from Radwinter Road. All matters
reserved except for means of access.
Decisions
1. Application A is refused.
2. Application B is refused.
Application A – Submission for Rosconn Strategic Land
3. The application was made in writing and is not repeated here. The appellant
contends that the Rule 6 party acted unreasonably in relation to the scope of
issues identified through the statement of case (procedurally) as well as a
substantive claim relation to the two matters on which oral evidence was
presented. They also claim that there was no meaningful attempt to engage in
any formal planning balance exercise.
Application A – Response by Saffron Walden Town Council and Sewards
End Parish Council
4. The response was made in writing and is not repeated here. The Rule 6 party
consider the application is ill-founded and without merit.
Application B – Submission for Saffron Walden Town Council and Sewards
End Parish Council
5. The Rule 6 party’s counter claim appears to rely on a recent costs decision1.
This appeal related to an appellant’s challenge to a Council’s housing land
supply position, subsequent costs claim and counter claim.
Application B – Response by Rosconn Strategic Land
6. The appellant has outlined how they consider the Rule 6 party has behaved
unreasonably during the course of the appeal, resulting in unnecessary and
wasted expense.
Reasons
7. The Planning Practice Guidance makes it clear that costs may only be awarded
against a party which has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party
applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal
process.
Application A
8. The Planning Inspectorate Guidance2 sets out that the Statement of Case will
need to give full details of the case you intend to put forward at the inquiry.
The Statement of Case submitted by the Rule 6 party covered 10 potential
topic areas. I find little merit in the assertion that some of these topics were
contextual, and I agree it provided a very general approach to the case the
Rule 6 party would be making. Nevertheless, I accept the fact that the Rule 6
party were in some part intending to rely upon the case being made by the
Council. As the inquiry was necessary as a direct result of the Council’s decision
to refuse planning permission, this is an entirely reasonable approach. The
drafting of the reasons for refusal is also not a matter for the Rule 6 party. I
also acknowledge the fact that they were not professionally represented at this
time.
9. The Council’s position evolved prior to the exchange of proofs of evidence and
they no longer contested the appeal. This quite rightly meant that the Rule 6
party needed to review the focus of their objections to the proposal. Given this
change in the Council’s position, they were entitled to do this and prepared
written evidence accordingly.
10. In terms of the evidence presented to the inquiry, only one professional
witness was present (heritage), the issue of air quality having been resolved
1 APP/V0150/W/21/3282449
2 Guide to Rule 6 for interest parties involved in an inquiry – planning appeals and called-in applications, April
2022
between the appellant and Rule 6 party before the inquiry opened. For the
reasons explained within my decision, I have reached a different view on the
heritage impacts. Nevertheless, the Rule 6 party were entitled to take a
different view and sought to support that view with a professional witness. The
appellant was afforded the opportunity to present both written and oral
evidence on this matter through a professional witness at the inquiry and the
appellant had the opportunity to test this evidence during the inquiry.
11. A local Councillor gave anecdotal evidence in relation to the broader issue of
highways. Whilst it was regrettable that no attempt had been made to review
or understand the mitigation proposed, this is also not an unusual situation.
Written material on landscape and visual impacts was also submitted. The
appellant was afforded the opportunity to present both written and oral
evidence on these matters through a professional witness at the inquiry. For
the reasons I have given within my decision, I have reached a contrary view to
that of the Rule 6 Party. Nevertheless, on this basis the Rule 6 party did not
act unreasonably.
12. On the basis of the stance taken by the Rule 6 party, I do not consider that
their opposition to the case would have been changed if they had presented a
planning balance exercise.
13. In reaching this view, I am conscious that the Planning Practice Guidance also
makes it clear that an award of costs will not be made in favour or against an
interested party other than in exceptional circumstances. In my view, the
circumstances arising at this inquiry were not exceptional. For the reasons I
have given in my decision, I have come to a view contrary to that of the Rule 6
party on these matters. Nevertheless, on this basis the Rule 6 party did not
act unreasonably.
14. In conclusion, I find that the Rule 6 party did not behave unreasonably in
pursuing the appeal and the appellants costs in preparing for and appearing at
the inquiry were not unnecessarily incurred. For this reason, and having
regard to all other matters raised, an award of costs is therefore not justified.
Application B
15. In taking Rule 6 status at the planning inquiry, Saffron Walden Town Council
and Sewards End Parish Council who were professionally represented by a
planning solicitor at the inquiry must have been fully aware that the option to
make a costs application was available to the parties. Similarly, as I expressed
in my opening at the inquiry, and indeed at the case management conference,
I also have the ability to make an award of costs.
16. The appellant was entitled to make the costs application and there is nothing
unreasonable about the costs application made. Whilst I have not agreed with
it, the appellant has clearly articulated the reasons for making the application. I
therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted
expense, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, has not been
demonstrated and that a partial award of costs is not justified.
C Masters
Inspector