Planning inspector hits Uttlesford District Council with costs after Flitch Green appeal defeat

A “far from professional and satisfactory defence” by Uttlesford District Council has been blamed for permission being granted for 72 homes.

A planning inspector has allowed the appeal for the scheme off Baynard Avenue in Flitch Green – despite concerns the development would blemish the landscape and result in “harmful coalescence” between the two distinct settlements of Flitch Green and Little Dunmow.

Uttlesford District Council added that the development would also harm the setting of Bayleys, a Grade II-listed building nearby.

But its arguments relating to the site having just a single point of access and its accessibility were not defended.

The inspector agreed that the outline proposal would also encroach on the countryside and harm the area’s character.

However, he added that the development and the infrastructure would generate considerable economic benefits.

He also highlighted Uttlesford’s housing land supply—it can currently only deliver about a three-and-a-half-year rolling supply of sites for development, which is below the minimum target of five years.

He added: “Overall, the proposed housing provision, in light of the council’s current and worsening five-year housing land position, would be more than a significant benefit of the proposal, having regard to the framework for supporting the government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. Moreover, the proposal supports the provision of affordable homes, which is a key policy of the framework.”

In passing judgment in favour of Baker and Metson, he also awarded costs against the council.

A statement from Flitch Green parish council said: “We are extremely disappointed that after the hard work of the parish council and the whole community, the planning inspector has allowed the appeal for housing off Baynard Avenue.

“In addition to this, they have awarded costs against Uttlesford District Council, which provided a far from professional and satisfactory defence.

“This makes a complete mockery of the Uttlesford Local Plan.

“We have no further information at this point regarding timescales, but remain extremely concerned at the level of disruption the access to this site will cause the entire community.”

An Uttlesford District Council spokesperson said: “We share the parish’s disappointment regarding the outcome of the recent planning appeal. A robust case was presented in opposition, supported by two experienced planning officers as well as independent landscape and heritage consultants.

“We acknowledge the concerns raised about potential disruption from construction traffic. We are sympathetic to these issues and are committed to working closely with both the developer and the local community to minimise the impact on nearby residents.

“We await the submission of a detailed planning application for the site and will continue to engage constructively as the process moves forward.”