Land West Of Margaretting Hall Church Lane Margaretting Ingatestone Essex

Application Details

Applicant & Agent

Planning Application Dates

Planning Decision

Why it was refused

1. 1.Reason 1 Policy DP3 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states in para 1 that "Development proposals should respond to their context (the history, character and features of their site and setting), so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings;". Chelmsford Local Plan Policy DM23 relating to design, requires new development to respect "the character and appearance of the area in which it is located. Development must be compatible with its surroundings having regard to scale, siting, form, architecture, materials, boundary treatments and landscape." Part B of this policy requires all new buildings to be of a high quality design and compatible with the character and appearance of the area. The proposed location of the building, and the wider field, comprise an undeveloped area of agricultural land. The pattern of development along this part of Main Road is that of intermittent built form which punctuates agricultural land. Where there is built form, it generally relates to residential properties with a domestic scale and appearance. The building would be visible from public views from Church Lane, Main Road and the Public Right of Way (PRoW) which runs along the southern field boundary. Although areas of vegetation along Main Road would provide some screening of the building, this would only be effective during the summer months. There are also sufficient gaps within the vegetation that the building would still be visible from Main Road in summer. Clear views of the building would be possible from Church Lane and the PRoW, in addition to from Main Road, at the junction with Church Lane. WEB PBCS090 26/01121/FUL REFULZ Although the proposed building would have a design and appearance which is typical of agricultural buildings, its position on this site would result in the building being highly prominent in a number of public views of the site. In addition, the size, scale and position of the building would be alien to the established pattern of built form along Main Road, i.e. that of sporadic, domestic scale, built form, located closer to Main Road. The uncharacteristic nature of the proposal would increase its visual prominence in the landscape. The proposal would fail to respond to the prevailing character of the surrounding area and the built form within the vicinity of the site and is contrary to the requirements of NPPF Policy DP3 and Chelmsford Local Plan Policy DM23. Reason 2 Policy HE5, para 1 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that "Development proposals affecting heritage assets should be accompanied by an assessment of the significance of the assets affected (including any contribution made by their setting) and of the potential effect of the proposal on their significance." Policy HE6 directs in para 3 that "Any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight". Para 4 requires "Where a development proposal would harm the significance of a designated heritage asset, the effect on the asset and its significance should be weighed against any public benefits resulting from the proposal." Part A) of Policy DM13 relating to Designated Heritage Assets states: "The impact of any development proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset or its setting, and the level of any harm, will be considered against any public benefits arising from the proposed development. Where there is substantial harm or total loss of significance of the designated heritage asset, consent will be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss; or all of the following apply: i. the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and ii. use of the asset is not viable in itself in the medium term, or not demonstrably possible in terms of grant funding; and iii. the harm or loss is outweighed by bringing the site back in

From the council's decision notice.

Publicity

Appeal

Additional Information