28 new homes at Land At Hill Green Wicken Road, Clavering

What was proposed

The application sought 28 homes, including 10 affordable homes, six self-build and custom-build plots, and associated infrastructure.

“PROPOSAL: Erection of 28 proposed new dwellings, including 10 affordable dwellings, 6 self and custom build plots, and associated infrastructure.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was an open agricultural field at Hill Green, enclosed by residential development on at least three sides and near heritage assets and footpaths.

“The application site comprises an open agricultural field on the northern part of Clavering (Hill Green) located at the south-east corner between Clatterbury Lane and Wicken Road within the existing built area of the village.”

“Ground levels fall east to west and the land sits below the rest of the rolling farmland plateau on the wider landscape. The site is currently accessed from the north between Hillberry and Dove House. Public footpaths run at a distance to the east and south of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

A nearly identical 28-home application was refused in April 2026 because the committee considered the site outside Clavering’s existing built area.

“This is a full planning application for the erection of 28 new dwellings, including 10 affordable dwellings, 6 self & custom build plots, & associated infrastructure. An almost identical application (UTT/25/2404/FUL) was refused by the planning committee in April 2026 against officers’ advice on the grounds of being contrary to the spatial strategy in Core Policy 3 of the Local Plan as the site was found to be outside the existing built area of the settlement of…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to a legal agreement and conditions, saying the updated Design Code supported treating the site as within the existing built area.

“After UTT/25/2404/FUL, the Uttlesford Design Code was adopted in June 2026, which introduced 3 tests to assist planning judgement on whether land is within the existing built area – the connection, containment and pattern tests are met (see paragraphs 14.3.5 – 14.3.8).”

“The site is in an accessible Larger Village that offers a suitable location for housing in accordance with the spatial strategy of the Local Plan that should attract greater weight than material decisions in the area. The scheme would create limited-to-moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area (see paragraphs 14.3.20 – 14.3.21).”

Officer report

The main planning issue

The central issue was whether the site was within Clavering’s existing built area under the updated Design Code and Core Policy 3.

“After the refusal of UTT/25/2404/FUL where Members supported, against officers’ advice, that the site is outside the existing built area, the updated Uttlesford Design Code was adopted in June 2026 – it introduced 3 tests to assist planning judgement on whether land is within the existing built area: • a connection test where the site must appear, in public views, to form a natural part of the settlement without a clear visual gap, physical barrier or open rural land;…”

“Considering the above, the site is within the existing built area of Clavering as defined in the Uttlesford Design Code, and the development would be in a suitable location for housing having regard to the spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy in Core Policy 3 of the Local Plan. This weighs significantly in favour of the scheme given the up-to-date nature of the plan.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A statement was read against the application, several speakers spoke against it, and the agent spoke in support.

Members’ discussion

Members debated the updated Design Code, the site’s location, access, neighbourhood and visual effects, consistency, and the need for robust reasons.

“In response to questions from Members, officers: • Said the land in question was not allocated in the Local Plan. • The original application had included a preapplication with an Inspector. • Officers had come to the concluded recommendation based on professional judgement.”

“Members discussed: • The updated design code since the previous decision and whether the site met the tests for being within the existing built area of Clavering as set out in the updated Design Code. • The access road. • How what was proposed would affect neighbourhood properties and its visual effect on the neighbourhood, considering its rural character. • Consistency of decision making within the Planning Committee.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A motion to refuse was proposed and seconded, and the committee resolved to refuse the application.

“Councillor Driscoll proposed the application be refused on the grounds that it was outside the existing built area contrary to the spatial strategy of Core Policy 3 of the Local Plan (the same reason for refusal as in UTT/25/2404/FUL);”

“RESOLVED that the application be refused on the grounds that it was outside the existing built area contrary to the spatial strategy of Core Policy 3 of the Local Plan.”

Minutes