Commercial vehicle servicing yard at Adjacent Old House Barn, Takeley

What was proposed

The application proposed a commercial unit with a covered extension, hardstanding, storage, parking, drainage infrastructure and associated groundworks.

“PROPOSAL: Erection of a commercial unit with a covered lean-to extension, together with associated areas of hardstanding, external storage, vehicle parking, a surface water attenuation basin, and all other associated groundworks.”

Officer report

The site

The 0.80-hectare site was part of an open agricultural field beside an existing commercial site and opposite an employment site.

“The application site spans 0.80 hectares and is situated to the west of the existing Old House Barn commercial site, located on the eastern side of Parsonage Road near Takeley, to the north of the A120. The site currently comprises part of an open, agricultural field and sits opposite the Stansted Courtyard employment site. The Grade II listed Old House Farmhouse (List Entry No: 1322590) is situated to the south-west on the opposite side of the road.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

An identical earlier application was refused for insufficient ecological information, and the current application supplied additional ecological information without changing the development.

“Particularly relevant to the proposals is application UTT/25/3174/FUL which was refused in March 2026 for the erection of a commercial unit with a covered lean-to extension, together with associated areas of hardstanding, external storage, vehicle parking, a surface water attenuation basin and all other associated groundworks. The application was refused for one sole reason.”

“The current proposal seeks to address this refusal reason with additional ecological information submitted with the application. There are no changes to the proposed development as part of this current application. The principle of development at the site was considered appropriate and in accordance with Core Policy 48 of the Uttlesford Local Plan (2026).”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers considered the proposal acceptable and recommended approval because it complied with relevant policies, subject to conditions.

“The proposals have been assessed against the relevant policies contained within the Development Plan and the NPPF. It has been concluded that they comply and in accordance with these policies and guidance. In conclusion, it has been found that the proposals are acceptable and thus are recommended for approval subject to conditions.”

“That the Strategic Director of Planning be authorised to GRANT permission for the development subject to those items set out in section 17 of this report – Conditions…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, National Highways, ecology, conservation, archaeology and environmental health raised no objections, generally subject to conditions.

“National Highways have no objection to the proposed development. The National Highways consultee response can be found in Appendix 2 of this report.”

“No objection subject to conditions. UDC Environmental Health consultee response can be found in Appendix 6 of this report.”

Officer report

Objections received

The parish council and two objectors raised concerns about countryside and heritage harm, traffic, noise, drainage, contamination, biodiversity and alternative sites.

“Takeley Parish Council object to this planning application for the following reasons: • Conflict with Core Policy 12 / Harm to the open aspect of the Countryside Protection Zone • Conflict with Core Policy 41 / Harming to the rural nature of the open countryside from the large modern commercial building and hardstanding for a fleet of lorries • Conflict with Core Policy 62 / Harm to the setting of a listed building • Conflict with Core Policy 48 / The proposal does not…”

“Loss of agricultural food production • Inappropriate transport impacts of development with increased trip generation (incl. HGVs) • Parking provision doesn’t match with proposed trip generation/vehicle movements • Inaccuracies in application documents about business operations - the existing is running from Hall Road • Alternative sites are available / allocated in Local Plan • Conflict with Core Policy 48 • Loss of agricultural land/loss of an open verdant field •…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Four people spoke against the application, while the agent, applicant and landowner spoke in support.

Members’ concerns

Members questioned the B8 use, location, vehicle movements, traffic routes, overnight noise, working hours, environmental effects and compliance with employment policies.

“Said that in respect of CP32 (Movement and Management of Freight) there was direct access to the strategic network and compliance with CP32. • Confirmed that the existing business was three miles further away from the proposed site. • Said that traffic would be unable to use the Coopers Lane Roundabout; this would impact on the Four Ashes crossroads. • Said that CP14 safeguarded specific tracts of land for active travel improvements along Parsonage Road.”

“Members discussed: • Their reservations around Class B8 status (Storage and Distribution) being given in the CPZ. Concerns that the location was not appropriate for industrial use. • Concerns about transport vehicle statistics. • Increased traffic flows through the Four Ashes crossroads. Traffic would go south rather than north. • Serous overnight noise concerns together with a lack of a noise impact assessment.”

Minutes

What was decided

The committee authorised the Strategic Director of Planning to refuse permission, contrary to the officer recommendation.

“The Planning Officer recommended that the application be approved, subject to the items set out in section 17 of the report. The matter had been called in by Councillor Bagnall.”

“RESOLVED that the Strategic Director of Planning be authorised to refuse permission for the development in line with the above proposals.”

Minutes