One Gypsy/Traveller pitch at Land North Of Highwood Road Roundabout, Writtle, Chelmsford

What was proposed

The application sought one Gypsy/Traveller pitch with a mobile home, touring caravan, associated works and a new access from Bulimers Way.

“The proposal is for change of use of the land from nominal agricultural use to 1no. Gypsy/Traveller pitch (accommodating 1no. mobile home and 1no. touring caravan), along with associated works comprising the formation of a permeable surface and the erection of fencing and a gate. The proposal also includes a revised access from Bulimers Way, an area of soft- landscaped amenity space and an area of enhanced grassland beyond the enclosed residential area.”

“The application proposes a material change of use of the land from a nominal agricultural use to 1no. Gypsy/Traveller pitch (accommodating 1no. mobile home and 1no. touring caravan), along with associated works comprising the formation of an area of permeable hard surface and the erection of fencing and a gate.”

Officer report

The site

The site is undeveloped grassland in the Green Belt beside Highwood Road Roundabout, near Writtle, with footway access and a public right of way nearby.

“The application site ('the site') comprises a parcel of undeveloped grassland located within the Green Belt, immediately to the north of Highwood Road Roundabout, at the junctions of Ongar Road West (an A Road) and Bulimers Way (a Class III road).”

“25/01025/FUL REPORT2 Page 3 Item 6 2.3. Vehicular access is provided off Bulimers Way to the east via an existing field gate. There is a footway along Highwood Road to the east of the site providing pedestrian access to Writtle. Footpath Writtle 84 (a Public Right of Way) extends across the field to the northwest of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Two earlier applications for a Gypsy/Traveller pitch on the site were refused in April 2023 and May 2025.

“23/00252/FUL - Refused 25th April 2023 Change of use of land to 1 no. Gypsy / Traveller pitch comprising 1 no. mobile home and 1 no. touring caravan with associated works.”

“24/01134/FUL - Refused 27th May 2025 Material change of use of land to 1 no. Gypsy/Traveller pitch comprising 1 no. mobile home and 1 no. touring caravan along with associated works.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers found grey belt policy applied, pitch need remained unmet, technical concerns had been addressed and adverse impacts did not significantly outweigh the benefits.

“Since the previous application was determined, the Council’s position in terms of supply and delivery of Gypsy/Traveller pitches has not improved – there remains an unmet need. Government policy is clear where this scenario exists. Where a local planning authority cannot demonstrate an up-to-date 5 year supply of deliverable sites, the provisions in paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) apply, commonly referred to as the ‘tilted balance’.”

“The required ecological surveys have been undertaken. Revisions have been made to the access to improve the visibility splays. A financial contribution has been made to mitigate the likely significant adverse effects on Habitats sites. A Flood Risk Assessment has been undertaken and submitted as part of the application. The previous reasons for refusal are suitably addressed.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways found the proposal acceptable subject to conditions, while Writtle Parish Council strongly objected and the Fire Service sought further access information.

“25/01025/FUL REPORT2 Page 4 Item 6 • Writtle Parish Council – Strongly objects - The land lies outside of the defined settlement boundary and within the Green Belt. The proposals impact on the openness and character and appearance of the Green Belt, the latter through the domesticity and spread of the development that would cause harm on this rural part of Writtle. The development is likely to impact on a European designated site.”

“Essex County Fire & Rescue Service - Access for fire appliances is not acceptable as shown. The following matters need to be addressed before access for fire service purposes can be considered satisfactory: The surface should be capable of sustaining a load of 18 tonnes (26 tonnes in the case of aerial appliances). Further information is required.”

Officer report

Residents’ objections

Thirteen objections raised concerns about the Green Belt, rural character, flooding, highways, services, ecology, trees, publicity and alternative sites.

“Green Belt impacts: inappropriate development, harm openness and visually intrusive. No evidence of alternative sites not within the Green Belt. No very special circumstances exist. • Character and appearance: Conflicts with the rural character of the area, the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and would be an eyesore. • Flood risk: Fails to fully assess flood risk.”

“There are other, more suitable sites for the development nearby. • Would result in the loss of agricultural land. • The site has a history of unlawful occupation. • Development may affect the social countenance of the area.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A supporter cited grey belt policy and changes since earlier refusals; an objector raised remaining harms; a ward member opposed the proposal and questioned walking access.

Members’ debate

Officers said the paragraph 155 tests were met, technical information had been supplied, the access was safe and the pitch shortfall engaged the tilted balance.

“- Their view was that all of the relevant tests of Paragraph 155 of the NPPF had been met so the development was seen as appropriate. - The Committee could only consider the planning application that had been submitted and that the proposed conditions were viewed as appropriate. - The previous refusal mainly related to a lack of technical information being provided, which had now all been addressed.”

“- The site was in a sustainable location, close to the village, comfortably within walking distance to the local school and community facilities. - The application met all required tests to be considered as ‘grey belt’ land and officers could not offer more information on this.”

Minutes

The decision

Permission was approved because the proposal was acceptable overall, addressed the previous refusal reasons and its adverse impacts did not outweigh the benefits.

“25/01025/FUL REPORT2 Page 16 Item 6 6.92. The proposal needs to be determined in the context of the Council not being able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of pitches. The tilted balance identified in the NPPF is therefore engaged. Following consideration of Green Belt national policy the site has been considered to be ‘grey belt’ and with specific regard to paragraph 155 of the NPPF, the report establishes that the proposal is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt.”

“All other matters which formed the basis of the previous refusal have been addressed and overcome.”

Officer report

Approval conditions

The approval limited the site to one pitch and two caravans, and required controls for services, drainage, biodiversity, landscaping, access, parking and waste.

“25/01025/FUL REPORT2 Page 17 Item 6 Condition 4 There shall be no more than one pitch within the site. On the pitch hereby approved there shall be no more than two caravans sited at any one time, of which no more than one shall be a mobile home or a static caravan (as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968, both as amended).”

“Condition 11 No development shall take place until a final written Biodiversity Net Gain Plan (The BNG Plan) in the form of the national BNG Plan template, for the provision of a minimum 10% biodiversity net gain, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.”

Officer report