180 homes and access at Land West Of Birchanger Lane, Birchanger

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for up to 180 homes, access and infrastructure, with detailed matters reserved except access.

“PROPOSAL: Outline application for up to 180 dwellings and access, landscaping and associated infrastructure. All matters reserved except access…”

Officer report

The site

The site comprised two agricultural parcels beside Birchanger Lane, with hedgerows, trees, public rights of way and nearby homes, school and countryside.

“Site A, located to the south of Birchanger Lane, is an open field that adjoins the rear boundaries of existing residential properties on High Close, Bradley Common and High View. The land falls away gently towards Stansted Road and affords broader views across the Stort Valley. Existing mature hedgerows and tree belts provide a degree of containment along the site boundaries.”

“Site B, located to the north of Birchanger Lane, is a longer and narrower field that rises gently away from the road towards the north‑east. This parcel is more visually contained by mature boundary vegetation, including tree belts and areas of woodland linked to Totgrove Spring. The site adjoins the playing fields of Birchanger Church of England Primary School at its eastern edge and is connected to nearby allotments and recreational areas.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because Grey Belt policy applied, safe access was achievable, and housing, affordable homes, open space and biodiversity benefits outweighed the identified harms.

“This report considers an outline application for up to 180 dwellings on land at Birchanger, with all matters reserved except access. The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt; however, the submitted evidence demonstrates that it can be regarded as Grey Belt land. The proposal is therefore assessed against paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the associated “Golden Rules” for major housing development.”

“Set against this, the scheme delivers a substantial package of public benefits. These include the delivery of up to 180 new homes in a sustainable and accessible location, 50% affordable housing which significantly exceeds local policy requirements, and a meaningful…”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highway, flood, airport, ecology and other consultees raised no objection subject to measures, while Hertfordshire Highways and some councils raised transport or capacity concerns.

“The Highway Authority raises no objection in principle, subject to conditions and obligations. It confirms that safe and suitable access can be achieved, junctions would operate within capacity, and the residual impacts on the highway network would not be severe.”

“Hertfordshire County Council, as the adjoining highway authority, notes that although Essex County Council is the statutory Highway Authority, the site’s proximity to Bishop’s Stortford means a significant proportion of traffic is likely to use the Hertfordshire highway network.”

Officer report

What people objected to

Residents and community groups strongly objected to the scale and principle of development, citing traffic, flooding, infrastructure pressure, landscape harm, ecology and loss of rural character.

“Objections to the loss of open views and rural character. • Site described as forming part of an important landscape buffer on the edge of Birchanger.”

“In summary, representations raise consistent concerns regarding the principle, scale and cumulative impacts of the proposed development, particularly in relation to highway capacity, landscape harm, pressure on local infrastructure and the loss of rural character. The level of public objection is substantial and reflects strong local opposition to development of this site.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Several people spoke against the application, while the applicants and other supporters spoke in favour.

What members debated

Members debated flooding, drainage, the planning balance, Green Belt and Grey Belt status, policy conflicts, landscape impact, housing supply and the site’s unallocated location.

“Said that the location was outside the settlement limits for Birchanger and had not been part of the Local Plan. • Said that Highways had made no objections in respect of possible flooding events on Stansted Road and considered general access arrangements to be acceptable. • Said that the Railton Traffic report had been considered by Essex Highways but that this had not changed previous advice given on 26 May 2026.”

“Members discussed: • Flooding concerns and surface water issues causing drainage problems in the area. This could necessitate road closures in the area for up to 2 months. Officers stated that this proposed development would not necessarily make matters worse. • The weightings given to the harms and benefits as shown in the Planning Balance. Further consideration indicated that Members felt that harms outweighed benefits. • Conflicts with CP2 and CP3 of the Local Plan.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A refusal proposal was made and seconded, and the committee resolved to refuse the application subject to referral to the Secretary of State.

“Councillor Lemon proposed refusal of the application on the grounds of:”

“RESOLVED that the application be refused in line with the proposal above, subject to referral to the Secretary of State.”

Minutes

Why permission was refused

The committee found the development conflicted with the spatial strategy and was inappropriate Green Belt development whose harm was not clearly outweighed by other considerations.

“The proposed development would constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt by reason of its scale and nature. It would result in harm to the openness of the Green Belt and conflict with the purposes of including land within it, particularly in terms of encroachment into the countryside.”

“In the absence of very special circumstances, the identified harm to the Green Belt, both by definition and in spatial terms, is not clearly outweighed by other considerations.”

Minutes