300-home mixed-use development at South West Of Mountfitchet High School Forest Hall Road Stansted

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for up to 300 homes, commercial and community uses, a care home, access, landscaping and infrastructure.

“PROPOSAL: Outline application for up to 300 dwellings, up to 2000sqm of Class E uses (offices, shop, cafe) early years nursery, private gym), up to 60 bed care home and village hall with access, landscaping, and associated infrastructure. All matters reserved except access…”

“This application seeks outline planning permission for a mixed‑use development on land to the south of Stansted Mountfitchet, with all matters reserved except access, comprising up to 300 dwellings; up to 2,000 sq.m of Class E floorspace including offices, retail, café, early years nursery and private gym; a care home of up to 60 beds; safeguarded land for a future secondary school; a village hall/community facility; and associated access, landscaping and supporting…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is agricultural land outside the settlement boundary, within the Metropolitan Green Belt, beside the school and near transport links.

“The application site is located on the southern edge of Stansted Mountfitchet, immediately south of Forest Hall Road, within the administrative area of Uttlesford District Council. The site lies outside the defined settlement boundary of Stansted Mountfitchet as set out in the adopted Uttlesford Local Plan and is washed over by the Metropolitan Green Belt.”

“South: The site adjoins open agricultural land, forming part of the wider rural landscape within the Green Belt.”

Officer report

Planning history

No relevant planning history was identified for the site.

“No relevant planning history for this site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because Grey Belt policy, affordable housing and other public benefits outweighed the identified Green Belt, landscape and heritage harms.

“The proposed development has been assessed against the Development Plan and all other material considerations, including the National Planning Policy Framework. While the proposal would result in harm to the Green Belt and landscape character, together with a degree of harm to heritage settings, these impacts are acknowledged and weigh against the scheme.”

“Set against this, the scheme delivers a substantial package of public benefits that are Regulation 122 compliant, including a meaningful contribution to housing supply, the delivery of 50% affordable housing, and wider economic, social and environmental benefits in a sustainable and accessible location.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highway and technical consultees raised no objection subject to mitigation, while Natural England required measures to address recreational pressure on Hatfield Forest.

“The Highway Authority raises no objection to the proposed development, concluding that, subject to a comprehensive package of conditions and Section 106 obligations, the scheme would provide safe and suitable access for all users and would not result in severe impacts on the highway network.”

“Natural England advises that, without mitigation, the proposal could have adverse recreational impacts on Hatfield Forest SSSI and National Nature Reserve, which lies within the identified Zone of…”

Officer report

What people said

Most representations objected, citing Green Belt and countryside loss, development scale, traffic, infrastructure pressure, landscape effects and ecological concerns.

“Principle of development / countryside impact Many objectors consider the site to be open countryside or Green Belt and are concerned about loss of openness and the spread of development towards Birchanger.”

“A large number of representations have been received, the majority objecting to the proposal. The main concerns relate to the principle of development in the countryside/Green Belt, the scale of the proposed development, and the potential for coalescence between Stansted Mountfitchet and Birchanger. Significant concern is also raised regarding traffic generation and highway safety, pressure on local infrastructure, and landscape and visual impacts.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Councillors and a parish council representative spoke against the application; the applicants and other supporters spoke in favour.

What members debated

Members questioned the land supply position, spatial strategy, policy conflicts, Green Belt status and whether the benefits outweighed the harms.

“Members discussed: • The weightings given to the harms and benefits as shown in the Planning Balance. Further consideration indicated that Members felt that harms outweighed benefits. • Concerns that there had been no overwhelming need demonstrated and benefits were minor and uncertain. • That this location had been rejected in the “Call for Sites” for the Local Plan and that this was now an unallocated site outside of the Local Plan.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee authorised refusal because the unallocated site conflicted with the spatial strategy and the development was inappropriate Green Belt development without very special circumstances.

“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. The site is not considered to fall within the definition of Grey Belt and therefore attracts full Green Belt protection.”

“In the absence of very special circumstances, the identified harm to the Green Belt, by definition and in spatial terms, is not clearly outweighed by other considerations. The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Policy 59 (The Metropolitan Green Belt) of the Uttlesford Local Plan 2021–2041 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), in particular Section 13, which attaches great weight to the protection of the Green Belt.”

Minutes