AN INSPECTOR has dismissed a developer’s appeal to overturn refusal of its plans to build 33 homes in a village.

Developer Gordon Homes launched proceedings to bring the homes to Grove Field, in High Garrett, back in May 2019.

The plans would have seen 33 homes built on land off the A131 if they had been given the green light.

It came after Gordon Homes had previously seen an application to build 40 homes on the same site turned down in February 2018.

The application received a strong backlash from residents, with almost 200 objections sent to Braintree Council.

Campaigners from the Bocking and High Garrett Residents’ Action Group also voiced their opposition to the bid and previously claimed it would “open the floodgates” for thousands of homes to be built in the area.

Fortunately for campaigners, the application was rejected by the council’s planning committee in April 2020.

The rejection sparked an appeal by Gordon Homes which hoped to get an inspector from the Planning Inspectorate to overturn the council’s ruling against the development.

The planning inspector has now agreed with the council and rejected the appeal.

The main issues surrounding the application, cited by the inspector, included the effect on the character of the village, as well as “whether the proposal would be in a strategically acceptable and sustainable location” and “the need for planning obligations regarding the provision of public open space and affordable housing”.

The planning inspector’s report also outlined a further 11 reasons for the decision to reject the appeal.

In the report, planning inspector Martin Seddon said: “I have taken all other matters raised into account.

“Even if I were to conclude there is a shortfall in the five-year housing land supply on the scale indicated at the time that the application was determined, or that the housing land supply should be boosted by allowing development at this location, the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

“Therefore, for the reasons given I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.”