PLANS for 24 homes in a small rural village are set to go before Braintree Council’s planning committee, however, it will not have the final say on the proposals.
Q Developments hopes to build 24 homes on land south of Chapel Road in Ridgewell.
An appeal for 'non-determination' has been lodged by the applicant to the Planning Inspectorate and is currently in progress.
It means the local planning authority can no longer determine the application, but is required to set out what the decision would have been if a decision had been made.
The site is nearly four acres in size and located to the north-west of the village.
Previous plans for 24 homes on the same site were refused.
Following this, the applicant has re-submitted the same proposal.
The new application once again seeks outline planning permission for up to 24 homes, which includes a mixture of detached, semi-detached and terraced properties.
A single point of access off the A1017 Chapel Road is proposed for vehicles and pedestrians.
As the proposal is nearly identical to the previous application, planning officers have said they “do not consider that the applicant has overcome the previous reasons for refusal”.
A planning report says: “The proposed residential development represents an encroachment to the rural countryside and imposes unacceptable urbanisation that would adversely alter the existing character and appearance of the countryside.
“The location of the site is not considered to be suitable for a new residential development, and future residents would be heavily reliant on the use of private cars to access services and facilities.
“When considering the planning balance and having regard to the adverse impacts outlined above, officers have concluded that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
“Consequently, it is recommended that had the local planning authority been in a position to determine the application that planning permission would have been refused for the proposed development.”
Comments have been received from 11 members of the public, with ten objecting to the proposal.
Concerns include the harm to wildlife, damage to green spaces and traffic fears.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here