PLANS to build more than a dozen new homes off a main road have been comprehensively rejected by council planners.

Braintree Council’s planning committee met on Tuesday to discuss the bid for 14 homes.

The application for outline planning permission, would have seen the new homes built in Gosfield on land east of the A1017 Hedingham Road.

The aim was to build 14 homes, with nine on the open market and five as social housing.

Although the site is vacant, it is located near a Grade II listed barn.

The latest decision came after planning permission was rejected for 135 homes at the same site.

Developers appealed against that decision but that was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.

The precedent set by the appeal decision further reinforced the decision to reject the 14 homes bid.

Council planners had also said the site was not allocated for development and is beyond the village development boundary set out in the adopted Local Plan.

Some residents and Gosfield Parish Council had objected to the latest application.

At the meeting, senior planning policy officer Juliet Kirkaldy said: “In applying the flat planning balance, officers have concluded that the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

“There are six reasons for refusal put forward.

“Reason one refers to failure to demonstrate that adequate garden space can be provided, the inefficient use of land, and the detrimental visual impact on the rural character of the road, and the intrusion of residential development into the countryside.

“Reason two refers to insufficient information submitted to demonstrate the development would not adversely impact upon protected species.

“Reason three refers to the loss of healthy trees and the established hedgerow.

“Reason four refers to the detrimental impact of the proposed access on the setting of the listed barn and then reason five refers to the reliance on the private vehicle to access services and business facilities in nearby towns and key service villages.

“Finally, reason six refers to the lack of a section 106 agreement being prepared to deliver infrastructure improvements.”

The vote to refuse the application was nearly unanimous with just one absention.