Colchester traveller appeal wins costs against two bodies

A Colchester traveller appeal has overturned the refusal of two residential pitches at Marks Tey and produced a full costs order against both Colchester City Council and National Highways. Inspector N Bowden issued the two decisions on 8th October 2026 after a hearing on 12th August.

The Inspector found that an existing access onto the A120 Coggeshall Road could safely serve the small development. The technical material supplied was proportionate, even though National Highways had insisted that the applicant use its internal departures procedure and commission further studies.

The separate costs ruling carries a warning far beyond traveller sites. Councils cannot simply adopt a statutory consultee’s objection without examining whether its reasoning is sound, and consultees must tailor evidence demands to a proposal’s scale and context.

Why the Colchester traveller appeal succeeded

The application, reference 250727, concerned approximately 0.45 hectares of land north of Coggeshall Road on the western edge of Marks Tey. It sought two Gypsy and Traveller residential pitches, with day rooms, turning and parking areas, landscaping and improvements to an existing agricultural access.

Coggeshall Road forms part of the A120 strategic road network. Its 40mph speed limit, high traffic volumes and junction characteristics meant that National Highways’ technical concerns deserved consideration. The issue was whether those concerns actually justified refusal of a development expected to generate few vehicle movements.

The appeal had a transport statement and later supplementary evidence. The agreed visibility splays were 120 metres in one direction and 90 metres in the other. Recorded 85th percentile speeds were approximately 33.6mph to 35.9mph. The Inspector considered the relationship between those measurements and stopping sight distances under the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.

Although the location is part of the strategic network, it lies within a built-up area. That context mattered. The Inspector treated highway manuals as technical guidance to apply intelligently rather than an automatic reason to reject a modest scheme that could demonstrably operate safely.

National Highways’ extra requirements rejected

National Highways had maintained an objection because the appellant had not completed a formal departures process. That would have required a risk assessment, road safety audit and walking, cycling and horse-riding report. The Inspector found that package excessive in this particular case.

The transport evidence already demonstrated adequate visibility, limited traffic generation and sufficient space for a vehicle towing a caravan to leave the highway safely. The existing access could be upgraded and secured through conditions. There was no evidence of an unacceptable impact on the wider road network.

The decision is not a general exemption from National Highways procedures, nor does it mean a road safety audit can never be required for a small development. Its significance is that an objection needs to reflect measurable risk, the characteristics of the site and the actual nature of the proposed movements.

Why full appeal costs were ordered

The costs application was directed against two respondents: the Council and National Highways. The Inspector dealt with the interlinked applications in one decision, explaining that duplicate awards cannot be made for the same expense. The amount and the share payable by each respondent remain matters for agreement or assessment.

On the highways position, Inspector Bowden described National Highways as inflexible in its approach to the context and scale of the development. The Inspector found that the material originally submitted was adequate for a reasoned technical assessment.

The Council was separately criticised for not adequately testing the consultee’s position. The officer report indicated insufficient scrutiny of the advice, while the planning balance did not properly evaluate the applicant’s circumstances or the available supply of traveller pitches. The fact that a highways body is a statutory consultee does not transfer the planning authority’s decision-making responsibility to it.

Both respondents had opportunities to review their positions before the appeal. The Inspector concluded that unreasonable conduct had caused unnecessary expenditure and ordered both bodies to meet the appellant’s appeal costs. The actual sum was not fixed in the decision and must not be mistaken for an award of compensation for the underlying planning delay.

Permission comes with practical safeguards

The permission is subject to conditions, including controls over turning and access arrangements, landscaping, habitat management, drainage, vehicle numbers and the number of caravans on the land. Access gates must be sufficiently set back and open inward so that a vehicle and trailer can pull clear of the A120. The Inspector rejected an additional visibility-splay condition because the relevant area was already inside the publicly maintained highway.

The proposal falls within the influence area of protected Essex coastal sites. The parties agreed that the relevant recreational mitigation payment had been made, and biodiversity proposals also formed part of the appeal material. The Inspector did not decide the applicant’s suggested alternative approach to mandatory biodiversity net gain because it was not pursued.

Lessons for planning appeals and statutory consultees

For applicants, the result highlights the value of assembling measured, site-specific evidence early. In this case, traffic speed surveys, actual visibility geometry and the very low intensity of the use were more persuasive than theoretical compliance exercises divorced from the circumstances.

For planning officers, the costs decision is particularly sharp: a consultee’s specialist view must be considered, but it remains open to scrutiny. Where the factual analysis supports a different conclusion, a reasoned planning judgement may be essential to prevent an avoidable refusal.

For consultees, the message is about proportionality. Technical requirements that would be entirely reasonable for an intensive or complex junction can become unreasonable if demanded mechanically for two residential pitches with no demonstrated safety deficiency.

The case also shows why a costs argument should identify both the unreasonable behaviour and the expense directly caused by it. Winning an appeal alone does not guarantee costs. Here the Inspector found a specific chain from excessive information demands and insufficient review to a hearing that need not have taken place.

The relevant national guidance is the Planning Practice Guidance on appeals and costs. The revised National Planning Policy Framework, published on 17th August 2026, was considered by the Inspector. Readers may also wish to see Planning Geek’s report on a disproportionate highways condition for a different illustration of the limits of highway-related planning demands.

Decision and further reading

The source decisions are the Inspector’s substantive appeal decision and separate costs order, both dated 8th October 2026, appeal reference 6009395. The decision record and text can be reviewed alongside the Planning Inspectorate case page. The latter is subject to the Inspectorate portal’s document-access arrangements.

This is an Inspector’s planning appeal decision, not a court judgment or binding precedent. Its reasoning is relevant to comparable evidence and proportionality disputes but must be applied to the facts and law of each case.