A bid to build new homes in Cock Clarks has ended after the developer's appeal was refused for the second time, but the planning inspector said the process had resulted in "unnecessary or wasted expense".

The inspector upheld Maldon District Council's decision to refuse Millen Homes' second application to build five detached homes on land on the east side of Hackmans Lane in the village, but awarded the developer costs after saying the district council had "acted inconsistently".

The council first refused Millen Homes' application to build homes on the site in April 2020 after saying the site "lies outside of the defined settlement boundaries where policies of restraint apply", which was upheld by a planning inspector.

The council and inspector also refused the plans for reasons including parking space sizes and the impact on neighbouring homes.

The resubmitted application included a minimum of three parking spaces and two electric vehicle charging points for each home and relocated one of the homes, which a statement by Ben Lowry from Millen Homes said would "protect the amenity of neighbouring properties".

The application also proposed a section of public footpath to connect two sections of footpath along Hackmans Lane, which Mr Lowry said would provide "a significant highway safety improvement for pedestrians in the village".

Mr Lowry said the development "would provide short-term economic benefits to the village of Cock Clarks through the construction phase".

He said there would be "longer-term economic benefits" to local businesses and the homes "would help to maintain and enhance the rural community of Cock Clarks".

He continued: "The planting of trees and the inclusion of green roofs would also encourage biodiversity and help reduce surface flooding."

The plans had, however, received 15 letters of objection - out of 16 - from concerned residents.

One objecting neighbour said the development would "create more problems on Hackmans Lane", which is "already a very busy, dangerous road".

Another objector said: "Any buildings at this location would be out of character to the area and would have a visual impact to the countryside and wildlife - I do not see the need for more houses to be built around this area."

Refusing the resubmitted plans in February last year, officers said: "The development is not considered to be sustainable as a result of the site's limited accessibility.

"The social and economic benefits of the proposal would not be sufficient to outweigh this harm."

Upholding the council's decision, a second planning inspector said: "The council have not departed from the overall findings of the previous inspector, but they did not have full and proper regard to his findings in regard to policy S8.

"They have acted inconsistently in departing from their own previous decision as they have not cited policy S8, which sets out the principles for development located outside of the settlement boundary, in the most recent decision.

"In addition, they chose not to include a reason for refusal based on the location of the proposed development on the first application but did so on the second."

Although the inspector called the council "correct" to refuse the proposal on this point, they said that, in doing so, it had "acted inconsistently and thus unreasonably".

The inspector added: "Had the council acted in a more consistent manner throughout the two applications then it's likely the appellant would have had adequate clarity and consequently the second appeal, and the costs associated with it, could have been avoided altogether."

Millen Homes has now been invited to submit details of costs to the council, "with a view to reaching agreement as to the amount".